I wrote before on the tyranny of the Noble Sentiment. I think the concept is so big that I should take some time (over time) to address it in its multiple applications because I'm pretty sure we suffer from wicked and deceitful hearts (Jer 17:9) and will often miss this idea and its connected truth because we're suffering from the tyranny of the Noble Sentiment.
Consider the subject of God's Sovereignty. I get a lot of flak from genuine Christians on that topic. "God doesn't do that" is very common in the discussion. Because "God doesn't do that" is a truly noble sentiment ... noble, but wrong when it violates what God says He does. Like the example I already used. So we know which is the noble sentiment, but which is true -- "God doesn't cause blindness" or "Who makes [men] mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?"? Like "God doesn't cause unpleasant things to happen" over against, "I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things." (Isa 45:7) Or "God doesn't ordain evil" as opposed to "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). (Note, if you think it merely means God used it for good, look who Scripture says sent Joseph to Egypt in the first place - Psa 105:17.) Like "God doesn't kill anyone" on one hand and "The LORD kills and brings to life" (1 Sam 12:6) on the other. "Well, God certainly doesn't intervene in Man's free will" is a warm and friendly sentiment, but the Bible says, "The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps." (Prov 16:9) "God has no connection to wickedness" seems a given except that we find clearly stated in Scripture, "The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Prov 16:4) And that's all on just one topic.
The question remains. Will you be conformed to the world, driven by passions and desires, or will you be transformed by the renewing of your mind? (You know I didn't make anything up in that question, right?) I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but it's really up to you to look at what God says over against what feels right and see if you are lining up the two properly. Today's it's a question of God's Sovereignty. Tomorrow, a different reality obliterated by noble sentiment. Keep your eyes open for it. I'm sure you and I both carry these things around without knowing it.
5 comments:
I disagree that these are Nobel Sentiment. I will consider your points and offer a few counter points.
As to the passage from Exodus. First, we must interpret the Old Testament, in the light of the New Testament (this can really be applied to most of these points). What does Jesus show us about God's response to infirmities, like blindness. He heals them. Jesus shows us what God is really like. He is the perfect imprint, the exact image of God. Also, We must read the context of the verse. God is answering Moses concern about not being able to speak clearly. God, is using a rhetorical argument, and emphatic language to convince Moses (again) that He, the Creator of the Universe, is capable of giving Moses the words to say.
As for the Isaiah verse, context is also key. Many scholars agree that "light and dark", refer to captivity by, and deliverance from, Babylon. In other words God is saying, I can use the world as it exists to create times of captivity, but I can also deliver you from this captivity. It is not universal in it scope, but specific to the actions of divine judgement.
The same is true of the 1 Samuel 2:6 passage. This is a specific instance of God's deliverance for the nation of Israel, not a universal truth.
Proverbs 16:9 is just saying that we each make our own plans, but God creatively and amazingly weaves our free actions together to bring about His will.
Proverbs 16:4 is saying that He has created an order, and those that are wicked will find the end that was created for them. Here is the NIV: "The LORD works out everything to its proper end-- even the wicked for a day of disaster" The proper end for the wicked is the day of disaster.
It may seem like I am trying to argue away a lot of scripture, but keep in mind that you are picking out verses that "prove" a deterministic sovereignty view of God.
First, I'm not sure in what sense you disagreed that they were noble sentiments. By "noble sentiments" I mean "sentiments that are noble". I think you were actually defending them, weren't you? Are they not noble?
Now, on the specifics. You argue that God heals infirmities, not causes them - doesn't/can't happen. So, if God heals infirmities but they still exist, what's with that? If it is God's modus operandi to heal all infirmities, why are there infirmities? I think it can be shown that God is not in the business of healing infirmities (see, for instance, 2 Cor 12:7-9; Gen 19:11; all of Deut 28; Acts 12:23). But at the end of the day, when God told Moses, "Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?" (Exo 4:11), the correct answer was "No. You may have made man's mouth, but You don't make him mute or deaf or seeing or blind. It is not You." In other words, God's hyperbole was, at the end, fairly meaningless.
I'm baffled by the suggestion that "light and dark" refer to captivity. Baffled not because of the use of those terms as possible illustrative language, but because of the entire context of the passage. He speaks of equipping them (Isa 45:5) and warns of earthen pots that complain about the way God makes them (Isa 45:9). He includes "I form light and create darkness" with "I make well-being and create calamity." The point He's making (repeatedly) is "I am the Lord!" (Isa 45:3, 5, 6, 8) The point is "I am God and I am Sovereign." And you appear to be saying that He doesn't. All He is claiming is He can get them out of captivity (because at the time of this writing they were already in captivity). So I would be interested in seeing who these "many scholars" are that agree that this broad, sweeping language is really only referring to captivity under Cyrus.
In 1 Sam 2:6, Hannah is thanking God for His gift of a son, Samuel. In that prayer she "exults in the LORD" (1 Sam 2:1). She speaks of His ability to break the bows of the mighty (1 Sam 2:4), feed the hungry (1 Sam 2:5), and to give children to the barren (1 Sam 2:5). "He will guard His faithful ones," she says (1 Sam 2:9). You would like me to believe that this prayer exulting in God is actually just a reference to "deliverance for Israel" (which, by the way, was not even in view here)? I am supposed to conclude that these characteristics of God for which she gives praise are not universal?
Yes, it does seem like you're trying to argue away Scripture. Remember that the Bible claims that it was God's idea to have His Son crucified (Acts 4:27-28). It's the Bible that says that God "works all things after the counsel of His will." (Eph 1:11), not me. These passages all align with each other. The Prov 16:4 passage is, in fact, interesting in other versions. The ESV and NASB say that He made all things "for its purpose", but the KJV, Young's Literal Translation, and the Douay-Rheims all say "for Himself." The Amplified says, "to its own end and His own purpose." I think the only way you can conclude that these don't mean what they literally say is if you have a prior commitment to ... some other noble sentiment. I think the text and context of Scripture as a whole on the topic holds that God really is Sovereign, not simply "weaving together our choices with His will."
(See, for more on this, John Piper's article written soon after Sept 11, 2001.)
(Note, however, that I am not making a claim to the same sort of "deterministic" view you are accusing me of. See compatibilism.)
I am arguing that these are not merely noble sentiments, but are also Biblical.
I my question boils down to this. Why follow the God of your interpretation? Why follow the God that causes blindness, muteness, and deafness? Why follow the God that causes calamity? Why follow the God that ordains evil? What is the point of "satan" if God does it all? Why trust this God if he could just as easily be against you as for you? Why follow a God that could just as likely hate you as love you?
Another big problem with all of this, is your description of God's "sovereignty" looks nothing like Jesus. Jesus is what God looks like. He is the exact imprint of God's nature. He is the Image of the unseen God. In fact not one of the examples you gave in the original post, mentioned Jesus. It seems as though you are putting scripture at equal standing with Jesus. The point of scripture, is to point us to Jesus. The word of God points us to the Word of God. Jesus is what God has to say. If your view of God doesn't look like Jesus, then it is a flawed view.
This is the noble sentiment of which I speak. "Why follow the God that causes blindness ...?" That is a noble sentiment. Why follow that God? Because God has revealed this about Himself, along with the absolute fact that He is good. You have a prior commitment to a different view of God. A "noble" view, I'm sure. But it doesn't correlate with the Scriptures I've listed (and many I haven't). The only way around this is to grasp a "nobler view" of God ... and eliminate those troublesome texts.
Nothing about any of the texts I've offered or about the Sovereignty of God requires "God does it all", "He could just as easily be against you", or "He could just as likely hate you as love you." They require letting God be the God He describes in His Word.
"If your view of God doesn't look like Jesus, then it is a flawed view."
You understand, I hope, that this is seriously problematic. First, the only information we have on what Jesus "looks like" is Scripture. You're pitting Scripture against Scripture. And if Scripture is God's Word and Jesus is God, then Scripture is Jesus's Word. Arguing that He says something different is a problem.
But having said that, I don't understand your claim. How is it not like Jesus? Jesus pronounced woes upon cities (Matt 11:21), the Pharisees (Matt 23:13), the rich (Luke 6:24), and others. "Woe" is not "Too bad for you." It is "cursed of God." Jesus said, "He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18) Is this not "evil" (not moral evil, but certainly calamity)? Jesus spoke in parables so "those who are outside ... may not see ... and ... may not hear" (Mar 4:12). John wrote in his Gospel, "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them." (John 12:40) It seems to me that the biblical version of God's Sovereignty that I've presented is precisely in line with the New Testament Incarnation of God.
Josh, your approach is "That's not what I understand God to be, so those Scriptures can't mean that." What would it look like if you said, "I will simply take what the Scriptures say to be an accurate description of who God is"? What would happen if you decided, "I will align my view of God to what the Bible says"?
Post a Comment