Recently I read an excellent book on modern/postmodern apologetics entitled “The Reason for God” by Timothy Keller. In this book Keller devotes the first half to giving a Biblical defense against many common objections to Christianity by the younger generation, and in the second half he develops arguments for the foundation of major Christian doctrines.
One particular passage in the chapter concerning the inerrancy and infalability of Scripture really made me think. In discussing the fact that many people in the modern world want to dismiss the Bible as an authoratative text because some of its teachings aren’t PC enough, Keller makes the following observation:
“To stay away from Christianity because part of the Bible’s teaching is offensive to you assumes that if there is a God he wouldn’t have any views that upset you. Does that belief make sense?”
…Well, does it?
March 28, 2008 at 11:45 pm |
Maybe people want to dismiss the Bible as an authoritative text, not because we do not want a God who may or may not agree with us; but rather ‘they’ having their own sense of morality find the God of the Bible unworthy of worship and/or reverence, and therefore unworthy of deference. Blasphemy I know the God of the Bible is morally bankrupt at best.
April 1, 2008 at 1:23 pm |
Joe, I think you missed the point of the quote entirely, and in a sense made the point for me. Not only are people guilty of dismissing God because He says things which are offensive to them, but they also dismiss God because they have a subjective morality which they believe He should conform to. What sense does it make to think that I can make up my own set of rules and then for me to count God as legitimate He must fit into the rules that I made? That is ludicrous. The only God which is going to fit into someone’s subjective morality is the god of their own making, because for all intents and purposes they have elevated themselves to the level of god already!
April 11, 2008 at 1:22 am |
Actually it is not merely my own standards to which the Christian God falters but even his own. One cannot honestly read the bible and interpret God, especially in the old testament, as moral even compared to the standards he would hold us to as lesser beings.
April 11, 2008 at 2:15 am |
But Joe, is this merely a talking point spouted among cynics and skeptics, or is this a legitimate qualm you have with the Bible? If there is a specific passage which you would want to point out I would be more than happy to deal with whether or not God behaves immorally in it.
May 8, 2008 at 4:18 am |
Ultimately it comes to this: Either Good/Evil exist as absolutes outside of divine arbitration, or God sets the scale for any and all morality. In the prior we can compare God’s morality to a standard and judge for ourselves whether he is Just. But, if the later is true then we cannot describe God as Moral or Immoral because morality is then subjective to his will. So he is neither Good or Evil, he can only be described as Godly. We can, however, decide whether or not he is a hypocrite.
May 8, 2008 at 9:03 am |
To the contrary, Joe, if good and evil exist as absoultes outside of divine arbitration then God is not God because he would be under the law. But instead, what is right truly is defined by God because what is right, in the most ultimate sense, is what esteems and honor’s God’s glory.
That seems like hand-waving, right? Not really. The best reasoning which I can give to you comes from standing on the shoulders of John Piper. In his book “The Future of Justification”, Piper says:
“The ultimate value in the universe is… God’s holiness… or God’s glory. Therefore, what is “right” must ultimately be defined in relation to this ultimate value, the holiness or the glory of God- this is the highest standard for “right” in the universe. Therefore, what is right is what upholds in proper proportion the value of what is infinitely valuable, namely, God. “Right” actions are those that flow from a proper esteem for God’s glory and that uphold his glory as the most valuable reality there is. This means that the essence of the righteousness of God is his unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of his name. And human righteousness is the same: the unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of God.” (p.64)
As for your comments about Genesis 3:5, 22, it is true that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil gave man just that, knowledge of good and evil, but this does not in any way imply that good/evil exist outside of God. The issue here is actually the opposite. By eating of the tree Adam determined that he was not going to let God determine what was good and evil, but that he himself would. Thus, by gaining the knowledge of good and evil, Man made the decision to be “like God”, able to choose for himself what was right and wrong.
However, because of Man’s new reliance on self, because of his pride and dishonor of God’s glory to be his provider, Man was cursed by God and was cast from the Garden and God’s presence. Now, we can only be reconciled to God through renewing that reliance which Adam had at first, which is only available to us through submission to Christ as our Savior and Lord.
May 19, 2008 at 11:45 pm |
We are still left then with God the Tyrant, a deity to whom morality is a whim. There is no right or wrong but only Godliness or lack thereof. How then can we know if God is Good. I say, if He be good then give me examples of his goodness. Oft times I’ve been asked to list specific grievances, but I say the harder task and shorter list is to provide me with his good deeds.
May 20, 2008 at 2:01 pm |
It seems that convincing you of God not being a tyrant is out of the question right now. However, as to list some of God’s goodness for you, I would be happy, though given your views I am not sure you would necessarily see all of these as good.
First, God’s goodness from the Bible. (1) God did not kill us for sinning, though He would have been just in doing so (Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, …”; Genesis 2:17, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”). (2) God sent His son so that we would not have to perish forever in hell (John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”). (3) God causes believers to be born again to be able to experience the riches of His grace (Ephesians 2:4-7, 1 Peter 1:3-5).
Second, in my life personally I have seen the goodness of God generally in how He has saved me and particularly (though not exclusively) in how He drew me out of a sinful, sexual relationship with my girlfriend as a teenager, empowered me with His grace and strength to raise the daughter which my girlfriend and I had given birth to as a single parent, blessed my studies in college so that I could provide for my daughter, and blessed me with a Godly wife who loves both me and my (now our) daughter unconditionally and has become the mother our daughter never had.
God’s goodness abounds. It is just that when we do as in Romans 1 and claim to be wise and all knowing, then our foolish hearts are darkened to the goodness and love of God. I don’t believe this will convince you, but I certainly would be amiss if I didn’t speak of the goodness He has revealed to me anyways.
May 22, 2008 at 12:12 am |
(1)So mere disobedience is justification for death? No, not tyrannical at all… (2)Sending his son to save us from…Himself! Though not necessarily tyrannical, definitely schizophrenic. Neither of these are “Good” acts. While yes you can argue for the merits of Mercy, but (1) is just overkill: when was the last time you killed your child for disobedience. Because, apparently it is Just to do so. And, (2) He is saving us from himself.
Back to (1) again. How can anyone be held liable for doing wrong, when in fact he didn’t know it was wrong. Sure, God said don’t, but…Adam didn’t know disobeying God was wrong.
On your second point however I’ll not respond. I will not argue the ability of religion…any religion to change people’s lives.
May 22, 2008 at 6:10 am |
“Back to (1) again. How can anyone be held liable for doing wrong, when in fact he didn’t know it was wrong. Sure, God said don’t, but…Adam didn’t know disobeying God was wrong.”
I think it was fairly clear that they knew disobeying God was wrong. Eve even expressed this to the serpent when he began tempting her to eat from the tree.
As far as God saving us from himself, it is not himself that God is saving us from. It is his righteous judgment. As I’ve already argued above, God’s righteousness is his unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of his name, and as such he also judges all of creation according to its faithfulness to uphold his glory. If God were to let us just slide once we have sinned then he would be injuring his own righteousness, which is impossible because as the Bible says, he cannot deny himself.
Thus, the act of sending Christ shows his goodness because, as you said, it is himself incarnate. Because we are incapable of making atonement for our own sins, God came down in flesh to live a holy life and to die a terrible death, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that we might be able to become righteous in front of God, and thus be able to be saved from his judgment. Therefore, in sending Christ, God provided a way to both save us from damnation AND to maintain his holiness in doing so, which is surely goodness.
May 26, 2008 at 5:47 am |
They admittedly knew what God had told them: They would die. They did not however know it was wrong to disobey God. Knowledge of right and wrong require knowledge of good and evil, which they did not have. They didn’t even realize they were naked until they ate of the tree. Being naked isn’t “evil” but it was apparently to be viewed as “wrong”, since they were unaware of this “wrongness” it can be reasonable deduced that they knew not that disobeying God was “wrong”; they knew only that it was fatal. And She as readily believed the serpent when he said otherwise. We are to be punished for their inborn naivety?
May 29, 2008 at 11:43 am |
I disagree with your argument that knowledge of right and wrong necessitates knowledge of good and evil. I don’t believe that young children understand what “good” and “evil” are, but I think they can have a pretty well rounded understanding of right and wrong.
As far as your comment about nakedness, I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Nakedness was not something to be viewed as wrong. The reason why Adam and Eve made clothes for themselves was the same reason why they hid from God: they were ashamed! By gaining the knowledge of good and evil, it says, their eyes were opened (Genesis 3:7). They at that time first took their eyes away from God and became inwardly focused on themselves, because their action had separated them both from God and from each other.
Compare this with Genesis 2:25 which says, “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” It was not that they were both naked and naive, but that they were naked and they saw no shame in this. Why was that? Because, as verse 24 says, they were “one flesh.” There had been no sin to separate them and cause them to distrust or abuse one another, and so they saw their spouse as a natural extension of themself and so were unashamed to be naked in front of them. Their union with God is also what made their nakedness in front of him unshameful. However, once their eyes were opened they were separated from each other and God and became self-concious and were ashamed of their nakedness in front of each other and in front of God. This being not because it was wrong, but because with their new found knowledge of good and evil they felt exposed and uncomfortable in each others presence.