This statement is out of context and creating a false narrative for the sake of disagreement.
No, it's drawing attention to a view people take about God's sovereignty: that He is the Ultimate Source of moral evil, causing the rapist to rape and the murderer to murder. My purpose wasn't to be disagreeable but to probe to see what Mclachlan thought on this head. Why did you assume I simply wanted to disagree?
Paul clearly is not speaking of horrible things that can happen in the world and saying that
God works good into it, and yet God is Able....
I know of many who would disagree with you on this reading. Which is why I was curious to know what Mclachlan thought.
If your "infirmity" is that you are a murderer or a rapist, society will put you down, and Paul is not saying that God works good in that. On the other hand, if you have been a victim of something such as rape, it is a false statement to say that God can't find away to work good into your life in the aftermath of something horrible. I think your statement here reflects that.
As I pointed out to Mclachlan, the fundamental (though, not the only) "good" God works out in every circumstance we face, - evil or not - is the good of becoming more like Jesus. This, Paul clarifies in
verse 29. As you seem to agree here, this is not so for the murderer or rapist - unless, of course, they've repented of their terrible sin and trusted in Christ to save them and give them new, spiritual life.
"Let every matter be established by 2 or 3 witnesses:"
The means by which we are conformed to the image of God's Son can be very unpleasant.
Amen to that! But not always, right? Sometimes, as Paul wrote to the Roman church, it is the experience of the goodness of God that leads men to repentance (
Romans 2:4), to a knowledge of His mercy, love and grace, and thus to greater Christ-likeness.
To try to label these experiences as "good or bad" is the very false notion that Paul is dispelling.
In other words, it may seem bad to you, but it is all good in Christ. Here is a true witness.
Hebrews 12:3-11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
??? I'm puzzled by your remarks here. Earlier in
Romans 8, Paul wrote of suffering (
Romans 8:17), acknowledging that it was common to the Christian experience. He didn't try to reframe or re-describe the suffering, however, but called it what it was: suffering. He went on in
chapter 8 to write of "groanings too deep to be uttered," rising from the distress of waiting for the "redemption of his body." I'm not sure how Paul's words in this regard can be construed as Paul teaching that there is no good or bad experiences because all experiences are ultimately bent by God to the "good" of
Romans 8:28. "Suffering" and "groanings to deep to be uttered" don't suggest to me that Paul thought what he was describing was good.
The writer of Hebrews in the passage you cite above appears to me to agree with Paul, acknowledging, too, that God's chastening is
painful, which only a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] would rework to mean "good."
Do you think that the believer who is burned at the stake, or whose head is sawn off by a radical Muslim, or who is imprisoned and tortured for their faith in a Chinese prison, can call these painful, horrifying experiences good? Paul seems to be indicating that the ultimate
result of conformity to Christ through these horrendous experiences is good, but
not the experiences themselves. It isn't just that these terrible experiences
seem bad, they actually
are very bad! Which is why those who saw off the heads of Christians, or burn them to death, or imprison them are condemned by God and stand under His wrathful judgment.
I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic either.
Well, I wasn't actually writing with a view to making sure you could see the relevancy of my remarks...
This merely supports your Hmmmm...statement
by pushing further from the context of Romans 8, when there is no reason why we can't come to
a clear understanding by remaining within the context of false perceptions people may have
about what to expect from the Christian walk, and not general observations evolving from
"the knowledge of good and evil".
I'm not sure you understood why I offered the passage from
Jeremiah 32. I did so to point out from Scripture that there are some things people do that "don't enter the mind of God that they should do." In other words, God is not meticulously ordaining every action and thought people have - especially evil ones, like burning their children to death on the molten arms of the pagan god, Molech. This was offered, in particular, in response to Mclachlan's assertion that,
"Everything you are experiencing at the moment is according to God's plan, for good, for His glory."
The word "everything" that Mclachlan used necessarily includes the rapist who rapes, the murderer who murders, and the person who sacrifices their child upon the red-hot arms of Molech. But God, through the prophet Jeremiah, said there are things people do - evil things - that it never entered His mind that they should do. It seems, then, that "everything" is too strong an assertion to make about God's plan. If I accept Mclachlan's statement as he gave it, I would have to accept that God has ordained rape, murder and child sacrifice, that He planned these things, and did so for some obscure connection to His glory. How God is glorified in rape, murder, or human sacrifice, I don't know. And so, I made my comments to Mclachlan.
Lastly, and I pray you can receive it, I have seen other responses, on one of mine recently,
where you preface your comment with Hmmmm, as if to convey the idea of "I have given this
quite a bit of thought, and find fault in your statements." I don't buy it. You do originate well-
thought out threads, whereas your responses to others seem a bit hasty. Even now, I am
coming up on a full hour in writing this, because we owe it to one another to give just as much
consideration in a response post as in an OP post #1.
Brother, you can assume what you like about my motives. It's...unfortunate that you want to assign less than honorable motives for my comments, but I can't control how you'll respond to what I write. For myself, I simply read and respond to what folks write because I am very interested in God's truth and in what people think and teach about it and because I hope to aid fellow believers in refining, deepening and clarifying God's life-changing truth. I've been studying God's word for a long time now and so my views on its contents are fairly well established, precise and, comprehensive. This inevitably comes to bear upon how I respond to the posts of others. But online, mostly, and especially on CF, people seem to want to be free of all challenge or constriction of their views and bridle, as you are, against a more...seasoned or mature, understanding of God's word. Okay. All I can do is offer the perspective I have and the rest is up to God. I would, though, really appreciate it if you'd confine your comments to my actual remarks and not speculate on my motives for writing them. I'm not nearly as unpleasant a fellow as you suspect that I am.
What I found here is a young brother trying to be encouraging to others, reading on line
in a discipleship sub forum to keep the faith. I saw nothing to suggest that he, or Paul,
were suggesting that "defiling God's Temple with idolatry" is somehow okay. That is easily
dismissed by many other scriptures, and the reason I stated that the
Jeremiah 32 quote
was off topic. Unless of course, there is some elaboration I need to see your point clearly.
I think you've misunderstood my remarks to Mclachlan (see above). I appreciate Mclachlan's desire to encourage others, too. But, judging from his picture, I am much older than he is and have a much longer association with God and His word and from this long association sought to benefit my younger Christian brother. Maybe it's just the effect of having passed middle age that this is my thinking, but my goal wasn't to stifle or condemn Mclachlan's words, only to refine them.