I don't believe it is a question of permission. This is Satan's domain, and he lies, kills and destroys as he is able, and this universe is set in motion and will be played out. God intervenes at the interceding of the saints.
The Questions They Say Christians Can't Answer
- Thread starter christianbacktobasics
- Start date
I don't believe it is a question of permission. This is Satan's domain, and he lies, kills and destroys as he is able, and this universe is set in motion and will be played out. God intervenes at the interceding of the saints.
Agreed.
The argument goes...God looks after His saints. Hears His saints prayers. Why does He not look after the children. Hear their prayers. When they do go to heaven if they die, like the saints.
The answer is best explained with these three facts imo....
1. As you said, the devil is behind all evil.
2. Children seem to fall under the protection of parents / guardians completely, like animals. I say this because I believe evil parents can cause evil spirits to come into a house and I do believe these demons can harass the children too.
3. Many good Christians suffer and die.
We, humans, have chosen to live in this fallen world when we decided to abandon God in the garden of Eden. Children are innocent, yes, but God is not to blame for their suffering. We, sinners, are to blame for the sufferings that we have brought upon this earth. Furthermore, without God, those children who died in suffering would never be consoled or compensated. So, atheism is an infinitely bleaker scenario, since according to atheism the deaths and sufferings of children are not only pointless, but also impossible to compensate for.
This is a really great question that many people wrestle with, including solid Christians. Let me add context.
Mr. X was skeptical about miraculous intervention in the modern world. Mr. X became a missionary to an unreached tribal people. In his years in the field he saw many things that seemed like instant empirically obvious miracles and was shocked to see consistant divine response to his own prayers. Returning to the states, he expected to instantly disprove all of his old skeptical friends in a televised prayer service. Nothing. No great proof to duplicate and convince the world. Prayers were still answered, but hours or days later in the privacy of the homes of those prayed for.
Mr. X's question: Why? Why there and not here? Why in private and not clearly on tape? Why no unquestionable, reproducible miracles on demand where they can noted and verified by scientists in person? Why wouldn't Jesus offer a sign on demand for his skeptics? Why stop at healing? Why can't I call down the fire of God a la Elijah every time I'm asked to prove mine is the true religion? Why stop at signs and wonders? God, if you want these people to believe you exist and you care about them enough to act, then show up! Be visible! Why should Belshazzar get a floating hand writing on his wall and not Richard Dawkins?
Is that sort of where you were going, ASUK?
Pretty much.
Hi, so what answer do you normally venture?
Have you ever witnessed a conversion after answering this sort of questions? In my own experience, I haven't. Maybe I am not providing the right answers, though.
According to what I have seen, it seems that people don't really care about the answers. They just need a way to rationalize their hatred towards God.
According to what I have seen, it seems that people don't really care about the answers. They just need a way to rationalize their hatred towards God.
That was a very insightful analogy about explaining the color red to a blind man in comparison to telling an atheist about God. It really is hard to explain to someone who is blind what a color "looks like" when they can't see colors, but that doesn't mean the color red doesn't exist!
I'm a new believer myself, I was wondering how you go about training people new in faith?
1 Peter 3:15-17 doesn't make it sound like converting others on the spot is the point of having an answer.
Setting it up in vs 9 he says "Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing." To me this pairs well with the appeal to be ready to give an answer with gentleness and respect in vs15
He follows with, "16having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame."
Shame sounds harsh, but I don't think smashing the questioner is the point either...it would seem contradictory to the "gentleness and respect" mentioned in 15. Slander is like a fire(James 3:6). You can't put it out, it has to burn itself out. Either the target or the slanderer will be burned (put to shame). When you have a good answer, the emotion of the attack doesn't stick to you, it often continues to build in the accuser and he's the one gets defensive.
My take on it would be this: When aggressive questions or accusations come, the unprepared are embarrassed and ashamed. I would tend to get defensive and trade "reviling for reviling." When I lash out to protect myself I know I am acting in the flesh rather than the spirit and becoming a showcase a hypocritical lifestyle in front of a questioning unbeliever as well, this causes injury to my conscience and more shame. But, I find that the better prepared I am the less defensive I feel and the more capable I am of returning and answer "with gentleness and respect."
Also, first phrase of 15 is "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy" or if you want to try and keep some of the original word order , "The Lord God, sanctify in your hearts" - when I am not defensive or lashing back I am able to keep the focus of my thoughts and speech honoring to the Lord. He can be set apart as first in my purpose rather than myself, who is where my focus is when I'm embarrassed and my conscience is injured.
Anywho, that would be my take on the purpose of having an answer. I don't think it's primarily an evangelistic tool, I think it's part of a holy lifestyle.
Yes, I see what you mean. Maybe answering with gentleness and peacefulness is more of an evangelistic tool than providing the answer in itself.
Didn't Jesus re-place the one that was cut off instead of "giving him another ear"???
Do not take this the wrong way, but I have also been on those trips. The problem is.....when the people are all gone, the camera are off and the excitement and adrenaline is gone, what then happens when the rubber meets the road????
People in 3rd world countries are easily persuaded by mind manipulations of charismatic personalities.
I have personally been a member of the team of people who have gone in after everyone has left to validate the healings that were claimed. Now some of you will disagree and that is OK with me but the facts were that NONE of the people we found were healed.
Of the ones who claimed healing, the healing was always something internal which could not be proven, but easily claimed.
A person's appendix was now healed.
A tumor was removed in ones stomach.
A head ache was gone.
A person with dizzy spells was healed.
It seems to me that when someone wants something bad enough, they will claim it to be so even if it isn't.
Now, please do not say that I do not believe in miracles or God healing people. I DO! God heals in His own time and when He does it is completely a healing. God does not gather a huge crowd of people, preordained and then call upon the Holy Spirit to come and heal like a trained animal.
God does the healing not a man who waves his hand and then blows the Holy Spirit onto people.
YES. Sometimes the best answer is to admit.......
I really do not know that, but I am going to find out and get back to you with the correct answer.
I have heard a marvelous bible teacher teach on this act of Jesus. Most of the men in service to the Roman regime would have had a piercing of the ear to denote allegiance to who ruled them. I believe, like some do, that Jesus would have given Malchus a new ear, one without a piercing, clearing him of such a tie or allegiance. That is the kind of perfect healing that Jesus does.
You know my brother, it would seem to me that since God knows what is coming, He would then have the ability and compassion to take a child home to spare them a terrible suffering later on.
You may be correct but then again there is no Biblical proof of that assumption.
Luke 22:51 seems IMO to indicate that it was his right ear which Jesus healed. I would think that the ear would not have been cut completely but was left attached and maybe hanging because Peter was a fisherman not a swordsman. It would be very hard to completely cut off an ear with the swords used in that day.
"And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far: And He TOUCHED HIS EAR and healed him".
I do think that the soldiers realized before they even got to Jesus that they were arresting someone with pretty amazing authority and power. We see them fall back when he says "I am He."
Then what do we do with the Biblical fact that God afflicts HIS children who do have faith????
God may afflict His own believing children with physical maladies for the sake of testing, sanctification, discipline or the securing of their salvation.
1 Corinthians 11:30-32: 30. For this cause [partaking of the Lord's supper unworthily] many are weak and sickly among you, and many have died.... 32. We are [all] disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.
The scriptures (both Luke and John) say the ear was CUT OFF.