Where's God?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Well, exactly.
ed: I think I have disproven it.

ia: Ed, you have done a magnificent job of disproving your own arguments. No, I'm afraid you haven't managed to disprove Euthyphro's Dilemma, and I very much doubt you ever will. But you have, in giving us flawed arguments that we can expose, done a fine job of exposing the Christian inability to handle it.
Where?

ed: If I can demonstrate that the Christian God probably exists, then we can ask those that know Him if He is good. So far you have not demonstrated that it is fallacious.

ia: No, the fallacy is yours. you say "If I can demonstrate that the Christian God probably exists." Fine. Well, if you can, then you have something to work with. Since you have tried and failed to do so, I think it's safe to assume that you can't.
Where did I fail?

ed: Huh? You have asked me multiple times how do I know if God is good. :sigh: God commands an act because it is morally good. And the origination of the good that He commands comes from His character.

ia: Which brings us back to Euthyphro's Dilemma, the argument you claim to have solved. As we can see here, you haven't even addressed it. All you've done it pushed it a bit further down the road.
You say that good originates from God's character? Okay. How do you know that it is good? You attempt to answer this a little further down and, as we shall see, your attempt does not end well.
From my relationship and others relationship with Him just like any other person.

ed: By having a relationship with the Being that is goodness itself, ie God.

ia: You haven't yet proved that God is good, only asserted it.
No, I said thru my experience with Him He has proved Himself good.

ed: No, it is not circular because we find out God is good by experience and His example on earth.
ia: Ah! Most interesting. So, you're saying that we can determine what is good by how we interact with it and our experience with it in this reality that we call "life on Earth." Fine. I agree.
The problem is, you have now said that we can determine goodness by looking at the results of our actions. In other words, no God is needed.
No, I said we can determine if God is good by His actions. But if you base your determination of good entirely on your own then you run into trouble because you have no objective basis for morality, it is purely on emotional preference. Only if you look to God and His moral law then you have an objective basis for morality and can lead you to the best and most fulfilling life.

ed: No, I said God commands something because it is good, and that goodness that the command is based on is His character.

ia: In other words, circular reasoning. God commands good things, and we know they are good because they were commanded by God.
That is part of it, but also once you get to know Him you recognize His goodness just like any other person. No circularity there.

ed: No, since God is the creator of everything that exists, then He created our moral conscience by definition. So ultimately EVERYTHING circles back to God. Therefore, being circular in this case is irrelevant and true by definition.
ia: But we are still left with an unanswered question: how do we know that God is good? You haven't even attempted to answer it, except by saying that we know God is good because He's God.
The only way that you can know if something is good or not is by assessing it against some standard. And if you are judging God as "good" (and remember, all judging means in this case is assessing, or forming an opinion, not passing judgement on somebody) then you must have some standard to measure them against. You cannot use God as a standard, because that is the thing that you are assessing. Essentially, you would be saying "God is good because He's God," which is, as I've pointed out a number of times now, circular reasoning.
No, we know He is good because we can recognize His goodness.

ia: And if you insist that your moral conscience comes from God, then you are unable to use that to measure His goodness as well, since it was provided by Him and you have not yet proved that His goodness is, well, good.
No, at that stage it is irrelevant where your moral conscience comes from. You use it everyday irrespective of where it comes from. It is the only way you can determine what is morally good or not until you learn more about morality from God Himself when you come to know Him.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Got it. God is good. How do we know? Because Ed1wolf's definition of goodness is "according to the character of God."
It all fits. One beautiful line of argument, going round and round forever.
No, that is not my argument. My moral conscience shows me He is good, just like you determine if your friends are good. Not circular at all.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Please tell me how you would demonstrate this objective moral standard to the Nazis. Without using circular logic, of course.
Seriously. What would you say to them?
Demonstrate the existence of the Christian God and His objectively existing moral commands based on His objectively existing moral character.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
ed: The Nazis thought they were having good lives. So at the foundation, you and the Nazis have the same basis for morality. They were doing what they thought was giving them good lives and you do what you do to have a good life.

ia: The Nazis persecuted the Jews because they thought that the Jews were a secret underground conspiracy out to destroy the world. Perhaps if it had been possible to convince them that the Jews were not a secret conspiracy to destroy the world, they would have not wanted to destroy them.
If you have a morality grounded in experience and reality, you can (at least in principle) reason about such things. For you, however, goodness is whatever God says it is. If God told you that the Jews were evil and had to be destroyed, how could anyone ever persuade you otherwise?
It's not us who have the problem with morality. Our morality is based on human nature and the world we live in. Your morality, however, has no roots at all; no foundation; no basis. It's the ultimate in subjectivity and relative ethics.
No, God's morality is based on reality because He has exhaustive knowledge about the reality that He created and incorporated His moral law into reality itself and the universe itself. Your morality is just based on your irrational sentimentality for the human species and therefore have no basis for condemning someone that does not have that sentiment like Hitler and Dahmer. And whatever someones definition of what a good life is.

ed: Many including Hitler basically got away with what they did if there is no hell.
ia: Yes. They did. So what?
That means there is no such thing as justice. Of course, I know if there is no God then there is no justice. So for atheists there is no such thing as justice.

ed: Christians only get a free pass because they accept God's gift of a substitute to experience hell for them. People convert for many reasons sometimes it is evidence like myself, others it is fear of death and hell. Others are attracted to the love of God.

ia: Hitler could be in heaven right now, couldn't he? All he had to do was sincerely repent and accept Christ in the last few seconds of his life, and he would go to heaven.
Sorry, but that is not justice.
Theoretically but extremely unlikely, most people that live lives of evil almost never do such a thing at the end of their lives. We know that Hitler committed suicide with his wife with no evidence of repentance.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Site Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Theoretically but extremely unlikely, most people that live lives of evil almost never do such a thing at the end of their lives. We know that Hitler committed suicide with his wife with no evidence of repentance.
Do we know that, really? Maybe Eva Braun just made it look like Hitler committed suicide, but really she killed him because he inexplicably felt remorse for his evil deeds, repented, and came to Christ. And that just wasn't the Adolf she fell in love with, so he had to go.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, it is not a blessing, it is how the soldiers that do it will feel because of all the evil the Babylonians had done to the jews. But that does not mean that they SHOULD feel that way. It is a prediction of how they will feel.

When we were talking about the killing of Amalekite babies, you said it was the right thing to do but you would not do it gladly.

When it comes to killing Babylonian babies, you say people do it gladly, but it is not the right thing to do.

Which way is it?

I say that chasing the 2-year old daughter of an enemy soldier down the street and thrusting your sword through her heart is both wrong and something that makes the killer sad.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Your morality is just based on your irrational sentimentality for the human species and therefore have no basis for condemning someone that does not have that sentiment like Hitler and Dahmer.
Nope. Many times we have explained our basis of morality. And many times we have explained why we would condemn Hitler and Dahmer. It has nothing to do with irrational sentimentality.

But I think even you would agree that we would be wasting our time to answer you yet again, yes? You would just ignore what we say, yes? If you want to know what we actually think, read this thread.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
ed: So now you move the goalposts.

ia: Not at all. If you remember, the question is about Euthyphro's Dilemma: why does God call something good?" You are the one trying to move the goalposts by changing this to a discussion of whether God is good or not.
God calls something good if it aligns with His moral character. You were the one that was asking how do we determine whether God is good or not.

ed: Given that God created everything that exists, then by definition everything circles back to him.
ia: Sure, we can assume that for the sake of this conversation. But the fact that God created the rules for morality does not prove that those rules are, in fact, moral.

I didn't say God created the rules for morality, He built them into the universe based on His character and then revealed them to us in His word.

ed: I cant prove it but there is evidence that points in that direction. If you engage in promiscuous sex, there is a good chance you will get an STD. If you engage in adultery, then you have most likely destroyed your marriage. If you lie a great deal, you will probably have no real friends. If you steal, you will most likely end up in jail. If you murder, there is a good chance you will end up in jail. If you engage in gluttony, then you life will most likely be shortened and etc.

ia: This is not the first time you've said you can't prove something but there's evidence of it. Well done for the honesty, but the evidence always turns out to be of an extremely low standard. Take this case. If you are a mountain climber, a deep sea diver or a police officer you are likely to have a shortened lifespan. Does this mean that climbing mountains, deep sea diving and stopping criminals are immoral activities?
They could be, given if the person has a family and takes unwarranted risks when they engage in those things.

ia: What you have in fact done, again, is provide evidence in my favour. You've shown that we can look at the consequences of our actions and use these to construct a moral framework based on how human nature operates in the real world. Well done.
I never said you couldnt form a moral framework based on what you think human how human nature operates in the real world. But again people have different views on how human nature operates in the real world, so you still would not have an objective basis for your morality. it is still based on your subjective opinion of how human nature operates.

ed: Given that Christians believe Jesus is God, a good way to see what God would do in certain situations that humans encounter, is to see what Jesus did in those situations and whether He does good.
ia: But we are not discussing whether God is good or not. We are discussing how you can know what goodness means. So, if you see that Jesus fed the hungry or healed the sick, and you say, "See? See what a good thing Jesus did!" my question to you is: why is it good to feed the hungry or heal the sick? How do you know what goodness is? Because God told you so? How do you know He is correct?
Because of who He is and also because of experience with Him.

ed: Yes, but given that they are all created in the image of the King of the Universe, they all have infinite intrinsic value no matter what they do in the future.
ia: But you said it was wrong to kill people because they might have converted to Christianity. Now you are saying that their lives are valuable whether they convert or not.
And why is that? Why does being created in the image of the King of the Universe mean they all have infinite intrinsic value?
Because an infinite being values us infinitely.

ed: No, if I have a relationship with Him I could say that God would never do such a thing, just as you would say your friend would never murder someone.

ia: But my friend is not the foundation of my morality. I have not said that my ideas on what is and is not moral are solely based on what my friend says are. That, however, is exactly what you have said about God.
Yes, because He is the creator of this universe so He knows what is best for it and those that live in it. Just like the manufacturer of something knows what is best for what he manufactures.

ed: So, if God told you to kill, for killing is good, what would you say? No? You'd disagree with God?
Perhaps you'd say, "You can't be God. God would never tell me to kill." But how do you know that God's definition of goodness does not include killing in a certain time or place? You said that God makes the rules. How could you disagree with Him?
Actually killing is not always bad, murder is always bad but killing is not. But my reaction would be based on my experience with Him. If my experience with him showed that He saw nothing wrong with murder then yes I would disagree with Him.

ed: No, we do have an objective basis for condemning him, the moral laws of the universe based on God's objectively existing moral character. Your basis is just your personal subjective preference.

ia: Let us assume, for the purposes of this conversation, that there are indeed such moral laws and that they were decreed by God. The question still stands: how do you know that God's laws are moral? Do you measure it by some external standard to check that God's laws are moral? If so, then there is a higher authority than God. Or do you just say that God could say anything, and it would be moral because He said it? If so, then God's morality is arbitrary and meaningless.
No, if His morality is based on His character then it is not arbitrary. And in fact, that is the case.

ia: My basis, on the other hand, is human nature and shared human values. And honestly, you know and agree with this, even if you don't realise it. That's why, above, you were trying to show me that God's laws make sense because they produce good results for us. In other words, you do have a higher authority than God; you do check that God's laws make sense, and you call them good if they accord with your criteria for goodness.
But if there is no God then there is no objective reason to care about humans at all. Your value of humans is just your personal preference and not based on anything rationally objective. The reason why obeying Gods laws produce good results in the universe is because He built His moral law into the the universe just as He built the laws of physics into the universe.

ed: Thats right and if the universe doesn't care then ultimately everything is meaningless including the caring that living things do.

ia: Of course not. Meaning is created by thinking beings. The universe doesn't care, and the universe has no purposes, but we do have purpose because we do care.
What purpose do we have and where did it come from? All you have is an imaginary purpose that comes from nothing that really exists if there is no God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
God calls something good if it aligns with His moral character. You were the one that was asking how do we determine whether God is good or not.



I didn't say God created the rules for morality, He built them into the universe based on His character and then revealed them to us in His word.


They could be, given if the person has a family and takes unwarranted risks when they engage in those things.


I never said you couldnt form a moral framework based on what you think human how human nature operates in the real world. But again people have different views on how human nature operates in the real world, so you still would not have an objective basis for your morality. it is still based on your subjective opinion of how human nature operates.


Because of who He is and also because of experience with Him.


Because an infinite being values us infinitely.


Yes, because He is the creator of this universe so He knows what is best for it and those that live in it. Just like the manufacturer of something knows what is best for what he manufactures.


Actually killing is not always bad, murder is always bad but killing is not. But my reaction would be based on my experience with Him. If my experience with him showed that He saw nothing wrong with murder then yes I would disagree with Him.


No, if His morality is based on His character then it is not arbitrary. And in fact, that is the case.


But if there is no God then there is no objective reason to care about humans at all. Your value of humans is just your personal preference and not based on anything rationally objective. The reason why obeying Gods laws produce good results in the universe is because He built His moral law into the the universe just as He built the laws of physics into the universe.


What purpose do we have and where did it come from? All you have is an imaginary purpose that comes from nothing that really exists if there is no God.
I'd like to respond, Ed, but (a) I have no time right now, (b) I have other things to do, and (c) there's nothing I need to say in response to your points that I haven't said many times before. Since all the questions you are asking have been covered before, I'm happy to simply say: see above.

Take care!
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Many have gotten sick with COVID. They prayed. Then they died. Where was God?

Prayer is not a cosmic vending machine. That is not how prayer works.

People die.
Everyone is pretty much condemned to death.
God doesn't owe us life.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Prayer is not a cosmic vending machine. That is not how prayer works.
Ah, so James was mistaken:

James 5:15
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.​
People die.

Everyone is pretty much condemned to death.
True.

When we mention that half a million Americans have died of COVID, we are not saying that otherwise they would have lived forever. We are mentioning that their lives were cut short through a painful death experience.

God doesn't owe us life.
But does he care? If a person is dying of COVID, and God could heal him, and God cares, why doesn't he step in?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Why does anyone deserve a miracle? Hint: No one does.
Ah, so millions die of COVID, because they don't deserve a better life?

If the patients don't deserve a better life, should we have Trump tell the doctors to stand back and stand by? ;)
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Has anyone mentioned the Doctrine of Providence yet?

What is divine providence? - Printer Friendly
Yes, the topic came up. We started discussing children that were being molested. The question is whether these acts of molestation were part of God's providence, and whether God was deliberately allowing it for good. I would say no. If there is a good God who allows molestation, then surely he is not doing it because he knows it is for the child's good.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
God calls something good if it aligns with His moral character.
In other words, might makes right. God is in charge, so do whatever he says.

If you lived in a completely different universe, with a completely different God, would his might also make him right? And if you say it depends how you feel about that God, then you have shifted from "whatever God says is right" to "whatever I feel is good is right". Which way is it?

I prefer using reason to determine what is right.

Actually killing is not always bad, murder is always bad but killing is not.
OK, and what acts of killing are murder, and what acts of killing are justified, such as for self defense?

Determining if something counts as legitimate self defense is, uh, er, subjective. Different countries have different laws, and even different states disagree on what counts as justifiable self defense. How do we tell the difference? All modern nations use the method I recommend. That is, they use reason. They talk through the various means of defining justifiable killing, and work out a system of laws that is as fair as possible. How would you do it?

But if there is no God then there is no objective reason to care about humans at all.
Once again, sigh, the same answer I have told you dozens of times but you ignore. We need trusting relationships with others, because that is the only way for humans to live any kind of a good life.

And if you think you are clever and ask us why we don't all just kill ourselves, I will respond the same way I responded every time you have asked me why I don't commit suicide.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, it is not a blessing, it is how the soldiers that do it will feel because of all the evil the Babylonians had done to the jews. But that does not mean that they SHOULD feel that way. It is a prediction of how they will feel.
I see.

And all those other Psalms that wish harm on people, are they just saying this is something people think but shouldn't? For instance:

Psalms 109:6-14
And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.​

See Imprecatory Psalms - Wikipedia .
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Followup RE:
Has anyone mentioned the Doctrine of Providence yet?

What is divine providence? - Printer Friendly

Doctors and scientists fall under Providence. Nothing and no one is independent of the Almighty.

IOW, it's better to pray for God's Providence of doctors than test God for a miracle. -Deuteronomy 6:16, Matthew 4:7.

Some possible questions that might or might not (lol, I dunno) come up as a result of this:

Q: Are evil acts, such as violence or sexual assault, part of Divine Providence?

A: The Doctrine of Divine providence is summarized as follows: “God in eternity past, in the counsel of His own will, ordained everything that will happen; yet in no sense is God the author of sin; nor is human responsibility removed.” The primary means by which God accomplishes His will is through secondary causes (e.g., laws of nature and human choice). In other words, God usually works indirectly to accomplish His will. <--Ultimately so, meaning that all sin will be rightly judged, and God will use all sin to accomplish His purposes.

Q: As above, would God be deliberately using it for good? If there is a good God who allows say, child molestation, then surely he is not doing it because he knows it is for the child's good, correct?

A: Correct. God is not the author of sin, yet allows sin to continue another day, because His final judgment is being suspended for another day. One cannot assume this form of God's grace will last forever. In fact, God's word says that not only is God's wrath being "piled up" because of continuing sin (Romans 2:5), but God will ultimately judge all sin and unrighteousness eternally in Hell.

And yet no one on Earth is ever entitled to be totally free from the primary or secondary effects of man's sin.

Q: Do millions die of COVID because they don't deserve a better life?

A: No one, including COVID patients, deserve life. . .period. No one is entitled to one more day on this Earth. As stated above, God's Common Grace to all mankind is temporary. "Grace" by defintion, is un-merited. The problem with mankind is his own prideful sense of self-entitlement.

Q: Was James mistaken about how prayer works?

James 5:15
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

A: Keyword is "of faith." And faith simply means "trust." It's not mysticism, nor some Kierkegaardian "leap" into the irrational. Whatever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23b).

James also writes (in the same book), "You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures." -James 4:3

Thus, prayer is not an attempt to control God. It's not even a guarantee, as one might prefer to read-into that verse. Prayer is not a cosmic vending machine. Prayer is not casting a magic spell. It is petitioning a King and trusting in that Sovereign Lord for His final decision on the matter.

To address this issue even further, the following is an excerpt from The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on James 5.

Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. (James 5:14–15)

This passage has been a battleground for interpreters over the centuries as various groups have used it as a proof text for their particular beliefs. At first glance it appears to be teaching that sick believers can expect physical healing through the prayers of the elders. But such an interpretation is out of harmony with the context. The suffering James has in view is evil treatment, not physical illness.

It is true that, apart from the present verse, astheneo is translated sick eighteen times in the New Testament (e.g., Matt. 10:8; 25:36, 39; Mark 6:56; Luke 4:40; John 4:46; Acts 9:37). But it is also used fourteen times to refer to emotional or spiritual weakness (Acts 20:35; Rom. 4:19; 8:3; 14:1–2; 1 Cor. 8:11–12; 2 Cor. 11:21, 29; 12:10; 13:3–4, 9). Significantly, in all but three (Phil. 2:26–27; 2 Tim. 4:20) of astheneo’s appearances in the epistles it does not refer to physical sickness. Paul’s use of astheneo in 2 Corinthians 12:10 is especially noteworthy, since it there describes weakness produced by the sufferings of life—in a similar context as its usage in the present verse.

Translating astheneo “weak” here in keeping with its predominant usage in the epistles allows us to view this verse in a different light. James moves beyond the suffering believers of the previous point to address specifically those who have become weak by that suffering. The weak are those who have been defeated in the spiritual battle, who have lost the ability to endure their suffering. They are the fallen spiritual warriors, the exhausted, weary, depressed, defeated Christians. They have tried to draw on God’s power through prayer, but have lost motivation, even falling into sinful attitudes. Having hit bottom, they are not able to pray effectively on their own. In that condition, the spiritually weak need the help of the spiritually strong (cf. 1 Thess. 5:14).

That help, James says, is to be found in the elders of the church. They are the spiritually strong, the spiritually mature, the spiritually victorious. Weak, defeated believers are to go to them and draw on their strength. They are to call (from proskaleo, “to call alongside”) the elders to come and lift them up. It is the same thought that the apostle Paul expressed in Galatians 6:1: “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness.” The wounded, exhausted, broken sheep are to go to their shepherds, who will intercede for them and ask God for renewed spiritual strength on their behalf.

This is an important—and largely neglected—ministry of the church’s pastors and elders. The apostles acknowledged its priority when they said, “We will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (Acts 6:4). But in today’s church, weak, struggling believers are often handed over to so-called expert professional counselors—who often have little power in prayer. Those who have been defeated in the spiritual battle do not need to hear opinions of human wisdom; they need to be strengthened by the power of God through their leaders’ prayers.

The anointing with oil in the name of the Lord done by the elders is not a reference to some symbolic ceremony. Aleipho (the root form of the verb translated anointing) is not used in the New Testament to refer to a ceremonial anointing. Aleipho in the New Testament describes anointing one’s head with oil (Matt. 6:17; cf. Luke 7:46), the women’s anointing of Jesus’ body (Mark 16:1), Mary’s anointing of the Lord’s feet (John 11:2; 12:3), and anointing the sick with oil (Mark 6:13). Perhaps the best way to translate the phrase would be “rubbing him with oil in the name of the Lord”; it literally reads “after having oiled him.”

It may well have been that the elders literally rubbed oil on believers who had suffered physical injuries to their bodies from the persecution (cf. Luke 10:34). Medical science was certainly in a primitive state and there were few trustworthy doctors. It would have been a gracious, kind act on the part of the elders to rub oil on the wounds of those who had been beaten, or into the sore muscles of those made to work long hours under harsh treatment.

Metaphorically, the elders’ anointing of weak, defeated believers with oil conveys the responsibility for elders to stimulate, encourage, strengthen, and refresh (cf. Luke 7:46) these people.

The elders’ ministry of intercession and restoration is to be done in the name of the Lord. Any truly biblical encouragement must be consistent with who God is (which is what His name represents). To do something in the name of Christ is to do what He would have done in the situation; to pray in the name of Christ is to ask what He would want; to minister in the name of Christ is to serve others on His behalf (cf. John 14:13–14).

The blessed result of the elders’ comfort and ministry of intercession is that their prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick. Again, sick is misleading and not the best translation of kamno, which in its only other New Testament usage (Heb. 12:3) clearly does not refer to physical illness. James speaks here of a spiritual restoration of weak, defeated believers. Nor does sozo (restore) necessarily refer to physical healing; it is most commonly translated “save” in the New Testament. The idea here is that the elders’ prayers will deliver weak, defeated believers from their spiritual weakness and restore them to spiritual wholeness. Those prayers, of course, are but a channel for God’s power; it is the Lord who will raise up the weak. Egeiro (raise up) can also mean “to awaken” or “to arouse.” Through the righteous prayers of godly men, God will restore His battered sheep’s enthusiasm.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.