The End?

Last week Leslie and I were in Romans 6. On Sunday night my brilliant wife was used by God to impart wisdom to me. It was one of those moments where a verse we have read hundreds of times became clear in a new way.

We have been reading Roman with the thought of sovereignty and salvation in the back of our minds. The first question was, "Do I play any part in my own salvation?", to which the answer is a rather clear "no"; unless you count "receiving it" as an action.

The next, and more difficult, question was, "Do I then play any part in my damnation?" I have written many pages on these two questions over the lat few weeks. Then God, in His wonderful wisdom and simplicity, answered them both in a single verse.

Generally I consider it bad form to build doctrine and theology on a single verse. That is not what I am doing here. I just believe this verse sums up God's position, a position He expresses throughout Scripture.

Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Do you see it? Remember in Romans 4:4 where it says, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation."

In chapter 6 Paul completes the thought. We see that salvation is not something we earn, as if God owed us mercy and righteousness due to our works. Death, however, is something that we are owed. It is the fitting wage of our sin. Wages are awarded to a man for his work, not as a gift from God as it were.

So we see that we work our way to hell, and God pays us the wage we have rightfully earned. Yet it is His grace and mercy alone that leads us to salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Lewis and Value (ie. random thoughts)

I have been reading through Mere Christianity again recently... and come to the realization that I do not believe I have ever actually finished the book before. Most of the times I have read it before were part of a discussion group. The discussions always lasted longer than the alloted time, and so the group would finish before we got through the entire book.

As a result I am just now reading Lewis' thoughts on the trinity and time/eternity and some other things. Suffice to say I should have just quoted him in my last post. As is normally the case he makes a more concise argument than I do; more clear as well most likely. It is comforting (for me anyway) that our basic thought process leads to the same conclusion... namely that our understanding of "time" causes unnecessary confusion when we try to understand God and how He works within Creation.

Randomness Part 2:

I was thinking today about how people define their value. I started off making this a "male/female" thing, and I think in general it would still hold, but I am not ready to make that generalization completely. The two distinctions I wanted to focus on were those who find their value in who they are and those who find their value in how they perform; my person or my performance. My thoughts centered around how these two people enter into conflict. For example:

Those who find their value in their person will often make personal attacks when facing conflict. Words will be said surrounding a person's character (you are a liar, cheat, bum, etc.) The game is won when you can successfully build a picture of your own person that is somehow better, purer, holier, etc. than the other person.

Those who find their value in their performance will make attacks on another person's competence (you suck, loser, moron, etc.). In fact these people assume that each party has the same basic skills. This is a necessary assumption in order for their perceived victory to have meaning. It would be like a football team that got spotted three touchdowns and managed to win the game; there is no real victory there because they had an advantage. People who base their value on performance actually like it when the other team has the three touchdown advantage and they still manage to win.

Obviously both of these are an insufficient basis for our value, but I think they provide a helpful understanding of why people respond the way they do in conflict. If you hear people making personal comments in heated moments it is because they are feeling like their "person" is under attack. You might be talking about mistakes they made in a recent report and they shoot back with personal attacks on your or a co-worker.

You will find people defining themselves either by what they do or how they do it; or perhaps some combination of the two.

End of randomness.

Romans 9 – Relation to Time

One reason we often struggle with passages of Scripture is our relationship to time. Often we will say “God did it” and we speak at the same time a true and unenlightening statement. The question we are often asking is not a “how” but a “why”. When “because God” is the finality of our answer it is easy to get into a circular argument in which God does things because they are good and they are good because He does them. So we learn that it is good because it is good. While true, this is not helpful in discovering the character of “good”.

In an eternal context everything that will happen has happened, and it all happened because God is. He is the beginning; He is the end. All things that happen, happen in and through Him.
In essence our entire experience is like a game that God decided to play (pardon this purely human argument, I don’t mean to make light of the entire human experience). The question then becomes, does God play a game in which He moves all of the pieces, or did He create a game in which he plays referee and the pieces move themselves, or is it some mix of both?
From a long-distance view (say 1,000 years or greater) it will appear as if God alone moves the pieces, because His hands will be seen constantly moving across the board and pieces will be flying around accordingly. This is the eternal view; and it is truth. God moves and the pieces follow suit. God is at work playing the game, moving pieces where He wants so that the end looks the way that pleases Him.

As we zoom in, however, we may find a somewhat different picture. Some of the pieces seem to move of their own accord, at times in line with God’s hand and at other times struggling against it. When we quickly zoom back out we may well find that they never succeed in moving contrary to God, but not for lack of effort!

So, how does this game work in which the reality seems to be both that God moves the pieces and the pieces have some ability to move themselves (even though they can only move with His help)? Who knows, but the only evidence we have, His revelation and our experience, suggests that it is so.

I see potential error enter into our understanding of God’s character when we choose to view through only the eternal or only the temporal view. Take a passage along the lines of Romans 9 where Paul quotes a passage in which God says that He raised up Pharaoh for the purpose of displaying his power and wrath. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. It is quite clearly an eternal view of the matter; God’s hand moved, and Pharaoh moved accordingly. If we were to look at the temporal view we might well see that Pharaoh moved perfectly in step with God through that process; that he in fact wanted a hard heart. This is the way that same process is described in Romans 1 after all. People who knew God (this implies God had revealed Himself to them in a real and meaningful way, that they had been made awake or alive in some way… dead men after all cannot “know” anyone can they) chose to reject God. In accord with their wishes God gave them over to the desire of their hearts, hardening them as it were to His truth.

From an eternal view it would seem simply as if God had decided that those pieces should be hardened… but the temporal view says that they also wanted to be hardened.

In fact, one of the biggest ways that people seem to struggle against God’s hands and lose is in the matter of mercy. This is revealed both in Scripture and in our personal story. We did not want God. We did not long for righteousness. It is almost as if despite our great struggle against Him He was unwilling to relent and moved us to mercy. It is then quite impossible for us to imagine how someone would end up in a position to receive God’s wrath unless he moved them in the same way.

At this point I like to look back at the “rules” of the game, as established by the one who created it. Here are a few key rules that I find.

1. Winning is God’s glory increasing. Because of the great sacrifice that God made for us it is tempting to say that God’s love for us is the greatest love in the universe. This is not true, though, because His love for His own glory outstrips His love for us by far. The cross was not for our salvation as much as it was for His character. God’s character demanded that the cross happen… which is interesting just in itself, and gives us a clue as to what “winning” looks like to God.
2. Choice is required for one to be considered a “piece” on the board. I don’t know why this is, I just know that it is. Both angels (God’s servants) and humans (God’s children) are said to choose. This reveals that choice plays a key role in the game from God’s standpoint. So, in my mind our rules are incomplete unless we take that choice into account. Some say that choice died with the Fall, or that everyone made their choice in the Fall and God alone chooses after that. That position requires too much semantic dancing because of the great multitude of passages that speak of choice after Genesis 3. However it works, choice remains a part of the pieces in God’s game up to the very end.
3. God wins. This is both a matter of God’s strength and His character (which is somewhat saying the same thing because strength is a part of His character). Because God is who He is, He will win the game; His glory will be increased through it all and His will accomplished.
   

Given those rules we are left with a picture that combines the eternal and temporal view into some mysterious dance in which God’s will moves pieces as they also make choices to the result that in the end everything ends up both where it wants to be and where He wants it to go. Personally I am not sure I will ever fully understand that process on this side of eternity, and that is acceptable because I am convinced that God understands it, and it is His game afterall.

Romans 9: Reason for Wrath

In answering the questions raised in Romans 9 I want to back up a little at first. Every passage in Scripture needs to be read in context, difficult passages even more so. Many people find Romans 9 to be a difficult passage (personally I think 9-11 are the same thought, if not 1-11). That is because what is read in chapter 9 seems to go against so much of the rest of the old and new testament revelation of God’s character.

If you have people read Scripture, or even just read the book of Romans, and then ask them, “What is the main theme?” I would be shocked if they answered, “God designs some people to display His wrath so that His mercy may be understood.” Paul would be shocked too.
When drawing conclusions on passages of Scripture I like to see what conclusions the author makes himself. Romans 12 gives us Paul’s conclusion to the first 11 chapters. He says, “Therefore, in view of God’s mercy.” He did not say in view of God’s election or God’s wrath, but in view of God’s mercy. In fact God’s mercy is one of the over-arching themes of Scripture, and it is in particular point here in Romans for a specific reason.

Some people believed (and taught) that birthright carried more weight than belief in whether or not someone received mercy from God. Being a Jew by birth was more important that believing in Christ on the cross in regards to acquiring righteousness. Paul began answering that issue in Romans chapter 4. He shows that even before the notion of Israel existed God imparted righteousness because of faith. Faith precedes both the law and the Jewish nation.

In chapter 9 Paul reveals that wrath exists outside grace not just outside the Jewish nation. In this he is reaffirming his previous point that belief carries more weight than birthright. His story of Jacob and Esau points to this specifically. The point is that God showed mercy to the one to which mercy was not expected; and the one who expected mercy (due to his birthright) found wrath instead.

Why did that happen? Because God chose to make it that way is the quick and unsatisfying answer. (Yet the answer we must accept, just as Paul reminds us.) Paul expands the answer in 9:30-33 when he says that some receive wrath because of their unbelief. This is where we begin to understand how wrath “reveals mercy” and how justice demands that God pour out His wrath on some Israelites. (It is important to note that Paul is speaking specifically of God’s wrath upon the Jewish nation in this passage.)

The reason he states is that those Israelites had attempted to gain righteousness by the law and God says it comes through faith. Christ on the cross is the message of mercy, and they rejected that message. It would be unjust for God to grant them mercy, because in doing so He would make the cross worthless.

When God reveals His wrath on the unbelieving Jews it proves that mercy is available to the Gentiles. Because, if birthright were enough to attain righteousness then the promise is meaningless (chapter 4). But, if birthright is not enough, then there is room for belief, and God has made that available to all. Not everyone can be a genetic child of Abraham, but everyone can be a child of the promise.

This is the point Paul makes in verse 32 when he concludes, “Why is all of this so? Why do some receive wrath instead of mercy? Because they pursued it (mercy) not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone’,” that is Christ on the cross.

Side note on Love and Wrath

Another issue arises when wrath is necessary in order for love to exist such that love is incomplete without wrath to help define it.

The issue is that the thing that defines carries more power than the thing defined. If love is dependant upon wrath for its definition, then wrath is more powerful than love. If, however, wrath is merely a function of love, then love remains supreme and wrath is its servant.

When I read of God's nature in Scripture it is clear to see that his nature is defined by Love. In fact, He defines himself with that idea. We can also see a world in which love displays wrath. In Hebrews we read that God disciplines those He loves, and in Revelation we see that God will punish those who killed His bride.

It is also clear that wrath is poured out upon sin, because sin destroys God's creation... and love demands the removal of anything that destroys the object of that love.

In the beginning there was God. In the end there will be God + whatever He wishes to create. Sin will no longer exist, because sin corrupts and God is incorruptible. Wrath is a function of love that is required in order for love to be complete (God's love for Himself and His character is the ultimate love). If sin were necessary for God's love to be complete, then I would expect a much different creation story... one in which God created that which was necessary for His glory to be fully revealed.

Think of Jesus speaking in John 10 when He states that He is the good shepherd. Do you think anyone in that crowd would have considered a shepherd "good" if he intentionally slaughtered the sheep? Most likely not, even if they belonged to someone else.

If that same shepherd killed a wolf invading the flock, however, he would be seen as a hero. Love for the sheep demands wrath upon the wolf. Wrath upon the sheep does not make sense. (Of course some will argue that the sheep receiving God's wrath are instead goats, but for this point I am merely looking at the necessity of wrath either as a function of love or a defining factor of love, and one would not attempt to define love for some sheep by destroying other sheep.)

The Supremacy of Love

One of the issues that has arisen in my recent Sovereignty journey is the possibility that God's wrath is necessary so that His mercy and grace can be fully understood and appreciated. I agree with the statement as it is. The question then becomes, how did God plan to reveal his wrath? What was His original design, and what does it say about His character?

In the beginning we are told that God creates. He called His own creation "very good". Wrath was missing in creation, and in the rest of the story I get the idea that God does not pour our His wrath on "very good" things. Wrath is reserved for evil things, disobedient and unbelieving things.

However, wrath and justice were clearly a part of His original plan (because they exist if not other reason). They reveal a truth about His love, that love costs the lover. He designed a system in which wrath would necessary not just to define His great love, but also to deal with sin. Sin entered the world (we can presume it was by God's plan) and sin must be destroyed according to God's character and nature.

That means that from the beginning it was God's design to create, have sin enter creation (the story is also quite clear that God did not create sin directly), and then deal with sin in a permanent way. That is where God's wrath enters the equation. God's wrath is such that it is able to destroy sin completely (and death, the effect of sin).

The question then becomes, who did God plan to release his wrath upon? The answer also becomes clear in Scripture... Himself. If we look at the conversation in Revelation we see that a question went out as to who would be worthy to bring salvation to the world. God Himself was the only one found worthy; and one might even say able. His wrath is such that were it poured out on anything or anyone else they would be forever destroyed. Only He was able to take upon Himself the full measure of His wrath and still survive.

God's plan was not that His creation would endure His wrath, but that it would experience and witness His wrath; the fullness of which was displayed upon Christ on the cross. He could do this because wrath is inferior to grace. Life triumphs over death. Love reigns supreme and is able to swallow up sin and death... and still has more to give. As Paul writes, where sin abounds grace abounds all the more.

We read in Scripture that some of creation will also partake in God's wrath. That does not mean God designed creation for His wrath. When God speaks of sin and redemption He speaks of all of creation. All fell; all were redeemed. On the cross He completed the task and paid the price in full. Those who fail to enter in to His rest do not do so because of a lack of grace but a lack of belief.

Thoughts on Sovereignty: Who should I hate?

Yes, this topic is still on my mind. Over the last few weeks I have been looking at this area of Sovereignty and it led me to jump back into Romans to do a nice 16-week study of the book focused around this one question: How are we justified and how are we condemned? Certainly one cannot come up with doctrine simply from one book, but I had to start somewhere and Romans seems to be central to the discussion.

Today I am focusing on one of the questions that arises from the position that God designed part of creation for the purpose of receiving His wrath. The question simply is, "What part of creation should I set apart for wrath?" or "Who should I hate?"

If God's design was that part of His creation was purposed for wrath then that means that displaying wrath is part of God's nature. God never acts outside of His nature. When we look at "wrath" in its pure and final form we see that wrath = separation from God. If love is unity with God, then eternal punishment is banishment from God. This is an entirely different problem, the fact that wrath is central to God's nature, and it involves people being separated from Him. It begins to sound somewhat Eastern to me; a belief that God is both the good and the bad; that His love is defined by His wrath just as much as his wrath is defined by His love.

For the sake of this blog I will assume that the above works out, and that God did indeed design part of his creation for the sole purpose of revealing His wrath against it in order that His love may be clearly understood to those chosen to receive it.

The next truth we are faced with is that those who are chosen have been chosen in order to be changed; changed into God's likeness specifically. This is referred to countless times throughout the New Testament, that God is at work changing us from the inside out, making us look more like Him.

This is not a new teaching at all; we have always been told that we should be patient because God is patient, forgiving because He forgave us, giving because God so loved that He gave.

The teaching I have not received is that which helps me understand how I am to embody God's wrath. It seems to follow that if God knows those He has set aside for wrath that it is in His will that I also discover those. If His will is not just for eternity, but for the earth too (something we teach on the love side) then part of my transformation should include displaying God's wrath to that part of creation that was designed for it. (All of a sudden I can see where things like Crusades come into being.)

To be fair, I have never met anyone I consider a credible source that has actually taught this message; that just as I grow in God's love I should also grow in His wrath. Wrath is something we withhold for sin, not the sinner... for that is God's job. It is interesting how we make that distinction in the area of wrath, but not love. Of course we were never commanded to display God's wrath (towards creation), and we were often commanded to display His love. Perhaps that is significant in understanding God's design.

Still two issues arise that I have been unable to answer:

1. Jesus makes it clear that thinking is equal to doing. It seems that some hold onto the position that certain parts of creation will go to hell, and that in doing so they will be accomplishing their God-ordained purpose. IE - God's character led Him to design part of creation for destruction. It seems like a semantic "out" to say, "I believe this, I just do not act on it, for that is God's job." Would that not be like hating someone but refraining from murdering them? I cannot imagine anything close to "hate" than the statement that a person was designed for the sole reason that they might be punished for all eternity. So, if we believe this, shouldn't it enter into our actions in some way? Otherwise we seem to be living outside our character; hypocrites as it were.
2. Others will say that vengeance is God's responsibility. Wrath is something that He reserves for Himself because He alone truly knows the destiny of creation. Though I have not arrived at Romans 12 in my study, we know that it tells us to avoid revenge in order to leave room for God's wrath. The implication here is that God is repaying a wrong that is done. When we look at sin (doing wrong against God) it has a simple definition of living outside of His will and plan. When I choose my will instead of His I have sinned against Him. That presents an awkward situation in the case of the person who was designed to reject God's will. Is He not actually living in obedience to God by his rejection? Such a person would be disobedient to his calling if he were to seek repentance or grace. So, how does vengeance, wrath, or justice fit into such an equation? If rebellion is obedience, and obedience is loving God, then where does punishment fit?

Let me say at this point that Yes, I believe it is possible to over-think things and miss the simplicity of the truth. Yet, truth is my goal. It is created in me to search for the truth until I reach one of two conclusions. Either I will find the truth because it is knowable or I will conclude that this truth is currently unknowable, a mystery as it were. We know that such truth exists for us on the earth because we do not see clearly here, not as we will see in eternity. (Honestly I believe God's sovereignty may be just such a mystery... but for now I am still pressing to see what is knowable.)

Why the press to "know"? Well, my life is consumed with God's character. Submitting myself to Him such that His character is made more real through my life is my purpose... to live is Christ. If it truly is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me, then my life will look like His. And, if displaying wrath against creation is central to God's nature then follows that I should be seeing that same wrath against creation revealed in my life.

Something in my spirit struggles with that concept, even beyond the fact that I don't see any commands along those lines in Scripture; it goes deeper to a belief that God's love is self-defining and complete and that wrath is merely a function of love, not a definer of love. I will delve into that concept more in another post.