The Right Way to View Reading, Meditating, and Studying Scripture

Click on the link below to watch a 90 second video. On the video D.A. Carson addresses the subject of what some refer to as "personal, daily devotions". His remarks are short, sweet and to the point. They are also immensely simple, yet profound as well.

http://www.vimeo.com/6296517

Are We Prejudice Sometimes?

I came across the following in a book I am reading entitled Biblical Law and Ethics written by New Covenant theologian Gary Long. The quote is not original with Long. The following was said by a Baptist preacher named John Quincy Adams. It refers to the prejudice spirit that we all possess from time to time.

"Its walls are of adamantine strength and of almost impenetrable thickness. Entrenched in this fortress, men are unapporoachable. The soundest logic, the strongest arguments, the most convincing proof, the fairest reasoning, all fail, all are powerless, while prejudice holds the mind within her grasp."

May we keep this thought in mind when we approach the study of Scripture!

A "Voice" That Holds One Accountable

Let's return to our discussion regarding an internal awareness of God within all men. As we saw yesterday, Scripture teaches that there exists an innate awareness of God within men (a "seed of religion", "awareness of Divinity", "natural instinct")without distinction. We are speaking about man's ability to reason the existence of God. That ability is within all men, though man does not take advantage of this ability because of sin. So is there a such thing as an atheist? Well, it appears to me that if there is, then it is man's own fault because his unbelief is due to sin. And God is not the author of sin, therefore, the blame lies with the self proclaimed atheist.

At any rate, my goal in the current series of posts is to give you 3 strands of evidence to prove the notion that there exists an awareness of God internally within men. I have already given the first strand of evidence. The first strand of evidence is Scripture itself, which as I showed you, speaks about this idea throughout. Let us look at the 2nd strand of evidence.

I. FIRST STRAND; SUPPORT BY MEANS OF SCRIPTURAL EXPLANATION (see previous post)

II. SECOND STRAND: SUPPORT BY MEANS OF EXPERIENTIAL OBSERVATION

I am not going to say much under this heading because what I am affirming is pretty straightforward. Any objective observer must notice that this "seed of religion" is present in man in general. I am going to make a blanket statement that might really tick some people off, but I believe it is a true statement....All men are religious. There, I said it. Whew. What do I mean by that? Well, I certainly do not mean that all men are Christians. My statement is also not claiming some sort of religiously inclusive idea. You know, the type of idea that says it does not matter what you worship, but that you worship. Worship is the important thing; not what one worships. No, no. I am simply affirming the fact that man has a natural, built-in tendency to be religious, that is to hold to a set of beliefs. Now these belief systems represent themselves in various different flavors, but its the same product- religion. There might be grape, cherry, and orange flavors, but they all fit into the same box of popsicles known as religion.

As Calvin says, man has a tendency to worship wood and stone. In the jungles of the Amazon, for instance, man might worship a tree. In our narcissistic culture, man has a tendency to worship self and autonomy. Nevertheless, man worships. He is religious. We are all popsicles in this sense. The problem is that being a popsicle is not the most important thing. We are the flavor that attracts us, but we must have a flavor that attracts God. God does not even have a favorite flavor. God only eats one flavor. He does not like all popsicles equally. The only religion God recognizes as sweet tasting (and "sweet smelling" to use Scriptural language) is religion that recognizes Jesus Christ as Lord. That is true religion; that is the flavor that pleases God. I realize that my portrayal of God as a one sided popsicle eater is not very popular because it points to the exclusive nature of religion. It points to only one way of salvation. And it points to only one solution to man's problems (sin), and that is Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, that is what Scripture teaches us.

Even the atheist is religious. All religions have at least one common component. That common component is faith. An atheist has faith, that's the common ground. His faith, however, is not the type of faith that pleases the God who made him. The atheist has faith in his arguments, reasoning, and communicative ability to set forth and prove the notion that God does not exist. But no matter how you look at it he is religious, has a set of beliefs, and possesses faith.

In short, observation of those around us, and those throughout history reveals this "seed of religion" (inner awareness of God) within all men.

III. THIRD STRAND: SUPPORT BY MEANS OF PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION

Allow me to give a simple illustration that hopefully makes sense of all that I have said thus far. The story is told of a man who was hiking on a mountain. He came to the peak of the mountain, and was standing on top of a cliff overlooking a rock valley. Suddenly he slipped. As he dropped to his doom, he successfully grabbed a branch. There were two problems however. First, he was still dangling over fifteen hundred feet of air. Second, the branch was about twenty feet from the top of the cliff, so there was no way he could realistically pull himself to the top. In an obvious state of panic he cried out, "Help, help-somebody help!" Suddenly a booming voice from above said, "I will save you but you must believe in me." The man said, "I believe. I believe. Just help me!" The voice said, "Let go of the branch and I will save you." The dangling man looked down to the rock valley below, and quickly looked back up and said, "Is there anybody else up there?"

This is a picture of the man who denies God. All men hear the voice of God. However, man will naturally seek another voice. He will seek another god- a god of his or her own making. He will seek any belief system that denies God. But this does not change the fact that God's voice is speaking in the heart of every soul. This is the "seed of religion" that cries out, "God made you." It is a voice that holds one accountable before a holy God. It results in condemnation, not salvation.

In the next series of posts we will consider the external awareness of God's existence (His creation). God's creation is the evidence the conscience internalizes to make a deduction that there is in fact a God.

Hoping I Have Not Confused,

Andy

Sound of Grace Publication

S O U N D OF

G R A C E
… it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace … Hebrews 13:9

For those of you still waiting for a copy of a paper I wrote on Evangelsim- your wait is over. However, I am still not going to make you a copy. Instead, go to the following website of our brother John Reisinger and click on the picture of the current edition of the Sound of Grace publication. My article begins on page 5. Also, go to the back issues to #161 to view our brother Bob Bonser's recent article on the Gospel (good stuff by Bob!).


As always, I am open to criticisms, thoughts, and questions regarding my paper. I apologize a head of time for the length. The November edition of Sound of Grace contains part 1 only (there are a total of three parts).


http://www.soundofgrace.org/index.htm


Blessings,
Andy

Internal Awareness of God

Today let's take a look at the first strand of evidence to support the notion that all men possess an awareness of God internally.

I. First Strand: Support by means of Scriptural explanation

First, Scripture tells us that this awareness is within every man without distinction (Rom. 1:19a, 21). In other words, it makes no difference whether you are a man or woman; intelligent or unintelligent; black or white. In Romans 1, Paul is answering the question, “Does every man deserve the wrath and judgment of God?” Paul begins by saying that even Gentile unbelievers/pagans deserve this wrath. And all men deserve His wrath because they are sinners. But stemming from this sin is the tendency to deny God, and His right over us. Paul affirms the notion that all men "know" God.

Paul is clear about the fact that this “basic knowledge” about God is “evident within them”. This is seen primarily in two ways: 1) his reasoning capacities to look at the evidence of God’s existence in creation and conclude that there is a Creator God, and 2) his ability to “basically” distinguish between right and wrong, although even this ability is perverted to a degree by sin and would be perverted in an ultimate way were it not for common grace (we will look at this under pt. 2- God’s Witness in the World).
Here is the point: just as God is competent enough to reveal Himself, man is competent enough to apprehend the reality of God in His creation! The “visible” creation forces us to conclude the reality of the “invisible” as responsible for it. The reality of God’s existence is engraved on their hearts, as Calvin liked to say.

If I affirm that there is a piano sitting in our church auditorium ("sanctuary" if your Southern Baptist), that is factual. I can assume that somebody put it there though I do not know who that person is, and therefore they are invisible to me. But that does not change the fact that the piano was put there by a real person. It is only logical and rational to think so. And just because I might deny that a person put it there does not somehow cause the person who put it there to not exist, or to prove the irrational nature of such a claim that that person does exist.

The fact that all men know God (vs. 21) affirms this internal witness of God in the conscience of man. So the evidence is in creation (outside of us), but the ability to see that evidence for God’s existence and conclude that it is legitimate is within us. Our conscience, therefore, makes us aware of the validity of the evidence that we observe.

Calvin says, “Besides, if all men are born and live to the end that they may know God” but “who do not direct every thought and action in their lives to this goal degenerate from the law of their creation”. In other words, the awareness of God is so strongly persuasive to man that it is actually a violation of creation's law to suppress it. God created us with a built-in awareness of our Maker. It is part of what makes us human. To deny this, or fail to recognize it, is equivalent to breaking the first law.

Second, this awareness of God within is "evident" (Rom. 1:19a), "clearly seen" (Rom. 1:20), and "understandable" (Rom. 1:20). In other words, God not only gave us the proof that He exists, but He gave us the eyes to see this proof. So though this knowledge of God within all men is basic, simple, and limited; it is at the same time evident, clear, and understandable.

I am color bind. Shortly after my wife and I got married I went to the eye doctor. The doctor pulled out a crazy little book with circles on each page. In the middle of these psychedelic circles were blotches of different colors running together. Now, they tell me that there are visible numbers inside those circles, however I have yet to see them. Now that does not mean that they are not there. I am color blind and its simple: if one can't see the numbers, then that is affirmation that one is color blind. I didn't see the numbers (never have), therefore I am color blind.

When we say that God has made this base, simple, limited awareness of His existence evident, clear, and understandable within all men, we are saying that He not only gave us the "color blind book", but also that He gave us the eyes to see the numbers in the circles. (More will be said about this illustration-and the concept it sets forth- in later posts.)

Third, this awareness of God within is suppressed, or denied/ignored (Rom. 1:18, 25). “Suppress” literally means “to restrain” in the original Greek. It means to refuse to believe what one knows to be true, namely that there is a God. That knowledge is stifled, held down, restrained. To suppress the truth that God exists, which dwells in every man’s heart, is to shut God up in your heart. That is, it is to deny that His existence is self-evident on His creation. It is not to give Him the glory due Him; that His creation is His and He is worthy to be recognized for it. It is to tell God to “shut up” and “stay up” in heaven. Furthermore, it is a willful suppression as indicated by Paul- “exchanging the truth of God for a lie” (vs. 25). It is a willful exchanging of the truth of God's existence for a lie that He does not exist. This exchange, of course, includes the obvious attitude that follows, namely that man does not have to be subservient to this "false Maker".

Scripture has something to say for the person who suppresses this inner awareness of God. Psalm 14:1 is one place. It says, "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God" (cf. Ps. 53:1). That does not seem like a nice thing to say. But once you understand Romans 1 it makes sense, and thus becomes a fair and accurate statement.

To deny God’s existence is foolish. It is foolish because it is the height of pride. Denying God’s existence assumes that one has the ability to storm the gates of Heaven, walk into God's throne room and drag Him from His throne, throw Him into the basement of heaven and lock the door as if He is an easy victim to take advantage of. Denying God either by words, or by life, or by both is to presume that one is autonomous from the very One who made him. And it is to add to this self-deceived autonomy a self-appointed authority that shuts God up with such unmitigated assaults (mental and physical) that one actually conceives the preposterous thought that he secures impunity from the punishment of this “basement God”, who is not really locked up, but who, the perverse mind has actually been deceived to think is. A fatness has enveloped his heart (Calvin frequently uses this phrase) so he refuses to love the God who created Him, but instead hates Him and His laws. And this fatness of the heart leads to blindness of the eyes so that he thinks there is no God- denying the proof of God which he sees all around him.

Fourth, notice what God does to those who suppress the truth of God's existence and His correspondent worthiness to be worshiped and adored- His glory to be recognized. This awareness-if suppressed-leads to God’s temporal judgment, which leads and points to His eternal judgment (Rom. 1:24, 26, and 28).

The phrase “God gave them over” is used in vss. 24, 26, and 28. The Greek word used in Romans 1 literally means “hand over”, “give”, “deliver”, or “give up”. It was used to refer to the handing over a prisoner for his sentence.

Here is the picture being painted in Romans 1: man restrains one thing, and removes restraint for another thing. In other words, man pursues sin with unrestrained aggression, but at the same time he suppresses ("restrains") the truth of God’s existence engraved on his heart. And while all of this is going on in his heart, mind, and soul, God also removes His restraint (common grace) on this man. He lets go of this man; gives man over. He lets the sin that he is pursuing to actually work as judgment against him. The temporal built-in consequences for sin will manifest themselves in the lives of those who commit sin as they suppress the reality of the God they know to be there. Sin, therefore, is responsible for crafting its own punishment. Sin itself becomes the punishment because only by the committing of certain acts of sin can consequences be conceived and blossom into real, full-fledged temporal pain (physical, emotional, spiritual). And this is the punishment God gives them over too.

Fifth (and finally) note with me the conclusion Paul gives to such an awful mess. He says that this internal awareness of God serves to condemn men when they ignore it. Very simply, he says that it makes them "without excuse" (Rom. 1:25). Calvin says, “To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God Himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of His divine majesty”.

What all these Scriptures reveal to us is that God is not pleased with unbelief. To deny the inner knowledge of God is to commit a heinous sin. Spurgeon once said, “Every other crime touches God’s territory, but unbelief aims a blow at His divinity, impeaches His veracity, denies His goodness, blasphemes His attributes, maligns His character; therefore, God, of all things, hates first and chiefly, unbelief, wherever it is”. That was well said by the Prince of Preachers.

Those who deny His existence are anything but innocent. They are culpable and condemned. To deny God’s existence because you want what you consider ample proof of His existence is to blaspheme God because it is to tell God, “Your evidence is not good enough for me. I demand more.” It is not an innocent heart, but a recalcitrant heart who loves sin.

To be“without excuse” suggests that we are left without a valid defense for our unbelief when we deny the “seed of religion” placed within us by God. Unbelief is unacceptable to God.

Next time we will look at the second strand of evidence to support the notion that all men possess an inner awareness of God.

Thankful for the Spirit's Enlightening Work on the Hearts of His Elect,

Andy

How Can We Know God?: Answered

Now we are actually going to answer the question proposed, “How Do We Know God?” As I said before, we know him through His general and special revelation. But the fruit of the next couple of lessons will try and flesh out these two categories of Divine revelation.

Some of this will be review due to the fact: 1) it is important to be repetitious to a degree, and 2) it would have been impossible for me to explain the concepts of general and special revelation (as I have already done in our study) without giving some examples of what is contained in each respective category. But in our analysis of general and special revelation we will go into far greater detail than anything I have said before.

We will analyze these two ways that God has chosen to reveal Himself in 3 primary categories. These categories affirm the fact that God has revealed Himself to man in a way that they can “know” God. Here are the categories:

The Witness of God’s Work (General revelation)
The Witness of God’s World (General revelation)
The Witness of God’s Word (Special revelation)

For starters, we shall begin looking at the first category noted above- the witness of God's work. What do I mean when I say the witness of God's work? Its pretty simple. God has worked it out in his creation in such a way that all men are aware of His existence. Thus, it can be said that all men "know" God. If all men know He exists, then all men know that He is there. Thus, all men "know" God in the limited sense.

So God has worked out His creation in such a way that His existence is manifested in and around us. Thus, it can truly be said that man (all men without exclusion) “know” God. Therefore, we can (and must!) also affirm that man knows God due to an: 1) awareness of God internally (conscience), and 2) awareness of God externally (creation).

Let us first consider the way in which God's work of creation has shown us an awareness of His existence internally, that is, within the consciences of all men. I want to prove this by pointing you to 3 strands of evidence to support such a notion. Here are the evidences: 1) support by means of Scriptural explanation, 2) support by means of experiential observation, and 3) support by means of practical illustration.

But before I give these evidences, allow me to first of all clarify some important things. These are things that I have (in the past) worked hard to clarify, but I still believe need some more elucidation. When we speak about "knowing God" within our conscience, that is internally, we are not speaking about "salvificly knowing" God. No, no. That is something different altogether. That is a topic we will discuss much later.This inner knowledge of God found within all men without distinction must not be confused with salvation knowledge. It is not salvation knowledge; rather, it is what we might call “simple knowledge”, or “basic knowledge”. Right now we are speaking “only of the primal and simple knowledge to which the very order of nature would have led us if Adam had remained upright”, as Calvin says. We must properly distinguish between man’s ability to recognize, be aware of, and “know” God in this “simple sense” from knowing God in the “saving sense”. In the basic sense, all men can “feel” God. This is a different feeling of God than embracing “the grace of reconciliation offered in Christ" (Calvin). For in the face of God’s creation He as shown Himself as Creator. But only in the face of Jesus Christ does He show Himself as Redeemer (2 Cor. 4:6). The first sense of knowing God (simple sense) we are not led to salvation, but to condemnation. In the latter sense (saving sense) we are always led to salvation, not condemnation provided the Spirit genuinely operates a miracle within our hearts and truly shows us the glory, beauty, and value of Jesus Christ.

Calvin helpfully and accurately describes this inner awareness as the following: “seed of religion”, “natural instinct”, “awareness of Divinity”, etc. These are helpful terms to clarify the type of knowledge I am referring to.

This witness of God’s work which begins with an analysis of an inner knowledge only serves to the condemnation of man, not the salvation of man.“Since, therefore, men one and all perceive that there is a God and that He is their Maker, they are condemned by their own testimony because they have failed to honor Him and to consecrate their lives to His will" (Calvin's Institutes). In other words, God’s will begins with a proper recognition that He is our God, our Owner, our King- and then this knowledge results in obedience to His commands. There are two problems, however: 1) man tends to suppress this innate knowledge of God as Creator, Owner, King, and 2) even if He recognizes it, he is unable to live in full obedience to God.

Man can “know” there is a God, but He will never “know” or be able to please this God apart from the personal appropriation of the work of Christ on the cross. Luther once said that true “knowledge” of God is a matter of personal pronouns”. What Luther was getting at is simple. Luther was saying that truly “knowing” God in the salvation sense means that He becomes ours- in whom we delight in obeying Him and serving as the Creator that we know Him to be. It means being able to use a pronoun- “My God”. And when we do so, God hearkens back “My child”! There is a sense in which we are all God’s children because He is our maker, and we are created in His image (Acts 17:28). But we truly become His adopted children when His Spirit shines the Light of the Gospel into our hearts revealing the “Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6). It is then and only then, that we can cry “Abba Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).

So, when we speak about an awareness of God internally, we are speaking about something altogether different than "salvation knowledge". We are speaking about a limited knowledge, a "simple knowledge". Now, in the next post I will support my argument that there is an awareness of God internally with the 3 strands of evidence that I mentioned above: support by means of Scriptural explanation, experiential observation, and practical illustration.

Until Next Time,

Andy

A Prayer for True Religion

Lord God Almighty,

I ask not to be enrolled among the earthly great and rich, but to be numbered with the spiritually blessed.
Make it my present, supreme, and preserving concern to obtain the blessings which are
spiritual in their nature,
eternal in their countenance,
satisfying in their possession.
Preserve me from a false estimate of the whole or a part of my character,
May I pay regard to
my principles as well as my conduct,
my motives as well as my actions,
Help me
never to mistake the excitement of my passions
for the renewing of the Holy Spirit,
never to judge my religion by occasional impressions and impulses, but by my constant
and prevailing disposition.
May my heart by right with Thee,
and my life as becometh the Gospel.
May I maintain a supreme regard to another, and better world,
and feel and confess myself a stranger and a pilgrim here.
Afford me all the direction, defence, support, and consolation my journey hence requires,
and grant me a mind stayed upon Thee.
Give me large abundance of the supply of the Spirit of Jesus,
that I may be prepared for every duty,
love Thee in all my mercies,
submit to Thee in every trial,
trust Thee when walking in darkness,
have peace in Thee amidst life's changes.
Lord, I beleive, help Thou my unbelief and uncertainties.

Finally....Answering the Question Proposed

We can finally answer the question proposed several weeks ago. Just to bring you up to speed, we are answering several basic questions regarding Christian theology. We are on question two, which is "How can we know God?" The first question answered was simply, "Why is it important to study theology?"

Let me give to you the outline that I crafted for the next few weeks. This will help you follow my line of thought a little easier. I apologize for not having PowerPoint on Sunday for those of you who take detailed notes. I will be a good boy this coming week and have it for you. Here is the outline that I explained Sunday. (Note: On Sunday we only dealt with the first sub point of point I. That is why pt. I, A is more extensive than the rest of the outline.)

How do we know God?

I. The Witness of God's Work (A discussion regarding general revelation)

A. Awareness of God Internally (conscience)
1. Support by means of Scriptural explanation
2. Support by means of experiential observation
3. Support by means of practical illustration

B. Awareness of God Externally (creation)

II. The Witness of God's World (A discussion regarding general revelation)

III. The Witness of God's Word (A discussion regarding special revelation)

How Can We Know God?

Here are the three other things we do not mean when we say that we can know God (see previous posts for first two):

III. SAYING WE CAN KNOW GOD DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ONLY KNOW "THINGS" ABOUT HIM, BUT RATHER THAT WE KNOW HIM PERSONALLY (WE CAN KNOW HIM IN HIS ESSENCE TO A LIMITED DEGREE)

see Jeremiah 9:23-24.
These verses seem to be saying that the only thing appropriate to boast in is the fact that it is possible to "really know" God, not just that we can know things or facts about Him. There is a difference.

IV. SAYING WE CAN KNOW GOD DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE WILL SOMEDAY FULLY KNOW GOD (IN ETERNITY FUTURE)

Sin has severely distorted our ability to think rightly about God. It is not until it pleases the Spirit to open our blind eyes that we will see God in His glory through Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:3-4; Jn. 3:1-8). When this happens-and only when this happens-we will begin to think rightly about God. However, our sin is not the only thing that keeps us from a perfect knowledge about God. There is another important aspect. The fact is we are finite. God is infinite. In other words, God has always (and always will be) unlimited. On the other hand, we have always been (and will always be) limited. This will never change. Someday God will shed all sin from our existence (I Jn. 3:2). But our finiteness will never be shed from us. And in order to know God perfectly we would have to become infinite. That is, we would have to shed not only our sinfulness, but our finiteness and become infinite. In short, we would have to become God. That is not going to happen (I Cor. 13:12 does not argue against my position). We will spend all of eternity learning about God!

V. SAYING WE CAN KNOW GOD DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE CAN TRULY KNOW GOD APART FROM THE ROLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN REGENERATION

I have repeated this statement over and over again. I do not suspect that I have misled anyone. But just in case somebody out there is a little confused let me make myself clear. We are not speaking about salvation knowledge. We are speaking about a baser knowledge to which we will look at next time (Jn. 3:1-8; I Cor. 2:6-16).

How Do We Know God?- Part 6?

II. SAYING WE CAN KNOW GOD DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE CAN KNOW ANY ONE THING ABOUT HIM EXHAUSTIVELY

At first glance, it might appear that this is a restatement of point one. However, read it again. The key words here are "any one thing". Point one dealt with the collection of everything that we can possibly know about God. Collectively, everything that we know about God yields an important conclusion, namely that we cannot know Him exhaustively due to the fact that all the things we know about Him do not add up to everything. There is still more to know about Him. This includes categories, perhaps, that we do not even have the capacity to mentally or experientially conceive of because we are finite. Point two (stated above) goes a little deeper. It says that even the things we know about Him we cannot know exhaustively.

Let me offer an example that I have offered before. Let's say that I get in my car and head to church with my family. On the way our car hits an ice patch and we spin around a dozen times. Meanwhile, the cars behind us dodge us by swerving around our spinning escapade. Let's also assume that there is oncoming traffic as well passing us as we dizzy ourselves. For sake of illustration, one of the cars that passes us is also on the way to church and they recognize us (though our faces are blurred from the excessive spinning) and witness the whole thing. Our spinning continues as we move off the pavement and come inches from hitting a telephone pole. But suddenly, our car somehow finds its way back on the road and we arrive safely at church. No doubt, the first thing we would naturally tell people would be the experience of providence in God saving our lives. Everything about the incident- the ice, spinning, cars coming, telephone pole-scream out that we should have died. In fact, the only conclusion is that God sovereignly stepped in and contradicted the laws of science in order to spare our lives. We know that, and so does the family that witnessed the whole thing. As they see us in the hall of the church they come up and hug my family and say something like, "It is a providential miracle that you are still alive. There is no way you should have made it here safely!" Let's also say that I stand up during the worship service and offer a praise for God providentially intervening to save my family. Now here's my point. Everyone in the church has heard a ton of sermons on the providence of God. Thus, they know it to be a fact true about God, right? Furthermore, I now appreciate His providence a little more because I have experienced it on a level that I never had before (including my family). In addition, the family that witnessed the whole accident also have a more intimate "knowledge" of God's providence, having seen a miracle before their eyes. Nevertheless, this "knowledge" of God's providence is still not comprehensive, even after all of that! We still do not know everything that there is to know about His providence. Even this particular experience fails to communicate to us an exhaustive knowledge of God's providence. Though we know His providence is real because we read it in Scripture and have now experienced it does not mean we know everything that there is to know about His providence. For instance, we still do not know why God spared our lives. We know that He providentially spared our lives. But we do not know why. Why did He not allow us to die? We could give a number of answers, but none of them could be proven beyond doubt because we simply do not know the mind of God (Dt. 29:29)!

In fact, I am glad that I have not experienced every possible way that His providence could be demonstrated. I would eventually be dead if I experienced every possible avenue of His providence because God could zap me dead in an instant (without car or ice too!).

Thus, we can affirm with full assurance the truth of God's providence, for instance, while at the same time not know everything there is to know about His providence. We know it by fact; we know it by experience. But we cannot truly know it exhaustively. Thus, we do not know God exhaustively.

Here is a quote from the best theologian who ever lived (other than the Apostle Paul):

“…the most suitable order, is not for us to attempt with bold curiosity to penetrate to the investigation of His essence, which we ought more to adore than meticulously to search out, but for us to contemplate Him in His works whereby He renders Himself near and familiar to us, and in some manner communicates Himself” (Calvin, Institutes, 62).

Adoring Rather Than Searching Out,

Andy

How We Know God and What That Has To Do with Mountaineer Football

How do we know God? Well, I promise I will answer that question in more detail, but the short answer is: through general and special revelation (see previous posts). Sometimes in answering a question of such magnitude one must go out of his way to make sure that he is communicating exactly what he means and exactly what he does not mean. I am the he that desires to be clear on such an important topic. Therefore, before proceeding in an analysis of general and special revelation I want to give you 5 things that I do not mean when I say that we can know God.

I. SAYING THAT WE CAN KNOW GOD DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE CAN KNOW HIM EXHAUSTIVELY

I have already harped on this quite a bit. Nevertheless, I want you to understand this. Just as many today have emphasized God's transcendence (distance) to the neglect of emphasizing His immanence (nearness) in acquiring a knowledge of Him, we do not want to do the reverse. When I affirm, "We can know God", I am not saying that we can know everything there is to know about God. Nobody can. Here are a few verses to support my point (Is. 40:18; Ps. 145:3; Job 37:5). All of these verses affirm a degree of "knowledge" about God right? The Psalm 145 passage affirms the knowledge that God is "great" and "highly to be praised". However, this verse (and the ones that follow) also affirm a degree of ignorance regarding our capacity to acquire knowledge about God. The end of the verse says that God is "unsearchable". In other words, we know enough about God to know He is great and highly to be praised, but this does not mean that we know everything there is to know about God. But just because we do not know everything about God does not mean that we can't be confident that He is "great" and "highly to be praised". These things are true about God and we "know" them to be true. Nevertheless, He is still "unsearchable".

Consider also the Psalm 147 passage. On the one hand, the Psalmist affirms clear facts about God, which prove a certain knowledge of Him, namely that He is "great", He is our "Lord", and that He is "abundant in strength". On the other hand, the end of the verse affirms the fact that our knowledge about God ultimately terminates in mystery. God, says the Psalmist, is "infinite". Now if God is infinite (unlimited in His understanding- knows all), the strong implication is that we are the opposite- finite, right? In other words, we are limited in knowledge. And if we are limited in knowledge then we ultimately cannot know everything that there is to know about God.

A consideration of the Job passage will yield the same result. At the beginning of the verse, it is affirmed that God does "great things", but then says that we cannot "comprehend" these "great things".

We conclude, therefore, that God is ultimately infinite, unsearchable, and incomprehensible. This does not mean that we cannot "know" Him, but it does mean that we cannot "know" Him exhaustively.

Allow me to illustrate. Everyone who knows me is aware of the fact that I love West Virginia University football. I always have, and I always will. In fact, my love for Mountaineer football is so consuming that if I were to ask some people to name one thing that describes me they might say something like, "You are a Mountaineer fan". Consequently, I know a lot about Mountaineer football. I could tell you of a lot about their history. I could name you the coaching staff. I know the players (current and past). I have watched every minute of every game this year (and if it were not for a bad memory) could tell you much of what has taken place. I "know" Mountaineer football. That is a factual statement. However, I do not know everything that there is to know about Mountaineer football. In fact, there could be a thing or two that I do not know that would cause me to dislike Mountaineer football if I were to find those things out (though I can't imagine this even being possible). Surely, there are other fans who know more than me. The coaching staff far surpasses my knowledge as well. However, just because I do not know everything there is to know does not mean that I do not truly "know" Mountaineer football. Nobody would say, "You do not know Mountaineer football" simply because my knowledge is not exhaustive. In the same way, we can truly know God, though our knowledge of Him will never be exhaustive.

Knowing Little But Truly Knowing (by grace),

Andy

p.s. II for tomorrow

A Prayer for Those Weary in Battle

O Lord,

When I feel the serpent at my heel,

may I remember Him whose heel was bruised,

but Who, when bruised, broke the devil's head.

Then shall my heart never weaken,

my feet never stumble,

my sword never rest,

my shield never rust,

my helmet never shatter,

my breastplate never fall,

as my strength rests in the power of Thy might.

Amen.

A Soliloquy of Boldness

In studying John 7:25-36 for small group next week, I came across a prophecy in Isaiah that speaks about the boldness that the Messiah will have when He comes. It is to be understood as a "messianic soliloquy" that removes a depiction of Christ as frail, weak, congenial, and pacifistic. It is taken from Isaiah 50:7-9:

For the Lord God helps Me,
Therefore, I am not disgraced;
Therefore, I have set My face like flint,
And I know that I will not be ashamed.
He who vindicates Me is near;
Who will contend with Me?
Let us stand up to each other;
Who has a case against Me?
Let him draw near to Me.
Behold, the Lord God helps Me;
Who is he who condmens Me?
Behold, they will all wear out like a garment;
The moth will eat them.

Jesus is "Hostile"? - Paul a "Sacred Cow-Tipper"?

I just finished the prologue and introduction to John MacArthur's new book entitled The Jesus You Can't Ignore: What You Must Learn From the Bold Confrontations of Christ. I cannot recommend this book enough and I have not even gotten to the meat of MacArthur's content. I have read bits and pieces throughout the book, but I am also going to read it straight through. It will serve, I think, as a wonderful supplement to the small group studies in the Gospel of John. What MacArthur has done is synthesized two of the Synoptic accounts and the Gospel of John (thus Matthew, Luke, and John) into one chronological analysis of Christ's interaction with the religious leaders of His day. This is a highly needful book today. Jesus is simply not the reserved, congenial, pacifistic, theologically ultraminimalistic teacher that many portray Him as (the picture for this post represents this "false Jesus"). Was He gentle, kind, and loving? Absolutely! But He was also boldly confrontational when it came to saving truth- Gospel truth!

Allow me to give you a couple of excerpts. The first one is from the prologue; the second from the introduction of the book. Hopefully, these excerpts will serve as an impetus for you to purchase this book:

"Jesus' interaction with the religious experts of His time was rarely even cordial. From the time Luke first introduces us to the Pharisess in Luke 5:17 until his final mention of the 'chief priests and rulers' in Luke 24:20, every time the religious elite of Israel appear as a group in Luke's narrative, there is conflict. Often Jesus Himself deliberately provokes hostilities. When He speaks to the religious leaders or about them-whether in public or in private- it is usually to condemn them as fools and hypocrites (Luke 11:40; 12:1; 13:15; 18:10-14). When He knows they are watching to accuse Him of breaking their artificial Sabbath restrictions or their manmade systems of ceremonial washing, He deliberately defies their rules (Luke 6:7-11; 11:37-44; 14:1-6). On one occasion, when He was expressly informed that His denunciations of the Pharisees were insulting to the lawyers (the leading Old Testament scholars and chief academicians of that time), Jesus immediately turned to the lawyers and fired off a salvo at them, too (Luke 11:45-54)."

"There's nothing wrong with asking, 'What would Jesus do?' That's a fine question. How would Christ Himself respond to the post-evangelical goulash of opinions represented in Christianity Today, in the emerging blogosphere, and in the trendy evangelical magachurches that have held the evangelical movement in thrall for the past few decades? Would He affirm the current mainstream evangelical apathy toward truth and authentic Biblical unity? Would He approve of those who, confronted with the plethora of contradictions and doctrinal novelties, simply celebrate their movements's 'diversity' while trying to avoid all controversy, embracing every theological renegade, and elevating orthopraxy over orthodoxy? Was Jesus' meek-and-gentle mildness of that sort?

I'm convinced we can answer those questions with confidence if we first ask a slightly different question: What did Jesus do? How did He deal with the false teachers, religious hypocrites, and theological miscreants of His time? Did he favor the approach of friendly dialogue and collegial disagreement, or did He in fact adopt a militant stance against every form of religion?

Anyone even superficially familiar with the gospel accounts ought to know the answer to that question, because there is no shortage of data on the matter...Jesus' interaction with the Scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites of His culture was full of conflict from the start of His earthly ministry to the end. Sometimes the Pharisees provoked the conflict; more often than not, Jesus did. Hostile is not too strong a word to describe His attitude toward the religious system they represented, and that was evident in all His dealings with them.

We're going to survey that theme in this book. We'll see that Jesus never suffered professional hypocrites or false teachers gladly. He never shied away from conflict. He never softened the message to please genteel tastes or priggish scruples. He never suppressed any truth in order to accommodate someone's artificial notion of dignity. He never bowed to the intimidation of scholars or paid homage to their institutions. And He never, never, never treated the vital distinction between truth and error as a merely academic question."

(I can't help but view MacArthur's book as a great response to those today who want to distort the transcendance of God to mean that we cannot know anything for sure about God. In a culture that despises certitude and promotes academic speculation, MacArthur's voice is well needed. He opposes all forms of postmodern epistemologies to which we have been speaking about in Sunday school.)

How Do We Know God?- Part 47

I did not get as far as I thought I would yesterday in Sunday school regarding the question, "How do we know God?" If we continue at this rate we will have 47 parts/posts to this question. Allow me to explain what we went over yesterday. We had several folks out of town, so this post will serve its purpose in updating people.

Remember, this question has not been answered yet. I am just showing that it is a legitimate question that is answerable. We will answer the questioin soon enough. But first I really want you to understand the nature of the question. We are not talking (right now) about salvation knowledge of God. I think that has been made clear in the previous posts.

Last time we left off discussing the maintenance of a right balance between the transcendance and immanence of God. The point I want you to grasp is simply that the idea of God's transcendance should never distract us from fully trusting in God's ability to reveal Himself to us (particularly when it comes to Scripture!). This is especially true in our current context, which as I mentioned before is full of folks who stress and distort God's transcendance to mean that there is nothing that we can really know for sure about God. This results in an agnosticism that is unacceptable for Spirit indwelt believers who serve a God competent enough to reveal Himself.

Again, to say that God is competent to reveal Himself is not the same thing as saying that He fully reveals Himself. My point is simply that He is competent in what He has revealed to us. And He has indeed revealed much to us. For example, the names and attributes that God gives to us in Scripture to identify Himself truly reveal to us who He is. These are not arbitrary names that only give us an idea about God, or reveal certain limited facts about who God is whose essence we are unable to plumb the depths of. Rather, these names are an accurate, clear, precise revelation of the very essence of God!

Frame: “We should not adopt a mental picture or model of God in which his real identity or essence is hidden in darkness, while His revealed nature is a kind of periphery around that darkness. In that picture, the darkness conceals what God really and truly is; His revealed nature is something less than His real being…Such Biblical terms as holiness, goodness, and eternity express God’s essence. They tell us what He really is, for Scripture is true. They define Him, because through them God has defined Himself”.

Frame could not explain it better could he? His point is that God's names are precise indicators, revealing to man who He "really" is in essence. In other words, Scripture never assumes that our finiteness excludes us from being able to understand who God is through the language that He uses. In fact, it assumes just the opposite. It assumes that God is competent enough to communicate effectively to us who He is. And His Spirit (if we are in Christ) is competent enough to aid our understanding. To say that we cannot understand Him exhaustively is simply not the same thing as saying that we cannot know anything about Him with any real degree of assurance. The former is a demonstration of Biblical humility that is captivated by the glory and complexity of God, leaving us in holy awe. The latter is a manifestation of prideful agnosticism. As one writer I recenlty read said, "Ultimately, the bar of reaso is God's reason. Submitting propositions to the bar of God's reason, the true standard of reason, is one thing; submitting truth claims to the bar of our reason is another" (Steve West, Sound of Grace Publication). That is well said. Our reasoning capacitites are not infinite because we are not God. Thus, we can never fully grasp everything there is to know about God. Nevertheless, this truth should never lead us down the path of agnosticism.

Those who desire to emphasize God’s transcendence in this way are really not humble. They are arrogant and independent. They use their assertion, “We can’t know anything about God for sure.”, as a cloak of humility. But at their heart is a desire to autonomously make God whoever they want to make Him out to be. Rather than being humble, they create a god not of Scripture with an unmitigated pride. Furthermore, they can speculate about God in a manner that makes Him something that He is not due to their beginning presupposition that is fueled by agnosticsim.

Okay, now we are ready to answer the question and not just talk about the question- well, sort of. The short answer to the question proposed can be understood when we speak about two broad categories in which we come to know God. These two categories can be referred to as General revealtion and special revelation. Some prefer the terms natural revelation and supernatural revelation.

Next post we will define these two categories.

Dependant On Grace,

Andy

Just a Thought.....

I pointed out in the Sunday school class (and the recent posts) that the atheist and agnostic both operate from a basic presupposition. The presupposition is, "In order for belief in God to be rational, there must be clear, convincing evidence and proof." Flowing from this is another thought. The thought is simply that the most immoral act one is capable of committing is believing in something that he cannot prove.

We cannot exactly prove the Gospel, at least not in the same way that we can prove other things, right? The Gospel cannot be reduced to empirical, observable processes, right? This, to me, appears to be what Paul says in I Cor. 2. John's Gospel tells us that Jesus told His disciples that the world will know that they are His disciples when we demonstrate love one for another (John 13:34-35). However, Jesus did not say that this was proof of God's existence, or the validity of the Gospel as something worthy to believe. He simply said demonstrating love was proof that we follow Jesus. Think for a moment about the religious leaders and crowds of Jesus' day. They all witnessed miracle after miracle, healing after healing, and amazing authoritative preaching, yet they refused to believe. And they ultimately put our Lord of glory to death.

My point is simply that "evidence" or "proof" for God and the truth of the Gospel is not persuasive in the final analysis- at least not for the world who depends on the wisdom of the world. To them the Gospel is foolish (I Cor. 2:1-15). In 2 Cor. 4, Paul tells us that Satan has aided in the process of blinding us from seeing God. Even those during Christ's day who saw miracles and healings were not convinced of the evidence and refused to love Jesus and trust Him. Even those who experienced His healings and miracles firsthand and personally did not all appreciate Him in the "Gospel sense".

With all that in mind here is my thought. Remember, it is just a thought: The most immoral act one can commit does not consist in beleiving in something without being able to prove it beyond dispute. Rather, the most immoral act a person can commit is to reject the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ."

If Calvin was right when he said that to deny the existence of God is to break a law of creation, then does it not stand to reason that rejecting the Gospel is breaking the supreme law of God? In other words, God created us to know Him. Our father Adam and our mother Eve did know Him. Sin separated us from God, however. That is the point of the Gospel- to bring us back to God. And only Jesus can do this. Its the message of the Gospel, when received and believed, that brings us back to know God the way that God intended us to. Therefore, when we deny God's existence because of a lack of "convincing" proof, or we deny Jesus as the Christ because of a lack of "convincing" evidence, we commit the greatest sin of all. So, I say again, the greatest act of immorality does not consist in believing something that cannot be proven entirely, for that would exclude belief in the Gospel in which the Spirit of God alone can convince and prove the worthiness of Christ. Rather, the greatest act of immorality is to reject the King of King and Lord of Lords. It is to reject God's way of bringing us back to God. It is to view the Gospel as foolish and depend on the wisdom, rationality, and logic of the world.

Just a Thought,

Andy

p.s. Your thoughts are welcomed. You can respond by clicking on the comment icon if you wish.

Study of Basic Christian Doctrine: How Do We Know God?- Part 3

I have proposed the question, "How do we know God?" As I stated in earlier posts, this is a foundational question. For a review of everything I have said regarding the nature of this question please refer to previous posts. We have actually not even answered this question yet. Instead I have been trying to show you that: 1) it is a legitimate question, and 2) it is an answerable question.

Yesterday, we ended the post with a discussion regarding two important attributes of God: 1) His transcendence, and 2) His immanence. Understanding these two attributes- and garnering a correct balance between the two-is essential in order to answer the proposed question honestly and intelligently. The Bible speaks both about God's transcendence and His immanence. As we have mentioned before, there is an element of mystery when we look at theses two attributes with our finite eyes. Nevertheless, they are both in Scripture, they are both true about God, and they do not contradict or cancel each other out.

Now it is important to understand the Biblical tension between God’s transcendence and His immanence. Throughout the history of the church Christians have tended to swing back and forth between these two concepts like a pendulum. Greek philosophy played a part in this pendulum swinging. As a result, the pendulum swung toward an overemphasis of the transcendence of God in the early church. The Greeks viewed their gods as completely incomprehensible. And this affected in some way the manner in which the early church fathers understood the God of the Bible. They took their cue from the Greek philosophers of the day and allowed philosophical arguments and analysis to ultimately hold sway over the Biblical text.

There have been other times and points in church history when the pendulum has swung the other way to an overemphasis of the immanence of God. Consistently emphasising God's immanence- to the neglect of ever speaking of His transcendence-will result in a view of God that sees Him not much different than us. Probably a good example of an overemphasis of this in our day would be Open Theism. For the most part, however, we find today that the pendulum has almost perched itself completely on the side of emphasizing God’s transcendence (probably in reaction to modernism). Today many are skeptical that we can know anything for sure about God even from God’s most clear revelation of Himself- the Scriptures (this is the postmodern tendency). This is cloaked with a sort of “humble” facade that says, “It is arrogant to try and speak on anything about God with real assurance and confidence”. This, I think, is a reaction. We must balance the transcendence and immanence of God.

The point to grasp- especially for our current context-is that the idea of God’s transcendence should never distract us from fully trusting in God’s ability to reveal Himself to us (especially in Scripture)! Now this is different than saying that He fully and completely reveals Himself. My point is simply that He is competent in what He has revealed to us. And He has indeed revealed much to us. The names and attributes that God gives to us in Scripture to identify Himself truly reveal to us who He is. One Christian theologian says the following: “We should not adopt a mental picture or model of God in which his real identity or essence is hidden in darkness, while His revealed nature is a kind of periphery around that darkness. In that picture, the darkness conceals what God really and truly is; His revealed nature is something less than His real being…Such Biblical terms as holiness, goodness, and eternity express God’s essence. They tell us what He really is, for Scripture is true. They define Him, because through them God has defined Himself”.

I think that was well said. In other words, God has truly revealed Himself to us. He has not just revealed facts or ideas about Himself. Rather, He has truly revealed Himself to us. To put it simply, Scripture never assumes that our finiteness excludes us from being able to understand who God is through the language that He uses. In fact, it assumes just the opposite. It assumes that God is competent enough to communicate effectively to us who He is. And His Spirit (if we are in Christ) is competent enough to aid our understanding. To say that we cannot understand Him exhaustively (which is what I have affirmed throughout these posts) is simply not the same thing as saying that we cannot know anything about Him with any real degree of assurance.

Furthermore, I think you will find that those who desire to emphasize God’s transcendence in this way are really not humble. They are arrogant and independent. They use their assertion, “We can’t know anything about God for sure” as a cloak of humility. But at their heart is a desire to autonomously make God whoever they want to make Him out to be. Rather than being humble, they create a god that Scripture does not represent, and they do this with unmitigated pride.

....Andy

A Study of Basic Christian Doctrine: How Do We Know God?- Part 2

Yesterday I proposed the question, "How do we know God?" This is the second of eight basic questions that I want to look at in an effort to study basic Christian doctrine. If you think about it, we have not really answered the question yet. Rather, we have analysed the legitimacy of such a question. Furthermore, we have simply shown that it is an answerable question. In addition, I have also demonstrated that the answer to such a question is ultimately "Jesus Christ". That is, the only way that we will ever truly know God is through the person of Jesus Christ based upon His work of redemption on the cross. That much is clear. And we will look at this in detail under future questions ("Who is Jesus Christ?" and "What is salvation?"). But as I made clear yesterday, we are looking for the general answer to this question, not the specific answer. The answer "Jesus Christ" is the right answer to the wrong question, we could say.

Let us continue to look at the legitimacy of this question. We are still not ready to answer it. We must persevere through important introductory material before we will be ready to answer this question intelligently, honestly, and (ultimately) Biblically. I closed the last post with a quote that affirmed what I said throughout yesterday's post. Here it is in a nutshell- belief in God is basic to all men. Now from this assertion flows a major premise. And that major premise is that belief in God is therefore rational. As I said yesterday, we are not to say that in order for belief in God to be rational then evidence must exist. Evidence does in fact exist for God's existence (no pun intended). But it does not have to be there. It is there by God's grace. Some even go so far as to say that it is immoral to believe anything without proof. This is the argument of the atheist and agnostic. Okay, well I have a question then. If that is true, then where is the proof for that assertion? I submit to all the readers of this post that you must have proof to make such an assertion if you want to remain consistent with your overall worldview on the rationality of whether something, or someone is a legitimate object of belief. In other words, if you say that all belief is only rational and moral if it is based upon clear proof, then where is your proof that such a reality is the measurement stick for rationality and morality?

As I mentioned last time, the message of the Gospel is logical and reasonable. And the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming and rational. This does not mean that mystery does not pervade God's truths (including the truth of His existence). But the writers of Scripture never view this tension between truth and mystery as a problem. Just because God’s revelation of Himself as a whole is considered to some degree as incomprehensible does not logically mean that His revelation of Himself as a whole is somehow not genuine, clear, or convincing. The writers of Scripture affirm both truth and mystery in God's sacred Word, and they have no problem affirming both. They do so with great confidence. As John Frame says, “The mysteriousness of God is never the basis of a general agnosticism. God’s revelation is mysterious, but it is a genuine revelation” (The Doctrine of God, 202). In other words, we can say: 1) God is incomprehensible, and 2) God is incomprehensible even in what He has revealed about Himself. Yet in the same breath also affirm that there is much we can know about God. This tension is sometimes described in two attributes that are generally assigned to God- transcendence and immanence. We will talk about these more when we answer the question, “Who is God?” But let’s just take a glance at each one to help us answer our current question, "How do we know God?".

Transcendence refers to the distance of God from us. His majesty and holiness is usually in view- His “otherness” we could call it. Many texts emphasis His otherness (Ps. 8:1). In fact, His holiness is so great, His majesty so awesome, that it literally affects us physically to be in His presence (Is. 6:4-5- Isaiah). Verses that speak about His transcendence are primarily speaking about His sovereignty, Lordship, rule, holiness, and majesty. They do not speak about God’s physical distance per say. The idea that God is sitting in heaven can be strongly misunderstood. Solomon (the wisest person to ever live) said, “The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain You” (I Kings 8:27). This makes sense. After all, God is omnipresent (To borrow the answer from Robert Cecil's catechism, "God is everywhere."). Rather, verses on transcendence seem to emphasize His “otherness” (Ps. 113:5-6). Frame says, “We should, I think, see these expressions primarily as describing God’s royal dignity. He is “exalted”, not mainly as someone living far beyond the earth, but as one who sits on a throne. The expressions of transcendence refer to God’s rule, His kingship, His Lordship” (105).

Immanence, on the other hand, refers to the nearness of God. God accommodates Himself to us in many ways. One of the most obvious examples of this is seen in both major covenants of Scripture when we see God dwelling with people. He willingly took abode with His people in the Old Covenant in the Tabernacle and Temple. In the Old Covenant, His presence was among them. In the New Covenant, His presence is within His people (Rom. 8:9; I Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21 ff.;).

The apparently opposing attributes of God's transcendence and immanence (though in reality they are not) are often seen together in the same passages. This proves that in reality they do not contradict one another, though one may still maintain that they are paradoxical. Take for example, Isaiah 57:15. The first part of the verse refers to God's transcendence. It says, "For thus says the high and exalted One who lives forever, whose name is Holy; I dwell on a high and holy place...". The second half speaks of God's immanence, "...And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit in order to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite." Here is the verse put together, "For thus says the high and exalted One who lives forever, whose name is Holy, I dwell on a high and holy place, and also with the contrite and lowly of spirit in order to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite."

Grasping these two attributes of God, and maintaining a proper balance between them will aid us in accurately answering the question, "How do we know God?"

Until Tomorrow,

Andy

A Study of Basic Christian Doctrine: How Do We Know God?

This week we will begin answering the second basic question in our study of basic Christian doctrine. The first question was, "Why is it important to study doctrine anyway?" We have answered that question in a satisfactorily way, I think. We looked at 9 reasons that one should study doctrine. If you wonder what these are, then look back at the previous posts at your leisure. Remember: we are going to answer (Lord willing) eight basic questions. So let's get started on this second one, for it is in many ways foundational for the rest of the questions and their answers.

Now let me just point out to you from the get go that this could be a confusing question if we allow it to be. However, I am never interested in shrouding things in mystery to appear intelligent, so let me explain. We are not speaking specifically when we ask this question. The specific answer to this question would be- "Jesus Christ", right? Many of you reading this already knew that answer. That is, in fact, the right answer. But it is the right answer to the wrong question because I am asking something different than one might initially think. It is obviously true that it is only through Jesus Christ that we truly come to know God in personal relationship (Jn. 14:6; 17:3). However, when I ask the above question, I am speaking generally, not specifically. Therefore, the answer to the question in the strictest sense is not "Jesus Christ". The general answer to this question looks differently. In fact, we are not even discussing (at this point) what we might call the “salvation knowledge” of God. That will be taken up later in the questions, “Who is Jesus Christ?”, and “What is salvation?” Really, we are talking about a different topic altogether.

One could ask the above question proposed this way, “How do we know God exists?” Or, maybe we could ask it this way, “How do we know God exists, and furthermore, how do we know what we know about God, and furthermore, how do we know what we know about God is true?” All of these questions get at the heart of what we will be discussing in the next few posts. This is similar to the question proposed by Zophar (Job's "kind of" friend) when he asked, "Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty?" (Job 11:7). In other words, is there any sense whatsoever in which man can understand God, and be confident that what he understands about God is certain fact? The proposed question is important because Scripture does clearly teach us that there is a sense in which all men “know” God. This is encouraging in one sense. But it is also dreadful in another sense. In one sense, Scripture teaches us that the knowledge about God that all men possess reveals that He is indeed there. This could be looked at as a good thing if it were not for sin. And that is where the dreadful part enters in. Scripture tells us that man, on his own, cannot recognize this knowledge of God due to the effect of sin (affecting everything including our minds and general perceptive abilities/ see 2 Cor. 4:4; I Cor. 1:21; 2:5). And the result is that, rather than leading them to a true (salvation) knowledge of God it leaves them simply “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). In fact, Paul uses some dreadful language in 2 Cor. 4:4 when he explains that the god of this world (Satan) has aided in blinding the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. It is through Jesus Christ (specific answer to our question) that we truly come to "know" God. But we will never seek Jesus on our own. Our minds will never view that as a rational, logical, needful reaction to our sin. It takes a special operation of the Spirit to remove the scales from the eyes of our mind and reveal Jesus Christ to us (Jn. 3:1-8).

But regardless of the fact that man's condition is sadly wrapped up in his own sin to such a degree that he is incapable of seeing the beauty of God in Jesus Christ, he is still culpable and without excuse. And furthermore, this sad affair does not change reality. This is not a movie that has the potential to have a different ending. This is reality: God has revealed Himself to man, and man categorically refuses to read God's handwriting on His creation, or listen to the spoken Word of His own Son.

Let me point out at this point that God’s existence is not dependent upon evidence for His existence. In other words, though the evidence is overwhelming that God exists, His existence is not dependant either on this evidence, or our ability to perceive this evidence is there. Even if we could not prove the existence of God (which we can), it would not make belief in God irrational. Belief in God is rational simply because He exists. The world depends on logic and rational senses in order to prove the validity of something. However, we must understand from the beginning that though the arguments for the existence of God are rational and logical, they are ultimately shrouded in mystery. The Gospel is not completely mystical, but largely rational. Nevertheless, it is not dependant on logic as understood through the eyes of the world (Compare Is. 1:18; Rom. 10:17; and I Cor. 1:21 with Rom. 11:33-36). Therefore, arguments for the existence of God (and the value of Christ) will appear irrational and illogical at some point because of the element of mystery. Nonetheless, this does not take away from the evidence for God’s existence. Rather, it affirms the wondrously complex and incomprehensible God that we serve. In addition, it points to our finiteness, which in turn points to God’s infiniteness.

In addition, to say that evidence for the existence of God must be established in order to prove the rationality of God’s existence is to place believers in an unfair box. It corners the believer in the one true God (the one who actually possesses truth) and demands him to prove the rationality of his belief according to standards of measurement that God Himself did not invent. In fact, that notion is the notion of the atheist and agnostic. The atheist, or agnostic says, “God cannot exist without proof”. Or they will say, “Religious belief must be based upon empirical evidence and logical arguments in order to be rational”. A Christian who says, “The existence of God must be based upon clear proof” is saying the same thing. He comes to a different conclusion than the atheist and agnostic, namely that God exists. Nevertheless, he begins with the same presupposition, namely that proof is paramount for belief in God to be rational. Scripture never demands proof. It gives proof, but it never demands proof for the existence of God. Rather, Scripture assumes God exists everywhere and throughout. One has to look no further than the first verse of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created..". Did you notice that? There is evidence given (read the creation account) that God exists. But there are no arguments for it. The Biblical text simply assumes that God exists. This is an important difference that I am making between "the reality of evidence" and "the need for evidence". I am not denying that there is sufficient evidence that God exists. In fact, I have been affirming rather robustly that there is evidence for God's existence. But I am also asserting that this evidence does not have to be there for God to exist. His existence is not dependant on evidence. And I will notch it up a little and also affirm that our ability to perceive the viability of this evidence is also not something that His existence is dependant upon. What the world thinks is wisdom is not. Paul said this very thing in 1 Cor. 2:4-5, "...my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God."

Let me close with a quote from a Christian philosopher:

“God has created us in such a way that we have a strong tendency or inclination toward belief in God. This tendency has been in part overlaid or suppressed by sin. Were it not for the existence of sin in the world, human beings would believe in God to the same degree and with the same spontaneity that we believe in the existence of other persons, an external world, or the past. This is the natural human condition; it is because of our presently unnatural sinful condition that many of us find belief in God difficult or absurd. The fact is, Calvin thinks, one who does not believe in God is…like a man who does not believe that his wife exists, or thinks she is like a cleverly constructed robot and has no thoughts, feelings, or consciousness” (Alvin Plantiga).

Trusting the Scales Have Fallen From Your Eyes to See Christ,

Pastor Andy

Is Studying Scripture Important?.....Ummmmmm- Part 4

Why is the study of doctrine important anyway? That is the question I have been answering in several posts this week. Allow me to give a few more reasons that studying doctrine is important.

Fourth, studying theology is important and advantageous because it guards us from unbiblical teaching (assuming that we are correct in our interpretation). Only two texts will be needed to prove this point (although the texts are numerous on this topic!). First, let's take a look at Eph. 4:11-14. Paul says, "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to a measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by the craftiness in deceitful scheming".

Much could be said about the above verses. Many of you know that if I were preaching these verses, it would take a good 50 minutes to explain them properly (at least). Nevertheless, allow me to make some brief comments that pertain to the main point I am arguing. First, notice that Paul is emphasising several offices (vs. 11). Second, notice that all of those offices have a very common component. The common component is that all of them were concerned with verbally speaking God's word, or we could say God's truth, to His people. Third, the reason for these offices is clear as well. Verse 12 specifically says that it is for the "equipping of the saints". Fourth, this is to take place, as vs. 13 says, "until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God". Let me stop here by just reminding you that Paul was writing to believers. Thus, when he speaks of them attaining to "knowledge of the Son of God" he is not speaking about salvation. Rather, he is speaking about their sanctification. Fifth, notice that vs. 14 gives the ultimate goal of the dissemination of doctrine (God's Word/God's truth) to God's people. It is important simply because it guards His people from being "children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine". And notice the end of vs. 14 points to the reality of this- "by the trickery of men, by craftiness and deceitful scheming". The conclusion cannot be escaped- these verses place a premium on the teaching ministry of the church which serves as the foundation to guard against heresy. God desires for His people to be equipped with truth so that when unbiblical teaching is heard, they will not be drawn to it.

Consider also 2 Pet. 3:17 which says, "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness". In this context, Peter uses the word “fall” to refer to apostasy- leaving the Christian faith for good. We know that God ultimately guards and keeps us (2 Thess. 3:3; Jude 24). Those who are “carried away” from the Christian faith never were really in Christ (I Jn. 2:19) showing them that God was not guarding or keeping them in the salvation sense because they never truly placed faith in Christ, though it appeared for a season that they did. Nevertheless, the warning that Peter gives in these verses ought not to be ignored, but should be taken seriously. The warning is given in verse 17 and is “to be on your guard”- being aware of the fact that there are false teachers who distort Scripture and teach heresy. Verse 18 provides the means of being on guard- “growing in knowledge”. In short, knowing doctrine helps prevent succumbing to unbiblical teaching.

Fifth, studying doctrine is important and advantageous because it results in worship and praise of God. This, I think, is a rather obvious point. When we come to worship on Sunday, we do not walk in, sit in a big room and just talk. Nor do we just sit in silence (meditation style). Rather, we come to hear God's Word. The hearing of God's Word (God's truth/doctrine) is central to why we come. And the knowledge of the Gospel is what propels worship, right? It is when our minds are engaged and wrapped up with the doctrines surrounding the Gospel that prompts worship. I do not know how else to put it. I will grant that worship often results from experience. If I am on my way to church in the winter with my family and I hit a patch of ice and spin around thirteen times but end up back on the road and make it safely to church I can promise you that I would be so thankful to God! I would be thankful for his preservation of my entire family because they are precious to me. We would walk into church and I promise you that my wife and I would not be able to stop thinking about God's preservation of us just moments before. Even as I stand singing, readying myself to preach, and even as I preach, I would not be able to get the images of just a few moments ago (in the car) out of my mind. This, no doubt, will prompt worship in my heart. Now that is just an illustration. But my point is that worship can result from experience. I am not denying that. I am simply saying that even worship rooted in experience is ultimately rooted in doctrine. How? Well, in order for me to look back on the incident with the patch of ice and be thankful I must recognize several theological truths: 1) God's power, 2) God's providence, 3) God's grace, 4) God's sovereign plan, etc. So it is inescapable, that is, the notion that worship and praise results from the study of doctrine. Here a few verses you can look up on your own that show that the knowledge of God's "testimonies" and "precepts" provoke praise and rejoicing in the heart (Ps. 19:8; 119:14, 103, 111, 162). Also consider Paul's bursting forth of praise right after giving a synopsis of God's great plan of redemption (Rom. 11:33-36).

Sixth, studying doctrine is important and advantageous because it fulfills the church's mission (Matt. 28:19-20; I Pet. 2:9). Evangelism does not stop with telling someone about the Gospel. Rather, it continues with discipleship. Christ commands teaching as integral to the dissemination of the Gospel. Teaching doctrine fulfills the mission of the church which is to preach the Gospel.

Seventh, studying doctrine is advantageous because it challenges and modifies erroneous beliefs we might hold.

Eighth, studying doctrine is advantageous because it serves to strengthen our faith through the compiling of multiple verses on any given topic. Jesus and other Biblical writers often quoted or referenced more than one book of Scripture as they taught doctrine. The classic example of this is Christ's (apparently long) walk with two men on the Emmaus road in Luke 24:13-27. Luke tells us that Christ "beginning with Moses and with all the prophets...explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures" (vs. 27). In other words, Jesus pointed out several verses (prophecies, promises) in the Old Testament that pointed to the Gospel. He probably mentioned the great promise in Genesis 3:15, the wondrous prophecies of Isaiah, and many more verses. The point is that Christ showed to them that the entire message of the Old Testament Scriptures were all about Him! The study of doctrine seeks to compile multiple verses to explain a certain concept. When these verse are compiled together and explained one richly sees the truth or concept from a number of different angles. This does two things: 1) it leaves us in awe of the complexity and wondrous nature of our God, and 2) it strengthens our faith to know that God's written word (God's truth) is united!

Ninth, studying doctrine is advantageous because it will help us be discerning regarding current and future unbiblical trends of belief.