I had a talk with an atheist friend at work today. He said that he would be glad to believe in God if there was a sort of "contract" in play between God and us. He expressed that he would like it if we were obligated to worship God and subsequently, God was obligated to keep us safe and prosper us.
I told him that it is impossible for God to be obligated to anything or anyone. To be obligated to a thing is to be under its power. Obligation denotes that the obligated action is involuntary, one is required to do the thing. As the supreme and ultimate reality from which all things flow, God cannot be "under" his creation. For God to be obligated - he would have to cease being God.
He told me that many people view God different ways and then he asked how I knew God was the way I thought he was. I explained that logic, reality, and revelation show me that God could not be the way he wanted him to be...
Logic shows us that it is impossible to be the source of ALL things and then be obligated to ANY thing that comes from it.
Reality does not match with a God who always protects and blesses his people. Despite what the prosperity and health/ wealth folks say - believers often suffer the pains of this fallen world...in the hope of our future glory with Christ!
Revelation (thru the Bible) tells us the nature of God and it is clear that he is the great "I AM." He is under no obligation to anyone, note his response to Job.
At the end of the conversation he told me that my view of God, which I described in the traditional reformed sense, was one he could not stomach. It reminded me that:
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
fools despise wisdom and instruction."
Proverbs 1:7
I know that it would be easier to think of God as our slot machine - we put some faith in and out comes our long life, BMW, and miscellaneous other blessing. But, the views of God which see him as a means to our success are ultimately man-centered.
Our theology must be biblical. It must be Christ-centered. It must make the natural and sinful man inside us revolt. Otherwise, we are only believeing self-created lies about God so that we can feel better about ourselves.
Seek the truth, thru Christ, and be ready for the war that will follow as you submit to who God is and what he is not. By the power of the Holy Spirit you will find each day full of more joy than the last as you consider the fact that this story we are all playing a part in stars God in the lead, not us!
I sort of disagree. After all, what is a covenant, but a relationship of obligations, a declaring of oaths and bonds? The promises of God, contained in covenants, obligate Him to fulfill them.
ReplyDeleteOT narrative shows us that God is obligated to show and defend His glory and righteousness in the context of covenant - in fact, Moses (Ex 32:13-14) brings a sort of covenant lawsuit against God when God threatens to wipe out His people. Likewise, God brings a covenant lawsuit through the Prophets against Israel when Israel breaks the covenant and is put under sanctions. It's a relationship of oaths and bonds. Perhaps even more telling, God threatens sanctions against Himself should He break covenant (Kline has argued that Gen 9:12-17 is talking about the rainbow as a military bow, pointed upwards at God, ready to let loose should He break covenant; see also Gen 15). It's a relationship of obligation - on pain of death.
Here's why I said I sort of disagree:
God condescends in covenant. It's not a meeting of two equal parties. He sets the terms. He chooses those he condescends to. If God bound Himself to "keep us safe and prosper us" in exchange for worship, He would be obligated to keep that covenant. As it stands, He has instead bound Himself to other things: To make and keep us His people and be our God, to work all things for the good of His people, to redeem and glorify His people, etc. In keeping with the condescension theme, this is all directed back at His motive of glorifying Himself.
I do think you're on to why your friend doesn't agree - because he'd rather assume his own sovereingty over the idea of God than submit to the actual God who has made demands over Him.
Thanks Adam for the reply! I guess I should have specified that there is one thing that could bring God into an contract where he is obligated to us - his own will.
ReplyDeleteIf he chooses to self-impose an obligation on himself then he is certainly bound to it.
I was more trying to point out that God cannot be obligated to anything in creation UNLESS he decides to obligate himself thru covenant.
In fact, I did spend a few moments with my friend explaining the role of covenant relationship. He was not thinking in that manner - he was more thinking that God should "have to" take care of us because he created us.
He used the example of a scientist creating a puppy in the lab. He said that the scientist should be forced to care for that puppy because he made it. He related that to God as if God was obligated to care of us (outside of his own self imposition) because he made us.
I should have made his views more clear. Does that help explain why I wrote my post the way I did?
It does help!
ReplyDeleteI think it'd be helpful to talk (generally, and while recognizing its limits) about his analogy with him - wouldn't the scientist's responsiblity extend to punishing the puppy when the puppy bites?