Interventionist God

Zombrex · 15-03-2011 2:36pm #1

The response to the Japanese Earthquake raised a some what interesting question as to whether or not it is a particularly Christian notion to believe in an interventionist God, particularly if that intervention is in the form of something considered negative.

I have heard it said from some Christian friends of mine that since Jesus God is not really interested in big Old Testament style interventions, either positive (parting of the seas) or negative (destruction of Sodom), that since Jesus the issue is really been far more on salvation to the after life.

I was wondering what Christian views on this were, is the large scale interventionist position mainstream or the opposite, or is this just an area where different Christian interpretations differ?

(by interventionist I mean large scale stuff rather than God opening an individuals heart or minor miracles)

Just a note, I'm in no way offended or angered or upset by the idea that a Christian might feel this earthquake or any earthquake is an interventionist act of God for some purpose. I feel anyone who claims to be directly offended by that is just being silly. I don't like the idea, but to say I'm offended by someone expressing that idea is nonsense.

We can't have Christian only threads any more but to all non-Christians PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not derail this thread with such responses. There have been quite a few 'Whats your thoughts on this...' threads and as soon as a Chrisitan gives an honest answer they are set upon with faux outrage and anger.

This is just silly baiting in my view, this 'Say something offensive so I can be offended'. Atheists, get over it.

That is NOT the purpose of this thread, if you want to be offended take it to the A&A forum please. This is a genuine question that I don't know the answer to and would be interested to hear from Christians about.

Mods feel free to self destruct this thread if it quickly turns into this, which I hope it won't.

kelly1 · 15-03-2011 4:02pm

Good question. For an atheist, you've quite an interest in the Christianity forum, I must say!

Personally, I don't think God causes disasters and I believe He chooses not to intervene in these situations according to His wisdom.

I don't claim to understand God's reasons but I would speculate that allowing disasters to occur could (or must) result in the salvation of a greater number of souls. God wants everyone to be saved according to the bible.

Let assume that we lived in a world where there was no suffering and people had all their physical needs satisfied. In such a world, why would we bother turning to God? Would we not forget about Him while we lived lives of comfort?

Suffering and situations that get beyond our control often cause us to look to God for help. When we cannot help ourselves and others can't help us, we have to look elsewhere.

Not sure if that answers your question at all?

Zombrex · 15-03-2011 4:12pm

kelly1 wrote: »

Good question. For an atheist, you've quite an interest in the Christianity forum, I must say!

Know thy enemy :P

pts · 15-03-2011 4:18pm

A very interesting question I have also pondered from the A&A side of the fence.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't claim to understand God's reasons but I would speculate that allowing disasters to occur could (or must) result in the salvation of a greater number of souls. God wants everyone to be saved according to the bible.

Would it be fair to say that if this was Gods motivation then a lot of people end up being collateral damage?

Zombrex · 15-03-2011 4:19pm

pts wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that if this was Gods motivation then a lot of people end up being collateral damage?

Careful..:)

antiskeptic · 15-03-2011 4:23pm

Wicknight wrote: »

The response to the Japanese Earthquake raised a some what interesting question as to whether or not it is a particularly Christian notion to believe in an interventionist God, particularly if that intervention is in the form of something considered negative.

God's 'large scale' intervention in the OT seems centred on the task of raising up a 'holy' line through whom he would deliver a saviour to mankind. I'm sure there were plagues before that series of plagues sent convince Pharoah to let the Israelite go.

Those non-God directed plagues would be general, fall-related (or natural) disasters the likes of which I think are occurring today. In Japan for example.

Naturally, God is in control (by activity/inactivity) so all disasters can be said to be God-sent. But I would distinguish between the specific/purposeful and general/fall-consequential

pts · 15-03-2011 4:29pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Careful..:)

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to start arguments or lead this thread on a coarse the OP specifically asked us to try to avoid.

I am just curious if kelly1, or any other theist for that matter has pondered the consequences of an interventionist God who intervenes in order to maximize souls saved. I have no problem with a theist holding this view, it might not be what I believe, but I feel that this view is internally consistent (not internally consistent with an omnipotence God, but that discussion is probably not suitable for this thread)

Zombrex · 15-03-2011 4:32pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

God's 'large scale' intervention in the OT seems centred on the task of raising up a 'holy' line through whom he would deliver a saviour to mankind. I'm sure there were plagues before that series of plagues sent convince Pharoah to let the Israelite go.

Those non-God directed plagues would be general, fall-related (or natural) disasters the likes of which I think are occurring today. In Japan for example.

Naturally, God is in control (by activity/inactivity) so all disasters can be said to be God-sent. But I would distinguish between the specific/purposeful and general/fall-consequential

So do you think that post Jesus God would send an event like an earthquake, flood or plague, or is that period over with?

Boulevardier · 15-03-2011 4:33pm

This question is less of a problem for me because I am a Deist, that is, someone who believes in a supreme being but not in a busybody "Omnipotent" or "Omniscient" deity.

I can also say that another member of my family gave up mass-going not long after the 2004 tsunami, and I can see more of that happening.

I would consider the idea of mass suffering being imposed on humanity to ebsure that they "turn to God" quite appalling. I would certainly not give my allegiance to any such God.

antiskeptic · 15-03-2011 4:52pm

Wicknight wrote: »

So do you think that post Jesus God would send an event like an earthquake, flood or plague, or is that period over with?

I'd reckon it over with for now.

Zombrex · 15-03-2011 5:06pm

Boulevardier wrote: »

This question is less of a problem for me because I am a Deist
...
I would certainly not give my allegiance to any such God.

As you are not a Christian the question is not really for you. I'm aware that other religions have very different views of natural disasters. I'm only interested in this thread for the Christian view point. Non-Christians need not apply

Fanny Cradock · 15-03-2011 5:12pm

"Big" interventions are rather rare occurrences throughout the Bible - at least when considered against the time scale of Moses onwards. It is sometimes easy to forget the many generations that span the time of the wandering Hebrews to the time of Jesus.

Reading Luke 13:1-5 I think it is striking that Jesus offers no explanation as to why bad things happen (like towers collapsing on people). There is no attempt at justification. Rather, he focuses upon the need for salvation in the face of the very real possibility that each breath might be our last.

I personally don't know if God still does the "Big" interactions. But things changed after the resurrection and Pentecost, so possibly not.

Boulevardier · 15-03-2011 5:19pm

Sorry Wicknight, but I do not see why I should go away from this thread on your say-so.

We deists seem to be the only group that both Christians and atheists try to keep away! Figures.

pts · 15-03-2011 5:26pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Reading Luke 13:1-5 I think it is striking that Jesus offers no explanation as to why bad things happen (like towers collapsing on people). There is no attempt at justification. Rather, he focuses upon the need for salvation in the face of the very real possibility that each breath might be our last.

That was a very interesting passage I am not familiar with. Please stop me if I am misinterpreting the passage (I am not much of a Biblical scholar unlike many of the fine folk on this forum

) but isn't Jesus essentially saying that there is not necessarily causation between people sinning and natural disasters?

PDN · 15-03-2011 5:37pm

pts wrote: »

That was a very interesting passage I am not familiar with. Please stop me if I am misinterpreting the passage (I am not much of a Biblical scholar unlike many of the fine folk on this forum ) but isn't Jesus essentially saying that there is not necessarily causation between people sinning and natural disasters?

Yes, I think that is what He's saying.

In Old Testament times there was much more of a group solidarity thing going on. Nations as a whole tended to worship their own deities, and people were much less likely to go against the flow. Also, God's activity was primarily centered upon a nation (albeit with occasional outsiders drafted in such as Rahab or Ruth).

So, if the nation of Israel sinned, then the whole nation got judged. If another nation oppressed Israel then that nation came under judgment.

But, since Jesus, God's people have been scattered among unbelievers. I don't see that since Jesus there has ever been anything that could genuinely be described as a 'Christian nation' or even a 'Christian city'. I do certainly believe God can and will intervene - but not on a grand scale against an entire city or nation.

Fanny Cradock · 15-03-2011 5:48pm

pts wrote: »

That was a very interesting passage I am not familiar with. Please stop me if I am misinterpreting the passage (I am not much of a Biblical scholar unlike many of the fine folk on this forum ) but isn't Jesus essentially saying that there is not necessarily causation between people sinning and natural disasters?

Something Pat Robertson would do well to understand.

Fanny Cradock · 15-03-2011 5:50pm

Read the charter, conor_ire.

pts · 15-03-2011 5:59pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Something Pat Robertson would do well to understand.

Amen

I don't want to steer the thread too far from the original discussion but I just can't understand how someone like Pat Robertson can possible blame natural disasters on feminism, gays, pacts with the devil etc as
that passage seems to be very clear verbatim quote from the most authoritative figure in the Bible.

It always amazes me that american neo-conservatives can read the same source material (the Bible) and come up with such a different interpretation.

JimiTime · 15-03-2011 6:07pm

Wicknight wrote: »

The response to the Japanese Earthquake raised a some what interesting question as to whether or not it is a particularly Christian notion to believe in an interventionist God, particularly if that intervention is in the form of something considered negative.

I will say with 100% certainty that it IS Christian to believe God is interventionist.

I have heard it said from some Christian friends of mine that since Jesus God is not really interested in big Old Testament style interventions, either positive (parting of the seas) or negative (destruction of Sodom), that since Jesus the issue is really been far more on salvation to the after life.

My two cent. I don't know of anything that suggests that God no longer intervenes in such a manner. Thats not to say that this means that all the disasters etc is God intervening neither. Nor does it mean he's directly intervened in the last 2000 years. All I'm saying is that I know not of any biblical basis to believe that he can't, doesn't or won't.

A few details.

The Bible would suggest that prophecy would come before a direct judgement from God. Noah and the flood, Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah, Jonah and Ninevah (A judgement that didn't come to pass, as Ninevah actually paid heed and changed their ways) and the fall of Israel to Babylon. It would seem to me, that the next direct judgement, will be the final judgement, I.E Armageddon. This will be the final day of reckoning for the whole of the earth and also the judging of those who have passed. Just like other judgements, it has been preceeded with prophecy. Some directly from Jesus according to the Gospels, and some in Revelation through John. Revelation 11 may also be interpretted to mean that 2 prophets are yet to come before the great judgement, and when we see the power these prophets will alledgedly posess, we can write off all these phoney ten-a-penny 'prophets' we see pop up around the place who have nothing but words.

The likes of the Japan disaster etc, always seems to bring up what I like to call the 'hindsight prophets'. There is absolutely no reason to consider such things as judgements. This whole concept of after the incident prophecy, totally goes against what we see revealed in previous judgements.

Again, thats my present opinion on the topic.

kelly1 · 15-03-2011 6:14pm

pts wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that if this was Gods motivation then a lot of people end up being collateral damage?

I want to make it very clear that this is speculation on my part. I don't know why God allows natural disasters to occur. But I may speculate that it might result in the salvation of souls somehow.

I believe all suffering whether allowed by God or caused by God, is the result of sin. And I'm not saying that God causes suffering! But I do believe that God would not allow suffering if there were no sin.

We will never know the answers to these questions this side of death.

Zombrex · 15-03-2011 6:18pm

Boulevardier wrote: »

Sorry Wicknight, but I do not see why I should go away from this thread on your say-so.

We deists seem to be the only group that both Christians and atheists try to keep away! Figures.

I didn't say go away, I said any answer to the question from you is irrelevant as you are not a Christian, therefore you view is not going to educate me or anyone else to what the Christian position is. If I asked what was it like in Spain this time of year and someone said Canada is lovely I would have a similar response

kelly1 · 15-03-2011 6:18pm

Boulevardier wrote: »

I would consider the idea of mass suffering being imposed on humanity to ebsure that they "turn to God" quite appalling. I would certainly not give my allegiance to any such God.

Who said anything about suffering being imposed? If God exists and is omnipotent, then clearly He allows disasters to happen. I'm not saying that He causes them.

pts · 15-03-2011 6:27pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I want to make it very clear that this is speculation on my part. I don't know why God allows natural disasters to occur. But I may speculate that it might result in the salvation of souls somehow.

I understand that you are speculating and appreciate your input to this interesting question.

kelly1 wrote: »

I believe all suffering whether allowed by God or caused by God, is the result of sin. And I'm not saying that God causes suffering! But I do believe that God would not allow suffering if there were no sin.

When you say sin are you talking about original sin? Fanny Cradock pointed to an interesting passage, LUKE 13:1-5 where Jesus seems to imply that natural disasters are not necessarily the result of sin, or at least not proportional to the amount of sin committed.

kelly1 · 15-03-2011 6:33pm

pts wrote: »

When you say sin are you talking about original sin?

No, I mean actual sin e.g. abortion. If we all did God's will, I'm sure God would protect us from "natural evils". But we don't always do His will and there are negative consequences to our sinful actions. Probably personal, national and global consequences.

pts · 15-03-2011 6:50pm

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I mean actual sin e.g. abortion. If we all did God's will, I'm sure God would protect us from "natural evils". But we don't always do His will and there are negative consequences to our sinful actions. Probably personal, national and global consequences.

Fair enough, wouldn't natural disasters (tsunami, financial crisis etc) seem like a rather blunt way of punishing and also go against LUKE 13:1-5 though?

Fanny Cradock · 15-03-2011 6:52pm

pts wrote: »

When you say sin are you talking about original sin? Fanny Cradock pointed to an interesting passage, LUKE 13:1-5 where Jesus seems to imply that natural disasters are not necessarily the result of sin, or at least not proportional to the amount of sin committed.

There is at least one incidence in the NT (in Acts I think) that record God's judgement on two individual. The results weren't good for them. However, the distinction here is between the judgement placed upon an individual and the corporate judgement of a nation or whatever as asked in the OP.

By way of clarification, some people would suggest that death and suffering are the result of sin in a fallen world. (I happen to agree with this with the addition of a few provisos.) Which is distinctly different from the idea that some or all of the deadly earthquakes we experience is a result of God's judgement. Indeed, it seems to me that Christianity is at heart about a God who is in redeeming creation.

pts · 15-03-2011 7:28pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is at least one incidence in the NT (in Acts I think) that record God's judgement on two individual. The results weren't good for them. However, the distinction here is between the judgement placed upon an individual and the corporate judgement of a nation or whatever as asked in the OP.

I think the OP can be interpreted in a few ways, the way I see it large disasters can be caused (or allowed to happen)

as a corporate judgement, i.e. punishing a geographical or social group for the groups sins
as judgement on a person or smaller group, but where collateral damage occurs.
as the result of the fall, unrelated to sin.

To me it looks like all three opinions have been expressed in this thread. What I am curious about is how LUKE 13:1-5 (or any other relevant Biblical passage) helps to strengthen or weaken any of these arguments.

strobe · 15-03-2011 7:52pm

Wicknight wrote: »

(by interventionist I mean large scale stuff rather than God opening an individuals heart or minor miracles)

Would God differentiate between small and 'large' scale stuff. It's not like doing something large would be harder for Him than doing something 'small'. I can't see any reason why if He does 'small' stuff He wouldn't do 'large' stuff too. I could understand the argument that He does neither or does both, but not that He does one and not the other.

PDN · 15-03-2011 8:29pm

strobe wrote: »

Would God differentiate between small and 'large' scale stuff. It's not like doing something large would be harder for Him than doing something 'small'. I can't see any reason why if He does 'small' stuff He wouldn't do 'large' stuff too. I could understand the argument that He does neither or does both, but not that He does one and not the other.

The differentiation would be more precision/broad brushstroke stuff. The 'large' stuff Wicknight referred to (earthquakes etc) would inevitably mean innocent people being zapped as collateral damage.

For example, I would have no problem with God zapping Fred Phelps with a hear attack, but I would have a problem with the idea of Phelp's entire town getting zapped with a tornado.

Keylem · 17-03-2011 12:06pm

This might be of some interest. Akita, Japan.

Second Message on August 3, 1973

"My daughter, my novice, do you love the Lord? If you love the Lord listen to what I have to say to you."

"It is very important. You will convey it to your superior."

"Many men in this world afflict the Lord. I desire souls to console Him to soften the anger of the Heavenly Father. I wish, with my Son, for souls who will repair by their suffering and their poverty for the sinners and ingrates."

"In order that the world might know His anger, the Heavenly Father is preparing to inflict a great chastisement on all mankind. With my Son, I have intervened so many times to appease the wrath of the Father. I have prevented the coming of calamities by offering Him the sufferings of the Son on the Cross, His Precious Blood, and beloved souls who console Him and form a cohort of victim souls. Prayer, penance and courageous sacrifices can soften the Father's anger. I desire this also from your community, that it love poverty, that it sanctify itself and pray in reparation for the ingratitude and outrages of so many men. Recite the prayer of the Handmaids of the Eucharist with awareness of its meaning: put it into practice: offer (whatever God may send) in reparation for sins. Let each one endeavour, according to capacity and position, to offer herself entirely to the Lord."

"Even in a secular institute prayer is necessary. Already souls who wish to pray are on the way to being gathered. Without attaching too much attention to the form, be faithful and fervent in prayer to console the Master."

Third and the Last message on October 13, 1973:

". . . if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by my Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and the priests."
"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord."
"The demon will be especially implacable against the souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them."
". . . Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able still to save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved."

http://www.theworkofgod.org/Aparitns/Akita.htm

irishh_bob · 17-03-2011 12:26pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I want to make it very clear that this is speculation on my part. I don't know why God allows natural disasters to occur. But I may speculate that it might result in the salvation of souls somehow.

I believe all suffering whether allowed by God or caused by God, is the result of sin. And I'm not saying that God causes suffering! But I do believe that God would not allow suffering if there were no sin.

We will never know the answers to these questions this side of death.

i find the above post very offensive , are you american by any chance

the above post suggest that those in africa for example who are dieing of hunger ,are so because of sin they have commited , therefore one must assume that the richest country in the world , america , is also the most virteous

Interventionist God

Comments