This age-old question is pivotal for people to consider for at least three reasons:
#1. It speaks to the amount of power God has in this world and, therefore, in my life.
#2. It speaks to the amount of power Satan has in this world and, therefore, in my life.
#3. It speaks to the amount of courage I can have facing hardship, evil, suffering, neglect, mistreatment, etc.
For example, Greg Boyd, author and pastor believes that we too easily promote trust in God for all things while we really should be fighting the war we are in with our adversary, Satan. To this end, Dr. Boyd speaks to his assertion that God is not in complete control and as a matter of fact is also engaged in a war just as we are. To Dr. Boyd, God never wanted to be known as an “omni-controlling deity” from which all things must bow in submission. For example, in the life of Job it is not God who gives permission to Satan to bring derision and calamity, but it is the nature of the war we are in that produces our circumstances:
If God was controlling everything, then there obviously would be no point for God to bring up the unfathomable complexity of creation or his warfare against powers of chaos. If God is controlling everything, such matters are utterly irrelevant. In fact, if God was controlling everything, there’d be no point for God to show up at the end of the book and correct Job and his friends – for this is basically the theology they both espouse.
God’s appeal to the complexity and war-torn nature of the cosmos is significant precisely because it shows that God is not an omni-controlling deity, and that because we humans have next to no understanding of this complexity or the spiritual battles that engulf it, we should not be quick to attribute catastrophes to God.
How would you respond to this type of position? I know this may be alot of reading, but the following are some resources to consider when forming your thoughts. Please know that you will face these types of questions/assertion and you must be ready to answer people with solid, thoughtful answers.
Read the full article in respect to the I35 bring collapse in Minneapolis, the city from which Dr. Boyd serves as pastor at Woodland Hills
A Jewish leaders response to the I35 bridge collapse.
A pastors response to the I35 bridge collapse.
Boyd’s argument seems to hinge on God’s response to Job; specifically, Boyd thinks God is appealing to “the unfathomable complexity of creation” and His “warfare against powers of chaos” as though God were defending Himself with a complaint like “do you realize what I have to deal with up here?”
If you read Boyd’s entire blog, he identifies Leviathan and Behemoth as the “powers of chaos” that God must contend with. Here’s what God said to Job about Leviathan:
So again, Boyd is claiming God’s reference to Leviathan amounts to an impotent complaint along the lines of “do you realize what I have to deal with?” A fair reading of the text won’t let you draw that conclusion.
Furthermore, Boyd says that this appeal to complexity and chaos “shows that God is not an omni-controlling deity.” Quite the contrary; again, a fair reading of God’s Word shows the stark contrast between God’s complete control over the cosmos and our total powerlessness within it.
Finally, if Boyd were correct in this interpretation, why would Job respond this way?
There’s a lot more that can be said about the rest of his position, but it’s pretty clear that Dr. Boyd’s scriptural basis fails.
P.S. In his response to Rabbi Kushner that you linked to, John Piper’s advice on things like this — “Hug and cry first, give God-centered explanations later” — is just wonderful.
I guess we’re into the “later” part for a lot of people.
Dr. Boyd says,
Of course they all espouse this theology. They knew God was in control of everything. But God was hardly correcting them on this point. I would like to see anyone try to find in God’s response a refutation of their belief in His absolute sovereignty. From my studies of Job, God doesn’t step in and correct their belief in His omni-controlling nature—He corrects them because they haven’t believed in Him as omni-controlling enough.
Both Job and his friends come to similar conclusions: his friends say that Job must have sinned for God to bring such tragedy upon his life, and Job says that God must bring tragedy without reason or simply for the sake of tragedy. God corrects both opinions in his final monologue, not by de-emphasizing His sovereignty, but by reinforcing it. He shows Job’s friends that personal sin is not a necessary prerequisite to personal tragedy (see also Luke 13), and he shows Job that His purpose does not end with tragedy but rather begins with it—He allowed Job’s tragedy with good reason, to get glory out of a display of His power and out of Job’s righteous response to it.
If God really does let catastrophes slip because He’s busy with this spiritual war, how can it be that all powers and authorities have already been subjected to Christ. And if we can’t attribute disaster in some part to God, then why does the Bible do it in Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, and elsewhere? As Hugh already pointed out, the Scriptural basis for Dr. Boyd’s position is sorely lacking.
An interesting “age-old” question, Dan. In the end it boils down to the seeming paradox that God can either be all-powerful, or all-good, not both. I commiserate with Dr. Boyd – he attempts to find a logical way to explain this. The problem is of course that it is doctrinally unsound.
The problem of suffering remains one that radically challenges your view of God. When your child is ripped from your arms, when your spouse gets the Diagnosis, when your mother has been brutally murdered, you are forced to face God amidst this reality.
If you decide that the calamity was an “attack from Satan” (a very real possibility – the thief indeed came to steal, kill and destroy, and he seemingly has certain managerial powers over the earth), then you’re stuck with the fact that God was either unable or unwilling to prevent it. It seems Dr. Boyd is leaning towards the “unable.” Hugh and Jeffrey effectively countered that, and as Jeffrey pointed out – Amos is full of God’s sovereignty in calamitous situations.
So then you’re stuck with God being unwilling to prevent the calamity. The Calvinistic point of view holds that we are all deserving of judgment – the fact that we are even walking around is indicative of the great mercy of God. Even in Amos, we see God’s astounding mercy – In Amos 7 the prophet sees the locusts who will devour the land, and he sees the fire that will consume all; he intercedes, asking God’s forgiveness (acknowledging that sin is the cause for the intended destruction), and God, in his great mercy, relents. In the same way, we are ignorant of how much God spares us from – the diseases and the calamities he keeps preventing – his common grace extending over all.
Then there are variations on a continuum between these two viewpoints:
There are those who believe that we are all suffering the effects of the fall, with calamity coming upon us indiscriminately; relegating God to a position of indifference towards the individual.
Then there are those who try to differentiate between God ordaining a calamity, vs. Him permitting it. “Ordaining” a calamity cannot be reconciled with the goodness of his character, but “permitting” it apparently can. Euphemisms and semantics, it seems to me. If God has the power to prevent the calamity, and He chooses not to prevent it, it pretty much boils down to the same thing – it is part of his unchanging decrees.
So where does that leave us in the end?
We acknowledge the complete sovereignty of God, and we also acknowledge that He is completely good. We know that his decrees are unchanging; that He ordains all things, yet we also see that the prayer of a righteous man avails much, that God is looking for someone to intercede so that He may withhold judgment (Is 59:16) On the surface it may all seem paradoxical. It’s like two parallel lines that never would meet. Oh wait, those parallel lines may meet after all, if we consider non-Euclidean geometries. Hmmm, maybe what seems so clearly paradoxical can make perfect sense after all. And maybe I cannot explain God. Interesting how the Sovereign didn’t try to explain Himself to Job – He simply declared Himself.
I trust that declaration. I bow to the fact that He is God. I suspect that none of us have the whole truth; that we may be incapable of perceiving a whole other set of dimensions. And I’m so aware of how short our time here on earth is.
How quick we are to take our safe and luxurious lifestyle here for granted, and to start viewing it as our right – indignant towards God if we suffer even small inconveniences, and outraged when calamity comes to our doorstep. How shallow our commitment to Him – willing to draw close to Him when it goes well, but deserting Him in our hearts; withholding our affection and unconditional trust from Him when things do not go our way, stomping our feet and demanding his mercy and blessing.
In this very brief span of life that I have on this side, I want to press in to know God. I want to understand as much as I can possibly understand, and I will keep on pursuing God, even when I don’t understand. I will not let go. I will not stop trusting, even when my illusion of control is shattered and I start wondering if God really sees me, really cares. I will cling to Him. I will keep my heart open and vulnerable to Him, even when it is broken. How can I do anything else? The heroes of faith in Heb 11 were “stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they were slain with the sword: they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated, wandering in deserts and mountains and caves, and the holes of the earth.” May God grant that even in the face of suffering, all of us will keep the faith, will trust His goodness, will submit to His sovereignty.
P.S. Sorry, I see I got carried away a bit. Glad I’m on a Christian site where I won’t get flamed for ignoring appropriate blog entry lengths 🙂
Nice read, Sandra. Goose bumps.
Sound doctrine, with flair. Where’s the Sandra blog? 🙂
Wow, good points Sandra. Good work on dismantling the terms that cloud the water and focusing on God Himself. That could have been a guest blog post in itself!
Piper summarizes the Rabbi’s position as:
I notice that Piper used the word “caused” as he was summarizing the view as false. Sandra mentioned the semantics issues with “ordain” and “permit” but the word “cause” (whether primary or secondary, it is still a cause) always brings things to a new level of discussion.
So is the following statement true?
Have a look at these links on the Desiring God blog. They point to John Frame’s discussion of the various semantics involved in words like cause, ordain, etc.
I’m not sure I have my mind wrapped around everything Dr. Frame puts forward, but I like much of what he has to say.
David, if I were wise I would keep my big mouth shut and leave this one to the pastors. Alas, fools rush in… so take the following with a sack of salt:
Your premise, “God exercised wisdom and/or love in causing the bridge to collapse. It was intended,” is untrue (and I’m not speaking to your derivation, but to the inherent truth of the statement).
You’re quite right in saying that “cause” raises the conversation to a different level. I steered clear from that word because it is a philosophical hot potatoe, and because I don’t believe it really gets to the heart of the issue. When you look at causal relations, you have to consider determinism, necessary and sufficient and non-redundant causes, conditionals, attribution. Let’s assume all that as background knowledge and get to the gist. I take an egg out of the fridge. I drop the egg. The egg is now all over my kitchen floor. What was the cause of this effect? God? Nope. Butterfingers. What causes a bridge to collapse? Engineering mistakes? Age? What causes an earthquake? The moving of teutonic plates.
When we bring in conditionals, indicative or counterfactual, we are getting closer to our real problem, I think. If I were not in such a hurry, I might not have dropped the egg. If that driver was not drunk, my daughter would still be alive. If my daughter and I left 10 seconds later, we would not have been in the same intersection with the drunk driver. And you get caught thinking in circles (and then there are the insidious “truths” that are set forth by some, stating, “If only you had more faith…” “You did not engage effectively in spiritual warfare…” “You must have hidden sin in your life and God is disciplining you…” – sounds a lot like Job’s comforters – I love Jeffrey’s take on God’s sovereignty in his first 2 paragraphs).
God did not cause the driver to be drunk, or the bridge to collapse. However, if He is indeed all-powerful, He would’ve had the power to prevent it. And if He is all good, He would’ve indeed prevented it so that I may have had the joy of raising my daughter instead of feeling bewildered about Him, life, the universe.
And this is where we get stuck.
If we read the Word honestly, we cannot have issue with God’s power and ability. My issue then is my knowledge that God could have prevented my tragedy, and coming to grips with the fact that He apparently chose not to intervene. We all have stories of miracles, where God intervened and overturned what should’ve been the logical effect. Why does He not override natural consequences all the time? Is He not good all the time? I guess if He had to intervene and overturn all evil for everyone, the world will be an awfully quiet place 24 hours from now. If he had to take that drunk driver out, he would have to take me out too for my unkindness to my husband this morning. None of us would be left alive.
Yet, my acceptance of God’s sovereignty does not mean I accept everything fatalistically. I don’t know the “cause” in every situation. We’re not exempt from the effects of a fallen world; we groan along with the rest of creation. And we certainly have an adversary walking around like a roaring lion, seeking for prey. So I fight in every realm as hard as I can. When there is a scary diagnosis, I pray and plead with God; I lay off my fast food addiction; I put on the full armor of God and hold fast to the victory Christ wrought for me.
And at the end of the day, if things do not turn out the way I demanded, I run to God. This is after the rawness and the foot stomping and the quiet disappointment in Him and the unwillingness to entrust myself with complete abandon to Him, afraid that I would not survive another episode of wrenching hurt. I wish I could say I run to Him because I adore Him and trust Him wholeheartedly. I often don’t. I’m shell-shocked and wary of Him. But He has the words of life – where else can I turn? He will not be manipulated by me. (Those silences that work so well on my husband, have no effect on Him.) He does not owe me an explanation. He owes me nothing. And He has freely given what He holds most dear – His own Son.
So I’m walking with Him, trusting while I’m still scared, clinging to Him despite the hurt, walking steadfastly, determinedly, closely. Without demanding. Without blaming. Without resenting. And slowly, His light starts to shine forth in the darkest corners of my heart. He met my demands for understanding His involvement in tragedy by revealing His unchanging love. Not exactly a straight answer. Then, He never gave Job a straight answer either. He revealed who He is, and Job bowed. May my heart bow before the Omnipotent One, the Lover of my soul.
Interesting link, Hugh – I was still typing away when you posted. But I read it, and agree with Dr. Frame on the first three links. However, I respectfully (but heartily!) disagree with the Author/Story model :/
And just a postscript to my previous post – I use hypothetical examples – mostly. The egg happened. Butterfingers.
You still out there Dan? You got this all stirred up, ya’ know?
I was once told, “if its not broke don’t fix it.” The discussion is fantastic; I am enjoying the read. Watch out for David, he plays the role of the antagonist well 😉
Does God have a plan and a purpose? Does everything happen for a reason? We use verses like Genesis 50:20, Job 42:2, Romans 8:28, Romans 9:11, Ephesians 2:10 all the time.
Let’s think of just a few things that lead to the hypothetical death of your hypothetical daughter:
Now consider Psalms 139:16:
Not taking into account all of human history leading up to this 20 minutes, was God fortunate that those events occurred so that He could “allow” the accident so you would eventually recover, start a new form of AA ministry, and be the means to lead more of His planned, purposed, intended, and predestined Elect into the Kingdom? (Eph 2:10)
If every effect has a cause, is God not the ultimate cause?
Funny, Dan, we engineers were told “if it ain’t broke, take it apart and find out how it works.” But that is neither here nor there…
Taking all these examples even farther back, would the egg, or the drunk driver, or the bridge, or what happened six years ago yesterday morning, or any suffering for that matter, have happened if God had not created time, laid the foundations of the world, and created the universe and everything in it? Of course not. He is the Uncaused Cause, Someone outside of the inevitable chain of cause and effect that has been and will be continued since the beginning of time, with each molecule and planet moving in the only manner possible given the causes and effects before it. So we can only avoid assigning the cause to God for so long.
Where does that leave us? It leaves us saying that “God exercised wisdom and/or love in causing the universe. It was intended.” I don’t flinch at that statement. But we shrink back from the idea of God causing a disaster as an intentional act of wisdom/love. What happened between the creation of those molecules and the mass failure of the bonds holding the molecules of that bridge together? What changed that makes us retreat from giving God all the credit?
Awwww, I just realized I should have tied in the egg. 🙂 How about instead of dropping your keys we use:
I can’t say that anything changed that was not intended (Psalm 139 applies to Adam and Eve too doesn’t it?), but then you also have to give God all the credit for millions of people spending eternity in Hell — not hypothetical people but real people.
Hmmm, Dan, you weren’t kidding about the heads-up on David 😉
Interesting how determination to steer clear from Arminian thinking will sometimes swing us right over to hyper-Calvinism. What happened to free moral agency? And how do we logically conclude that God’s foreknowledge presupposes his liability for man’s evil deeds?
But I’m chatting way too much on this blog, so let me go make dinner before my husband has to eat pizza (again!) On the other hand, maybe God foreordained him to have pizza tonight…
“If every effect has a cause is not God the ultimate cause”
That’s another way of saying God is the primary cause behind all secondary causes, which I believe is true.
However, to paraphrase the Westminster divines, God is that primary cause in such a way that He is not the author of sin.
Paul posed a similar question to himself in Romans 9:19:
Admittedly, Paul’s answer isn’t very satisfying though:
Hyper-Calvinism? No. The Word says that we are still held morally responsible for our sin — I’m not so sure I’d use the phrase “free moral agency” to describe the state of Man though — and that we are called to spread the Gospel to all the world. Oh and I believe in common grace.
We’ll find out tonight, now won’t we? 🙂
Hey Larry, is it possible that God created the concept of sin, the ability to sin, and even predestine someone to sin (Rom 9:22) and yet not be sinful Himself?
To say “God is not the author of sin” comes up short for me. Kind of like the dough nut-hole example Greg Koukl offered — God made the dough nut, not the hole. (An nice analogy to say that sometimes even God has to say “Stuff happens.”) 😉
If God made space (the foundational canvas for our very physical existence) with the simultaneous intention to make a dough nut, then He was also the primary cause for/creator of the dough nut hole.
David, the truth is though scripture does teach both that God ordains all things and that He is not the author of sin. We can’t get around that.
Like you, I can’t get my head around how both of those things can be true at the same time. This is one of those tensions in scripture that cannot be resolved in this life. However, my ability to understand it has no bearing on whether or not its true. So, I’m left with having to believe what God says about Himself with regard to this issue, even though I can’t understand how it works. Not always the most satisfying place to be for someone who, like me, wants to know the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything!
Seeing that God is the primary cause and creator of all things, and “God is not the author of sin” isn’t in scripture I’m wondering if it’s a semantics issue and the concept of “God isn’t sinful” is being misinterpreted.
Mathis at DesiringGod.org puts it this way:
David said:
Yet, free moral agency does exist. It’s just totally corrupted in all unregenerate men since the Fall. And then,
I agree. We can say “this is what the Bible clearly teaches and so we have to hold these truths in balance somehow” and to some extent that settles it, but it is not nearly enough, especially since it would throw the rest of Scripture into question if there really were a logical contradiction there and we just dismiss it with an affirmation of two conflicting truths. The second paragraph of David’s quote from Mathis provides a much more satisfying answer to me.
I would not say that the term ‘authors’ is ‘almost universally condemned in the theological literature.’ I would say the ‘theological literature’ is replete with the term (I can over generalize as good as the next person 🙂 ) Seriously, it is explained exactly that way by Berkhof in his systematic theology:
Regarding sin…”God cannot be regarded as its author. God’s eternal decree certainly rendered the entrance of sin into the world certain, but this may not be interpreted so as to make God the cause of sin in the sense of being its responsible author.”
As you said, I think it may be a semantic issue but I see no less of a ‘logical contradiction’ in the sentiment that God brings about sin but is not Himself sinful. If we must have a fully understandable explanation of this concept before we’re comfortable with it, we’ll never be comfortable with it.
So when you say “God’s eternal decree certainly rendered the entrance of sin into the world certain” do you agree that God eternally decreed, dare we say “predestined”, Adam and Eve to taste the fruit?
Sidenote: Sandra, I look forward to meeting you in person on Sunday. I don’t always play “antagonist”, I’m just not afraid to ask the tough questions. 🙂
As for my personal view, right now I probably fall more inline with “Determinism” but I know that God still somehow holds us personally responsible. What you described earlier as “thinking in circles”, I think of as “the variables of life.” It’s probably my programming experience, but I see way too many of them to have a progressing plan yet some of them be open ended.
I greatly appreciate your eloquent statements about how when it comes down to the here and now, we must press on to live for His glory in this thing called life.
Oh and thx to Larry and Jefferey for working through this with me. 🙂
P.S. Someone just handed me the latest copy of Awake, a Jehovah’s Witness publication. The main article is titled, “Is God Responsible For Natural Disasters.” This should be fun!
Thanks for the discussion, I hope it was helpful to all and especially those who may be reading without replying. It’s a neat thing to have this type of forum to work through tough issues like this.
I would like to help us think not so much of the issue, but the way we are approaching the issue because I think that may be helpful to the overall discussion.
One of the challenges in discussing this subject is the use of language itself. When we talk about God we create problems immediately since we use language that carries specific meanings to us in the moment, hence the need to find out the authors use of a particular word or imagery. The problem lies in describing metaphysical attributes of God with normal language so that such statements are meaningful and accurately communicate the concepts they are describing. We have three options in this regard:
1. There are times that we use equivocal language to describe God
Equivocal language employs the same term(s) in a completely different sense.
If language about God is equivocal, when we are describing eternal attributes of God such as ‘love’ and ‘justice’ we are applying them in a completely different sense as to when we apply such attributes to ourselves. Thus it is difficult to interpret exactly what is being communicated. I think we are seeing this when we say God is sovereign and yet not the “author” of sin. A sovereign would normally be also the one responsible or “author” of a thing within the realm, but we know of God and his relation to sin, it is simply not true.
2. When language about God is interpreted as univocal language we will be using the same terms in exactly the same sense.
In this sense, the words we use to describe the attributes of God share the same meaning when applied to the universe. We see the danger in using attributes of God too tightly using univocal language because within this framework is also the idea of anthropomorphisms (God describing himself in terms we can understanding (e.g. “the eyes of the Lord”)
3. The third option is to speak of God using analogical language. This is a way to find the linguistic resources to speak coherently of God; a means by which we can be compared to God while maintaining points of correspondence between the language used and the concept being described.
Aquinas is the hero when it comes to popularizing the use of analogical language. For example, Aquinas said that words about God, pre-supposing his existence, are not univocal. For example, when we speak of God’s love we do not apply it in exactly the same sense as human love. However, God’s love is not entirely different to human love; hence words describing God are not equivocal either.
For Aquinas, words about God are non-literal but analogical, a compromise between equivocal and univocal language. God is eternally different from humans, but makes himself known through experience so that we can find points of correspondence that enable us to overcome the distance between the human and divine and make discourse possible.
I find considering the use of language to very helpful when considering God’s relation to sin, free-will (Adam and Eve), depravity, etc. Although this does not solve issues relating to God, it certainly gives me one more tool in my theological woodshed to carve out an answer that will stand strong under the pressure of making sense in life.
Dan, your language carries the specific meaning that the discussion has ended. Is this the concept you were intending to communicate? 😉
LOL. Nope. Just trying to identify that the issue is not the total issue, but the nature and use of language has a tremendous impact on this discussion.
Believe me, I never liked it when the kid who had to go home took the only baseball we had with him. PLAY BALL!
Cool so back to the topic at hand in hopes of clarifying the language of “author of sin” and the idea that God is the primary cause of everything.
Pick one or add something else.
God is the primary cause of everything:
David, I’m not exactly sure where you are coming from on this…
Left field. 😉
Just asking the questions that any discussion of God’s sovereignty lead to — the idea of “double predestination” and how it fits with the idea of a predetermined plan.
Christians are quick to say God is the creator of all, but then quickly disqualify the “all” with the vague word/concept of “sin.”
As I study the issue, it is often presented as “Salvation is God’s active involvement in salvation while reprobation is passive because we are all sinful in the first place.”
Well, no, God didn’t just walk into the situation to find us all sinful and He picked who He would save. He made the whole system with determined ends and determined means. So as Jeffery put it, “we can only avoid assigning the cause to God for so long.”
Maybe we should start a new topic titled, “How Involved is God in Sinful Situations?”
David? “double predestination”? Is that a real theological term? That’s a new one to me.
Is that similar to “double secret predestination”? 😉
Yep it’s legit. From wikipedia:
“It is called double predestination because it holds that God chose both who to save and who to damn, as opposed to single predestination which contends that though he chose who to save, he did not choose who to damn.”
Most of the Reformed faith hold to “single predestination” and acknowledge a purposed, intended, plan for their life, this world, even all of creation at the same time.
I don’t see how to make sense of that which lead the discussion to the phrase, “God is not the author of sin.” I offer that God intended sin, yet He is not sinful Himself. (I predict an inevitable discussion on the two wills of God.)
Example: Baby Sam was intended by God — created to be born in such a time in such a place for a particular purpose. His parents were hand picked by God just for him. His days were written for Him in God’s book from before there was time.
But when it comes to Baby Sam’s parents’, God only permitted their extra-marital affair. (Did I forget to mention that? 😉 )
If Baby Sam’s days were written from before there was time then his parents’ extra-marital affair was also written from before there was time.
So how do we apply the vague statement, “God is not the author of sin” to this?
Thanks for the clarification David. Very interesting and a new concept for me. Thought I understood it all. 😉
So the single predestination side wants to acknowledge God for good things, and that God is also ultimately responsible for bad things to like the Tsunami in Indonesia as part of His grand plan for man, but not responsible for creating/authoring sin itself?
These are the types of ideas and concepts that make this theology very hard for Mary and I to grasp and even harder to accept. We are keeping an open mind and continuing to listen.
No problem C.A., I encourage you to keep listening and thinking about these concepts and ideas. Whether you are looking at Universalism, Open Theism, Arminianism, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and everything in between, every side has difficult issues to deal with.
No matter how eternity actually works, we know that God is the Sovereign Creator AND He holds us responsible for our sin — that’s the system He has established. But the good news is that He’s provided a Saviour within the system.
One day all of creation (animals, humans, angels, demons, everything) will bow before Him as LORD. Whether I like the system or not, I just can’t picture myself standing up on that day to object The Almighty as Paul describes in Romans 9:20 (essentially a continuation of the de-throning of God). I have to continually be reminded, “Who am I, O man?” which leads well into the words that Hosner emphasized from Ephesians 2:4 on Sunday, “But God being rich in mercy…”
That I can agree with! I like universal truth that is clear and simple. Thanks Dave, and I will keep my heart open as I did when first trusted Christ when I was 13.
I won’t be boasting before God’s throne that I was somehow smart enough to accept his free gift, but I will be thankful that God… “softened/touched/prompted/gave me the faith/made me alive/fill in the blank based on your theological stance” my cold dead heart to where I could listen, accept and believe. The Father does not see me anymore anyway. He sees Christ. Otherwise there is no hope for any of us!
Gal 2:20 NAS
“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.