Two questions.
First, what do we want from God? And second, what does God want from us?
As a courtesy, let’s take the second question first. Because God, as Creator, has honor over his creation. This shows my bias as a Christian.
What does God want? To start I’ll chase a variety of options. Each of us may want to answer, inwardly, for ourselves. So, are we personal artwork, meant to display divine creativity? Or are we products of an engineer showing off his skills? Or more modestly, are we like flowers and grass in a garden? Simply meant to “be” as simple bits of life? Notice that any answers suggest value. If each person is particular and well-purposed; and we live together in lively communities, we have some sort of relational meaning. But if we’re merely individual curiosities, not so much.
And what do we want from God? Security? Meaning? Wealth? Comfort? Adventure and fame? Or maybe a lasting future—with the promise of eternal life? And if we reach beyond our individual ambitions, do we have our heritage in mind? Our families? And do we want meaning along with others in a divinely arranged community—maybe as a bit of a monument?
As we chase these questions I’m one who loves God as he comes to us in the Bible. So let’s pick that up from here on. In Scriptures, we find him as a purposeful creator, and that should give us a basis for meaningful identities.
To say more about where we start, recognizing God as our maker dismisses Naturalism, the widely held view that “what is” only amounts to what science can explore. The Bible, by contrast, offers the supernatural. This, in turn, gives context for an intelligent design in “what is.” A doorway between the natural world and the supernatural is also allowed for. That is, in fact, displayed in Christ’s resurrection. Jesus and the Bible writers point to the importance of the resurrection as it assures us that physical death doesn’t end our existence.
That may not be enough for some. Do we have more than Christ’s resurrection to support claims of a supernatural reality? Yes. Let’s add the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible.
One fulfilled prophecy that catches my attention—it came about almost on my birthday—is the restored nation of Israel. Israel was dissolved by Roman rulers in the first century. Nothing was left apart from scattered groups of a self-aware diaspora—the Jewish people. Yet the Bible promised Israel would continue, and in May 1948 Israel was restored as a nation. She awaits a spiritual awakening; but let’s give God time!
Separately, Jesus promised that his saving message—offered quietly, in humble settings to small, mostly uneducated groups—would eventually reach the world. That has come about. As a Spirit-shaped set of writings that regularly confront human sin. Bibles have been hated and dismissed. Yet, despite this, the Bible has had broader reach than any book ever written.
Another answer in asking about God’s plan for humanity comes in Ephesians 2:10. “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” This sets out a particular plan by God for each soul he creates. We also read of God’s unique creation aims in Matthew 10:30, where Jesus promised, “…even the hairs of your head are all numbered.” So, too, David wrote of God’s broad reach in Psalm 139:16, “Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”
Let’s return now to our original questions. Do our human aims match up with God’s aims? And if they aren’t aligned, what happens? An unexpected answer is that God and humans both get what they want. Lots of theological ink and countless hours of conversation chase these questions, but one Bible answer stands out above others.
God, for his part, has always stated that he wants a people for himself. This was illustrated, especially, early in Genesis where God walked in Eden. And with that, an Old Testament refrain to Israel is, “You shall be my people, and I shall be your God.” As in Genesis 17:7; Ezekiel 36:28; and Jeremiah 7:23, to list just a few examples. An overlapping New Testament theme was that Christ’s followers are collectively called to be his “bride.” The Bible concludes with the fulfillment of this aim in the wedding supper of the Lamb.
Humans have always been divided here. Some are still unwittingly aligned with Nimrod in Genesis 11:4. He built a high tower in Babel because he wanted humans to have “a name for ourselves.” This was in explicit opposition to God’s word. So independence from God is one option. The other is a faith through new life: what Jesus offered Nicodemus in John 3:14-16.
Jesus also offered a similar descriptive divide in his wedding feast parable of Matthew 22:1-14. He concluded, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” This answer is neither Arminian or Calvinist, both of which treat the human will—the function of “choosing”—as a basis for salvation. Yet God’s free grace is crucial as it explains the underlying basis for any choices.
This “compatibilist” answer sets out desire or affections as the deeper basis for our choosing. So that a self-directed will isn’t the key; but a responsive heart is. God invites all hearts to delight in his companionship; so we are either drawn, or not drawn, to him based on what we want. Think, for instance, of the wealthy moralist who walked away from Jesus in favor of his personal wealth. Even though “Jesus loved him” [Mark 10:17-22]. Love can be resisted.
In 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10 Paul also wrote about desire-based-choices. “They [non-responders] will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed….” This distinction is clear in 2:10, “… those who are perishing, [perish] because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.”
So, two questions. And one heart-based answer. All who come to know and love Jesus do so because we have been drawn to “want what God wants”—a shared life with the Father and the Son by the Spirit. And those who don’t want him won’t have him.
A Bible-based call to discover what God wants is to “taste and see; the LORD is good” [Psalm 34:8]. And if that’s what we want, we’re good.
Hello Dr. Frost,
You do not know me, but I know of you. I have read your book Richard Sibbes: God’s Spreading Goodness. I also have read, with particular interest, your article on the real reason for Luther’s Reformation, and your respond to Muller. It has been of great value to me. I have also followed this blog (minimally, I confess) for over a year.
I am currently a theology student, an American currently living in the UK. My studies have pushed me into reading much from Thomas Goodwin. I am messaging you on this matter because I know your position on the matters I am about to bring up, and have a suspicion that you may have knowledge enough of Goodwin to help guide me in this. I suppose, also, that you will correct or ignore me if I am wrong.
First, then, to the reasons I am writing you:
1) though I find in Goodwin a union in Christ and justification by grace through faith only, and an incredibly deep view of the benefits of that salvation, namely, life in God, God’s sharing His own glory with His elect; though I find these wonderful things in Goodwin, I see unmistakably the imprint of the Aristotelian concept of habitus. This is particularly evident in “Man’s Restoration by Grace” chapter 3 (specifically); “The Work of the Holy Ghost in Our Salvation,” Book 5, chapter 1. There are other places also, but those are the main sections where this has most startled me! What am I to think of this? Though Goodwin’s conception of habitus is evidently opposed to that of the papists, it still seems like an Aristotelian import into Christian theology.
2) Along the same lines as above, Goodwin’s positioning of the will: he seems to place the concept of the will too high. I theorize that this is stemming from his conception of Adam’s will before the Fall; for Goodwin write that “He had a full and perfect stock of holiness, and of love to God, concreated with and residing in his will, poising it only unto what was holy” [Works, Volume 7]. Even for the Christian, now, he seems to set the will central to the work of God upon us. Again, this is evident in “The Work of the Holy Ghost in Our Salvation,” Book 5, chapter 1, as mentioned above; and in other places as well.
At first, I thought that such notions as habitus and the high position of the will were prior to his “The Heart of Christ in Heaven…” but after some enquiry, it seems that these writings that I have read are after he wrote that famous and enjoyable work.
Can you help shed any light on my path? I have felt so drawn to Goodwin for well over a year now, and now that I dig into more of his works, I find it to be a confusing sludge — I hate saying it!
Thanks for engaging an important question, Noah. Let me answer it offline by direct email. I’ll say here that the question of how the idea of “habitus” shaped Puritan theology is at the heart of my doctoral work, as you’ve noticed. And, with that, Thomas Goodwin, was a major figure for most of the posthumous publications of Richard Sibbes’ works after he died in 1635. Only one of seven ultimate volumes were published in Sibbes’ lifetime – under his supervision. So there’s no doubt that Thomas Goodwin was close to Sibbes and to what Sibbes believed. But there were differences. And it invites a doctoral level comparison.