Shannon:

I haven't listened yet, but wanted to let you know I'm pondering this.  This is a question that comes up, is answered -- perhaps satisfactorly -- and then resurfaces in a new circumstance.  We can't get away from it.  But I think there is an answer.  It's just hard to remember why when we are hurting.

I'll make some time, and give this program a listen.  Thanks for posting.  If some other folks hop in with good thought on this topic, I can think of at least one person I'd like to refer here.

Christopher

I've been pondering this interview for the past week.  These are some of my thoughts on Terry Gross's interview with Bart Ehrman on his new book "God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer."

Bart's Problem

Bart's basic problem with God:

All-powerful + all-loving God != suffering

In math, an equation has to balance. The same is true here, so Bart considers a number of tweaks to this equation, but concluded that none are satisfactory.

By these arguments, Bart Ehrman concludes that “all the evidence suggests there is not a loving and all-powerful God.”

Bart's Assumptions

Bart made several assumptions that should be noted. Keep these in mind while considering his arguments:

• Became a “believer” because he was afraid of an ever-burning hell – he assumed this doctrine was true.

• Assumes that Jesus taught that evil would be destroyed during the lifetime of his first disciples.

• Assumes that Jesus was not the “Son of Man.”

• Assumes that the book of Job was authored by two different individuals.

• Assumes that the Satan of Job is not the Satan of the new testament (I believe he comes to this conclusion because of his misunderstanding of hell)

• Assumes that if there is a God, he cannot be more cruel than the most cruel human being, and hence, he is no longer fearful of an ever-burning hell – even if he is wrong. (Bart should have made this assumption earlier on – if not discovered it's truth while in seminary.)

   

Bart's Near Miss

I think that Bart had all the information he needed to find the real explanation for suffering, but for some reason he missed it.

If Bart had known that the doctrine of an ever-burning hell is FALSE, he would not have assumed that the Satan of Job (the adversary) is different from the devil of the rest of the bible. Perhaps then, he would not have been so quick to assume that the book of Job is self-contradictory, and would have caught a glimpse of the bigger message in Job: that suffering is not specifically the consequence of sin acts -- there is an adversary who wants to make God look bad.

With some deeper bible study, perhaps he could have pieced together who this adversary is, Lucifer, who in heaven was second only to Jesus. Lucifer for jealousy (which was allowed because of free-will) accused God of oppression.

Perhaps then, looking back to Genesis, Bart could have seen how the tree of “the knowledge of good and evil” was more than just a test for mankind, but a testing ground for the accusation of Satan -- God could not simply destroy Satan, because all the universe was watching to see if Satan's accusations were right.

At this point Bart may have wondered at the immense loss that God took, when Satan successfully deceived Adam and Eve – perhaps even felt a twinge of what God must have felt as He considered how to save fallen man.

From this vantage, I believe Bart would have seen clearly the fitting analogy of a ransom: God wanted us; Satan wanted God -- an exchange could be worked out. This was the whole point of the Cross! This is why Christ had to be perfect – if He had sinned, He would, like us, also have become subject to Satan, but Christ was perfect; and so the only way Satan could get Him, was to exchange us for Him.

The prophets foretold that the Christ would rise again, but Satan believed otherwise, thinking that he could forcefully contro everything once Jesus was dead.

At this point, perhaps Bart would see that the things of God are much deeper than the things of Man. Perhaps he would understand that Jesus was/is the Son of Man; that He would return; and that “this generation” that would not pass away until the Son of Man should appear in His glory, was not referring to the lifetime of any specific group of men, but rather to the lifetime of a sinful world.

Here, I think Bart would find the answer to suffering. Suffering is not the result of sins specifically, but the result of sin -- Satan's rebellion against God – allowed by free-will.

Equation

Equation form is an over simplification, but perhaps it looks something like this:

All-powerful + all-loving + just God + free-will + evil cosmic forces = suffering

"God could not simply destroy Satan, because all the universe was watching to see if Satan's accusations were right."

What do you mean by "all the universe"?

Satan was one (the head) of many angels. Though quite a number of angels rebelled with him, some stayed loyal to Christ.  (See Revelation 12:7)  It was for the sake of these, and the beings of other worlds Christ may have created, that Satan was not destroyed quickly.  Though Satan and his hoards were cast out of Heaven, the questions that Satan raised still remained, and had to be answered to the satisfaction of all beings that would live on after sin was destroyed.  If any doubt about God's character remained, then sin could possibly happen again... and interestingly, when you stretch a possibility out for eternity, it becomes a surety.

I find the conversation this posting has generated fascinating. But I am still lost when it comes to the question of why some people are allowed to suffer so much while others not at all or very little. Take the well-used example of the Holocaust. Why? But not just why  did the Jews have to suffer so much? But why did God seemingly provide so many miracles in the lives of say Hasel in A Thousand Shall Fall but not for Betsy Ten Boom, another truly Godly person?

I am not familiar with the story of Hasel, but the suffering of Betsy Ten Boom did not seem to be problematic for her -- rather, he suffering was a testimony to her sister as well as to me.

When we are in the will of Christ, He does not necessarily protect us from Satan's physical attacks, but He does protect us spiritually.  I don't think we should always expect physical protection.  We pray for it, but also pray that God's will be done.  If my greatest testimony is found in suffering, then for the sake of God and his Kingdom let me suffer.  This life is but a shadow, and the suffering of the body is insignificant when we have our eyes fixed on the prize.

Now, I say this, but not all of us are able to bear it -- thus I think that some or privileged to suffer where others are protected.

I think, the question of suffering among believers is quite different from the question of suffering in general.

On a personal level:

As I say these things, I see the hypocrisy of my soul.  I am not as brave and desirous of serving through suffering as I would like to be.  I think of the martyrs who sang while burning.  I can only pray that Christ bring me to this point of surrender and trust, and sustain me when the time comes.

I wonder: does anybody ever feels ready to suffer for Christ?

Shannon:

You haven't shared your thoughts on this question yet.

Christopher

Christopher, where in scripture is it inferred that "all the universe was watching to see if Satan's accusations were right"? I understand what you are saying, but it isn't obvious to me in scripture. It sounds like you are saying that there is suffering because God has to prove his fairness or that he is concerned what the "others" think. How could this be if he is all knowing and all powerfull? How could the "others" (the ones who stayed loyal to Christ, that is, not cast out of heaven) dare to question God's character?

Good question.  I'm glad your asking... and this is worth searching scripture over.  I think I'm coming from more of a philosophical perspective here.  Tell me if the philosophical answer is clear from the following progression of thoughts:

• God loves us, and wants us to love Him.
• Love cannot be forced and cannot in its purest form exist in a relationship that is not completely voluntary.
• Hence, questioning the character of God is allowed.
• A question of this importance, once raised, must be answered.  How can I love God if He is unjust or forceful?
• If God destroyed those who exerted this question, then those who were aware of it would probably remain quiet for fear of destruction, but not be satisfied that God was being fair.
• So, for any being (angel, human, or other) to love God, this question must be satisfied in their own mind.
• Hence God allowed sin to persist, while providing redemption for those who were snared but wanted to be free.  Through this his character is proved.

How could the "others" (the ones who stayed loyal to Christ, that is, not cast out of heaven) dare to question God's character?

Satan and the angels cast out of Heaven were not destroyed; they had been given opportunity to make their point in heaven, and had stirred up a war.  Naturally space needed to be given between these opposing sides.  Questioning God was not the problem, but the assumtion that he was unfair was.  If God is life, then separation from God will result in death.  Sin is literally hell-bent.  Hell = death.

I've been pondering and praying about scriptural support for the points that you brought into question and Hebrews 12:1 came to mind.

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us," -KJV

Now this is no slam-dunk argument -- many folks believe that this verse is proof that the dead in Christ are in Heaven -- but as I understand it, the argument is this: that the verse is referencing something before, and since the previous chapter is all about dead "saints," they must be the "cloud of witnesses."  I see some problems with this interpretation even within context:

• KJV puts the "also" in a place that makes the verse sound like the folks-of-faith in the previous chapter are also surrounded by this "cloud of witnesses."  NASB puts the "also" elsewhere while NIV omits it all together.  A thorough study of the original Greek is probably in order.  (Stephanie, can you help us out here?)
• Hebrews 11:39 says these folks have "received not the promise."  Now, we should probably also study what the promise is, but if it has anything to do with salvation and eternal life, then these folks really shouldn't be in Heaven yet.
• Hebrews 11:40 says "they without us should not be made perfect."  This sounds like very convincing proof that sanctification happens to the vast majority of the dead-in-Christ and those living, at the same time.  (Exceptions being Moses, Elijah, and Enoch.)

These shortcomings of the popular view incline me to think that this "cloud of witnesse"s is, as KJV seems to indicate, a cloud that also surrounded men (and women) of faith throughout history.

Now, back to the original goal of showing that there are other beings in other worlds, I found Hebrews 11:3:

"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." -KJV

(NASB also says "worlds," while NIV translates it "universe."  More Greek study, please?)

I think these verses are good biblical support for other "beings" exisitng elsewhere in the univers.