Doug Wilson nimmt Stellung zu einer Kontroverse zwischen John Piper (welcher Tweets entfernt hat) und Rachel Held Evans (die sich entschuldigt hat) und der Souveränität Gottes der Katastrophe von Oklahoma.
Er zitiert Chesterton…
If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.
…und meint zu John Piper:
John Piper lives in a universe where terrible things happen, but he knows that when we come to know the whole story, we will stop our mouths, and bow before a holy God in order to worship Him — and all manner of things shall be well. To acknowledge God’s sovereignty in such things does not keep our hearts from breaking in the midst of such devastation. The sovereignty of God is a hard shell case that carries and protects the tender heart.
Mir fällt es schwer, dies zu anerkennen. Doch nur diese Sicht hält dem Gesamtzeugnis der Bibel stand. Unglückliche Hilfskonstruktionen, die sich Menschen erfinden, wenn sie sich nicht beugen, habe ich schon genug gelesen.
