Ed Young says that reformed theology “people” sit around and
talk about theology and doctrine and sometimes, complicated matters. By doing
this, they arrive at certain beliefs about God and Scripture that they think
are true, such as election. Paul command Titus to instruct young men (a
particular target of Mr. Young’s rant) to be σωφρονεῖν. This Greek word is translated
sensible. Young men are to be sensible. What does the word mean? It means to
have an understanding about practical matters and be able to act accordingly. Knight
comments, “He is urging younger men to live godly Christian lives, and he is
addressing Titus about his particular responsibilities as a minister and as an
example to these men.”[1]
The phrase I find to be quite intriguing is διδασκαλίᾳ ἀφθορίαν, translated “purity
in doctrine.” In other words, part of being sensible and living a Christian
life is maintaining “purity in doctrine.” So often we forget that loving God
with our entire being includes loving God in how we think! This means our
theology should reflect a love for God that results in progressive
sanctification even in our thoughts about His revealed truth. We are not free
to think about God in any way we please. We must bring every thought into the
obedience of Christ! Mr. Young seems to think this is placing God in some sort
of a box. Paul didn’t seem to think so.
It is true that we cannot put God in a box. God encompasses
all that was, is, or every will be. He is everywhere all the time and there is
no place where God is not always present. Reformed theology affirms this truth
without hesitation or apology. That being said, do we attempt to put God in a
box when we study the truth He revealed to us about Himself in Sacred
Scripture? Is that really what Ed Young thinks? Based on what he says, one
would be hard-pressed to understand his charges differently.
What do we know about God and how do we know it? If I take
the “God in a box” fallacy to its logical conclusion, every description of God
and every understanding of who God is and what God is like is guilty of putting
God in a box, isn’t it? Based on sound logic, this is unavoidable. In other
words, Ed Young makes certain claims about who God is and what God is like and
what He is not like. Why then is he not guilty of his own charge of putting “God
in a box,” or “having God all figured out?” The only real way I can tell you if
something is counterfeit is if I am familiar with the genuine. In Ed Young’s
reasoning, not only does the counterfeiter put God in a box, but so does the
genuine. This is unavoidable. The “God in a box” fallacy asserts that any claim
to understanding God is “putting God in a box.” However, in order for the
accusation to be leveled, the accuser must also claim some understanding of
God. Therefore, everyone who charges anyone of putting God in a box has put God
in a box of their own. The only difference is the box.
Why the “God in a box” fallacious and why is it so
dangerous? The answer is simple: it is antithetical to Biblical revelation. God
is revealed to us in the person of Jesus Christ recorded in Sacred Scripture.
The Bible is the inspired and divine revelation of God Himself to human beings.
Scripture serves as the basis of our knowledge of who God is, what God is like,
and what God is NOT like. There are things about God we do not and cannot know
because God chose not to reveal them. Revelation is limited to those truths
that God desired to reveal about Himself. While God is not in a box, His
revelation is absolutely in a box. Reformed theology did not put it there. God
did! God has chosen to disclose something about Himself and creation through
divine revelation. At the same time, He left some things undisclosed. We cannot
know these things today. While the box analogy fails when it is applied to God,
it succeeds when it is applied to revelation. At the risk of sounding harsh,
the “God in a box argument” is ignorant, fallacious, unbiblical, and reflects
uncritical thinking at its foundation. I hope people stop using it.
No comments:
Post a Comment