but when scripture speaks of god anthropomorphically, it does not imply that the limitations and imperfections which belong to the personal characteristics of us sinful creatures belong also to the corresponding qualities in our holy creator; rather, it takes for granted that they do notso this explains that god's responses and actions are not the same motives and findings you might find in many of the actions amongst the created man. it's not foolish, immoral, impulsive retribution as you would find amongst your peers. it is always a right and a necessary response or reaction to moral evil, thus god's anger is only present when righteously warranted. i pose this question as j. i. packer states, would a god who took as much pleasure in evil as he did in good be a good god? god's wrath is always judicial and therefore a righteous judge administering justice. which is what we ferociously pray for?
Monday, March 1, 2010
i think we limit our understanding of god and his awesome power when we cloak him with the anthropomorphic language we commonly use for him. we get this from seeing responses of others and even in the church these attributes are all to often not different from the pagan societies we are quick to slander. the tendency is to look at human attributes and because man is the closest creation to god's likeness we accredit what man accomplishes in his emotions to the likeness of god. this is a problem. because we are a fallen race and although an image of our creator a broken and fractured icon at best.