A quote from a Yahoo News article not long after the shooting of the Amish school children near Nickel Mines: "Sam Stoltzfus, 63, an Amish woodworker who lives a few miles away from the shooting scene, said the victims' families will be sustained by their faith. 'We think it was God's plan and we're going to have to pick up the pieces and keep going, he said. 'A funeral to us is a much more important thing than the day of birth because we believe in the hereafter. The children are better off than their survivors.'"
Greg Boyd says: "When an individual inflicts pain on another individual, I do not think we can go looking for 'the purpose of God' in the event...I know Christians frequently speak about 'the purpose of God' in the midst of a tragedy caused by someone else...But this I regard to simply be a piously confused way of thinking." (Letters from a Skeptic, Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1994, p. 47).
I think Amish woodworker Sam Stoltzfus understands more of God's truth than open theist theologian Greg Boyd. What do you think?
4 comments:
I think a lot of people confuse the permissive will of God and the absolute sovereign will of God and His purpose for man in life.
Some want to remove all human responsibility in time. I can very well impose jeopardy on my life quite apart from the will of God for my life. I can make choices, and I am responsible for those choices. The same is true of consequential events in one's life.
Cheers,
Jim
Brother Jim, it is good to hear from you. I always appreciate your comments, whether I agree or not. I may be wrong, but your thoughts appears to be a third view? IOW, that you are not agreeing with either Stoltzfus or Boyd? Not sure.
I do not think we can remove human accountability. And in the whole context of the event, Amish woodworker Stolzfus was not denying that the killer was accountable for his actions. But if not even a sparrow falls to the ground without the Father, these how any of these other events of which we speak? The open theism position seems to think all kinds of things are happening without any purpose -- in other words, "Things don't happen for a reason, they just happen."
Christianity here in the US doesn't have much of a problem with overemphasizing the sovereign will of God. In general they seem to see a man who does whatever he wants, and a God who is trying to do the best he can.
Here is a question for us all to think about. Does the permissive will of God operate within the absolute sovereign will of God and His purpose for man in life or outside of it?
The illustration I use is two circles, one within the other. The outer circle, the absolute sovereignty of God. The inner circle, the Permissive will of God. Everything is responsible to God's sovereign will, but He allows man to move within that sovereignty as He did Jonah. Jonah was allowed to go his own way for a season. Then God stepped in and virtually said to Jonah, Thus far and no further.
So man satisfies himself until God decides to put His sovereign thumb on the works. God can redirect one's efforts, or completely abase that individual.
This view rightly places God's sovereignty, man's so-called free will and natural events in history. The wind blows where it will; the rain falls as it might. God remains in control, but chooses to allow nature to play its role. The miraculous control may very well be in certain events within those calamities...God miraculously saves a sinking ship, or a crashing motorcar, or some such independent event.
This puts me in neither boat, but a view of God's sovereignty that I have always believed and drawn from scripture as a whole.
Cheers,
Jim
Sometimes we may have problems agreeing on words. But I think we can agree on the general tenor of the sovereignty of God. I think that we see and explain some things differently, but both see a sovereign God. I think that Sam Stolzfus, you and I might at least agree that the things of "permissive will" are completely enveloped by the "absolute sovereign will" circle. To me it seems the open theists have two overlapping circles, with some things of the one outside of the other.
Post a Comment