Cooch
Regular Member
I am convinced - by scripture and by personal experience - that overt divine intervention occurs, but that it is the exception, rather than the rule.
We can accept that God is both omnipotent and righteous, if we accept that he has CHOSEN to limit his authority in this place and time in order to give us free will. If we argue that everything that happens does so by God's explicit will, rather than by His permissive will, then we arrive at the belief that we can only sin if it is God's will for us to do so. IE, that sin is involuntary, and hence that God would be unjust to punish us for it.
I believe that it is more reasonable to argue that suffering and sin are partly a consequence of our choices and partly the consequence of living in a fallen world. God has CHOSEN to not interfere most of the time,so that we can have choice (and if I cannot choose to do evil, then I do not really have a choice) and experience the consequences of a world in rebellion against God.
This does not mean that God cannot act occasionally, both in mercy and to demonstrate that He does, indeed, exist. But such interventions should be seen as "signs and wonders", not the norm.
The sheer inevitability of suffering and death in this world convinces me that God is far more concerned with how we deal with it, than in delivering us from it. After all, health, wealth and prosperity are not things that we can take to heaven. Rather, they are things that we will find in heaven when we arrive. What we can take with us is character and faith, which are more easily tested and developed under trial.
In short, God takes the long view. He wants for us that which will be good for us when we arrive at heaven's gate, not what is good for us here on earth - although sometimes we get that too.
We can accept that God is both omnipotent and righteous, if we accept that he has CHOSEN to limit his authority in this place and time in order to give us free will. If we argue that everything that happens does so by God's explicit will, rather than by His permissive will, then we arrive at the belief that we can only sin if it is God's will for us to do so. IE, that sin is involuntary, and hence that God would be unjust to punish us for it.
I believe that it is more reasonable to argue that suffering and sin are partly a consequence of our choices and partly the consequence of living in a fallen world. God has CHOSEN to not interfere most of the time,so that we can have choice (and if I cannot choose to do evil, then I do not really have a choice) and experience the consequences of a world in rebellion against God.
This does not mean that God cannot act occasionally, both in mercy and to demonstrate that He does, indeed, exist. But such interventions should be seen as "signs and wonders", not the norm.
The sheer inevitability of suffering and death in this world convinces me that God is far more concerned with how we deal with it, than in delivering us from it. After all, health, wealth and prosperity are not things that we can take to heaven. Rather, they are things that we will find in heaven when we arrive. What we can take with us is character and faith, which are more easily tested and developed under trial.
In short, God takes the long view. He wants for us that which will be good for us when we arrive at heaven's gate, not what is good for us here on earth - although sometimes we get that too.
Upvote
0