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:
- 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.
- 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.
4 comments:
Very interesting post Jeff. I've talked about this/a similar topic in small group in the past. What comes to my mind to counter what you are saying about those 'chosen' for God's wrath is...free will. I don’t think the only way for Him to show us His love is by showing us His wrath as well…as the alternate. God shows us His sovereignty and love through free will. And we show Him love in return and understanding of His love for us through our choice. At the beginning of time God knew, as a people, we would defy Him. Enter Jesus. He also knew certain people would choose to follow Him. We choose this for ourselves - God does not choose this for us. He designed, flawlessly, the way our world works, but he also set it in motion to allow us freedom…so that we are not slaves to His love and creation or slave to His wrath and design. However, what I have not found any answer to whatsoever is similar to your question…yet different. With free will comes choice, with choice come two alternatives. God needed an anti-God in order to give us free will…Enter Satan. Without Satan there is no free will….there is nothing to choose apart from God. Eve was the first human to sin and choose Satan’s way over God’s way, but how did Satan have anything to choose apart from God if only God (= good) existed at the time?...so was Satan called to be the anti-God. Was he called to be the alternate choice for us? If so, is he fulfilling his call from God? Where I stumble is…if the answer is yes, then all those who chose to spend a life apart from God – as their choice and do not fulfill God’s plan for their life will spend eternity in hell…yet Satan – chose to spend a life apart from God, yet he IS (assuming the above is correct) fulfilling God’s plan for his life…so will he be redeemed?
The whole issue of "choice" is something I covered in an earlier post. The difficulty is explaining a world in which fallen man can "choose" anything (being dead in sin), especially anything good, like God. Check out the post though, as I put my thoughts there. (think it is in August).
As to the need for an anti-God, I think that possibility arises any time you have a creature that does has the capacity to choose. In the garden Eve was not so much tempted to follow the snake's will as she was to follow her own will. In Ezekiel we see that Lucifer had a similar situation.
The very existence of choice means that I now have an option between what God wants and "not what God wants". The best way that I understand that is to say that when I choose "not God" I am, in fact, choosing what I want.
The first, and ultimate sin, then becomes pride... serving myself over God. And, I don't think God needed to "do" anything to create this sin outside of give us the option. And, since both his servants (angels) and his children (humanity) have the ability to choose (in their perfect/awakened form anyway), then we have to conclude that Choice is crucial to our relationship with God.
Ok...I llke it. So the option is between God and self. I guess I should remember that from when C.S. Lewis talks about that in Mere Christianity. But I still am struggling to see that God needs to choose who is goign to suffer His wrath. I still think it makes sense that we choose that for ourselves. Thanks for the explanation though...now I know there is NO chance I will see Satan in heaven...good ;)
I am interested in the phrase that you think it "makes sense" that we choose God's wrath rather than that He chooses us for wrath. Why is that?
Also, yes I believe you can rest assured that Satan will not be in heaven, though it has more to do with the fact that as far as we know angels were never redeemed... God never became an angel so that He might atone for their sin. That is an entirely different line of thought though :). (Mostly because angels were also not created in God's image as far as it has been revealed to us, so they differ in that way from us)
Post a Comment