Introducing Christian Doctrine by Millard Erickson

Sorry, TC, I missed it. It was just going too fast for me on a Japanese weekend!

 

Was just sitting here thinking it’s difficult for us to even attempt to describe God’s attributes on a finite level, for sure. I also had to sit here a few minutes and figure how to be more specific without opening up a 6-pack or 2 of canned worms, LOL. Like you, I generally try to steer clear of the C/A debates and especially now since I really don’t have time to thoroughly defend my position against these well qualified theologians, but felt compelled to bring up the issue of cause and effect.

I somewhat know your position after a couple years here and figured you wouldn’t buy into some of the implications that you seemed to be agreeing with of God’s control in “everything” to include such things as being the “cause” of sin. (As in predestination from creation of all actions -or- Dare I say- making God the author of sin.)

Question: If one of God’s attributes is Omnibenevolence, and He is Only Good, we then have the “Problem of Evil” existing in the world, so did God “cause” evil? Can God do anything, even if it is against His nature? Can God lie and be Truth?

What I was actually suggesting is that the word “control” might be broken down between “cause and effect” and “influence and response”.

I see how that could work for you, but would ask if God created time when He created the world, does He, or couldn’t He (being Omnipotent) interact with the human creatures that He created to exist within that time? And what about Jesus, wasn’t He incarnated within created time to be fully human (as well as fully God) Does this contradict the perception that God is always to be bound outside of time?

Not so weird, I’ve rationalized it similarly (either that or maybe we’re both weird, I don’t know) I see both C and A to have valid points, but also invalid points, and too often force to fit boxing from within extreme ends to complete a system.

When you say, “man appears to make choices” it sounds to me as if you lean to believe he doesn’t, as in predestinarianism, and if man did not choose to sin then who would be responsible for sin, God? Seems we strive to rationalize some attributes over others using theological and philosophical persuasions to fit a system. I suppose I prioritize the nature of God (Love, Truth, and only Good) and rationalize that His omnipotence and sovereignty can still be in control within the design that He created all humans able to freely choose within time.

Yeah, “At the very same point” that’s very neutral of you. :laugh: It’s OK TinyTim, you don’t have to answer my questions, LOL. JK, and just throwing out food for thought anyway. Good tread BTW.

 

God's Holiness,

I had an earth-shaking time listening to Piper discuss this subject. His conclusions were confirmed by a professor (a scary-brilliant man [I had him for OT] who is, arguably, the foremost Septuagint scholar in the world and his language prowess is unmatched--the students' unofficial count was somewhere around 26!--he wouldn't tell us the real number).

Their collective conclusion is this: God's holiness can be described this way--His total and absolute dedication to Himself and His glory.

How did we get there? The idea is this (and I totally agree with this, by the way). You know where the scripture says "Be holy as I am holy?" That's God's command to us to be Holy. The root meaning of the word means to separate. In this case it is understood to be separated for service to God. So you can have holy men, holy utensils (in the temple), holy land, etc. Those things, not inherently holy, are made holy by their separation to service of God.

Now, here is the hard question. We are supposed to be holy (which means set apart for service to God) as God is Holy. To whom, then, is God to be set apart to serve? ONLY HIMSELF. There is no one greater for Him to serve other than Himself.

Therefore, for God to be holy is to say that He is absolutely set apart and committed to Himself and His own glory just as we, being holy, should be set apart and committed to Him and His glory.

God is the only being in the universe for whom this is a virtue. For man to do this would mean that man is worshiping man. However, for God to do this means that He is glorifying the most glorious being in the entire universe--Himself.

I know, this is a different and difficult concept and I don't expect comprehension at first. It took me quite a while to swallow this pill. I hope this is not as brain-breaking for you as it was for me.

Also, you can listen to Piper's message...I think it was from Jan 1, 1984 and can be found by date at desiringgod.org in the resource library.

Many blessings to all and to all a good night (to co-opt a phrase...without the bowl-full of jelly)

The Archangel

PS. I have really, really enjoyed this thread. The discussion is truly stimulating and the sharing of Ideas has been very helpful.

 

Ok, so...I didn't go to bed yet. I wanted to address Benjamin's quesiton about God and the problem of evil.

First, let me say that most times we tend to think of ourselves as basically good while the Bible describes us a basically bad. Rabbi Harold Kushner wrote Why bad things happen to good people. His title displays his presuppositions--and they are wrong suppositions.

His question was wrong and so he got a wrong answer for the Bible says, "There are none righteous." Therefore, the question should have been--why do good things happen to bad people? The only answer I can come up with is this: It is all God's grace.

How does this apply to evil? Well, if we are honest with ourselves, even the best of Christians (like Billy Graham, maybe) is still a sinner. And since the wages of sin is death, even the Christian deserves death. So, for God to kill a "good" person (and again, there are no "good" people, only sinners who are already redeemed but not yet fully sanctified) is a perfectly just response to sin.

It is interesting to look at Job.

After the first "infliction," Job says:

Job 1:21-22 (ESV)
And he said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord."
[22] In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.

Job was certainly a righteous man, but he was not perfect (because only God is perfect). He was called "Blameless." So, it would seem that the trouble that befell him was not just.

But look at his response. He gives the "credit" to God and the inspired author says for Job to say God "took away" (Which is to say, "God did this") is NOT a sin and the author goes further by saying Job "Did not charge God with wrong." So Job says God did it and it is not sinful. Therefore, God did this to Job (through Satan, sure) but God did it.

Secondly, after the second infliction, Job says to his wife:

Job 2:9-10 (ESV)
Then his wife said to him, "Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die." [10] But he said to her, "You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Notice what Job says: "Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?"

WOW! Job just said that this evil (and the word can be translated calamity instead of evil) is God's doing. But, again, the author says that in this statement, Job did not sin.

This shows a very difficult situation. I think my Systematic professor said it best when he said, "God stands to the side of evil, He does not stand behind it." I think that phrase is helpful, but it is also enigmatic so, I have to think more and more about it.

Ultimately, as Job shows, God is (and still would be) perfectly just in wiping us all out, for we are all sinners and deserve it.

I remember all the "Where was God" stuff after hurricane Katrina. I heard people asking, "how can there be a God if He allows this to happen; were was he?" I think that was the wrong question. I was saying this: "Why did anyone escape the destruction? May God be praised for His grace in preserving even one sinner who deserved their death."

Anyway...I'm sure that too will be difficult to digest, I'm still working on it.

Many blessings to all ....and finally good night.

The Archangel

 

I will get back to you in the morning on this one because this has some glaring problems in it, but I am at work and do not have access to my books at this time.

But I will state these are what I will most likely address:
1. God's holiness can be described this way--His total and absolute dedication to Himself and His glory. (though not so much so because it is true in principle but it is not an accurate definition)

2. To whom, then, is God to be set apart to serve? ONLY HIMSELF.

3. Therefore, for God to be holy is to say that He is absolutely set apart and committed to Himself and His own glory...

4. I don't expect comprehension at first.

 

Hello Archangel,

Now we have reached into an area that will start to divide our group. Evil will be hard for us to address and each of us agree with. This is not really something found in Theology proper, but being that it is on the table, I would like to say a few things. Let me start by quoting a verse.

Psalms 18:31
"As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him."

Maybe we should not get into evil as the sin principle on this thread, because then we would be really off the subject matter. But evil as a calamity, I would like to ring in on. I agree with how you looked at Kushner well known book. I also agree with how you answer "why do bad things happen to good people". I may have used the word goodness rather then grace and say "it is because God is good".

What I disagree with the most is why. I can understand why you may say it is because we all our sinners, I just disagree with it. I think this over looks Gods grace and that we (his elect) are not under His wrath. God does all things because they are good and the right thing to do.

When going though "bad things" we may not understand nor see them as good. But it is because of Gods goodness that we sometimes go though the fire. Not because we are sinners. But because God knows better then us. Even in death, we can say God is good. When someone is facing death that is close to us, it allows us to rethink our life. We all must die, but God allows death to come in our life that is best for us at that time. Even if the death is sudden and a shock to us, it is Gods own goodness that allowed it to come at that moment. Maybe it was the only moment we could handle death of our loved one. If God had waited another year, to allow death to enter our family, it may have had crushing blows beyond what we had when death did come up on our family.

Even when calamity falls on sinners, it is for good. It is to uphold goodness and or stop the evil. But God can take care of this placing good on both the saints and upholding goodness over the sinner, in one event. "Where was God when Hurricane Katrina hit?"...God was there, for it was good. Saints died in Katrina, but those saints are in Heaven. This is good. They that died as saints were not hurt as much as the ones left behind. To the ones left behind and also call Christ their Lord, God was good in showing His loving kindness to them as they walked through deaths valley and lose. To those left behind in Katrina and do not know of God, God was still good to allow Katrina to let godless people think of life and how it can be taken from them at any moment. God was good and just to end the life of sinners in Katrina. God was good to allow our nation to focus on the power of God knowing that God could do this to any city at any time. Katrina happened not just because there were sinners there, because there are sinners everywhere. Katrina happened because God is good.

This short post would not allow us to get deep into this, so I want to just sum up my view. All things that we see as bad/evil or calamity are not viewed that way in Gods eyes. His ways are higher then our own. God is good.


**********

At the rate this thread is going, it will be closed before I get back to it. I have a long day ahead. I have enjoyed it dear brothers and sisters. I hope we can have others like it.

In Christ...James

 

Sorry, I missed it when I read your list.

And you are right. "We love Him because He first loved us." He is love and He is the source of all love.

 

Oh, OK. :sleeping_2:

skypair

 

I still think that, for a paradigm, God as "all Truth" holds up well. He's not the same God if He is just some truth or if some truth is considered without other aspects of truth about Him.

skypair

 

Ok, I'm back.

Let's begin with my #1:
1. God's holiness can be described this way--His total and absolute dedication to Himself and His glory.

The utilization of the passage in the manner through which this definition was derived was poor at best.
First, the very definition they present excludes God from loving anything or anyone except for Himself. Why? Because He is totally and abosolutely dedicated to Himself and His glory. If He is "totally" and "absolutely dedicated to Himself" then this absolutely and toatally precludes anyone other than Himself to be loved. This is why I think the statement is correct in principle (yes, God is devoted to His glory and thereby Himself) but not to the extent their defintion takes it.

If the above be true (with regard to being totally and absolutely devoted to Himself) then it is much the same as stating :
God loves Himself and His plan for His glory rather than or instead of the people whom He chose to save. IF God loved them at all, it would be at the VERY best teriary since His absolute devotion to Himself would exclude anything that was not God.

Secondly, scripture expounds much more on God's Holiness than that. J.I. Packer set is forth thusly from His "Concise Theology" Heading "God Revealed as Creator" subheading "Holiness":

OR Ryrie on Holiness here from his 'Basic Theology;

About #2 and #3:
I will just reference back to one, showing the incompletenss of what has been revealed in scripture regarding God's holiness and what it entails.

As I stated, the defintion they give is true in principle and true as an aspect to the whole but not truly an accurate defintion that emcompasses all of what has been revealed by God to man.

Regarding #4:
It isn't hard to understand, it is just to simplistic a paraphrase to adiquately depict what Holiness is, and therefore it can be easily warped and taken to far a field.

 

I'll agree with that sky. I'll qualify it with God's truth. What we perceive as truth does not necessarily make it so. God's truth is true, whether we believe it or not!
Agree?

 

Look at it this way though Allan. God's love for His people actually is love for Himself in Christ. When we are justified, God only sees His Son in us. God only sees righteousness. He only sees the perfection imputed to us by His Son.... who is God.
Ultimately then, I see it the way AA has described it. God's perfect love for a perfect being.... Himself. The only way we are loved perfectly is in Christ.

 

Just want to point something out. I think these type statements should be avoided as they are contentious. Instead, reply without these type statements, stating what you believe to be true.
Just trying to come to a better way of debate without bringing personal feelings into it.... and ultimately having the debate go the way most of this type end. :thumbs:

 

Ergo, God has no love for or toward you but only for Himself.

For the sake of argument:
Can you find for me one scripture that states or alludes to the fact that God loves Christ in us and not really you?

However, I bet you can you find many scriptures which state God loves us, world, et..

Though God does see Himself in us, the purpose is not so that God may indirctly love us by directly loving Himself. He sees Christ in us and overshadowing us with His righteousness that we who are not worthy of His grace, mercy, and Love may be partakers of them not mere bystanders of His active relationship with Himself. He died for US because He first loved US. But in order to bring US to a place where God can be in a relationship with US (whom He loved), He had to be for US what we could not be. Thereby WE are the objects of His Love mirrored in Christ that we might be partakers not only of but also WITH Him.

What you and Arch present (to me) seemingly destroys the fact that God is Love. To you (it seems), yes, God is love but only and exclusively Love to Himself and His supposed love toward us is actaully teriary at it very best if even that.

Therefore in light of the argument above (as I understand it - and that isn't saying much) it 'seems' apparent that if God in the scriptures claims to love us we can presumably prove Him a liar since God does not in fact love US but Loves Himself in us. And that to me flies in the face of scripture and Gods nature (IMO)

Does what I am saying make sense :laugh:

 

I agree they can be seen as contentious. I just didn't think about it.
I will address 'problems' I see, but in doing so I will just refrain from the discriptors relating to those problems :thumbs:

 

Yeah! And I guess where I'm leading is that in this world, Christ will be "all in all" to believers but in the KoG/New Earth, GOD will be "all in all." Rev 22 So if Christ is "the Word" and then God is "all Truth," we at some point will have available to us "all Truth!" In fact, we will see Him "face to face!"

We know but a fragment of "all Truth" BUT scripture says that the Holy Spirit will "guide us into all Truth." And indeed He will as He leads us "home!"

But then again, Truth has all the attributes, if not essences, of God. And as to evil --- evil is just the lie about truth. And a lie doesn't exist without there is a countervailing truth. So when Satan is destroyed (postMK), there will be no more lies about the Truth.

But meanwhile, Satan would try to appear to have the power of God through the lie. And we might well receive it, especially through the flesh (believers and unbelievers alike). That is why we must be very careful when discussing theology that we don't become part of "the lie."

skypair

 

Yes, it makes sense brother. And I see where you are coming from.
My point of view is that God hates sin. Even regenerate saints are sinners. The only way He can love us in in Him IMHO. :thumbs:

 

Amen brother. Very well stated.

 

I think where Allan and myself are talking past each other is in our differing views of election. Mine is unconditional in Christ. Allan's, I think, is conditioned upon belief in Christ. We get into the minute details of the mechanics of salvation, which I'm not sure will benefit this thread at this time.
I know from Erickson's book that we will come to this discussion later on. I think I'll save it for then........ unless Tim wants to go there now.
Whatcha say boss?