Pages

Monday, November 17, 2008

Sinners in the hands of an angry God

Calvinism spends a lot of time defending the truth because it is true. This shouldn’t be necessary, but unfortunately, it often is.

Because we spend so much time defending the truth for the simple reason that it’s true, we can underemphasize the linkage between the good and the true.

While the truths of Calvinism have the undeniable benefit of being true, they also have the additional benefit of being good.

Although we should be prepared to believe the doctrines of grace merely because they’re true, they are not merely true. In addition, they are good. They are true goods and good truths.

Take the holiness of God. To a sinner, the holiness of God is naturally threatening.

The natural tendency, then, is to soften God. A holy God is a menace to unholy sinners. Especially if sin were unredeemed.

What kind of parents would you like to have? Well, if you get into trouble, it’s nice to have an indulgent dad who turns a blind eye and bails you out. It’s a relief to know that no matter what you do, dear old dad is such a soft touch, is so blinded by his affection for your, that whenever you get into a fix, he will fix your problem.

For selfish reasons, we find that kind of father appealing. It’s very convenient. Very useful to have him around.

But while there are times when we might like to have that kind of father, there’s a catch.

That’s not the kind of father you can admire or respect or look up to. A father like that is a softheaded fool. We appreciate having him available when we get into a bind, but we also hold him in a certain contempt. We yank the chain and he comes running.

A father who lives for the approval of his kids is a weak father. A pitiful father.

Conversely, some sons have stern fathers. The strict disciplinarian. Never lets you get away with anything at all.

And that creates another tension. They respect their fathers. And they need a father who sets a standard.

But they need more than that. They also need paternal affection and approval. Especially when they are growing up. A father who is impossible to please is a crushing weight on a young son. Irreproachable and unapproachable.

God is just. God is holy. Not only should we believe it because it is true, but we should value it because it is good. Any other God would be unworthy of our worship.

But, for sinners, this presents a dilemma. What if the God you admire is the God you fear? You respect him. Revere him. Hold him in awe. But he scares you. Isaiah was afraid of God (Isa 6).

If you’re a sinner, then there’s a sense in which a good God is too good. Too much of a good thing.

It’s not coincidental that the heathen created gods who were just as evil as they were. If you’re bad, you hate the good. It stands over you like an ax waiting to fall.

Apart from the atonement, there is no solution to this dilemma. But the cross is, at one and the same time, an emblem of divine justice and mercy.

It allows us to draw near to the only God who is worthy of our worship. A righteous God, but a gracious God as well.

Ultimately, we wouldn’t want one without the other. Holiness without mercy is terrifying; mercy without holiness is contemptible.

Atheism suffers from the opposite dilemma. The “truths” of atheism, if true, are bad rather than good. “Unyielding despair.”

Dawkins tries to make a virtue out of the hopeless outlook of atheism. Make it sound brave and heroic. But courage in the face of nihilism and oblivion is an ersatz virtue. Play-acting.

There is no solution to the atheistic dilemma. The only choice is whether you die now or die later. And in the long run, it makes no difference.

Give thanks to God that a godless existence is not the end of the line. Give thanks to the justice of God. Give thanks to the grace of God.

23 comments:

  1. Great post Steve.

    Atheists miss the fact that if atheism is true, it doesn't matter that its true.

    ReplyDelete
  2. David,

    Have you considered that it IS possible for atheism to matter if its true? See, if atheism is true the atheist will get to say: "Nanner nanner nanner! My trumped up belief in values, morals, and rights was no more vacuous than your trumped up belief in God!"

    On second thought...the only way for the atheist to know that would be after death, so all he'd really get to say is: ""

    So nevermind. Your point stands :-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I once took on all the atheists on the Sam Harris forums, and the first thing I said was none of you *really* believe that when you die you will go into annihilation.

    More than a few pretty much agreed. Then they often stated they believed in reincarnation of some sort.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I once took on all the atheists on the Sam Harris forums...

    Puritan, you have my undying respect!

    It's like what happened to these Christians who were in San Francisco's Castro District.

    P.S. San Francisco 49ers and San Francisco Giants were my favorite pro teams growing up. I'm now on the verge of abandoning these teams simply because I dislike the city of San Francisco so much. Any suggestions for a pro football and pro baseball team to adopt?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Truth: How about the Pittsburgh Stillers?

    ReplyDelete
  6. >P.S. San Francisco 49ers and San Francisco Giants were my favorite pro teams growing up. I'm now on the verge of abandoning these teams simply because I dislike the city of San Francisco so much. Any suggestions for a pro football and pro baseball team to adopt?

    Since I suspect you probably can't bring yourself to follow the Raiders and Athletics (not that they are threatening to win any championships these days) I would suggest to just root for any underdog. There's a lot of disappoint when doing it, but every once in awhile there is tremendous pay off like when the New York Giants won (extreme underdogs to the Patriots in the Super Bowl).

    ReplyDelete
  7. How about the Red Sox and Patriots? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. John Bugay: "How about the Pittsburgh Stillers?"

    Gotta put 'em on the short list. I liked 'em during their Terry Bradshaw, Mean Joe Greene, Jack Lambert days.

    Good, hard-nosed, black-and-blue, smash-mouth football. Just the same way that I like my favorite apologetics blogsite: Triablogue!

    (heh, heh.)

    The Puritan: "...you probably can't bring yourself to follow the Raiders and Athletics"

    Still to close to Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Craig Sowder: "How about the Red Sox and Patriots? ;)"

    Ugh. Getting worse. All teams from the state of Massachusetts are banned from consideration. MA was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. They have Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barney Frank. Harvard fired Lawrence Summers for being politically incorrect. Secular liberals now have a chokehold on that once wonderful New England state where puritanism once flourished. How did the Northeast drift so quickly into apostasy after being such a beachhead for the growth of Christianity in North America? We're about to celebrate Thanksgiving in a couple of weeks for goodness sakes! Do people even remember the Pilgrims anymore?

    But I do have to acknowledge the greatness of the MA sports teams: New England Patriots had a great run (despite some ethical lapses by Belichek), Red Sox punked the hated Yankees after being down 3-0 in the AL series, and the Celts recaptured the glory days of yesteryear with their victory over the Lakers this year.

    But I still don't like the state of Massachusetts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve I always wonder why Reformed churches are always small in number and attendance when compared to other denominations, do you have any insights?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm not Steve but I can tell you from firsthand experience that Reformed churches and Reformed people tend to suck while non-Reformed churches and non-Reformed people tend to be more pleasant to be around.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's also quite simple: the larger you cast the net the more fish you'll catch. I'm not simply referring to evangelistic reach. I'm referring to theological identity. I was at a church where every sermon was approachable enough so that the sinner whose never entered a church before in his life off the street could come inside and understand the message and want to be a part of the church. Reformed churches won't be so accommodating because they understand that that method is a recipe for disaster. What you will have is a theologically illiterate congregation. Sure the sinner off the street will feel invited, but the congregation will never move beyond the pure milk to solid food.

    Think about it this way: When you communicate the gospel in such a way that you make becoming a Christian sound like you're joining a country club -- you'll get many more people to join your church than the Reformed church on the corner that tells people that the Christian life is characterized by a tenacious, Puritan-like war against sin every day of your life.

    But would these people that join the first church really submit their lives to Christ if they heard all the hard doctrine? Maybe John 6 speaks to us today about this very issue. Once the fish and loaves ran out and the hard teaching began -- not many remained.

    ReplyDelete
  12. LB,

    Although I think Johnson's indictment is a bit overstated, there's some validity to some of his allegations:

    http://www.prophezei.com/?p=145

    There are parallel problems in Lutheranism.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think a big reason Reformed churches are few and small is because being Reformed, by definition, means you pretty much know as much about doctrine as the average pastor/elder, if not more.

    And it's a bit galling to put yourself under the teaching of an academic type on top of that (academic types being the only ordained pastors found in Reformed churches).

    Perhaps priesthood of all believers doesn't practically work well in gatherings (which is not saying that it is not a good thing).

    And the you truly get to a real understanding of Reformed doctrine you sort of become a Bunyan, which is to say you are on the Way, and the average Reformed church environment is like the Anglican judge who demanded to know why Bunyan didn't attend his local church; Bunyan's reply was he didn't see it commanded in Scripture.

    So anyway just because Reformed churches are small and few doesn't mean Reformed Christians aren't more in number than we see in those churches.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Defending truth because it is true?"

    What's next, "The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true?"

    ReplyDelete
  15. Edward, you responded to Gene Bridges in the wrong thread. Atheism doesn't come with a GPS device apparently. You're lost!

    ReplyDelete
  16. "But, for sinners, this presents a dilemma. What if the God you admire is the God you fear? You respect him. Revere him. Hold him in awe. But he scares you. Isaiah was afraid of God (Isa 6)"

    Isn't this one of the major complaints that unbelievers have with Christianity, though? That (in their estimation) God is an ill-tempered tyrant who bullies believers into doing what he says or else face eternal hellfire? In response to this, I've noticed some say that "God-fearing" in the Bible actually amounts to "God-respecting". So I guess what I'm asking is 1) what is your response to the charge that Christianity motivates by way of fear and 2) is "God-respecting" faithful to the concept that Scripture conveys?

    ReplyDelete
  17. See 1 Kings 22:20-23 for an example of opus alienum

    ReplyDelete
  18. Atheists fear/revere man. I'd rather fear/revere God. It is the beginning of wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Steve are you a member of a Reformed church?

    ReplyDelete
  20. LONELYBOY SAID:

    “Steve I always wonder why Reformed churches are always small in number and attendance when compared to other denominations, do you have any insights?”

    In part because the modern emphasis on covenant children, reinforced by infant baptism (in Presby churches) militates against evangelistic outreach. It’s easier to assume that your church will either grow from within or maintain a replacement rate based on the children of preexisting members.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mathetes said...

    “Isn't this one of the major complaints that unbelievers have with Christianity, though? That (in their estimation) God is an ill-tempered tyrant who bullies believers into doing what he says or else face eternal hellfire?”

    But, of course, that’s a hostile caricature of the truth. The truth is that God is just. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing. If God were unjust, he would be evil.

    The problem is not with a judge who hands down a just sentence, but with the guilty convict whose misconduct merited the sentence he receives.

    “So I guess what I'm asking is 1) what is your response to the charge that Christianity motivates by way of fear.”

    Christianity induces a response in different ways. Which way is effective depends on the disposition of the sinner. Fear can be a valid motive. I may avoid rock-climbing because I’m afraid I’ll slip and fall. That doesn’t make the cliff a tyrannical bully.

    There are other better motives—loving God because he is good.

    If to love someone (or something) simply because he (or it) is good is an insufficient motive, then the deficiency lies, not in the object (God), but in the subject (fallen man).

    ReplyDelete
  22. good one Steve, btw are you a member of a Reformed church?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thanks, Steve.

    And Lonelyboy, as far as I know, Steve is Presbyterian, which would count as a Reformed church. I could very well be wrong on the first count, though.

    ReplyDelete