God’s Glorious Gospel

Last week, Jeff Weddle posted a blog article that included a question posed by Larry King.


If God is omnipotent why do tragedies like earthquakes and hurricanes happen?


The clear problem with Larry King’s question is it’s based on a totally false assumption.

He assumes that the primary concern of an omnipotent God would be to have a world totally free from any kind of catastrophe (either natural or manmade).
Clearly, IF an omnipotent God wanted a catastrophe-free world, there would be nothing stopping Him from maintaining such a world.
However, a REAL omnipotent God (as compared to the God of Larry King’s wish list) might just have a much larger agenda of more eternal consequence, and this short term planet may have a greater purpose than being a comfortable, trouble free home where we can live out our three score years and ten.

Four years ago I wrote the following article where I looked at God’s plan for mankind and the rest of His creation.

Onesimus Files

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
He said to…

View original post 939 more words

3 thoughts on “God’s Glorious Gospel

  1. There are nonreligious people who understand larger thoughts. I note when movies, for example, show a heroic action or an elevated sense of doing something hopeful instead of being all about what one expects for himself. The choice of the character isn’t going to fix the whole world, at least right now.

    Your article, partially just above and then at the link from four years ago, is quite good.
    Even if not fully … sufficient to translate that partial glimpse …of that which is greater than any movie.

  2. I finally went and read Jeff’s entire post. It’s good. And I agree with this comment you added, Onesimus:

    I acknowledge the weakness of this analogy, but this earth and this life are a kind of boot camp.

    In the military and police forces potential recruits can be subjected to great discomfort in their initial weeks of training. Many drop out and don’t graduate. They realise they aren’t committed enough and not willing to pay the price required to fit into the service they wanted to join.

    God has a new heavens and earth planned for the future where only righteousness will be allowed to live. The purpose for the current earth and our present life is to find residents who are willing to be made fit for that new creation so that it won’t and can’t end up corrupted like this one did.

    That new creation WILL be free of the catastrophes that plague this one.

    I like this, from Jeff, too.

    Interestingly, the parable earlier showed why the guy had a bumper crop: “The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully.”

    I recommend reading his full post (as you have recommended with his topics).

  3. https://antiitchmeditation.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/trivia-crack-and-the-ten-commandments/
    I also enjoyed reading the above topic. I wouldn’t say I agree with all of his reasoning on it.
    But I do agree with a number of the forwarded principles and the general conclusion.

    What matters is new life in the Messiah. The center of all of what God has done
    has always been love. No matter how many concepts looking like laws are
    mentioned in any part of the BIble, listing of rules is not regeneration.

    Here’s something I wrote in September (2017). I might comment further.

    In light of “the day that Moses descended from Mount Sinai with the second set of Tablets of the Ten Commandments…”

    > I will give some examples of why I registered a serious caution ( in a different thread [at a different blog site, altogether, I should be clear here] ) with regard to a common, seemingly expedient, shortcut of “keeping the Ten Commandments” (as if this is a simple matter good for all). Certainly, we should all subscribe to not having other gods and not engaging in idolatry. Amen.

    I will not attempt to be exhaustive, but let’s have a look. As for keeping the Sabbath, one can not make something up (like Saturday is for me; or make sure to attend a church service on Sunday; finit). As for stealing, we need to be very careful how we define this and how we make associated accusations, as well as how we see fit to punish; we risk bearing false witness of the God of the Bible (and potentially against individuals too) by misrepresenting what people of faith should say and promote (standing in instead of proper judgment). “Leave the corners of … fields and the gleanings of … harvests and vineyards for the poor and the stranger” [in Leviticus] is a significant element for understanding. Or shall we call “the poor” and “the stranger” — rather than blessed — takers or freeloaders or even beneficiaries of systematic theft? Now, it’s not enough, in a culture that is not Israel and not largely agrarian, for one person or a person here or there to leave the corners (or edges). The concern is for what happens to people.

    A third example [of why I said I don’t recommend trying to keep the Ten without reading the full text and context of the law, and more — such as the prophets and so on] is the pressure to marry and stay married or risk (or, forget risk, just be defined as) being an adulterer or perpetually lost fornicator in limbo. There are many complicated permutations of how scenarios play out in this area. And the rest of the law, our own observations, and principles shared by prophets have much more to say.

    The man who left Fantine in Les Miserable for his supposed higher duty to class (or whatever else one like him would come up with or make up as more important to him) is a louse {Ezekiel: they were “well off but didn’t care about the needy”* — which also applies to Fantine’s employer who took advantage of her}. But Christians tend to have a more naive and judgmental (but sometimes exploitative) application of their mores as stuffed under the Commandments of tablet mythology [that is, some mean to be strict; some just talk that way until they flabbergast you with their nerve and lack of concern when it comes to your well-being or conscience]. A possible application of being “wise as serpents” is to be aware of stories (and the pertinent laws, as well as other specific laws that would apply as instructive in other scenarios even if not binding on gentiles as the “Ten” are also not binding but indicative) such as Judah, who made a cluster of mistakes but took responsibility and didn’t then impose a demand of self gratification (with Tamar).

    And note that the verdict or determination in the book of Acts (from a council) does not include obeying** parents; parents open to corruption or seen to be inconsistent or hypocritical (a clue not to be minimized and ignored) cannot be trusted.

    ** My use of this word is not a decision as to whether the original is better translated and treated as “obey” or “honor” (as Thou shalt not kill is probably better … not murder.)
    * This is a very minimal, and not fully fleshed out, context wherein such a declaration is called for; yet, more is meant. An entire society, Sodom, was destroyed for not caring about the needy.

    {I don’t condone Tamar’s actions; but it was a different time… or place.. or developmental space. Judah’s actions were unapproved (even where we would be aghast at what he was supposed to, by law, have happening), and I hope his other activity (that which is not the center of the narrative) is shocking.}

    [ I did slightly edit what I wrote in September before posting (what you can read above). I’ve also since decided to include a couple of links with interesting perspectives. Plus,

    Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18.

    Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important command. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands.
    ~ Matthew 22:37-40 (HCSB) ]


    I don’t agree with the seeming conclusion, which is basically contrary to Jeff Weddle’s reaction to the Trivia Crack question, but I still enjoyed reading this.
    [Side note always worth making: Eusebius is mentioned as a historian; he’s far from reliable, I would not call him a historian. But his mention isn’t important to the topic.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s