Hi everyone,
Clete said:
Nothing has been skipped and repeating your position is not a valid rejoinder.
Here are some points that went by the board:
Surely God knew that removing the hedge meant the devil would attack, so indeed, even according to the Open Theists, God had agency in what happened to Job.
Unless unwitting blasphemy is a sin, and indeed, it is (1 Tim. 1:12, Paul had to be forgiven, for this sin).
And I ask again and again which grammar points this out as a known phrase people would understand in another way, as in “it’s raining buckets.” We can’t just say “it’s a figure of speech” without grammatical warrant.
I could just as well say “Satan struck Job” is a figure of speech, and put another meaning there…
And yet even Elihu spoke of God doing this, the context in fact supports the claim that God was the primary agent here, from first to last, Scripture says Job said this without sinning, Scripture says this at the end, everyone agrees that this is ultimately God’s hand, and God does not contradict this.
The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish (Dt. 28:22).
And this and many other verses clearly say God afflicts people.
The claim is that God does not afflict people, especially innocent people, and this was just the argument of Job’s friends, who were worse off than Job, for their error was more serious.
They said God afflicted Job for his sin, and we read that 1) Job was righteous and 2) God brought this trouble on him.
So their sin was saying that God does not afflict innocent people, and Scripture clearly speaks of this, and to deny this, is unconscionable.
Job 23:10 But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.
Zechariah 13:9 This third I will bring into the fire; I [note: “I”] will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are my people,' and they will say, 'The Lord is our God.'
I leave off here, this is only a sample (for example, see below)...
Clete said:
You read a passage like the one alluded too above and take it in a woodenly literal fashion …
The alternative then being to say it’s a figure of speech (it’s not) and rewrite the verse? That’s simply a travesty.
… because doing so is in keeping with your underlying presupposition that God's providence other quantitative attributes takes precedence over His righteousness and other qualitative attributes.
And I ask you again what you mean by a quantitative attribute, this I do not recall that you replied to. You see, every attribute of God involves both a quality and a quantity.
You have sacrificed God's justice and holy character on the alter of His absolute providential control of everything that happens…
Do you know, Clete, I also believe God is just and kind and loving and good, and that is why he heals people.
Matthew 14:14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.
Philetus said:
Classic Leeism: “You really are setting out to deny all these plain Scriptures, IT JUST OCCURED TO ME."
I ask the question and Lee accuses all Open Theists of denying plain Scriptures.
Do you now agree then, that God does afflict people at times?
We keep going over and over the same stuff without you presenting anything new or trying to break down our arguments.
Actually, I think “time to move on” indicates just this, and you now need to address the points left unanswered above that I reviewed for Clete.
Here are countless Verses where Elihu tells Job that he is crazy and God both didn't and wouldn't do this.
And my response was, and is, as follows:
Job 33:29-30 God does all these things to a man-- twice, even three times--to turn back his soul from the pit, that the light of life may shine on him.
Job 36:8-10 But if men are bound in chains, held fast by cords of affliction, he tells them what they have done-- that they have sinned arrogantly. He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of their evil.
Job 36:17 But now you are laden with the judgment due the wicked; judgment and justice have taken hold of you.
Philetus: "To paraphrase : God is just. He uses trouble to bring a man back from sin, when he sins. He holds them to their sins. God does not bring these upon righteous. Job said God did. I say he wouldn't, but because Job said that he does, he had now sinned and had taken on the judgement due those who had sinned."
Then what was Job's judgment? That would be my question here, and who was judging Job, according to Elihu?
Philetus: "Note the bolded words. Elihu is saying 'Job, you are saying I am innocent, yet God brings disaster on me! Listen to your unrighteous tongue! God isn't like man to do that to someone.' Don't you see that lee?"
No, I don't, because Elihu didn't say that! What did he actually say?
"God is greater than man," this is not what you had him saying here, it would seem...
9
For he has said, ‘It profits a man nothing that he should delight in God.’
Philetus: "Job was out of his mind in sorrow, Lee! He was saying terrible things about God, and you agree with them, you agree that God did this to him?"
Yet this is not the text, you see. Job says "It was no profit for me to serve God." That is different than reading "God did this to me."
You are rewriting the passage here, sad to say, again and again, and this is serious, it is sinning.
Job 33:29-30 God does all these things to a man-- twice, even three times--to turn back his soul from the pit, that the light of life may shine on him.
Job 36:8-10 But if men are bound in chains, held fast by cords of affliction, he tells them what they have done-- that they have sinned arrogantly. He makes them listen to correction and commands them to repent of their evil.
Job 36:17 But now you are laden with the judgment due the wicked; judgment and justice have taken hold of you.
Clearly Elihu is saying God struck Job.
Also, this you did not respond to, other than asking me if I knew the meaning of innocent:
We should not accuse God of bringing disaster on an innocent man.
Then did God not bring the cross on Jesus?
John 18:11 “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"
And there are many examples of this, Job among them, you have not yet explained to me what “the trouble the Lord had brought on him” means. Similarly, we see this in Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 21:3-6 This is what the Lord says: “I am against you. I will draw my sword from its scabbard and cut off from you both the righteous and the wicked. Because I am going to cut off the righteous and the wicked, my sword will be unsheathed against everyone from south to north. Then all people will know that I the Lord have drawn my sword from its scabbard; it will not return again.” Therefore groan, son of man! Groan before them with broken heart and bitter grief.
And these verses here also show that God does use and cause sinful acts for good purposes:
2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men.
Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it?
Isaiah 10:16-17 Does the ax raise itself above him who swings it, or the saw boast against him who uses it? As if a rod were to wield him who lifts it up, or a club brandish him who is not wood! Isaiah Therefore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, will send a wasting disease upon his sturdy warriors...
Lee: And I ask again and again which grammar points this out as a known phrase people would understand in another way, as in “it’s raining buckets.” We can’t just say “it’s a figure of speech” without grammatical warrant.
Philetus: And I answer again:
When determining if a verse is figurative, I always go about it in the same fashion as above.
1. Does it contract other verses (YES)
2. Does the surrounding context intend for this to be the main point? (NO) If not, what is it really saying?(JOB GOT RICH AGAIN)
3. Could this mean something else as a figure of speech and still fit the context? (YES)
It meets all of these checks.
And my reply again is this:
Job 42:11 They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him…
This is a different statement than “God rebuilt Job's fortune because of the testing,” though certainly this latter statement is true, we can’t say a phrase is a figure of speech and rewrite it like this, for it does not contract other verses (to strike a cue ball so it pockets the nine, the cue ball is a secondary cause, and you are the primary cause), and a main point does not erase other points in the passage, and “the trouble the Lord brought on him”, what grammar says this is a figure of speech people would recognize as meaning “rebuilt Job's fortune because of the testing”?
Lee: Surely God knew that removing the hedge meant the devil would attack, so indeed, even according to the Open Theists, God had agency in what happened to Job.
Patman: God allowing for sin to happen does not make him the sinner.
Certainly not, but he did have agency in what happened, right?
Blessings,
Lee