Pastors of Grace Chapel Baptist Church: Mike Argabrite and Andy Smith

Pastors of Grace Chapel Baptist Church: Mike Argabrite and Andy Smith
This blog serves in an effort to elaborate on topics that we are studying. This is done with the purpose of provoking thoughtful discussion among the people of Grace Chapel as well as anybody who might stumble onto our blog page. The discussion can take place publicly on this blog or in private conversation.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

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

No comments:

Post a Comment