Miscellaneous Writings

Adam C. Parker

 

1.                  Thoughts on James

“Every good gift is from the father of heavenly lights who does not change like shifting shadows.”

            Friends, whenever we think of this verse, we think of two types of gifts: internal (the gift of faith, joy, love, obedience to the Spirit, etc.), but if you disbelieve in Compatiblism, it is even trickier, because if you believe that every gift is from God, you have to be able to explain how it is that the money that a family gave you money during a hard time came from God.

            My answer to this, of course, is that since God controls all things and is sovereign even over human actions and choices, it is a very simple thing to comprehend that when I receive that money from the family, it is really God who placed that desire in their hearts to share their monetary gifts with me.

            In my mind, the caricature of someone who believes in Libertarian freedom is that since they believe that since God cannot (or should not) control human actions, or influence human choices (otherwise freedom is incomplete), the only gifts that are really from God must directly materialize from above, absent from human influence.  This is of course, inaccurate, but I’m just thinking our-loud.

            How does the incompatiblist answer this difficulty?  I am not certain, though I am sure they do have an answer.  I should find that answer out.

 

2.                  A Selfish Man Does a Good Deed

Knowing full and well that my wife and I have about $10 to our name for the next 5 days, when I found a one-dollar bill crumpled up on the school lawn as I walked to the library, I was thrilled!  I put it in my pocket and thought of what we could do with it: a gallon of gas in the car, renting a movie for the evening, buying a box of macaroni and cheese, etc.

Later in the day, I pulled into the parking lot at Albertson’s.  When I got out of the car, a small woman who looked rather hungry and sickly, and her two children, were standing right there in front of me.  “Do you have any money?” she asked me, with more humility than I have ever been able to muster in my most desperate prayers to God.  I was frozen.  If I had lived a good life, totally perfect up until that point, I would at that moment have declared myself the most despicable of all men.  The thoughts I was thinking shame me.  How selfish and wicked we as human beings are, that we can look at another person with almost total indifference, even when they are clearly in greater need than we are.

Yes, I did have some money, and I knew I couldn’t lie to her.  All of my money was in my pocket.  “Yes, one dollar.”  Her eyes lit up.

I reached my hand into my pocket, pulled out that crumpled dollar, and put it in her hand.  I felt as though I were in a dream, and the moment was over nearly as quickly as it had begun.  So many thoughts raced through my head: she probably thinks I have more, I wish I had lots to give her, if I had a lot to give, would I give it?

“He created us to do good deeds, which He prepared beforehand, that we should do them.”  This verse was played out for me today, in real life, with a real person, with real needs.  Did God plan this good deed for me to perform long ago?  At the foundation of the world, was it decided that I would give this woman some money, despite my own wickedness and selfishness?

I found this moment so profound because even when I was reaching out and giving her this money, I was doing it from obligation, from a desire to seem good to her.  I knew she would look at me, and at least not despise me, as long as I gave something.  Based on this, I would actually hesitate to call this a “good deed.”  Perhaps from her perspective, it may have been somewhat admirable, but to God, my action of giving the money to the woman was a filthy rag, and there was nothing pleasing to it.

I went inside of the Albertson’s for perhaps a minute, but when I emerged from the store moments later, I scanned the parking lot, looking for the woman and her two hungry children, but they were nowhere to be found.  True story.

 

3.                  Adam’s Possibly original argument against Annihilation

 

1.      Any action by God is good.

2.      Any inaction of God means an absence of God’s grace.

3.      The opposite of good is evil.

4.      Absence of God’s grace is evil.

5.      Existence is a continuing action by God.

6.      Non-Existence is a cessation of action by God.

7.      Non-Existence is an absence of God’s grace.

8.      Therefore, it is evil for something to not exist.

9.      For God to destroy an already existing moral agent means for grace to cease.

10.  Therefore, it would be evil for God to annihilate or destroy something.

 

(Added on February 22, 2004)

            The mistaken assumption, which seems to lie behind the argument above is the presupposition of evil as a privation.  I adopted such a view from Augustine, but John Frame’s writings on the subject have motivated me to question whether or not the privation theory of evil is accurate.  Such a view is predicated on the idea that existence is a sort of emanation from God.  The platonic (or neo-platonic) philosophers, in order to explain the problem of evil in light of the perfect “god” of Platonism, suggested that as God emanates and creation ensues, the farther the emanation gets from God, the more that the physical world takes precedent and in a sense, experiences superiority to the Spiritual world, the more that evil enters.  This Gnostic-inspired idea of the evil of physicality resulted in the idea that in places where God is absent, the physical and the sinful tend to rule.

            As Christians, I think that it would be a mistake to say that when God doesn’t do activity, evil results.  As Christians, it would be more proper to say that when God doesn’t do something, then nothing happens.  To simply explain God’s involvement with evil by saying that it’s just him indirectly causing sin because He chooses to not give grace does not answer the problem.  The problem is that if a lifeguard sees a man drowning and does nothing, the lifeguard is as responsible for that man’s life as if he had held the man’s head under the water until he stopped breathing.  There is an intention in creation and whether God does nothing or does something, yet yields the same outcome either way, then it is no exoneration to say that God does nothing, because that is in fact, something.  The motive for such a theory is good, but it answers no questions and does not “exonerate” God by any means.

            Thus, I don’t believe the annihilation argument above follows, because one of its’ premises is flawed.

Plus, I didn’t use a valid syllogism.  J

 

4.                  Lesson from flowers and grass

 

The grass withers and the flowers fall,

Because the breath of the LORD blows on them.

Surely the people are grass.

The grass withers and the flowers fall,

But the word of out God stands forever” (Is. 40:7-8).

 

These verses, when coupled with a reflection upon the Lordship attributes of God’s Authority and Control, really seem to make a lot of sense to me!  Consider the structure of the two verses, one following the other, each following a very similar pattern: “The grass withers and the flowers fall …”  In one sense, we see an irony.  God obviously is the cause of the flower’s growth.  It brings Him glory and admiration both from men and from the angels.  Yet the verse also says that it is God who causes (by his breath or word) the flower to fall over and (implicitly) to die.

What majesty and authority that God can justly bring death and give life!  What majesty to know that though beauty may not endure, that his word is so much more valuable than any temporal comfort, beauty, smell, or experience.  It is God who causes the flower to live, it is God who causes the flower to die, but he does this because he wants the world to see that “the word of our God stands forever.”  The death of even the flower serves a purpose: reflection upon the glory of God.

Amplify this difficulty to an even larger scale, add a large number of difficulties, mix it up with human misunderstanding, and we have a paradigm for understanding the problem of evil and death, once again, reflecting also on the Lordship attributes of control and authority.  How may I so quickly bring men into the equation, replacing flowers and grass with men?  The simple answer is that Isaiah does it.  We have just finished examining verses 7 and 8, but in verse six, the author writes that “all men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field.”  We are then introduced by the author, to the preceeding discussion of God’s rights, control, and purpose with creation.

What we find when we reflect on the problem of evil and suffering in light of God’s authority is that, since all things originate from him, and since all things have their continued existence from him, God in every sense, has the right to do whatever he chooses with his creations, the work of his hands.

We should have pause before we consider charging God with wrong in bringing about suffering in the world.  1) If God has a good purpose (His own glory, let’s say), and 2) If God has the authority (i.e. the right to control creation in whatever way he sees fit), and 3) if God has the ability to control all things, then we may also be justified in saying that if the truth fulfills the previous three qualifications, then 4) we may unequivocally argue that no one may charge God with wrongdoing by doing what He wills with creation.

Consider only ten verses after the “flower discussion”:

 

Before him all the nations are as nothing;

They are regarded by him as worthless

And less than nothing (v. 17).

 

This verse, it would seem (taken in the context of the preceeding discussion), presents many difficulties to the modern Christian who believes that he must “have rights” and that God cannot, for example, “violate my free-will.”[1]  The point of scripture is that man does have rights, but only what is granted to him on behalf of God.  The point of scripture is not man and his rights, but God and his freedom: God and his rights.

 

Scripture is therefore not nearly as concerned as we are to promote our self-esteem.  We would like to believe that the meaning and significance of our lives depend on what we do for ourselves, without any outside influences or constraints.  In scripture, however, the goal of human life is to glorify God.  Our dignity is to be found not in what we do, but in what God has done for us and in us.  Our meaning and significance are to be found in the fact that God has created us in His image and redeemed us by the blood of his Son.  The biblical writers are not horrified, as modern writers tend to be, by the thought that we might be under the control of another.  If the other is God, and he has made us for his glory, then we could not possibly ask for a more meaningful existence.[2]

 

5.                  Errantists: A Simile about a farmer and a university student.

 

I want to present a simile.  This simile will determine and set forth the structure of the following section.  This simile brings together and compares two worlds.  The first part of the simile refers to a man who is standing at the edge of his property.  This man is a farmer, and he has reason to believe that there are wolves on his property, attacking his cattle.  As he goes out to check on his cattle one day, he sees, standing on a hill, what he perceives to be a wolf.  Thinking this may be the wolf that has attacked his animals, he raises his rifle to eye-sight and places his finger on the trigger.  Suddenly, he hesitates, because he remembers that when he was in high school, his eyesight was tested, and the test revealed that he did not have 20/20 vision and that he should have gotten glasses.  The farmer knows that he never got the glasses, and he knows right now that his eyesight is not perfect.  The dilemma for the farmer is: should he shoot the wolf, since it would be just as reasonable to believe he is looking at one of his own cattle?

I present the second story, along side of the previous one in as much candor as can be mustered.  James is a university student who is struggling with understanding the love of God.  He often struggles with whether or not God loves human beings, in the most general sense possible.  At one point, James has decided that given all of the suffering and evil in the world, he has no reason to believe in the love of God.  One day, a classmate presents him with John 3:16 which teaches God’s love for mankind quite clearly.  James is about to settle upon the comfort that God does love people when suddenly he is presented with a dilemma.  James does not believe that the original manuscripts of the Bible were error-free.  The dilemma for James is: should he affirm God’s love for human beings, given that the original manuscripts (the autographs) were not free from errors, and it is just as reasonable to believe that John 3:16 is not correct?

These two situations present us with equally difficult and troubling situations.  We do not know how impaired the vision of the farmer is, in the illustration.  In the same way, those who oppose inerrancy do not (in most cases) claim to know where the errors in scripture are, or how many of them there are.  The similarities continue when the dependence of the individual’s decision rests upon potentially faulty information.  In the farmer’s illustration, it is not only just as likely that it is his own cow standing on the hill, but it could even be his own wife!  Because the farmer lacks the power (do to his eye-sight problem) to positively affirm whether it is a wolf standing on the hill, it is wisest for him to choose not to pull the trigger.  In the same way, because James lacks the power (due to scripture’s “eye-sight” problem) to positively affirm whether John 3:16 is what God really intended, it is wisest for him to withhold judgment on the matter.

The problem for the farmer, if he follows this wisdom is that the wolf may get away and later eat his cattle.  Furthermore, if the farmer is truly wise, he will hire a farmhand with 20/20 vision who can shoot any wolves he sees on the property.  He himself will cease from shooting his gun on the property, because of his unreliable vision unless he gets glasses, which will correct his eyesight.

The problem for James is much more grave.  Just as the farmer should withhold making judgments as to whether or not violent animals are on his property, so James, following proper reason, will withhold any judgments regarding the character and nature of God that are based upon scripture.  Why?  Because the farmer’s eyes are less than perfect, he lacks certainty.  But why for James?  Because when it comes to understanding John 3:16 in this particular story, James does not have certainty epistemological certainty that the words in his Bible reflect what is perfectly true.

In the story, the farmer’s frail eyes are the same thing as the Scriptures.  The farmer’s eyes are unreliable, though they may have gotten him through life and always provided him the help when needed, in this life-or-death situation, he realizes that he has never needed perfect eyesight like he needs in this moment.  James also realized that although he has always found comfort in the Psalms and believes that God created the world based on Genesis 1:1, he has never needed to know for sure whether a verse in the Bible is correct, as he does at this moment.

Both men need reliability.  Both situations show man’s dire need for certainty.  And both situations show that you shouldn’t throw out the bath water unless you’re certain that the baby is safe and sound, first.

 

6.                  Heaviness and Hatred of Sin

 

Last night, I felt such loathing and hatred for my sin that I wanted to die.  I felt like Luther, before the tower experience.  It is almost as if I spent an evening just really feeling a heavy burden of the wickedness of my sin.  At one point as I drove home, I considered that God should kill me, and what peace and tranquility such a death would bring.  In the context of the night, I still believed I was justified by my faith alone, but I guess I just felt tired of being saved and still being so full of sin and always thinking bad thoughts that were displeasing to God.  I just want to make Him so happy, yet I am a miserable failure at every turn.  Such a just death from the hand of God would be a great gift.  Something inside of me fails to fully grasp justification, and here is my reasoning: if I fully understood the doctrine of justification, then such a thought as that I could bear even a fraction of the guilt for my sin would be impossible, and the thought would flee from my mind.

I am convinced that a part of the plan God set in motion, so far as justification is concerned, is that God leaves us no room for sorrow any more.  Perhaps there is a certain sense in which we should be sorry and sad, but God is more glorified when I live without fear.  I did the opposite last night.  Perhaps it is true that what happened last night was nothing more than me actually grasping a portion of God’s hatred of sin.  If so, then I am convinced that the only way for me to desire to “put sin to death” as out Brother Paul says, is to want, ourselves to desire death.  The Gospel then frees us to live and yet put to death our sin on a day-to-day basis.

Adam, if you hate the sin that you felt so keenly last night, why not take up Paul’s challenge to “put to death the works of the flesh”?  This is your challenge: to glorify God by putting to death the sin that you hate so terribly.

 

7.                  Whore as a Word-Picture for the Christian Life

 

When the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea:

“Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry,

And children of harlotry,

For the land has committed great harlotry

By departing from the Lord.”  (Hosea 1:2)

 

Whore.  In the English language, there is really no word that is more despised, disgusting, disreputable, or distasteful, is there?  And what is a whore?  She is a woman who gives herself away time and time again to strangers.  These people who are absolutely meaningless, who don’t even know her will spend 20 minutes having themselves pleased, only to discard and reject her moments later.  A whore is used by others and benefits naught, excepting perhaps the temporary provision of money: and even then far less than her person is worth.  Could she ever fetch a price that is worthy of her?  I doubt it.  A whore will settle for whatever she deems to be the best she can do, and is always on the losing end of the deal.

Humanly speaking, she is very valuable: a great treasure as a person.  Morally speaking, there is possibly nothing a person could do which is more disreputable than to prostitute oneself.

Yet, as I listened to Derek Webb’s song “Wedding Dress,” I could not help but reflect upon just how absolutely appropriate it is for me to confess to my Lord, “I am a whore, I do confess; But I put you on just like a wedding dress.”  Do I not also, day-in and day-out whore myself out to the first cheap substitute for the Ultimate Joy that moseys across my path, only to receive temporary provision which does not satisfy or fulfill my deepest wants and needs?

I do it everyday when I desire a nicer ride or look for the next big blockbuster to add to my DVD collection.  I whore myself out because I give up the most valuable thing I could give up (my eternal soul) to something that will soon discard me when it is finished with me.

It is most appropriate for us to remember that each time we choose others or things above God, we are spiritual prostitutes: yet what could be more offensive to man than to believe he actually owes his allegiance and every thought to his Maker?  I love Him deeply, and even I am offended at the allegiance God demands of me.

 

“Therefore, behold, I will allure her,

And bring her into the wilderness,

And speak comfort to her.

I will give her her vineyards from there,

And the Valley of Achor as a door of hope;

She shall sing there,

As in the days of her youth,

As in the days when she came up from the Land of Egypt.

And in that day,”

Says the Lord,

“That you will call Me ‘My Husband,’

And no longer call me ‘My Master,’

I will betroth you to me forever;

Yes, I will betroth you to Me

In righteousness and justice,

In lovingkindness and mercy;

I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness,

And you shall know the Lord.”  (Hosea 2:14-16, 19-20)

 

Praise be to God for the daily sacrifice I have, which Christ has atoned on my behalf.  He has forgiven me fully, deeply, and completely, and I now have no wants.  It is even in the context of this deep and passionate love which God has for us that we leave the church, and kneel down to an idol to whom we offer greater allegiance than our true Husband, who never stops welcoming home his wayward prostitute, time and time again.

 

8.  A Dreary Halloween

Today is Halloween, but it is actually two more holidays: The Eve of All Saints Day, and also Reformation Day, the same day that Martin Luther most famously nailed his protest against the Catholic church to the church door at Wittenberg.  It is in the context of this wonderful holiday that I offer some thoughts which may not seem so upbeat.

 

Most will allow to that to be a Christian is to be a person who has been forgiven of their sin by virtue of the sacrifice of Jesus when He died on the cross.  Is Christianity, however, the end-all of the human predicament of loneliness, of despondency, of depression or sadness?  The human heart is deeply complex, and even the lives of the greatest saints have been badly darkened by the shadow of that wicked sin which so besets.  Are not we – like them – liable to experience the same darkness?

I would argue that the Christian life is not only a life in which we are assured of our salvation – but one in which we experience no less despondency.  Habakkuk said it well when he complained to God that the righteous suffer and the rich live in the lap of luxury and comforts.  He may well have also complained that the rich and wicked live in relative peace and calm, whereas the believing man senses his own self-destruction, which will not be deferred, simply in virtue of his forensic justification before God.  The wicked Christian is to experience the terrible fury of death and the bitter taste of his sin each morning as he rises.  He is cursed to walk this earth with the sour vinegar each morning shoved into his face as he realizes his utter helplessness.  Though he has hope for the afterlife, does he really have happiness and freedom from sin each day prior to death?  There was a time when I believed and taught this, but I can now see that if we have any hope (which we do) it is in the knowledge that when we do finally taste death on our lips and our heart stops beating, it will begin beating again in the spirit-world, and we will be united with God, forever freed from that terrible enemy, sin.  It is a deep comfort to know that on that day, God will banish the greatest enemy we ever had – our own will.  We will have our rest and our reprieve on that day.  God will be seen as both just and the justifier, as Paul says.

Until the day of separation comes, however, the Christian is given no assurance of happiness.  Though it is commanded[3] (Deut. 27:46), there is no guarantee that the Christian will live a happy life, a joyful life, or even a life that knows victory.  It is this defeated, bedraggled, beaten, sorrowful, regretful, non-victorious, inglorious, bitter, wicked, sinful, sad man’s only true comfort to know that Christ will cover his filth with a clean and perfect robe of white, no matter how deep the stains are.  What a word of comfort for the broken and tearful servants of God who have failed Him more times than they can count.  What a word of comfort for those who have stopped counting.

 

9.      What it means to have a Happy God

 

“…In accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”  1 Timothy 1:11

 

John Piper points out that the word which most, if not all, translations give as “blessed” in this verse is actually the Greek word makarios is actually best translated in our modern tongue as “happy,” since Paul uses this word to describe how a sinner who is forgiven feels in Romans 4:7 and 14:22.  Also, Jesus uses the same word to describe the person who obeys the beatitudes.  If we realize that this word really refers to the “glorious gospel of the happy God,” amazing horizons are opened before us, because it frees us from the thought that God is perhaps infinitely unhappy or displeased with the way that the world is.

In truth, this is the best of all possible worlds, or else God would be frustrated and therefore, unhappy.  “Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps” (Ps. 135:6).  All of the universe is the outworking of the sovereign will of God.  Consider the profundity and freedom from fear which comes through knowing that God is actually fully capable of doing what is declared 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.” 



[1] As though such a thing actually existed or were spoken of in scripture, in the sense that the modern intends.

[2] Frame, John M.  The Doctrine of God Pg. 125

[3] “God threatens terrible things if we will not be happy.”  -Jeremy Taylor-