it’s not fair
It seems to me that much of what is being debated about here recently on mass theology has an underlying thread: issue ‘a’ can’t be true because it isn’t fair/loving/logical [take your pick].
And since God is love and justice, his character is tarnished by, for example, allowing original sin to come to all through Adam or restricting the role of pastor/elder to men.
Look, I understand the rub. I have a hard time accepting mysteries/paradoxes/miracles even.
In our finiteness and human capacities, we try to use the Bible, logic, philosophy, reason, books, experiences, etc. to determine the best scenario in which a doctrine, in as much as it can, be positive/fair/loving/logical.
THE question for me is: what is MOST shaping your doctrine of God’s character?
If you were to list, in order of what is MOST shaping your doctrine of God’s character, what would be your list?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Much of what Henry Michael said is very dead on center. But I want to take an idea of what he said and push it farther than what it was taken. Henry said, “I do, however, choose to take God for what He says He is. If He says He is just, I expect Him to be just. If He says that He has mercy on who He will have mercy on, I expect Him to be that way.” There is something that he just might not have put down because he implied it or I migh not be on quite the same page.
It is the ideas of love, mercy, grace, justice etc. that need more commenting. If we are going to expect God to be merciful and such, then we have to expect him to be what he has defined as merciful. Many times we as western people put a western definition upon these terms. For example the term “law.” To the Jew in the Old Testament, the Torah is not what we would define as “law.” It was instruction for relationship. It is not hard fast law. To the Old Testament Hebrew person, it was all about relating to God.
Another term that we import more western ideas than we ought is the idea of defining righteousness. In the Old Testament, it had more to do with, you guessed it, relationship. It was not so much doing what is right and not doin what is wrong. It is being faithful to that relationship. I would argue further but not here, that that faithfulness is to God’s glory more so than to anything else.
All this is by way of saying that the Bible is the complete revelation of God to man. All that we need for salvation and for living is in there. Everything else is subject to the Bible. I am not putting a book on the pedastol but I recognize the Bible’s author. God makes himself known o the world through creation, the sciences, the arts, and through man’s ability to reason and think and our consciences. But that does not tell us who he is. For me, the single-most influence on my theology is the Bible. From the Bible I define terms such as mercy, grace, justice, etc. All things should flow from a Spirit-guided, biblically grounded knowledge. To have true philosophy, it must be in light of what the Bible says. To know true biology, it must be in light of what the Bible says. To have any true knowledge, it must be in light of what the Bible says. That’s my heart and why it believes and thinks the way it does.
I have problems with this concept:
“Now, with the Bible also revealing God’s character, I use that to help mediate between ambiguous passages, themes and ideas.”
It gives too much room to subjectivism and imposing one’s view of Gods character onto all texts. The Liberals do that to teach universalism and Gay unions, they say that “We know God’s character is love and…fill in the space” Not saying HM is doing this but just that the concept can and has been abused badly to deny all sorts of orthodox doctrines. We just know based on Gods “character that He would support two people who love eachother being married in a monogomous relationship even if they are the same sex. Again not saying HM is doing this…but he might be.
Well, the most complete revelation of God is the Bible. What I learn about God there extends into the real world.
I do, however, choose to take God for what He says He is. If He says He is just, I expect Him to be just. If He says that He has mercy on who He will have mercy on, I expect Him to be that way.
Now, with the Bible also revealing God’s character, I use that to help mediate between ambiguous passages, themes and ideas.
Mixed in with that, there is logic. Like Casey said, logic is not a man-made device. The law of modes pones does not depend on me for its validity, but on God. He crafted the laws of logic. As such, I can use the tools of logic to also help mediate between the concepts that people think the bible says. The Bible provides the premises and logic helps us sort them out and fill in the holes.
History also is a useful tool. It helps to know the backdrop to the scriptures as best as we can know in order to help us with word meanings, phrases, ect…
Lastly and most importantly, there is the Holy Spirit. When I read the Bible, or meditate (i.e. think deeply, not some sort of eastern Hindu/Buddhist practice) on the Word, I ask the spirit of God to guide me. I try to listen to its promptings and use the Bible to help me discern what It is trying to tell me. I used to not listen to the Holy Spirit, the comforter and our guide when I went to read the Bible. That closeness lead me to Meredith’s reproof.
It is taking all of these tools as a whole that I try to develop my theology. The Bible, God’s revealed Character, the Holy Spirit’s guiding, logic, and history are all taken as a whole when learning about God.