Righteous means God is “right, correct”. Righteous defines God qualitatively. Every other attempt to qualitatively describe God either limits or contradicts Righteous.
Well, we instantly see the rub in getting closer to God: How do we intentionally become more righteous? How do we become more right and correct in more situations? Our need to become more righteous is most likely not news to you. However, our focus on intentional righteousness is what makes this discussion different from every other examination of this issue.
The ways we are told to become more righteous are the same abstract answers we always get. We aren’t told what makes God Righteous so that we can replicate it our lives. We are given ambiguous directions that only result in frustration. For example, “read the Bible” or “trust God more” or “be more like God”. When we understand what makes God Righteous then we can know how to intentionally apply the principles in every application we encounter. What makes God Righteous?
The best way to answer this question is to look at the opposite result. What are the reasons we are not right or correct in our decisions? Every incorrect decision is actually the result of at least one of two causes: 1) Not having enough of the right data and 2) Not interpreting the data objectively.
God certainly has access to ALL the data. That’s why people say, “God is all knowing”. How many times have you heard someone say, “I didn’t know about that” when they were being corrected? One of the ways to become more right is to know more. For example, when we have a crisis, we need to focus on getting more information rather than reacting emotionally. So we see that our righteousness depends on our knowing and thinking more, not less.
The other reason God is Righteous is because God is objective. How do we lose our objectivity? We lose it when we focus on proving our point rather than being open to learning more. We saw the way to combat this was through contrastive thinking.
The first sign of lack of objectivity is the appearance of apparent contradictions and the individual’s response to them. People who have lost their objectivity will fight for the existence of contradictions in their beliefs, even though it proves the belief is wrong. In fact, we try to allow contradictions in the areas in which we are comfortable and don’t want to change. We saw this when we covered growth vs. comfort.
We can intentionally increase our ability to be right by learning more and becoming more objective. Again, this requires thinking. This is God’s way of thinking. However, we have our own way of thinking. Now we see why God’s ways are so much higher than our own. This is not easy to do. It doesn’t come naturally because it is not in our nature, so we have to do it intentionally.
Notice: Right exists whether we realize it or not. In fact, the most damaging thing that can occur is for us to believe we are right and NOT ACTUALLY be right!
God has all the information and can correctly interpret the impact of the data because God is objective. I call this Big Picture and Long Term. God understands what will happen in all cases (Big Picture) over time (Long Term). Doesn’t that set God apart from us? We only see the moment.
God can be ALWAYS completely Righteous...
Next Post
9 comments:
John you say: "The best way to answer this question is to look at the opposite result. What are the reasons we are not right or correct in our decisions? Every incorrect decision is actually the result of at least one of two causes: 1) Not having enough of the right data and 2) Not interpreting the data objectively."
Did you forget a very important possibility here? Did you take into account our human depravity? Can we always get it right even with the right data and with a perfect interpretation? The will to sin can override both of these, would you not agree? Lets just look at the world around us. Just look at our own actions.
Hi joe,
What SPECIFICALLY do you mean by "human depravity"? Be SPECIFIC...
The will to sin would fit under #2...
John
John allow me to stay with your answer to "the will to sin would fit under #2..."
You ask: "What are the reasons we are not right or correct in our decisions?" then you tell us that sin would be covered under number 2 "Not interpreting the data objectively".
Do you believe that our sin nature is under our control so we have the ability to "interpret the data" with perfection?
Do you believe that we can somehow be perfect in this interpretation?
I look forward to your response.
Hi Joe,
I'm still looking forward to your answer of what you SPECIFICALLY mean by "human depravity"?
I have had this conversation for the last 14 years and while I always get my hopes up that someone will teach me something, what ends up happening is one of two responses:
1) I don't get my questions answered because the other person is trying to prove a point which requires them not to give or get all the information AND proves to me they are not being objective.
2) The person answers the questions, realizes their contradictions, and we become friends because once their great mind gets the right answers, they will be growing a ton.
Just so we're clear, your questions are evidence of a person who likes to think. How you handle the rest of this interaction will determine your objectives and ultimately your heart attitude...
There are two ways to learn: understanding and experience. Experience is very painful, so I always appeal to people first through understanding and then when THEY ask it through their actions, we go through experience.
UNDERSTANDING
There are two posts that I wrote this month that may help you with this discussion. Whether you choose to read them or not is up to you:
http://modeletics.blogspot.com/2009/02/resolution.html
http://modeletics.blogspot.com/2009/02/impossible.html
The first explains that what looks like ONE CONCEPT to most people is actually more than one. If the person actively attempts to "lump" (to make multiple concepts one) they will have contradictions and frustration and they are literally damaging their brain.
The second explains there is a difference between IMPOSSIBLE and "possible but never going to happen".
EXPERIENCE
In the past, I have talked to Calvinists who want to make my explanation of "Righteous" into me saying that we are God and/or we don't need God.
My answer is that it is possible to always be right but it is never going to happen because we will eventually lose thought battles to the flesh. I have a SPECIFIC reason we lose these battles and my general description of it for now is "the flesh". I have written the SPECIFIC explanation publicly several times, so I am on record. What is your SPECIFIC explanation of "human depravity"?
Jesus was able to do what we humans could not because He ALWAYS relied on God and NEVER on the flesh...AND the ONLY way He could ALWAYS COMPLETELY do this was to have a God Nature.
The problem with thinking that it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans to ALWAYS be right is THAT conclusion results in the belief that God is unjust!
IF God completely rigged us so that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be right all the time, then the dispensation isn't just...and God made the dispensation...
My problem is the answer I get to this is "Don't worry, God is Just, we just don't understand how." This week I ended the Salvation series and we found that that answer is ACTUALLY a confession by the person that they AREN'T a believer...
The flesh is most apparent when people make conclusions in their own strength and then twist all the data to support it even when it becomes contradictory. The explanations I'm offering are from the Bible and are non-contradictory. I'd love to take credit for them, but about half of what I write, I don't even like...because my flesh doesn't like the truth.
Now here is why I'm interested in your response...
You still have to explain SPECIFICALLY what you mean by "human depravity".
If not having enough data leads to people being Unrighteous...then what would God think of a person who doesn't provide data that they claim they have? Who would be leading a person to claim to have information and then NOT share it?
And just so you are aware, if there is a contradiction in your answer, then you are going to have to further explain why you were wrong...
And if your answer is #1 and/or #2, this is going to get real interesting...
What does it mean to say that God is objective?
And...how do we know that he IS objective (That may be obvious from the answer to the first question)?
Hi Tom,
Great Question!
"Objective" means that God isn't biased or comparative. God doesn't come to a conclusion until after He has all the information...then He determines the Right answer based on this information alone.
We aren't right when we lean towards a conclusion before we have all the information.
As for how we know He is objective, I would say that He is not a respecter of persons so we know He is objective when it comes to people. As for everything else, I would say that if He wasn't objective, then it would be possible for Him to be wrong...it would be somewhere in His Nature. However, there is NOTHING in His Nature that is Wrong or Unjust, so being biased and comparative aren't in His Nature.
Thanks for the question!
John
Hmmm.
Isn't that nearly a circular definition? If the definition of right includes being objective can we really use 'Right Nature' as evidence for being objective?
My take on it would be that there are three categories, people, every other thing, and then God himself.
As you point out it is stated that he is objective with people.
With himself there really can't be a distinction. I think the trinity would be looked at as one in this case.
As for everything else, it seems like the only possibility to not be objective would be that he favors one of those creations over another and bases his decision on that.
Since they don't have a will in a people sense, this would seem to imply that some creations were more "right" than others anyway. Which is the same as saying God was wrong in the first place.
Hi Tom,
The definition of "right" does NOT include being objective. The definition is a WHAT.
HOW to be right involves getting all of the information and being objective. This is different than the definition.
The problem with Right and Just is they are causeless principles...they are causeless definitions. The concept of Right and Just exist even if NOTHING were Right and Just.
Also, there is a HUGE distinction between things being more and less right and things being Right.
We will never be Right (without ANY wrong at all in both short and long term) without God. However, I can be more or less right without God...for the same argument you used. It is possible for me to be less right than you without God...so it is possible for you to be more right than me (and even right) without God.
However, this right is less than a millionth of being Right. The problem is that people are able to be more right in their own power without God, so they think they can make it all the way to Right.
It would take millions and millions of years (if ever) for a human to make it to Right, so the people who start down the path of attempting to be Right in their own strength because they became more right in their own strength are deceived.
Finally, there is a HUGE difference between God making something that is more or less right AND God having a Big Picture approach that requires uniqueness.
Right and Just are tricky topics. Definitions (WHAT) and ways to attain (HOW) are two completely separate issues.
Thanks for the comments,
John
Aha...Now I get it, that makes much more sense.
Thanks.
Post a Comment