A long and 'big question' chapter - but well worth reading and thinking about.
The definition early on is useful - that communicable refers to things which God shares as opposed to things which He talks about. Although by the time I had got to the end of page 157 and the discussion about completenss and overlaps I was a little uncertain that the classification was actually going to be helpful!
Partway through page 159 the point is made that anthropomorphic language about God can only be understood rightly be continual reading of scripture so that what is being said is placed within the entire context of scripture. This would mean that someone who was not versed in the Bible would not really understand what is meant - for example - by "God is love" but because they have their own concept of love they would believe that they did. If this so, confusion could easily happen & probably does.
I found section 'f' on page 168 interesting when talking about the unchangeableness of God. While this is a position which I have held for as long as I can remember, the reasons presented here as to why this is important were useful. In a similar way, the opening thoughts on pages 168/9 on the meaning of the infinity of God were large & powerful statements.
Later on pag 169, there are some fascinating comments about 'before time' which - from our human & finite perspective - are very difficult to comprehend and must be particularly difficult for non-Christians who are trying to think about a god within the context of their own understanding. For example "before there was a universe, and before there was time, God always existed, without beginning, and without being influence by time."
The last part of page 176 & first of 177 seeks to address the question of whether God is directly present in unbelievers - which would seem reasonable since previously the point has been made that God is everywhere. I was left confused about what was being said here. Any insight?
Sunday, 22 April 2007
Monday, 16 April 2007
The Knowability of God
Apart from knowability not being a word, this is a great chapter!
I like the way in which the scope of 'not knowing but continuing to discover' God is built up from "we can't know God fully" through "we can't fully understand any one thing about God" to "even in eternity we will continue to find out more about God".
It rightly goes against some of the ways in which some people try and put God into a 'box' of their own understanding and insist that they need to understand God in order to believe in Him.
Surely it is only God who is past our understanding who is worth trusting and praising.
It is good - section C - however to realise that we can (and should) know true things about God!
Its also interesting - particularly in the light of recent conversations - that Grudem does make the point that its not just that we can find out facts about God but that we can actually know him in a real and personal way.
One amazing thought which occurred to me (which I don't think I saw in this chapter!) is that even though God is so infinitely vast that we cannot fully comprehend him (or any part of him) his knowledge is so infinite that he can comprehend himself! This seems like a big statement to me....
Enjoy the chapter
I like the way in which the scope of 'not knowing but continuing to discover' God is built up from "we can't know God fully" through "we can't fully understand any one thing about God" to "even in eternity we will continue to find out more about God".
It rightly goes against some of the ways in which some people try and put God into a 'box' of their own understanding and insist that they need to understand God in order to believe in Him.
Surely it is only God who is past our understanding who is worth trusting and praising.
It is good - section C - however to realise that we can (and should) know true things about God!
Its also interesting - particularly in the light of recent conversations - that Grudem does make the point that its not just that we can find out facts about God but that we can actually know him in a real and personal way.
One amazing thought which occurred to me (which I don't think I saw in this chapter!) is that even though God is so infinitely vast that we cannot fully comprehend him (or any part of him) his knowledge is so infinite that he can comprehend himself! This seems like a big statement to me....
Enjoy the chapter
Why (not) so blue?
You'd have thought it was easy to have a post published in blue, wouldn't you? Maybe it's just Google reprimanding me for writing posts which are too long. Whatever the reason, from now I'll put my posts in italics so hopefully we can tell the difference between mine and yours without this silly looking half-blue nonsense.
Is anyone out there?
As I turned the last page of chapter 8, I saw that we are now starting on the doctrine of God and felt a pulse of excitement. Though I have enjoyed getting a clearer idea of what the Bible is, I would say amen to the quote (I can’t remember whose so am paraphrasing): “I love the Bible in the same way I love my eyes, not because they are beautiful but because they allow me to see that which is beautiful”. I’m looking forward to finding out more of what God says about himself, to stir up my affections to adore him more. Since the first chapter (on the Existence of God) is very short I thought I’d do it straight away so I can get closer to the meaty chapters.
It’s so sad to see in Romans 1 that all people “suppress the truth” and have “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man…” (who, as a sidetrack, were made in the image of God – so it’s exchanging God for an image of an image of God!) but I’ve seen it happen. Pete Woodcock was telling us that in atheist communist countries the schools had to teach children not to believe in God because it’s innate in us, yet when Dr Bill Craig presented five strong arguments for the existence of God the response of Dr Lewis Wolpert (his debating opponent) was “it’s all bunkum, every bit of it!” Our collective suppressing of the truth works, until people can “deny that they have an inner sense of God” (p141, footnote).
Incidentally, the arguments that Dr Craig used were number 1, 2 and 4 from p143 (which is possibly why I don’t understand argument 3 on that page!) and the argument from the miracles and resurrection of Jesus and the argument from personal experience of God. He used a slightly tighter version of the cosmological argument, which I found useful. He said that everything which begins must have a cause so there must be something which is eternal. Cosmology tells us that the universe had a start, so there must be something outside the universe – and therefore non-material and non-temporal (God) – which is eternal. John Humphrys (who was chairing the debate) gave his opinions on it in the Telegraph, here.
For Christians, since God is invisible and we are running on a promise until Jesus returns, the question of 'is this really true' still crops up from time to time. That is why I was encouraged by the strength of feeling that a sentence on page 142 produced:
Yet though the existence of God is not seriously in doubt for Christians, we can often act as atheists. I was challenged by the statement on page 142 that everything created continuously cries “God made me!” and question 1 which asked whether we see the whole earth as full of God’s glory (Isaiah 6:3) and if not, why not? Very often when I see aspects of creation I don’t turn that into praise of God – or even recognition of him. O, for a heart that recognises the Creator’s touch in everything and thanks him for it!
It’s so sad to see in Romans 1 that all people “suppress the truth” and have “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man…” (who, as a sidetrack, were made in the image of God – so it’s exchanging God for an image of an image of God!) but I’ve seen it happen. Pete Woodcock was telling us that in atheist communist countries the schools had to teach children not to believe in God because it’s innate in us, yet when Dr Bill Craig presented five strong arguments for the existence of God the response of Dr Lewis Wolpert (his debating opponent) was “it’s all bunkum, every bit of it!” Our collective suppressing of the truth works, until people can “deny that they have an inner sense of God” (p141, footnote).
Incidentally, the arguments that Dr Craig used were number 1, 2 and 4 from p143 (which is possibly why I don’t understand argument 3 on that page!) and the argument from the miracles and resurrection of Jesus and the argument from personal experience of God. He used a slightly tighter version of the cosmological argument, which I found useful. He said that everything which begins must have a cause so there must be something which is eternal. Cosmology tells us that the universe had a start, so there must be something outside the universe – and therefore non-material and non-temporal (God) – which is eternal. John Humphrys (who was chairing the debate) gave his opinions on it in the Telegraph, here.
For Christians, since God is invisible and we are running on a promise until Jesus returns, the question of 'is this really true' still crops up from time to time. That is why I was encouraged by the strength of feeling that a sentence on page 142 produced:
“The intensity of this awareness [of our relationship with God] for a Christian is such that though we have not seen our Lord Jesus Christ, we indeed love him (1 Peter 1:8).”Amen, I do love him, and long for the day when my awareness of him will be by my physical eyes.
Yet though the existence of God is not seriously in doubt for Christians, we can often act as atheists. I was challenged by the statement on page 142 that everything created continuously cries “God made me!” and question 1 which asked whether we see the whole earth as full of God’s glory (Isaiah 6:3) and if not, why not? Very often when I see aspects of creation I don’t turn that into praise of God – or even recognition of him. O, for a heart that recognises the Creator’s touch in everything and thanks him for it!
Sufficient for what?
The question you finished with (avoiding the obvious, bunny rabbit answer ‘the Bible’!) is an interesting one but before I think about it, there were two other things that made me think as I went through this chapter.
The first was the statement on page 130, talking about the church age.
“After the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, and the founding of the early church as recorded in the New Testament, and the assembling of the canon, no further central redemptive acts of God in history (acts that have direct relevance for all God’s people for all subsequent time) have occurred.”
This excited me for two reasons – firstly and trivially that I’ve been trying to say the same thing for a year and not been able to word it anything like that neatly! More importantly, though, it’s great to think that no “central redemptive acts” have occurred – or will occur until the return of Jesus. This means that however much the world or church changes, the Scriptures will be relevant and sufficient until that day. We in the church age also have an amazingly privileged position in history, as none of those who lived before saw the work of God or the character of God revealed as clearly as we have in the person of Jesus, the work of the cross and the words of the Bible. What a joy!
The second was from pages 132-133 (D5) where Grudem talks about the fact that “nothing is sin that is not forbidden by Scripture either explicitly or by implication”. This gives us great freedom in how we live – as long as we are within the bounds of Scripture. On the other hand, Grudem points out that when we make up non-Scriptural rules for ourselves it can result in frustration, false guilt and legalism. This was surely the case in Colossae where the teaching was “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (Colossians 2:21) and Paul was – to say the least – unimpressed: “These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh” (2:23). I’ve been thinking about Colossians this week, which is probably why I particularly noticed that point of Grudem’s.
To your question though, what does the sufficiency relate to? It seems to me that – according to Grudem’s definition on page 127 – it is only about absolutes, things which are the same for all people at all time. So your assumption that the scope of Grudem’s comments are ‘doctrinal & moral’ questions seems to hold. That said, I was also surprised that he didn’t address the issue of choices which aren’t directly guided by the Bible – even though it isn’t in his definition of sufficiency this would seem like the chapter to do it. Maybe there was going to be a chapter 8a: The Insufficiency of Scripture, but editors removed it?! More seriously, I think in later discussion of the Spirit and spiritual gifts it will come up.
To take your example of what job to do, I think all we could say for certain from this chapter is that no choice would be sinful unless it directly contradicted the Bible. Since the other means we would use to make a decision (in question 3 Grudem lists advice, sermons, conscience, feelings, leading of the Spirit, etc.) are all fallible, so it is a great encouragement to know that everything we need to know to please God by trusting and obeying him is recorded inerrantly in the Bible. The most important decision we’ll make in any day is whether to continue to trust the gospel, so it is not surprising that that is the primary question Scripture is devoted to answering.
As a side note, I recently overheard a snippet of a conversation between a pair of Christians who seemed to be worried about missing God’s will for their lives by making the wrong career decision. Though this is an important decision and it is well worth praying about it, asking God for wisdom, talking with mature Christians and so on I wanted to jump in and encourage them that they were over worried – though the fact that I didn’t know them and only overheard them as we were on the same pavement meant I decided just praying for them would be better. I would have said that God “establishes our steps” (Proverbs 16:9) and that for Christians “all things work together for good” (Romans 8:28). I don’t think we can miss God’s best for us by stuffing up a decision, unless it’s one where the right answer is clear from his word.
Agree or disagree?
Tuesday, 10 April 2007
Sufficiency of Scripture
Well, its been some time but here's some thoughts on the next chapter - the Sufficiency of Scripture - which links to some of the discussions we have been having recently.
Grudem's defintion (page 127) is interesting - "...means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly" - in that it seems to exclude more of the daily "everyday" things of life.
He makes a useful comment on this in his footnote at the bottom of page 128 where he accepts that God does guide us subjectively (and points to scriptural references to back this up) but makes the point that this subjective guidance points to scriptural texts. He still seems to 'limit' this to moral commands or 'facts'.
I particularly like D3 (page 131) where he states that 'God does not require us to believe anything about himself or his redemptive work that is not found in scripture'. Its a good reminder that while other writings can often be very helpful, our definitive source is uniquely scripture itself.
The first paragraph of 133 reminds us of the importance to check the rules / traditions / practices of any particular Christian group (such as a church) against the actual teaching of scripture - again, a useful principle.
I do find it surprising that he doesn't address the topic of understanding God's will for our lives when the Bible doesn't particularly address it - for example in the area of what job one should do. There are clearly principles which apply - to do with morality and so forth - which might cause a scripturally-based Christian to decide against working for a cigarette company (for example) but are these types of questions to be answered from the Bible?
A pointer to Grudem's view on this may be found in his second question on page 135 where he talks about 'doctrinal' & 'moral' questions as though these are the scope of what he is talking about, or is this an unwarranted assumption?
So in the context of the above what does sufficiency really relate to?
Grudem's defintion (page 127) is interesting - "...means that Scripture contained all the words of God he intended his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it now contains all the words of God we need for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly" - in that it seems to exclude more of the daily "everyday" things of life.
He makes a useful comment on this in his footnote at the bottom of page 128 where he accepts that God does guide us subjectively (and points to scriptural references to back this up) but makes the point that this subjective guidance points to scriptural texts. He still seems to 'limit' this to moral commands or 'facts'.
I particularly like D3 (page 131) where he states that 'God does not require us to believe anything about himself or his redemptive work that is not found in scripture'. Its a good reminder that while other writings can often be very helpful, our definitive source is uniquely scripture itself.
The first paragraph of 133 reminds us of the importance to check the rules / traditions / practices of any particular Christian group (such as a church) against the actual teaching of scripture - again, a useful principle.
I do find it surprising that he doesn't address the topic of understanding God's will for our lives when the Bible doesn't particularly address it - for example in the area of what job one should do. There are clearly principles which apply - to do with morality and so forth - which might cause a scripturally-based Christian to decide against working for a cigarette company (for example) but are these types of questions to be answered from the Bible?
A pointer to Grudem's view on this may be found in his second question on page 135 where he talks about 'doctrinal' & 'moral' questions as though these are the scope of what he is talking about, or is this an unwarranted assumption?
So in the context of the above what does sufficiency really relate to?
Wednesday, 21 February 2007
Necessity of Scripture
Maybe it's because I haven't done this for a while, but I can't find anything to say about this chapter that will open up a good discussion. I'll have to rely on you, then, and in the meantime jot down a few thoughts that I thought while reading. Mostly they were things I'd already realised or decided, but it's been helpful to bring all my thoughts on the subject together and remind myself how important the Bible is!
I liked the argument that we can't know any fact with certainty unless we know every fact. For example, I may 'know' that Paris is the capital of France, but I can't know with certainty that there isn't a piece of information out there somewhere which will disprove it. It may be that everyone I've spoken to has either been lying or lied to. Unless I know every piece of information in the universe, I can't remove that possibility. That means that in this life I will never be absolutely certain that E equals mc squared, that England won the World Cup in '66 or that dogs have four legs - there may be some fact out there that proves these things wrong. Of course, since God does know every fact he can be certain about everything he knows and, since he does not lie, we can be absolutely certain about everything he says.
Even our knowledge of theology can be uncertain. I was thinking recently about limited atonement - apparently one of the central doctrines of the Reformation. I couldn't defend it from Scripture (a combination of not being as versed in Scripture as I could be, and not really knowing what limited atonement means!) so was wondering whether or not I should believe it. I came to the conclusion that I should believe it but in the same way that I believe Paris is the capital of France - because smart people who have thought about it tell me so. Because I haven't seen a proof of it from the Bible I don't, at this point, believe it with absolute certainty as I believe that Jesus is God. I believe that there is one, and hope to find it (perhaps through reading this book) but until then I am content to believe without being certain.
What else? There was a helpful reminder that Old Testament believers trusted in the Messiah who hadn't come yet for the same reason we trust in the Messiah who has already come - because of the word of God.
There are things that we can know without the Bible. We know that God exists and that he is powerful, and we know that he has moral requirements for our lives. We know our sin is wrong and we even know that the punishment is death (Romans 1:32). What is tragic is that in our sinfulness we each suppress these truths and harden our consciences. In fact (and I may get unpopular here) it seems that we know enough from the world around us to condemn us for not living up to what we know, but we don't know enough to save us unless we hear the gospel message from the Bible. Evangelism and missions are so important because men and women have no chance of correctly interpreting what they know from creation unless they see it in light of the certain revelation we have from God in the Bible, so can never come to saving faith without someone going and telling them what God says.
I liked the argument that we can't know any fact with certainty unless we know every fact. For example, I may 'know' that Paris is the capital of France, but I can't know with certainty that there isn't a piece of information out there somewhere which will disprove it. It may be that everyone I've spoken to has either been lying or lied to. Unless I know every piece of information in the universe, I can't remove that possibility. That means that in this life I will never be absolutely certain that E equals mc squared, that England won the World Cup in '66 or that dogs have four legs - there may be some fact out there that proves these things wrong. Of course, since God does know every fact he can be certain about everything he knows and, since he does not lie, we can be absolutely certain about everything he says.
Even our knowledge of theology can be uncertain. I was thinking recently about limited atonement - apparently one of the central doctrines of the Reformation. I couldn't defend it from Scripture (a combination of not being as versed in Scripture as I could be, and not really knowing what limited atonement means!) so was wondering whether or not I should believe it. I came to the conclusion that I should believe it but in the same way that I believe Paris is the capital of France - because smart people who have thought about it tell me so. Because I haven't seen a proof of it from the Bible I don't, at this point, believe it with absolute certainty as I believe that Jesus is God. I believe that there is one, and hope to find it (perhaps through reading this book) but until then I am content to believe without being certain.
What else? There was a helpful reminder that Old Testament believers trusted in the Messiah who hadn't come yet for the same reason we trust in the Messiah who has already come - because of the word of God.
There are things that we can know without the Bible. We know that God exists and that he is powerful, and we know that he has moral requirements for our lives. We know our sin is wrong and we even know that the punishment is death (Romans 1:32). What is tragic is that in our sinfulness we each suppress these truths and harden our consciences. In fact (and I may get unpopular here) it seems that we know enough from the world around us to condemn us for not living up to what we know, but we don't know enough to save us unless we hear the gospel message from the Bible. Evangelism and missions are so important because men and women have no chance of correctly interpreting what they know from creation unless they see it in light of the certain revelation we have from God in the Bible, so can never come to saving faith without someone going and telling them what God says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
