When you look up at the starlit sky and ponder the vastness and beauty of the heavens above and the diversity and unity of the earth below, your thoughts are moved to the God who created such marvelous things. If the universe is so unfathomably expansive and so indescribably beautiful, what is the nature of the God who created it? What is God like, the one who exceeds the greatness and grandeur of the world we inhabit? When we begin to ask these questions, we quickly acknowledge that we are finite creatures contemplating the infinite God. Though we are finite creatures, the one true and infinite God has revealed himself to us in the world he has made and even more clearly in the word he has caused to be written. World and word together (natural and supernatural theology) teach the glory and majesty of our God.

Simplicity

God has revealed himself to his creatures as the God who is simple. At first glance, to say that God is simple sounds counterintuitive. The great and glorious God is simple? The Creator of the complexity of the cosmos is simple? Yes, because by the simplicity of God we mean that there is no composition in God. God is not made up of parts, or any form of composition whatsoever. God’s simplicity is fundamental to a true understanding of him.

We gather divine simplicity from Scripture, in three principal places. The first is God’s self-revelation of his most sacred name, “I am that I am” (Exodus 3:14). God reveals his name as the one who is. He is his own existence. God is being itself subsisting. The one who is, who is his own being, indeed who is pure being itself subsisting, cannot possibly be a composite being. Therefore, we say he is simple. God is pure simple being itself.

World and word together teach the glory and majesty of our God.

The second is Jesus’ statement that “God is spirit” (John 4:24). Angels are spirits, but they are created spirits. They are composed of the possibility to be, and God making them to be. God is spirit, but not like the angels. He is not a being that has been brought into being. God is pure simple being itself.

The third is Paul’s doxology, “For from him and through him and to him are all things” (Romans 11:36). For all things to be from, through, and to God, there can be nothing before God. But all things composed have a composer. All things with parts have been put together. If all things are from, through, and to God, he must be pure simple being itself, without any composition or cause preceding his being. God cannot be reduced to more fundamental parts. Because his is not composed, he cannot be decomposed. God is pure simple being itself.

If one were to respond that God’s being is “necessarily composite,” or that God is “necessary complexity,” but without a composer, not only is this a self-contradicting proposal when investigated, but also it would follow that there may be necessarily composite beings other than the one we know as God. Divine simplicity protects the uniqueness and singularity of God because he, and he alone, is pure being itself. The one who is, pure and simple being, gives existence to all things. From the infinite fullness of his perfect simple being, God has given them that most fundamental of compositions, to be brought from possibility of being into actual being and made “according to their kind.”

Analogy

God’s simplicity reminds us, once more, of the vast and inviolable distinction between the Creator and his creatures. We must confess that our words and thoughts of God fall short of reaching the height or finding the depth of his majesty.

Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty? (Job 11:7)

Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it (Psalm 139:6).

How can we speak of such a sublime God? As we form our understanding and speech of God from both the world and the word, we must do so in a way that keeps the infinity of God and the finitude of creatures in place. We must think and speak of God in a way that is fitting with his infinite being as God, and to think and speak of creatures in a way that is fitting with their finite being as creatures. When we do this, we are using analogy or analogical speech. In this context, to use analogy, or analogical speech, is to attribute something to God according to his being, and the same thing to man (if at all fitting) according to his being.

So, for example, to speak analogically is to say, “God is good,” and, “John is good,” but to understand that because of divine simplicity God is the goodness by which he is good, whereas John is good only insofar as he reflects God’s goodness. The difference between goodness in God and John is not merely one of quantity (more or less), but of being itself. God’s goodness is his own simple being—essential, infinite, eternal, immutable, and perfect. John’s goodness is a quality, something extrinsic to himself in which he participates proportional to his being, capable of increase or decrease. To speak of goodness according to God’s being, and according to man’s being is to use analogy.

We must think and speak of God in a way that is fitting with his infinite being as God, and to think and speak of creatures in a way that is fitting with their finite being as creatures.

To give another example, consider the difference between fire, and being fired up, or between heat and being heated up. It is of the nature of fire to be hot. Other things can receive heat from fire, but when the source of heat is removed, they lose that heat. When I eat lunch, I sit under a pergola with a metal roof. The roof heats with the midday sun, creaking as its temperature rises, but when a cloud covers the sun the roof immediately begins to creak oppositely as it cools down. It is not of the nature of metal roofs to be hot, so it heats and cools insofar as it participates in the heat of the sun. We attribute heat to fire, or to the sun, in a way that fits the nature of the thing, and so also with metal roofs, or anything that is heated or fired. For one, it is the nature of the thing to be hot. For another, it only participates in heat, or becomes hot, as it is exposed to that which is heat.

This example may be illustrative, but it falls short because the sun, so scientists say, will eventually burn out, and fires can be extinguished. The sun can increase or decrease in a number of ways, as can fire, but God is all that he is infinitely, eternally, perfectly, and immutably, like a celestial flame that is an infinite fuel unto itself. Despite the shortcomings of the example, it illustrates the point that in all our thoughts of God, we must think analogically, that is, according to the being of the thing of which we are speaking. Though we speak of God in the language of men, we must do so in a way that acknowledges and preserves his being as God.

This applies to how we read the Bible. God condescends to speak to us in human language in the written word, and we must recognize this to be an accommodation to our capacities as creatures. We must read the Bible in a way that keeps God’s infinite being in mind. So, for example, the idea of “regret” or “repentance” is inconsistent with the perfection and immutability of God, and yet the Bible attributes these to God in various places. At the same time, the Bible denies that God regrets or repents.

God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind (Numbers 23:19).

The Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret (1 Samuel 15:29).

What is the solution to these apparently opposite statements? It is analogy, which God himself teaches us when his word says, “God is not man.” This means that repentance must be attributed to God in some way that is fitting with his being as God. This we can do, by recognizing that the God who decreed all things immutably, whatsoever comes to pass, decreed to make Saul king, to permit his demise, and to remove and replace him with David. All of this was decreed by the unchanging eternal God, without remorse, regret, or a change of mind. However, from the human perspective it appears as a complete reversal of plan and action, which is precisely what repentance is.

Repentance is borrowed from human speech to communicate the providential reversal of events within God’s unfolding plan, and therefore when we attribute it to God we must remember that God is not a man. If we forget this, we will bring God down to the level of the human language he has used to communicate with us. The point to be grasped is that the world and word teach us of the greatness of God, and we must think and speak of him analogically, that is, in a way that is fitting with his being.

The One Who Is, the great I AM,

Exceeds the meager mind of man.

As creatures, all we say or know

Of God above comes from below,

Because the things that he has made

With his own likeness are inlaid.

Behind our thoughts, Beyond our reach,

God, in kindness, speaks our speech.

But he remains transcendent still.

He always has, and always will.

Vaccine mandates are real. As a Pastor, I’ve had too many conversations with faithful church members facing perhaps the biggest decisions of their lifetime.  God promises to give wisdom to those who ask (James 1:5).  I’ve been asking.  I’ve been encouraging those faithful church members to ask as well.  I’ve also been going to the Scriptures, a faithful storeroom of God’s wisdom for answers to help the brethren God has called me to serve.
Of course, I have also been speaking to faithful Pastors I trust and reading up on the latest offerings from faithful Pastors I trust, but do not know personally.  That pursuit has opened my eyes to a troubling reality.  In short, politicians pushing the mandates have been appealing to the Christian virtue of love to convince hesitant Christians to get vaccinated and shockingly, many of the so-called leading evangelicals of our day have been carrying their eisegetical water.
It recalls perhaps the most famous question of the mid—80’s: What’s love got to do with it?  The average Baptist church could wallpaper the fellowship hall with the sheer volume of articles written in defense of the mandates reminding Christians they must love others as Jesus taught, and therefore take the jab.  It seems a curious use of the term.  You see, while the Bible does command us to “love thy neighbor”, that command cuts both ways.  Simply stated, I can’t say I love my neighbor while forcing him to sin and truly love him at the same time.  What most people invoking love mean in this discussion is really the opposite of biblical love.
Let me explain.  Consider 1 Corinthians chapter eight.  Paul introduces a solution to a similar problem in Corinth.  The church in Corinth was divided and unloving, with members filled with pride and in conflict with each other. There were two groups of people in this church.  Those who knew food sacrificed to idols could be eaten freely because there is only one true God, and those who knew there was only one true God, but still believed it to be sinful to eat those foods given their prominent place in pagan worship.  One group was pro-food, and one group was anti-food.  One group had a weak conscience, and one group had a strong conscience.  The chapter is about the way Paul responded to the weaker conscience of those who believed it to be sinful to eat food sacrificed to idols.  This is where we should be going to learn how to love one another in the face of sharp, personal, and meaningful disagreements like we face today.
True love never asks someone to sin against their conscience.
I’ve read most of the available meat in Corinth had been cleansed of supposed evil spirits through some form of ritual dedication to a false god of some kind.  This meat was consumed in pagan temples and at times sold on the streets.  Dedicated meats were as immediate of an obstacle as any mandate and the church was divided on how to deal with it.
The situation is complicated by the sinful pride and the lack of compassion demonstrated by those who had no beef with eating dedicated meats.  They looked down on those who were abstaining, mockingly, as if they were inferior, weaker, and even foolish.  Sound familiar?  Interestingly, Paul rebukes them for their lack of love.  They were pressuring those Paul describes as having a weaker conscience to go against that inner God given guide and eat the dedicated meats.  He writes, “However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled” (1 Corinthians 8:7). To the weaker brethren, eating these meats was tantamount to full blown idolatry, which having been delivered from through the gospel, wasn’t something they were interested in revisiting.
It’s a simple formula really. Though those Paul describes by default as having a stronger conscience could not understand it, and even disagreed with it, the brethren with the weaker conscience would literally be sinning against God if they ate the dedicated meats.  This is where I believe we have the most to learn.  A believer’s conscience represents his or her understanding of God’s will and Word, and what he or she believes to be right or wrong based upon their understanding of God’s Word.  To go against the conscience then, is to willingly do what you believe to be sinful.  Therefore, to go against one’s conscience is to sin against God (Romans 14:14, 23).
This principle led Paul to warn the meat eaters against embracing their liberty or pressuring the weaker brethren in a way that would lead them to sin against their conscience and eat the meats.  He writes, “But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.  For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died. But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:9-12). It turns out those with the stronger conscience are not free to sin against those with the weaker conscience.  This is because we are all connected, one body, with Christ as the head.  We are all accountable to one another.  We have a responsibility to one another.  Love comes before our knowledge and our freedom in this way.
Paul ends the chapter with an incredible display of love.  In fact, I would say this is the definitive verse in understanding how to truly apply the love of Christ to the current situation which divides so many God loving Christians.  He writes, “Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble” (v. 13). Paul doesn’t instruct those with stronger consciences to lecture those with weaker consciences on the theological truths behind this issue.  Paul doesn’t question their conscience or what has informed it either.  He accepts it, believing the best about their motives and intentions, and responds accordingly. The principle is clear. True love never asks someone to sin against their conscience. That’s it. That’s the principle. Who needs a conscience, when a conscience can’t be broken? We do, it turns out. Be like Paul, signal your love by refusing to ask (or supporting someone to ask) a fellow brother or sister to sin against their conscience, no matter your position on the issue.

Tweet Share

In Part 1, we considered 2 Chronicles 34 and King Josiah. We saw how Josiah responded humbly and obediently to God’s Word. It reminds us that the great hope for the Southern Baptist Convention is that we will respond to the Lord in a similar way as King Josiah.
If we hope to retain Biblically conservative institutions, be a faithful missionary enterprise, and continue to see Christ made known among the nations, we, comparable to Josiah, must:

Rediscover the Book – that is, let the Bible again take its place as our highest authority and trust it as wholly sufficient.
Understand Whose Book it Is – this is God’s And since we live in God’s World, we must live and worship according to God’s rules. God defines sin, not us. God defines justice and reconciliation, not us. This is God’s Book.
Be Humble – We must reject the pridefulness of the world and go about our lives in God’s Way.
Repent – Josiah tore his clothes in repentance. As God’s Word confronts us with sin we must be willing to turn from it knowing there is forgiveness in Jesus.
Believe what the Book says – We must be willing to put our hope and trust in God’s Word. We must believe that what God’s Book says is best, even if the culture scorns it.
Teach what the Book says – as Josiah taught the people, so we must teach this Book without apology.
Do What the Book says – it is not enough to “believe” and “teach” the Book. We must build all that we are and all that we do upon the unbreakable Bible (cf. John 10:35). God’s standards must be followed, and it is to our great blessing when we do what the Book says (cf. Psalm 1).

Yet, there is another path Southern Baptists can choose. We could, to our great detriment, reject the pattern of Josiah and decide instead to walk in the ways of his son, Jehoiakim.
Jehoiakim
2 Chronicles 36 teaches us that Josiah’s son, Jehoiakim, was 25 years old when he began to reign in Judah, having been appointed to the position by Neco, king of Egypt. Jehoiakim did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh. This reminds us that ultimately what we want to do is what is right in God’s sight, regardless of what the world might say. What God says is right is right and what God says is evil is evil.
Undoubtedly, one of the major reasons Jehoiakim’s life was evil was because he rejected God’s Word. Jeremiah 36 teaches us that when he was just 29, Jehoiakim had a similar encounter to God’s Word that his father Josiah did, yet with a woefully different outcome.
Deep Cuts the Knife
God worked through the prophet Jeremiah to prepare a scroll to be read before King Jehoiakim. The stage was set again, just like it had been in the time of Josiah. And although the people had been unfaithful once again, the Lord graciously pursued them by persistently sending them His prophets. This is just like God to do. Holy and righteous, but also ready and willing to forgive.
Over 100 years prior, the prophet Jonah saw this first hand as God’s grace poured over the wicked Assyrians leading them to repentance in Nineveh. But that time had long since passed. Jehoiakim’s reign was a new day.
God had not sent the prophet Jeremiah to a foreign land but right to the heart of His people. The Lord, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, was willing to forgive. How would the earthly king of God’s people respond?
Sadly, not like his father. Instead of tearing his clothes, Jehoiakim tore God’s Word. The king took his knife and plunged it time and again into God’s scroll. It was a crime of passion, tearing God’s Word apart piece by piece and casting it into the fire.
John Gill comments that this was “a full evidence of an ungodly mind; a clear proof of the enmity of the heart against God, and of its indignation against his word and servants; and yet a vain attempt to frustrate the divine predictions in it, or avert the judgments threatened; but the ready way to bring them on.”[1]
The Way Before Us
Thus, as we approach a new year, Southern Baptists have a choice before us. When it comes to God’s Word, will we go the way of Josiah or Jehoiakim? When we reject God’s standard, when we fail to submit to His authority as mediated through His Word, when we live as though His Book is not sufficient for all matters of a godly life before Him, we are really revealing a heart at enmity with God Himself.
To reject God’s Word is not merely foolish but also wicked. For to reject the Word of God is to ultimately cast aside the God of the Word. And for those who do that, retribution will come. Ignoring God’s Word will not get anyone out of His coming judgment.
God’s Word is sufficient for how we are to know Christ, how we are to reach the lost, how we are to worship, how we are to handle matters of sexual abuse, how we are to order the church, how we are to plant churches and send missionaries, how we are to understand the office and function of pastor, and the list goes on and on. But will we respond to God’s Word in humility like Josiah or will we idiomatically cast it aside into the flames of indifference as we continue to trust the wisdom and ways of the godless culture around us?
Josiah was not a perfect king. But his life points us toward the perfect king we do have in Christ. And at the end of days, we must find ourselves on the side of King Jesus or all hope is lost. And if we want to be found on the side of the King of Glory, we are compelled to bow to His Book. To trust His Book. To stake our very lives, and ministries and the Southern Baptist Convention itself upon all that is contained therein.
If we hope for repentance, reformation, and revival within our own hearts and the beloved SBC, then we must conform to, comply with, and concede all to the Book of God. May we rend our hearts before the King as we kneel to the authority and sufficiency of the Book.
God is holy and righteous. But He is also slow to anger and full of grace. He is most willing to forgive. But the route we will ultimately choose is not yet apparent. Choose wisely.
Trust and obey, brothers and sisters, for there’s no other way.

[1] John Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament, vol. 5, The Baptist Commentary Series (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1810), 609.

Tweet Share