Re-Thinking God: Does God Always Get What He Wants?

If the Bible is taken at face value, the answer is "NO", God doesn't always get what He wants.

I suppose some of you want proof of that and I will give it, but the real question is actually about what has God created when he created this world and the humans that populate it. I mean what kind of world you believe God has created makes a big difference in how you look at this question.

First off, the moment you talk about having a relationship with God and that you believe that relationship with God has common elements with all relationships. Mutual love and trust for example, that means there must be some sort of choice that both sides must make for the relationship to both exist and grow. That means from God's end, he must allow choice in other beings if his aim is to have relationship with his creation and is not focused on using his power to control.

Philosophy aside, there is plenty of Biblical evidence that supports the idea that God does not always get what he wants.

1. The grief of God in Genesis six. Why would God grieve over something He caused? God does not cause the sinfulness an wickedness of the world, but He does grieve over it and makes plans to end it by destroying humanity. God's grief makes no sense if He is the one that caused sin and the fall of mankind. God's grief indicates there was a higher desire He had for humanity that is not working out.

2. The story of Moses illustrates some many things but the main thing I point to is the conversation at the burning bush. Notice that God chooses the path of persuasion of Moses, He even gets mad at one point because of Moses' lack of trust. Even God's language indicates the even He is hedging His bets by giving Moses all kinds of signs and using words like 'perhaps' and 'maybe'. Coming from God's lips, this conditionality is telling.

3. It was not God's desire for Israel to have a king, see the conversation between Him and Samuel in chapter eight of 1st Samuel, yet they got one anyway. Seems if God was playing puppeteer all he wold have to do is make sure no one makes this decision.

4. Pick a Prophet -- every one of them deals with God is some way expressing his displeasure at someone for their choices and how God did not want them to make those choices. Those choices indicate that God had a different desire but the people involved went against those desires.

5. Jesus weeps over Jerusalem crying: "How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks, BUT YOU WERE UNWILLING." If there is any passage that shows in greater manner the necessity of double cooperation for God's desires to take place, I don't know where it is.

6. First Timothy 2:4 says God desires all men to come to repentance and a knowledge of the truth. Does this happen? I don't think so.

I could go on and on, but these are the highlights.

The most common objection is if this is so God is not in control, but I have already addressed this by saying that is a very human assumption that the purpose of power is control. Power ultimately is supposed to be about stewardship and development of what you have authority over and God gives us the greatest example of how to do this by doing it HIMSELF.

I do not believe the Bible is using figures of speech in any of these or any other kind of language where God does not really mean it. Such ideas ultimately undercut faith in the Scriptures. God is the ultimate in saying what he says and meaning it.

For whatever reason that only He knows, God has chosen to create a world in which he relates to the beings He has created known as humans, not as their controller, but their guide and steward. He has given them His image and that include the ability of choice. This choice is limited in comparison to God's because of power and knowledge, but the choice is necessary for relationship and that means that sometimes what God wants and desires as an outcome in an event is subordinated to his ultimate desire to have these free relationships. Our liberty is as important if not more so to God as it is to us..

Ultimately this is what saved my faith in God. Without coming to this realization, the problems following Him had caused me would have collapsed my faith. It was not God's desire that I suffer in His service, but He sometimes must let it go to insure genuine relationship. He loves the people I was dealing with as much as me and respected all of us in our free choices. In such cases, not everything is going to go well all the time for the believer but our liberty is kept intact.

Finis - unless I think of something else that goes here. Hope everyone enjoyed this series.

Re-Thinking God: How God's Will Relates to Man

The real question is: What is God's will? I mean what does God want?

The assumption in traditional theology is that what God wants is to control everything so He has every molecule doing exactly what He wants. If you haven't figured it out yet, I passionately reject this idea as being too much like our own definitions of will and power - control is not the highest use of power.

In many real ways God expresses that the highest use of power is stewardship over what one is responsible for with an eye on development of that person or thing into something better and higher. I believe God defines his power and will in this way. His will then is to develop, grow and make better the people and things under his care.

That has some implications. God is not trying to control everything because he does not have to control everything to get his will accomplished. In fact, letting a person grow and stand on their own may be part of His will and objective.

You can also throw anything revolving around FATE right out the window. What then matters is our wilfully lining our wills up with God's stewardship of us. It means an interaction of God's will and our own.

That of course leaves one last question.

Next: Does God Always Get What He Wants?

Re-Thinking God: God is Just

Justice - the quality of being just, impartial and fair.

God's justice comes into play because of the other two qualities of God's character - love and holiness. Justice balances the two factors of both - mercy (a product on his love) and righteousness (a product of his holiness).

When God looks at a person through love He stretches his hand of mercy, but His holiness demands righteous action and violation of the Law of God (sin) means that He must punish the sinner. God's justice is what balances the two and allows him to act in both simultaneously.

Probably the greatest thing I learned from my chronological journey through Scripture is that God wrestles with justice. That He too, struggles with how to act so that action is both holy and loving. This is greatly seen the best in Hosea where God, in conversation with himself, wrestles with what to do with his unfaithful wife Israel. He on the one hand feels that he has every right to divorce her and throw her to the wolves (Holiness), but on the other hand He loves her and wants to extend his hand of mercy (Love). It is this wrestling that God must do to achieve a just decision -- he will punish her but then extend his hand of restoration to her afterwards.

What troubles most people is by God wrestling with these decisions, it makes him seem all to human. I say it has nothing to do with with humanity or divinity, but is simply a matter of person hood and relationships. It is simply necessary in the relationship God has with his creatures that he has created with the power of choice. Because of this the God to Mankind relationship is a messy affair that means God must balance his holiness and love in the context of what is right for both. It is not easy for anyone, even God to do this. Even God struggles with what is 'fair'.

Next: How God's Will Relates to Man.

Re-Thinking God: God is Holy

First people have to understand one things bout what the definition of holiness is not and what it is: it is not 'wholly other' and it does indeed have to do with behavior and righteousness. See the following posts and then come back, don't worry the post will still be here.

The 'Wholly Other' God and Other Nonsense

Definition of Holiness in response to a guy named Michael

You know today it is the fifth anniversary of the 'Wholly Other' post but I still feel the same about the subject. Imagine that, guess I have been re-thinking God for a long time.

That said and having read all that (you have read it haven't you?) I began to see God's holiness not as something different but something follow as an example. God becomes the definition of what it means to be morally pure and right in action.

This remains the one attribute that defines God more than any other. In heaven around the throne this is what is said -- "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, the whole earth is filled with his glory." It is this attribute that saved the God of the Bible for me. Why? Because i began to realize that it is because of this purity God has the right to define what is pure and what is not. When he places the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden He knows exactly what is what. It is not for me to define it but Him. Letting God define evil means that His actions are not evil and if I were to do those same actions with the same motivation as Him, it would be without sin.

Simple put, we as people like to play games with the definition of evil so that we can paint God as evil. But if we let God define evil and good then we have to submit to the fact that the highest likelihood is that when we look at God in the Scriptures and say "God is being evil" we are wrong in our understanding of evil. If we accept the fact that in all God's Biblical actions there is no sin or authoring of sin then the definition of sin we often use of "missing the mark" is wrong. God's actions are good and holy - morally pure.

So when God gets angry and destroys a nation of people or orders genocide, it is holy action. God is not being evil because his holiness would not allow him to act if the action were evil. Holiness defines who He is and what He does. That of course, leads us to God's Justice

Next: God is Just

Re-Thinking God: God is Love

No definitions on this one because the Bible has THE definition of love in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 and there is a declarative statement in 1st John 4:8 "God is love". In short, if you look up the definition of love in the dictionary, what should be there is the word: 'GOD'. I think however the implications of these two passages escape people. To start with: If God is indeed love; then the definition and qualities of love as described in 1st Corinthians apply to him.

The first implication of this is that all the definitions we like to put here for 'love' do not work. This is especially true if we create a definition of 'love' that is self serving. The one thing we can say about the definition of love in 1st Corinthian 13 is that there is absolutely no self serving idea in it. That means when God defines himself as this kind of love, there is nothing about him that is self-serving, even when He adds to his own glory or protects his name, it is not from an attitude of self-service but one of love.

The second implication, or in this case a set of implications, is on the nature of God itself based on this definition:

1. Love is patient, therefore God must be patient -- what sense though does patience have for God if He is given the traditional definitions of all-powerful, all-knowing and all-present. To be patient means to have forbearance under strain or to not be hasty. But if traditional omnipresence is maintained then God is everywhere at all times so how does this makes sense. God being patient only makes sense if He is just as much a part of time as the rest of us, or as I have defined it because time is part of his nature. Also why be patient if your the one absolutely being everything about or you know the absolute outcome? Neither makes sense in the light of God being patient.

2. When considering verse seven of First Corinthians 13; it has much the same implications: 'Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.' For God to display all of these qualities implies a God working through love to change things, not one that exercises absolutes. A God who has hope, means he is expecting and working for better in each person, not that he sees each person's fate as an unchangeable thing, even to Him.

3. All of these qualities imply relationship with people not absolute exercise of power. It means letting the other person having the power of give and take, just as much as God does. It means God takes risks because to love is to risk hurt. God being love means his very nature is to risk relationship with each person even though each person can indeed hurt him in the context of that relationship.

Next: God is holy

Re-Thinking God: Where is God?

According to Webster: To be present in all places in all times.

Of all the things that is it most difficult to think on it is omnipresence. To think of God being everywhere and I mean everywhere is on a practical note difficult and form a faith perspective I don't think people really believe it. If they did would they commit secret sins thinking no one saw?

For God to be present in all places I have no doubt is true. Nothing escapes his notice or presence. No moral condition prevents him from seeing everything from a first hand point of view be it the inside of a church or the most despicable den of iniquity - God is there.

The thing with the Bible is that there are times when God's presence is said to be there with greater weight, for lack of a better way to describe it. When the children of Israel are walking around the wilderness it is the glorious presence of God that guides them as a pillar of cloud by day or a pillar of fire by night. The the glory of God sets on the mercy seat. Moses feels the presence of God on the mountain, etc. etc. It is not, that God is not everywhere else, but he manifests himself is stronger presence to show his power and authority.

It is the second part of the traditional definition of omnipresence that has changed for me. Earlier in my post of transcendence and imminence I mentioned that God's relationship with time changed for me when I started to understand time, not as a creation of God, but as something bound to God's eternity itself. God is eternal so therefore time has always existed. What changes in omnipresence for me is: if God is the eternal now, does that mean he does indeed exist in the past and future in the same real way as the now? This is much the same as the question about God's power where I asked what powers do indeed exist for God? In this case, what time exists for God if He in a sense is time? Do the past and future actually exist now for God?

The fact remains that in the Scriptures, very little proof that God exists as much in the future and past as he does in the now is actually there. God never even speaks this way of himself. When he refers to the past, God talks about it as something done and no longer existing and the future he talks as one trying to shape it but not as if he is already there. When I was reading through the scriptures chronologically I simply could not find God using this type of language to describe himself and his relationship to time. What I did find is that God did exist in the present because the present is all that really exists as far as time and God go.

God may have a perfect knowledge of the past, but he does not exist in the past because the past no longer really exists. It is spent and done. The future has yet to be formed and does not exist till we get there. God is not present in the future because the future does not yet exists. God will exist in the future when it becomes the present, but until it becomes the present, the future does not exist and God only exists in the time that is.

This changed the definition of omnipresence for me: God is present in every place that exists in the eternal now.

Next: God is Love

Re-Thinking God: How Much Does God Really Know?

Webster: Having infinite awareness, understanding and insight and possessing universal and complete knowledge.

If there is an area that I have changed the most in my understanding of God it is God's Omniscience. The question that dogged me the most was always one involving the problem of evil. If God knew absolutely that evil would result from his creating the world and that because of it people would absolutely go to hell for their sin, why did he create the world in the first place? Because of this absolute knowledge God becomes absolutely responsible for evil existing.

One thing that started to change in me, as I read through scripture to escape my agnostic pit, was my understanding of HOW God knows things. It is not just about WHAT God knows, but HOW he knows it because of the way he created the world.

As you look through the backlog of my posts you will find many labeled 'Open Theism' and I now make it no secret that I am an open theist. I see no other way to avoid the charge that God caused evil unless He only knew evil as a possibility and not a certainty.

There is a lot of things I could say here, and to get a full understanding of where I am coming from, reading every article I have written on open theism starting with The ABC's of Open Theism and then all the rest in any order will give you a good start. There are a few specifics to mention here:

1. God knows the past and present absolutely.
2. God knows the future both absolutely and propositionaly (both what will be for certain and what is possible)
3. There are some things that God does not know: any sin He has forgiven.

For me the definition has changed: God knows everything that is knowable and He knows it in the way it is knowable.

Next: God's Omnipresence

Re-Thinking God: How Powerful is God Really?

Omnipotent: All-Powerful, Having Unlimited Power.

Well that is the normal standard definition anyway no matter what dictionary/encyclopedia you run to. The question is does it accurately describe the power that the God of the Bible possesses?

"Gee, Mr. Rabyd Theologian, why are you even asking this, the answer is an obvious yes", you might say. "Gentle Reader, this series would not be entitled Re-Thinking God if I didn't think this definition was not at least a little off", I return.

There is for starters the Omnipotence Paradox: Can God make a rock he cannot lift? If He can't, he is not omnipotent? If He can, he is not omnipotent? Now it may simply be that the definition of omnipotent is not specific enough, I mean does such a power actually exist to make a rock you cannot lift? Perhaps what this paradox teaches us is that we need to be more specific in what we mean by possessing all power or we need to define the ALL in all-power better. Some philosophers and theologians have rejected the paradox as ridiculous, but that does not necessarily make it so.

It could also be said that perhaps God places limits on himself in some way. I mean after all to be all-powerful, wouldn't you need the power to limit your own power? It might answer some of the questions surrounding God's power.

The more common challenge to the idea of God being all-powerful is Theodicy: God is love, God is omniscient, God is all-powerful and yet evil exists. 'Either God is not love, not omniscient or NOT ALL-POWERFUL' the argument follows. The thing is if the definitions of these are clearly defined, then there may be an explanation for evil because of change in the definitions.

Thankfully, for myself, I really have no problem with getting a little more detailed about the definition of omnipotence, because to just say God is all-powerful is overly simplistic in my book. What do we mean by all and what do we mean by power?

Some of us like to give God comic book like powers like a superhero. The question is do such powers actually exist or are they imaginary. I mean do we really know what powers actually exist or do they only exist in the minds of human imagination. It is a possibility that some powers we think exist, do not exist. Such a consideration may factor into our definition.

The Bible even seems to limit what power is by placing boundaries: "All power in Heaven and Earth" as an example. Not powers in places that do not exist. Still a lot of power but, all-power may only be inside all of heaven and earth. Actual power in actual places, not imaginary planes of existence.

The question of whether God places limits on Himself is actually a question of God's character so I will leave it till then, except to say that it would seem to have all power and not have a power to control it would mean not having all power. To be all-powerful seems to imply the power to control your power.

A working definition of Omnipotence: To have all power that actually exists and the ability to control that power as one sees fit.

I like this better, it allows us to ask the question: How exactly is it possible for God to deal with the problem of evil with the powers that he actually has? How can God use his power in this situation? Ect. We can ask these questions and be more specific in how God's power actually applies.

Next: God's Omniscience

Re-Thinking God: Is God Immanent or Transcendent?

Immanent: Being within the possible limits of possible experience or knowledge.

Transcendent: Being beyond the limits of all possible experience or knowledge.

The reason I am taking these two parts of the nature of God together is it is truly difficult to talk about one without the other. What parts of God's nature are within our experience and knowledge to understand them and which parts are beyond our experience and understanding? What parts of his creation is He close to in nature and what parts does He transcend? The main issue is how much is God close to his creation and what parts of God transcend his creation. We are also in part dealing with what relationship does God have to the world he created.

Going through the Bible, it does not take long to see that God separates himself from his creation. He is not a force of nature like the other gods of mythology. The creation account in Genesis shows God creating and controlling those forces of nature. It also shows that these forces of nature have no personality and are absent of godhood in and of themselves.

The significance of this to modern scholarship is often lost. Modern scholars are always pining on about the similarities between this creation account and the other creation accounts such as the Gilgamesh Epic, but the truth is the differences are both significant and staggering in their implications. You have to either conclude that the creation account in Genesis is revelation or religious genius and cutting against the grain of what was around the Jewish people at the time. God transcends his creation in that he is not his creation but he is immanent with it in that he controls and governs it. He is however not directly connected with a nature force.

Some areas though are subject to debate. Among them and probably the greatest of them is God's relationship to time. Why is this so? Because to say that God transcends time creates some theological and philosophical problems.

On the theology side, the Bible repeatedly show God acting in history. God does things in a certain order and there is significance to that order. If God transcends time, than this acting in time seems irrelevant. But there is relevance to understanding both God in history and doing things in order to understand him as a God of relationship, order and control.

On the philosophical side, the question is one of definition. God is eternal. Does ETERNAL have any meaning, if time has not always existed? No. Further try to define what it means for God to ALWAYS be eternal without using 'time' as a concept. Then the question then becomes what is God relationship to time. Time has always existed because it is wrapped up in the eternity of God. Because God has always been eternal; time has always existed. At least in my view this is the case and that means I do not view God as transcending time but more immanent with it than anyone else.

Why does this matter? The BIG thing is this has incredible implications for the omniscience of God in regards to God's knowledge of the past present and future and how REAL those three things are to God himself. More on that in a later post on God's Omniscience.

In the end, the challenge to re-thinking God is one of engaging each issue to ask the question of: "In what way does God transcend this in what ways is he immanent with it?" The problem is that God in the Bible seems to be more more immanent than people want to make him in theology or doctrine.

Next: God's Omnipotence

Truth and the Value of the Church.

Looking above, such a church may exist, but I doubt it would have any value. To have value, a church must hold something that is true as true. Without central truth, no value can be had. Relativism, believing truth is relative to the situation, will never bring value because value is fleeting and changeable in relativism. Guess me and the emergent church part company at this point. Although, I do hear some of the points they are making.

Whenever I stand in the pulpit, I am confronted with an inescapable fact -- I have former EVERYTHING in front of me. Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Reformed, Wesleyan, Pentecostal (Hey, that's behind the pulpit too), Charismatic, etc. are all present. In addition, there are several Tried Everythings as well. When I try to find something we have in common, it comes down to a single fact that we all got fed up with religiosity of our other churches and wanted to find a church where we could be Christan and yet have our differences respected. We were looking for a place where the commonality of our faith was the core, not how we differ from others of Christian faith.

That said, there are central truths we uphold at Hersey Congregational Church that are the common ground and give our church its core values:

1. The Bible is our authority and is the inspired word of God: what 'inspired' specifically means is open for debate. We all believe God had a hand in the Bible, but the exact 'how" he did it is open to interpretation because in truth the Bible really does not say itself 'how it works'. What we do not question is that the Bible has the authority to tell us how to live and what to believe.

2. The Trinity: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Three in One. One God, three persons. As confusing as this doctrine can be, it is found throughout Scripture and is a central tenant of being a Christian and understanding God.

3. The Historical Life, Work, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Honestly, is their a point being a Christian if there is no historical Christ who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on a cross and rose from the dead? Christ -- Christian -- get it?

4. Salvation through Faith in Christ: What 'faith' is and means is Bible defined, but the definition does have fuzzy edges when in the context of works (i.e. James or Paul or both), but in the end faith is not doubt. It is trust and evidence of that which is not seen (Hebrews 11:1). There are tons of issues under the heading of 'salvation' and how one is saved, but we point back to Christ regardless of which ones people personally have.

5. The Return of Christ: Christ said several times he would return to return his people to himself. When, where and how may be debatable, but one thing is for sure: He is coming back.

All of these, constitute what we believe to be the central tenants of the Christian faith. They represent a true expression of True Fundamentalism. Everything else is not necessarily relative, but these are the convictions that a Christian should be will to live and die for. Otherwise I would really doubt the Christianity of a Christian who cannot believe these core understandings.

So what about the rest. In the end we allow freedom to hold differences, discuss them, but still be brothers and sisters in Christ at the end of the day. They simply are not core enough, in my opinion, to break fellowship with someone because we disagree. Only the five above items justify such a break. Although it should be understood, the first one has the implication of following what is clearly said in the Bible. Murder and adultery are defined as Biblically wrong so they are wrong for everyone under 'the Bible being the authority' for example.

The central theme for us then truly becomes: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Both Augustine and Wesley (two guys with very different views) were fond of this saying and so am I. I may not always agree with my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I stand with them in unity about Jesus and love them no matter what.

Truth gives a church value, but also allowing each other liberty allows us to enjoy that value and walk in that truth. Otherwise all you have is religion which seeks to control and manipulate, neither of which are loving things to do.

I have finally found my church and it is one that fits me as a pastor. It allows me to walk in the liberty of the truth of Jesus Christ and love each person because I can allow them to be free as well. Instead of trying to control the flock, I work to have them know the truth so they can be free and follow Christ. I can only wish the same for everyone else.

Re-Thinking God: Is God Immutable?

Immutable -- adj. -- not capable of or susceptible to change.

Seems to be straight-forward does it not? Everyone knows God does not change. God never changes in any way. Psalm 55:19 says exactly that, does it not?

Unfortunately, there is also many verses of the Bible itself that indicate some changeableness to God -- God does demonstrate some mutability. Some examples:

1. God's Emotions: In my reading through Scripture, back in my agnostic state of mind, I discovered something very quickly -- The God of the Bible has emotions. Now the implications of this are not apparent at first but they are staggering if we take them seriously. Let's take a typical case where God gets angry. There are many of these so we do not need a specific one. The question comes: what happens when God gets angry at someone? The implication is that he was not angry before but then gets angry. It means God goes from a state of no anger to one of having anger -- a change. Some of the other implications of God's emotions we will see in later posts in this series.

2. God's Relationships: There are several ways to illustrate this a) covenants "If you have faith, I will do this"; b) "If...then..." statements themselves outside of covenants and c) commandments. All of these indicating God establishing boundaries and conditions of relationship with others that require God to be one that both acts and reacts depending on the situation.

3. God Changes His Mind: I have written on this at length in many of my Open Theism blogs and simply put God changes his intended actions and does something else other than what He originally intended. It does not just happen once but at least five times. Jeremiah chimes in on this as well in Jeremiah 26:13 indicating a promise that if people would repent then God would change his mind. Action: People repent. Reaction: God changes his mind.

All of this, plus other things opened up the possibility in my mind that there may be certain things about God that do indeed change and because of verses like Psalm 55:19 (which is talking about God's justice and holiness) certain things that do not change. After I was done, I drew the conclusion that God's core character (love, holiness, justice,etc.) do not change but God in His experiences does indeed change both reacting and acting in the context of relationship with other free beings.

What this means is that God can be approached and appealed to and if a person approaches God with a genuine heart, God will react and change the situation and his emotions will change toward that person or group of people accordingly.

Is God immutable? No - He is capable of change and indeed He is susceptible to it. He has the power to both act and react. What does not change about Him is His character as He reacts and acts to what people do. As we look at some of the other attributes of God in this series, we will see how this plays out in how we have to re-think God.

Next: God's Imminence and Transcendence

Re-Thinking God: Introduction

"Re-Thinking God" - I use this term a lot and I also talk extensively about finding the God of the Bible not the one that is commonly taught. Part of this comes from the simply fact that I had to discard the faith I once had in favor of something else otherwise; quite frankly, I was going to become an agnostic.

The dirty little secret is that most of our views of God have very little to do with taking the Bible at face value for what it says and more to do with a Western Philosophical view of God based on the Greek philosophers and (no surprise) what WE WANT God to be.

The problem is when you start to take what the Bible says for face value and compare it to what is traditionally taught by this Western theological- philosophy, you have contradictions and problems that abound from logical and common sense understandings. In some cases, the logic simply does not work at all.

In 2007, I ran head-long into this because of a personal crisis. The year before, I had resigned my second church and after fighting hard to keep my kids in that town till semester break, we eventually had to retreat back to my hometown. In March of 2007, I got a job at the same place I had left in 2000 to take my first church. After seven years I basically was right back where I started from, in far more debt, had lost a house and quite frankly I was angry at God. OK -- I was pissed off at God. So much so I had decided to quit everything - ministry, family, marriage - and start over. I was of the opinion, that quite frankly I had just wasted a lot of time and energy serving a God that was false. In the end, I decided I would give God one more try but I was going to be hard on Him. I decided to read the whole Bible in chronological order and search to see if there was anything that would change my mind and I was determined not to change it. I had some issues with God I wanted to see if 'His Word' would resolve them:

1. If it is so awesome to serve God, why do good people with perfectly good faith get screwed.
2. Does God in anyway change as revelation unfolds -- does he become different or do things differently as time goes by.
3. What does the God of the Bible say about himself compared to what I commonly understand.
4. I was also really wrestling with the Problem of Evil and wanted some answers.
5. I was also looking for anything that would allow me to keep my faith.

At this moment I had became an agnostic and was asking the simply question -- why should I believe in Christianity anymore? Unlike some, I kept this a secret, because I have seen how understanding Christians are when they have a fellow brother or sister have a crisis of faith. Kept going to church, kept singing songs and kept being respectable simply so no one would fire bullets.

In the end, I pretty much changed everything I believe about God. My views on his nature, attributes, character and will. They had all completely changed in many respects.

This series is about how I 're-thunk God' by simply taking His Word at face value. I want to contrast what is traditionally taught about God and the Bible. In short, I want to tell you what most people believe and then show how it is contradicted by the Bible when it comes to God. Topic Covered will include:
1. Gods Nature: Immutability, Imminence and Transcendence
2. God's Attributes: Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence
3. God's Character: Loving, Holiness and Justice
4. How God's Will Relates to Man.
5. Does God Always Get What He Wants?

It should at least be a fun ride if nothing else.

Apparent Contradictions and the Progressive Revelation of the Bible.

Just a word before I begin about contradictions in Scripture - if you are looking for them you will find them. Some people make a living off of finding apparent contradictions. Like all interpretive techniques once you adopt a certain lens you stick with it, but it should be noted that when I hear people talking about contradictions in Scripture they are contradictions AS THEY SEE IT. To be fair though, some people have a way of reconciling those contradictions and can go to great lengths to do so. They are doing things as they see it as well. What we learn from this is sometimes whether a contradiction is a contradiction is usually in the eye of the beholder. Both sides can be guilty of reading into Scripture what they want to be there.

I want to look at how some contradictions are reconciled by the fact sometimes it is a matter of the writers perspective and aims in his writing in a previous post so what I want to do is look at how the Bible being a progressive revelation of God can affect apparent contradictions. I want to use two examples from the teaching of Jesus in relationship to the Law of Moses: 1) The 'Eye for and Eye' controversy and 2) Moses and Jesus differences on divorce.

1. The Law of Moses is the first place the expression "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' appears. It does so in three places (Exodus 21, Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19) and every time it is in relationship to the idea of punishment and restitution for the victim of a crime. If the victim loses an eye, justice demands that the person who caused this loss also lose an eye. There were alternative restitution methods in this but the standard was established based on equality. In our language -- 'let the punishment fit the crime'.

Thousands of years pass and Jesus is preaching the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7. (Note: this is not the same sermon as the one in Luke 6 although they are similar. Ancient speakers had to repeat themselves often for different groups so teaching would be repeated as the crowd changed. Remember no way to record words and no public address systems. It should also be noted that neither of these sermons say it was Jesus' first time speaking) He says "you have heard it said 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but I say to you, do not resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." We could say that Jesus is changing things like he does elsewhere, except he begins this sermon with a bold statement that that is not what he is doing -- that no part of the law will pass away until everything is fulfilled. That being said what is going on here?

The answer lies in the fact that the revelation of Scripture takes place over time. During the gaps people develop interpretations, establish schools of thought and have their own ideas. When Moses writes the law it is about justice. The passage of time has corrupted the interpretation of the idea from one of justice to one of justified vengeance. Also consider that politically the times are different. Israel is free under Moses; Jesus lives under Roman rule. The things Jesus advocates are a direct reaction to that fact. 1)Not resisting is a reaction to the idea of using 'eye for eye' as a justification for rebellion against an 'evil' empire. 2)being struck on the cheek was a common discipline action of Roman soldiers, Jesus says don't strike back but submit to further discipline as the law requires 3) Roman soldiers could compel a non-citizen to carry their stuff for a mile. Jesus says to not only for that but volunteer for a second mile 4) a Roman soldier could demand stuff from people Jesus is saying give them what they want and then some, etc., etc. In the end what Jesus is doing is correcting the bad interpretations of his time that allowed for both rebellion and vengeance in the name of God, but he never attacks the idea of eye for eye being used as a standard of justice.

2. The whole story for this can be found in Matthew 19 where Jesus is asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. Jesus says 'No', giving only sexual unfaithfulness as a grounds for divorce pointing them to the story of man and woman being one flesh. The follow up is where things get interesting where they ask him why Moses then allowed for divorce with simply a certificate. Jesus replies that Moses allowed for divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of people. Which leads to a question: Was the certificate of divorce in the Law given by Moses inspired or just Moses doing something on his own? A similar question comes in 1st and 2nd Corinthians when Paul says he has no command of God on a subject but he speaks by permission. Are these permissions and allowances the Word of God and if not then is it not possible that other parts of Scripture are also not part of THE Word of God but are just nice stuff or fluff.

The thing I think needs to be considered is the nature of God as he reveals himself to people over time. The thing I propose as an open theist is that while God in his essential nature does not change (His character) his experiences with humans do change and require a modification of principles or rules as humanity changes on relationship to God. God may not change but his experiences with us are ever changing. Adam and Eve are one flesh, but sin enters the world and men's heart become hard. knowing this God allows Moses to allow divorce. When Jesus arrives God is working to re-establish true salvation by providing a means to change hearts. There is still an allowance for sin in Jesus' words but now it is about strict infidelity, not any other thing like --'she burned my toast'. The progressiveness of God's revelation to man and the ever changing humanity means the standards change as time goes by.

It is this changing relationship aspect of the God and man equation that factors into a lot of things in Scripture. It does not answer all the seeming contradictions but it does address some of them.

The Second Reformation

Well, you have to hand it to Martin Luther, the guy had guts. In our modern language -- balls. What is needed now is a whole bunch of Christians with the same testicular fortitude. Why? Because there is a second reformation of thought needed in the church in the Western World again. There are several reasons I think this is needed:

1. Religious Experience Has Failed to Prove God to a Secular World: Now my former brethren the Pentecostal/Charismatic types are going to hate me for saying this but your experiences with God don't prove a blessed thing. The problem with religious experience is all religious people have them and that extends beyond Christianity. A Quote by a Christian lady on Facebook to my agnostic friend:"we don't need to prove anything to no one because everyday we wake up we can feel God in the wind, in the sunshine. We know clearly there is a God..." Hmmm. I wonder if a Hindu could say the same thing: "We don't need to prove anything to no one because everyday we wake up we can feel Karma in the wind, in the sunshine. We clearly know Karma exists..." See my point? A religious experience or feelings about spirituality only prove something to the one who has them; change the perspective or belief system and experience can be duplicated in other religions. As proof that a faith is ultimately true personal religious experience is for the most part useless. From my own experience in the Pentecostal movement, I have seen preachers fake an extraordinary amount of things and try to teach me how to do it as well. Psychological manipulation is very real in religious societies and so experiences in that regard are not proof of anything but gullibility or emotional need and susceptibility. One thing Christians need to remember is 1 Peter 3:15 -- 'and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you of the reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." That means to anyone at anytime. It is not a waste of time to give a reasoned response to why you believe based on what they understand and believe, in fact I would say it is the command of the Lord.

2. Theological Hardness: On the flip side, reformed thought of the Calvinist variety has so dominated for so long it no longer, or perhaps never had, the flexibility to change in the face of new questions. The answers that convinced people of the truth of Christian faith in the last 300 years no longer work. Reformed theology ultimately just adds fuel to the fire of the problem of evil and in the end seems like an arrogant mind that refuses to budge in the face of Scriptural questions. Many, not just in the Reformed camp have got to the point that no new ideas will be accepted about any doctrine of theology. Meekness (see 1 Peter 3:15 above) is needed to realize that no person has God in a box or completely figured out and to not leave room for change in our thinking is just our pride talking.

3. The Increase of Knowledge. Hate to say it there is so much information and options out there it makes your head spin. I would even say there is a new group of religious folks out there that I can only label the "TryAnythings". The move from one faith to another to try it out and see if it fits. One thing this has caused is a despair that a thing called "TRUTH" even exists. This is all made possible because Christianity is no longer the only game in town and the other options are easily found. The Technology of Today makes any religion no matter what or where it is accessible. This has led to a smarter and more knowledgeable population who have seen a lot and while Christianity may claim uniqueness, they can see similarities and that is what they treat Christianity like any other faith.

How is such a reformation going to happen? I don't think a fat monk is going to come along and nail 95 thesis to the door again, I don't think that the second reformation will belong to any single person. It is about a change of spirit so large that is going to be one of those quiet revolutions that is in many ways already happening. The Emergent Church takes a lot of flak from some corners of Christianity, but at least they are listening to what unbelievers are saying and formulating a response. That is however only one response; there are more.

One thing that is also happening is that Christians are returning to their Bibles and reading them for themselves and formulating new beliefs based on their own reading about God, Salvation and Christ. I am going to say this -- it is about time! It may take the passing of an old guard of thinkers in favor of a new one to make these changes. This means an inflexible denominational systems are going to fail to attract new people as more and more people will want a church where they can be free to believe differently than their brothers and sisters in Christ and still be accepted as part of the family of God.

Technology may provide accessibility to other religions but it also means that information about Christianity is also accessible like never before including about the historical questions about the Scriptures and Jesus Christ. It is also leading to a phenomena I and others call --faith without borders where Christians don't inhabit certain countries anymore with dominate cultures; they are everywhere. Those that are embracing this no longer dominating but permeating the world are part of the reformation to come.

It is already happening and like a snow ball rolling down a hill it will grow and then change everything when it reaches full maturity. The only real thing that stands in its way is a Traditional Protestantism but that is dying. It is just a matter of time.

Five Reasons Why the Church is Failing

This post is in part a response to the more common reasons people leave Christianity and partially my own rantings.

1. The Church continues to fail to provide an adequate response to the Problem of Evil when someone has a personal crisis. In part this is because of some very bad doctrines and theological systems but mostly comes down to the fact that there is a very pat simplicity in our answers and an unwillingness to face the fact that maybe our ideas of God may be the problem. This is especially true when someone comes to us and says: "God huh, why did God kill my daughter?" Truth be told, the average pastor and his doctrine cannot answer this one, because the answer they have formulated is based on a certain concept of God they are stuck with. It is one that we have created that is comfortable to us, not what the Bible ultimately says about God or what God says even about himself.

2. Lack of deep thinking on the part of most Christians. The prevailing attitude in most churches, for some reason, is that if you think about your faith or use your brain to engage God, that it will destroy your faith. This is particularly prevalent in churches that are based on emotional experience for their core beliefs but all of them have it. The flip side is a cold intellectualism about faith where God is indeed a mean SOB. This creates a difficult environment for someone who wants both genuine answers by using their brain or common sense. The church unfortunately, seems to have forgotten the lesson of Galileo: "I find it hard to believe that the same God who has endowed us with reason and common sense, would require us to forgo the use of both." As long as reason is a perceived enemy of faith, the church will watch a more knowledgeable and secular youth and young adult population head to the door.

3. A Theological stuck denominational system. What I mean here is that many times people maintain doctrine or theology because of tradition. I have been continually amazed how many clergy and bible college and seminary professors are simply blind recordings of their denominations doctrinal system. New theological ideas are often met with same response as an atheist. There is actually only one root cause for this -- spiritual pride. We apparently think when we described God in theology and doctrine we got it right the first time. I remember when I first purposed open theism (a different way of looking at God's knowledge of the future) to a friend -- "Well that's wrong, because it denies the way we traditionally understand omniscience." Apparently we are so smart we got our understanding of God right the first time.

4. Hyper-fundamentalist Holiness. Simply put, we spend far to much time attacking people for their morals and 'incorrect' view of life and not enough time understanding the real meaning of grace and then putting some love and compassion into action. Between this and the fact that most standards of holiness in churches are too high for anyone to attain and you have to live a double life to fool everyone, it is no wonder people head for the door. We are becoming very good at proclaiming something publicly, but denying it in our lifestyle and yet keeping it covered up. What we are really creating is not holy saints but sneaky sinners.

5. Continued silence on why Christianity is superior to other religions and belief systems. There are two enemies here: 1) Ignorance because most people in Christianity simply don't know the foundation of their faith and 2) Misguided Tolerance -- 'lets just say there is no distinction between us and other religions'. Then why be a Christian, what is the imperative of Christian faith then?

My personal belief is that if these things are not ultimately corrected we will watch the church become nothing more than a footnote in history of the Western World.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 9 -- Tough Question #3 -- God's Love and Damnation.

Now this gets a little harder. If God's justice stands against annihilation then God's love stands against eternal torment. Or perhaps it is the way we perceive God's love that stands against it. Eternal Torment - - I wonder how many Christians fathom the concept? Think on it long and hard -- it will keep you up nights , if not for others, for yourself. Eternal punishment, burning forever in a lake of fire. For what? -- not submitting to God, disobedience, etc. all in a defined and limited time and space. If God loves all people and desires all to come to repentance why then would he eternally torture people for something they did in only a short time. It sounds like God's love must end at the border of such a place. Sorry it is a big -- "I Don't Love You" to torture a person for all eternity with no hope of escape.

This is probably the greatest reason people give up on God -- how can a loving God do this? More importantly how can God who IS love do this? It is too much for some and honestly this is one thing that has caused my faith shake at times -- it caused this whole series of posts to pursue this question because I still have questions.

Perhaps this is the tough part -- reconciling the justice of God with his love. On the one hand we want people who are wicked to be punished and victims to receive justice. On the other I too like Boyd and many others would be moved with compassion if I was near such a place watching my friends and loved ones burned alive for eternity. I think people who do not have a problem with this have never seen a person burned alive or wondered about it. Perhaps though the answer does not reside in either God's love or justice but in that which binds the two -- His Righteousness.

Next: God's Righteousness and Damnation.

Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Nine

This is the final disagreement post with Bart Ehrman's God's Problem, although I have a few more to close the discussion out about this book. Disagreements with chapter nine are many so hang on.

1. More politics --the book is obviously written before the surge which worked and ended the main problems in Iraq.

2. Bart restates his idea that God's discipline of the Israelites was too harsh but the question remains: how do you discipline a nation without doing something that effects the nation as a whole?

3. God held responsible, mankind let off the hook again.

4. Bart decries this world as a good world God has created. My point is this -- this is not the world as God created it --it is a world that stands as it is because we have ruined it. I don't believe God made the best possible world he could make but one in which free creatures could grow and develop in their relationship with him. We destroyed that with sin.

5. Bart continues to rely on a Reformed/Baptist/Classic view of God's nature in his criticism and states that the God of the Bible is incompatible with the world as it is -- but not all view of God do this but Bart never explores them. When talking about God being all powerful he uses classic definitions but not Biblical ones.

6. God does suffer in a sense because of sin -- he grieves over it, gets angry over it, and gets disappointed with sin and human beings. To say God does not suffer in some sense is not Biblically true. This doesn't make God any less God as Bart would assert but it odes make him a person. Bart makes a leap of logic here on p. 274 that he cannot back up -- that the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament cannot be the same because the way of dealing with the problem of evil is different. The problem is he never really proves that the Bible's answers to the problem of evil contradict each other as he claims.

7. Bart does not think that some suffering is redemptive but the problem is that he dos not have God's perspective on the event. How does he know for certain that there is no redemption in events for sure -- is he God?

8. Suffering is only a test of faith if it is faith that causes the suffering-- this is a point Bart seems to miss.

9. Bart talks about the gift of life we have -- but who or what is it a gift from? Ironic that when you get rid of God you don't really have anyone to say life is a gift from anymore.

10. Bart ultimately shows a lot of pride -- he does not want to admit that in the grand scheme of things - -he might just be a peon after all. After a final reading i can also say there is a lot of self righteousness to someone who wants to call God to account but sees no problem with himself or his own contributes to the problem of evil.

Next: Wrap Up #1 -- Over Reliance on Classic Theology