When Man Chooses to Refuse God

When man chooses to refuse God, why does he then accuse God of abandoning him to the consequences of his independence? While demanding that God exercise no authoritative influence over his life, he continues to expect Him to exercise exceptional benefit in interfering with any negative influences that may cross his path.

When we meet other people who desire the kind of relationship with us, one in which they only desire our presence to improve some otherwise unpleasant reality in their life, we call those people “users”.

Somehow, men have come to believe that because God is abundantly able to affect any aspect of our material existence, that if He is a good God, He is also obligated to do so to our advantage. On what basis does one conclude that anyone is obligated in any way to another who has not only provided neither initial nor reciprocal benefit to the first person, nor does he even desire a relationship of any quality with that person? Do total strangers owe you some favour simply because you exist and they possess the ability to perform the favour? Does their passing encounter with you oblige them in any way to offer you some personal benefit while passing?

Perhaps putting oneself into the position of the able stranger will elicit a more honest answer. When a total stranger passes you on the street and demands that you give him money “for a cup of coffee”, do you believe yourself obligated to him by his demand and your ability to fulfill his demand? It is doubtful that anyone considers himself so obligated under such a circumstance.

How then does the same person conclude that God is so obligated to the men who inhabit His world to perform the various expectations and demands they might raise up to Him, while insisting that He keep His distance, and not impose His Person or His expectations upon them while they are here?

Indeed, God Who possesses the entire world by virtue of having created it, and is therefore the absolute ruler of that world, has no such obligation whatsoever. Having initially created a wonderful place with miraculously designed creatures for His own pleasure, and offering them every benefit possible in their original situation, including His personal and unrestricted presence with them, God�s integrity was questioned, His motives slandered, His authority was spurned, and His benevolence despised by those who knew Him. They preferred their own judgment over His clear expression of Truth, their independence over His beneficent authority, and since that fateful day, men everywhere have continued to do the same, denying God’s rightful authority over His creation and His benevolent intentions towards His subjects. Having wilfully separated themselves from the fellowship and abundant provision of God, men have continued through the ages to accuse God of failing to fulfill their demands for His provision of their material benefits while refusing to receive either His presence or His rightful authority.

Under human laws, the rejection of a lawful ruler is treason; a high crime which receives the death penalty in most countries. Human judgment recognizes treason as a capital offence. Why then do men convince themselves that high treason against the King of Kings should result in His beneficent provision of their needs and wants? Clearly delusion or hypocrisy are to be charged. After all, men instinctively know that their obligation is to those in authority, and that the benevolent care of their superiors is conditional. Rebellion against the authority rightfully results in punishment, not reward.

There is no man who has lived his life in faithful obedience to the Sovereign God. Consequently, there is no man to whom God is obliged to exercise His beneficent intervention against the natural consequences of humanity’s quest for independence. Any mitigating influence on those consequences is entirely an expression of grace on God’s part and should elicit a response of humility and loving gratitude, not the attitude of entitlement expressed by those who demand why He has not exempted them from the consequences of humanity’s rebellion.

Follow