David prayed, "You are great, O Lord GOD; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears" (2 Sam 7:22). One of the ways He is like no other comes from Paul. He told Timothy that God is the "only Sovereign" (1 Tim 6:15). There is no other. Now, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, lots of genuine, well-meaning, biblical Christians don't like that one. They deny it. Scripture says He is the "only Sovereign" and they nod and then explain that He is Sovereign by giving up some of His sovereignty to us, His people. The logic, then, is that He is the "only Sovereign" by giving up some of His "sovereign" and making us sovereign so that He is no longer the "only Sovereign." The idea is that God relies on us to do what He wants and if we don't do it, it doesn't get done. They go so far as to tell me that some people end up in hell because we failed to give them the gospel. The effect of this, of course, is to exonerate God of any evil. If bad things happen, it's because bad people did it, not God. If God's will doesn't happen, it's because people failed, not God. I routinely hear Christians say that "this clearly was not God's will" when horrible things occur, and this let's God off the hook ... but it negates the biblical statement that He is the "only Sovereign."
Scripture says things differently. Scripture says that God "does as He pleases" (Psa 115:3; Psa 135:6). No one can stay His hand (Dan 4:35). He works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). He even holds the heart of the king in His hand (Prov 21:1). He predestined the worst evil ever perpetrated -- the murder of His Son (Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28). Whatever He intends will happen just as He plans it to (Isa 14:24). We see "chance" and He determines the outcome (Prov 16:33). We make our plans and He establishes what happens (Prov 16:9; Prov 19:21). There are no exceptions, no variations, no mistakes. That is the biblical version. From Him, through Him, and to Him are all things (Rom 11:36).
Far from being a problem, this biblical reality is an incredible solution. It is the certainty that 1) God is good and 2) God is the only Sovereign that allows a man to experience actual evil -- attempted murder, imprisonment, sold into slavery, further degradation -- and conclude, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). It safely holds evil responsible for evil while giving the confidence that God always accomplishes good, even when it doesn't fall in the lines that we think it might. It gives a solid reason for hope in difficult times. It gives reason for confidence even in the face of evil. It is the bedrock on which we can stand and say, "God always wins!" and be glad of it. As for me, I can't stand anywhere else.
6 comments:
I agree with this, and think you've expressed it very well. I'd say that it is important that we ground our actions and beliefs on the bedrock of YHWH and His revealed word, rather than on self. It seems like the notion of YHWH as that unshakable bedrock on which we ground things has been replaced with a strange degree of faith in self to be able to ground universal principles.
Yes, you've been writing about that recently, haven't you?
Not specifically, but yes I have. It seems like so much of what's going on lately is related to people losing the idea that things have to be grounded or built on a foundation other than one's personal preferences.
It's gotten a little more specific, today.
I think it's important to acknowledge that it's impossible to ground any sort of universal, consistent, anything in an individual and their ability to reason, or what they individually perceive as rational. To apply one person's subjective conclusions to everyone seem to lead down a bad path. Further, consensus on such matters might work for a homogeneous group, society, culture, tribe, or family to some degree. But when two such groupings have fundamentally different societal norms, then there is no rational way to do claim that one group is "wrong".
IMO it all circles back to our human desire to allow our selves to make decisions on right and wrong, good and evil, and unfortunately our tendency is to make those decisions based on our self interest.
Simply put, arguing that a universal, consistent, authoritative set of morals can be arrived at by an individual's reasoning makes no sense since, in the spirit of the "bedrock" post, you'd have to have the same basis and no two individuals do. I think the idea that we can reason our way to such a set of morals is premised on the idea that humans are basically good so we should all be able to come to basically good values.
Stan,
I agree. I think the problem arises when we try to apply our individual moral code to others. I agree that it's possible for an individual to conjure up a moral code that is reasonable and consistent for themselves. But when that comes into conflict with another persons individual moral code, then we have problems.
Yes, I also agree that it's premised on a faulty view of sin and human nature.
Post a Comment