Hebrews 1:3 says, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory
and the exact representation of his being....” This is just saying as a
principle that which Jesus had already declared, when he stated “the Son can do
nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because
whatever the Father does the Son also does.” (John 5:19 and others)
If Jesus is the exact representation of who God is. Jesus is
the best revelation we’ll ever get of who God is. It is legitimate and
appropriate handling of the Bible to acknowledge that the revelation of God’s
nature that Jesus provides (both through scripture and through our experience
with him now, it can be asserted) is a superior revelation of God’s nature than
any other revelation of God. It is superior to what angels declare, superior to
supernatural experiences, superior to Old Testament prophets. Jesus is the best
revelation of God’s nature that we will ever, ever have.
Therefore, when examining a doctrine or a teaching, it is
Biblical and appropriate to ask, “Is this doctrine consistent with the nature
of God as Jesus revealed it?”
If we are faced with a doctrine that assumes that God does this
or that, or that infers that God approves this or that, then that makes a
statement of the character of God. For example:
► If
we believe that God creates beauty, then this infers that God affirms beauty. Is
this consistent with Jesus?
► If
we believe that God creates evil, then this infers that we believe that God is
the source of evil. Is this consistent with how Jesus lived or what Jesus
taught?
► If
we believe that God is going to snatch his people out of their socks and leave
the world without the people He gave the Great Commission to just as the world
is entering its greatest tribulation and challenge, then this says things about
God’s character: are these things consistent with the revelation of who God is
as Jesus has revealed Him? Is this how Jesus has revealed that God works?
Frankly, to avoid or to diminish this test of our doctrine
is to reject or diminish the authority of Scripture, because Scripture affirms that
Jesus is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.”
(Colossians 1:15)
Having established this test [“Is this teaching consistent
with the character of God as revealed in Jesus”], this does not mean that we
necessarily completely throw out all doctrine that fails the test. We may only
need to refine our belief in that area. This may call for maturity in our
doctrine.
If we conclude that the life of Jesus does not support the
idea that God is the creator or source of evil, then we do not necessarily
throw out any doctrine of evil, or even any doctrine that God uses evil. We may
want to acknowledge that while God uses evil to bring about good (the cross may
serve as an illustration), it does not therefore follow logically that God is
himself the source of evil. We may need to learn that evil has another source.
Or if we conclude that the idea of God snatching his people
away just before difficulty strikes is not consistent with the revelation that
Jesus provides, we do not therefore need to abandon all consideration of a “Rapture.”
Perhaps we just need to re-think the Rapture in terms that are more consistent
with God’s character and less consistent with a spirit of fear.
Perhaps there’s real reason for the command we’ve been
given: “And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our
eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith.” Maybe part of the reason
that we need to keep our eyes on Jesus is because He is STILL the standard by
which we understand what is true and what is not.
No comments:
Post a Comment