There are many arguments made for and against God. All are academic but one. First causes, intelligent designs, physical laws or their breach (miracle), etc. The cosmos is immeasurably hostile toward we humans, even in our little garden we call earth. One asks and argues that if existence begs a god then why one so hostile in creation? Why not a perfect world?
“Perfect” is the portal here for morality. Men judge the desirability of things and call their desires moral. The moral argument is alive and well in favor and in opposition to God. Both sides use the moral language of good, pleasurable, safe etc., and their scalar opposites (evil, painful, danger, etc.). The cosmos is academic but morality is not. Its personal. And whether one believes in God or not, one must deal with the problems of evil and frame the rules for goodness.
For man to say that God had His chance and screwed it up necessitates that man step in to fix it up. But the one thing for sure about mankind is that he screws everything up. What kind of an argument is it that removes the only hope of “perfection” only to empower those whose only moral credential is the inevitable corruption of power? The entire record of human history as we know it is the only proof we need that immoral mankind cannot long govern himself and he who will not rule himself “rightly” will surely be ruled by another, probably one less worthy than himself.
The Bible answers all challenges: God’s moral perfection, man’s potential for God-like righteousness, man’s inevitable failure to govern himself, his need for rescue, God’s provision of that rescue, and a clear transcendent expression of that righteousness from the Decalogue to Jesus’ sermon on the mount.
The vociferous rejection of God is ALWAYS a moral action. The part about God’s existence that is troublesome is that it defines righteousness in ways contrary to the denier. “It would be OK for God to exist so long as He did not mess with my choices. I want to live my own way. Life is difficult and cruel and if God wants my support he will have to do a better job of making my life easier.” To argue God away with such passion begins with blaming God for “moral” wrong-doing. Any dispassionate argument against God is merely academic.
The line on your home page, “Here the relevance of Faith in Christ to everything will be considered.” is very poignant. It well sums up the purpose of the blog with a great “umbrella” which helps the reader understand your intent. At the same time, it affirms what we know to be unswervingly true — faith in Christ is relevant to all. Plain and simple.
The close on the Moral Law post should be the open: “The part about God’s existence that is troublesome is that it defines righteousness in ways contrary to the denier. “It would be OK for God to exist so long as He did not mess with my choices. I want to live my own way. Life is difficult and cruel and if God wants my support he will have to do a better job of making my life easier.” To argue God away with such passion begins with blaming God for “moral” wrong-doing.”
I appreciate this set-up as it is easy in our world of disappointments to question why we should follow a God who isn’t about making my life easier?
Many who struggle with their faith in God resort to a myopic look at life . . . “if God is all powerful, why doesn’t He exude His power and make my life less burdensome . . . cure my child’s cancer, help me find the perfect job, heal my health challanges, etc..”
I’d love to read your reflections on God’s sovereignty — as frankly, the older I get, the more life I live, the more I grow in peace as I learn to rest in His sovereignty and not question the peaks and valleys we travel through.
Moral law is not relative. Neither is God. As Ruth Graham said, “God is either soverign or He isn’t.”
Great post . . . good fodder for thought and growth in faith!
Superb! Great suggestion and I shall address that post haste. I am delighted by your thoughtful consideration and your bringing in the issue of Sovereignty complete with a citation of Ruth Graham. What a great inaugural. Certainly God’s Sovereignty will be central over time. I, like you, find the idea comforting. But I have two audiences in mind in the blog. One is the mature Christian who has a heart to witness in their world and the other is the willing non-committal. Once one can willingly entertain the possibility of God (via the moral imperative and man’s moral impotence) and the world’s sophistry is dislodged, the dogma and doctrine gain in power and necessity. For now it may be enough just to know that God is still the only One who can minister to us in a morally broken world and makes that choice.
I shall get to work on Sovereignty.