Not My God

In my recent discussion on "the Noble Sentiment" a commenter complained, "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?"

Welcome to a prime example of the Noble Sentiment. In this view, God is not like that. God doesn't do that. "That is not my God." The upshot, of course, is "My God is much better than that." By which we might conclude, "He conforms to my preferences in what a God should be."

This is a problem. It is a problem for me, of course. (That was the commenter's aim. "Why follow such a God?" was a rhetorical question, requiring a given answer: "Don't!") Why do it? Let me first say that it isn't quite accurate to call it "your interpretation" when I'm simply taking what is stated, applying no twists or turns, without overlaying my preferences or feelings, and coming away with what it says. I can't find anything that precludes it in Scripture. I can't see that it contradicts anything in Scripture. So I'm forced to conform my interpretation to the text (rather than the oh, so common alternative of interpreting Scripture to conform to my own views).

So, if Scripture is clear and consistent and actually says what I quoted it to say, then what are my options? I don't see very many. I can suggest that it's wrong and I'm right. "My God wouldn't do that." Or I can offer my interpretation that would change the straightforward meaning of the text so that I can end up with "My God wouldn't do that." I can, of course, simply decide, "The text is right and I don't want anything to do with a God like that." Or ...

I can say, "The Bible is God-breathed. It is God's self-revelation of who He is. Since God is not a man and is Holy ("other", not like me), I would expect that He would not conform to my simplistic perceptions. Therefore, I will choose to agree with what Scripture tells me and follow a God who is good even if He does not conform to my preferences or self-imposed interpretations." In this, of course, I would have to conclude that Christ, as God, would be the same as God, so falling back on the ever-popular "But Jesus wasn't like that!" only creates a contradiction.

That's the point of the whole "Tyranny of the Noble Sentiment" question. Am I going to go with what God says is true? Or am I going to side with the "Why follow a God like that?" perspective? Am I going to let God be true, though every man a liar, or am I going to construct my own view of God and bend Scripture to match? Why follow a God like that? Because He says He's like that and He says He's good and that's enough for me. Can I trust Him? He says I can and that's enough for me.

Now, of course, the other side will have to figure out its own problem. Why is your version of God better than the one presented in God's Word?

Sentiment on Atonement

Here are some questions that might be asked when considering the Atonement. Why did Jesus come? What was the point of the crucifixion? In what sense are we "saved by grace" and what are we saved from? Oh, and a really good question ... who is saved? Now, the Bible answers these kinds of questions, but what do we feel would be right? What noble sentiments would we expect?

"It's not about some blood sacrifice to magically save us from an impotent god who is powerlessly unable to forgive on his own." Good, good. Very noble. "A just God would not punish people for eternity for a white lie or even 'a lifetime of mistakes'." Very warm indeed. "A God who demands perfection is not a loving and just God." Popular feeling. "Jesus came teaching a way of Grace, not of rule following, not of blood sacrifices that the pagans relied upon, or to appease some angry deity." That just feels right. "A God who cannot forgive as we can forgive -- without some payment or payback or something -- is not a God at all." Noble sentiments, all. Except that they are in direct contradiction to what the Bible has to say.

Consider what the Bible says about blood.

Having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. (Rom 5:9)

Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Heb 9:22)

Brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus. (Heb 10:19)

Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. (Heb 13:12)

That seems to say ("seems" as in "states absolutely clearly and irrefutably") that Christ's blood was essential to our salvation.

Consider what the Bible has to say about God's wrath.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. (Rom 1:18)

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Eph 5:6)

Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience. (Col 3:5-6)

God's wrath isn't a guess. It isn't the product of narrow minds, tricked (like all of historic Christian orthodoxy) into some messed up view of God. It is plainly (and repeatedly) stated in Scripture. Indeed, we have the clear statement that God's will is to make His power and wrath known on "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Rom 9:22).

In Romans Paul writes a comprehensive explanation of the problem (Rom 1:18-3:18). It's sin (Rom 1:18)¹. It's everywhere (Rom 3:23). It's fatal (Rom 6:23). Then he steps up to the good news (Rom 3:19-26). He speaks of our justification as a gift by God's grace "through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith." That word, "propitiation", isn't a friendly word. It refers to an angry God who requires appeasement. John says, "He Himself is the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 2:2) Clearly sin requires propitiation, the appeasement of an angry deity. This, the Bible says, was accomplished by Christ. How? "In His blood." Now, am I saying that God was some bloodthirsty deity requiring some messy sacrifice? No. Consider it from this direction. We speak of the "precious blood of Christ." How precious? Just how much blood was required? If Jesus had pricked His finger on a thorn, would that have been a sufficient quantity? No, of course not. The question isn't blood. The point is in the premise, "The life of the flesh is in the blood ... for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement." (Lev 17:11) Not blood, but life. Since "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23), the payment required is death. So Christ didn't die as an example or to teach us something or to show humility. "Christ died for our sins." (1 Cor 15:3)

The Bible says that all of us have sinned. The Bible says that sin earns us death. The Bible clearly claims that God's justice demands satisfaction. And the Bible is clear that Christ died for our sins, providing the satisfaction of divine justice, so that "He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Rom 3:26)² Now, noble sentiments might lead you to believe otherwise. But your noble sentiments would be wrong, a lie. And another thing the Bible is clear on is who the father of lies is. You can stick with your "warm feelings", your "improved understanding", your "higher version" and stand in direct opposition to all of Scripture as well as all of historic orthodox Christianity on this, or you can consider that we all suffer from wicked and deceitful hearts and if your feelings contradict God's Word, it is Man who is the liar, not God (Rom 3:4). So, go ahead. Substitute your feelings for God's stated truth. We'll let God sort that out.
________

¹ Note the infraction that incurs God's wrath. Suppression of truth. Not some "big sin". Not serial rape or mass murder or some such thing. This warrants wrath from God.

² In this phrase, Paul makes Christ's death on our behalf a matter of justice satisfied, making God both just and justifier. If it wasn't about justice, the phrase is meaningless.

Sentiment on Sovereignty

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.

The Tyranny of the Noble Sentiment

I was talking with a friend of mine and he brought up this idea he had. He called it "the tyranny of the noble sentiment." An interesting idea. Here, let me give you a simple, biblical example. Jesus was with His disciples at the end telling them He was going to die. Peter objected. "Lord, I am ready to go with You both to prison and to death!" (Luke 22:33) You know the story. Jesus told him not only would he fail to carry through on that, but he would deny he even knew Jesus three times before the next morning. That's a noble sentiment. "I am ready to go both to prison and to death!" The truth was something else.

The more I thought about it the more I started to think that this "noble sentiment" was a serious tyrant in our lives. We seem to be all wrapped up in it a good part of the time. It's not evil sentiments as much as these noble ones. Here, try this one out. I told you about the teacher who asked the Sunday school class about that John 9 passage with the man who was born blind. The teacher was quite sure that God didn't do that. It was a product of sin in the world, of genetics, that sort of thing. God didn't do it; He just used it. Lay that over against what God said to 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) You see? The noble sentiment. "God doesn't make people blind." Except that God says He does.

Think about it. It's really huge. Terms like "committed, loving, same-sex relationships" and "a woman's right to her own medical decisions" and "equal treatment under the law" are all noble sentiments. But when they're in violation of God's Word they become "ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18). "God is too kind and too loving to demand a sacrifice for sin" is a noble sentiment, but it stands in stark contrast with "the redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith." (Rom 3:24-25) Even something as pure as "I love my wife", certainly a noble sentiment, becomes idolatry and sin when it causes you to choose to please your wife rather than obey God. That is, I'm not talking about explicitly evil people harboring evil notions. These are noble sentiments. They become tyrannical when they serve to overturn God's Word, views, authority, or rights.

The noble sentiment is a tyrant, commanding the things we like versus the things God says. It plays on how we feel as opposed to reality (read "truth"). And that's why it is so difficult for us -- everyone -- to arrive at the truth. We are determining truth by the tyrant Sentiment. You clear-headed people who complain "A guy is not a girl just because he feels like he is" should see in the same way that nothing is true just because we feel like it is. The trick for the Christian is to begin the lifelong process of aligning sentiment with truth. That's something we all need to work on.