Showing posts with label Postmodernism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Postmodernism. Show all posts
Friday, December 13, 2013
Merry Christmas (If That's OK)
A politically correct carol from the Santa Claus episode of the show Mystery Science Theater 3000. Rather amusing how this was written to make fun of political correctness, and now, a decade later, this is amazingly true in some circles.
Monday, April 29, 2013
When You Decide Who God Is
A few days ago, I had quite the experience at a local pub here in Hampton Roads. I was spending some time unwinding after work, having a drink and reading Martin Luther's famous Bondage of the Will. Suddenly, I was brought into a conversation by three people: one gentleman by himself; and a couple. In terms of being able to handle a conversation between adults, I might from now on call these three (in order of the gentleman, the woman, and the man) by the names of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Bad and Ugly were obviously intoxicated (Ugly even more so), and so I tried to minimize my time speaking to them by speaking with Good instead. This proved to be a fruitless endeavor, given that Bad often interrupted Good, and Ugly spent much of his time leaning against me and murmuring things like "Your arguments are really bad" (he never said why) or "I don't want to talk to you any more" (apparently he couldn't just go anywhere else in the pub, which was empty). He was also doing small, annoying things like pinching my cheek and saying "You're so cute," or randomly tugging on the straps on the shoulders of my shirt. The amount of times Ugly made physical contact with me, in fact, gave me a brief fright that I was either going to have to call the police or reinterpret the meaning of "laying on of hands."
The range of topics between the four of us was everything from the morality of "self pleasure," to Calvinism, to whether the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds, to the nature of canon. The part that stuck out for me, however, was near the end, when Good asked me if I believed in "religion or relationship." I attempted to explain that this was really a false dichotomy, given God is the initiator of faith (and thus religion), and therefore it's a much more complicated matter (which is probably worth a future blog post!). Bad then cut in, declaring herself "Catholic," and saying that she liked going to liturgy because it appealed to her.
"It satisfies me, and that's what's important!" she said.
I then asked, "So you're saying that with worship it's more important to satisfy you rather than God?"
"No!" Bad retorted. "Don't misuse my words!"
"But that's what you said," I replied, "you said the important part was that it satisfied you. That just isn't scriptural."
"Well," she said, changing the subject (or trying to), "I just can't believe that my Jewish friends are going to hell, because they don't believe in Jesus!"
"Then you're at odds with Christ," I said, "because he said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me,' and 'he who is ashamed of me and my words, I will be ashamed of him before the Father.'"
To this, Bad said, "But you can't handle the Bible like that!"
"Why not?" I immediately asked. "Jesus quoted God's word against the devil. He quoted it against the Pharisees and Sadducees. The apostles quoted it against the Jews and Gentiles. Acts says that when Paul went into a new town, the first thing he would do is go to the local synagogue and reason with them from the scriptures. The standard was the word of God, and at this moment you are opposed to it."
Bad's response to this, and I quote:
"I don't care!"
Later on, as I drove away from the pub and headed back home, I pondered on what had just happened. Aside from the fact that I felt like I had just experienced firsthand an episode of Wretched Radio's Witness Wednesday, the words of Bad came back to me, and I realized that this is the battle cry of man's unregenerate state before God, and when faced with the truth of who God is they will turn violent and defensive. In retrospect, this seems to be the sad cleverness behind the lie of postmodernity: it offers a friendly answer but demonstrates no substance of truth; it plays the scholar while acting the fool.
Worst of all, this theology presents what appears to be a peaceful facade - a supposed ability to solve all the world's problems by pretending these problems aren't there - but in doing so, sacrifice the truth, and become enemies of it. I think it was part of the providence of God that the part of Bondage of the Will I was reading touched somewhat on this very subject; Luther writes, "To want to quell these tumults, therefore, is really to want to remove the Word of God and stop its course" (pg. 91). And likewise, "When we abandon [holy truths], we abandon God, faith, salvation, and all of Christianity!" (ibid) When we throw out the truth standard which God has put in place, then there is no standard, and every man is his own god, because every man is permitted to define god by his own standards.
What happens, then, when this cloak covering evil and error is removed, and the nakedness is exposed? Frankly, nothing much can be done or said. This is why there is nothing left to say except that which Bad said to me that night, when she declared "I don't care!" Here the facade of peace is removed, and the hostility is shown for what it is. Far from seeking truth, the rejection of the true God and His word is revealed to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The standard then becomes one we invent, based on what we decide to be truth (even if it is no truth). we in essence base God not around His word and truth, but our word and truth, and hence we place ourselves as the more important factor in worship over and against God. This is rank idolatry, of course, and it is this god which so many today worship. When this god feels threatened, its hostility lashes out at those who dare question its authority, and any gentleness the god has proclaimed to have is shown to be false. As Martin Luther wrote: "The world and its god cannot and will not bear the Word of the true God" (ibid). If, as Fulton Sheen once said, atheism is a cry of wrath, then postmodernity may be called a cry of rebellion.
Moments like what I experienced can no doubt be disheartening, and it can make us feel that we should join those passive voices which have submitted to this worldly theology. However, let us not cease to defend the truth, regardless of who it might opposing us or however they may choose to oppose us. The last word on this shall go to Martin Luther:
Quotations from Bondage of the Will are taken from the translation by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, published by Baker Academic.
The range of topics between the four of us was everything from the morality of "self pleasure," to Calvinism, to whether the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds, to the nature of canon. The part that stuck out for me, however, was near the end, when Good asked me if I believed in "religion or relationship." I attempted to explain that this was really a false dichotomy, given God is the initiator of faith (and thus religion), and therefore it's a much more complicated matter (which is probably worth a future blog post!). Bad then cut in, declaring herself "Catholic," and saying that she liked going to liturgy because it appealed to her.
"It satisfies me, and that's what's important!" she said.
I then asked, "So you're saying that with worship it's more important to satisfy you rather than God?"
"No!" Bad retorted. "Don't misuse my words!"
"But that's what you said," I replied, "you said the important part was that it satisfied you. That just isn't scriptural."
"Well," she said, changing the subject (or trying to), "I just can't believe that my Jewish friends are going to hell, because they don't believe in Jesus!"
"Then you're at odds with Christ," I said, "because he said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me,' and 'he who is ashamed of me and my words, I will be ashamed of him before the Father.'"
To this, Bad said, "But you can't handle the Bible like that!"
"Why not?" I immediately asked. "Jesus quoted God's word against the devil. He quoted it against the Pharisees and Sadducees. The apostles quoted it against the Jews and Gentiles. Acts says that when Paul went into a new town, the first thing he would do is go to the local synagogue and reason with them from the scriptures. The standard was the word of God, and at this moment you are opposed to it."
Bad's response to this, and I quote:
"I don't care!"
Later on, as I drove away from the pub and headed back home, I pondered on what had just happened. Aside from the fact that I felt like I had just experienced firsthand an episode of Wretched Radio's Witness Wednesday, the words of Bad came back to me, and I realized that this is the battle cry of man's unregenerate state before God, and when faced with the truth of who God is they will turn violent and defensive. In retrospect, this seems to be the sad cleverness behind the lie of postmodernity: it offers a friendly answer but demonstrates no substance of truth; it plays the scholar while acting the fool.
Worst of all, this theology presents what appears to be a peaceful facade - a supposed ability to solve all the world's problems by pretending these problems aren't there - but in doing so, sacrifice the truth, and become enemies of it. I think it was part of the providence of God that the part of Bondage of the Will I was reading touched somewhat on this very subject; Luther writes, "To want to quell these tumults, therefore, is really to want to remove the Word of God and stop its course" (pg. 91). And likewise, "When we abandon [holy truths], we abandon God, faith, salvation, and all of Christianity!" (ibid) When we throw out the truth standard which God has put in place, then there is no standard, and every man is his own god, because every man is permitted to define god by his own standards.
What happens, then, when this cloak covering evil and error is removed, and the nakedness is exposed? Frankly, nothing much can be done or said. This is why there is nothing left to say except that which Bad said to me that night, when she declared "I don't care!" Here the facade of peace is removed, and the hostility is shown for what it is. Far from seeking truth, the rejection of the true God and His word is revealed to all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The standard then becomes one we invent, based on what we decide to be truth (even if it is no truth). we in essence base God not around His word and truth, but our word and truth, and hence we place ourselves as the more important factor in worship over and against God. This is rank idolatry, of course, and it is this god which so many today worship. When this god feels threatened, its hostility lashes out at those who dare question its authority, and any gentleness the god has proclaimed to have is shown to be false. As Martin Luther wrote: "The world and its god cannot and will not bear the Word of the true God" (ibid). If, as Fulton Sheen once said, atheism is a cry of wrath, then postmodernity may be called a cry of rebellion.
Moments like what I experienced can no doubt be disheartening, and it can make us feel that we should join those passive voices which have submitted to this worldly theology. However, let us not cease to defend the truth, regardless of who it might opposing us or however they may choose to oppose us. The last word on this shall go to Martin Luther:
"Doctrinal truth should be preached always, openly, without compromise, and never dissembled or concealed."---------
Quotations from Bondage of the Will are taken from the translation by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, published by Baker Academic.
Friday, July 8, 2011
The Fallacy of Contrary Presuppositions
Some time ago, I got in a brief conversation with someone on a friend's Facebook page. To make a long (and painful) story short, it was essentially a discussion on whether or not Christ taught national healthcare. I argued that all of Christ's acts of charity were directly tied to His deity and that acts of charity were done by choice and through the church as a body. The other person argued that Christ approved of actions done by a sympathetic government. I then asked him to provide scripture to back up his case (I had done so for my own). It was then that the conversation took a turn, and the man began to argue that you didn't have to cite scripture, and that in the end it didn't matter what anyone believed, since with religion everyone was right.
I bring this up as only one example wherein conflicting presuppositions are brought into play, though unknowingly by the person presenting them. These conflicting presuppositions often boil down to something similar to this scheme:
Presupposition A: We have no way of truly knowing what Jesus taught.
Presupposition B: Jesus was a great teacher of morality and ethics, and taught X, Y, and Z.
Presupposition A is often introduced with a series of doubtful statements. One example is: "We have no way of knowing what the original Bible says because of the textual variances." Another example is: "There were so many books in the early church that we don't know which ones really depict what Jesus said." Another might be: "The books about Jesus were written later, so they aren't an accurate depiction of what His teachings or actions were." In all these scenarios, doubt is cast upon the assurance of knowing who Christ was, what He did, and what He said.
Presupposition B is often introduced to promote various forms of the social gospel or "religionless" Christianity. It essentially takes the morality and ethics of Christ's teaching sans His deity, and promotes it as a code of works for society as a whole to live by. People may deny Christ's deity or any dependence upon faith in Him, but will assure the listener something along the lines of: "I believe Christ to be a good moral teacher." Or they might proceed to go into a series of such moral teachings (providing for the poor, helping the sick, etc.) which they believe Christ taught to His followers and the general world population to follow.
Note, however, the fallacy in this mindset: they assert that A and B are both true, yet B is entirely dependent upon A being false. In order for us to believe that Christ taught morals and ethics, we have to know what those morals and ethics were; in order for us to know what those morals and ethics were, we have to know what Christ said. Therefore, as stated before, in order for B to be true, then A must be false. If A is true, then B is false. A and B cannot coexist without a complete contradiction.
Initially, I was going to write this off as being selective about your sources with a circular reasoning - that is, you choose what you want to use because it promotes your case, and throw out what you don't want because it doesn't promote your case. However, I realized this is even worse than that: you're denying the validity of a source, then saying that same source proves your point. In the end you are simply left with a fallacious position due to its inherently contradictory nature.
The fact is, our main source of knowing Christ is from scripture. Scripture teaches us what Christ taught and did. We cannot pick and choose what we want to believe Christ said or did any more we could do so for other historical figures. And among what Christ said and did was confirmation of His deity and the power given Him by the Father to judge the souls of men. We can deny this in our hearts, but we cannot hide from it. I urge everyone who reads this post to consider these words, and to meditate on what Christ says in scripture, and to know that He has been sent to call men to repentance and to prepare them for that day when all men will be judged through Christ Jesus. God bless.
I bring this up as only one example wherein conflicting presuppositions are brought into play, though unknowingly by the person presenting them. These conflicting presuppositions often boil down to something similar to this scheme:
Presupposition A: We have no way of truly knowing what Jesus taught.
Presupposition B: Jesus was a great teacher of morality and ethics, and taught X, Y, and Z.
Presupposition A is often introduced with a series of doubtful statements. One example is: "We have no way of knowing what the original Bible says because of the textual variances." Another example is: "There were so many books in the early church that we don't know which ones really depict what Jesus said." Another might be: "The books about Jesus were written later, so they aren't an accurate depiction of what His teachings or actions were." In all these scenarios, doubt is cast upon the assurance of knowing who Christ was, what He did, and what He said.
Presupposition B is often introduced to promote various forms of the social gospel or "religionless" Christianity. It essentially takes the morality and ethics of Christ's teaching sans His deity, and promotes it as a code of works for society as a whole to live by. People may deny Christ's deity or any dependence upon faith in Him, but will assure the listener something along the lines of: "I believe Christ to be a good moral teacher." Or they might proceed to go into a series of such moral teachings (providing for the poor, helping the sick, etc.) which they believe Christ taught to His followers and the general world population to follow.
Note, however, the fallacy in this mindset: they assert that A and B are both true, yet B is entirely dependent upon A being false. In order for us to believe that Christ taught morals and ethics, we have to know what those morals and ethics were; in order for us to know what those morals and ethics were, we have to know what Christ said. Therefore, as stated before, in order for B to be true, then A must be false. If A is true, then B is false. A and B cannot coexist without a complete contradiction.
Initially, I was going to write this off as being selective about your sources with a circular reasoning - that is, you choose what you want to use because it promotes your case, and throw out what you don't want because it doesn't promote your case. However, I realized this is even worse than that: you're denying the validity of a source, then saying that same source proves your point. In the end you are simply left with a fallacious position due to its inherently contradictory nature.
The fact is, our main source of knowing Christ is from scripture. Scripture teaches us what Christ taught and did. We cannot pick and choose what we want to believe Christ said or did any more we could do so for other historical figures. And among what Christ said and did was confirmation of His deity and the power given Him by the Father to judge the souls of men. We can deny this in our hearts, but we cannot hide from it. I urge everyone who reads this post to consider these words, and to meditate on what Christ says in scripture, and to know that He has been sent to call men to repentance and to prepare them for that day when all men will be judged through Christ Jesus. God bless.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
The Impersonal Nature of the Personal God
The definition of God which amounts to "whatever you perceive God to be" is said by many to be a personal God. However, the truth of the matter is, when this logic is reviewed, it turns out that this personal God is much more impersonal in nature. I hope, God willing, to explain this in greater detail within this post.
If we affirm that the deity of God exists, then we affirm the existence of the Being of God. It is the same as admitting the personhood of another man exists along with his existent state. What I mean by the latter is the very fact that the man exists, and all that goes with that proof that he is existent. However, along with that existent state comes, by definition, certain traits. Is he of European, African or Asian descent? How many years has he lived? What is his ethnicity? What kind of language does he speak? What kind of dialect of this language does he have? The list goes on. These are all traits specific to him, which affect his personhood.
Logic compels us to deny that a man can, outside of his existent state, possess any trait other than that compelled by force of means. An Asian man cannot suddenly become of African descent (as scripture asks, can an Ethiopian change his skin?; Jer 12:23), nor can a man who has lived seventy years suddenly become ten years old. For sure, he can temporarily change certain traits (a white man can take medication that will temporarily turn him black) or add to his current traits (a man who speaks French as a native language can teach himself German), but that which is part of his existent state cannot be removed from him.
Now we will give application of this to God. If we admit the deity of God, along with the Being of God, then it follows likewise that there must be some traits pertaining to that Being of God. That is, what is God's make-up? We will recognize that God is outside of certain limitations as found by a mortal man in his existent state - however, this does not mean God is not without traits pertaining to His Being.
Let us see this in application, with the definition of a personal God. Let us take two men who see God in their own personal ways: one sees God as a divine force - a vague kind of karma - whereas the other sees God as a therapeutic deistic version of the God of the Bible (all of the morals and ethics, but none of the accountability or authority). On the one hand, God is a vague force that simply keeps the universe together, similar to the Force of Star Wars; on the other hand, God is a rational, functioning entity who speaks, reasons, and interacts with creation, even setting down rules for it in a somewhat orderly. Both, however, are entirely different gods.
Let us put this in another application. Suppose we place a Muslim together with a Christian: on the one hand, God is a unitarian Being who is completely unable to take part in creation; on the other hand, God is a Trinitarian Being (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), with the second Person in the Trinity having taken on flesh and dwelt among mankind, representing a God who is far more interactive with His creation than the previous. These are, again, entirely different gods.
If we affirm the deity of God, we have to likewise affirm the Being of God. If we affirm the Being of God, we have to affirm the individual traits which compose God's very Being. Just as a man cannot contradict his existent state, God cannot contradict His entity. That is, God cannot be Trinitarian and Unitarian at the same time any more than He could be solely Creator (as found in monotheism) and solely creation (as found in pantheism) at the same time. To uphold that God is both Unitarian and Trinitarian is to present a contradiction. The deity of God cannot by definition be made up of a contradiction.
Therefore, those who would uphold that God is merely a personal God, from whom one can imagine their own definitions, are not teaching a coherent or logical definition of God. Rationally speaking, the personal God does not exist, because His very Being, logically, could not exist. It would be like a policeman writing down reports of a burglar from two witnesses, with one witness describing the burglar as a young white male, with the other describing an older black female. The policeman would have to logically conclude that either both witnesses were lying or one of them was in error - the burglar could not have been both a young white male and an older black female. This is why, in some regards, I am sympathetic to atheists who are responding to this plethora of ideas. For many, atheism is merely the rational conclusion of postmodern theology: if there are many gods, and there is no standard by which to define God, then, logically speaking, there can be no God.
Now let us recognize the main source of this concept of a personal God: the individual person. It comes from the individual's postmodern opinion manifesting itself in theological form. This is a weak basis at best, and is based entirely on fallacious logic. In attempting to justify all gods, the individual simply justifies no gods. What this does is transform the personal God into an impersonal God, because the personal God's existence is not a deity interacting with humanity, but humanity creating a God of its own design. This God, however, has no power. He is unable to do anything. With no existence of being, there are no discernible traits or qualities with which He is able to interact with His creation. He is powerless and unable to do anything with His creation. His very existence, in fact, is completely reliant upon the creation.
These are, of course, all the traits of an idol.
There is a story within Jewish tradition (reinvented in the Quran) where Abram (before being chosen by God) shatters all but one idol in his father's shop, then tells his father that the one idol did it. When the father replied that this was impossible, Abraham pointed this fact out, and showed that the idols had no powers at all, and therefore could not possibly be worshiped.
Isaiah likewise mocked idolatry, showing how with one piece of wood a man makes firewood to cook and then creates an idol to thank him for the food.
What likewise makes this impersonal is that we are removing God's sovereignty over His own standards and replacing them with our own. The Lord said to the Israelites: "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you" (Deut 4:2). Christ likewise said: "You are my friends if you do what I command you" (John 15:14). Yet those who would care to pick-and-choose what verses or commands to follow are disobeying God, even if they think they are still obeying God's commands by obeying part of His commands. Yet if our parents told us, as children, to mow the lawn and then clean the kitchen, and we only did one of those two chores, are we not still disobeying our parents? So too are those who want to acknowledge Christ's command "love one another" (John 15:17), and yet want to ignore or His statement "no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). Christ staunchly warned us, however, that we were to obey all His commands, and told His disciples: "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory..." (Luke 9:26).
But as we said, the proponents of a personal God are placing themselves as the authority over God, usurping God's sovereignty for their own. Many will deny they are doing so (often emotionally), but this is the logical conclusion of their own theology. It is a very man-centered theology, and perhaps one that represents a reversed kind of monergism: that is, the authority of man is supreme over the authority of God. Creation, however, cannot in any way usurp its creator. As the apostle Paul wrote: "The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?" (Rom 9:20). Man has absolutely no right to redefine God, just as the clay has no right to try to mold the potter. For us to attempt to do so is merely a sign of our heathen tendencies, in which we know God but do not honor Him as God, becoming futile in our speculations, and professing to be wise, people only become fools (cf. Rom 1:21-22).
Therefore, we have discussed a few things regarding those who want us to just seek after "our own personal God":
If we affirm that the deity of God exists, then we affirm the existence of the Being of God. It is the same as admitting the personhood of another man exists along with his existent state. What I mean by the latter is the very fact that the man exists, and all that goes with that proof that he is existent. However, along with that existent state comes, by definition, certain traits. Is he of European, African or Asian descent? How many years has he lived? What is his ethnicity? What kind of language does he speak? What kind of dialect of this language does he have? The list goes on. These are all traits specific to him, which affect his personhood.
Logic compels us to deny that a man can, outside of his existent state, possess any trait other than that compelled by force of means. An Asian man cannot suddenly become of African descent (as scripture asks, can an Ethiopian change his skin?; Jer 12:23), nor can a man who has lived seventy years suddenly become ten years old. For sure, he can temporarily change certain traits (a white man can take medication that will temporarily turn him black) or add to his current traits (a man who speaks French as a native language can teach himself German), but that which is part of his existent state cannot be removed from him.
Now we will give application of this to God. If we admit the deity of God, along with the Being of God, then it follows likewise that there must be some traits pertaining to that Being of God. That is, what is God's make-up? We will recognize that God is outside of certain limitations as found by a mortal man in his existent state - however, this does not mean God is not without traits pertaining to His Being.
Let us see this in application, with the definition of a personal God. Let us take two men who see God in their own personal ways: one sees God as a divine force - a vague kind of karma - whereas the other sees God as a therapeutic deistic version of the God of the Bible (all of the morals and ethics, but none of the accountability or authority). On the one hand, God is a vague force that simply keeps the universe together, similar to the Force of Star Wars; on the other hand, God is a rational, functioning entity who speaks, reasons, and interacts with creation, even setting down rules for it in a somewhat orderly. Both, however, are entirely different gods.
Let us put this in another application. Suppose we place a Muslim together with a Christian: on the one hand, God is a unitarian Being who is completely unable to take part in creation; on the other hand, God is a Trinitarian Being (Father, Son, Holy Spirit), with the second Person in the Trinity having taken on flesh and dwelt among mankind, representing a God who is far more interactive with His creation than the previous. These are, again, entirely different gods.
If we affirm the deity of God, we have to likewise affirm the Being of God. If we affirm the Being of God, we have to affirm the individual traits which compose God's very Being. Just as a man cannot contradict his existent state, God cannot contradict His entity. That is, God cannot be Trinitarian and Unitarian at the same time any more than He could be solely Creator (as found in monotheism) and solely creation (as found in pantheism) at the same time. To uphold that God is both Unitarian and Trinitarian is to present a contradiction. The deity of God cannot by definition be made up of a contradiction.
Therefore, those who would uphold that God is merely a personal God, from whom one can imagine their own definitions, are not teaching a coherent or logical definition of God. Rationally speaking, the personal God does not exist, because His very Being, logically, could not exist. It would be like a policeman writing down reports of a burglar from two witnesses, with one witness describing the burglar as a young white male, with the other describing an older black female. The policeman would have to logically conclude that either both witnesses were lying or one of them was in error - the burglar could not have been both a young white male and an older black female. This is why, in some regards, I am sympathetic to atheists who are responding to this plethora of ideas. For many, atheism is merely the rational conclusion of postmodern theology: if there are many gods, and there is no standard by which to define God, then, logically speaking, there can be no God.
Now let us recognize the main source of this concept of a personal God: the individual person. It comes from the individual's postmodern opinion manifesting itself in theological form. This is a weak basis at best, and is based entirely on fallacious logic. In attempting to justify all gods, the individual simply justifies no gods. What this does is transform the personal God into an impersonal God, because the personal God's existence is not a deity interacting with humanity, but humanity creating a God of its own design. This God, however, has no power. He is unable to do anything. With no existence of being, there are no discernible traits or qualities with which He is able to interact with His creation. He is powerless and unable to do anything with His creation. His very existence, in fact, is completely reliant upon the creation.
These are, of course, all the traits of an idol.
There is a story within Jewish tradition (reinvented in the Quran) where Abram (before being chosen by God) shatters all but one idol in his father's shop, then tells his father that the one idol did it. When the father replied that this was impossible, Abraham pointed this fact out, and showed that the idols had no powers at all, and therefore could not possibly be worshiped.
Isaiah likewise mocked idolatry, showing how with one piece of wood a man makes firewood to cook and then creates an idol to thank him for the food.
Surely he cuts cedars for himself, and takes a cypress or an oak and raises it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a fir, and the rain makes it grow. Then it becomes something for a man to burn, so he takes one of them and warms himself; he also makes a fire to bake bread. He also makes a god and worships it; he makes it a graven image and falls down before it. Half of it he burns in the fire; over this half he eats meat as he roasts a roast and is satisfied. He also warms himself and says, "Aha! I am warm, I have seen the fire." But the rest of it he makes into a god, his graven image He falls down before it and worships; he also prays to it and says, "Deliver me, for you are my god." [Isaiah 44:14-17]The uniqueness of God is declared by the Lord: "I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me" (Isa 44:6). He likewise says: "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock?" (Isa 44:8) Those who seek after idols - be they tangible or mental - are simply seeking to "pray to a god who cannot save" (Isa 45:20). A personal God - as we have demonstrated - has no personal qualities nor discernible traits. Therefore, the personal God is one who cannot save. A personal God who cannot save is as impersonal a God as they come.
What likewise makes this impersonal is that we are removing God's sovereignty over His own standards and replacing them with our own. The Lord said to the Israelites: "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you" (Deut 4:2). Christ likewise said: "You are my friends if you do what I command you" (John 15:14). Yet those who would care to pick-and-choose what verses or commands to follow are disobeying God, even if they think they are still obeying God's commands by obeying part of His commands. Yet if our parents told us, as children, to mow the lawn and then clean the kitchen, and we only did one of those two chores, are we not still disobeying our parents? So too are those who want to acknowledge Christ's command "love one another" (John 15:17), and yet want to ignore or His statement "no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). Christ staunchly warned us, however, that we were to obey all His commands, and told His disciples: "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory..." (Luke 9:26).
But as we said, the proponents of a personal God are placing themselves as the authority over God, usurping God's sovereignty for their own. Many will deny they are doing so (often emotionally), but this is the logical conclusion of their own theology. It is a very man-centered theology, and perhaps one that represents a reversed kind of monergism: that is, the authority of man is supreme over the authority of God. Creation, however, cannot in any way usurp its creator. As the apostle Paul wrote: "The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?" (Rom 9:20). Man has absolutely no right to redefine God, just as the clay has no right to try to mold the potter. For us to attempt to do so is merely a sign of our heathen tendencies, in which we know God but do not honor Him as God, becoming futile in our speculations, and professing to be wise, people only become fools (cf. Rom 1:21-22).
Therefore, we have discussed a few things regarding those who want us to just seek after "our own personal God":
- It contradicts the very nature of a true Being, implying that a Being can be two things at once.
- It is sourced not to revelation or sound, consistent theology but to an individual's own personal preferences.
- It is the very definition of an idol, and hence worshiping this god is simply idol worship.
- This "personal God" has no ability to save, and no way to communicate with the individual. He is, for all intents and purposes, a useless god to whom to pray.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Atonement and Forgiveness
Several weeks ago, while attending a seminar at a local seminary here in Kansas City, I heard this amazing statement from one of the speakers:
That a trait of a true Christian is that they forgive others is, of course, absolutely correct. We're not trying to run to the opposite extreme. The problem, however, is in trying to tie the atonement into our personal forgiveness. From there we run into many issues:
First, we cannot possibly mimic the forgiveness given by God for our sins - that's simply impossible. That's like comparing a father forgiving the man who killed his wife and children to a kid who forgives another kid for stealing Halloween candy. It might also be helpful to point out that the Greek word translated as "trespass" in Matthew 6:15 (whose root is παράπτωμα) means a lesser kind of transgression, as opposed to the "debt" discussed in Matthew 6:14 (root word: ὀφείλημα) which means something plainly owed to another person. The two "trespasses" discussed in either verse are of two different levels and degrees of seriousness. This was the point of Christ's parable of the ungrateful servant who, owing an ungodly amount of money to his master, refused to forgive the small amount of money owed to him by a fellow servant. The fact is, it is simply impossible for us to mimic the forgiveness given to us by God, when compared to the forgiveness given to others.
Second, we have to ask ourselves: would we be able to honestly say to God, on the day of judgment, that we forgave all trespasses done against us? From every tiny little thing to every major thing, would we be able to forgive the other person, or even remember to do so? I probably don't remember all that was done against me, and there are some from my past that may take greater spiritual maturity before I can. If there is still that imperfection, and our atonement is the basis of this, then does that mean that we will not be atoned for and therefore shall be cast into hell?
Thirdly, if we fail to forgive someone, and therefore annul our atonement, does that make the atonement of Christ itself null and void? If so, then from where will our next atonement come? For if we believe truly that Christ "died for sins once for all" (1 Pet 3:18) then even our imperfection in not forgiving every transgression (as discussed in my second point) can still be covered, for the year-by-year, sin-by-sin sacrifices of the Temple ended with the sacrifice of Christ. If, however, we say that the atonement is done away with in our transgression, then the atonement is imperfect. We therefore have to "make up" for our lack of righteousness, and must do something to please God.
Fourthly, as we saw from the previous paragraph, this entire thinking leads, in one way or another, to works-based righteousness. The atonement becomes dependent not on what God does or what God did, but what we do. This makes God's ability to redeem His people, so important under the new covenant, completely dependent upon the creation rather than the creator.
Lastly, and in relation to the last point, this makes the entire sacrifice of Christ pointless. I might ask: if we are atoned for simply by forgiving others...then why did Christ die? Why did Christ suffer the most painful, embarrassing execution of His time, and all in front of friends and close family, if all He had to do was tell people to just forgive one another? Why did Christ come at all, if atonement comes from a message that any prophet could have given?
Again, I'm not demeaning the importance of forgiveness, but forgiveness is because of what Christ did, not what Christ can do. A true believer forgives the small transgression against us because of the great transgression we have committed against God, and its own forgiveness through the salvific sacrifice of Christ. We don't forgive because it feels good to do it - we forgive because we have been forgiven. To say that our atonement is in our forgiveness of others is to present a kind of postmodern nonsense. To suggest that our atonement is conditional on our ability to forgive is something that I must, with all respect, disagree with.
"Our atonement comes from forgiving others."I almost did two barrel rolls when I heard this. Was this person serious? We are atoned for by forgiving others? Sadly, that's exactly what the person meant. In bringing this up on Facebook, someone proposed to me the following: "It might be accurate, however, to say that Christ's atonement is conditional upon us forgiving others (Matt 6:15)." I'd like to take a moment to address both these points briefly.
That a trait of a true Christian is that they forgive others is, of course, absolutely correct. We're not trying to run to the opposite extreme. The problem, however, is in trying to tie the atonement into our personal forgiveness. From there we run into many issues:
First, we cannot possibly mimic the forgiveness given by God for our sins - that's simply impossible. That's like comparing a father forgiving the man who killed his wife and children to a kid who forgives another kid for stealing Halloween candy. It might also be helpful to point out that the Greek word translated as "trespass" in Matthew 6:15 (whose root is παράπτωμα) means a lesser kind of transgression, as opposed to the "debt" discussed in Matthew 6:14 (root word: ὀφείλημα) which means something plainly owed to another person. The two "trespasses" discussed in either verse are of two different levels and degrees of seriousness. This was the point of Christ's parable of the ungrateful servant who, owing an ungodly amount of money to his master, refused to forgive the small amount of money owed to him by a fellow servant. The fact is, it is simply impossible for us to mimic the forgiveness given to us by God, when compared to the forgiveness given to others.
Second, we have to ask ourselves: would we be able to honestly say to God, on the day of judgment, that we forgave all trespasses done against us? From every tiny little thing to every major thing, would we be able to forgive the other person, or even remember to do so? I probably don't remember all that was done against me, and there are some from my past that may take greater spiritual maturity before I can. If there is still that imperfection, and our atonement is the basis of this, then does that mean that we will not be atoned for and therefore shall be cast into hell?
Thirdly, if we fail to forgive someone, and therefore annul our atonement, does that make the atonement of Christ itself null and void? If so, then from where will our next atonement come? For if we believe truly that Christ "died for sins once for all" (1 Pet 3:18) then even our imperfection in not forgiving every transgression (as discussed in my second point) can still be covered, for the year-by-year, sin-by-sin sacrifices of the Temple ended with the sacrifice of Christ. If, however, we say that the atonement is done away with in our transgression, then the atonement is imperfect. We therefore have to "make up" for our lack of righteousness, and must do something to please God.
Fourthly, as we saw from the previous paragraph, this entire thinking leads, in one way or another, to works-based righteousness. The atonement becomes dependent not on what God does or what God did, but what we do. This makes God's ability to redeem His people, so important under the new covenant, completely dependent upon the creation rather than the creator.
Lastly, and in relation to the last point, this makes the entire sacrifice of Christ pointless. I might ask: if we are atoned for simply by forgiving others...then why did Christ die? Why did Christ suffer the most painful, embarrassing execution of His time, and all in front of friends and close family, if all He had to do was tell people to just forgive one another? Why did Christ come at all, if atonement comes from a message that any prophet could have given?
Again, I'm not demeaning the importance of forgiveness, but forgiveness is because of what Christ did, not what Christ can do. A true believer forgives the small transgression against us because of the great transgression we have committed against God, and its own forgiveness through the salvific sacrifice of Christ. We don't forgive because it feels good to do it - we forgive because we have been forgiven. To say that our atonement is in our forgiveness of others is to present a kind of postmodern nonsense. To suggest that our atonement is conditional on our ability to forgive is something that I must, with all respect, disagree with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)