I Didn't Really Throw Up, But...

Ok. So I couldn't leave yesterday's post alone; I just have to revisit it.

First I would like to share a comment by my blogging brother, Jake.

I understand the stomach-churning you are experiencing and say to you with hard-conviction that I can relate!

It is one thing to express doubt or affirm that there is and will be a lack of FULL understanding that we will have on this side of eternity... after all.. we are human... frail... finite...

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN?"

Romans 11:33-35

But with Boyd... he uses a sophomoric interpretation to portray, as you put it, "a putrid expression of who God is."

Because, it seems, in Boyd's mind... the chief end of God is to make man's life better... if He can!

Jake's last remark is the one that I want to address. The God that Boyd is protraying is a God who--just like Jake says--exists to make man's life better. Once this is acknowledged the rest of Boyd's arguments really do make sense.

But that is not the God I know. The God I know does not share His glory. All glory is due Him as Scripture shows.

When speaking of a rebellious Israel:

For my name's sake I defer my anger,
for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you,
that I may not cut you off.
Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver;
I have tried you in the furnace of affliction.
11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
for how should my name be profaned?
My glory I will not give to another.

Isaiah 48:9-11

In Paul's introduction to the Romans:

...Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ...

Romans 1:3-5

In John's appeal to his Christian brothers:

I am writing to you, little children,
because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake.

1 John 2:12

In David's request for the removal of sin:

For your name's sake, O Lord,

pardon my guilt, for it is great.

Psalm 25:11

Within this smattering of verses we see that God is not most concerned with our well being, but rather His Glory. Now we also have a great promise in Romans 8:28:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

Romans 8:28

So as God's perfect will is carried out by His power, the good and the bad (Lamentations 3), He also works it for the good of those who love Him.

However, if God's glory is not the chief end of man, but rather the well being of man is the chief end of God, then it is easy to say that God's will is not the sole determining factor in the universe; neither the glory of God, nor the good that God promises are a guarantee. That would make God out to be a liar.

God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

Numbers 23:19

So, Boyd's comments are coming from a different underlying canon which is driven by man-centeredness. And as long as his comments are built on a foundation where God exists without the intent that His glory is the most important end in all of everything for all of time, then we cannot expect any more than statements like the ones made in the sermon quoted in Christianity Today.

I pray that the cannon I am driven by is one that is God-centered and is seeking to glorify Him in all that I do.