Doc110 Loc: York PA

09/15/2017 Sharing the Passion of Christ

FR. Dwight Longenecker
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2017/09/sharing-passion-christ.html

A few years ago I realized that Our Lady of Sorrows is one of the reasons I’m a Catholic.

Of course, as a convert the image of Mary with seven swords piercing her heart was not immediately attractive or accessible.

But when I stopped to examine the devotion I came to understand that this was simply a working out of a couple of verses in the New Testament. The first was Simeon’s prophecy to Mary that “a sword will pierce your own heart also” (Lk. 2:35) the second is those mysterious words of St Paul, “Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” (Col. 1:24)

We believe, on the one hand, that Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient, once for all sacrifice for the sins of mankind, but we also believe with St Paul that something “is lacking”. What could be lacking if the sacrifice is sufficient and complete? What is lacking is the application of the suffering and the participation in the redemption of the world.

Think of it like this: The pantry is full of good food. Everything is there. However, what is lacking is the preparation, the cooking the setting of the table, the sending of invitations, the welcoming of guests. All is provided, but the application and delivery is still necessary.

This is where the Blessed Virgin’s example and St Paul’s participation shows the way. The Seven Sorrows of Mary are the way she participates in the redemption won for her by her son’s sacrifice. St Paul’s physical sufferings are the way he claims what has been done for him and applies that grace to the needs of the church. Our suffering is therefore the mechanism whereby we claim the full, sufficient and complete sacrifice of Christ.

This then, helps to answer the most thorny of questions: Why does God allow good people to suffer?
The answer is, he did not spare his own son, but sent him to suffer and die for the redemption of the world. As we suffer, like Mary and St Paul, we join our sufferings and sacrifices with the sacrifice and suffering of Jesus himself, and as we do this–even just a little–then we join in with the redemptive work of Christ in the world.

I say Our Lady of Sorrows is one of the reasons I’m a Catholic? Its because Our Lady of Sorrows offers an image of this most mysterious and moving concept. It is in those swords entering her own heart that she is one with the sufferings of her son and acts therefore as a Co-Redemptrix in the world, and inasmuch as we participate in this same way we join in that same action and become little co-redeemers. We are so only inasmuch as we identify with the mystery of the cross and the mystery of suffering in the world.

This then turns things on their head. Rather than the suffering of innocent people becoming the most difficult question for believers, it becomes the most amazing answer.

This is the only answer to those who are in the midst of suffering and the only answer for those who suffer watching their loved ones suffer, and this is also the reason why each one of us should take upon ourselves some sort of mortifications. If we don’t have suffering in our lives right now, we can make little sacrifices to join in with this great action.

St Therese of Lisieux said every little sacrifice was a way to join with Christ’s redemptive action. Just deciding not to be grumpy, to be kind to that difficult person, to check our fiery tongue, to fast a little and maybe give something up, to be more generous with our time or money and who we are.

All of this matters and all of it, therefore gains eternal merit.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

http://creation.mobi/why-death-suffering

Then there are biblical reasons for suffering.

God's word (Scripture) alone tells us exactly why God allows bad things to happen (pain, disease, suffering, death) to good people.

We have choices to accept God's word as the final authority, or accept cultic views far outside of sound scripture.

The following link explains The perfect will of God, and relationship with his creation.

http://creation.mobi/why-death-suffering

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Jack,

You really don't think about your responses very well especially in this OPP Article.

I Guess that it's the anti-Catholic plank is still in your eye, and you don't see and understand very well.

Haven't you read the Book Of Job . . . Probably the oldest book written in the bible on Suffering ?

Now God's servant Job, under the Old Testament is allowed to suffer by the hands of Satan, and remain's faithful to God, and is blessed ten fold in the end.

But how terrible was Job's suffering . . .

You also don't understand the parable of the two Samaritans on suffering.

The two Jews walk on buy the injured man on the road. But the two Samaritan men help and aid the man. Suffering and Good Works.


Remember Jack, the Old Testament is very straight forward.

If you were sick, disfigured, or injury befell you it was God"s retribution for your sin and this was your punishment.

That was the Old Testament understanding on Sin and Suffering.


Everything about suffering, is turned on it's Head in the New Testament.

With the birth of Jesus Christ, "Immanuel" "God is With Us," and the oral biblical traditions of the Catholic Church.

And the subsequent written bible, four hundred years later after the Death of Jesus Christ and the advent of the printing press.

The Gutenberg's invention of the printing press around 1440.

Before the invention of the printing press handwritten biblical manuscript reproduction, was a slow and incredibly time-consuming process, that one 1,272 pages took two scribes five years to copy.

Like any human, a scribe was also susceptible to error and because texts were copied this meant that an errors were copied again and again.

and the reason for the 400 year oral biblical traditions of the Catholic Church.

We find that Jesus Christ with His new Covenant, with man and women came to understand:

That Jesus came to heal the suffering, the afflicted, the lame and to give hope to the poor, removing demon's and came for healing the sinner and to save mankind through his just Salvation.


The New Testament Jesus Christ message is the reversal of the Old Testament an "eye for an eye" and "fire and brimstone"

The New Testament is about the Love that Jesus Christ brings to mankind, and it is the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross that sin no longer rules on earth.

We are to love one another as Jesus Christ has loved us.

The mysterious words of St Paul, “Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” (Col. 1:24)

What is lacking is the application of the suffering and the participation in the redemption of the world.

Our suffering is therefore the mechanism whereby we claim the full, sufficient and complete sacrifice of Christ.


This then, helps to answer the most thorny of questions: Why does God allow good people to suffer?

The answer is, he did not spare his own son, but sent him to suffer and die for the redemption of the world.

As we suffer, like Mary and St Paul, we join our sufferings and sacrifices with the sacrifice and suffering of Jesus himself, and as we do this –even just a little – then we join in with the redemptive work of Christ in the world.

This is the only answer to those who are in the midst of suffering and the only answer for those who suffer watching their loved ones suffer, and this is also the reason why each one of us should take upon ourselves some sort of mortifications.

If we don’t have suffering in our lives right now, we can make little sacrifices to join in with this great action.


St Therese of Lisieux said, every little sacrifice was a way to join with Christ’s redemptive action.

Just deciding not to be grumpy, to be kind to that difficult person, to check our fiery tongue, to fast a little and maybe give something up, to be more generous with our time or money and who we are.

All of this matters and all of it, therefore gains eternal merits, e.g. . . . "Good Works."


Jack You didn't even read the Article. And gave an inept comment and reply . . .

All I do know, is the evil malcontent in your heart, towards the Mother Of God, Mary . . . and against Catholic's.

You have no remorse, or Christian Catholic understanding, of the One True Church that Jesus Christ founded.


Jack what are you even trying to say about "Suffering" in this lame website and non-answer Url link.

You only gave a knee-jerk infantile answer as to the Catholic Crucifix Jesus Christ's suffering of the Cross.

And how we men and women do share "The Passion Of The Christ" on the Cross, and are reminded on a daily basis through "Good Works" are to help the Suffering of the world.

That Jack was the message of this OPP Article . . . Suffering and Christ's Hope . . .

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

You would be correct, that is, if you ignore a dozen or so other scriptures and since God didn't contradict himself then Scripture must be talking is something different and what your claiming directly contradicts scripture.

I don't believe that Matters to you

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Jack,

A Poorly formulated and a very typical Evangelical response, once again . . . Repeat, . . . Repeat, . . . Jack your Evangelically Boring. . . .

Jack you never respond in facts or Holy Scriptural facts. Now why is that ?

I call it Evangelical Evasiveness . . .


You only skirt around the facts, the issue's or topic, that Jack, is no formulation of thought on this subject. Suffering ? Sharing the Passion of Christ ?

All you do is defend with Sola Scriptura, and your knee-jerk single response Evangelical reactions. My God your so very one-sided Boring.


Compost my Ass, Jack.

"Scripture must be talking something different, and what your claiming directly contradicts scripture.


What a fallacious idiom, Straw-Man Red-Herring statement and a typical differed Rejection, of what Holy Scripture says about Jesus Christ and his Birth, Ministry, Crucifixion Death and the Resurrection of Gods words, Covenant and His human intentions.

I Don't know what Holy Bible your reading.

Jack, But you should really start reading a lot more, . . . and comprehending a lot more, . . . the Holy Bible, just a wee bit more . . .


Jack, could you just for once respond with a fact, just one fact, a complete answer on the OPP Post Christian Article.

And not with your Supposition's, Innuendo's, Exaggeration's of your own personal emotional belief's, Hypocritical truth's, empty Rhetoric devoid of real factual Substance and full of regurgitated dendrite compost anti-Catholic opinions.


Jack, And yet good people and bad people "Suffer" ? Don't they, . . . What would Jesus Christ , God Say about Suffering ?


Jack, Could you respond with some real facts, scriptural facts. . . . or at least try and formulate a Christian opinion on "Suffering" ?

All you did was to come up with this non-scriptural Evangelical Anti-Catholic answer.

Jack start thinking out-side the Evangelical, dumb box . . . Your evangelical lacking in biblical knowledge . . .


Then there are biblical reasons for suffering.

God's word (Scripture) alone tells us exactly why God allows bad things to happen (pain, disease, suffering, death) to good people.

We have choices to accept God's word as the final authority.

So Jack what are the biblical reasons for suffering ? Give the OPP Christian readers the Evangelical response for Suffering in detailed factual responses . . .

My God, Jack your boring, as a can of navy baked beans . . .



I Gave you several Scripture, on Suffering in both the Old and New Testament. And the formulation and scriptural perspective of Sharing the Passion of Christ.

Since the Holy Bible docent contradict It's-self.

Jack, Show me exactly where my Catholic Biblical teaching perspective is in error ? You can't Scripturally speaking. That is because It's sound Biblical Scriptural verses and Christian theology.

Just because you say these religious opinions and statements, does dot make your opinions and statements correct.



Here is a Catholic perspective on "Suffering." Distinguishing "Suffering" and the problem of "Evil".


Suffering and the Problem of Evil:

Suffering and evil are distinct and yet interrelated concepts in Catholic thinking.

Ultimately, the fall of humanity is the cause of all suffering.

Humans were created to exist in harmony with God, but instead they chose the path of disobedience, which brought suffering and death into the world.

Catholics believe that while humans have the free choice to disobey, they can never find true joy and peace except in harmony with and obedience to God.

As St. Augustine says so eloquently in his Confessions, "Our hearts find no rest until they rest in You.”

In the Catholic view, human action is not the only cause of suffering:

While God as the source of all goodness can never act in a manner that is evil, God may send suffering to open the hearts of those who have refused to hear God's call.

In their pride and complacency, humans think that they need neither God nor the grace God offers, but tragedy, sorrow, and suffering can lead to transformation.

Because this world is prelude and preparation for the afterlife, even a life filled with suffering is useful if it causes the person to turn to God and accept divine grace.

This, Catholics believe, is a central fact of existence:

That God uses everything, even suffering, to call people back to God.

The Catholic Church teaches that with their limited vision humans do not have the ability to see all the consequences of actions and events, and something they recognize as evil may also be the impetus for great good to occur:

God is able to bring good even out of the evil that humans commit.

When Catholics look at a troubled history that eventually led to a better situation, they recognize the hand of God drawing the whole process to a happy conclusion.

In fact, this is the lesson of the felix culpa, the happy fault:

Human sin brought suffering into the world, but it also paved the way for God's incarnation to occur.



The evil remains evil, but the good that God causes to flow from it is greater still. According to St. Augustine, even this perception of good coming from evil is the result of a limited view:

From the cosmic, eternal perspective of God, everything is ultimately good because God uses everything in the service of goodness.

Catholics distinguish between physical evil and moral evil.



Physical evil is simply a lack of perfection:

All of creation moves toward ultimate perfection in the coming kingdom of God, but nothing on earth yet achieves it.

Moral evil is the greater issue, one that is all-pervasive in this world. It is moral evil to which the Church's Catechism refers when it says, [b]"There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil" (309).[b]


Yet moral evil, too, is simply a lack of perfection-in this case, perfection of the human will.

Just as God has not created a world of physical perfection, saving that for the coming kingdom, so too God has not created a world of moral perfection in which people do not have the ability to sin.

St. Augustine explained that God is the source of everything that exists, and everything God created is good.

Evil is the absence of good, so therefore it must not have real existence.

It is instead a lack, the absence of good.

God created humanity, Lucifer, and the rebellious angels as beings of goodness, but also endowed them with the freedom to choose their paths.


They chose to turn away from the good, and in doing so their capacity for goodness was diminished. It is this lack, this diminishment, that is evil.


Augustine's formulation has proven to be the most influential understanding of evil in the western Christian tradition.


When they speak of evil, Catholics often make reference to Lucifer, or the devil, who is called the Father of Lies.

Lucifer's power lies solely in his ability to persuade humans to do his will, just as he persuaded the rebellious angels to follow him, and the result is just as disastrous.

Lucifer is mirage and subterfuge, creating the illusion that following him will lead to happiness and light when all that will result is chaos and evil.

He therefore causes evil, but only with the willing participation of humans utilizing their free will to choose diminishment of the good.

He may be called the Evil One, but Catholic belief does not grant him the power to execute the evil he envisions.

His power is very limited, his bid for predominance in heaven already thwarted, his final defeat already destined, just as the end of suffering and evil in the world to come is already destined. 

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Jack,

Here is the Evangelical references to Suffering and Evil.

Suffering and the Problem of Evil

Pentecostals are in a theological bind.

To be consistent about the nature of the God they believe in, God cannot be the source of evil, so when good people suffer alternative explanations are needed.

Pentecostals have a firm belief in the existence of evil and a clear theological picture of the source of evil.

Satan is a real entity in Pentecostalism, as are his legion of demons that spend all of their time in an active pursuit of trying to undermine all of God's work.

While Pentecostals are loath to blame everything on Satan, there is a difference of opinion among Pentecostals over the nature of suffering.

The questions surrounding theodicy (the role God plays or does not play in allowing evil in the world) are never easy to answer, and Pentecostal answers to this most vexing question of why God allows suffering, may strike some as too simplistic and unsatisfactory.

These answers often perpetuate stereotypes about Pentecostals:

That their penchant for hyper-spiritualizing and overly emotional responses have predisposed them to blaming demonic attacks for nearly everything that goes wrong in their lives.

This answer is certainly too simple, and it should be noted that belief in ongoing demonic activity does not necessarily mean that Pentecostals do not struggle with theodicy.

However, Pentecostalism also holds that humanity is involved in a cosmic battle, an active struggle between God and Satan.

Pentecostals do not believe that suffering and evil exist only in the mind.

Pentecostals accept the reality of suffering, but often differ as to the author of suffering.

Many hold that people suffer because God allows such things in order to build faith and character.

The biblical teachings about trials and tribulations validate their own suffering, which is temporary, a test.

Perseverance, Bible reading, prayer, fasting, and other spiritual practices are all a part of recovering from episodes of suffering.

That said, however, there is a sub-group of Pentecostals that does not accept the idea that God has anything to do with suffering at all;

This group has a different interpretation of key biblical passages that suggest that God allows suffering.

They point to the example of the thorn in Paul's side (2 Corinthians 12:7-10) stating that there is no biblical basis for assuming that God gave that thorn to Paul.

The prominent Word of Faith teacher, Charles Capps, believes that a demonic messenger was responsible for this thorn, and that Pentecostals who use this famous passage as a way of blaming God for suffering as a necessary part of one's life are "religious" people:

They have been deceived by "worldly" accounts of that passage, rather than just reading that passage by itself.


This alternative view of suffering among Pentecostals is especially pronounced among Word of Faith adherents.

E. W. Kenyon (1867-1948), an early influence on the movement, posited the idea that Jesus' redemptive suffering took place largely on a spiritual plane, not a physical one.

The result of such theological innovations is a doctrine called "Duel-Death," espoused by Kenyon and later by contemporary Word of Faith healer Kenneth Copeland.

The "Duel Death" doctrine holds that upon Jesus' death, Satan seized him and breathed into him his own spirit, so that Jesus experienced the same spiritual death that befalls all humanity.

Jesus was "born-again" in hell and then rose to heaven, thereby securing his exalted status as the resurrected Son of God.

The importance of this doctrine is that there can be no evil, no suffering, that emanates from God.

Such things are either the fault of people with no faith or demonic activity.

For the Word of Faith movement in particular-and Pentecostalism in general, although the "Duel Death" doctrine is not accepted by all Pentecostals-God must be viewed as the person who gives us everything we ask for and is responsible for the abundant goodness of our lives, and never the source of diminished goods or expectations.

The devil exists for Pentecostals, as do his legion of demons.

Demons can afflict Christians if they allow certain "doors to the demonic" to be opened. What usually opens the door for such demonic activity is moral laxity, the transgression of strict Pentecostalism standards for piety and sexual morality.

On nearly every deliverance ministry website, there is a section that informs visitors that certain behaviors are more apt to stir the demonic into action-such things as "sexual sin" (usually adultery and homosexuality), occult activity (fortune-telling, palm reading, tarot cards, Ouiji boards), and sometimes even body piercings.

Many deliverance ministries offer services for exorcism, while others offer such things as the anointing and consecrating of homes.

Pentecostals focus on exorcising demonic activity, no doubt because that is one of the biblical commands (Mark 16:17) that signals that a person has received the Holy Spirit.

This focus on the demonic is especially true in global Pentecostalism, where the reality of evil activity is accepted as part of everyday life. Entire denominations in Latin America and Africa, especially, have been built on their ability to "cast out demons."

This specialization can have its own set of problems.

The Universal Church of the Kingdom of God in Brazil, for instance, has reduced almost all of its congregational activity to the demons and spirits it will cast out during that particular day.

Because the Universal Church is a hierarchy, only its approved pastors can exorcise demons, and the methods that they employ have come under scrutiny.

Blending popular religion, folk Catholic practices, and Pentecostalism, the Universal Church makes use of objects such as rose petals, holy water, sanctified oil, bread, and tree branches, among other things to perform the exorcisms.

These practices, among other perceived heterodox ideas, have placed the Universal Church outside the circle of orthodox Pentecostalism.

The Universal Church as well as churches in Africa that allow blended worship using African rituals have been the most prominent groups that are illustrative of such hybridization.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Jack,

Here is the Evangelical Presbyterian and Reformed references to Suffering and Evil.


Suffering and the Problem of Evil

Like all monotheists (those who believe in one God), Reformed Christians confront a dilemma on the subject of evil and suffering.

Does God want to relieve suffering, but is unable?

In that case God is good but not all-powerful.

Is God able to relieve suffering but unwilling or too unconcerned?

Then God is all-powerful but not good.

Zwingli and Calvin agreed with most of the Christian tradition that the universe was created from nothing by God.

This is the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

This belief emphasizes God's complete sovereignty.

It also carries as a consequence the fact that anything wrong with the universe cannot be attributed to matter or the material of the universe, since this too was created by God and it was created good.

The entrance point for evil and suffering in the world, then, is sin.

Zwingli and Calvin agreed that sin is an act of human disobedience against God's command, and that this disobedience is entirely humans' responsibility.

For Calvin, since the time of the fall (Adam's original sin), one could not say that humans sin necessarily, by compulsion, because that would make God the author of sin.

But one could say that humans sin inevitably. We love it.


But on the question of human responsibility for sin and the role played by God, this claim of human responsibility simply pushes the problem back one square.

Could not God have created humans in such a way that they would not sin?

Again, Calvin was a thorough systematic theologian.

In the end he had to maintain that we are not privy to God's plans, and that it is inappropriate for us to question them or speculate about them. Our task is to trust that God knows what God is doing.

But before Calvin got to this point, he spelled out exactly all the things that God did for Adam that delayed the need to appeal to the mystery of God's plan.

Adam had uncorrupted reason, Adam had free will, Adam lived harmoniously in the presence of God.

The one and only positive quality not bestowed on Adam by God was the gift of perseverance.

But again, while these theological moves seem to delay assigning responsibility to God for sin, in the end many people think that Calvin cannot avoid this claim.

This is the root of the Arminian controversy, and was what eventually would separate Reformed Christians from Methodists.

In the end, while continuing to assert that sin was a human responsibility, Calvin's strong emphasis on God's sovereignty meant that the answer to the question of why God allowed sin to occur, or why God set up the universe in such a way that it could occur, is simply a mystery.


Here, again, we see the influence of the medieval nominalists and their arguments that we cannot reason or speculate our way to knowledge of God, and we cannot draw analogies from human experience and from nature to God.

All we know about God is what we learn in scripture.

Calvin did not ask the question, "Why is creation the way it is?"

He observed the fact of evil and suffering in the world, and the biblical account in Genesis of the fall. The elect are given the gift of faith, which brings, along with assurance that our sins are forgiven, the confidence that while we may not know why God does what God does, God surely does know.


Calvin could identify one positive outcome of the divine plan for history that includes the fall:

The elect enjoy the one benefit from God denied to Adam.

They are given the gift of perseverance.

For Calvin (as for Zwingli and Luther), once you are saved you cannot lose your salvation.

Humans do not have it in their power to damn themselves, just as they do not have it in their power to save themselves. Again, this will distinguish Reformed theologies from Catholic and Methodist theologies.

Calvin and Zwingli are willing to pay any theological price to protect the doctrine of God's absolute and fatherly sovereignty.

Study Questions:
1. How does belief in God’s complete sovereignty complicate questions of evil?
2. Describe the relationship between sin and evil.
3. Describe Calvin’s understanding of Adam’s personality before the fall. What did it lack? Why is this important to consider?
4. What does scripture reveal about sin and evil?
5. Can humans damn themselves? Explain.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Jack,

Here is the Protestant references to Suffering and Evil.

Suffering and the Problem of Evil

Like all monotheists (those who believe in one God), Protestants confront a dilemma on the subject of evil and suffering.

Does God want to relieve suffering, but is unable?

In that case God is good but not all-powerful.

Is God able to relieve suffering but unwilling or too unconcerned?

Then God is all-powerful but not good.

Protestants agree that the universe was created from nothing by God, and it was created good.

This is the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

God is omnipotent and, prior to the effects of evil, Creator of all that is.

There is no property of matter that in and of itself could account for evil—creation was good.

Therefore evil and suffering entered the world through something other than God's original acts of creation. God is not the creator of evil.

(For many modern Protestants this belief is not incompatible with evolution; God created the universe in such a way that creation unfolds through the mechanism of evolution.)


The entrance point for evil and moral suffering in the world, then, is the fall and work of Satan, and human rebellion against God (that is, sin).

Protestants do not always agree on why sin entered the world.

Those who believe that the story of the fall recounts a historical event agree that Adam was tempted by the devil.

But why did Adam, created without sin, succumb to temptation?

One set believes that Adam could have chosen not to sin. In order to create a genuinely free being with whom God could enter into a relationship,

God gave Adam free will. Adam made a bad choice.

This belief dovetails with a belief that salvation in part requires the individual's free choice to ask for forgiveness and for help in following God's law.

Other Protestants argue that this places too much control over the course of history into the hands of humans rather than God.

They argue that Adam sinned necessarily, though not by compulsion; this makes God at least indirectly the author of sin.

This second group splits on why creation was set up this way.

Some believe that God's mercy and glory are more fully demonstrated in a world in which sin enters, and is then forgiven and defeated. Others believe that scripture simply does not answer this question, that God's ways are not human, and that it is not the place of human beings to interrogate God on why sin entered the world.

Zwingli and Calvin belong here.

They agree that sin is an act of human disobedience against God's command, and that this disobedience is entirely humans' responsibility.

For Calvin, since the time of the fall (Adam's original sin), one cannot say that humans sin by compulsion, because that would indirectly make God the author of sin.

But one can say that humans sin inevitably.

When they sin, they are doing what they want to do.

But on the question of human responsibility for sin and the role played by God, this claim of human responsibility simply pushes the problem back to square one.

Could not God have created humans in such a way that they would not sin?

In the end Calvin, and many other Christians with him, says that humans are not privy to God's plans, and that it is inappropriate to question them or speculate about them.



While these theological moves seem to delay assigning responsibility to God for sin, in the end many people think that Calvin cannot avoid this claim.

This is a root of the Arminian controversy, and it is this dispute that, perhaps more than any other, separates Reformed Christians from Methodists and other Arminian (or Arminian-like) traditions.

In the end, while continuing to assert that sin is a human responsibility, Calvin's strong emphasis on God's omnipotence means that the answer to the question of why God allowed sin to occur, or why God set up the universe in such a way that it could occur, is simply a mystery.

Methodists have a foot in both camps here, wanting both to emphasize God's omnipotence with the Calvinists, and to maintain a degree of free will in choosing to accept God's grace.

Though sin in the world is the source of human-caused suffering—evidenced in war, violence, poverty, hatred, anger, etc.—some of the suffering is perceived to be a direct outcome of individual and social behavior and thus a natural consequence, and some of it is perceived to be divine punishment.

There is much diversity of belief around the meaning of suffering.


Most Protestants differentiate between suffering caused by sin and evil, as discussed above, and physical or natural suffering—evidenced in earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, etc.

While all suffering enters the created order because of the original break in relationship with God, not all suffering today has a moral source.

That is, the natural order of creation is also broken, and thus tragic events occur in the world that display that brokenness but are not directly caused by some moral breach.

Not all suffering is caused by sin.

God sometimes permits suffering, even though God could have prevented it, for purposes that are beyond human understanding.

The story of Job is a good example of this.

Whatever the cause of suffering, Protestants believe that God is greater than sorrow and pain and death, and therefore, Protestants have hope.

God can redeem every grief and pain, no matter the source, and use it for divine glory and human good.

God weaves good out of evil, and God's ultimate purposes will never be defeated.

Suffering is destined to end, and all tears to be wiped away by God's hand. God intends joy to be believers' present reality through faith and their future reality in fullness.

Study Questions:
1. How does monotheism complicate the problem of evil?
2. Do Protestants believe God created evil? Explain.
3. Why is it inappropriate to speculate about God's plans?
4. Why have various understandings of sin created controversy within the Protestant tradition?

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Jack,

Here is the Lutherism references to Suffering and Evil.

Suffering and the Problem of Evil

Like all monotheists (those who believe in one God), Lutherans confront a dilemma on the subject of evil and suffering.

Does God want to relieve suffering, but is unable?

In that case God is good but not all-powerful.

Is God able to relieve suffering but unwilling or too unconcerned?

Then God is all-powerful but not good.


Luther agreed with most of the Christian tradition that the universe was created from nothing by God.

This belief emphasizes God's complete omnipotence. It also carries as a consequence the fact that anything wrong with the universe cannot be attributed to matter or the material of the universe, since this too is created by God.


The entrance point for evil and suffering in the world is the work of Satan, which results in human sin.

But this simply pushes the problem back to square one.

Could not God have created humans in such a way that they would not sin?

One option for Christians has been to argue that God created humans with free will, so that there was a possibility that they would not sin.

The buck for sin then stops squarely on the desk of humans.

But Luther rejected this option.

For him, power is a zero sum game.

If humans had the power to decide to sin or not, then that is that much less power we attribute to God.

Similarly, humans do not have the free will to choose to accept or reject salvation (this is in contrast to John Wesley and Thomas Aquinas).

For Luther, the buck for sin and salvation ultimately stops with God.

Why would God set the universe up in such a way?

Some Christians have argued that God sets it up this way because God's power and glory are more clearly shown in allowing and then saving from sin then if sin had never entered the world.

(This is the tradition of O felix culpa! O happy sin!) Luther also rejected this argument.

The work of Satan is the cause of evil, and human sin is the most significant manifestation of this evil.

Sin and evil, the causes of suffering, were finally for Luther a mystery.

All the possible ways of explaining it or getting God off the hook for it (called in theology "theodicy," literally, "justifying God") are inappropriate speculation.

Luther inherited from the medieval nominalists the belief that God is completely hidden from us.

The only exception is what God has chosen to reveal in scripture.

Scripture is not intended to satisfy our curiosity;

It tells us only what we need to know to be saved.


One thing it tells us (and this, according to Luther, is absolutely necessary to be saved) is that God's ways are not ours.

We ought not wonder why God did not set things up differently, or try to make sense of the way things are set up.

We are born into the middle of the set-up, and our only hope is to cling to the promise of salvation from sin, evil, and suffering through Christ found in the Bible.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Jack,

Here is the Anglican/Episcopalian references to Suffering and Evil.

Suffering and the Problem of Evil

The existence, and indeed prevalence, of evil and suffering in the world raises the question of the source of evil.

A monistic answer posits a single ultimate source of both good and evil.

A dualistic answer posits a battle between distinct forces of good and evil. Christianity, and Anglicanism within it, has taught neither of these, affirming that there is one God who is both all-powerful and all-good.

Thus, the problem of evil has been acute for traditional Anglicans and other Christians, for the very existence of evil seems to indicate a God who is incomplete either in power or in goodness.

Would not any parent, the proverbial question asks, prevent the suffering of his or her beloved child if he or she could?

There has never been an official Anglican teaching on theodicy, a term of 18th-century origin referring to the defense of God's power and goodness given the presence of evil.

Traditionally, though, Anglicans have affirmed western theodical teachings, which hold that God created the world and all creatures, and created them good.

God did not create evil.

To some creatures, however, God gave the freedom to choose--to choose relationship with God or, on the other hand, to exalt self over God.

To choose self over God is to reject God and, because God is wholly good and the source of all goodness, to reject goodness.

Evil, therefore, is merely a corruption of the good, with no positive essence of its own.


This corruption, traditional Anglicanism continues, occurred when the first human beings (who had been made in God's image) rebelled against God, exalting their own desires over God's command.

They fell from their created perfection, and evil entered the world--which is to say the complete goodness of the world became corrupted.

The nature of things changed.

Humanity's nature changed from being in perfect communion with God (and therefore sharing in God's goodness) to being severed from God and naturally inclined toward evil.

All people sin.

Consequently, moral corruption will always taint, at times to the point of obliterating, human goodness toward one another.

This is why moral evil pervades humanity, why all human relationships suffer, in some cases with horrific cruelty.

The nature of the rest of creation also changed.

The consequence of human corruption was the corruption of nature itself.

Nature is no longer whole and good, but broken and marred.

Therefore disease, drought, flood, famine, lethal storms, and the rest of what are known as natural evils also entered the world through the rebellious exercise of human free choice.

Why, it is often asked, would God have permitted the fall, knowing (as an all-knowing God must) the incalculable suffering that would follow?

The traditional answer is that to create and to prevent the fall would not adequately have demonstrated God's love and glory.

On the other hand a rebellion and an undeserved redemption, with the ultimate consequences of rebellion borne by God in Jesus Christ instead of by the rebels themselves, demonstrate God's love and glory more fully.

For this reason Christ is said to have been "glorified" in the crucifixion.

There are a few specifically Anglican points that need to be addressed here.

a. First, in its early years Anglicanism was heavily influenced by Reformed thought, and a prominent theme was that God did not merely permit the fall, but rather decreed it as part of God's own plan fully to show God's glory and mercy.

The Reformed stream in Anglicanism continues today.

However, many Anglicans stress instead the freedom of human choice in the fall.

b. Secondly, although there is variety on this subject, most Anglicans reject the belief that a specific natural evil is the manifestation of God's wrath against a certain person or group of people on account of his, her, or their sin.

For instance, most Anglicans reject the portrayal of Hurricane Katrina as God's wrath against the people of New Orleans because of their sin.

That some suffer a natural evil from which others are spared cannot be explained according to human reason, as the biblical Book of Job attests.

c. Thirdly, as in other areas of belief, there is tremendous diversity in Anglican theodical thought, and no single perspective (whether or not traditional) can claim to represent Anglicanism generally.

Some theologians (not only Anglicans but Christians generally) are open to answers to the problem of evil that tend more toward monism or dualism than the traditional Christian answers.

Some see evil as a necessary part of the world for the sake of human spiritual growth.

Human nature, on this view, is not fallen from perfection, but rather ascending toward perfection, and evil within creation is not wholly negative but rather has a constructive purpose in the development of human beings into God's likeness.

Others attenuate or even set aside the idea of God's omnipotence.

In these perspectives, evil is explicable in that God does not control outcomes in the finite world.

Still others doubt the relevance of abstract defenses of God's power and goodness, emphasizing the practical instead, whether present or future.

Such thinkers may project their focus forward to the complete manifestation on earth of God's victory over evil on the cross, or look to the present and to God's solidarity with human sufferers as manifested on the cross of Christ.

In spite of this theological diversity, there is within Anglicanism a broad agreement on the need for the Church and its members to seek to alleviate human suffering.

Anglicans worldwide are involved in efforts to bring healthy living conditions, freedom, justice, and the Gospel to the impoverished and the oppressed.

Study Questions:
1. How do questions of evil challenge the Anglican understanding of God’s nature?
2. Explain the Anglican understanding of evil’s introduction into the world.
3. How was nature altered by human corruption? What did this pave the way for?
4. Why, according to Anglicans, did God not prevent the fall?

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Jack,

Here is the Baptist tradition, references to Suffering and Evil.

Suffering and the Problem of Evil

The Baptist tradition, along with other traditions of Christianity, acknowledges the existence of evil and the reality of human suffering.

At the same time, however, the Baptist tradition clearly affirms the goodness of the sovereign God.

Hence, Baptists wrestle, both intellectually and existentially, with belief in both a good and sovereign God and the reality of evil.

God is the Creator and all that God created was good (Genesis 1-2).

Evil and suffering were not part of God's original creation, and are not an inherent (or necessary) part of creation. They are, rather, a corruption of the creation.

This corruption -- that is, evil and suffering--entered the world not through the work of God but through the free choices made by beings God created.

An angel rose in rebellion against God, becoming Satan (or the devil) by opposing God's sovereignty.

The apostle John cites this opposition in his explanation of Jesus Christ's coming into the world, namely "to destroy the devil's work" (1 John 3:8).

Unfortunately, Satan is not the only one who exercised his free choice by rebelling against God's will.

Some of the angels followed Satan and his lead, becoming "fallen angels" or demons, agents of evil.

And, also under the influence of Satan, human beings fell into rebellion against God, and thereby became corrupted and agents of evil (as well as of goodness).

Because God is perfectly good, God could not let this violation of the created order go unaddressed.

So, God responded with holy judgment on both Satan and human beings.

Furthermore, reflecting the fact that the created order is an integrated whole, the effects, including suffering, of rebellion against God extended beyond these free-will agents to the entire created order (Genesis 3:14-19; Romans 8:19-23).


Thus, Baptists believe, on the basis of the Bible, that the entire created order has been corrupted by evil.

Human suffering is the most profound, though not the only, result of evil's entrance into the world. Evil, and the corresponding human suffering, is sometimes understood under two major headings:

Suffering as the result of natural evil and suffering as the result of moral evil.

The former refers to suffering that results from the corrupted (by evil) functioning of the natural world (which, technically speaking, because of its corruption is no longer purely "natural").

Examples of such evil and suffering are the pain and losses associated with cancer or Alzheimer's disease, or the death and destruction that result from a tornado.

Moral evil is suffering caused by the actions of moral creatures, namely human beings.

Examples of this include the suffering resulting from physical brutality or murder, or the chronic starvation and poverty that result from corrupt business or government policies.


(The line of distinction between natural and moral evil is not always easy to draw, and, in reality, some events are the result of a combination of the two.)

The Baptist tradition holds, however, that this is not the end of the story.

Baptists believe the biblical teaching that eventually God will triumph over sin, death, and the devil--in short, over all evil.

The same passages that speak of the entrance of evil into the world and of the current evil corruption of the created order also contain words of divine hope and promise that God will triumph over evil (Genesis 3:15b; Romans 8:20-21).

This confidence that God will eventually conquer and destroy evil is held in combination with the recognition of the existence of evil and suffering in the present.

Baptists recognize that the problem of evil is not only an intellectual and theological problem but that it is even more poignantly an existential problem for millions of people.

And, this recognition is part of the reason why Baptists seek to minister to people in both body and spirit, addressing both physical and spiritual suffering.

Study Questions:
1. According to Baptists, when and how did evil originate?
2. Who is Satan? What harm has he caused on earth?
3. How is evil categorized? Describe each category, and provide examples.
4. How will evil be overcome?

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Jack,

Here is the Methodist references to Suffering and Evil.

Suffering and the Problem of Evil

Like all monotheists (those who believe in one God), Methodists confront a dilemma on the subject of evil and suffering.

Does God want to relieve suffering, but is unable?

In that case God is good but not all-powerful.

Is God able to relieve suffering but unwilling or too unconcerned?

Then God is all-powerful but not good.

Though in the end the intellectual tensions may not be resolvable, there are a couple of well-worn paths from the Christian tradition through this thicket, one of which is taken by John Wesley and after him the Methodists.

One path is to argue that there is something inherently corruptible about matter that necessarily makes things go bad.

John Wesley does not take this path.

He believed that God, perfectly good and all-powerful, created the best of all possible universes.

There is no shortcoming in creation that makes suffering and evil necessary.

Rather, suffering enters the world because of evil, and evil enters the world because of an act of will, a choice.

The first creature to make a bad choice was Lucifer, one of God's angels.

In addition to information revealed in scripture, Wesley was deeply influenced by John Milton's Paradise Lost.

Because angels (as humans) are created in the image of God, they are created with free will.

Lucifer, the greatest angelic being, succumbed to pride (he did not want to spend eternity submitting to God), revolted, taking with him some of the angels.

Since that time there has been a cosmic struggle between good and bad angels, the latter group led by Lucifer, most often referred to as Satan.

The story is recapitulated in the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve (also created in the image of God with free will) disobeyed God (also out of pride).

Adam and Eve were caught in the cosmic angelic crossfire and were pawns in Satan's game.

Satan tempted the first humans into sin, but they nonetheless bear responsibility for freely choosing it.

Wesley adopted a traditional Christian distinction between types of suffering: natural, moral, and penal.

People suffer because of disease and natural disaster; people suffer because other people harm them;

And people suffer because they are punished for wrongdoing.

All are the result of freely chosen sin‚ personal and corporate.

When one surveys the natural world, with nature red in tooth and claw, and natural disasters, disease, and death, one might wonder if a good powerful God could not have designed a better universe.


Wesley argued that God did in fact design a better universe, and that nature as it is now, which can be a source of great pain, became the way it is as a result of sin.

Human sin dragged the entire created order down with it.

As for moral suffering, it is not hard to see that sin, the result of which is self-centered human nature, gives rise to humans who seek their own good above the good of others, and do not mind causing pain along the way.

As for penal suffering, it is also not hard to see that a just God would mete out punishment for sin (and as an encouragement to do better).

At this point, a Christian might ask, Why did God not create Lucifer and human beings with free will, but with the good sense (or will or humility) to make better choices?

Again, the tradition offers a couple of options.

One is to say that without the fall, Jesus would not have been necessary, and that God's power and glory and love are more greatly manifested through the fall and salvation than through creation without a fall.

Wesley agreed with this, as did John Calvin. But in the end there is an important difference between Wesley and Calvin on this matter.

Wesley stressed the human will's freedom to sin. And this will dovetail with the freedom of will we have later to accept justifying grace, and the freedom of will once justified not to sin again (sanctification).

Calvin, in contrast, while assigning responsibility for sin to humans through Adam and Eve, was also clear that God did not simply allow this to happen, but that it was part of God's eternal plan.

Calvin was unwilling to even appear to detract from divine omnipotence by placing any part of the story in human control.

And this supported his argument that we are not free to accept or reject justifying grace;

If it is offered by God we take it. It also supported his belief that humans, after justification, are not free to stop sinning entirely.

Study Questions:
1. Do Methodists believe that God created suffering? Explain.
2. How did Wesley distinguish suffering? Why does each category exist?
3. Contrast Wesley's understand of suffering to Calvin's.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Jack,

Here is the Christian, references to Suffering and Evil.

Christianity believes in a benevolent God who created the universe and all things in it.

The genesis of creation was God's overflowing love, and God's plan for creation is rooted in divine goodness.

God created humans in order to love them as a parent loves his or her children.

In a universe such as this, how do Christians understand suffering and evil?

Why would God, a benevolent creator who loves all creatures, especially God's human children, allow evil and suffering to exist?

Effects of natural disaster Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/icma/3635128865/

Christians have faith in a good and loving Creator who has a plan for creation that is also good and loving.

This tenet of faith has prompted Christians to seek explanations or justifications for suffering. Human suffering takes many forms: emotional, natural, and moral.

Loneliness, anxiety, and grief are examples of emotional suffering. Fires, tornados, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunami, and physical illnesses (e.g., cancer) are examples of natural suffering.

Moral suffering is brought on by the deliberate acts of fellow human beings to cause suffering, something Christians call a moral evil.

Irenaeus Source:

Public DomainToward the end of the 2nd century, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and a Church Father, formulated an theodicy, an argument intended to show that evil is necessary for human moral and spiritual development and is part of God's purpose.

God created humans in a morally and spiritually imperfect state so that they can strive in response to suffering, in order to grow into full fellowship with God.

This argument continues to influence Christian thought and belief.


Another early argument with strong contemporary resonance was advanced by the influential theologian Augustine, born in 354, who became the Bishop of Hippo in north Africa.

Augustine proposed that, since God endowed people with free will, we were able to freely choose to do evil as well as good.

Simply stated, there is evil in the world because humans choose to do evil things.

"Free" will is not free if we can only choose the good, so God does not prevent us from choosing evil.

Suffering is the price we pay for this freedom to choose.


G. W. Leibniz Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/449898343/

A third explanation of evil was advanced by the 18th-century philosopher G.W. Leibniz who believed that despite our suffering, and the tragic and catastrophic events in our lives, we are living in the best of all possible worlds.

God is in control, Leibniz believed.

When something terrible happens, it is not because God is not involved.

God allowed it in order to prevent an even more terrible event from occurring.

God is able to anticipate and prevent consequences that we cannot see.

Since God is good and loving, we can trust that God creates and sustains the best possible world.


There are other Christian responses to evil that do not claim that evil is part of God's divine plan.

Some Christians believe that God disciplines us just as a human father might discipline his children.

Our suffering, therefore, is God's punishment, and is a sign to us that we should repent.

Others believe that God uses suffering to test our faith in divine providence and that suffering is an opportunity to make faith stronger and more constant.

Another belief is that our suffering in our earthly life is only temporary and will add radiance and joy to our eternal life.

Others might say that evil is nothing but the absence of good, a strong reminder to us that we should work harder to bring good into this world.

Still others might argue that God's connection with the created order is so profound that God has bound divine providence and omnipotence to the human experience.

God's activity in the affairs of creation, then, is powerful, but not directive or controlling.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdrummbks/3756574568/

More contemporary approaches to evil include the argument that evil is not a problem for Christian faith.

In the Old Testament, the Psalms regard creation as a revelation of God's goodness.

Evil, also a part of God's creation, must reveal that inherent goodness as well, if we know how to look. Recently some Christians have stopped viewing evil as an existential problem, and begun viewing it as a practical problem.

Some, like Alyosha Karamazov, the character in Dostoevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov, believe that the evil in our midst requires that we act to end it.

Explanations or justifications of evil's existence are only secondary to this call to action, or are not at all meaningful.

Psalms 13:1-3
How long will you forget me, O Lord? Forever?
How long will you hide your face from me?
How long must I take counsel in my soul,
having sorrow in my heart daily?
How long will my enemy be exalted over me?
Consider and hear me, O Lord my God!

In all cases, Christians have been heard to cry out with the Psalmist, "How long, O Lord?" One response, uniquely Christian, is the belief that God suffers too.

Through Christ's suffering and pain on the cross of crucifixion, God submitted to the same evil that torments so many.

This response does not explain or justify evil, but it helps Christians to bear it.

They trust that, even in their pain, God is with them. In the meantime, Christians hold onto the hope that ultimately God and God's good purposes will prevail, permanently defeating Satan and evil.

Study Questions:
1. Why do Christians struggle with the problem of suffering?
2. How is suffering manifested?
3. How does suffering become a vehicle to a closer relationship with God?
4. What are the contemporary approaches to the problem of evil?

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Jack,

Here is the Baptist tradition, references to Suffering and Evil. Suffering and the Problem of Evil

Eastern Orthodox Christians express the same range of beliefs about suffering and the problem of evil as the majority of other Christian traditions.

The Eastern Orthodox tradition interprets the story of Adam and Eve in the characteristic Christian manner, as a story in which God's cherished creatures, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God's one command, thereby imposing their own will in place of God's.

As a punishment, God expelled Adam and Eve from paradise, sending them into the world where they and their descendants would suffer pain, disease, and death.

While some Christian traditions interpret this story literally, Eastern Orthodoxy interprets it symbolically, meaning that while it did not literally happen, it is full of religious truth.

It describes the human condition, especially the presence of a barrier between God and humanity.


Eastern Orthodox belief shares the western idea of original sin.

In the Orthodox view, all of creation, living and dead, visible and invisible, is holistically connected.

What affects one creature affects all creatures.

Therefore, the suffering and mortality imposed on Adam and Eve as punishment for their sin is shared by all of creation.


However, the Orthodox tradition does not share the Augustinian idea of original guilt.

While all of creation suffers the consequences of the first humans' sin, no other creature is guilty of that sin.

All share, however, in the legacy of the fall from paradise.

We all suffer disease and death, and we are all compelled by our own wills and desires, rather than God's.

But we don't inherit Adam's guilt.

So, for example, the Orthodox tradition does not teach that unbaptized infants will be sent to eternal fire and damnation.


Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that nothing is greater than God, including evil.

Evil results from the free will of God's creation, and the evil one, Satan, was once good.

His name was Lucifer, or light-bearer, and the Orthodox tradition likens him to the morning star.

But he also opposed his own will to God's will, and found himself in darkness.

Orthodoxy teaches that Satan is not as powerful as God. But Satan's particular talent is falsehood, so he is able to convince people that he is as powerful as God.

Eastern Orthodoxy is very optimistic in its outlook, teaching that the triumph of good over evil on the Last Day is a certainty.


Eastern Orthodox Christians wonder why God would allow evil to exist in the first place, and conclude that this is a mystery.

Their interpretation of the scriptures supports this conclusion.

Still, Orthodoxy rejects quietism, believing that true love expresses itself in action. In the face of great suffering or evil, the Christian is called to help.

Like Alyosha Karamazov in Dostoyevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov, we do not wait for an explanation of great evil or a justification of God's plan.

We are called to keep the commandments to love God and our neighbor.

Evil is a practical problem for the Christian, who finds ways to alleviate suffering and reinforce God's love and goodness in the world.

Study Questions:
1. What is original sin? How does the Orthodox differentiation between original sin and original guilt differ from other Christian traditions?
2. Who is Lucifer? How does he relate to the problem of evil?
3. How and when can evil be overcome?

Doc110 Loc: York PA

So Jack, I did your homework on all the major Protestant faiths, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox ?

Which one do you closely identify with on suffering and evil?

a. Methodists and Wesley's understanding ?
b. Lutherans and Luther's understanding ?
c. Evangelical Pentecostalism, E. W. Kenyon, Kenneth Copeland, and Charles Capps understanding ?
e. Evangelical Presbyterian and Reformed Zwingli and Calvin understanding ?
f. Anglican/Episcopalian understanding ?
g. Baptist traditional understanding ?
h. Protestant Heading and understanding ?
I. Eastern Orthodox Christians understanding ?

Present facts Jack, and not your one-sided limited Evangelical Bible only understanding in suffering and evil ?