Prayer and the Problem of Evil - Part 1 -- Conditions and Possiblities from James

Now I bet there are some out there that have prayed for a dying loved one and have watched them still die. After thinking on that you also came to the conclusion that you prayed in faith and they still died. So did God then lie?


Now I do not believe it was the will of God that death came into the world at least not for humans. The more deterministic camp says so but then they have God being the author of sin and evil and that is out because the Bible is pretty clear God is not the author of these things; He fights them.


Another option is that God knew evil would come and created the world anyway -- makes Him still the author of evil because once He creates the world evil and death are going to come. He still caused them because He could have stopped them by not creating the world in the first place or creating a world where the possibility of evil could not exist.


A third option is God only knew evil as a possibility. This is known as the open view or open theist position (the one I hold) where God sees evil as a possible but not inevitable end, because He has given Mankind a choice. Eat the tree --'death and evil'; don't eat the tree ' no death and no evil'. Both possibilities exist even in God mind and He is ready for either one. Mankind blows it so God begins to work against evil and redeem us from it and it's consequences. God is only responsible for creating the possibility of evil but did not actually create evil or suffering, they are simply the product of the disobedience of the human race.


Now in this evil world God still lets us talk to him and request things from him through prayer, but because of the evil unleashed things are still going to have multiple possibilities and because we still get carnal from time to time we can very much think we are right with God even though we are not. Evil and sin are always there to possibly screw things up.


Two great passages on prayer are both found in James: 4:1-6 and 5:13-18


James 4:1-6 actually offers up several conditions to answered prayer: 1) You have to ask, 2) You must not have wrong motives in particular that we are praying to consume the results on our own lusts with worldly gain of any type, and 3) You must pray in humility. That is in submission to God's desires. Now that is from God perspective, not ours.


James 5:13-18 was a favorite of many when I was in the Pentecostal church. Particularly, the part that says: "and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick...". There was always a heavy emphasis on the WILL part, but once again the conditions were often overlooked 1) calling for the elders of the church 2) anointing with oil but even here the meaning of this is subject to debate -- it could be anoint like in pour on the head or like in the case of the Good Samaritan where oil was used in a medicinal sense. 3) Do it in the name of the Lord -- humility again -- it is His authority not your own. 4) Offer the prayer in faith (Note: this is not the only condition to answered prayer as some would claim). 5)Based on verse 16 there is also confess your sins to one another and prayer for each other.

Given all these conditions one thing is for sure, you are not going to get an answer to prayer just by praying -- there is a lifestyle of holiness, community and faith that must be lived as well. There is also being the part of a church with a trust level high enough where confession of sin to each other is not only possible but brings about forgiveness. Not to mention that there are many other verses in the Bible that offer up conditions to answered prayer.

What this ultimately means is a prayer offers a possibility to God, one which He can choose to take or not to take depending on the spiritual condition of the person praying and their relationship to Him and the church. Praying does not force God's hand it simply gives Him one more thing to choose, but not a possibility that He must to choose.

In prayer, what I think is often forgotten is that God is the one in charge and we really can't tell Him what to do but we can petition Him. How he fulfils His Word is strictly up to Him.

Part 2 - The Lord's Prayer

Apparent Contradictions and the Progressive Revelation of the Bible.

Just a word before I begin about contradictions in Scripture - if you are looking for them you will find them. Some people make a living off of finding apparent contradictions. Like all interpretive techniques once you adopt a certain lens you stick with it, but it should be noted that when I hear people talking about contradictions in Scripture they are contradictions AS THEY SEE IT. To be fair though, some people have a way of reconciling those contradictions and can go to great lengths to do so. They are doing things as they see it as well. What we learn from this is sometimes whether a contradiction is a contradiction is usually in the eye of the beholder. Both sides can be guilty of reading into Scripture what they want to be there.

I want to look at how some contradictions are reconciled by the fact sometimes it is a matter of the writers perspective and aims in his writing in a previous post so what I want to do is look at how the Bible being a progressive revelation of God can affect apparent contradictions. I want to use two examples from the teaching of Jesus in relationship to the Law of Moses: 1) The 'Eye for and Eye' controversy and 2) Moses and Jesus differences on divorce.

1. The Law of Moses is the first place the expression "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' appears. It does so in three places (Exodus 21, Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19) and every time it is in relationship to the idea of punishment and restitution for the victim of a crime. If the victim loses an eye, justice demands that the person who caused this loss also lose an eye. There were alternative restitution methods in this but the standard was established based on equality. In our language -- 'let the punishment fit the crime'.

Thousands of years pass and Jesus is preaching the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. (Note: this is not the same sermon as the one in Luke 6 although they are similar. Ancient speakers had to repeat themselves often for different groups so teaching would be repeated as the crowd changed. Remember no way to record words and no public address systems. It should also be noted that neither of these sermons say it was Jesus' first time speaking) He says "you have heard it said 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but I say to you, do not resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." We could say that Jesus is changing things like he does elsewhere, except he begins this sermon with a bold statement that that is not what he is doing -- that no part of the law will pass away until everything is fulfilled. That being said what is going on here?

The answer lies in the fact that the revelation of Scripture takes place over time. During the gaps people develop interpretations, establish schools of thought and have their own ideas. When Moses writes the law it is about justice. The passage of time has corrupted the interpretation of the idea from one of justice to one of justified vengeance. Also consider that politically the times are different. Israel is free under Moses; Jesus lives under Roman rule. The things Jesus advocates are a direct reaction to that fact. 1)Not resisting is a reaction to the idea of using 'eye for eye' as a justification for rebellion against an 'evil' empire. 2)being struck on the cheek was a common discipline action of Roman soldiers, Jesus says don't strike back but submit to further discipline as the law requires 3) Roman soldiers could compel a non-citizen to carry their stuff for a mile. Jesus says to not only for that but volunteer for a second mile 4) a Roman soldier could demand stuff from people Jesus is saying give them what they want and then some, etc., etc. In the end what Jesus is doing is correcting the bad interpretations of his time that allowed for both rebellion and vengeance in the name of God, but he never attacks the idea of eye for eye being used as a standard of justice.

2. The whole story for this can be found in Matthew 19 where Jesus is asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. Jesus says 'No', giving only sexual unfaithfulness as a grounds for divorce pointing them to the story of man and woman being one flesh. The follow up is where things get interesting where they ask him why Moses then allowed for divorce with simply a certificate. Jesus replies that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of people. Which leads to a question: Was the certificate of divorce in the Law given by Moses inspired or just Moses doing something on his own? A similar question comes in 1st and 2nd Corinthians when Paul says he has no command of God on a subject but he speaks by permission. Are these permissions and allowances the Word of God and if not then is it not possible that other parts of Scripture are also not part of THE Word of God but are just nice stuff or fluff.

The thing I think needs to be considered is the nature of God as he reveals himself to people over time. The thing I propose as an open theist is that while God in his essential nature does not change (His character) his experiences with humans do change and require a modification of principles or rules as humanity changes on relationship to God. God may not change but his experiences with us are ever changing. Adam and Eve are one flesh, but sin enters the world and men's heart become hard. knowing this God allows Moses to allow divorce. When Jesus arrives God is working to re-establish true salvation by providing a means to change hearts. There is still an allowance for sin in Jesus' words but now it is about strict infidelity, not any other thing like --'she burned my toast'. The progressiveness of God's revelation to man and the ever changing humanity means the standards change as time goes by.

It is this changing relationship aspect of the God and man equation that factors into a lot of things in Scripture. It does not answer all the seeming contradictions but it does address some of them.

The Book of Revelation -- Part 3 -- The Seven Churches -- Key to Interpretation?

In know most people who have studied the book of Revelation usually consider the seven churches as significant, but I have never heard them referred to s the key to understanding the book by anyone. Usually that distinction belongs to the book of Daniel. But I wonder how much we consider the fact that the Book of Revelation was addressed to them and its significance. In Verse 1:4 and chapters two and three as well as the symbolism found in John's vision of Christ the seven is always in reference to the seven churches of Asia. This is how the book starts, as a message from Christs own lips to them, the primary recipients of this letter.

There are many theories:
1. Each church represents a different age of the church before the end: 1) It was certainly was never looked at like this when the letter was first penned. 2) the fact is the order of the churches follows geography from the cost to the interior. 3) Why is it that those who support this theory always think we are in the Laodecea period. No one theorizes that we have time yet and may be in the Philadelphia period. Odd. 4) The text does not say this 5) I am really getting sick of Western time lines always being superimposed on the Bible, as an open theist I don't believe that God is mapping the future in a timeline with Revelation it may be something else altogether --- REJECTED.
2. The churches are not important to understanding the prophecies of the book, once the future stuff is started in chapter four they have no bearing. 1) Why them then why not just address the book to the church in general. 2) Seems odd to just mention them and then forget they are the ones who originally had to understand the book and it is specifically addressed to them -- REJECTED.
3. Other theories include a mix of the above but no one asks the question's about the seven churches from this light -- what did they understand the book of Revelation to be?

My theory is that if can try to piece together what these churches would have understood we would have more proper understanding of Revelation. The problem is some of these churches we have information on and others we do not. There are seven keys here that may unlock the book if only we had more information.

One thing is for sure, that one key aspect in Biblical interpretation is to ask how the original hearers would have understood it but modern interpreters seem to forget this principle them the moment they get to chapter 4 verse 1. I think this may be a terrible mistake and who these people where and what they understood needs to be considered at every turn to get a proper interpretation.

Next: The Powerful Vision of Christ

The Book of Revelation -- Is it really what we think it is?

My thoughts on the book of Revelation have always been cloudy and the only thing I think John Calvin did that was truly smart was he never wrote a commentary on it. Perhaps a lesson to the rest of us, but here I go making a series of posts on the subject of Revelation. I remember sitting in Sunday School as a teen when they taught about the end times (eschatology is the technical term) and asking the question of -- what if everyone is wrong? It is not an inconceivable option and as I went through my education I realized a few things:

1. The doctrine of the Rapture as most evangelicals have come to know it has only been around since the 19th century.

2. The doctrine of the Great Tribulation hinges on a single passage in Daniel that could be interpreted as fulfilled already in the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. See Daniel 9:24-27 for details.

3. The seven year tribulation timeline that is superimposed on the book of Revelation has its origins in both western thoughts of time and is only a recent phenom as it also has its origins in the 19th century.

4. "Seven" is put against many things in Revelation -- horns, trumpets, vials, seals, etc. One thing it is not put against is 'years'. Yep, for all the talk about a seven year tribulation, there is never a time in the Bible where the concept of a seven year time period and a great tribulation are linked.

5. Now, I also have different ideas on how the God of the Bible relates to time (aka as open theism) and I am wondering how that might affect my interpretation of the book of Revelation? I also wonder if all I had was the book of Revelation, how would I interpret it without referencing other books of the Bible?

So discarding the one wise thing John Calvin did (hey, I have already discarded everything else he did, so I might as well throw the last thing out), here I go into the wonderful world of Revelation and the great effort in this series, which may take a quite a while, is to let the book speak for itself. Onward and Upward.

Engaging God's Problem -- A Two-Fold Task

I have been reading and digesting God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer by Bart D. Ehrman. My original task was to engage the book on my open theism blog but as I have engaged the book I have found that this is a twofold task. Open Theism will handle much of it but God's Problem has more issues than just a simple open theism fix. There are issues of higher criticism, views of atonement, western influence of philosophy, etc. etc. issues that will work here as well. Bart has so many assumptions that work in his book that it will take more than one blog to engage them.

The question is how --
1. If a blog entry here deals with open theism it will go on opentheism.blogspot.com as well. If it does not deal with open theism it will remain here.
2. On my open theism blog I will be engaging other issues involving open theism on Sunday and Bart Ehrman's book when it comes up.

I am almost finished analyzing the first three chapters so the first article will appear Saturday.

Blessings

God's Problem -- Initial Thoughts

I recently picked up a copy of a book by Bart D. Ehrman called God's Problem -- How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. Bart is an agnostic who 'converted' from Christianity and I must say Bart is very good as far laying out the problem and dealing with the 'biblical' issue of suffering and the reasons he does not believe in the God of the Bible.

On a personal note, I have kindred spirit in Bart. I see somewhat similar paths and thoughts we have had as we have 'suffered' through the problem of Evil. We have similar backgrounds as far as education and upbringing although he has gotten farther in his education than I have. His story is compelling and his arguments tough but I think there are some problems:

1. His problem with suffering follows classical lines addressing two classical Christian positions -- theodicy and penal atonement. There are other views of theodicy and the issues of the nature of God and atonement that he does not seem to consider. He does not address one of my favorite viewpoints -- open theism -- at all in the discussion.

2. He heavily relies on Higher criticism as true. In truth the Bible he is talking about is a Bible which is a combination of these views which makes the Bible into something that is unhistorical. In fact, he makes note in a couple places that he is not saying he believes in the history of an event he is talking about but that he is dealing with it in its message. Part of the problem is that the problem of suffering he has then is based not on the Bible I and most Christians have come to know and accept but one that is a combination of JEPD theory, Two Isaiah theory, etc. Not the Bible as it presents itself, but one he and liberal critics have created.

3. By the end of the book, you really get the feeling that no matter what answer you might provide to his questions he will not change his mind.

One thing I liked very much though was his treatment of Ecclesiastes in the problem -- I have seen very few works of late that do and it is refreshing to see someone bring that book into the discussion in any way and both of us like the book of Ecclesiastes very much.

I hope to write a more in depth review and engaged the issues of this book both here and on opentheism.blogspot.com. But have to read it again a couple more times to make sure I am getting him right about the issues involved.

Open Theism: Engaging "God's Problem"

One of the strengths of open theism, in my mind, is its superiority in dealing with the problem of suffering than any other system I have come across. It was one of the reasons I rejected simple foreknowledge and embraced open theism is that God is not responsible for evil in any way other than allowing for its possibility, not eventuality.

Two days ago I came across a book by Bart D. Ehrman called God's Problem -- How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. He is the same guy who wrote Misquoting Jesus, a book I have seen, but never read. I bought God's Problem and started to read it; however, and have decided to engage it here on Open Theism. The reason: I disagree with the title -- I do believe that God in the Bible addresses the question of suffering, but in reality the real issue is whether or not a person will have the honesty and courage to accept the answer. The real problem in my mind has always been worldview and how people look at the Bible that is the problem not the Bible itself. I think theology is at fault not the Bible itself.

I of course want to encourage anyone who wants to follow along to both buy and read the book with me. See Bart I am batting for you to make the money you deserve for asking such a noble and worthwhile question.

This issue I have long engaged and I think I have the beginnings of an answer.

Each week I will engage the book piece by piece and offer my opinion. I, of course, plan to read the whole thing this week before I start but then break it down. Don't know how long I will take but here goes.

Why I Am Still an Open Theist.

I already wrote on this one many years ago on my Open Theism blog and not much has changed other than I have more of a resolve that Open Theism is true. I reprint it only because what I have to say is the same:

"For Years, I had an ever growing frustration with the main two options presented to Protestants -- Calvinism and Arminianism. The main frustration came with the fact on the one hand there were Scriptures that talk about the predeterminism of God in certain situations and on the other there were passages that spoke of God being well -- open to what happened and not determining anything. Of the two I quickly dismissed Calvinism as being completely Unscriptural in regard to God's Nature as a just God and there are many passages indicating the free choice of salvation by human beings. Arminianism became a better camp for myself, but it often frustrated me with the sometimes Scriptural twisting to get past the deterministic passages.

The problem I began to wrestle with was foreknowledge. What exactly does God know about the future? This question seems on the surface to deny traditional views of God's knowledge based on simple foreknowledge where God knows all of the course of time from beginning to end. But the question is actually aimed not at God but his creation. Better stated I began to ask: What is the nature of the future that God has created? Has God chosen to create a future where contingencies or choices are real to him as well as to us?

I want to stress the fact that Open Theists do not deny the omniscience of God -- what we deny is that God has created a world in which He can know exactly the future . He rather has created a world where possibilities are real to Him as well. Only in this way can God have a genuine relationship with his creation.

As I searched the Scriptures, I began to see the fact that in some case God does not seem to know what people will do. He knows all the possible things they could do but what they actually will do seemed out of His knowledge. There are other times that God actually expresses emotion over choices that were made in a negative way. 'Why?' became my question. If he already knew what was going to happen -- why get upset about it -- your God; you have a plan to deal with this -- why get upset?

Since that time I have been on a search to see if there is a way to reconcile this dilemma. Open Theism seems to offer the best answer. Contingencies are genuine to God as well as us are the open theists claim. The also did something refreshing -- the engaged the Scriptures. Contrary to popular Christian blogs out there -- Open theism is very much grounded in Scripture and that is why the only counter seems to be -- 'Open Theists are heretics". When you ask why they think so -- 'they deny God's foreknowledge." These things indicate to me that the anti-open theists have not looked deeply at the arguments presented for open theism and engaged them honestly. They are engaged in a knee jerk analysis of this subject and I find this irresponsible."

I originally posted that on March 10, 2006. Nothing much has changed other than I am even more convinced of two things:
1. Open Theism is Biblically True
2. The Opposition even more than before is engaged in knee jerk reactions and bases their criticism on false information on what Open Theists believe.

The battle continues

Next: Why I am a God Lover
Previous: Why I Am a Creationist