God is an Exclusivist! part 3

28 03 2006

In previous posts we have talked about the prevailing perception that any exclusive claims to knowing God or access to God are arrogant. In the name of humility many have abandoned such a concept; in view of a far more inclusive, positive and tolerant religious worldview.

oohhsfw.jpgThis ostensibly humble shift away from exclusive thought would be more digestible if it there was nothing objective to calibrate our moorings. This shift would be humble if we were all left here to figure everything out; sure it is humble not to be too dogmatic with our self-invested authority, and in so doing categorically exclude all who do not look like us or talk like us.

But this is hypothetical, for we are not left to our own subjective moorings to evaluate and exercise self-authority. We under the reality that the self-existent, independent God, who alone dwells separately in terms of time, space, & history as the transcendent source of knowledge, life and happiness, he has indeed made himself known! God has made himself known through the pages of Scripture and through the life of his son.

As the evangelist John announces:

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
This is good news. God has not left us to ourselves to make these huge mistakes about who he is and what he expects. Instead we see the love of God through the pages of Scripture in communicating his divine will to us in understandable terms.

The reality of divine disclosure does cast an interesting light on this humility of pluralism. How humble is it to discard the revelation of God? How can this be humility? God has said what he has said and many have rejected it, and in the name of humility sought to explain what God thinks, feels and does.

How is this anything but arrogant? The religious pluralist is saying, “I know what the Bible says, but listen, what God really means is…” This is false-humility.

I can remember working in a company where one of the computer workstations of a senior executive was compromised. An individual managed to gain access to the executive’s office and proceeded to type an email to many within the company. The email of course went out under the executive’s signature and so brought his approval and authority.

password_sfw.jpgThe problem came in what was communicated. The individual disseminated a message that undermined the leadership of the executive based upon his previously clear and thorough communication of his vision. Needless to say, the perpetrator was relieved of his position with the company.

What if this hacker was sincere in his motives? What if he sincerely felt that what he wrote was true? These things do not matter, because the hacker has no right to speak for the executive; he has no business in his office or on his computer.

How much more offensive is it when people send out broadcast messages to their audiences that contradict and undermine the leadership, authority, and revelation of God himself!?!?!

This is not humility it is rebellion. It is criminal. God defines himself, we do not define him.

In the next couple of posts, let’s consider the exclusive means of forgiveness.




2 responses

28 03 2006

but we define the scriptures, no?

28 03 2006

this hits at the heart of my point & the problem…God has made himself known to us. he has communicated infinite concepts and realities in finite terms that we might know him. so from a biblical perspective, the scriptures define God and we therefore submit to what he says about himself

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: