I came across an article today in USA Today that cited a poll that talked about the opinion of the American people concerning the origin of the events in Japan of recent weeks. It was a fairly lengthy article, at one that I’d like to think about over the next couple of blog posts if you will indulge me.
USA Today, from its perspective is as a fairly liberal news media outlet, took the results of this poll and, with what seemed almost to be a certain amount of glee, put forth their proposition denouncing the evil evangelicals. Here is their opening paragraph:
We may never know why bad things happen to good people, but most Americans - except evangelicals - reject the idea that natural disasters are divine punishment, a test of faith or some other sign from God, according to a new poll.
It is true that we may never know, at least not in this world, but that is not for the reasons implied in this article; that being because those reasons don’t exist. It is because man is not in the place of calling God to account for His actions. Neither is God responsible for giving account to man His actions. Where is it posited that the sovereign God of the universe needs to explain Himself to man? And where is it anywhere put forth that the creature gets to hold the Creator accountable for His actions when he doesn’t like them (and there are times when I don’t particularly like them sometimes either…but I submit to them because He is God and I am not).
Curiously, the author uses the word “reject” in his discussion; a very Biblical word that goes a long ways toward helping understand the roots of why there is such a difference between these two views. Why do so many people see things one way and yet, so very many others reject that possibility and choose to see it another way?
Reject, of course, can be used as either a verb or noun. Here it is obviously uses as a verb. The word comes from the middle English, ultimately from the Latin “rejectus”, from the the past participle of “reicere”, from re- + jacere “to throw”. You’ll see the significance in a moment. Its’ first known use was in the 15th century in old English.
It is a transitive verb (the action of the verb is passed through the verb from the subject to the object: the subject DOES whatever TO the object). It has several “shades of meaning (as do all words…)
- It can mean “to refuse to accept, to consider, or to submit to. To refuse to take for some purpose, or to use as in a rejected the suggestion or to reject a manuscript.
- Secondly, it can mean to refuse to hear, receive, or admit. Here it is more of a rebuff or a repelling repel as in parents who reject their children.
- Thirdly, it can be used to speak of “to refuse” as in a lover or spouse.
- There are also a couple of lesser used meanings: to throw back, or repulse; and to spew out. They have fallen out of use over the years.
- Likewise there is a medical usage: “to subject to immunological rejection”, that is, when the body “rejects” a donor organ or some other foreign tissue or other transplanted device from the body it is said to “rejected”.
The thing in common in all of these is that is that it is both definitive and unreasoning. In all of the meanings above, the action is a matter of reaction and action, a matter of instinct and not a matter of rational and logical thought. This is not to say that it is an independent of all rational and logical thought. Rather, it is to say that these facilities are not the controlling facilities!
What then, are the controlling facilities? As the word would indicate, emotion and instinct become the controlling facility in such matters. Now, in many instances, this would not be a problem. But in spiritual matters this certainly is a problem. It has a problem because we are dealing with people who have no spiritual capacity. That leads us to our next observation.
Note the use of “we” versus two groups of people Biblically as the explanation for the dichotomy of opinions… This has always been a point of conflict, one that is difficult if not impossible to get across to the world given their inability to understand spiritual matters. The scripture is very clear that the natural man cannot understand the things of the spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says:
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
It is perfectly understandable and absolutely normal that the unredeemed laugh and scoff at this idea. They believe themselves to be “OK” with God. In fact, many of them believe themselves to be on sterling terms with God! But that is not the case. As was the situation where ancient Israel, so it is today. Isaiah told Israel
For the LORD has poured out on you
The spirit of deep sleep,
And has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets;
And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers. (Isaiah 29:10)
And it is not just the case with Old Testament Israel! Christ, speaking to Israel, but intending His words for the church of all ages said:
But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness! (Matthew 6:23)
A particular interest is that phrase “if therefore the light that is in you is darkness…”. How can the light that is in us at the same time be darkness? The Lord would have said that it was impossible. Of course, “light” is used in a number of different ways in the Scripture. It is used to speak of the light that enables us to see physically and the world. That, of course, is not the way it is used in this passage. It is used of the “light” that enables one to understand.
The word is used is the simple word “phos” in Greek. It refers to lack, as in that which contrasts with darkness. 2 Corinthians 4:6 uses the word to refer to god’s creation of the world as an illustration of the way that God “creates” the ability to understand and the life of a new believer.
For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
It is apparent that some receivers light while others do not. It is not our purpose here to discuss the “who’s” or the “why’s” of that process. We simply want to acknowledge that the Scripture plainly says that it is indeed the case. Some receive light and some do not. This is true to the extent that the Scripture identifies those who are redeemed as “children (or sons) of light ”.
So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light. (Luke 16:8)
While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” These things Jesus spoke, and departed, and was hidden from them. (John 12:36)
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (Ephesians 5:8)
You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness. (1 Thessalonians 5:5)
Once again, Christ said, in that very famous passage in John 3:
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. (John 3:19–20)
In this passage that has to do with redemption our Lord very clearly puts forth the difference between the those who are seeking to be reconciled with God and those who are merely “playing the game”. All men, without exception, at one time in their lives are unredeemed. But there comes a time when God begins to deal with "whosoever will". But there comes a time when God begins to deal with "whosoever will". The Scripture, in other places, calls this group "the elect". They are those whom God has chosen from eternity past.
The point that God is making to Nicodemus in this passage in John 3 is that there is a difference between those who are earnestly seeking God and those who are not. Those who are, are willing to come into the "light" and have their deeds exposed as evil. Those who are not, and sadly, this seems to involve the bulk of mankind, what are told remain in the darkness "lest his deeds should be exposed".
The light, then, is what shows men and their deeds and character for what they truly are. To say that in another fashion, without the light man labor on in deception and falsehood thinking one thing (that spiritually they are fine) when, in reality, the exact opposite is so!
Our responsibility as believers, is to ignore their “outrage” and to understand it, seeing where it comes from, having been in that place once ourselves. I do not mean this to be nearly so condescending as it sounds, truly I do not. Rather, I intend it to be merciful in tone. I think of how frustrated and angry Job and how even one as godly as he could get caught up in raging against the “whys and wherefores” of these great tragedies. But just as God never give account of Himself to Job, so also He will never, ever give account of Himself to any mortal man. This is not because of arrogance or a matter of pride. It is simply that he is God and we are not. He is the creator and we are that created. He is the Master of the vineyard and we are workers in that vineyard. It not only cannot be any other way, but it should not be any other way. I would not have it be any other way.
No comments:
Post a Comment