Day One - It All Starts with God
This book gets off to a good start. The first three paragraphs hold out a promise of more great things come. We are urged to consider God first in all things because He is the Creator of all things. This is precisely where Calvin began his Institutes of the Christian Religion, pointing out that while knowledge of self and knowledge of God seem to involve one another, rightly true knowledge of self depends upon true knowledge of God. As he proceeds, Mr. Warren elaborates on two possible methods of pursuing true self-knowledge: speculation and revelation. In this also he echoes the procedure of Calvin. Rightly, he dismisses speculation. Given that we are not the Creator, therefore, we cannot pronounce authoritatively on the meaning of creation. Rightly, he urges revelation, and rightly, he identifies revelation as the Word of God; the Bible. The Creator speaks and thus defines created reality. Our knowledge of ourselves, and of all creation, is true if it is grounded in revelation.
However, in what follows the great promise of the foregoing is dashed. Mr. Warren parts company with Calvin and with all sound and biblical wisdom. In the Institutes Calvin proceeds to elaborate on the impediment of sin and on the true Doctrine of Revelation in the Bible. Mr. Warren glosses over the matter of sin entirely. Thus, a crucial question is left unasked and therefore unanswered: if we are the creation of God, then why is there difficulty with knowing this and with understanding ourselves and reality aright? Having bypassed this inquiry altogether, Mr. Warren therefore entertains no compunction to elaborate a Doctrine of Revelation. This departure from biblical wisdom leads to many problems, a number of which are exhibited during the course of this first Day.
Even though he has stressed “revelation” over speculation, he repeatedly speaks of true self-knowledge as that which we “discover” (p. 18, 19, 20). Our “discovery” is said to come, “…through a relationship with Jesus Christ” (p.20). But, with no clear idea of sin in view, this idea of “discovery” cannot meaningfully be portrayed as involved in Redemption. This problem suggests a refinement of the question posed above: if I am God’s creation, then why should I be without a relationship with Jesus Christ? Indeed, how is it possible for any creature to exist apart from being related to the Creator? However, there is no hint of consideration of these questions. Instead there is only the assurance that it is within our initiative and power to begin such a relationship; as he puts it, “If you don’t have such a relationship, I will later explain how to begin one” (p.20). This, in turn, suggests further questions, e.g: If God is the Creator of all reality, and so determines the meaning and purpose of all things, then how can we meaningfully speak of a relationship between God and His creature as depending upon the initiative and power of the creature? Mr. Warren affords us no explanation.
Indeed, if I “discover” my meaning and purpose through initiative I exercise to begin a relationship with Jesus Christ, then what really remains of a “Creator” or any “revelation” consisting of His Word? How is the Bible essentially different from the Koran, the Talmud, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, the I-Ching, the Ovid, et. al.? How is the Bible essentially different from thoughts of my own mind? Mr. Warren closes this first Day with what is supposed to be an inspiring story of an atheist Russian novelist, who was overcome with great despair. And then, “…suddenly, all by itself, a phrase appeared: Without God life makes no sense.” (p.21) How is the Bible essentially different from “all by itself, a phrase appeared”? One may suggest that the experience of the Russian atheist is an example of the “general revelation” of Nature. Indeed, biblical orthodoxy holds that whereas men are in fact the creatures of God, and made in His image, therefore it is their nature to know this and to know Him, even though in sin they seek to flee Him. But Mr. Warren undertakes no discussion comparing and contrasting the “general” revelation of Nature and the “special” revelation of the Bible. The Russian atheist is presented as arriving at true faith in God via thoughts that arise in his mind.
Biblical orthodoxy holds on the one hand that the general revelation of Nature is sufficient that all men know God and know their duty to God, and therefore are “without excuse” in their sin (Rom. 1:18-23), and on the other hand that only the special revelation of the Bible is sufficient for the regeneration of men unto truth (Rom. 10:6-17). “Revelation” means that God reveals to us that which we could not know apart from Him speaking to us. This is what makes the Bible different from other “sacred texts.” The Bible is the Word of the Creator of all reality. Other texts are the words of men. The truly Christian idea is to maintain a clear and deep distinction between the Creator and the creature - between the God who defines and determines all of reality and the man who inhabits, experiences, and is limited by reality. The authority of the Bible in the thought and lives of men is founded upon this distinction. Apart from this distinction the mind and the thoughts of “God” cannot ultimately be separated from the mind and the thoughts of man. In this case there could be no meaningful distinction between the Bible and any other words we may happen to encounter.
Mr. Warren’s message thus far seems to be: 1) Man is a creature of God, but 2) somehow the “creature” may exist without relation to the “Creator”; 3) although this is problematic for the creature, nevertheless he may exercise his power and initiative to enter into relationship to the Creator; 4) something that we have the habit of referring to as “revelation” somehow will be involved in his “discovering” the meaning and purpose of life. Mr. Warren’s concepts of “God,” “Man,” “Revelation,” and “Discovery” are rather nebulous. Therefore, under these terms a man’s transformation from meaninglessness and purposelessness into meaning and purpose is an ill-defined process of becoming; the creature somehow becomes what the Creator made him to be. As Mr. Warren puts it, “It is about becoming what God created you to be” (p.19).
In contrast to this, a biblically orthodox message holds that 1) it is the nature of the creature to be related to the Creator - that nothing can exist apart from this relation (Col. 1:17); 2) that Man’s problem consists not of a metaphysical difficulty whereby he somehow lacks this relation, but of a moral difficulty of being a sinner, who has broken God’s Law and therefore stands guilty before Him; i.e. he is not without relation to God, but bears the relation of a sinner before his Judge rather than a son before his Father; 3) that, therefore, man’s need is not to “begin a relationship with Jesus,” but to find a remedy for his sin; 4) and that the evidence of Nature is sufficient to condemn every man who refuses to bow before his Creator, but that only the authoritative Word of the Creator, Who alone determines and interprets all of reality, is sufficient to teach us the positive truths of who we are, the fact of our sin, and the remedy provided by God in Christ.
While Mr. Warren began his treatise with the promise of a “Creator / creature distinction,” this promise has not been fulfilled. Though he has mouthed the words dismissing “speculation,” in the end the view he has constructed can be nothing more than speculative. His characterization of God’s truth as a human “discovery” implies a correlativity, not a distinction, of the “Creator” and the “creature.” In this case, what can “Creator” and “creature” really mean? Either man is a sinner who must humble himself before his Creator to learn from His Word the truth of Creator and creature, or else he is a morally neutral “seeker” who must remain free to determine the meaning of “creator” and “creature” for himself. Mr. Warren has left sin out of the discussion altogether, whereas apart from a true “Creator / creature distinction” there can be no truly biblical idea of sin. Without a truly biblical idea of sin Mr. Warren is forced into a position of having to embrace the very speculation that he made a show of rejecting. Lacking a true idea of man’s basic problem, he is prevented from suggesting a true remedy. His solution has everything to do with “relationship” and nothing to do with “Redemption.” Still, his opening paragraphs present a spark of truth. We must press on in hope that this spark may yet be kindled and that his deficiencies might be made up in the days to come.
However, in what follows the great promise of the foregoing is dashed. Mr. Warren parts company with Calvin and with all sound and biblical wisdom. In the Institutes Calvin proceeds to elaborate on the impediment of sin and on the true Doctrine of Revelation in the Bible. Mr. Warren glosses over the matter of sin entirely. Thus, a crucial question is left unasked and therefore unanswered: if we are the creation of God, then why is there difficulty with knowing this and with understanding ourselves and reality aright? Having bypassed this inquiry altogether, Mr. Warren therefore entertains no compunction to elaborate a Doctrine of Revelation. This departure from biblical wisdom leads to many problems, a number of which are exhibited during the course of this first Day.
Even though he has stressed “revelation” over speculation, he repeatedly speaks of true self-knowledge as that which we “discover” (p. 18, 19, 20). Our “discovery” is said to come, “…through a relationship with Jesus Christ” (p.20). But, with no clear idea of sin in view, this idea of “discovery” cannot meaningfully be portrayed as involved in Redemption. This problem suggests a refinement of the question posed above: if I am God’s creation, then why should I be without a relationship with Jesus Christ? Indeed, how is it possible for any creature to exist apart from being related to the Creator? However, there is no hint of consideration of these questions. Instead there is only the assurance that it is within our initiative and power to begin such a relationship; as he puts it, “If you don’t have such a relationship, I will later explain how to begin one” (p.20). This, in turn, suggests further questions, e.g: If God is the Creator of all reality, and so determines the meaning and purpose of all things, then how can we meaningfully speak of a relationship between God and His creature as depending upon the initiative and power of the creature? Mr. Warren affords us no explanation.
Indeed, if I “discover” my meaning and purpose through initiative I exercise to begin a relationship with Jesus Christ, then what really remains of a “Creator” or any “revelation” consisting of His Word? How is the Bible essentially different from the Koran, the Talmud, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, the I-Ching, the Ovid, et. al.? How is the Bible essentially different from thoughts of my own mind? Mr. Warren closes this first Day with what is supposed to be an inspiring story of an atheist Russian novelist, who was overcome with great despair. And then, “…suddenly, all by itself, a phrase appeared: Without God life makes no sense.” (p.21) How is the Bible essentially different from “all by itself, a phrase appeared”? One may suggest that the experience of the Russian atheist is an example of the “general revelation” of Nature. Indeed, biblical orthodoxy holds that whereas men are in fact the creatures of God, and made in His image, therefore it is their nature to know this and to know Him, even though in sin they seek to flee Him. But Mr. Warren undertakes no discussion comparing and contrasting the “general” revelation of Nature and the “special” revelation of the Bible. The Russian atheist is presented as arriving at true faith in God via thoughts that arise in his mind.
Biblical orthodoxy holds on the one hand that the general revelation of Nature is sufficient that all men know God and know their duty to God, and therefore are “without excuse” in their sin (Rom. 1:18-23), and on the other hand that only the special revelation of the Bible is sufficient for the regeneration of men unto truth (Rom. 10:6-17). “Revelation” means that God reveals to us that which we could not know apart from Him speaking to us. This is what makes the Bible different from other “sacred texts.” The Bible is the Word of the Creator of all reality. Other texts are the words of men. The truly Christian idea is to maintain a clear and deep distinction between the Creator and the creature - between the God who defines and determines all of reality and the man who inhabits, experiences, and is limited by reality. The authority of the Bible in the thought and lives of men is founded upon this distinction. Apart from this distinction the mind and the thoughts of “God” cannot ultimately be separated from the mind and the thoughts of man. In this case there could be no meaningful distinction between the Bible and any other words we may happen to encounter.
Mr. Warren’s message thus far seems to be: 1) Man is a creature of God, but 2) somehow the “creature” may exist without relation to the “Creator”; 3) although this is problematic for the creature, nevertheless he may exercise his power and initiative to enter into relationship to the Creator; 4) something that we have the habit of referring to as “revelation” somehow will be involved in his “discovering” the meaning and purpose of life. Mr. Warren’s concepts of “God,” “Man,” “Revelation,” and “Discovery” are rather nebulous. Therefore, under these terms a man’s transformation from meaninglessness and purposelessness into meaning and purpose is an ill-defined process of becoming; the creature somehow becomes what the Creator made him to be. As Mr. Warren puts it, “It is about becoming what God created you to be” (p.19).
In contrast to this, a biblically orthodox message holds that 1) it is the nature of the creature to be related to the Creator - that nothing can exist apart from this relation (Col. 1:17); 2) that Man’s problem consists not of a metaphysical difficulty whereby he somehow lacks this relation, but of a moral difficulty of being a sinner, who has broken God’s Law and therefore stands guilty before Him; i.e. he is not without relation to God, but bears the relation of a sinner before his Judge rather than a son before his Father; 3) that, therefore, man’s need is not to “begin a relationship with Jesus,” but to find a remedy for his sin; 4) and that the evidence of Nature is sufficient to condemn every man who refuses to bow before his Creator, but that only the authoritative Word of the Creator, Who alone determines and interprets all of reality, is sufficient to teach us the positive truths of who we are, the fact of our sin, and the remedy provided by God in Christ.
While Mr. Warren began his treatise with the promise of a “Creator / creature distinction,” this promise has not been fulfilled. Though he has mouthed the words dismissing “speculation,” in the end the view he has constructed can be nothing more than speculative. His characterization of God’s truth as a human “discovery” implies a correlativity, not a distinction, of the “Creator” and the “creature.” In this case, what can “Creator” and “creature” really mean? Either man is a sinner who must humble himself before his Creator to learn from His Word the truth of Creator and creature, or else he is a morally neutral “seeker” who must remain free to determine the meaning of “creator” and “creature” for himself. Mr. Warren has left sin out of the discussion altogether, whereas apart from a true “Creator / creature distinction” there can be no truly biblical idea of sin. Without a truly biblical idea of sin Mr. Warren is forced into a position of having to embrace the very speculation that he made a show of rejecting. Lacking a true idea of man’s basic problem, he is prevented from suggesting a true remedy. His solution has everything to do with “relationship” and nothing to do with “Redemption.” Still, his opening paragraphs present a spark of truth. We must press on in hope that this spark may yet be kindled and that his deficiencies might be made up in the days to come.
posted by S. C. Mooney at 12:38 AM
7 comments
