Who destroyed Job's stuff?

If you feel God's peace, then praise God!
My concern is that people take this experience and then project it onto others, so when they suffer, they effectively tell them the same things: "It doesn't matter what you're going through". If one thinks that with their own circumstances, then that is good for them, but to hit others with that, then we become cold, and when the others don't get over it like we have,, then we become judgmental ("Oh, you do not have God's peace. It's because of your attitude. You are denying the power", etc.) And this "hard teaching" sells to all those constatly listening and reading the teachers who have become famous partly on it. And when you listen to these people further, it becomes totally confusing, because then they say you can't feel the "peace"; it is just by "faith", (using the "passes understanding" verse) or that it develops later and stuff like that. So basically, what you're left with is positive thinking or even the WOF concept of "positive confession": "It doesn't feel good, but by faith I know that this is good, and I have peace". Once again, many cannot do this, so there is judgment, and the teachers even speak of "all those Christians out there who just don't get it" or somethign to that effect.

And most such verses like this are speaking of salvation, not "nothing that ever happens to you now ever matters". Basically, that could correspond to what Mary said regarding "knowing that God loves me". But often it is used to try to disregard others' pain, and sometimes we get steeped anough in it and start to even disregard our own pain, even though it is still there, and we admit struggling with it. That's why this "peace" must be kept in its proper context of salvation. Otherwise, it becomes misleading promise of good feelings, which the teachers then turn around and deny. (As much as people here seem to criticize Joyce Meyers, she is a prominent promoter of these principles and platitudes). Meanwhile, while telling others physical circumstances don't matter, they are using all that money they gain to make sure theirs are as good as they can get.

So don't say "it doesn't matter" that you lost your husband, and the house is leaky. It doesn't affect you eternal relationship with God, but these things do matter for the time being, because we are still physical beings.

As for "God's promises", here is another excerpt of the page:

Phil 4:19 "God shall supply all your needs" and Heb.13:5,6 "Be content with such things as you have: for He has said 'I will never leave you nor forsake you'[from Gen.28:15] so we can boldly say 'the Lord is my helper; I will not fear what man shall do to me'[from Ps.27:1]" is taken basically to mean that whatever you have at any given time is all you 'really' need; so if you are being theatened or abused by someone, for instance, it shouldn't trouble you, because at least they cannot take your soul; and when in danger, don't fear because even if you lose your job, your possessions, etc., that's OK because that would be all you "need" because Christ is "with you". Tim LaHaye (Why You Act The Way You Do, p.362) cites an instance where a person is planning a vacation with him, but then finds he has lost his job. He "trusts God" and goes on the trip anyway. Sure enough, when he gets home, another employer has called him for a job. So "God provided for his needs". Fine. But if this hadn't happened, and he had to foreclose the house, or whatever, then that would have been "God's will" for Him, and he better not have dared "sin" by grumbling about it! He still has other things to "thank" God for, so that is apparently what his true "needs" were! Hence, the definition of "needs" becomes scaled down. So someone else reads this and they expect that to happen for them, but they are not as fortunate, and they will be disillusioned, and of course only get a pat answer about "needs" from these teachers. Our perception of "needs" (along with "love", "fairness", etc) is then even said to be skewed. But they shouldn't have set people's hopes up that high using the word "needs" (out of its biblical context) in the first place!
We are then told "If you have not accepted His full leading for your life, you will complain because you doubt things will turn out all right". (p.123-4) But just what is "all right"? Do Christians never lose everything and wind up on the street? Do they never lose limbs and other body functions? Have any never died without having "those things" added to them? It is very confusing, because on one hand, the way the verses are initially quoted, it looks like God is promising nothing really bad will ever happen, but when it does; then we must revise the definitions of "need" and "all right", with "food" or even "air" as the last resort to prove that every Christian's "needs" have always been "provided for" no matter what happened! (And then we are at that point reminded again of all the scriptures saying life would be suffering). But then do Christians never starve to death? What is "all right" about that? That their soul will be in Heaven, of course, which is the absolute final resort! Let's look at this from the other angle and compare life the way it is with this hypothetical situation that God ALWAYS prevents, or never allows: what would it mean for God to not be with us, or not supply our every need, or for Him to "leave" or "forsake" us, then? Since every physical and emotional calamity imaginable has in fact happened to Christians; the only thing we are absolutely spared from is ending up [eternally] lost! That is what these scriptures are ultimately pointing to! While this should give us hope and something to be thankful for, as well as "peace" from any worries about eternity; still, our emotions are based on current situations, and the teachers make it sound like those situations in themselves will be or turn into some later situation (in this life) that is "all right". But that is never promised for this life.

 

As for this issue, I think the fundamental question should be defined first.

Was the Satan really the Satan whom we know the enemy of God? or Was he an Accusing Angel or the Adversary?

Most of the believers have classified Ha-Satan(the Satan) as Satan, Satan (without article Ha-the) as the Accuser or the Adversary.

In such principle, the general understanding which defines the Satan as the Satan, the enemy of God is correct.

However, is there no exception to that ? or who said such principle? That is the question.

If we understand the Satan in JOb as the Accusing Angel who is in charge of accusing the sinners like a Prosecutor, then it is much easier for us to understand the whole progress.

I have no fixed idea about this and just leave this to the Lord.
For your information, please note the Satan was used in the following verses.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1148738580-1727.html

 

Job 2:3 simply means

That Satan was trying to influence God, not that he actually did. God asked Satan why he was trying to move him.

Its not that complex I see no contradiction.

Job 1-4 clears up whats going on hear. Remember context people, context.

 

Mary - I enjoy reading your posts and I find that your witness and testimony here is a true praise to God.

Keep up the good work -

In Christ,

Bob

 

In Job - "Satan is Satan" -- and that is "for real".

IN Rev 12 we see him as the "accuser of the brethren" and that is "for real".

In Job 1 and 2 he "directly contradicts God" he directly challenges God's claim charging that God is "manipulating" or "bribing" Job.

Satan TRIES to then "spin" the discussion to look like God is not only manipulating Job but ALSO God is the one to torment Job.

But in each case God "clears the air" showing that IT IS SATAN that is taking action against Job - all God is doing is removing the barrier that prevented Satan's torments from coming sooner!

in Christ,

Bob

 

Eric, thanks for your kind words. Mary, it's great that you're able to trust God in great adversity and perhaps you could pray for me that my faith would be rekindled and revitalised because it feels pretty dry right now. Thanks!

 

God initiated the dialogue with Satan!
For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth and scourgeth every son whom He receiveth. Heb 12:6
God creates circumstances whereby we are tested, tried and grown in the necessary manner to achieve progressive sanctification.
Job early on in his trial actually questioned God's motives but when God asked him, 'who are you to question me' he then snapped back into place and realized fully that he was questioning the almighty God and then humbly bit the dust! Then he said, ' I know that thou canst do every thing and that no thought can be witholden from thee. Job 42:2
v.5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear,but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes.
v10 And the Lord turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends; also the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before.
God is sovereign, in control of all things, including what and how He allows Satan to do to ensure His purposes are brought to completion!

 

Heb.12 "run with patience the race set before us", and "chastening of the Lord", doesn't even say it is speaking of physical tribulation. The previous chapter is the "faith hall of fame" which mentioned some saints who suffered as inspiration; along with Jesus Himself right in v.2 and 3; but the immediate context of this passage seems to be personal sin. (in fact, v.4 says their struggle hasn't even come to "shedding of blood" yet!) The "chastisement" is to be "rebuked", meaning conviction (see Greek). Even "scourge" allows a figurative meaning, so this is spiritual, not physical or emotional torment! This is illustrated in 2 Cor.7:7-12, where several virtues of the sort often said to come from physical "trials" are wrought by the "godly sorrow" brought about from Paul's first epistle! (Beginning with "repentance", and ending even with showing themselves "approved". "Fear" would be "of God" (reverence); "indignation" would probably mean "indignation against sin", and "revenge" means "punishment", referring to church discipline). Some even quote Psalms 119:67, 71, 75 "Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept your word. It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn your statutes. I know, O LORD, that your judgments are right, and that you in faithfulness have afflicted me." assuming this was referring to David's physical troubles. But "afflicted/ion" in the Hebrew means mostly "depression", and not necessarily depression from bad circumstances (which is criticized here anyway), but "looking down or browbeating; abase self; chasten self, humble self, deal hardly with" and even "gentleness" is in there! This speaks of the strong conviction David had from God for his sins, more than the physical consequences of them! Then, there is John 15: "I am the true vine, [you are the branches] and my Father is the farmer. Every branch in me that bears not fruit he takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, he purges ("prunes") it, that it may bring forth more fruit". The key word there, "kathairo", means "to cleanse", or to "prune"; fig. to "expiate" (it's where the word "catharsis" comes from). This is interpreted with an analogy that "pruning is a painful process where the pruning hook cuts off dead branches and anything else 'unfruitful' so more fruit can grow; so this is God using unpleasant circumstances to make us grow". But the passage says nothing about "unpleasant circumstances". That was ASSUMED based on the interpretations of the other scriptures. (Scripture does interpret scripture; but you have to make sure various scriptures are referring to the same thing before you paste them together into a systematic doctrine). Once again, conviction is what God prunes or cleanses us with, (and it can be painful in a way), but there is nothing in this to suggest God manipulating circumstances in the material world just to get at us.

 

This new WYSIWYG system is nice, but still needs some bugs worked out. It seems edit and Quick Reply only work sometimes.

Anyway, the context of the statement above is that "Chastening and scourging" (along with "trials and tests") is another misunderstood concept leveled at sufferers today. Once again, While God did "allow Satan" to inflict the pain, this was a lesson for us; not an illustration of the cause of every Christian's pain today.

Also, again, this is from: http://members.aol.com/etb700/abundant.html

 

God's plan, God's hand

When we ever reach the place where we can accept all that occurs or comes our way as God's plan we are growing in Him!
'I have learned in whatsoever state I"m in to be content"
Why? Because we know a loving God does all for the good of His purpose and that all things work together for good to them that love God!

 

Perhaps the most frequently cited, 8:28 "All things work together for good to them who love God and are called according to His purpose", is discussing the "no condemnation" in Christ (v.1) which figures in our "adoption" (v.15) and "predestination" (v.29). It is not saying all our suffering is good because "God uses it for some hidden plan"--as if the suffering is what in itself gets us the inheritance being discussed throughout the book. Many other scriptures used also have a similar, particular context. Much of the Christian persecution referred in these verses was not just from the pagans, but also from the Jews, (see for example 2 Cor.10:24-26) whose Old Covenant system of law and condemnation, was passing. They either tried to bring Christians back under the Law; or opposed the cause of Christ altogether, and even got the Christians in trouble with the Romans by excluding them from the immunity to emperor worship the Jews were granted. It all hinged on the "Salvation" from the curse of the Law. In the overall context of Colossians, we see that freedom from "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" (2:14) is the cause of the "peace" in 3:15, as well as Romans 5:1.

1 Pet.5:7, where "give it to God" is derived from, also has in its context the persecution of the day, as do the nearby verses in Philippians, v.11: "I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content" ("content" here is more like "contented", or "self-satisfied", than the common meaning of "content"). It too is not telling us that our problems don't matter.

While I do believe that God does intervene in some things, still, we don't always know which things, and shouldn't try to speculate on given instances, and only then claim "we can't understand it". Some things are just good fortune and lack thereof. Fortune, or "luck"; I would define as "an unknown principle of a disposition of a situation to a particular outcome especially to benefit or to adversity that is out of control of the person involved"; rather than any magical or mystical meaning commonly associated with the words. The emphasis is on "unknown" and "out of control of the person". Whatever exactly, or directly causes things, even if it is God; no one can deny that much of the circumstances of life fit this description, from our perspective. (Once again, we cannot comprehend God's perspective). So why speculate? Whether it is God, or just a combination of natural forces (that God "controls" in a more passive way), we do not know. God may use it for some good, but this should not be our primary word of "comfort" to the one suffering from it!

People believe that everything that happens was deliberately planned by God. But this then gets into "the absolute predestination of all things", which not even all Calvinists claim to believe in, labeling it "hyper-Calvinism". (Puritans and others in the past used concepts like this to justify all sorts of evil, or at least harsh measures that may have been allowed in the OT, but were contrary to the New testament Gospel, labeling it under the banner of "Divine Providence". So it was "God" who gave the heathen land into our hands, or delivered that witch or "heretic" for us to burn at the stake!) This ignores that God has what is called "a permissive will", and what the passage is addressing, is, as was mentioned above, circumstances that are beyond our control.