by jimwalton » Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:53 pm
This is a great question. I have been asked the question in other forms as well: Why is God so hard to see? If He were really interested in doing everything possible to have a relationship, why not appear, talk to people, and make himself more obvious? More people would believe in Him if He didn’t have to be inferred or assumed but instead was seeable, hearable, testable, and obvious.
Let me go back to the very beginning. Isn’t it astounding that some spiritual beings—who knew God by experience, could see him and hear him, knew his goodness, his greatness, and his power—could rebel against God and abandon their positions (Jude 1.6) in defiance against God? How is that possible? There weren’t even any filters (as far as we know) between them and God, and yet they turned against him. It’s obvious to me that even a direct experience with God doesn’t make it certain that one will follow him.
James 2.19 talks about demons who believe in God, sure enough, but don’t follow him. They know all about him, so we can assume, and yet they don’t follow God or “believe in him” in the sense of love and obey him.
We know that the children of Israel who were part of the Exodus got to see spectacular wonders of God’s miraculous doings, and yet many of them were rebellious and unfaithful. We also know that thousands of people got to see Jesus, hear him speak, and watch him do miracles, and yet they didn’t all turn to being disciples.
What gives? It seems obvious to me that a direct experience of God is not what turns to soul towards belief. Even exposure to him in heaven (as Satan has) in all his glory and power doesn’t do the trick. It’s weird, isn’t it? You’d think if God made himself more obvious more people would turn to him, but that doesn’t seem to be the case at all. What seems to be the truth is that people desire to follow God or they don’t, in their hearts and minds, and it has very little (if anything) to do with the evidence of God’s direct existence or being. It seems that if people have an inclination towards God, they are persuaded by the evidence, understand belief, and choose to love; if people do not have an inclination towards God, even if someone rises from the dead they won’t believe, and all the direct contact with God and irrefutable evidence is sloughed off as inadequate, worthless, and unconvincing. I’ve had a thousand of these conversations.
I don’t think God has made it difficult to believe in him. I think He’s there, hiding in plain sight (as C.S. Lewis said). Those who seek him will find him, and those who are of a different mind just don’t see it.
In other words, I’m not convinced at all that God appearing to us all, talking to us, and making himself known by strings of miracles verifiable by science would help. It might actually not be much of anything different than the way it is now: some would follow, some would fake it, and some would reject it.
This is a great question. I have been asked the question in other forms as well: Why is God so hard to see? If He were really interested in doing everything possible to have a relationship, why not appear, talk to people, and make himself more obvious? More people would believe in Him if He didn’t have to be inferred or assumed but instead was seeable, hearable, testable, and obvious.
Let me go back to the very beginning. Isn’t it astounding that some spiritual beings—who knew God by experience, could see him and hear him, knew his goodness, his greatness, and his power—could rebel against God and abandon their positions (Jude 1.6) in defiance against God? How is that possible? There weren’t even any filters (as far as we know) between them and God, and yet they turned against him. It’s obvious to me that even a direct experience with God doesn’t make it certain that one will follow him.
James 2.19 talks about demons who believe in God, sure enough, but don’t follow him. They know all about him, so we can assume, and yet they don’t follow God or “believe in him” in the sense of love and obey him.
We know that the children of Israel who were part of the Exodus got to see spectacular wonders of God’s miraculous doings, and yet many of them were rebellious and unfaithful. We also know that thousands of people got to see Jesus, hear him speak, and watch him do miracles, and yet they didn’t all turn to being disciples.
What gives? It seems obvious to me that a direct experience of God is not what turns to soul towards belief. Even exposure to him in heaven (as Satan has) in all his glory and power doesn’t do the trick. It’s weird, isn’t it? You’d think if God made himself more obvious more people would turn to him, but that doesn’t seem to be the case at all. What seems to be the truth is that people desire to follow God or they don’t, in their hearts and minds, and it has very little (if anything) to do with the evidence of God’s direct existence or being. It seems that if people have an inclination towards God, they are persuaded by the evidence, understand belief, and choose to love; if people do not have an inclination towards God, even if someone rises from the dead they won’t believe, and all the direct contact with God and irrefutable evidence is sloughed off as inadequate, worthless, and unconvincing. I’ve had a thousand of these conversations.
I don’t think God has made it difficult to believe in him. I think He’s there, hiding in plain sight (as C.S. Lewis said). Those who seek him will find him, and those who are of a different mind just don’t see it.
In other words, I’m not convinced at all that God appearing to us all, talking to us, and making himself known by strings of miracles verifiable by science would help. It might actually not be much of anything different than the way it is now: some would follow, some would fake it, and some would reject it.