I attended a Friday fellowship at Newtown Reformed Church about 2 weeks ago, Samson was the topic of discussion.
Someone suggested that God is to be blamed for Samson's fall, because it was God who gave Samson his super strength which led to his pride. I was glad there was amongst us, at least one out of around 13 of us besides myself found this erroneous. While it is likely the rest of them thought this statement is strange, it seems that they were trying to covering up the person who made this error by redefining her statement. An approach I've recently been witnessing for a while now among many Christian leaders: Trying to be the nice guy who stood between two opposite parties. However, by doing so, they have taken the role of a new and third side, one who tolerates both good and evil, both right and wrong. Very dangerous, hence leading to unconscious self-contradiction. What is wrong must be pointed out, teach what is right. All this can also be done in an orderly fashion, without promoting hate. But we must hate that which is wrong, that which is evil. Because of time and the fact that I'm not in charge, I only laughed at that statement while letting others talk.
Now back to the matter in question: God blessed Samson with great strength. Is it good or bad? Those who tolerated who say both. I would say, it is good because only good comes from God. It is Samson's abuse of such blessing that makes it bad. When we are enjoying good blessing we don't blame God. Only when we did bad and suffer the consequences and punishment that we try to put the blame on God for allowing us the opportunity to do bad. Is this fair? So when someone tries to put the blame on God, it is because he or she has sinned himself or herself and not wanting to admit his or her own sin, trying to put blame on others.
Samson fall because he sinned. Not because of God. Only someone doesn't like to take responsibility for choices he makes wish to blame this on God.
If the argument was to be redefined as whether or not God's blessing could be abused, then the original argument should have been corrected, not redefined. For this is a whole different subject. For in this case, it is the mistake in choice of words. Whenever we speak, question, answer, right uses of words and terminology are very crucial.
[@more@]
