I agree with the author that such children are not a judgment but a blessing. It is more selfish of us to want the kids to be “normal” and not to have “defects” or more accurately, differences. Obviously, many Down Syndrome kids are now aborted due to prenatal testing now which were not many years ago. God doesn’t give everyone a child with such issues, but can use those trials to make us more dependent on Him, which is the real way to view this.
Just because the blind man was born blind solely for the glory of God doesn’t mean that the disciples in John 9:2 were wrong about the general order of things.
–
Comment: I edited this to fix the verse which was not displaying correctly on mouseover
I don’t necessarily agree that “the general order of things” dictates that the man’s blindness is caused by sin.
What Jesus points out is that there are other factors besides the man’s walk with God or his parents’ walk with God that cause this. Blindness could be the best thing for this man. God’s viewpoint is different than man’s - consider Job, for example.
Chris C, I really hope that you didn’t mean what you said, but instead that you meant something else and said it badly. If you really do mean that “the general order of things” is that persons with disabilities are in that state because either they or their parents sinned, so that this blind man was an exception who was blind for the glory of God, shame on you. I have a daughter with a non-inherited genetic disorder known as Williams Syndrome. It’s caused by the deletion of a tiny portion on one of the two chromosome 7’s. Medically, it’s described as a “spontaneous” deletion, though we know of course that as far as God is concerned it wasn’t spontaneous at all.
But taken at face value your post says that Sarah’s Williams Syndrome is the direct result of some sin in her life or her parents’ lives. I assume you would concede it wasn’t her sin, since the “defect” occurred at conception, before she had ever done anything. That leaves her parents, as to whom I’d like to know whether it was a specific sin or just their overall depravity. If the former, please tell me which specific sins result in disabled children. If the latter, please explain to me why our overall depravity resulted in our child’s genetic disorder and your overall depravity (you are depraved also, correct?) did not.
Well, Jesus had the opportunity to correct their general understanding that had led to this question about a specific situation. He could have said that no one is ever born with a physical ailment because of sin. But Jesus only replied about this specific man and about the miracle he was about to do.
The only verse in the whole article is this one, and it’s an argument from silence.
All you’ve done is reiterate your original point. You’ve not answered my questions, which are necessarily raised by your original point. Is that because you do not wish to for some unknown reason or because you cannot?
Discussion
NewNot a judgment, but a blessing!
I agree with the author that such children are not a judgment but a blessing. It is more selfish of us to want the kids to be “normal” and not to have “defects” or more accurately, differences. Obviously, many Down Syndrome kids are now aborted due to prenatal testing now which were not many years ago. God doesn’t give everyone a child with such issues, but can use those trials to make us more dependent on Him, which is the real way to view this.
NewJust because the blind man
Just because the blind man was born blind solely for the glory of God doesn’t mean that the disciples in John 9:2 were wrong about the general order of things.
–
Comment: I edited this to fix the verse which was not displaying correctly on mouseover
NewWhat is the focus of the disciples?
I don’t necessarily agree that “the general order of things” dictates that the man’s blindness is caused by sin.
What Jesus points out is that there are other factors besides the man’s walk with God or his parents’ walk with God that cause this. Blindness could be the best thing for this man. God’s viewpoint is different than man’s - consider Job, for example.
NewSurely you don't mean that
Chris C, I really hope that you didn’t mean what you said, but instead that you meant something else and said it badly. If you really do mean that “the general order of things” is that persons with disabilities are in that state because either they or their parents sinned, so that this blind man was an exception who was blind for the glory of God, shame on you. I have a daughter with a non-inherited genetic disorder known as Williams Syndrome. It’s caused by the deletion of a tiny portion on one of the two chromosome 7’s. Medically, it’s described as a “spontaneous” deletion, though we know of course that as far as God is concerned it wasn’t spontaneous at all.
But taken at face value your post says that Sarah’s Williams Syndrome is the direct result of some sin in her life or her parents’ lives. I assume you would concede it wasn’t her sin, since the “defect” occurred at conception, before she had ever done anything. That leaves her parents, as to whom I’d like to know whether it was a specific sin or just their overall depravity. If the former, please tell me which specific sins result in disabled children. If the latter, please explain to me why our overall depravity resulted in our child’s genetic disorder and your overall depravity (you are depraved also, correct?) did not.
NewWell, Jesus had the
Well, Jesus had the opportunity to correct their general understanding that had led to this question about a specific situation. He could have said that no one is ever born with a physical ailment because of sin. But Jesus only replied about this specific man and about the miracle he was about to do.
The only verse in the whole article is this one, and it’s an argument from silence.
NewAll you've done is reiterate
All you’ve done is reiterate your original point. You’ve not answered my questions, which are necessarily raised by your original point. Is that because you do not wish to for some unknown reason or because you cannot?
NewI will just say with Aquinas
I will just say with Aquinas that “not every punishment is inflicted for a sin.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FS_Q87_A7.html