Making God palatable
Sometimes, God doesn’t quite fit into our cultural values. We are surrounded by a whole worldview and philosophy that is not totally compatible with God. That was certainly the case in Colosse. Paul wrote to the Colossians in opposition to the Gnostics, who believed that spirit was good, matter was evil, and thus Jesus didn’t really come in the flesh. They held these clearly heretical views because they wanted the gospel to fit into the philosophical trends of their day. Paul condemned the Gnostics with these words:
Colossians 2:6-10, 15
6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority…. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
We are not to try to adapt the gospel to human philosophical systems (à la liberal and Emergent theology); rather, we are to recognize that Christ defeated the spiritual rulers and authorities who are responsible for these systems. We should never be afraid that others will think we are foolish; instead, we are to remember that God has declared the wisdom of this world to be foolish (1 Corinthians 1:25).
Unfortunately, well-intentioned Christians sometimes fall into the trap of trying to conform God to societal values. They see something in the Bible that offends them, and so they build a philosophical system to make God’s actions more palatable. A couple examples I’ve run across:
- Claiming that God’s wrath comes from his love, i.e. God is wrathful only because he is loving. I’ve heard this traced back to the love between members of the Trinity, but quite frankly, this is just a way to make God’s wrath seem less offensive. Biblically, God’s wrath is traced to his holiness—he cannot stand the sight of sin and has promised to punish evildoers.
- Claiming that the reason evil exists in the world is that God values man’s free will. That is, it’s so important to God that people will choose him freely and unrobotically that he’s willing to allow people to do evil things. Of course, this is nothing more than speculation—there is nothing in the Bible that says God allowed sin to enter the world because he wanted people to love him out of their own free will. In fact, it’s clear from the Bible that it is by God’s sovereign decree or plan that evil takes place.
In the past, I’ve definitely valued many theodicies attempting to defend God that are based on human speculation and philosophy, not on the Bible. In fact, I probably still do. May we heed the words of Solomon, who warned us to “beware of anything beyond” the words of the wise, “given by one Shepherd” (Ecclesiastes 12:11-12).
Posted on October 1, 2007, in Reflections and tagged apologetics, Bible, Colossians, culture, philosophy, wisdom. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.
What’s this now, Dave, who’s saying these things?? 0:-)
Actually I really am surprised at the two “theodicies” you list.
About the first:
I certainly hope God can stand the sight of sin, since I’m trusting him to remove it from me. I’d be pretty worried about going to a doctor who was too concerned about his own cleanliness to operate. Does God feel threatened by dirty people?
Why does sin arouse the wrath of God? I dare you to come up with any biblical answer that does not start with him loving us. If we were merely servants of his, what would sin be to him? But he loves us as sons, and his wrath arises because he IN HIS LOVE FOR US would have us perfect, and we quite frankly would rather stay dirty. Do you see what I mean? Are we merely misunderstanding each other here? Or do you really believe that God, who is Love according to John, yet performs unloving acts?
I’ve got a lot to say about the second one as well, but I must be brief for now. You say that “it’s clear from the Bible that it is by God’s sovereign decree or plan that evil takes place.” Isn’t that language a trifle dangerous? Jesus said of the weeds in his parable that “An enemy has done this.” And how can God be “not wishing that any should perish” if he is preparing vessels for destruction? How is that “clear from the Bible?”
Respectfully disagreeing with you in the love of Christ,
Joshua
What’s this now, Dave, who’s saying these things?? 0:-)
Heh…actually, I’ve only heard you say the first one…and you’re not the only one I’ve heard it from.
Actually I really am surprised at the two “theodicies” you list.
To show that even well-meaning believers need to watch out for this, I wanted to pick two instances of Christians trying to make God and his actions more palatable by contriving an extrabiblical (i.e. speculative) defense. I know I’ve held up the second defense in the past…not because it was based on scripture but rather because it sounded good.
I started writing a long post in defense of my views, but (a) I don’t think I have the time right now, and (b) quite frankly, that would be missing the point. The whole reason I questioned these theodicies is that they are not based on the Bible but on human speculation. In your response, you have not established them as biblical. If you’re going to assert that they are true, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that from scripture. “God is love” -> “God would never do anything unloving to anybody” does not cut it since his love is only intended for what is righteous (Hebrews 1:9)—and therefore governed by his holiness. Consider also Romans 9:13 and Psalm 5:5. In fact, I’d like to see you reconcile your views on God’s holiness and love with Psalm 5:4-6.
Of course, I made assertions as well…at some point I’ll need to demonstrate them scripturally myself.
I’m also concerned about your third paragraph, wherein you completely miss the point of Jesus’ death (Romans 3:21-26).
Thanks for your comment, though! Look forward to your blogging.
Well, Dave, I think most of our disagreement is presuppositional in nature. You believe (I think, please correct me if I’m wrong) that the Bible can be systematized to the point where it gives one clear answer to any question we may ask. Thus any apparent contradictions must be forced into place.
I disagree with this view. The problem with “letting scripture interpret scripture” is that YOU are still making the decision on which passages to explain in terms of which other passages. A perfect example being the attempts to reconcile the idea of God preparing vessels for destruction with the idea of God not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. In other words, predestination versus free will. They are two different perspectives, and looking at one distorts the other.
Ehh, but I’ve got to head to class. Maybe I’ll blog about this eventually.
Sorry I took a while to respond to you, Josh!
You believe (I think, please correct me if I’m wrong) that the Bible can be systematized to the point where it gives one clear answer to any question we may ask.
I don’t believe that, no. There are still some unclear things in the Bible that we won’t be able to understand in this life…but these are not necessary for Christian living (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Regarding systematic theology…we’re supposed to systematize scripture. That’s what doctrine is all about…and we’re commanded to guard it closely (1 Timothy 4:16). The doctrine of the Trinity is a perfect example…I’m glad that the early church fathers didn’t just throw up their hands in defeat but rather worked to reconcile the scriptural teaching. Neglecting to do this is laying a doormat for heretical teaching to creep into the church. If we fail to build doctrine from scripture, then we will be unable to defend the church from any “plausible arguments” (Colossians 2:4) that a false teacher comes up with. The failure of the church to instruct its members on doctrine is one reason why the prosperity gospel has gained a foothold—people don’t realize that it is false because they don’t know what’s true.
The problem with “letting scripture interpret scripture” is that YOU are still making the decision on which passages to explain in terms of which other passages.
Hopefully, I’m explaining each in terms of the other (maybe I’m not entirely clear on what you meant). I believe that both those scriptures you mentioned are true, and that the distinction is between God’s decree and his compassion. Both are true and can be reconciled…and this reconciliation brings glory to God by revealing his divine nature and plan for the world. You’re right in saying that both are different perspectives, looking at different attributes of God…and that focus on one to the exclusion of the other is dangerous and wrong.
I skimmed through John Piper’s article, which is definitely the best scriptural examination of the topic that I’ve ever read. It does seem to capture the essence of the Arminian-Calvinist paradox. I still do not believe that any logical system could ever reconcile the two; it may be necessary (quoting G. K. Chesterton) to “take both truths and the contradiction along with them”. Speaking of that paradox, I still think the best logical examination of it is in C. S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce” at the end of Chapter 13 where he shows that trying to look at eternity through the ‘lens’ of time destroys our knowledge of freedom. This seems to be the essence of the problem.
I do see what you mean about systematizing. I still claim that it is impossible to systematize without distortion, in the same way that it is impossible to create a flat map of the earth without distortion–we are putting into words and symbols something that is higher than words and symbols, putting into thought something that is higher than thought. I do not therefore say that systems are bad–only that they all deceive to some extent and we ought to be aware that they are imperfect.
I agree that there is danger in speculation, but there seems to be equal danger in lack of speculation. The faith-healer crowd believes firmly in the inerrant Bible, and has a tremendous amount of Scripture to back them up, including most of the gospels and Acts. There are few things more reasonable starting from the Bible than the belief that God always wants to heal the sick, but the logical consequences that follow from this are simply ludicrous. It is not extra-biblical thinking that has got them into that belief system, but rather the lack of thought involved. Like the lunatic responding to your “Bonus blessings” post, they believe so strongly in the inerrant scripture that they refuse even to think about it. This is the most ironic idolatry, when the Bible is worshiped as a god.
We are probably not in as much disagreement as I initially thought. You are concerned about the danger of too much speculation leading to error, while I see the danger of not enough speculation leading to irrationality. If we can agree that there is danger in both then we are not too much at odds.
-Joshua
I do not therefore say that systems are bad–only that they all deceive to some extent and we ought to be aware that they are imperfect.
I can agree with that. I think systematic theology is useful in lieu of the truth to be revealed when Christ returns. Until then, it is very helpful, though it should be carefully examined to see if it aligns with the revelation in the Bible.
It is not extra-biblical thinking that has got them into that belief system, but rather the lack of thought involved. Like the lunatic responding to your “Bonus blessings” post, they believe so strongly in the inerrant scripture that they refuse even to think about it. This is the most ironic idolatry, when the Bible is worshiped as a god.
To some extent I agree — there isn’t enough thinking going on here. However, I don’t agree that the problem is over-reliance on the Bible. Far from it. Rather, the problem is that such people are reading their own desires and presuppositions into the text, thereby throwing proper exegesis out the window. The Bible is literature — inspired, inerrant literature — but literature nonetheless. Thus, certain rules of interpretation apply (e.g. interpreting the scope and meaning of a verse according to its context, one of the most violated rules of all). People can twist words to suit their purposes, but that doesn’t make the author’s intended meaning unwise and untrue (2 Peter 3:15-16).
However, I think the accusation of “bibliolatry” that I often read about is silly. God never warns us against this supposed problem. On the contrary, the longest chapter in the Bible, Psalm 119, is devoted to declarations of affection for God’s written Word. We are called to love the Bible because of who it infallibly reveals. We love it in much the same way that a wife treasures a love letter from her husband.
As far as I can think, the only way that bibliolatry can take place is if we love the Bible merely for its own sake, i.e. as literature or as a magical charm. For example, we could get all caught up in the beauty of Psalm 139 without meditating on the God it reveals. Or we could rip its words out and treat them like magical spells that we can use to demand more prosperity from God (as many teachers do). But I don’t see how valuing and treasuring the Word of God as a perfect though incomplete revelation of his character is idolatry.
Ultimately, we are in disagreement in that you believe that the Bible is not entirely trustworthy in its revelation of God, whereas I believe it is. It’s people’s interpretive agendas that aren’t entirely trustworthy.