God Loves… Himself

Historians give a lot of time and thought to why and how wars start, are engaged, and then the circumstances of the end. But rarely if ever do they ever get to the underlying story of all wars which is the brutal conflict over the glory of God that has been carried out throughout the history of human beings. This brutal war is still going on and will continue until God Himself steps down and ends it. It seems as if the Christian Church is like the waves of the sea that advance and then fall back only to advance again. As the Scripture teaches, the gates of hell will not overpower the Church (Mat 16:18). While it seems as if the Church has almost been conquered or even subjugated, that is not the case. Scripture cannot fail. While it is true that humanism has seemingly engulfed the Church with its man-centered teachings, and even those with orthodox theology seem to have been engulfed with a man-centered God, the living God will not share His glory with another. Right now the glory of His wrath is being demonstrated day after day (Rom 1:18) as men seek themselves while trying to use His name to do it.

“The history of Christianity is a story of continuous conflict between the two contrasted tendencies. In the light of what has been said, it should be clear what is implied by the claim that Luther is a Copernicus in the realm of religion. Religion as he found it in medieval Catholicism was of an essentially egocentric character-despite the presence of certain undeniably theocentric traits in it. His significance in the history of religion is that in him the theocentric tendency fully and unequivocally asserted, or rather reasserted itself. For it had done so at least once before. In primitive Christianity, God was both Alpha and Omega, both the ground and the goal of the religious relationship. Of Him and through Him and unto Him were all things. But this insight early began to be obscured and subordinated to the egocentric tendency that crept in with moralistic and eudemonistic ideas. Such ideas Luther found playing a dominant role in medieval Catholicism.” (Let God Be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther)

The modern Church finds itself at a crucial point in its history. Liberalism eroded a lot of the thinking and teaching for sometime but it is really quite irrelevant to conservatives in many ways. The real issue that gets at the heart of the problem within the Church today has to do with the focus of the living God and therefore the focus of human beings. We must realize that conservative theology is not enough and conservative morality is not enough. We can hold both of those things while we are full of ourselves and of our pride God is opposed to the proud whether they are conservative or not. God is opposed to the proud even if they hold to all the fundamentals of the faith. As Martin Luther began to awaken to the fact that Roman Catholicism was man-centered and had been removed from the biblical teaching on God and the Gospel he saw the central issues. In his book The Bondage of the Will he repeatedly went to the central issue, which was God Himself.

Why did Luther stress Scripture so much? In speaking to Erasmus, he said this: “For your teaching is designed to induce us, out of consideration for Popes, princes and peace, to abandon and yield up for the present the sure Word of God. But when we abandon that, we abandon God, faith salvation, and all Christianity” (p. 91). At the core of Luther’s thinking on Scripture, then, was a fidelity to God Himself. It was God speaking in His Word. How audacious are human beings in their pride when they prefer themselves to the wisdom of God in the Scriptures. We either listen to ourselves or to the Word of God. His thoughts on other subjects pointed to or were judged by Go as well. “Your thoughts of God are too human…but such please neither God nor men, even by affirming that God is in the heaven of heavens” (p. 87). “Our aim is, simply, to investigate what ability ‘free-will’ has, in what respect it is the subject of Divine action and how it stands related to the grace of God” (p. 78).

Luther wrote The Bondage of the Will to defend the grace of God in salvation and therefore the glory of God in salvation. Apart from grace alone in salvation there is no salvation through faith alone and it is not to the glory of God alone. In the more modern “Historical and Theological Introduction” to Luther’s Bondage of the Will the editors said this: “God-centered thinking is out of fashion to-day, and its recovery will involve something of a Copernican revolution in our outlook on many matters. But ought we to shrink from this? Do we not stand in urgent need of such teaching as Luther here gives us-teaching which humbles man, strengthens faith, and glorifies God-and is not the contemporary Church weak for the lack of it?” They then went on to say that if God and the Gospel are the same, then “is any other position than Luther’s possible?” Our pride and self-preservation will not want to suffer mocking and persecution, but God-centeredness in all things will require it.

In the context of the thought of a God that is God-centered and that all true religion is to be centered upon a God-centered God, we begin to see something of the nature of pride. Pride is the self-centered nature of man that wants to be focused on self. However, when the human soul is focused on self as the center it is then seen to be in direct opposition to the God that is God-centered. In one very great sense the fall occurred when Adam and Eve turned from God-centeredness to self-centeredness and pride. The promise of God in judgment on Satan was that the seed of the woman would crush his (Satan’s) head. Throughout history there would be enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. The seed of the woman (true believers) have been and will be centered on the God who is God-centered (theocentric). The seed of the woman have been man centered or ethnocentric. This is the true battle that has been in history and is the true battle that we fight today.

“The history of Christianity is a story of continuous conflict between the two contrasted tendencies. In the light of what has been said, it should be clear what is implied by the claim that Luther is a Copernicus in the realm of religion. Religion as he found it in medieval Catholicism was of an essentially egocentric character-despite the presence of certain undeniably theocentric traits in it. His significance in the history of religion is that in him the theocentric tendency fully and unequivocally asserted, or rather reasserted itself. For it had done so at least once before. In primitive Christianity, God was both Alpha and Omega, both the ground and the goal of the religious relationship. Of Him and through Him and unto Him were all things. But this insight early began to be obscured and subordinated to the egocentric tendency that crept in with moralistic and eudemonistic ideas. Such ideas Luther found playing a dominant role in medieval Catholicism.” (Let God Be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther)

The quote that is directly above gives great insight into the nature of the Reformation and to what really happened in the heart and thinking of Martin Luther. It also gives great insight into what happened to the Church from the time of Christ and His apostles until the Reformation. The Church was God-centered in the times of Christ and His apostles. God was the focus and the goal of all things. The greatness and glory of God was the center of all that they preached. But as time went on the fallen nature of human beings brought the teaching of Christianity down to a man-centered level. In this we can once again see the hideous and despicable nature of pride. What an ugly pride to take what belongs to God and give it to filthy human beings. Pride takes what is meant to be that which glorifies God and it uses it for self-centered ends. It was pride that brought the Church and the world into the Dark Ages. It was pride that (in a manner of speaking) cast God out of the Church. It was pride that exchanged God-centered ways that required Him to work for man-centered ways that were within the strength of fallen man. It was pride that exchanged the Gospel of the glory of God for a gospel that helps man at man’s own choosing.

Martin Luther came into a world that was steeped in the pride of man expressed in false religious ways. It is true that there were still some vestiges of the truth left, but those vestiges were wrapped in man-centered ways. When Luther began to study Scripture, however, he began to see a God in Scripture that Roman Catholicism knew nothing about and did not teach. The Reformation was truly a period in which God used a brash German monk who was brutally honest to restore a God-centered Christianity in at least one part of the world. It was a time when God raised up several men who refused to interpret Scripture according to man-centeredness or even a God that was man-centered, but instead it looked at God as God-centered and as man as self-centered unless God broke into the hearts and minds of man and converted them to being God-centered. It was true Christianity being unleashed.

The New Testament in one sense is about the true God’s God-centeredness being put on display in Jesus Christ and rescuing humanity from man-centered approaches. The New Testament time gave way to the pride of the human heart and the world was cast into the Dark Ages. God brought Martin Luther into a very dark period and used Him to declare the glory of a God that is God-centered. Luther thundered forth the teachings of justification by grace alone through faith alone. He taught that all things were to be done to the glory of God alone. This is simply to say that God was shining His light through the Scripture that Luther taught to show what the darkness of man’s pride and self-centeredness had done and yet what the truth of His glory really was. Roman Catholicism was essentially man-centered and Luther brought the light of God-centeredness to bear. It was the light of eternal glory. “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images” (Isaiah 42:8).

As we move on to see just how far the teaching of a true theocentric God as opposed to an egocentric view will take us, we can immediately see the continual problem that the sin of pride brings. If the purest view of Christianity is that which has a God-centered God at its very core and the branches from that core are from the same God-centered God, then we can see how the slightest deviation from that will have an effect on the core and all the branches. Pride always looks to self first and foremost rather than God. Pride always decides based on how things influence what appears to be good for self. Pride is the inflated view of self that blinds the human soul to sin and makes it hate the truth of the God-centered God. In other words, pride is what opposes the true God and the truth about Him. It is pride that is at enmity with the true God and His God-centeredness. Human beings in their fallen state of self-exaltation and self-centeredness want God to be all about them. Human beings will love God as long as they think He loves them since sinners love those who love them.

“There is no single aspect of religion which may not bear the marks of egocentricity or theocentricity, according as the one or the other of these constitutes the fundamental character of the religious relationship…The two types of religion we have described, it is clear, stand in the sharpest opposition to one another. In their purest forms they would be mutually exclusive. But in actual practice they rarely appear in their purity. As we have already said, all religions show at least some traces of the theocentric motif; and we may add that even the most theocentric of all religions has been unable, in the course of its history, to escape the influence of man’s natural tendency to adapt everything to his own point of view. The history of Christianity is a story of continuous conflict between the two contrasted tendencies.” (Let God Be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther)

It is interesting to reflect on how different two Arminians and then two Calvinists can be from each other, even thought they have the same theological slant, depending on their deepest belief of God. Even though two people have the same theological system in a sense they will be miles apart from each other if their underlying belief about God is different. The greatest difference between two people is if one is man-centered and the other worships a God that is God-centered. The difference is still great when one has what s/he thinks is a high view of God and yet thinks of that God as being great because of what that God does for man and the other person thinks of the greatness and glory of God in awe and wonder because God is God-centered.

It was because of a defective view of God that many men had that drove men like John Owen and Christopher Ness to fight Arminianism tooth and nail. Jonathan Edwards wrote that even the unconverted people in his church dreaded to hear of Arminianism making inroads because they saw it as the hand of God being removed. The real issue, however, was not sectarianism or theological prejudice as such, but instead it was over the nature of God. This was the driving issue that was underneath many of the older Calvinists. B.B. Warfield said that a Calvinist was a man that had seen God. He did not say that it was a man that believed a confession or espoused certain points but that it was a man that had seen God.

The point that I am driving at is that the real issue of Christianity and Calvinism is located in the heart. It is a drive that comes from the living God that gives man a love for Him and His glory. The opposite of that drive is the heart that is full of pride and self. That is where the battle is. As the quote above says, “even the most theocentric of all religions has been unable, in the course of its history, to escape the influence of man’s natural tendency to adapt everything to his own point of view.” While Calvinism has its history in a thorough God-centeredness, it has not always been the case since the Reformation and it is not the case today. The versions of Calvinism that seem to be rampant are split in differing versions. There is the academic Calvinism which wants everything to fit the academic model. Then there is the watered down Calvinism in which the adherents want to be Calvinists but still hang on to their traditions. Then there is the version that loves to be part of something different and shock people. But at the heart of those three versions, and there are assuredly others, is pride. The academic Calvinist is proud of his or her learning. Knowledge makes arrogant (I Cor 8:1). The watered down version is the person that wants to hang on to some tradition or practice with the veneer of Calvinistic doctrine in order to still fit in with others. This is pride in what amounts to the love of applause or the love of man. The third version that wants to shock others is really pride that wants the attention or honor of others. These are all aspects of pride that takes the heart out of Calvinism or a true love for the God that is God-centered. It is all still centered on self. That is pride.

In the last BLOG I compared theological and moral differences with two icebergs colliding. That parts that collide are not the tips of the iceberg, but the massive sheets of ice that cannot be seen from the top. I then used that to show how differing systems of thought and theology actually collide way below where the differences are actually expressed. The point of collision can always be traced back to a God-centered view of God or a man-centered view of man and God. Whenever the view is a man-centered view of man or of a God that is man-centered, it is pride in the hearts of man that is a real problem. Pride exalts man and wants to think of each discussion with man as the center even though the talk of God might be brought in. I then started a discussion on Arminianism and Calvinism.

“There is no single aspect of religion which may not bear the marks of egocentricity or theocentricity, according as the one or the other of these constitutes the fundamental character of the religious relationship…The two types of religion we have described, it is clear, stand in the sharpest opposition to one another. In their purest forms they would be mutually exclusive. But in actual practice they rarely appear in their purity. As we have already said, all religions show at least some traces of the theocentric motif; and we may add that even the most theocentric of all religions has been unable, in the course of its history, to escape the influence of man’s natural tendency to adapt everything to his own point of view. The history of Christianity is a story of continuous conflict between the two contrasted tendencies.” (Let God Be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther)

The real problem with Arminianism is that it does not start with and breathe with a God-centered God at each point. Instead, it focuses on human ability and has a man-centered God. This may sound obnoxious to some, but let us be fair. Calvinism is a system of doctrine that has been developed from the God-centered view of God (my opinion). It was not developed by John Calvin, but is a system of thinking that is built on the solidity of a God-centered God. However, when someone claims to be a Calvinist because s/he believes the stated doctrines of Calvinism, clearly that is not enough to make the person a true Calvinist apart from the view of a God-centered God. It is also true that an Arminian in some way can argue for his doctrine from a God-centered view of God. Most likely the professing Arminian who argues for his doctrine from a God-centered view of God will not be a consistent Arminian. It is also true that those who claim to be Calvinists and yet have a man-centered view of God or a God that is man-centered will not be consistent Calvinists if we use the historical doctrines as our guideline.

If the real issue, then, is neither Arminianism as stated nor Calvinism as stated, how are we doing to get to the bottom of these issues? It will not be by continuing to shoot at each other from the tip of the iceberg toward the tip of the other iceberg. Agreement will not and cannot happen as long as the underlying issue of God is not settled. When people try to say that they can agree on these issues without going to the very root of the issues, then those people agree more than they realize on the issue of God which is below the surface. Most likely there are professing Arminians who love God and hate what is really Arminianism while there are most likely professing Calvinists who hate God and hate what is true Calvinism. These things are simply not as simple as the systems. The real battle is over a God-centered view of God or a God that is man-centered. The issue of pride is obvious.

When we think of the five-points of Calvinism versus the five-points of Arminianism, the real issue is not the five-points but the God of all points. Calvinism teaches unconditional election and Arminianism denies that. Where can we go to settle the debate? We can go to Scripture and both will find verses to prove their position. We can go to the nature of God and both sides will say that their view of God aligns with their view of election. So we say that we must agree to disagree. But there is another step in the matter. The next step is to ask ourselves how a God that is God-centered aligns with these things and then how a God that is man-centered aligns with these things. The real issue is over the real God. If we make the issue over man, then it is pride that inserts man as the supreme being.

We can take election as the example. Psa 115:3 says that God is in the heavens and does as He pleases. Do we believe that? Do we believe that God exists in love for Himself as triune and all good things given to man comes from His love for Himself which is grace to us? A God-centered God can’t be moved to act by a human being, but instead is moved to act because of His love for Himself and His own glory. Now we can ask which view of election is consistent with a God like that. The Arminian view has God being moved because a man chooses Him. Do we need to ask any more questions? Pride will always want to be the center, but that is the prerogative of God.

So often the battle in conservative Christianity is thought to be between Arminianism and Calvinism, or perhaps between liberals and conservatives. We also might think that the battle is really over pro-life versus pro-abortion.
But if the quote given below is correct, we have misidentified the true lines of the battle. The real issue in abortion is over the nature of God and His rights over human beings. When those who are pro-life argue from a man-centered way they have already lost the battle. The real issue between liberalism and conservatives is also over the nature of God. A few years ago the now deceased John Gerstner defined liberalism as “non-supernatural.” I did not like that definition at first, but the more I thought of it the more it made sense and fit with what was going on. A liberal denies a supernatural view of Scripture. A liberal denies a supernatural view of miracles. The list goes on and on. This is simply to say that the real battle and the heart of each issue with all error is really over the nature of God. Does God view humanity from a human point of view or does God see all things from a God-centered point of view? The errors of liberalism and the issues of abortion, then, really have to do with pride. When human beings interpret and view things from a man-centered view, they are viewing things from the blindness that pride brings.

“There is no single aspect of religion which may not bear the marks of egocentricity or theocentricity, according as the one or the other of these constitutes the fundamental character of the religious relationship…The two types of religion we have described, it is clear, stand in the sharpest opposition to one another. In their purest forms they would be mutually exclusive. But in actual practice they rarely appear in their purity. As we have already said, all religions show at least some traces of the theocentric motif; and we may add that even the most theocentric of all religions has been unable, in the course of its history, to escape the influence of man’s natural tendency to adapt everything to his own point of view. The history of Christianity is a story of continuous conflict between the two contrasted tendencies.” (Let God Be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther)

In the starting paragraph I brought up the issue of Arminianism and Calvinism, but did not discuss it. It was dealt with, to some degree, two BLOGS ago (Pride 46), but in this BLOG I would like to approach it from a different way. Using the illustration of an iceberg might be helpful at this point. When two icebergs collide, it is not the parts that protrude out of the water that collide, but the massive amounts of ice underneath that collide. When two systems of thought collide, they usually collide over things that have to be dealt with from the supporting truths that are far larger and actually support the two issues on the top. While it may appear that the two positions have their conflict at certain points, the real collision is underneath the “water.”

By definition Arminians believe in free-will. A Calvinist, using the older thinking, will stand for the freedom of God. The real issue, then, begins with who man is and who God is. The issue, while it can be argued philosophically to some degree, will ultimately rest in who God is and what God can do. Many Arminians will say that God has created man as free and even has given man the gift of free will. But while this is setting out what appears to be a high view of God, it is still not seeing God as focused on God. We can see how this works out in evangelism. John 1:12-13 would seem to set the issue at rest, but so far it has not. “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). This text is very God-centered. Those who believe (present tense) in His name are those that were (past tense) born. In other words, those who now believer are those that were born (spiritually) at a time previous to the time they believed. How is it that they came to believe? It was not of blood (their physical lineage), it was not of the will of the flesh (human decision), and it was not the will of the husband (choice of another). Instead of any human will or descent being the primary cause, the text tells us that it was the will of God.

In John 1:12-13 the writer (John) takes us to the root cause of the new birth. This is also what Jesus did in John 3:3-8. He takes the issue from the hands of men and tells us that the new birth is that of the Spirit. But human beings want to hold on to salvation as if it is their choice. The battle over the new birth, then, goes back to the character and activity of God over His creation. Each doctrine must go to this vital issue as well. At the root of each theological issue is the character of God. As the quote above says, the history of Christianity is a story of the continued conflict between these two (man or God-centered). The battle between Arminianism and Calvinism has been and will continue to be part of that conflict. The result, however, may surprise people.

The last sentence of the quote that appears below is quite provoking. If it is true, as the quote says, that “the history of Christianity is a story of continuous conflict between the contrasted tendencies,” then this shows us what one of the most important issues in the professing Church really is. There is a battle between the pride of man who wants all things to adapt to his self-centered view and the truth of the living God who loves Himself as triune and does all for His own glory. Could it be that the real issue with liberalism is that of man-centeredness and pride? Could it be that the real issue with all of the false theology that is sweeping into the professing Church today is really man-centeredness and pride? The very issue of the fall was when Eve was deceived by the Serpent and began to love herself in pride. It seems to be, then, that the real problem in each church is pride worked out in man-centeredness.

“There is no single aspect of religion which may not bear the marks of egocentricity or theocentricity, according as the one or the other of these constitutes the fundamental character of the religious relationship…The two types of religion we have described, it is clear, stand in the sharpest opposition to one another. In their purest forms they would be mutually exclusive. But in actual practice they rarely appear in their purity. As we have already said, all religions show at least some traces of the theocentric motif; and we may add that even the most theocentric of all religions has been unable, in the course of its history, to escape the influence of man’s natural tendency to adapt everything to his own point of view. The history of Christianity is a story of continuous conflict between the two contrasted tendencies.” (Let God Be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther)

It has been said that all religions of the world fall into one of two categories. One is that of works and the other is that of grace found in Christ. But the pride of man has found a way to twist grace so that it is man-centered. In the modern day we think of grace as that mercy which God shows to people regardless of what they do. But in days past grace was that which changed hearts. Now we think of grace in such a way that people think their sin is not inconsistent with it. But in the past, and more importantly in the Bible, grace was that which delivered people from the consequences of sin but also the power of sin. It is not enough to say or think that the two ways of dividing things are works and grace, but perhaps the above quote gives us a more accurate way to look at things. The real division is between man-centeredness and God-centeredness. But even that requires us to go deeper because the tenacious pride in the soul of man will allow God-centeredness in many ways as long as God is centered on man.

The real issue, then, is that man-centeredness and pride will even take over the term of “God-centered” and use it for its own purposes. We see this in many ways all of the time on a practical level. The Pharisees, for example, would fight for the honor of Scripture. However, they would not fight to honor the God of Scripture. They wanted to appear before others as honoring God, but in fact they just wanted to be honored themselves. The Pharisee gave thanks to God that he was not like that other man and other men (Luke 18:9-14). He was using the name of God to exalt himself. There is a famous phrase attributed to various people (including Spurgeon). It has the idea of a famous man walking by a drunk in the gutter or similar circumstances. The saying goes like this: “Except for the grace of God, there go I.” It is one thing to utter that in humility and really mean it, but it is another thing to utter it in pride. A statement like that can be nothing more than the so-called prayer of the Pharisee.

What we must be aware of, in light of the statement that we are looking at from the quote, is that this is also true of each person. Each morning when we get up we will have to be humbled and filled with the Spirit or we will stay full of self and pride. We are also faced with the battle each part of the day, though most of the time we may not even notice, but the morning seems to set the tone for the day. This is not to say that we should just give up if we don’t get up and fight the spiritual battle first thing, but just to note that while the body is fasting during the night the soul is going without its food and drink also. We are told that the most important meal of the day is breakfast. Take note that the word is made of two words, “break” and “fast.” In one sense the body fasts each night and when we eat breakfast we are breaking that fast. The soul is the same way, though admittedly in a different way. The soul must break its fast by feeding on the bread and wine (grape juice if you prefer) of Christ. The soul must find food in heaven for spiritual strength. The soul must be brought face to face with its own pride and self centeredness each day and be brought to repentance for that. It is best to start with a God-centered view of God to start the direction of each day in a God-centered light. Each morning the vomit of hell, which is self and pride, must be repented of and turned from in order for the soul to eat the healthy bread of a God-centered Christ.

The very heart of Christianity can be seen clearly if we look at it from the egocentric versus theocentric way. As discussed before, a person can be egocentric and profess to be an Arminian or Reformed. Egocentricity (man-centered) will take any doctrine and view it in a man-centered way. The human heart is born dead in sin and is lost to pride and self. Jesus Christ humbled Himself to take human flesh and then humbled Himself to go to the cross to suffer and die in the place of sinners. It is so hard for sinful human beings who are bound in their pride and self to see how wicked their pride and self really are. Yet as long as they are in bondage to sin they are proud and self-centered. They may be very religious, but they are religious from a man-centered (egocentric) way. They think of God in terms of their pride and they think of the Gospel and of life in their egocentric way which is full of pride.

In his work A Display of Arminianism John Owen called free-will an idol and various other strong terms. In our day he would be thought of as rather extreme for that view, but perhaps he knew things we do not know. Perhaps he operated from a God-centered point of view and examined the teaching of free-will from that point of view rather than from the man-centered point of view. As the quote below says, “there is no single aspect of religion which may not bear the marks of egocentricity or theocentricity.” The proud heart always wants to be the standard by which God and all others are judged. But a doctrine of Scripture viewed from the proud sight of a proud heart will be much different than one that is viewed from a humble heart. This is simply to say that the proud heart wants all things to be man-centered and the humble heart wants all things to be God-centered. This is why the sharpest contrast in theology is not Arminianism and Calvinism, but between the proud and the humble. A man-centered view of Calvinism will drag it down to a non-Christian theology wrapped in orthodoxy.

“There is no single aspect of religion which may not bear the marks of egocentricity or theocentricity, according as the one or the other of these constitutes the fundamental character of the religious relationship…The two types of religion we have described, it is clear, stand in the sharpest opposition to one another. In their purest forms they would be mutually exclusive. But in actual practice they rarely appear in their purity. As we have already said, all religions show at least some traces of the theocentric motif; and we may add that even the most theocentric of all religions has been unable, in the course of its history, to escape the influence of man’s natural tendency to adapt everything to his own point of view. The history of Christianity is a story of continuous conflict between the two contrasted tendencies.” (Let God Be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther)

Throughout history, the quote above claims, even the most theocentric of religions has been unable to “escape the influence of man’s natural tendency to adapt everything to his own point of view.” This is an incredibly insightful statement. The tendency of pride is to take whatever it is looking at and turn or twist it to fit its own perspective. It will then value it and its use solely on self-centered grounds. In the time of John Owen he thought of Arminian thinking as from a man-centered perspective which from pride tried to usurp the place of God. In modern thought the Reformed view has become man-centered and so the real distinctions between Arminianism and Calvinism have been blurred. It appears that the heart of Arminianism was set up to defend certain aspects of man in contrast to the Reformed thought. Once that slide began, it eventually took over virtually all parts. Those who were God-centered in their approach saw it for what it was. John Owen was one of those who saw it for what it was.

During the time of the Reformation the term Soli Deo Gloria (to God alone be the glory) was at the heart of all things. The drive for salvation by faith alone was meant to protect a salvation that was by grace alone which would then be to the glory of God alone. If salvation is meant to be to the praise of the glory of His grace, then it must be by grace alone. The true teaching of justification by faith alone was meant to defend grace alone that was the Gospel of the glory of God. What we simply must see is that just because a person holds to all the intellectual teaching of the Reformers does not mean that the person has the same view of those doctrines as the Reformers did. The Reformation was really a tune devoted to the glory of God alone. That was the battle cry of the Reformation and the standard by which all other things were to be judged by. However, for a long time now egocentricity has wormed its way into the camp and Reformed theology is more of an intellectual system of thought than a ringing defense of the glory of God. It is an attempt to stand with the Reformers in history and yet it does not have the declaration of the glory of God. We have repeated history and are once again adapting all things to a man-centered view. It is nothing short of pride to view things from a man-centered view rather than God’s.

Conservative theologians say that Arminianism and Calvinism are part of an in-house debate, though Pelagianism is non-Christian. So if one is an “Arminian” or “Calvinist” (though there are many differences about what these positions are) it is thought the person is a Christian. It is possible to take the name of Arminian and be a Pelagian or the name Calvinist while one is an Arminian or Pelagian. While I John raises biblical issues about what it means to be a true believer in Christ, the issue of egocentricity and theocentricity is in that book and all other books. A person’s stated theological position is less important than whether the person is from the depths of the heart egocentric or theocentric. A person with a professed Arminian view that is theocentric in heart will be closer to the biblical view of God and of theology than the person with a professed Calvinistic view that is egocentric in heart.

“There is no single aspect of religion which may not bear the marks of egocentricity or theocentricity, according as the one or the other of these constitutes the fundamental character of the religious relationship…The two types of religion we have described, it is clear, stand in the sharpest opposition to one another. In their purest forms they would be mutually exclusive. But in actual practice they rarely appear in their purity. As we have already said, all religions show at least some traces of the theocentric motif; and we may add that even the most theocentric of all religions has been unable, in the course of its history, to escape the influence of man’s natural tendency to adapt everything to his own point of view. The history of Christianity is a story of continuous conflict between the two contrasted tendencies.” (Let God Be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther)

The egocentric (man-centered, self-centered) view of Christianity is in direct opposition to the theocentric (God-centered) view. Regardless of a person’s profession of a stated theological position, the real issue is whether the person is seeing these things from a man-centered view of from a God-centered view. Those with a man-centered view will be polar opposite in most ways to those with a God-centered view even if they are within the same theological camp. As the above quote says, these two positions in their pure forms are mutually exclusive. The problem, however, is that because we are fallen beings we are not pure in our God-centeredness. When a truly egocentric view is mixed with a little of the theocentric view, it becomes more dangerous because it has just enough truth in it to deceive people. Thus we have in most professions of Christianity today some degree of lip-service being offered to God. But the theocentric view is not just that we speak highly of God and give Him all the credit, but it is to think, speak, and act from the power of God in the soul and that this God is moved by Himself and His glory alone. We can speak highly of God simply because He gives us things and does wonderful things for us. But that is only love for God because we think He loves us which is nothing more than loving self. A true theocentric view would be of a God who is God-centered and brings sinners to Himself in order to manifest His glory in and through them while He makes them sharers of the divine nature (II Peter 1:3-4).

It is easy to hear of how much God loves sinners and gave His Son on the cross and then to weep and feel loved. However, that is nothing more than self-love and is consistent with a system of thought that has man and self at the very center. A true theocentric view would be that God’s love for Himself is seen in giving the Son for sinners because in the Son the glory of God shines forth. God sent the Son and sees glory in the cross because at the cross the glory of God shone forth in and through the Son. God sent the Son so that He could be just and justifier (Romans 3:26). The Father sent the Son and set Him forth as a propitiation in order to manifest His righteousness (Romans 3:25-26). It is in taking sinners and removing His wrath from them so that the Son of His love would live in them and the Spirit of love would share the fruit of love with them and make them lovers of God by sharing His love for Himself that the love of God is truly seen. The man-centered view is to make the cross out to be all about me and to make me feel loved. The God-centered view is for God to share His love for Himself with the sinner so that the person sharing in the love of God for Himself is truly loved. Pride focuses on self and is blind.

In some way a person’s theology is almost irrelevant if the person sees the cross and the glory of it is in what God does “for me.” That is an egocentric view. To see the true glory of the cross we have to see the glory and beauty of God Himself shining at the cross. That can only be seen if we begin to look at the cross and understand that God’s love must be primarily for Himself and His own glory or He would be unholy in loving sinners more than Himself. No, a holy God saves sinners based on Himself and nothing else. That is true grace which saves sinners from themselves based on God’s love Himself. Pride wants to be loved for self, but God’s grace does not save that way.

There seems to be many, many people who believe that they glorify God when they do what they think makes Him look good. That thought only comes from a heart sunk deep into pride. Doing something to make God look good is impossible for a fallen creature. There are numerous groups that teach that God is honored when He gives us wealth in one form of another. There are others that think that as long as we are seeking God as “my ‘Highest Good'” in some way that glorifies Him. It is thought and said that it honors God when we seek Him as our greatest good over the things of the world. This has given people a theological license to seek themselves and their own pleasures and as long as they say they are seeking it in a way they think honors God they think they are giving God the glory. But, as the quote below points out, there is no good but God.

“There is no single aspect of religion which may not bear the marks of egocentricity or theocentricity, according as the one or the other of these constitutes the fundamental character of the religious relationship…Again, God Himself may be conceived as the summum bonum. As generally interpreted, this means that, although I must not seek God for the sake of anything beyond Himself, yet I may and should seek Him as my ‘Highest Good’, as that which alone can give full and permanent satisfaction to my deepest needs. In sharp contrast with this, there stands the witness of the New Testament that there is none good but God, whose ways are to be acknowledged as righteous even when from my point of view they least seem to be so, and whose holy will is to be sought and obeyed as good even though it in no way ministers to my wishes.” (Let God Be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther)

In the quote above the author italicizes the word “my.” In doing this he is pointing out that the focus in seeking God as the ‘Highest Good’ is me or the self. To say that God is “my ‘Highest Good'” is to say that I am seeking Him for my purposes. It is to say that I seek what is best for me and I have determined that He is best for me. It is to say that God is viewed in a manner where He is to provide what is best for me and that is His real purpose. It would appear that this would mean that the chief end of God would be to give me the satisfaction of my deepest needs. This is what appears to be hidden beneath many of the orthodox statements about God being the highest satisfaction of the soul. The soul must be delivered from its pride in order to seek the Lord at all. Scripture is quite clear that no one (unbelievers) really seeks God (Rom 3:11). Even the very religious who appear to be on the straight and narrow way can be seeking themselves rather than God out of true love. While it is true that God is the highest good, there is an important difference between seeking Him from love for His glory because He is worthy and seeking Him for the good that can be obtained. Seeking God in order to escape hell can also be nothing more than a selfish motive though this is where unconverted people start. But unless a person is turned from just seeking God to escape hell that person has not been turned from pride and self and so never truly seeks God from true love.

The proud heart actually hates the love of God. This is why when modern people tell others that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives (or something similar) they are not telling people about the true love of God. We must remember that the unregenerate person hates God and is at enmity with Him. The love of God is not in looking kindly upon a person and doing good things for the person, though indeed the unregenerate will respond to that type of message out of self-love, but the love of God is in breaking a heart from its self-centeredness and pride and then giving that soul a love for Himself. All true love comes from the only source of love which is God Himself as triune. All true love will have God as its chief goal. The proud heart hates the true love of God because God’s love is always for Himself first. The proud heart wants to be first in its own and God’s affections.

The proud heart must be broken from its proud thoughts and desires so that in seeking God it would not be as “my ‘Highest Good,'” but instead seek the manifestation of the glory of God and through faith knowing that is the greatest good possible whether it feels like it or not. It matters not whether my wishes are met or not, I am to bow in utter submission and humility to the living God and seek Him by being an instrument of His glory. It is only pride that would keep me from doing that. He is, after all, God. Since He is God He is wise and good. It is His will that is to be done, but if I seek my own it is an act of pride far greater than I can imagine. I am to seek His pleasure first and find my pleasure in that. It is only when I am sharing in His pleasure that I can have true pleasure. When I seek my pleasure first and expect Him to be glorified in that, I am seeking myself first which is an act of enmity against Him and is the height of wickedness. That is true even if it is in religious things.

The use of words can hide the truth from us while we use the same words that have been used in history. With a subtle shift of change in meaning here and there the concepts and meanings of the truths the words used to refer to are changed. Dropping a word or two can also change the entire meaning of a phrase or doctrine. The contention of the book which the quote below was taken is that the central thought of Luther was a thorough God-centeredness in all things. But the term “God-centered” can mean different things. One man can speak highly and often of God and simply mean that God is focused on doing good things to men. Another can speak much of the glory of God and think of God’s love for Himself and His holiness as doing all for the glory of His name. There is a massive difference in what one word can mean depending on whether one is man-centered or God-centered. As in the quote below, to speak of God as being the highest good can mean many things depending on whether one is looking at if from a man-centered or a God-centered perspective. It should also be noted that this perspective is not just an intellectual one, but is one that involves the desires and affections of the entire soul. It is a far different thing to love man and speak highly of God than it is to love God and speak of Him as the center of all things.

“There is no single aspect of religion which may not bear the marks of egocentricity or theocentricity, according as the one or the other of these constitutes the fundamental character of the religious relationship…Again, God Himself may be conceived as the summum bonum. As generally interpreted, this means that, although I must not seek God for the sake of anything beyond Himself, yet I may and should seek Him as my ‘Highest Good’, as that which alone can give full and permanent satisfaction to my deepest needs. In sharp contrast with this, there stands the witness of the New Testament that there is none good but God, whose ways are to be acknowledged as righteous even when from my point of view they least seem to be so, and whose holy will is to be sought and obeyed as good even though it in no way ministers to my wishes.” (Let God Be God! An Interpretation of the Theology of Martin Luther)

Reformed theology is really at the brink of being irrelevant in the modern day because it has moved its focus from the God-centeredness of God to the man-centeredness of God. This may sound strange and bring forth snorts of disdain from some, but Reformed theology is not what it used to be. There used to be giants in the land when men like Jonathan Edwards and David Brainerd “roamed” the land with their teachings. The reason that they were giants is that they thought of God as being God-centered and they were full of a God-centered God rather than a man-centered God. To be truly God-centered or theocentric requires us to be centered upon a God that is God-centered as well. If that is not the case, then our God-centeredness is really on a God that is centered upon us and so in the end it just means that we are focused on God because He is focused on us. That is just another way for the pride of man to remain focused on man and adhere to some form of orthodoxy as well.

The issue then remains the same. It is proud man wanting to cast the sovereign and God-centered God out of his mind in order to make room for a friendlier and easier to control conception of God. But if those that claim to have the biblical God and biblical Christianity present a god that is not God-centered, that seemingly slight move has changed the God of Christianity to a god who is nothing more than an idol made in the image of man. We will then have an idol masquerading as the biblical God within orthodoxy and that is even more deceptive. But pride in the heart will blind people to this and they will become comfortable with the idol in the name of orthodoxy. It sounds orthodox to believe in justification by faith, but some realize this as a problem and move on to justification by faith alone. However, there are those that hold to the words of justification and yet God is not at the center of it all. If even the word “by” in the phrase “justification by faith alone” is changed, the whole meaning of the Gospel can be changed from what the biblical meaning is to what amounts to a works salvation scheme. The pride of the heart is so tenacious and so blinding that it will use biblical and theologically orthodox words to hide itself behind.

What does it mean to seek God as my highest good? If I only seek Him for the good received, then my chief love is myself and God is nothing more than a way to get things for self. That is again a vicious and wicked pride that attempts to use God in such a way. Well, some say, it is only when I seek God as my highest good that He is honored. God is not honored to be sought as secondary to the idol of self. That is nothing more than using language to fulfill the desires of self while trying to hide the idolatry with orthodox language. That is what the proud heart does. The heart that has not died to self is still ruled by pride. It is a heart that is full of self because it is full of pride. It is a heart that hides behind orthodoxy while it tries to use God to seek self. Pride is so nauseating.