Blue Like Jazz, Chapter 2

Last night, I read the first few chapters of Blue Like Jazz--chapters 1-4. I must say that it has been an interesting read insofar.

On the positive, it enlightens the reasons that many Christians feel disenfranchised from rank-n-file evangelicalism. He discusses the tendency of evangelicals to avoid intellectual engagement of theology and the reading of Scripture, and the tendency of us evangelicals to ignore serious social problems that face both our nation and world. Politically, Donald Miller is obviously liberal, with an apparent disdain for the Republican party (see pages 18-19, 43, 46), and that perspective must be taken into account since most evangelicals tend to be politically conservative (which seems to bother Miller). It certainly correlates to the disconnect Don felt with church and his tainted concept of a typical evangelical Christian.

The image of the typical Christian that Don has portrayed so far (as of the end of chapter 4) is not very positive. In fact, it is rather stereotypical--along the lines of the world's portrayal of Christians. Much of it is deserved (the hypocrisy), much of it is not (the pigeonholing).

Chapter 2

In this chapter, Miller discusses his realization of mankind being "flawed." He recounts the way he felt when he heard of the mass genocides taking place in Africa, and he also recounts a few conversations he had with friends--conversations about the necessity of cops and having to teach children to be good (but not to be bad). He then remembers the realization of his own "self-addiction." Miller is on to the truth here. However, his formulation of "flawed" humanity is completely from personal observation. His explanation is only in terms of observed evil, not from the revelation of Scripture. Because of this, Miller stops short of the complete, biblical truth of human depravity.

The most common form used to describe the human condition is flawed. Twice in chapter 2 he uses the term depravity, and once perverse. He doesn't use the word rebellion until chapter 3. However, Millers usage of the stronger terms--and even the term sin--is weakened by the context of their usage. He recalls a conversation with "Tony the deat poet":

"What you are really saying is that we have a sin nature, like the fundamentalist Christians say."

Tony took the pipe from his lips. "Pretty much, Don. It just explains a lot, you know."

"Actually," I told him reluctantly, "I have always agreed with the idea that we have a sin nature. I don't think it looks exactly like the fundamentalists say it does, 'cause I know so many people who do great things, but I do buy the idea that we are flawed, that there is something in us that is broken. I think it is easier to do bad things than good things. And there is something in that basic fact, some little clue to the meaning of the universe." [Page 17, emphasis mine]

In this book, Donald Miller is documenting a spiritual journey, and in the context of this excerpt, he is at the beginning of his realization of the "flaw" in humankind. The bolded sentence does not reflect the biblical teaching of the sin nature in Scripture--and I hope that Miller moves from this position on the sin nature of man later in this documented journey. Here, humankind is presented as a little broken, flawed, perhaps a little perverse and depraved--but there is still good in him. A theology of man that is grounded in a view as this can only lead to a salvation based on human attribute, effort, or merit.

Biblically, we aren't just broken and flawed, but we are in outright rebellion against God, self-seeking, dead in our trespasses and sins, enemies of God, and deserving of the dreaded word (*gasp*) judgment. We have no desire to please or know God--he is our enemy and we are his. Understanding any spiritual truth (including the gospel) is outside of our spiritual capacity, for we are slaves to sin. This is the scriptural presentation of the human condition--we aren't broken, we are dead. (Isaiah 53:6a; Psalm 14, 53; John 8:34, 12:37-40; Romans 1:18-3:23, 5:10 (enemies of God), 6:20-23; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:1-18; Colossian 1:21; many others)

...It is hard for us to admit that we have a sin nature because we live in this system of checks and balances. If we get caught, we will be punished...It is as if the founding fathers knew, intrinsically, that the soul of man, unwatched, is perverse.

People all over the world, regardless of who governs them, innately cannot admit to their true sinful state, not because of checks and balances, but because of their own self-deceit. That the point in Romans 1:18ff: mankind willfully suppresses the knowledge of God and his statutes and makes for himself gods that are more like him. This is what we do by nature. The founders of the U.S., both Christians and theists--many of whom were Reformed--did understand that man's soul is depraved. They documented it: "There is no government capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion," said John Adams. Moreover, this depravity exists in all men, even when being watched. Depravity is not based on action and works--it is the condition of the human heart, watched or unwatched.

At the end of chapter 2, this little sentence intrigued me: "I think every well-adjusted human being has dealt squarely with his or her own depravity." I have no idea of what Miller means by this. What defines a "well-adjusted human being"? What does he mean in saying that they have dealt squarely with their own depravity? The Scripture tells us that the unbelievers have not dealt squarely (which I assume to mean addressed) with the depravity within, but have swept it under the rug and ignored it. The have filed it into the darkest area of their mind so that it no longer bothers them.

The average unbeliever has no problem admitting to not being perfect, or perhaps being a little flawed. The offence of the unbeliever comes when the gospel of Christ tells him that he is totally unworthy of God's love and that he will face judgment apart from Christ. Moreover, this offence is compounded when the unbeliever is told that Jesus is the only way. Insofar, this has been absent in Miller's explanation of the "PROBLEMS" of humanity. Miller seems to want to bring discomfort, but not offence. I hope my further reading persuades me otherwise.

Science and Religion

Cody Willhite, a good friend of both me and my wife, asked me to facilitate discussions for the SCMA at LSU (A pre-medical students' Christian organization). The topic was Medical Ethics ( a nice and narrow subject matter, of which I am the most knowledgeable person in Baton Rouge ;-) ). I've had a wonderful time interacting with brilliant college students on some heavy issues. In our first couple of meetings, we discussed the ability of the scientific method to arrive at any truth, much less metaphysical or moral truth.

Today, Albert Mohler posted some commentary on a New York Times article (reader comments to article) he read that covered a recent conference at a California University known as, "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival." These rabid scientists have more than a little hostility toward us minions that have faith--which of course is something they apparently do not have. Below are some of the brilliant moments of this intellectual feast:

"The world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief." [Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics]

I'd like to know how Weinberg can call religious belief a nightmare. That term is a pejorative, a term intended to belittle his opponent and it's hardly scientific in its usage. It's also loaded with moral value, for nightmares are bad things that scare us--and they aren't real. I'd like to know what empirical evidence Weinberg has that justifies using nightmare as a metaphor.

"Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization." [Weinberg]

Anything? This isn't science--it's ethics. In fact, it is a utilitarian ethic (the ends justify the means, provided that it is for the greater good). The problem is: what is good? Does science have the means to determine the moral or ethical value or worth of any claim or assertion? What is assumed here is that religion is bad and science is good--but the scientific method cannot test this assumption, so it's something Weinberg accepts without "reason" to accept--he "believes" this, but he cannot "know" this by means of the scientific method.

"We should let the success of the religious formula guide us. Let's teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome -- and even comforting -- than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know." [Carolyn Porco, Space Science Institute, Boulder, CO]

How can Porco know that the universe is "rich" or "beautiful" or that the story of the universe is "glorious" or "awesome"? These are subjective, aesthetic claims, not "objective", scientific ones. The terms rich, beautiful, glorious, and awesome are placing value and worth on the universe, but she has no means of deriving this value other than her subjective feelings. How does one scientifically determine that the universe is beautiful? One ought to be able to do this in order to mandate telling our children of her beauty in a secular worldview.

"I am utterly fed up with the respect that we -- all of us, including the secular among us -- are brainwashed into bestowing on religion . . . . Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence." [Richard Dawkins, Oxford University]

Question, Dr. Dawkins. What knowledge, other than her methods, has science actually brought us? Each and every conclusion about any scientific subject is tentative at best--likely to be replaced within a few years with better explanation that fits the later evidence we may obtain. Science claims to be on a quest for truth, but what truths have science brought us? What we know now by means of the scientific method is an estimate at best, and when this current "knowledge" is replaced by a better one, is it still truth or knowledge? Knowledge by means of "real evidence" will change when the evidence becomes better. I offer that that the conclusions of science are not a knowledge of truth.

Update on BLJ Review...

I've finally recieved my copy of Millers' Blue Like Jazz. I will be making periodic reviews in the coming weeks.

Nothing Says...

..."I want my inheritance" any better than getting your parents a McDonald's gift card for Christmas.

That was my first thought after seeing a TV ad for them a couple of days ago.

How Times Have Changed...

It's only been five years since I've graduated college, but how times have changed in these short years...

Sunday, after church, Laura and I ran into a friend of hers who is still in college. She was speaking on her cell phone, and what I heard speaks for itself...

"Tell Casey to leave me a message on FaceBook."

[Pause...]

"What? What do you mean she doesn't have FaceBook? Everyone has FaceBook!"

I laughed for at least a literal two minutes...

Blue Like Jazz

Note: Click links to view more recent reviews: Chapter 2, Chapters 3 and 4, Chapter 5.

Over the last year, I've heard the mention of a book Blue Like Jazz on several occasions. I was invited via email once to a study on it, and several other times, I've heard the mention or recommendation of it. It's author is Donald Miller, from Portland OR, and he is associated with a growing (actually, it's now a rather large) movement called "emergent." In fact, when you look up the book onBarnes and Noble, the other books associated to the purchase of this book are all by emergent/emerging church authors of the likes of Brian McLaren and Rob Bell (who is a favorite among emergents, but to my knowledge has not publicly associated himself with the emergent movement).

It's not hard to find criticism of these emergent authors. Slice of Laodicea and Apprising Ministries are two Internet blogs that are often critical of Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Donald Miller. What is frustrating about these sites is that it is difficult for me to know how honest the criticism is. It some cases the information is obviously third-hand. The writer at Apprising Ministries cites excepts of the authors, or random quotes, and critiques them, but it's hard for me to see that the citations are truly heresy or a poorly formed explanation--which all ministers have been guilty of doing at some point. I know I've poorly worded explanations in my writings and sermons, and they were understood to mean something that I did not mean.

I now intend on getting the book Blue Like Jazz, to both analyze it and critique it--simply because this book is the most read of the emergent books among the evangelical churches here in Baton Rouge.

I did find an article by asecular [Warning: there are a couple of cuss word in this link] writer local to the Portland area who interviewed Donald Miller. There were two sections of the article that interested me:

Some of Miller's critics go after him for theological reasons. Vince Bissey, the Missouri Presbyterian who vehemently criticized Blue Like Jazz, believes Miller gets the Bible dead wrong when he writes, for example, that "something inside me…caused Him to love me." Bissey, who's entering seminary training next year, believes God loves humanity despite humanity's total lack of worthiness. "I really believe there can only be one correct view," he says.

And later:

As different as Miller is from the stereotypical evangelical, make no mistake: Miller's no poseur.

At Starbucks, after I close my notebook, Miller looks at me. "So you've been talking to people, working on your stories," he says. "Has anyone explained to you what the Gospel is?"

I say, no, not in so many words.

"I could give you the sales pitch," he says. "Because maybe, who knows, 10 years down the road…"

Then Miller proceeds, in the most low-key and friendly way, to explain that God loves me, wants to have a relationship with me-and, for that matter, everyone. The relationship was damaged in the Garden, but Christ came to earth to fix it. The invitation, Miller says, is always open.

If Miller does say in Blue Like Jazz, "Something inside of me...caused [God] to love me," then He is treading dangerous waters. From a biblical standpoint, there is no basis to say such a thing in any context, save the context of arguing against it. To say that God loves me because of something about/inside me is to say that God's love is based on human merit or attribute. Biblically, God's love is rooted in God's character, not my attributes. God loves his people because God is love, not because man is worth loving.

Miller's gospel presentation to Zach Dundas [the Portland journalist] is indicative of a watered down, human-centered, theology that is rampant in evangelical Christianity. Read that second excerpt again. I've made gospel presentations almost identical to this before I really began to study the Scriptures. Now, my convictions do not permit me to tell an unbeliever that "God loves you." Moreover, it is clear in Miller's presentation that the center of God's affections in his theology is man. The Fall was not in God's purposes, so He sent Christ to "fix" the mess that man made. In essence, Christ is no more than a bandaid to help heal creation's wounds--to mitigate the damage of the Fall. He was not God's primary and eternal purpose in creation. The atonement was a God's reaction to the Fall, not God's predetermined purpose in revealing the glory of His nature to His people.

Be careful, because such a theology distorts true nature of God's sovereignty and devalues to Work of Christ to one of mere damage control. The distortion of God's sovereignty is not explicit in Miller's gospel presentation, but it is accessible. Think about these theological expression: "God wants a relationship with everyone, and the gospel invitation is always open." Who is ultimate control in this picture? If God has the power to do anything that pleases him, and if it pleases God to have a relationship with all men, then why isn't every man in a relationship with God? The god of this theology is a passive and waiting god, hoping that man will come around to realize the truth. The God of the Bible is a God who pursues and conquers the hearts of the men and women he desires to possess. This may seem distasteful to the likes of many evangelicals, but it is the portrait painted by the words of Scripture.

More on Blue Like Jazz to come when I get a chance to start reading it.

Roll out the Red Carpet--I'm Now Famous

Almost, but not really. It seems I've been blogspotted on TeamPyro for my last post.

(Confession: I tried to get blogspotted. My plan for world domination is working perfectly...)

On a Relative Note

The day after I put up my post titled "Conquering Doubt", Dan Phillips over at PyroManiacs posted an article titled "My night at the preachapalooza." In it, DJP tackled the same issue that I did from a different perspective.

Confidence is not something that rests in itself. No one is confident in something without reason, however rational or irrational that reason may be. No one is confident simply because they are confident; they are confident because they may have extensive knowledge on a subject matter, or because they are physically strong, or simply because they "have a good feeling about this."

Confidence is derived from a foundation, and this is especially so in spiritual matters. The imagery in Dan Phillip's revamped sermon introduction pictures this so perfectly:

I love to hike in the Sierra. One time recently I was on a hike, by myself. I had gone four or five miles back to a beautiful lake. Circling around to the back side of the lake, I took some pictures. Up the rocky shore, I saw a spot that looked like it would be a perfect vantage point for a great picture. So I started to make my way across the rocks to this spot -- when suddenly the bank gave away under my feet! The rocks tumbled and rolled, and so did I. In a flash, I found myself dunked in the lake.

I was fine, but what a terrible feeling it was. It's a terrible feeling to trust yourself to something, to put all your weight on it, confidently, and then find that it can't hold you. It's a terrible feeling when your support collapses from under you. It's a terrible feeling when the very ground gives way beneath you, and you fall.

To what shall we trust our souls? To whom? Who or what can bear our weight, the weight of our sin and guilt, of our immortal selves? If we trust our souls to any mere mortal, no matter how holy or saintly, no matter how godly -- they are sinners, too, and they cannot hold us. They will collapse. Joseph cannot hold us. He would collapse. Mary cannot save us. She would give way. No mere child of Adam can hold the weight of our sin and need. All would dissolve into rubble beneath us.

Only Jesus can support us. He shows us this in His cry from the Cross: It is finished!

Know well: this is no cry of despair. Jesus does not say, "I am finished." No, it is a cry of victory. The Greek tetelestai means that it has been brought to consummation, to perfect completion. The word was used of bills that had been "paid in full."

When our Lord cries thus on the Cross, He is signifying that He, He Himself, He alone in His own person, had fully paid every last farthing, every penny, of His people's debt to God. He had left nothing undone of what the Father's plan of salvation required. Alone, unaided, hanging on the cross, under the holy wrath of God for sinners, Jesus Christ made full atonement for all the sins of His people.

And now we believe Jesus, or we do not. If we look to "Jesus-and" -- to Jesus and our pastor, to Jesus and Mary, to Jesus and any other mortal or any other sect or any other practice or any other thing -- then we do not believe Jesus. We do not accept His word, "It is finished."

We must look to Jesus, to Jesus alone, for salvation. We must trust ourselves to the One who cried "It is finished!"

Again, confidence is derived from something--It must rest on something. It has to put its full weight upon something. I would offer this: To rest your confidence in anything other than Christ and his Work is to essentially tell Jesus, "No, it is not finished."

Conquering Doubt

Most true Christians have struggled at some point in their walk—especially in the times in which they constantly stumble and succumb to temptation—with doubt as to the reality of their salvation. I know I’ve been there, and I know my wife has been there as well. There is a reason for this: we are constantly, albeit unconsciously, inserting our merits and qualities into the work of salvation. You can see this is true in the questions we ask ourselves and the thoughts of our minds in our times of overwhelming doubt.

“Did I really commit my life to Christ?”
“Did I walk the aisle for the right reason?”
“I simply sin too much to be saved.”
“I do not do enough good things.”
“I certainly don’t have the Christian life that John or Sally has.”

Look at these typical thoughts of doubt. Analyze them. Think of the other contemplations you’ve had in times of doubt and analyze them.

In such thoughts, who is indicated as the object of our trust? I would offer that it is not Christ, but ourselves. When we have such thought of doubts, we are actually trusting in a commitment we have made, or perhaps a prayer we once prayed, or in the works of our hands to bear evidence to ourselves of our own salvation. We are not trusting on the unchanging, immutable promise of God manifested in his Word (and I mean both the Person of Christ and the Scripture).

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. Romans 3:19-30

This is one of my most favorite passages in all of the Bible, and it is one among many that helped me put away my struggle with doubt forever. Most of us who partake in an evangelical church, particularly Baptist, can quote Romans 3:23 by heart. However, that is the concluding remark and summarizing statement of a point that has taken Paul nearly three chapters to make: The purpose of the Law was to bring the knowledge of sin, and the all the world (and in this case world refers to all of its inhabitants) is guilty before God by the judgment of the Law. Romans 3:24 starts Paul's next point—redemption in Christ.

Look a the terms used in verses 24-26: justified, grace, redemption, propitiation, blood, faith, and righteousness. These words paint a picture of substitution—especially the word propitiation, which refers to an offering that becomes the object of God's wrath in the place of the offender. At Calvary, God made Jesus Christ, "who knew no sin to be sin for us." (2 Corinthians 5:21) In the Greek, "for us" uses the term huper, which indicates that God made Christ to be sin on our behalf. As Spurgeon would put it: Christ became sin in our stead. God took the guilt of sin and placed it upon perfect and blameless Christ, and then He released his wrath toward sin upon Christ. Christ bore within Himself the penalty that was due us. He paid the price on our behalf.

His Work accomplished that which we ourselves could never accomplish.

How does this connect to the doubt of our salvation? To doubt our salvation is to essentially say this: The accomplishment of Christ is not enough. We must do something to add to it—something to perfect it.

In fact, our faith and commitment to Him are part of the redeeming effects of Christ's work—particularly of His resurrection. In order for grace to be grace, there can be no work or effort on our part to perfect that which Christ, the everlasting Son of God, has accomplished. By the power of His resurrection, we were by grace brought to life from spiritual death so that we may come to Christ through faith. By the power of Atonement on the cross, our sin has been forever removed from our account. Every aspect of our conversion to and salvation in Christ is a miracle powered by completed work of Christ Jesus, in His life, in His death, and in the resurrection.

To doubt our salvation is to say that we had some work in it; that some choice or action of ours can perhaps revoke it or make it void; that our conversion was not a miracle of resurrection accomplished by the living God, but something we accomplished on our own. It is to say that Christ Himself did not do enough to effect our salvation.

Therefore, doubt is an offence to the cross of Christ. Once I understood this, I've never struggled with doubt since. In fact, the placement of my trust has further centered toward the Living Christ and his completed, imperishable Work and further away from any merit, work, or quality of my own. If salvation were dependent upon me in any way, doubt is what should reign in the vacuum on my sinful heart.

Christian Existentialism - Part 3

Click for part 2.1, part 2, part 1.

Materialist Conception of God

Exist~dissolve and Deviant Monk both have have charged Reformed theology of pantheism, the belief that there is no distinction between God and the creation--God is all and all is God. Exist tells us:

If one begins from the foundation of the "eternal decrees of God," I see no way in which one can avoid a thoroughly materialist conception of God’s relationship to creation. Related to this, I object to the way in which the Reformed crowd explicates the "sovereignty" of God. As the language which the Reformed crowd utilizes betrays, the Reformed conception of God’s sovereignty is utterly materialist, for it proceeds from the basis of phenomenological investigation. In other words, my experience (and actually the necessary conclusions of Reformed confessionalism) of Reformed sovereignty-speak is that God’s sovereignty is ultimately expressed through expression in the temporal/causal sphere. However, by doing this, Reformed theology has ultimately (although perhaps not consciously) reduced God’s sovereignty to that which exists—but if this happens, there is no way in which to separate that which is created from the being of God, for the very description of the nature of God is based upon creation. While I will be the first to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created (for our language is ultimately linked to our createdness), I also do not believe that this admission requires the gross reduction of God’s sovereignty to causality and over-power which I understand Reformed theology to advocate.

It is this fundamental presupposition which leads to the rest of the errors which I see within Reformed theology, whether one is speaking of Christology, atonement, soteriology, etc. They can all be traced back to this fundamental assumption about the nature of God’s relationship to creation, a relationship which I cannot but see as a philosophical pantheism.

The charge of pantheism is not something that we should take lightly. However, according to exist, our concept of the sovereignty of God is a "fundamental assumption." He tells us that the Reformed explication of God's relationship to creation is not a conclusion of Sola Scriptura, but the opposite--a presupposition. I cannot agree with such a claim. The Reformed "sovereignty-speak" is entirely derived from claims of the Biblical authors, some within quotes of "Thus says the LORD." I give an abbreviated list of examples (all NKJV):

12 "And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good? 14 Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the Lord your God, also the earth with all that is in it. 15 The Lord delighted only in your fathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as it is this day. 16 Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. 17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. 18 He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. 19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. 20 You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve Him, and to Him you shall hold fast, and take oaths in His name. 21 He is your praise, and He is your God, who has done for you these great and awesome things which your eyes have seen. 22 Your fathers went down to Egypt with seventy persons, and now the Lord your God has made you as the stars of heaven in multitude." Deuteronomy 10:12-22

1 Then Job answered and said: 2 "Truly I know it is so, But how can a man be righteous before God? 3 If one wished to contend with Him, He could not answer Him one time out of a thousand. 4 God is wise in heart and mighty in strength. Who has hardened himself against Him and prospered? 5 He removes the mountains, and they do not know When He overturns them in His anger; 6 He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble; 7 He commands the sun, and it does not rise; He seals off the stars; 8 He alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea; 9 He made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south; 10 He does great things past finding out, Yes, wonders without number. 11 If He goes by me, I do not see Him; If He moves past, I do not perceive Him; 12 If He takes away, who can hinder Him? Who can say to Him, 'What are You doing?' 13 God will not withdraw His anger, The allies of the proud lie prostrate beneath Him." Job 9:1-13

1 Then Job answered and said: ... 13 "But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul desires, that He does. 14 For He performs what is appointed for me, And many such things are with Him. 15 Therefore I am terrified at His presence; When I consider this, I am afraid of Him. 16 For God made my heart weak, And the Almighty terrifies me; 17 Because I was not cut off from the presence of darkness, And He did not hide deep darkness from my face." Job 23:1,13-17

1 Then Job answered the Lord and said: 2 "I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You." Job 42:1-2

4 For the word of the Lord is right, And all His work is done in truth. 5 He loves righteousness and justice; The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. 6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. 7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; F26 He lays up the deep in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the Lord; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. 9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. 10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. 11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations. Psalm 33:4-11

1 Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, But to Your name give glory, Because of Your mercy, Because of Your truth. 2 Why should the Gentiles say, "So where is their God?" 3 But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of men's hands. Psalm 115:1-4

5 For I know that the Lord is great, And our Lord is above all gods. 6 Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places. 7 He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings the wind out of His treasuries. 8 He destroyed the firstborn of Egypt, Both of man and beast. 9 He sent signs and wonders into the midst of you, O Egypt, Upon Pharaoh and all his servants. 10 He defeated many nations And slew mighty kings-- 11 Sihon king of the Amorites, Og king of Bashan, And all the kingdoms of Canaan-- 12 And gave their land as a heritage, A heritage to Israel His people. 13 Your name, O Lord, endures forever, Your fame, O Lord, throughout all generations. 14 For the Lord will judge His people, And He will have compassion on His servants. Psalm 135:5-14

11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. 12 I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, 13 and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor--it is the gift of God. 14 I know that whatever God does, It shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, And nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. 15 That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past. Ecclesiastes 3:11-15

24 The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying, "Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand: 25 That I will break the Assyrian in My land, And on My mountains tread him underfoot. Then his yoke shall be removed from them, And his burden removed from their shoulders. 26 This is the purpose that is purposed against the whole earth, And this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. 27 For the Lord of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?" (Note: God is speaking in first-person) Isaiah 14:24-27

5 "To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal And compare Me, that we should be alike? 6 They lavish gold out of the bag, And weigh silver on the scales; They hire a goldsmith, and he makes it a god; They prostrate themselves, yes, they worship. 7 They bear it on the shoulder, they carry it And set it in its place, and it stands; From its place it shall not move. Though one cries out to it, yet it cannot answer Nor save him out of his trouble. 8 Remember this, and show yourselves men; Recall to mind, O you transgressors. 9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. 12 "Listen to Me, you stubborn-hearted, Who are far from righteousness: 13 I bring My righteousness near, it shall not be far off; My salvation shall not linger. And I will place salvation in Zion, For Israel My glory." (Note: God is speaking in first-person) Isaiah 46:1-11

24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: "Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: 'Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things? 26 The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord and against His Christ.' 27 For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus." Acts 4:24-30

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "... 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings...for in Him we live and move and have our being" Acts 17:22,24-26

20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power [gk: exousia] over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Romans 9:20-21

To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen. Jude 25

Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created. Revelation 4:11

Exist tells us that we "reduce God's sovereignty to that which exists." As opposed to what? What else is there for God to rule--Himself? How can God be sovereign over something that does not exist? Even if it does not materially exist, and is a mere thought of God, it still exists in a non-material way and is a creation of sort subject to God's authority. Exist goes on to say, "I will be the first to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created." Then where is the argument? How are we to speak of God's rule and reign over all of creation (the meaning of sovereign), if doing so only reduces his sovereignty to that which exists? Do not the verses quoted above, some even attributed as direct citations of God, relate God's sovereignty to that which is created? It seems to be that Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Job, John, and Paul all are guilty of the same charge of pantheism. Even if you totally deny the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which exist does not, we have at minimum an expression of what the human authors thought of God's sovereignty.

The definition of sovereign concerns power, right, and authority. In personal correspondence, exist stated that he would rather not use the term because it had been hijacked by the Reformed crowd. However, do not the above passages demonstrate that God rules and reigns over his creation? In fact, does not the term sovereign imply a relationship between ruler and subject, even if it is between a person and himself as some new-agers would say?

They may respond to my answer in this manner: The way that the Reformed explain God's will practically restricts God to doing what He wills--thereby defining His will and actions by what comes to pass in time and space. How then do you differentiate that which is necessarily God and that which is creation?

Let me begin with an illustration: When a playwright writes a play, he is sovereign over it. By his pen he determines all the qualities of the play, he develops the characters, he dictates the events through the plot, and determines an end. If we were to look at that play, we would gain some insight into the personality and attributes of the playwright, such as style or intelligence. We may also be able to determine a theme or moral to this play. However it does not follow the play is the playwright. Although, by his pen, he determined the entire course of events for that play, that play does not define or limit him.

The relationship between God and his creation is as a the relationship between the playwright and his play--even to a greater extent. If God has determined in eternity what would happen within His creation in time and brought those plans to fruition, it is a huge logical fallacy to conclude that God is the creation. The sovereignty of God is not something merely "expressed." It has far greater implications than that. God's sovereignty is something that necessarily is by the very nature of his being. We experience it in the spatial/temporal sphere, but it is not limited to that realm. All that and who exist belong to God and are subject to his authority--this is Paul's inescapable point in Romans 9.

How are we to tell that which created from that which is God? Any material object, created being (other the man Jesus), event in time is not God, although his "pen" has brought them pass. God himself is completely unobservable and invisible, hence the necessity of revelation both through his word and by his Son. God is not the god of pantheism, totally imminent and not at all transcendent. God is not the god of deism, totally transcendent and not at all immanent. God is both transcendent--above, beyond, and totally distinct from the creation--and immanent--working behind and in all the affairs, events, things, and beings in creation to bring his purposes of creation to fruition.

However, in humility, we must admit the difficulties of explicating the actions of an eternal God within a creation in bondage to time. We limited in our expressions to temporal and spatial terms--and there are many aspects of God that we can neither know nor express because they are beyond comprehension, nor have they been revealed to us. On the other hand, what God has revealed to us by his words and his Word, we can claim as truth and trust the message of them to be true.