Don’t you think we spend copious (ridiculous?) amounts of time debating the nature and extent of God’s sovereign will without hardly ever mentioning the sinful mess of our own wills? It appears to me that if the mind really is fallen and sin permeates every part of our wills (Rom. 7:21-25), it’s at very least rather handy and comforting to know that there is an exhaustively sovereign God who ‘works all things together for the good of those who love him’ (Rom. 8:28). I mean, doesn’t falleness necessitate sovereignty in a system of unconditional grace?
Rom. 12:2 tells us not to conform to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds. THEN you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing, and perfect will, [emphasis mine]. Thus in the renewing of our minds to become more like the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16) we are transformed to a place where we can truly understand God’s will. Further, becoming Christlike in our minds is shaping our minds like the eternal sovereign mind of God, making our pilgrimage of Christlike holiness an eternal, inexhaustible path… i.e. there’s always more way to go!
In fact, the way in which Paul qualifies the quote from Isaiah 40 in 1 Cor 2:16 seems to suggest that to know the mind of the Lord necessitates having the mind of Christ. This is strengthened by the parallel immediately preceding this. Paul there tells us that no-one can know the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God, then goes on to tell us that we have the Spirit of God within us, thus our words are God’s words flowing from His thoughts/will (vv.10-14).
So it’s possible that the reason we’re so stuck in debating the nature and extent of God’s sovereign will is because we’re not discussing, sharpening, and encouraging each other to submit our wills/minds to God for his sanctifying. This is of course a process of grace.
Grace is unconditional, and entirely unmerited. We cannot earn God’s favour, we in fact are totally blind (2 Cor. 4:4) and dead (Eph. 2:1-5) before we meet God, and then when we meet Him we are His far off enemies (Luke 15:11-31; Rom. 5:10). However, in contrast to blind we have sight, to death we have life, and to our blind, dead will we a have God’s completely seeing, alive will. If God’s will was not all sovereign, then the renewing, transforming of my own will through grace alone and not by any effort of mine, would be impossible.
If we believe in Grace, then let’s begin by submitting our minds to God, becoming holy and blameless through Him in our cognitive self. If we seek to understand the will of God, and be driven by God-glorifying motives, then let’s begin with our sinful state and the work of Christ and submit our minds to Him. God’s exhaustive sovereignty is a sweet taste when it’s not viewed in a test tube but instead experienced as a need, and a cure to our sinful selves. When we view God’s character in a test tube, we approach it with a false objectivity. Lets observe ourselves, and submit to God; not the other way around.
Showing posts with label God's Being and Character. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God's Being and Character. Show all posts
Friday, October 10, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
The mystery of God found in the fathomability of Creation.
A popular apologetic idea is that creation is not-fathomable, but mysterious. Thus there must be a God. - The easy response to this is 'we'll figure it out' thus God-of-the-gaps philosophy comes in, academia fills in the gaps and squeezes God out of the picture. Needless to say its not a very good apologetic to start with. The apologetic should run, creation is fathomable, thus God is not, therefore God *is* God.
The very mystery of life itself is not that its mysterious, but that it is fathomable. Its fathomable because it is revealed. A revelation from the divine creator. In every hum and whistle, branch and bark there is the imprint of the eternal attributes of God. Mystery does not stop with creation (nor ideally should it start there), the magni-finitude of creation all bears the fingerprints of the magni-infinitude of another, and thats where mystery exists in its true form; the being, nature, person, and character of God.
Creation (contra to popular belief) is exhaustible, because its exists in time and space, it has bounds and contexts. It of course is not exhaustible or even attainable apart from revelation, but the fact remains that all is revelation. God however is not created, all things were made through him, thus, He is not made.
This is what sets Christianity apart from all other eastern religion, and new-age westernism. We don't stop at creation. As much as life, and essence flows through all things and connects all things, that is not an impersonal 'Soul of the World.' The very essence is not creation itself - it is creator. Behind every finite piece, there is infinite person. The eternal God.
The very mystery of life itself is not that its mysterious, but that it is fathomable. Its fathomable because it is revealed. A revelation from the divine creator. In every hum and whistle, branch and bark there is the imprint of the eternal attributes of God. Mystery does not stop with creation (nor ideally should it start there), the magni-finitude of creation all bears the fingerprints of the magni-infinitude of another, and thats where mystery exists in its true form; the being, nature, person, and character of God.
Creation (contra to popular belief) is exhaustible, because its exists in time and space, it has bounds and contexts. It of course is not exhaustible or even attainable apart from revelation, but the fact remains that all is revelation. God however is not created, all things were made through him, thus, He is not made.
This is what sets Christianity apart from all other eastern religion, and new-age westernism. We don't stop at creation. As much as life, and essence flows through all things and connects all things, that is not an impersonal 'Soul of the World.' The very essence is not creation itself - it is creator. Behind every finite piece, there is infinite person. The eternal God.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Language In Its Purity: Creational/Communicative?
As a believer in Sola Scriptura, I love Words, the Word of God is indeed infallible and the final uncompromising revelation of God. However as a musician and a poet I believe Words are not black and white, in fact as a note can sing a thousand songs, a word can progressively colour and create God's true revelation.
Sometimes it seems, Reformed writers talk about the Sola Scriptura as the 'exegetically exhausted doctrines of God' rather than the living, breathing, fluid, inspired, universally-and-intergenerationally-applicable, creational, double-edged (s)word it actually is. Or, another way, if we apply all our exegetical techniques to verses x, y, and z, and derive at a premise or two in those verses, that is the meaning of this portion of God's Word. Now there are 31,103 verses in the Bible, and if we apply this principle to all of them we will have exhausted God's revelation; and perhaps therefore the finality of God-revealed also in no time at all, a couple of gifted exegete's lifes work perhaps. There is obviously a problem with this.
The first words spoken were God's words, and they were creational, i.e. they created. Every time God spoke, something was made, light - stars - earth - plants - people - laws. When man spoke however, he named things so as to communicate. God's language was creational, it was man who made it communicative. Thus when man overdoes communication (Genesis 11) God disrupts what? ... their Language! Their abilities of communication.
God's language however is creational. This creational language is profoundly metaphoric. A metaphor can be thought of as an illustrative, poetic use of language which gives substance to something which isn't readily seen without the metaphor. Thus everytime God spoke in creation it was a metaphor, for the true form of the words did not exist until they were uttered.
Metaphor, Poetry, and sometimes even Parable is often viewed in evangelicalism as a form of lesser language, at best fluffy, and at worse dangerously-misinterpreting. However, responsibly embrace, the language of metaphor is far closer to the language of God than the language of communication. It still sends shudders down my spine to see how some exegetees exhaust meaning and prose and doctrine from lamentations, and the psalms, and parts of Isaiah, without ever mention the movement in the language, the meter, the rhyme, the allegory, the illustrations, the metaphor; the poetry.
Language in its purity is pre-Babel, it is creational, it is Godlike, it is focally-metaphoric. Do read God's word as creational language, seek to understand the poetic as more than just poems, and do speak to God from the metaphoric-language center of your heart.
Sometimes it seems, Reformed writers talk about the Sola Scriptura as the 'exegetically exhausted doctrines of God' rather than the living, breathing, fluid, inspired, universally-and-intergenerationally-applicable, creational, double-edged (s)word it actually is. Or, another way, if we apply all our exegetical techniques to verses x, y, and z, and derive at a premise or two in those verses, that is the meaning of this portion of God's Word. Now there are 31,103 verses in the Bible, and if we apply this principle to all of them we will have exhausted God's revelation; and perhaps therefore the finality of God-revealed also in no time at all, a couple of gifted exegete's lifes work perhaps. There is obviously a problem with this.
The first words spoken were God's words, and they were creational, i.e. they created. Every time God spoke, something was made, light - stars - earth - plants - people - laws. When man spoke however, he named things so as to communicate. God's language was creational, it was man who made it communicative. Thus when man overdoes communication (Genesis 11) God disrupts what? ... their Language! Their abilities of communication.
God's language however is creational. This creational language is profoundly metaphoric. A metaphor can be thought of as an illustrative, poetic use of language which gives substance to something which isn't readily seen without the metaphor. Thus everytime God spoke in creation it was a metaphor, for the true form of the words did not exist until they were uttered.
Metaphor, Poetry, and sometimes even Parable is often viewed in evangelicalism as a form of lesser language, at best fluffy, and at worse dangerously-misinterpreting. However, responsibly embrace, the language of metaphor is far closer to the language of God than the language of communication. It still sends shudders down my spine to see how some exegetees exhaust meaning and prose and doctrine from lamentations, and the psalms, and parts of Isaiah, without ever mention the movement in the language, the meter, the rhyme, the allegory, the illustrations, the metaphor; the poetry.
Language in its purity is pre-Babel, it is creational, it is Godlike, it is focally-metaphoric. Do read God's word as creational language, seek to understand the poetic as more than just poems, and do speak to God from the metaphoric-language center of your heart.
The Pentatonic Scale and Godly Communication
Godly communication; that is communication to and from God, not communication about God, can be perhaps likened much more readily with music than with words, the latter in submission to the former.
The pentatonic scale is the mother of all blues and rock and roll, it is the Guitar-Soloists dream, and the Celtics heartbeat. In its most basic form a pentatonic is a scale with five pitches per octave. For instance a G pentatonic would have the following notes: G (root), Bb, C, D, F. During mastery of this scale the notes would be played in order at a certain tempo over, and over, and over. This gets the musician to recognise and retain the scale though logic, sound, and physical habit.
But this is not the end, and not the music, because once the scale is mastered and its forms/boundaries are submitted to, there is no end to its musicality. The notes can be played in any order, with any eventuality of tempo, over any timing and chord structure. Techniques can be added, and 'feel' can be introduced. The more a piece of music is 'felt' the more the music communicates. Heart - owns - this scale. Notice that the notes themselves are not changed, in fact in order for the music to be felt, the individual notes must ring out all the more clearly.
God's eternal attributes are clearly seen since the creation of the world, not in communicative-words, but in nature and image and sound and sense and experience (Rom. 1:19-20). Thus deep truths of God, enough to know Him, are revealed in means of communicate expressed in ways other than words. These things stir and communicate not just to our reason, but deep to our hearts. Do we 'understand' God in a sunset, or do we 'experience' His assurance (as taught in His word) in our hearts? God supports His truths with our hearts. Our heart/feelings are not the context for truth, they are the truths (or notes), themselves, 'played with feeling.'
The difference between dry truths and heartfelt truths is how they exist in our beings, how they are played. Are they static and repeated, or moving and dynamic? Scales are never meant to remain in order, they are meant to backbone music, to colour and create music, to be ordered and move in ways which makes us 'feel each note.' If the notes are the truths, then we must hold them, interweave them, resound, resonate and sustain them to create the music that holds our heart. Only then will we retain and love these individual truths.
The pentatonic scale as a scale of heart, teaches us this. Our heart when filled with truths (notes in the scale) and Spirit (playing the notes) breathes sounds to God, it sings and colours our words, it makes sentences real and not simply recited, it makes works worship and not duty.
At what level do we communicate with God? Do we pray/act out of a legalistic exegetically-exhausted thesaurus of words/actions (a repeated and ordered scale), and expect them to move us? Or does our moved, Spirit-filled and steered heart submit to, take, offer, sacrifice, bless, hold, and play the words and actions as creational-musical-living-language to God? Do we embrace God in prayer as we embrace the movement and melody of our favourite song? Do we caress the heart of God like our fingers caress the fretboard of our guitars? - Does he communicate to us through static scale, -or- dynamic solo? How do we feel when God reveals himself to us? Static?... or moved?
Submit your heart, your life, your circumstances, and your realities to God. Let Him stir your heart where it is meant to be stirred. Don't let His truths remain static, allow them to penetrate your heart, and allow you heart to be stirred up within your life, circumstances, and realities.
The pentatonic scale is the mother of all blues and rock and roll, it is the Guitar-Soloists dream, and the Celtics heartbeat. In its most basic form a pentatonic is a scale with five pitches per octave. For instance a G pentatonic would have the following notes: G (root), Bb, C, D, F. During mastery of this scale the notes would be played in order at a certain tempo over, and over, and over. This gets the musician to recognise and retain the scale though logic, sound, and physical habit.
But this is not the end, and not the music, because once the scale is mastered and its forms/boundaries are submitted to, there is no end to its musicality. The notes can be played in any order, with any eventuality of tempo, over any timing and chord structure. Techniques can be added, and 'feel' can be introduced. The more a piece of music is 'felt' the more the music communicates. Heart - owns - this scale. Notice that the notes themselves are not changed, in fact in order for the music to be felt, the individual notes must ring out all the more clearly.
God's eternal attributes are clearly seen since the creation of the world, not in communicative-words, but in nature and image and sound and sense and experience (Rom. 1:19-20). Thus deep truths of God, enough to know Him, are revealed in means of communicate expressed in ways other than words. These things stir and communicate not just to our reason, but deep to our hearts. Do we 'understand' God in a sunset, or do we 'experience' His assurance (as taught in His word) in our hearts? God supports His truths with our hearts. Our heart/feelings are not the context for truth, they are the truths (or notes), themselves, 'played with feeling.'
The difference between dry truths and heartfelt truths is how they exist in our beings, how they are played. Are they static and repeated, or moving and dynamic? Scales are never meant to remain in order, they are meant to backbone music, to colour and create music, to be ordered and move in ways which makes us 'feel each note.' If the notes are the truths, then we must hold them, interweave them, resound, resonate and sustain them to create the music that holds our heart. Only then will we retain and love these individual truths.
The pentatonic scale as a scale of heart, teaches us this. Our heart when filled with truths (notes in the scale) and Spirit (playing the notes) breathes sounds to God, it sings and colours our words, it makes sentences real and not simply recited, it makes works worship and not duty.
At what level do we communicate with God? Do we pray/act out of a legalistic exegetically-exhausted thesaurus of words/actions (a repeated and ordered scale), and expect them to move us? Or does our moved, Spirit-filled and steered heart submit to, take, offer, sacrifice, bless, hold, and play the words and actions as creational-musical-living-language to God? Do we embrace God in prayer as we embrace the movement and melody of our favourite song? Do we caress the heart of God like our fingers caress the fretboard of our guitars? - Does he communicate to us through static scale, -or- dynamic solo? How do we feel when God reveals himself to us? Static?... or moved?
Submit your heart, your life, your circumstances, and your realities to God. Let Him stir your heart where it is meant to be stirred. Don't let His truths remain static, allow them to penetrate your heart, and allow you heart to be stirred up within your life, circumstances, and realities.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Preliminary reflections on the Psalms.
Everytime I sit down at my blog I feel a twinge to write something about my view of the psalms... frustratingly however I still feel hugely unprepared to do so. The emotional spectrum paletted throughout the grace+spirit-meeting-humanity+dependency sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and touches of the psalter is universally unique. So unique in fact that it not only gives us an inspired song book, but also a reflection on how we are to live and breathe our very lives in full open-handed worship. The psalter is where we learn the majesty of lament, the legitimacy of the metaphor, the power of Spirit-warfare, the soul-longing for justice, the presence of God in His songs, and the place and power of full,powerful,artistic expression in Worship. The psalms are a river of doctrine flowing as doctrine should out of and through and towards a heart of praise. Sing the psalms, chant them, breathe them out, memorise them, read them again and again, love them, pray them, need them, search through them, ... reflect them.
These are obvious random expressions of my thoughts...but the papers met the pen now, I've committed myself, so watch this space.
t.
These are obvious random expressions of my thoughts...but the papers met the pen now, I've committed myself, so watch this space.
t.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Pauline Theology is Primarily -Theological- not Primarily -Christological-
Nearly all modern mainstream scholarship has claimed Paul to be primarily Christological above all else; which, although in some regards is true and vitally important its missed something quite substantial: Paul is not primarily Christological...he is primarily theological! Paul's focus is not Christ at the expense of the Trinity, but Christ to the extent that he operates in and expounds the Trinity...Paul's focus is God, three in one....working inseparably together, mutually indwelling eachother...this has got to be Paul's focus...not just Christ.
In nearly all of Paul's introductions to theologies, prayers, prologues, epilogues, grace givings, and doxologies there is a huge intertwining of the work and glory of the Trinity. So in Rom. 1:1-7 The Gospel of God is of the raising of Jesus ( v.3) by His Father (vv.2,4,7) through the Spirit (v.4). Or Rom. 5:1-5 - we are justified through faith in Jesus (v.1) sealed in the Spirit (v.5) so we have peace with God (v.1). Or Rom. 8:1-4 - God sent His own Son (v.3) so that through Jesus ( vv.1-2) the Spirit sets us free (v.2). <- Note, all this is simply going through Romans...but its all the way through Paul! Its not just that Paul teaches the Trinity, but its that Pauls theology is profoundly Trinitarian over and above all else and all His theology falls under the governance of the three in God.
I guess a lot of people would agree with that until you start to apply it; I've been studying 1 Corinthians 12 for the past few weeks and if you take thiis particular section into play with this Trinitarian reading in mind: 1 Cor. 12 - The unity of the body and giving of the gifts and ordering of the church is done by who? The Spirit, in order to Build the Body of Christ is the classic view... and in some ways this is right, but its oh so much deeper than this...the Spirit gives -> what he gives builds the body of Christ....that just seems to imply a very distinct separation between Spirit and Son...and the emphasis ends up with the Son ( i.e. primarily Christological). However, lets read with a little more emphasis on some unfortunately neglected verses:
vv.4-6:
'There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.
There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.
There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.'
(The Lord is of course the Lord Jesus)...So the gifts which edify come through the Spirit; cool, but the services which edify the church and build it come through the Son too (i.e. not just the Spirit)...and all this is worked together by God...and he arranged all the parts just as he wanted them to be ( v.18) and He too has combined the members to order their honour (v.24). So all three members of the Trinity are involved in the equipping of the Church...not just the Spirit.
But what about the Second part? Is the equipping for edification just for the honour of the Son like the classic interpretation suggests? Well no it can't be...v.7 says that the manifestation of The Spirit is given ...not the Son...but the Spirit....the Spirit is to be manifested, to be seen...and when God (in Spirit in this case) reveals himself he must be responded to appropriately! The Spirit is to be seen, to be honored, to be glorified as the divine, Christ-exalting, gift-giving, grace-sustaining, church-loving, sovereign ( v.11) God that He is! And so to is the first member of the Trinity, for God arranged just as he wanted (v.18), so the church is a reflection of His desired will for His worshippers...therefore its set up for His praise and glory!
This is profound! All the members of the Trinity are distinct, they all have the subtleties of their tasks...but yet they are all worthy of direct Glory an Adoration together as the one perfect spotless divine God. King of kings and majesty on high! Christ indeed is to be highly exalted, and I do believe that is the primary role of the Spirit, but oh to make this Paul's primary focus at the expense of the holistic worship of our Triune salvation-effective God is just madness! But this is what so many people do! Its incredible. God is God! God as Trinity is to be magnified together in Trinity as such, and that makes life in His church incredible! The threefold focus is a beautiful aim...and a lot more actuate than a single point.
Paul is primarily THEO-logical, not Christological
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Summary of God's Creative-Purpose
>>> From section 3 of my undergrad dissertation. <<<
3.1.1 God’s Purpose
The purpose of creation is to magnify the riches of God’s glory. If God does not seek His own glory then it follows that He must seek something created. Creation does not enjoy the perfections of God, and so God would be committing Himself to something other than the greatest good. This would be bizarre because God tells us not to seek anything but the highest good, to do so is idolatry. So to presume that God himself doesn’t seek the greatest good, namely Himself, is inconsistent and incorrect. Open Theism doesn’t subscribe to this, but gives us no very definite alternative either, However as noted above if God is not seeking Himself then he is seeking something created; which is inevitably idolatrous.
3.1.1 God’s Purpose
The purpose of creation is to magnify the riches of God’s glory. If God does not seek His own glory then it follows that He must seek something created. Creation does not enjoy the perfections of God, and so God would be committing Himself to something other than the greatest good. This would be bizarre because God tells us not to seek anything but the highest good, to do so is idolatry. So to presume that God himself doesn’t seek the greatest good, namely Himself, is inconsistent and incorrect. Open Theism doesn’t subscribe to this, but gives us no very definite alternative either, However as noted above if God is not seeking Himself then he is seeking something created; which is inevitably idolatrous.
God's Sovereignty and Open Theism
>>> This is yet another paste from section 4 of my undergrad dissertation. However this section is one of my key arguments against Open Theism. Namely, if God creates primarily for His glory he must be exhaustively sovereign, if he did not create for this purpose then he is guilty of idolatry. <<<
4.2 God’s Purpose and Sovereignty
If you deny the creative-purpose that God creates to magnify His glory then you must assert God is guilty of Idolatry. If you affirm the creative-purpose that God creates to magnify His glory then you must assert God is exhaustively sovereign.
Open Theism inadvertently denies this creative-purpose by allowing God’s glory to be subject to the deterministic choice of man. ‘God created for the sake of loving relationships.’ Therefore God is not seeking the greatest good, namely Himself, and must therefore be seeking something in creation; the freedom of man for instance. When man does this, God holds him guilty of idolatry, why then would God allow Himself to be guilty of this same sin? Of course we know that God does seek the greatest good, so does create to show His glory which renders an Open Theist position biblically bankrupt on this point.
However, an Open Theist cannot affirm this creative purpose, for to do so would mean affirming God’s exhaustive sovereignty. For if God allows anything to hinder His ultimate purpose then he values the thing hindering more than the purpose hindered, rendering it not His ultimate purpose. God must therefore have exhaustive sovereign control over creation. Again this challenges the fundamentals of the Open Theist position which claims a self-limited God. ‘The openness view, with its denial that God can know the free decisions and actions of moral beings, simply cannot hold the Gospel in [the] same way.’
4.2 God’s Purpose and Sovereignty
If you deny the creative-purpose that God creates to magnify His glory then you must assert God is guilty of Idolatry. If you affirm the creative-purpose that God creates to magnify His glory then you must assert God is exhaustively sovereign.
Open Theism inadvertently denies this creative-purpose by allowing God’s glory to be subject to the deterministic choice of man. ‘God created for the sake of loving relationships.’ Therefore God is not seeking the greatest good, namely Himself, and must therefore be seeking something in creation; the freedom of man for instance. When man does this, God holds him guilty of idolatry, why then would God allow Himself to be guilty of this same sin? Of course we know that God does seek the greatest good, so does create to show His glory which renders an Open Theist position biblically bankrupt on this point.
However, an Open Theist cannot affirm this creative purpose, for to do so would mean affirming God’s exhaustive sovereignty. For if God allows anything to hinder His ultimate purpose then he values the thing hindering more than the purpose hindered, rendering it not His ultimate purpose. God must therefore have exhaustive sovereign control over creation. Again this challenges the fundamentals of the Open Theist position which claims a self-limited God. ‘The openness view, with its denial that God can know the free decisions and actions of moral beings, simply cannot hold the Gospel in [the] same way.’
'Wrath' throughout the Bible
>>>Again, this is simply copy and paste from my undergrad dissertation. This section served as an overview for biblical uses of the words most often translated 'wrath' (Hebrew words; ‘af, ‘ebrah, haron, quesef, hemah, and Greek words; orge, themos). Conclusions were drawn from this data, systematic evidence, and a detailed exegesis of Rom. 9. ... You may notice by reading it that this section was a particular victim of merciless word-cutting. I shall therefore provide a fuller account of my findings at a later date, that will include all the necessery references as blogger doesn't seem to allow for footnotes.<<<<
3.2.1 Biblical Data
Pentateuch
Wrath throughout the Pentateuch is against God’s rebellious people. It is totally-consuming and must be appeased by mediation and sacrifice. God’s wrath is avoided through mediation to make atonement. Wrath is shown in order to show God’s mercy, not because of mans righteousness but His promise.
History Books
Wrath is against Israel and other nations. It’s provoked through disobedience to/blasphemy against Yahweh. Wrath is the just response to sin and is avoided through repenting of people and mediating of leaders. Sometimes there is no hope for turning away wrath; God however in His mercy secures a Remnant to receive His promise.
Poetry
Job sees God’s wrath against Himself as just, even if inexplicable. The Psalms present God’s wrath as just and against the wicked, and appeaseable through repentance. It is never a praised characteristic, His wrath-bringing justice however is.
Prophecy
Isaiah expounds wrath against nations which is mercifully appeased resulting in the fulfilment of His promises. Jeremiah speaks of disobedience and subsequent unavoidable wrath with the other nations. However God subsequently shows mercy to Israel and wrath upon Israel’s oppressive nations, (reflected further in Lamentations.) God’s wrath is primarily against other nations in Ezekiel. God’s character is wrathful throughout the minor-prophets, however is equated with His just day of wrath and His mercy.
Gospels
Wrath is equated with God’s final judgement against ungodliness and is on those who do not believe in the Son.
Pauline Epistles
God’s wrath is equated with final judgement which some are saved from through God’s mercy.
General Epistles
Hebrews: wrath is the characteristic which prompts God to swear judgement in comparison to those shown mercy. Revelation: God’s wrath is final judgement through the Son on the fallen world whose names are not in the book of life.
3.2.1 Biblical Data
Pentateuch
Wrath throughout the Pentateuch is against God’s rebellious people. It is totally-consuming and must be appeased by mediation and sacrifice. God’s wrath is avoided through mediation to make atonement. Wrath is shown in order to show God’s mercy, not because of mans righteousness but His promise.
History Books
Wrath is against Israel and other nations. It’s provoked through disobedience to/blasphemy against Yahweh. Wrath is the just response to sin and is avoided through repenting of people and mediating of leaders. Sometimes there is no hope for turning away wrath; God however in His mercy secures a Remnant to receive His promise.
Poetry
Job sees God’s wrath against Himself as just, even if inexplicable. The Psalms present God’s wrath as just and against the wicked, and appeaseable through repentance. It is never a praised characteristic, His wrath-bringing justice however is.
Prophecy
Isaiah expounds wrath against nations which is mercifully appeased resulting in the fulfilment of His promises. Jeremiah speaks of disobedience and subsequent unavoidable wrath with the other nations. However God subsequently shows mercy to Israel and wrath upon Israel’s oppressive nations, (reflected further in Lamentations.) God’s wrath is primarily against other nations in Ezekiel. God’s character is wrathful throughout the minor-prophets, however is equated with His just day of wrath and His mercy.
Gospels
Wrath is equated with God’s final judgement against ungodliness and is on those who do not believe in the Son.
Pauline Epistles
God’s wrath is equated with final judgement which some are saved from through God’s mercy.
General Epistles
Hebrews: wrath is the characteristic which prompts God to swear judgement in comparison to those shown mercy. Revelation: God’s wrath is final judgement through the Son on the fallen world whose names are not in the book of life.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility
This is simply a copy and paste of the Appendix to my undergrad dissertation which has recently been marked. I hope it clarifies some remarks made in posts over the last year around this topic.
APPENDIX
God’s sovereignty and Man’s responsibility.
Dynamic divine dualism appears throughout scripture; namely (and seemingly paradoxically) God is totally sovereign, and man is totally responsible. This appendix will not attempt an in-depth look at this doctrine but make some observations.
First, both God and man enact their wills on the same circumstance yet have opposite values in doing so throughout scripture. For instance Gen.50:20 ‘You meant it for evil, God meant it for Good.’ Second, much of God’s counsel is hidden; so although this dualism seems inexplicable, it is not impossible. Third, this dualism is accountable to the fullness of God, as such much be just, holy, and righteous. Forth, God is just in holding man accountable throughout this dualism. Fifth, this dualism secures mans ‘freedom’ relational dynamic in the Spirit through means of grace. This is seen for example, in Jude. v.21 states keep yourselves in the love of God (specifically talking about prayer), while v.24 states to him who is able to keep you. The means of grace God the keeper uses, is the prayer of the saints to be kept. Sixth, and finally, this dualism is personified in the incarnation; Jesus dynamically reacts to His circumstances/surroundings, yet He does nothing the Father doesn’t do.
This dualism secures mans biblical freedom without selling out God’s sovereignty and grace; and it secures God’s righteous punishment for sin.
APPENDIX
God’s sovereignty and Man’s responsibility.
Dynamic divine dualism appears throughout scripture; namely (and seemingly paradoxically) God is totally sovereign, and man is totally responsible. This appendix will not attempt an in-depth look at this doctrine but make some observations.
First, both God and man enact their wills on the same circumstance yet have opposite values in doing so throughout scripture. For instance Gen.50:20 ‘You meant it for evil, God meant it for Good.’ Second, much of God’s counsel is hidden; so although this dualism seems inexplicable, it is not impossible. Third, this dualism is accountable to the fullness of God, as such much be just, holy, and righteous. Forth, God is just in holding man accountable throughout this dualism. Fifth, this dualism secures mans ‘freedom’ relational dynamic in the Spirit through means of grace. This is seen for example, in Jude. v.21 states keep yourselves in the love of God (specifically talking about prayer), while v.24 states to him who is able to keep you. The means of grace God the keeper uses, is the prayer of the saints to be kept. Sixth, and finally, this dualism is personified in the incarnation; Jesus dynamically reacts to His circumstances/surroundings, yet He does nothing the Father doesn’t do.
This dualism secures mans biblical freedom without selling out God’s sovereignty and grace; and it secures God’s righteous punishment for sin.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Another look at Gen. 50:20
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many [or numerous] people should be kept alive, as they are today. [Gen. 50:20]
A familiar and very beautiful verse, how comforting it is to know that God works all things for good. But note, this verse isn’t simply saying that God brings good out of evil situations, and it isn’t saying that God turns around evil situations to be good situations. The implications of such approaches is God slipped up letting the evil thing happen in the first place and had to use what was available to him, namely the evil event, to re-create good; and, it also diminishes the evil; I.e. ‘don’t worry about the evil, because I will make it good and it will all be ok.’
However, what is going on here is two accomplished intentions of the same event. What Joseph’s brothers meant for evil, namely selling Joseph to slavery out of Jealousy, - this very same event, was intended to happen by God for good, and inevitably a good purpose.
So the paradox between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility is scripturally compatible in this passage. God intends and ordains this event totally to bring about good, and was in no way the author of its evil. Man, however, authored the event in its evil to bring about evil – and as such is responsible. So God can be totally sovereign over an event and ordain it to bring about its good, yet man authors the evil within it (and within God’s sovereignty) for evil intensions.
A familiar and very beautiful verse, how comforting it is to know that God works all things for good. But note, this verse isn’t simply saying that God brings good out of evil situations, and it isn’t saying that God turns around evil situations to be good situations. The implications of such approaches is God slipped up letting the evil thing happen in the first place and had to use what was available to him, namely the evil event, to re-create good; and, it also diminishes the evil; I.e. ‘don’t worry about the evil, because I will make it good and it will all be ok.’
However, what is going on here is two accomplished intentions of the same event. What Joseph’s brothers meant for evil, namely selling Joseph to slavery out of Jealousy, - this very same event, was intended to happen by God for good, and inevitably a good purpose.
So the paradox between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility is scripturally compatible in this passage. God intends and ordains this event totally to bring about good, and was in no way the author of its evil. Man, however, authored the event in its evil to bring about evil – and as such is responsible. So God can be totally sovereign over an event and ordain it to bring about its good, yet man authors the evil within it (and within God’s sovereignty) for evil intensions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)