Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Greatness of God

Transcript

The Greatness of God · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Usually when we talk about a medical diagnosis, there is this
• 0:04
  expectation of absolute precision.
• 0:06
  Like you fall, you break your arm.
• 0:08
  The X-ray shows that jagged white line and the doctor just
• 0:11
  points at it. Yeah, broken or not broken.
• 0:13
  Right. It is a clean, undeniable fact.
• 0:16
  But when we start talking about our mental picture of the
• 0:19
  divine, suddenly that X-ray machine seems broken.
• 0:22
  We are looking at a theological landscape that is honestly just
• 0:26
  murky for a lot of people. Oh, it is incredibly murky.
• 0:29
  People have all these vague, undefined notions floating
• 0:32
  around in their heads. Yeah, they really do, and that
• 0:34
  is why we are here today. Welcome to Reformed Thinking.
• 0:38
  Today we are taking a deep dive into some massive source
• 0:41
  material. Specifically, we are looking at
• 0:43
  excerpts from Miller J Erickson's Christian Theology
• 0:47
  focusing on the greatness of God.
• 0:48
  Which is a huge topic. It is huge.
• 0:50
  Our mission is to clarify and sharpen your mental picture of
• 0:54
  the divine because the truth is our mental image of God gets
• 0:57
  distorted so easily. JB Phillips wrote about this
• 0:59
  quite a bit. We see two very popular but
• 1:02
  incredibly flawed views floating around out there in the culture
• 1:05
  right now. The first is what we might call
• 1:07
  the a celestial police officer. Oh man, I think we all know that
• 1:12
  one. Oh absolutely.
• 1:13
  This is the idea of a deity sitting up in the clouds with a
• 1:16
  radar gun just waiting to pounce the second you make a mistake.
• 1:21
  There is actually an old country song that goes God's going to
• 1:23
  get shot for that. Oh, really?
• 1:25
  Yeah, it paints this picture of a hyper vigilant malevolent
• 1:28
  force. Like the celestial police
• 1:30
  officer does not care about you personally, he only cares if you
• 1:34
  are breaking the speed limit of his cosmic laws.
• 1:37
  Which is a terrifying way to live.
• 1:38
  It is then, on the flip side, we have the grandfatherly figure.
• 1:43
  This is the cosmic Santa Claus whose only goal is human
• 1:46
  indulgence. He's a kindly old gentleman who
• 1:48
  would never want to ruin your fun.
• 1:50
  He looks down at our mistakes and just says, oh, boys will be
• 1:52
  boys. Right.
• 1:53
  He just winks at it. Yeah.
• 1:54
  Both of these views are incredibly pervasive, and both
• 1:59
  are completely wrong. Yeah, it is so easy to fall into
• 2:01
  one of those two ditches. You were either terrified of the
• 2:04
  celestial police officer, which leads to a faith-based entirely
• 2:08
  on anxiety and rule keeping, or you treat the grandfatherly God
• 2:12
  like a cosmic vending machine, which leads to a faith-based
• 2:16
  entirely on entirely. Yes, exactly.
• 2:18
  I mean precisely. Today's discussion is designed
• 2:21
  to break down the actual attributes of God's greatness so
• 2:24
  we can move past those hazy, undefined ideas.
• 2:28
  JB Phillips called that hazy idea the oblong blur.
• 2:31
  The oblong blur. I like that.
• 2:33
  Yeah, it is this unfocused general feeling of belief in the
• 2:36
  great whatever. We want to give you sharp
• 2:39
  biblical definitions today, but here's a vital distinction.
• 2:43
  We aren't going to treat theology like a cold,
• 2:45
  speculative autopsy. I'm glad you mentioned that.
• 2:48
  I think a lot of people hear the word theology and they picture
• 2:51
  like dusty books and guys in tweed jackets arguing over how
• 2:54
  many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
• 2:56
  Which is a tragic misunderstanding of what
• 2:58
  theology is supposed to be. We aren't just laying out facts
• 3:01
  on a slab to dissect them. The goal of understanding God's
• 3:04
  nature is to cultivate a more accurate living relationship
• 3:07
  with Him. We are looking at the objective
• 3:10
  characteristics of his nature, but without slipping into a
• 3:13
  sterile academic exercise. Right, because if it doesn't
• 3:16
  matter on a Tuesday, what is the point?
• 3:18
  Spot on. If your theology does not change
• 3:21
  how you pray on a Tuesday morning or how you handle a
• 3:23
  crisis on a Thursday afternoon, it is useless.
• 3:27
  OK, well let's start defining our terms then.
• 3:29
  If we want to move away from those flawed mental pictures of
• 3:32
  police officers and grandfathers, we have to shift
• 3:35
  our focus to how we actually define what God is versus what
• 3:40
  He does. Right, that is a huge
• 3:42
  distinction. Erickson makes a very sharp
• 3:44
  distinction here between the acts of God and the attributes
• 3:47
  of God. We really have to separate God's
• 3:50
  actions from His attributes. His actions are things like
• 3:53
  creating the universe, guiding human history, or preserving
• 3:56
  life. His attributes are His
• 3:58
  permanent, intrinsic qualities. They constitute what He is in
• 4:02
  His very essence. So they aren't roles he plays.
• 4:05
  Right. They aren't roles like creator
• 4:06
  or sustainer. A man can be a father, a lawyer,
• 4:09
  and a football coach. Those are roles he plays, but
• 4:12
  his attributes are his inherent character.
• 4:15
  For God, these attributes are the essential characteristics of
• 4:18
  his nature. And here is where it gets
• 4:20
  fascinating. These attributes aren't pieces
• 4:22
  of God glued together. What do you mean by pieces glued
• 4:25
  together like like a pie chart? Yes, that is a great way to put
• 4:28
  it. People often think of God as a
• 4:30
  pie chart where 30% is love, 20% is holiness, and 50% is might.
• 4:36
  Right, like a video game character with different stats.
• 4:38
  Exactly. I mean, yes, that is how people
• 4:41
  think, but God doesn't have parts.
• 4:43
  God actually is his love. He is His Holiness.
• 4:47
  He is His might. These aren't just human ideas or
• 4:50
  conceptions that we project onto Him.
• 4:52
  They are objective realities. When we say God has attributes,
• 4:56
  we mean those qualities are inseparable from His essence.
• 4:59
  I usually think about it using the analogy of water.
• 5:02
  You can't separate the wetness from the water itself.
• 5:04
  It isn't an add on feature. No, it is just what water is.
• 5:07
  Right. Redness is an intrinsic reality
• 5:09
  of water. In the same way, God's
• 5:11
  attributes are inseparable from his essence.
• 5:13
  Yeah, you can't extract the love from God and leave the rest
• 5:16
  behind. The wetness analogy works up to
• 5:18
  a certain point for sure, but we have to remember that water is
• 5:22
  still made of composite parts, hydrogen and oxygen.
• 5:25
  Right. Fair enough.
• 5:26
  God is simple in the theological sense of the word.
• 5:29
  He is not compounded of different elements.
• 5:31
  His love is His Holiness and His Holiness is His might.
• 5:35
  They are different angles of looking at the exact same
• 5:38
  unified reality. That is heavy.
• 5:40
  It is, but this whole discussion brings up the concept of
• 5:43
  incomprehensibility, which sounds like a very intimidating
• 5:48
  word for the listener to tackle right out of the gate.
• 5:50
  It sounds like a word that means, well, we can't understand
• 5:52
  any of this, so why bother? Right, but that isn't what
• 5:55
  theologians mean when they talk about the incomprehensibility of
• 5:58
  God. They don't mean God is a total
• 6:00
  mystery or that there is some unknown dark essence hiding
• 6:04
  behind his attributes. OK, So what does it mean?
• 6:07
  What it means is that while we can know him accurately through
• 6:10
  the revelation he has provided, we can't know him exhaustively.
• 6:14
  So we know truly, but not fully. Precisely.
• 6:17
  Think about standing on the beach and looking at the Pacific
• 6:19
  Ocean. You can honestly say I see the
• 6:21
  ocean, I know what the ocean is. You are looking at a true
• 6:25
  reality. You aren't seeing all of it.
• 6:27
  Right. You can't see the Mariana
• 6:28
  Trench, you can't see the coast of Japan, and you don't know the
• 6:31
  exact number of fish swimming in it.
• 6:33
  You know the ocean truly, but your finite vision cannot grasp
• 6:37
  its infinite scope. There will always be an element
• 6:40
  of mystery because a finite human mind cannot
• 6:43
  comprehensively grasp an infinite being.
• 6:47
  So we have this infinite being, and humans, being finite, have
• 6:52
  naturally tried to organize our understanding of him into
• 6:55
  categories. Because we like putting things
• 6:57
  in boxes. We love boxes.
• 6:58
  The source material outlines a few classification systems for
• 7:02
  these attributes. I want to walk through these not
• 7:04
  just to list them like a textbook, but to understand why
• 7:07
  these categories actually matter to the listeners.
• 7:10
  Daily Faith. Sounds good.
• 7:11
  Let's start with communicable versus incommunicable
• 7:14
  attributes. What are we looking at there?
• 7:16
  Well, theologians love categories because they help us
• 7:18
  put fences around mysteries. The first major system divides
• 7:22
  attributes into communicable and incommunicable.
• 7:25
  Communicable attributes are qualities where we can find at
• 7:27
  least a partial counterpart in humanity.
• 7:30
  Like what? Love is a great example.
• 7:32
  God's love is infinite, perfect, and uncaused.
• 7:35
  But humans are capable of a finite, flawed version of love.
• 7:39
  We can communicate or share in that attribute to a tiny degree.
• 7:42
  OK. And incommunicable attributes.
• 7:45
  Those are unique to God alone, with no human counterpart
• 7:48
  whatsoever. Omnipresence being everywhere
• 7:51
  simultaneously is strictly incommunicable.
• 7:54
  No matter how fast our jets or rockets are, a human being
• 7:57
  cannot be in two places at once. We are bound by space, God is
• 8:01
  not. You will never ever share in the
• 8:03
  attribute of omnipresence. OK, that makes sense.
• 8:06
  The second pairing Ericsson mentions is imminent and
• 8:09
  eminent, which he says are sometimes called intransitive
• 8:11
  and transitive. Why do we need that category?
• 8:14
  It helps us understand the direction of God's nature.
• 8:16
  Imminent qualities remain entirely within God's own
• 8:19
  nature. His spirituality is imminent.
• 8:21
  It describes His internal makeup.
• 8:23
  And imminent. Eminent qualities go out from
• 8:25
  God and operate outside His nature, affecting the creation.
• 8:28
  Mercy is a perfect example of an eminent quality.
• 8:31
  Oh, because Mercy requires an object.
• 8:35
  Like you can't show mercy in a vacuum.
• 8:37
  You need someone who is guilty or suffering to actually receive
• 8:41
  the mercy. Yes, if God never created the
• 8:44
  universe, he would still be spiritual, but he wouldn't be
• 8:47
  demonstrating mercy because there would be no one to be
• 8:49
  merciful to. Which flows right into the third
• 8:51
  system, Absolute versus relative qualities.
• 8:55
  Yeah, this one seems, I don't know, a bit more philosophical.
• 8:58
  It is a bit more abstract. Absolute attributes are those
• 9:01
  God possesses in Himself, completely independent of
• 9:04
  creation. Infinity is an absolute
• 9:06
  attribute. He is infinite whether we exist
• 9:08
  or not. OK, Relative attributes are
• 9:10
  those manifested specifically through His relationship to
• 9:13
  creation. Eternity and omnipresence are
• 9:16
  relative attributes because they describe how His unlimited
• 9:20
  absolute nature interacts with the finite realities of time and
• 9:23
  space that he created. That leads us to the final
• 9:26
  classification, which is the one Ericsson actually uses to
• 9:28
  structure his massive theological work, natural and
• 9:31
  moral attributes, or as he simplifies it, greatness and
• 9:34
  goodness. We are focusing purely on
• 9:37
  greatness today, but before we get into the specific attributes
• 9:40
  of greatness, I have a massive problem with this whole
• 9:43
  endeavor. Lay it on me.
• 9:46
  How do we guard against the human tendency to just project
• 9:50
  our own best traits onto the divine?
• 9:52
  Like if I am a patient person, I imagine God is super patient.
• 9:57
  If I value justice, I imagine God is a great judge.
• 10:01
  How do we stop assuming God is just a magnified, slightly
• 10:04
  better version of ourselves? That is a very real issue.
• 10:07
  Right for back, the philosopher argue that all theology is just
• 10:11
  anthropology. We just take humanity, multiply
• 10:13
  it by Infinity and call it God. That is the perennial challenge
• 10:17
  of all theology. We inevitably filter everything
• 10:19
  through our own mental framework.
• 10:21
  The only safeguard we have is relying strictly on objective
• 10:24
  biblical revelation rather than human imagination.
• 10:27
  So we have to stick to the text. Yes, when we start with our own
• 10:30
  virtues and and just magnify them, we end up creating a deity
• 10:33
  in our own image. We have to let the objective
• 10:36
  source material dictate the definitions, even when those
• 10:39
  definitions make us uncomfortable or shatter our
• 10:41
  preconceived notions. Because the biblical authors
• 10:43
  often express their intense emotional response to God's
• 10:46
  attributes. Right, they do, but the
• 10:48
  attribute itself is distinct from their reaction.
• 10:51
  We have to separate the objective reality of God's
• 10:54
  nature from our subjective feelings about it.
• 10:56
  Which brings us to the very first objective attribute of
• 10:59
  God's greatness, spirituality. We have established what an
• 11:03
  attribute is. Now we ask the most basic
• 11:06
  question possible. What is God made of?
• 11:08
  It is a great question. And the answer, according to
• 11:11
  text like John 4.24, is that God is spirit.
• 11:14
  He doesn't possess a physical nature.
• 11:17
  He is entirely immaterial. Because God is Spirit, He isn't
• 11:20
  composed of matter, and the implications of that are
• 11:23
  staggering for how we view reality.
• 11:25
  First, it means he is indestructible.
• 11:27
  Because physical things Drake down.
• 11:29
  Exactly. Think about the material world.
• 11:31
  Everything decays. Iron rusts, mountains erode,
• 11:34
  human bodies age and breakdown. The second law of thermodynamics
• 11:38
  tells us the whole universe is winding down, but spirit does
• 11:41
  not decay. It isn't subject to friction or
• 11:43
  entropy. That makes.
• 11:45
  Sense. Second, being immaterial means
• 11:47
  he is utterly free from geographical or spatial
• 11:50
  boundaries. You can't put Agps pin on God.
• 11:54
  As Paul states to the philosophers in the book of
• 11:55
  Acts, the God who made the world doesn't live in temples built by
• 11:59
  human hands. He can't be contained in a box,
• 12:01
  a specific church building, or a holy city.
• 12:04
  Now this concept of an immaterial guide gets pushed
• 12:06
  back against by several different groups, and the source
• 12:09
  text highlights a few of them. It's fascinating because humans
• 12:12
  seem desperate to give God a body.
• 12:15
  Let's look at Mormonism first. They assert something very
• 12:18
  different about God the Father. Right, they do.
• 12:21
  Mormonism teaches that God the Father actually possesses a
• 12:23
  physical body of flesh and bone as tangible as man's.
• 12:27
  Wait, a literal physical body? Yes, they believe the Holy
• 12:30
  Spirit is a personage of spirit, but the Father has a physical
• 12:33
  form. They contend that an immaterial
• 12:36
  body cannot truly exist or interact with reality.
• 12:39
  This is a direct radical contradiction to the classical
• 12:42
  biblical teaching that God is Spirit and fundamentally
• 12:45
  invisible. Then there is the concept of
• 12:47
  panintheism. I want to be careful here
• 12:49
  because it sounds almost identical to pantheism, but
• 12:52
  there's a distinct philosophical difference, isn't there?
• 12:54
  There is a big difference. Pantheism is the belief that
• 12:58
  everything is God. The tree is God, The rock is
• 13:02
  God. The coffee cup on your desk is a
• 13:04
  manifestation of the divine. Pantheism eliminates any
• 13:08
  distinction between the Creator and the creation.
• 13:11
  OK, So what is panentheism? Panentheism is the idea that God
• 13:14
  is in everything. It often takes the radical view
• 13:17
  that the physical universe functions as God's actual body.
• 13:21
  They view the cosmos as the physical extension of the
• 13:24
  divine. Wow, I can see why that appeals
• 13:26
  to modern environmentalists or new age thinkers.
• 13:28
  It makes the physical earth sacred in a very literal way.
• 13:32
  Like if the Amazon rainforest is part of God's actual body, then
• 13:35
  cutting down trees is a literal assault on the divine form, but
• 13:39
  it completely destroys the concept of God's independence
• 13:41
  from creation. It does.
• 13:42
  It makes God dependent on matter.
• 13:44
  If the universe is his body, what happens when a star
• 13:47
  explodes? Does God lose a finger?
• 13:49
  It compromises his indestructible nature.
• 13:51
  That is a wild image, yeah. And the source also mentions a
• 13:55
  proposal by an evangelical theologian named Clark Pinnick
• 13:58
  regarding divine corporeality, meaning the idea that God might
• 14:01
  have some sort of physical form. Why would an evangelical
• 14:04
  theologian suggest that? Pinnock was trying to solve a
• 14:07
  different problem. He attempted to apply a very
• 14:10
  literal interpretation to biblical passages that describe
• 14:13
  God changing his mind, feeling sorrow, or reacting to events in
• 14:18
  real time. I see.
• 14:19
  In doing so, he suggested, it might make sense to consider
• 14:22
  that God has some form of body, or at least spatial location, to
• 14:26
  interact so dynamically with humans.
• 14:28
  However, the source text notes that this proposal was widely
• 14:32
  dismissed by other theologians. It simply can't be reconciled
• 14:35
  with the overwhelming biblical witness that God is immaterial,
• 14:39
  invisible, and everywhere at once.
• 14:41
  So we have these clear declarative statements that God
• 14:44
  is invisible and immaterial. But let's look at the historical
• 14:47
  context for a moment. Why was it so vital for the
• 14:49
  ancient biblical authors to stress God's spirituality?
• 14:53
  We take it for granted today, but back then this was
• 14:55
  revolutionary. Oh, it was completely unheard of
• 14:57
  in the ancient Near East. Absolutely everybody worshipped
• 15:00
  physical idols and elements of nature.
• 15:02
  The sun, the Nile River, statues of gold, wood and stone
• 15:07
  emphasizing God's spirituality was a direct radical counter to
• 15:12
  ancient idolatry. Because if he is spirit, you
• 15:14
  can't carve him. Yes, if God is Spirit, you can't
• 15:17
  carve an image of him. And if you can't carve an image
• 15:20
  of him, you can't manipulate him.
• 15:22
  That is the key right there, Yeah.
• 15:23
  Idolatry is fundamentally about control, isn't it?
• 15:26
  Absolutely. In ancient religions, if you
• 15:28
  brought food to the statue of Marduk or Ball, the God owed you
• 15:33
  rain for your crops. It was a transaction.
• 15:35
  You controlled the deity through the physical idol.
• 15:37
  Wow. Furthermore, if a God was
• 15:39
  physical, they were restricted to a specific geographical
• 15:42
  territory. Ancient armies genuinely believe
• 15:45
  that if they marched into a rival nation and captured their
• 15:48
  idols, they literally captured their gods.
• 15:51
  That is crazy to think about. Right, teaching that Yahweh is
• 15:54
  spirit proved he couldn't be contained, manipulated or
• 15:57
  controlled by any human being, army or empire.
• 15:59
  OK, but if you were listening to this, you're probably wondering
• 16:03
  if God doesn't have a body, how do we process all those verses
• 16:07
  in the Bible that say things like God walked in the Garden of
• 16:10
  Eden or God stretched out his arm to save the Israelites?
• 16:14
  We also have theophanies like the Brunning Bush or the pillar
• 16:17
  of fire where God appears in a temporary physical
• 16:20
  manifestation. If he is pure spirit, what are
• 16:24
  those tests doing? That is the big question.
• 16:26
  I like to use the analogy of a parent speaking to a toddler.
• 16:29
  When a father goes to the office to earn a salary, pay the
• 16:32
  mortgage, manage investments and secure the family's financial
• 16:34
  future, he doesn't sit his three-year old down and explain
• 16:37
  macroeconomics and compound interests.
• 16:39
  No, that would be terrible parenting.
• 16:41
  Right. He looks at the toddler and says
• 16:43
  Daddy's going to work to buy groceries.
• 16:45
  It is a massive, complex reality simplified into physical,
• 16:49
  concrete terms the child can grasp.
• 16:51
  The Father isn't lying, He is just translating truth into an
• 16:55
  accessible format without compromising the core reality.
• 16:58
  Is that what we're seeing with these physical descriptions of
• 17:01
  God? Yes.
• 17:02
  The theological term for that translation is anthropomorphism,
• 17:06
  describing God in human forms or with human physical features.
• 17:11
  The biblical writers are doing exactly what that Father is
• 17:13
  doing. They are using human physical
• 17:16
  analogies to convey huge truths about a limitless being to
• 17:20
  finite minds. So.
• 17:22
  They're simplifying it. Right.
• 17:23
  It translates a massive reality into an accessible format
• 17:27
  without losing the truth. When the text says God stretched
• 17:30
  out his arm to part the Red Sea, it is communicating his vast
• 17:34
  capability and direct action in human history.
• 17:38
  It isn't suggesting he has a literal humorous and radius bone
• 17:41
  swinging around in the clouds. But we have to be careful not to
• 17:44
  take the toddler translation as the full reality, right?
• 17:46
  Yes, we have to take the clear, declarative statements about
• 17:49
  God's invisible spiritual nature at face value and interpret the
• 17:53
  physical metaphors in light of that truth.
• 17:55
  The metaphor points to the reality.
• 17:57
  It isn't the reality itself. OK, so if God isn't physical, if
• 18:00
  he is this immaterial spirit, does that mean he's just a
• 18:03
  floating mist or some impersonal energy field like the Force in
• 18:07
  Star Wars? That is a common misconception.
• 18:10
  Yeah, and this transitions us to the next attribute, personality
• 18:14
  and life. We need to look at the evidence
• 18:16
  that God is a living, personal individual, not just an abstract
• 18:20
  philosophical concept. This is where classical biblical
• 18:22
  theology sharply diverges from a lot of philosophical systems and
• 18:26
  Eastern religions. The source text brings up George
• 18:29
  Hagel, the famous philosopher. What did he think?
• 18:32
  Hagel believed in something he called the Absolute, which he
• 18:35
  essentially saw as a great universal mind encompassing all
• 18:38
  things. In his view, individual human
• 18:41
  beings are just thoughts in this giant cosmic mind, but there is
• 18:46
  no personal self consciousness there.
• 18:47
  You can't have a conversation or a relationship with Hegel's
• 18:50
  Absolute. It is just a massive hard drive
• 18:52
  of thought and Paul Tillich had a similar angle, right?
• 18:55
  Yes, Tillich was highly influential in the 20th century.
• 18:58
  He described God not as a being, but as the ground of being.
• 19:02
  He argued God isn't a person, but rather the abstract cause of
• 19:06
  personality. Then you look at Hinduism, where
• 19:08
  ultimate reality is Brahma. The goal in many Eastern
• 19:12
  traditions is Nirvana, which isn't about entering into a
• 19:15
  loving relationship with a creator.
• 19:17
  Nirvana is about the cessation of individual striving, losing
• 19:21
  your own identity, and being absorbed back into the
• 19:23
  impersonal whole like a drop of water falling back into the
• 19:27
  ocean. You see a lot of this today.
• 19:29
  Many people who say they are spiritual but not really just,
• 19:32
  are actually leaning heavily on this generalized, impersonal
• 19:35
  view of a spiritual force. They like the idea of a higher
• 19:39
  power, but they don't want a higher power that has opinions,
• 19:42
  makes demands, or possesses A distinct personality.
• 19:45
  An energy field can't hold you morally accountable.
• 19:47
  That is the immense appeal of the impersonal force.
• 19:49
  It demands nothing of you. But the biblical God is
• 19:52
  completely different. He isn't an energy field.
• 19:53
  He has a name. Right when Moses asks for God's
• 19:56
  name at the burning Bush, God doesn't say I am the ground of
• 19:59
  being, He says I AM WHOIM or Yahweh.
• 20:04
  That name is crucial. It signifies uncaused,
• 20:07
  independent existence. He is a self existent
• 20:10
  individual. He thinks, he feels, he chooses.
• 20:13
  He communes with humanity. He makes covenants.
• 20:16
  He experiences grief, joy and anger.
• 20:19
  He is intensely personal. And that self existent nature,
• 20:22
  the fact that he is the uncaused I am, brings up something the
• 20:26
  text calls the Poor God syndrome.
• 20:28
  I find this fascinating 'cause I think a lot of well meaning
• 20:32
  modern Christians accidentally fall into this trap.
• 20:34
  Yeah. What is the Poor God syndrome?
• 20:36
  The Poor God Syndrome is the false, sentimental idea that God
• 20:40
  was lonely in eternity past, so he created humanity because he
• 20:43
  needed friends. Or it is the idea that if we
• 20:45
  don't love him back, he will suffer a great emotional
• 20:48
  deprivation. Oh wow.
• 20:49
  Yeah, it paints this picture of God sitting in heaven, wringing
• 20:52
  his hands, desperate for our affection to feel complete.
• 20:55
  It makes him seem pathetic. It does.
• 20:57
  It assumes God needs us to be whole.
• 20:59
  But because God is self existent, because His very name
• 21:02
  is Imm, He doesn't need anything outside of himself to exist or
• 21:06
  to be emotionally fulfilled. The Trinity, Father, Son, and
• 21:10
  Holy Spirit has existed in a state of perfect, joyful,
• 21:14
  complete fellowship for all eternity.
• 21:16
  God didn't create the universe to cure his boredom or his
• 21:19
  loneliness. That is a stark contrast.
• 21:21
  Yes, all other creatures need nourishment, warmth and
• 21:24
  protection. God needs nothing.
• 21:26
  OK, but if He doesn't need us, why does he interact with us?
• 21:30
  Why go through the trouble of creating us, sustaining us, and
• 21:33
  redeeming us if He gets no necessary benefit from it?
• 21:36
  His interactions stem entirely from agape, which is the Greek
• 21:39
  word for unselfish, self giving love.
• 21:41
  He relates to us by choice, not out of a deficit.
• 21:44
  He is an end in himself. He isn't a magical tool to fix
• 21:47
  human problems, and he isn't a lonely cosmic bachelor looking
• 21:50
  for a companion. So he just loves freely.
• 21:52
  Yes, we are to love him for who he is and his absolute
• 21:55
  perfection, not just for what he can do for us.
• 21:58
  I want to push back on this concept of God not needing us
• 22:01
  because I can hear the listener thinking, well, doesn't that
• 22:04
  make the divine seem aloof? Doesn't that make him sound
• 22:07
  cold, distant, or indifferent? If he doesn't need me, why
• 22:11
  should I think he cares about me?
• 22:13
  That is a very natural human reaction.
• 22:15
  Let me offer an analogy to see if this helps bridge the gap.
• 22:19
  Imagine a highly successful, financially secure, emotionally
• 22:23
  whole couple. They're completely fulfilled in
• 22:26
  their marriage. They don't need a child to save
• 22:28
  their failing relationship, and they don't need a child to work
• 22:31
  on the farm to provide for them in their old age.
• 22:33
  OK, I'm tracking. Yet they choose to adopt A child
• 22:36
  anyway. They don't need the child to
• 22:38
  survive, but their choice to adopt is driven by an absolute
• 22:42
  overflow of affection. It makes a relationship entirely
• 22:45
  about grace rather than utility. The child isn't there to perform
• 22:49
  a job or fill a psychological void for the parents.
• 22:52
  The child is just there to be loved.
• 22:54
  Does that capture the essence of a self existing God choosing to
• 22:57
  commune with humanity? That captures the essence
• 23:00
  beautifully, but I would actually take it a step further
• 23:02
  really. How so?
• 23:04
  The only place the adoption analogy breaks down is that
• 23:06
  human parents still get some emotional validation and joy
• 23:09
  from watching that child grow. They still receive a benefit.
• 23:13
  God gets 0 required validation from us.
• 23:16
  His love is even more gratuitous than the adopting parents.
• 23:19
  Wow. If God needed you then your
• 23:21
  relationship with him would be entirely transactional.
• 23:24
  You'd be cosmic employee hired to fill a void in his life and
• 23:27
  the moment you stop performing he would fire you.
• 23:30
  Well, if he needs me, it's transactional.
• 23:32
  That's a heavy thought. Exactly, but because he is
• 23:36
  completely self-sufficient, his love for you is entirely
• 23:39
  gratuitous. It is pure grace.
• 23:41
  He isn't aloof, he is infinitely affectionate, but that affection
• 23:44
  is a free gift, not a desperate requirement for his own
• 23:47
  survival. It means his love for you is the
• 23:49
  most secure thing in the universe because it isn't based
• 23:52
  on your performance or his lack. That completely flips the script
• 23:56
  on how we view our worth. Our worth isn't based on how
• 23:59
  useful we are to God, it's based on the fact that He freely
• 24:02
  chooses to love us. That is the heart of it.
• 24:04
  So what does this all mean for the scale of God?
• 24:07
  We have established He is a living, personal spirit relating
• 24:11
  to us out of pure grace. Now we have to examine the sheer
• 24:15
  size of this. Reality is Infinity, and we're
• 24:18
  going to look at this in three dimensions, space-time and
• 24:21
  knowledge. Let's start with space, which
• 24:24
  theologians call omnipresence. Right.
• 24:27
  Omnipresence means God is not localized.
• 24:29
  It isn't just that he is a really big being stretched out
• 24:32
  across the Galaxy, it is that he is not confined by spatial
• 24:36
  coordinates at all. Because he made space.
• 24:39
  Yes, finite objects take up space which inherently prevents
• 24:43
  them from being somewhere else at the exact same time.
• 24:45
  If I am sitting in this chair, I cannot be sitting in a chair in
• 24:48
  London. God created space, therefore he
• 24:51
  transcends it, meaning he has complete unrestricted access to
• 24:54
  the entirety of creation simultaneously.
• 24:57
  The source text uses a brilliant, highly visual example
• 24:59
  from the Old Testament for this. Yeah, Elijah mocking the
• 25:02
  prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel.
• 25:03
  I love that story. Me too.
• 25:05
  The prophets of Baal are locked in this high stakes theological
• 25:08
  showdown with Elijah to prove whose deity is real.
• 25:11
  They're dancing around the altar, cutting themselves with
• 25:13
  swords, screaming, begging their God to send down fire to consume
• 25:17
  the sacrifice. And nothing happens.
• 25:19
  And Elijah starts ruthlessly taunting them.
• 25:22
  Oh, the trash talk is incredible, Elijah says.
• 25:24
  Shout louder. Perhaps he is deep in thought,
• 25:27
  or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be
• 25:30
  awakened. Elijah is mocking the sheer
• 25:33
  absurdity of a localized deity. Right.
• 25:35
  If Bale is traveling, he can't be there.
• 25:37
  Exactly. If Bale is off on a journey to a
• 25:39
  different city, he physically cannot be on Mount Carmel to
• 25:42
  hear the He's limited by geography.
• 25:46
  Yahweh does not have that limitation.
• 25:48
  He can manage countless infinitely complex situations
• 25:51
  across the the entire universe simultaneously without breaking
• 25:54
  a sweat. That hits on a massive
• 25:56
  psychological struggle humans have.
• 25:58
  We tend to think God only exists in sacred locations.
• 26:01
  We walk into a specific church building.
• 26:04
  The architecture is beautiful, the stained glass is shining,
• 26:07
  the music swells and we feel this rush of emotion and think,
• 26:10
  oh God is definitely in this room right now.
• 26:12
  We all do that. Yeah, then it's Tuesday morning,
• 26:15
  we are stuck in bumper to bumper traffic, the kids are screaming
• 26:18
  in the backseat, we are late for work, and we feel like God is
• 26:21
  millions of miles away. We localize him based entirely
• 26:25
  on our psychological state and our surroundings, but
• 26:29
  omnipresence means he is just as fully, actively present in the
• 26:32
  mundane traffic jam as he is in the grand Cathedral.
• 26:36
  That is the comfort of omnipresence.
• 26:38
  Our emotional feelings of His presence fluctuate wildly based
• 26:41
  on our circumstances, our biology, and our stress levels,
• 26:45
  but the theological reality of his presence is completely
• 26:48
  constant. He isn't more present in a
• 26:50
  church than he is in a hospital room.
• 26:52
  OK, let's move from space to time.
• 26:54
  God is infinite in time, which means he is the Alpha and the
• 26:57
  Omega, the beginning and the end.
• 26:58
  Right, and there is a fascinating, long standing
• 27:01
  debate among theologians here. Is God strictly eternal, meaning
• 27:06
  he exists completely outside of time and one frozen, timeless
• 27:10
  present, where past, present and future are all happening at once
• 27:13
  for him? Or is he everlasting, meaning he
• 27:16
  exists endlessly within time, experiencing a succession of
• 27:20
  moments but without beginning or end?
• 27:22
  Where does the source text land on that debate?
• 27:25
  The text notes that while God is certainly not limited to time as
• 27:28
  we conceive it, he is clearly aware of the succession of
• 27:31
  events. He interacts with humans in real
• 27:33
  time. He knows what has happened, what
• 27:35
  is currently happening and what will happen.
• 27:37
  So he he, he isn't disconnected. No, but his willing and
• 27:41
  deliberating take no time. He doesn't have to sit down and
• 27:44
  formulate contingency clans when humanity throws a curveball.
• 27:47
  He doesn't need to take a few days to process new information.
• 27:50
  Trying to comprehend a mind that views time that way is dizzying
• 27:55
  for a human being. I like to propose the analogy of
• 27:58
  an author holding a finished novel.
• 28:00
  If you are a character inside the book, you experience the
• 28:03
  story page by page. You don't know what happens in
• 28:06
  chapter 10 until you finish Chapter 9.
• 28:08
  You are bound by the timeline of the narrative.
• 28:10
  Right, you are stuck in the flow of the pages.
• 28:13
  But the author holding the physical book exists outside the
• 28:16
  timeline of the story. The author can look at the first
• 28:19
  page, the middle chapter, and the final paragraph
• 28:21
  simultaneously. The author comprehends the
• 28:24
  entire timeline of the book at a single glance.
• 28:27
  Is that a fairway for a finite mind to grasp God's Infinity
• 28:31
  regarding time? It is a very helpful framework.
• 28:34
  God isn't bound by the chronological March of minutes,
• 28:37
  hours and years. He comprehends the totality of
• 28:39
  history. The only thing I would add to
• 28:41
  the author analogy is that God isn't just reading the book, He
• 28:44
  is actively sustaining the existence of the pages while the
• 28:47
  characters make real choices. Oh, that makes it even more
• 28:49
  complex. It does, which leads directly
• 28:52
  into the third aspect of his Infinity, omniscience, or
• 28:56
  infinite knowledge. God sees all things.
• 28:59
  He knows every fact, every hidden thought, even truths that
• 29:03
  humans haven't yet discovered. He knows every genuine
• 29:06
  possibility. And the text makes a critical
• 29:08
  distinction here between knowledge and wisdom.
• 29:10
  I find this fascinating because we often conflate the two.
• 29:13
  We think if someone is really smart, they must be wise.
• 29:16
  We make that mistake all the time, but the text is clear.
• 29:20
  Knowledge is the accumulation of facts.
• 29:22
  Wisdom is the application of those facts.
• 29:25
  Divine wisdom is defined as acting on all facts combined
• 29:28
  with. Correct values.
• 29:29
  So humans lack wisdom because we lack facts.
• 29:32
  Often, yes. We humans often act unwisely
• 29:35
  simply because we lack data. We take a road that looks clear,
• 29:38
  not knowing there's a bridge out 10 miles ahead.
• 29:40
  We make the best choice we can, but it turns out to be
• 29:43
  disastrous because our knowledge is finite.
• 29:45
  Or we make choices based on limited experience and flawed
• 29:47
  values, like a toddler choosing a nickel over a dime just
• 29:50
  because the nickel is physically larger.
• 29:52
  Yes, the toddler has the facts. One coin is bigger, but they
• 29:56
  lack the wisdom to understand the intrinsic value of the
• 29:59
  currency. God has immediate access to all
• 30:02
  information across all time and space, and He possesses perfect.
• 30:06
  Moral perspective so he never gets it wrong.
• 30:08
  Never. Therefore, he never has to
• 30:11
  revise his estimation of a situation due to new data coming
• 30:14
  to light. He never says, oh, I didn't
• 30:16
  realize that was going to happen, let me rethink my
• 30:18
  strategy. His wisdom is absolute.
• 30:21
  Since God is everywhere, exists outside of our restrictions of
• 30:24
  time, and knows absolutely everything, the logical next
• 30:27
  step is to examine what He is capable of doing with all that
• 30:30
  knowledge. This brings us to the concept of
• 30:32
  omnipotence, and I love how Erickson approaches this because
• 30:35
  he spends a lot of time talking about the limits of omnipotence.
• 30:38
  We usually just talk about what God can do.
• 30:40
  Let's establish what he can do first.
• 30:42
  God is El Shaddai, God Almighty. The biblical narrative is full
• 30:46
  of examples of him overcoming completely insurmountable odds,
• 30:49
  Sarah laughing at the promise of having a child in her old age,
• 30:51
  and God responding. Is anything too hard for the
• 30:54
  Lord? For the prophet Jeremiah.
• 30:56
  Yes, Jeremiah buying a field while the Babylonian army is
• 31:00
  actively laying siege to Jerusalem.
• 31:02
  That story is incredible. The city is surrounded, doom is
• 31:06
  imminent, the economy is collapsing, and Jeremiah decides
• 31:09
  it is a great time to buy real estate.
• 31:12
  It seems completely insane. It looks insane to a finite
• 31:15
  mind, but Jeremiah knows that nothing is too hard for God, and
• 31:19
  if God promises the land will be restored, you can take that to
• 31:22
  the bank even when an enemy army is at the gates.
• 31:24
  The text extrapolate something really huge here, though.
• 31:27
  It suggests that changing human personality is actually the
• 31:30
  greater demonstration of divine capability than moving massive
• 31:34
  physical objects or parting seas.
• 31:36
  That's. A great point.
• 31:37
  Because we can build bulldozers to move mountains of dirt.
• 31:39
  We can build rockets to go to the moon.
• 31:42
  But altering the stubborn, entrenched, selfish nature of a
• 31:45
  human heart, breaking addictions, healing generational
• 31:48
  trauma, turning an enemy into a friend, that is a true display
• 31:51
  of omnipotence. It absolutely is.
• 31:54
  Moving dirt is just physics. Changing a human will without
• 31:57
  violating their agency requires infinite wisdom and strength.
• 32:01
  Furthermore, God's will is never ultimately frustrated.
• 32:05
  Think about what it takes for a human to accomplish an ethical
• 32:08
  action. What does it take?
• 32:09
  You need three things. The wisdom to know what should
• 32:12
  be done, the goodness to choose the right thing, and the actual
• 32:15
  capability to execute it. And we fail at all three points
• 32:18
  constantly. Sometimes I know what I should
• 32:20
  do, but I'm too selfish to choose it.
• 32:22
  Sometimes I choose the right thing, but I don't have the
• 32:25
  financial or physical capability to pull it off.
• 32:27
  Exactly. Humans are fractured, but God's
• 32:30
  wisdom to know the right path, His goodness to choose it, and
• 32:34
  His capability to execute it align perfectly every single
• 32:37
  time. But this brings us to the
• 32:39
  fascinating concept of divine limitations.
• 32:41
  What God cannot do. We are taught in Sunday school
• 32:44
  that God can do absolutely anything, but the source text
• 32:47
  points out that God cannot do the logically absurd.
• 32:49
  He cannot make square circles, He cannot undo the past, he
• 32:53
  cannot act contrary to his own nature, and he cannot lie.
• 32:56
  Right. And we have to understand that
• 32:58
  these inabilities aren't flaws, they are marks of absolute
• 33:01
  strength and perfection. How so?
• 33:03
  Think about it. If God could lie, it would mean
• 33:07
  his truthfulness is fragile. It would mean he is capable of
• 33:10
  deception, which is a moral defect.
• 33:13
  If he could act contrary to his nature, if he could suddenly
• 33:15
  decide to be cruel or unjust, it would mean his character is
• 33:19
  inherently unstable. The absolute inability to do
• 33:23
  evil is the pinnacle of moral perfection.
• 33:25
  This always brings up the classic philosophical trap that
• 33:28
  every college freshman thinks is a mic drop moment against
• 33:30
  religion. Can God make a rock so heavy he
• 33:33
  cannot lift it? Yes, the rock paradox.
• 33:35
  It is a question explicitly designed to create a paradox
• 33:38
  where either a yes or a no limits God's capability.
• 33:42
  But the question itself is fundamentally flawed.
• 33:44
  It's a category error. I tell people it is like asking
• 33:47
  what is the color blue taste like.
• 33:49
  That is a brilliant way to put it blue.
• 33:51
  Doesn't have a flavor, it is a color.
• 33:53
  You are mixing categories to create nonsense.
• 33:57
  Asking if God can use his boundless strength to overpower
• 34:02
  his own boundless strength is asking if God can contradict his
• 34:05
  own existence. It is nonsense masquerading as a
• 34:09
  deep intellectual question. The source text states clearly
• 34:12
  that asking if God can frustrate himself is inappropriate to his
• 34:15
  nature. Omnipotence means God can do all
• 34:18
  things that are proper objects of his capability.
• 34:21
  It means he has infinite strength to accomplish his holy
• 34:23
  will. It doesn't mean he can engage in
• 34:25
  logical absurdities or perform magic tricks that contradict his
• 34:29
  own essence. OK, so we have this almighty all
• 34:31
  knowing, everywhere present God whose character is perfectly
• 34:34
  stable. But does a being like that ever
• 34:37
  alter his strategies? Does he ever change his mind
• 34:40
  based on how we behave? If I pray hard enough, can I get
• 34:43
  God to change his plans? The theological term we have to
• 34:46
  grapple with here is immutability, divine constancy.
• 34:50
  It means God experiences no quantitative increase or
• 34:52
  decrease. He can't get better, smarter, or
• 34:54
  stronger because he is already perfect.
• 34:56
  He can't get worse or he would cease to be God.
• 34:59
  And. Qualitative changes.
• 35:00
  There is also no qualitative modification.
• 35:03
  His nature doesn't undergo a sudden makeover.
• 35:05
  He doesn't wake up on the wrong side of the bed.
• 35:07
  He is utterly universally dependable.
• 35:10
  But anyone who has read the Bible knows there are verses
• 35:13
  where God appears to repent or change his mind.
• 35:16
  There's a famous verse in Genesis where it says God
• 35:19
  regretted making humanity. How do we reconcile absolute
• 35:22
  commutability with verses that explicitly say God changed his
• 35:27
  mind? It is a massive stumbling block
• 35:29
  for a lot of readers. The text gives 3 explanations
• 35:32
  for these difficult passages. Let's walk through them.
• 35:34
  What is the first one? 1st we have to revisit our
• 35:36
  earlier concept and introduce a new word, anthropopathisms.
• 35:41
  Just as anthropomorphisms give God physical human features like
• 35:45
  arms and eyes, anthropopathisms give God human emotional terms.
• 35:49
  Oh, I see. When the text says God was
• 35:51
  grieved to his heart or regretted, it is describing his
• 35:54
  reaction to human sin in terms we can relate to emotionally.
• 35:58
  It is expressing his fierce opposition to evil, not
• 36:00
  suggesting he made a mistake and wishes he could take it back.
• 36:03
  OK, that makes sense for the emotional verses, but what about
• 36:07
  when his actual plans seem to change?
• 36:11
  What is the second explanation? The second explanation is that
• 36:14
  what looks like a sudden change of mind to humans is actually a
• 36:18
  new stage in a unified pre-existing plan.
• 36:21
  The classic example is the offering of salvation to the
• 36:24
  Gentiles in the New Testament. Because it used to just be
• 36:27
  Israel. Right.
• 36:28
  For centuries, God dealt almost exclusively with the nation of
• 36:32
  Israel. Then suddenly the doors are
• 36:34
  thrown open to the whole world. It looked like a massive,
• 36:37
  unexpected shift to the people living through it.
• 36:39
  They thought God had changed his mind, but reading the whole text
• 36:43
  we see it was always part of the original design from the moment
• 36:46
  he called Abraham. It was a new chapter being
• 36:48
  opened, not a rewritten plot. I understand both of those, but
• 36:51
  they don't explain the story of Nineveh.
• 36:53
  In the book of Jonah, God explicitly says 40 more days and
• 36:56
  Nineveh will be overthrown. It is a definitive statement.
• 36:59
  Then the city repents, they put on sackcloth, and God doesn't
• 37:02
  destroy them. It looks like God changed his
• 37:04
  entire plan based entirely on what the city did.
• 37:07
  How do we square that with immutability?
• 37:09
  That brings us to the third explanation, a change in human
• 37:12
  orientation. Did God change his mind
• 37:15
  regarding Nineveh? No.
• 37:17
  God's standard, which is absolute judgment for
• 37:19
  unrepentant sin and absolute mercy for the repentant,
• 37:22
  remained totally constant. Nineveh simply moved from the
• 37:25
  category of unrepentant to repentant.
• 37:28
  They changed their location relative to God's standard.
• 37:31
  I think about this like a thermostat in a house.
• 37:33
  The setting on the thermostat represents God's constant,
• 37:36
  unchanging will. Let's say it is set to 70°.
• 37:39
  That setting is immutable, doesn't budget, but the heating
• 37:43
  and cooling systems response changes dynamically based on the
• 37:46
  temperature of the room, which represents human actions.
• 37:48
  If the room gets freezing cold, the heat kicks on.
• 37:51
  If the room gets sweltering hot, the AC kicks on.
• 37:54
  The thermostat's response is highly dynamic and active, but
• 37:57
  the core setting never alters. So when we pray or when a city
• 38:00
  repents like Nineveh, we are changing the temperature of the
• 38:03
  room and God responds dynamically according to His
• 38:05
  constant, unchanging standard of justice and mercy.
• 38:08
  The thermostat analogy is a fantastic way to visualize the
• 38:11
  mechanics of it. God isn't static and frozen, He
• 38:14
  is incredibly active and dynamic.
• 38:16
  But I would add 1 nuance. A thermostat is a mindless
• 38:19
  machine. God's response is deeply
• 38:22
  personal. He is a loving father responding
• 38:24
  to His children. His heart is engaged, but His
• 38:27
  essential nature, His standard of holiness, and His grand
• 38:31
  purposes never fluctuate. Now this concept of a completely
• 38:35
  constant, all knowing God who knows the future perfectly is
• 38:38
  highly controversial in modern theological circles.
• 38:42
  A lot of modern thinkers hate this classical view of God.
• 38:45
  They really do. The critique from these modern
• 38:47
  movements often starts with the charge that classical theology
• 38:50
  relies way too heavily on ancient Greek philosophy.
• 38:53
  They point to thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, who borrowed
• 38:56
  heavily from Aristotle's concept of the unmoved Mover to explain
• 38:59
  God's immutability. And what is their problem with
• 39:01
  that? The critics argue that adopting
• 39:03
  this Greek philosophical model turned the vibrant, dynamic,
• 39:06
  emotional God of the Bible into a sterile, static, unfeeling
• 39:10
  block of ice. And so they offer alternatives
• 39:13
  that attempt to make God more relatable.
• 39:16
  Let's look at process theology first, spearheaded by thinkers
• 39:19
  like Charles Hartsworn and Alfred N Whitehead.
• 39:22
  What is their core argument? Process theology argues that
• 39:25
  reality is fundamentally organic and interrelated.
• 39:28
  Everything is in process, including God.
• 39:30
  They promote something called dipolar theism.
• 39:33
  They suggest God has two poles. He has an unchanging abstract
• 39:37
  essence, his basic character, But he also has a consequent
• 39:40
  nature that processes and changes alongside the organic
• 39:43
  world. So he is learning.
• 39:44
  Yes, in this view, God doesn't know the future perfectly
• 39:47
  because the future hasn't happened yet, so there is
• 39:49
  nothing to know. He is constantly learning,
• 39:51
  adapting and processing new data as the universe unfolds, just
• 39:55
  like we are. Then there is open theism, also
• 39:58
  known as free will theism. It shares some DNA with process
• 40:01
  theology, but it is a distinct movement within more evangelical
• 40:04
  circles. What do they teach?
• 40:06
  Open theism claims that God does not possess exhaustive
• 40:09
  foreknowledge of free human choices.
• 40:12
  They argue that if God knows exactly what you will do
• 40:14
  tomorrow at noon, your choice isn't truly free.
• 40:17
  It is predetermined by his knowledge.
• 40:19
  Therefore, to preserve human free will, God must voluntarily
• 40:23
  limit his knowledge of the future.
• 40:25
  He must be genuinely affected by and learn from human actions as
• 40:29
  they occur in real time. The source text evaluates these
• 40:33
  views, and Erickson offers a pretty sharp, devastating
• 40:35
  critique of both of. Them he does.
• 40:37
  Erickson notes that while these movements are correctly reacting
• 40:40
  against a sterile, static view of of God, nobody wants to
• 40:43
  worship an unfeeling block of ice.
• 40:45
  They completely overcorrect by trying to make God relatable and
• 40:49
  preserving absolute human autonomy.
• 40:51
  They make God dependent on the universe.
• 40:53
  They limit the certainty of his will.
• 40:55
  If God doesn't know the future, there's absolutely no guarantee
• 40:58
  his plans for ultimate justice and redemption will succeed.
• 41:01
  He's just hoping for the best, same as us.
• 41:04
  Furthermore, these views struggle immensely to explain
• 41:07
  detailed biblical prophecy. Right.
• 41:09
  I mean, if God doesn't know what free humans will choose to do,
• 41:13
  how could he possibly inspire prophecies predicting specific
• 41:16
  events like the crucifixion hundreds of years in advance?
• 41:19
  He couldn't open. Theists have to do intense
• 41:22
  theological gymnastics to explain prophecy.
• 41:25
  Erickson concludes that these models rest on an
• 41:28
  anthropocentric view, meaning they're entirely human centered.
• 41:31
  They elevate human freedom and human emotional preferences over
• 41:35
  divine sovereignty and infinite knowledge.
• 41:37
  I want to play devil's advocate for open theism for a minute
• 41:40
  here because I think I understand the emotional draw.
• 41:42
  I can see why it feels incredibly satisfying for a
• 41:44
  listener to think God is surprised or figuring it out
• 41:47
  alongside them. Oh, the emotional appeal is
• 41:49
  huge. Right.
• 41:51
  If I am going through a terrible hardship, a sudden job loss, a
• 41:54
  devastating medical diagnosis, it feels comforting to imagine
• 41:58
  God sitting on the couch next to me, putting his arm around me
• 42:01
  and saying, wow, I didn't see that coming either.
• 42:03
  I'm so sorry. Let's figure out how to fix this
• 42:06
  together. It makes God feel like a buddy
• 42:08
  who is in the trenches with you. But can you explain why this
• 42:12
  emotional satisfaction is actually a trap?
• 42:15
  Why might it lead to serious theological and practical
• 42:17
  despair when the listener faces genuine, earth shattering
• 42:21
  tragedy? It might feel comforting for a
• 42:23
  brief moment to have a God who is just as shocked and surprised
• 42:27
  by a tragedy as you are. It removes the tension of asking
• 42:30
  why did God allow this? But in the long run, it is
• 42:32
  utterly terrifying. Terrifying, yes.
• 42:34
  If God didn't see the cancer diagnosis coming or the car
• 42:37
  accident coming, it means he is not completely in control of the
• 42:41
  universe. It means bad things happen that
• 42:43
  are entirely outside his scope of man management.
• 42:45
  It means chaos is winning. He is just doing damage control.
• 42:48
  Exactly. True comfort doesn't come from a
• 42:51
  God who is learning alongside you and hoping for the best.
• 42:54
  True, lasting comfort comes from a God who holds the entirety of
• 42:57
  human history in his hands, who saw the tragedy before time even
• 43:01
  began, and who has the boundless wisdom, goodness, and omnipotent
• 43:05
  capability to redeem that tragedy for a greater, ultimate
• 43:08
  good. A God who was surprised is a God
• 43:11
  who can fail, and a God who can fail cannot guarantee that all
• 43:15
  things will work together for good.
• 43:17
  That is a staggering reality check.
• 43:19
  If he is just a well meaning copilot trying to read the map
• 43:22
  in the dark with you, there is absolutely no guarantee you will
• 43:24
  land safely. You are essentially alone in the
• 43:26
  universe with a really strong friend who might not be able to
• 43:29
  save you. So as we bring all these massive
• 43:31
  concepts together, spirit, personality, life, Infinity,
• 43:34
  omnipotence and constancy, we are left with a mental picture
• 43:37
  of a being of sheer unimaginable scale and capability.
• 43:41
  We truly are. We have moved far past the
• 43:43
  oblong blur. The source text concludes by
• 43:46
  referencing the classic hymn, How Great Thou Art.
• 43:50
  When you consider the Rolling Thunder, the stars, the vastness
• 43:53
  of the universe, you catch a tiny, fleeting glimpse of this
• 43:56
  greatness. I want to leave everyone
• 43:58
  listening with a reflection drawn from that concept,
• 44:01
  focusing on our own contingency. Think about how human life is
• 44:05
  entirely ruled by the word if. Everything is conditional for.
• 44:08
  Us, exactly. I will have a good day if the
• 44:10
  traffic isn't bad. I will retire comfortably if the
• 44:12
  stock market holds up. I will see my friends tomorrow
• 44:15
  if we all wake up healthy. We are incredibly fragile,
• 44:18
  finite creatures driven by a million variables we cannot
• 44:21
  possibly control. We live our entire life
• 44:24
  suspended on a web of ifs. It is exhausting when you really
• 44:27
  think about it. But contrast your fragile, if
• 44:29
  driven life with the absolute uncaused.
• 44:32
  I am reality of God. With God, there is no if.
• 44:36
  He doesn't depend on the stock market, the weather, or human
• 44:39
  choices to exist. He simply is.
• 44:42
  Now take all of that, the infinite capability, the
• 44:44
  boundless knowledge, the stable, unchanging constancy, and
• 44:47
  remember that this specific being relates to you out of
• 44:51
  unselfish, agape love. Not out of a desperate need for
• 44:54
  your company, but out of pure, gratuitous grace.
• 44:57
  If a being of that magnitude, the one who holds the stars in
• 45:00
  place and knows the end from the beginning, is extending grace to
• 45:03
  you, how does that shift the way you handle tomorrow's anxieties?
• 45:06
  It changes everything. It reframes the entire universe,
• 45:09
  means you don't have to live in terror of the celestial police
• 45:12
  officer waiting for you to slip up, and you don't have to settle
• 45:14
  for the weak grandfatherly figure who just wants to pat
• 45:16
  your head while the world burns. You are known, completely
• 45:20
  understood, and deeply loved by the great I am.
• 45:23
  Thank you for joining us for this deep dive.
• 45:25
  Keep asking hard questions, keep pursuing truth, and remember
• 45:28
  that when the X-ray machine of your theology feels murky, you
• 45:31
  have an objective, brilliant reality to rely on.