“If God is Sovereign and the world is like it is, he is not good” 4

Here is the fourth part in this mini series. Part one can be found here, part two here and part three here.

What does it mean to be sovereign?

We see that God alone is the moral prescriber and that even though sinful human beings deserve death, judgment and an eternity of separation from an altogether holy God we do have a God who is gracious. It is here that we often get in a muddle, confuse our theology with anthropology, try to create an anthropocentric and systematic castle rather than loosely hanging our ideas on theocentric and movable stakes and consequently end up making nonsense statements that, in light of eternity, will equate to asking what colour square is!

We know that “he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:31), we know that “the LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love” (Numbers 14:18), we know that “it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Romans 9:16), and we know that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9)

In and amongst a myriad of true statements we must place a paradox between God’s sure, certain and absolute sovereignty and the moral, just and absolute culpability of humans for their actions. In doing this, however, we must maintain a theocentric mindset, one that has an eternal perspective and one that does not pander to the desire of the human heart to hear what its itching ears lust for (2 Timothy 4:3).

God bless.

Dear Freedom

“If God is Sovereign and the world is like it is, he is not good” 3

Here's the next part in this mini series. The first part can be found here and the second part here.

What is the state of the world?

If, as we have established, it is God who is the one that is the moral prescriber then we would do well to heed what it is that he says is the problem. Romans 1:18-32 gives us one of the clearest descriptions of the state of humanity with darkened hearts, debased minds and degraded bodies. These verses show that the source of our state is that those who are not living in right relationship with God, the unrighteous, have suppressed the truth. The truth suppressing nature of rebels is what has lead God to give them up to the lusts of their hearts, to dishonourable passions and debased minds.

Romans 1:18-32 tells us that "...what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them...they are without excuse... they knew God... they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened... they became fools... they exchanged the truth about God for a lie... they did not see fit to acknowledge God... they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die." We are culpable for our moral failures and we recognise and know that. In essence we get what we want and yet we want more. We want our cake, we want to eat it and we will even demand that we can continue our perverted over consumption with no consequences for our eternal waistline but we won’t acknowledge the chef or, indeed, the creator of the very ingredients themselves – in fact, in our state of absolute rebellion, we will even claim that we are the chef and we spoke the ingredients into existence! We see this in our relationships; we acknowledge that relationships are good, but we want good relationships without God at the centre, in fact we want relationships that centre around “me” and “my” convenience and we vehemently protest at any idea of God, the creator of relationships, having any input or any right to judge us for our perversion of his good gift. Here God's self-defining nature becomes most evident.

God is limited by his nature in that he cannot act in a way contrary to his self-definition. God's desire is that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9), God’s desire is to be brought into right relationship with all people, God is gracious, compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love (Numbers 14:18), but he is also righteous, just and altogether holy (Leviticus 11:44). He cannot act in a manner contrary to his nature; indeed he cannot tolerate anything that is contrary to his nature.

We may ask why God’s nature has any bearing on the state of the world as it is today, but it is his very patience, his very graciousness and his very love that has resulted in the world as it is today. “The Lord is not slow to fulfil his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) G.K. Chesterton was absolutely correct when he said that “I am” the problem with the world, but we are here by God’s grace alone as he affords sinful, rebellious and unrighteous people the opportunity to repent.

God bless.

Dear Freedom

“If God is Sovereign and the world is like it is, he is not good” 2

Here's the next part in this mini series. The first part can be found here.

How do we define what is good?

It is at the point, where we say that God is not good, that we commit the very sin that our first parents committed that resulted in their expulsion from the garden (Genesis 3:23) and lead to the descent of the world into the state that it is in now. Our first parents, in their decision to be the moral prescribers, usurped God's authority and decided that they would be the ones who would determine good from evil. God had declared his creation, his creatures and their relationships to be good (Genesis 1:31), but, through the distortion of God's word, and the persuasion of the serpent, our first parents decided that such a declaration was not true (Genesis 3:6).

Since our first parents made God out to be liar we have continued our rebellion and are at a point that comments, such as this one, regarding our responsibility
and creatureliness are the norm.

"When the world and humanity are facing unprecedented problems of global warming, overpopulation, inadequate food provision, AIDS, and the burgeoning capabilities of science to improve our lot or do it terminal harm, we need clear, rational, moral and scientifically informed thought of the kind Krauss promotes. We do not need doctrinal imperatives imposed from "above" (whether human or divine)." (New Scientist magazine - 05 July 2008, Letters, It's a wonderful cosmos)

In many ways our problem is one of forgetfulness. We forget that we are the ones that made the decisions in the first place that got us into the fix that we are in now, but, as with our opening statement, when we come to a point of recognition, like the world is not as it should be, we immediately shift the blame to God. Yet God's very self-definition is one of holiness, of "set-apart-goodness" and so this blame shifting is just a continuation of our failure as creatures.

It is at this point; as we consider God's self-defining nature, that we must be careful not to slip into the error, indeed the sin, of our first parents in declaring God's declaration to be inadequate or untrue. Does God not define himself? Who are we as created creatures to say that God is not God because he does not fit our definition of who God is? The fact that we feel uncomfortable about God's nature is surely a greater reflection on ourselves than God.

God bless.

Dear Freedom

“If God is Sovereign and the world is like it is, he is not good”

I thought I would post, as a mini series, some thoughts and writing I've done recently for the Relay scheme.

Introduction

The questions regarding the nature of God's character, the state of the world in which we live, our basis for good and evil and how these topics interrelate in such an inextricable way is an age old question. However, in pondering these questions we must be careful. The problem with much of our theology is that it is not theology, but anthropology. If it is God who describes ultimate reality then both our theology and our anthropology must be theocentric and not anthropocentric.

As we consider this statement, and indeed when we consider any aspect of reality, we must recognise that God's word limits the bounds within which we can stake our assertions and on which we can hang our theology. As we go about establishing our worldview in the shadow of the cross we must be clear about what the Bible does and does not allow us to say with certainty. Much of our systematic theology is a case of joining up the dots as comprehensively as we can in areas where we do not have absolute certainty, but this must be done humbly and in a way that acknowledges the fallibility of even the most thorough human thought.

God bless.

Dear Freedom