Faith in Faith Will Never Face Down Life's Storms

"The truth is that the faith by which alone the elect sinner is justified is a knowing and trusting that renounce works and working for righteousness... The faith that renounces works and working for justification is true faith. Whatever supposed 'faith' insists on working for righteousness is, thereby, exposed as a false faith. No one is justified by a false faith." 

-David Engelsma, "Gospel Truth of Justification," p. 190

We have all seen TV shows and movies in which the solution to some tragedy is stated, "Just have faith." That is all the encouragement we are given, without any statement of faith in whom or in what. That is because our humanistic age believes in faith in faith as a form of salvation without God. It is also stated as "just believe in yourself." It is a type of secular religion. 

That is not at all the way the word is used in the Bible. 

After her brother Lazarus died, Jesus said to his sister Martha, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die" (John 11:25-26). "Believe" here is used as a synonym for "have faith." There is nothing here like "just have faith." Rather, Jesus comforts Martha by telling her to have faith in Him. In other words, her comfort is to come, not from her faith, but from Jesus, the object of her faith. 

And that is exactly where modern secular religion fails. By separating faith from its object, secularism posits the power in the commitment of a person's mind, not in the power of one outside that person who has actual authority over events. 

Remember the story of Jesus and the storm (Mark 4:35-41): "On that day, when evening had come, He said to them, 'Let us go across to the other side.' And leaving the crowd, they took Him with them in the boat, just as He was. And other boats were with Him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But He was in the stern, asleep on a cushion. And they woke Him and said to him, 'Teacher, do You not care that we are perishing?' And He awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, 'Peace! Be still!' And the wind ceased and there was a great calm. He said to them, 'Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?' And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, 'Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?'" 

The disciples were in a small fishing boat on the Sea of Galilee, and a severe storm blew up, threatening to capsize the boat. Jesus, unperturbed, lay sleeping in the back of the boat. The disciples woke Him, pleading for His help. And what was His answer? Just believe in yourselves? Just have faith? No, His response was to command the storm to cease. Why? Because their salvation from impending death was not within themselves. It was only because they believed in Him that they survived that day.

The Intolerance of Jesus

"Tolerance" has become the theme of our age. Even among professing Christians, the phrase "thus saith the Lord" has been replaced by "you shall not judge." Judging is defined as denying the validity of anything the other person wants to believe or say or do. It is never tolerance for the person who advocates values or morality or the Bible. The only absolute truth, now, is that there is no absolute truth. 

Yeah, that is a self-refuting worldview, which is why we also see irrationalism's enthronement as our cultural guiding principle. 

The Christians who proudly quote Jesus, "You shall not judge" (Matthew 7:1, out of context), snarl in response if anyone quotes something else that Jesus said about judgment: "Judge with right judgment" (John 7:24). That is because the first quote, ignoring its context, seems to support the spirit of the age which has been imbibed by these Christians, while the second exposes it as a pagan intrusion. That exposure cannot be tolerated by today's tolerant Christians. 

We have other intolerant teachings from Jesus, as well. 

For example, in the Epistle to the Church in Ephesus found in the Revelation (Rev. 2:1-7), Jesus praises that church: "I know your works, your toil, and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves 'apostles' and are not, and found them to be false" (Revelation 2:2). This church is praised by Jesus for their intolerance of evil men! That is totally opposite the milquetoast Jesus of today's post-modern tolerant Christian.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the Epistle to the Church in Pergamum (Rev. 2:12-17). Jesus actually chastises that congregation: "I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of My mouth" (Revelation 2:14-16). This congregation is noted for its tolerance! The Christians here are noted for their tolerance of those who teach the doctrines of Balaam and the Nicolaitans. We may not know exactly what those doctrines were, but the wrath of Jesus is apparent. Wrath against what? Against the toleration in the church for heretical teaching! 

It is apparent that the Word of God teaches nothing like the doctrine of tolerance advocated by so many of today's professing Christians. Instead, they have adopted the attitude of the humanist, and baptized it by quoting ad infinitum, "You shall not judge." In contrast, the consistent message of the biblical Jesus is that we shall judge, or we shall be judged, and harshly! 

Ancient Pergamum

 

How the Church Paved the Way for Humanism

There has long been a tradition of dividing the Ten Commandments into two tables, commandments one through four and then five through ten. I am OK with that division. The first four deal primarily with man's relationship with God, and the other six primarily with his relationship with his fellow man. They are often portrayed this way in images of the commandments. That might be a bit fanciful. We have no record of how they were divided between the two tablets. Or even if they were divided. Some people believe that each tablet displayed all ten.

That's fine so far. 

There is also a common view that the civil government is supposed to enforce the second table, the laws against thievery and murder, etc., but has no authority over the first four. 

My question is this: Why? 

Sometimes the answer is that the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids it. We have freedom of religion in this land, so we can't have laws against idolatry. Yet our country has a heritage of so-called "blue laws," laws that required businesses to be closed on Sunday in honor of the Sabbath. "Blue," in this case, derives from a historical usage, in which "blue" was used for something which was overly strict. It was a pejorative term, but passed into general usage. The courts have upheld Sunday-closing laws on secular grounds, such as the practicality of providing a day off for workers. 

However, the question must be, Why does the First Amendment - in reality, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment - outweigh God's commandments? Should a cultural preference become the standard by which even Christians are to live, over the Word of God? 

When God tells us, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3), His desire is clear. So also when He says, "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God" (verses 4-5). So, on what grounds do we decide that His will in these two commandments is less important that it is when He says, "You shall not murder" (verse 13)? There is certainly no biblical justification for that judgment. 

When the Westminster Standards were originally written, the Larger Catechism, question and answer 109, included among the sins forbidden by the Second Commandment, "tolerating a false religion."  However, in 1788, when the first Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church met in the newly-independent United States, they removed that clause as offensive to religious liberty. Not as offensive to the Word of God. 

What this should tell us is that the secular humanism which has come to dominate these United States is not a new phenomenon, and did not suddenly puff into existence because prayer was removed from government schools in the 1960's. Rather, it was the culmination of that decision in 1788 to place political and cultural considerations above the enscripturated Word of God. The door was opened to the supposed independence of "secular life" from God. Now we have parts of our lives which are designated "religious," and parts which are designated "secular." And the humanists are perfectly happy with allowing Christians to enjoy that distinction, because it turns all of life outside the church doors over to them. And the church doors are only a temporary barrier, until the humanists have secured their territory against that day.

The Impotence of the Church

These two quotes from Gary North ("Tools of Dominion," p. 48), written in 1990, explain why the church is impotent in the face of the crises of humanistic 2020 America.

"To retreat from this task of applied Christianity is to to turn over the running of the world to pagan humanists and their theological allies, Christian antinomians. It is to turn the medical world over to the God-hating abortionists who are opposed so vigorously by Dr. [James] Dobson. Yet this is precisely what every publicly-visible Christian leader has done throughout the Twentieth Century, and what almost all of them did after the late-Seventeenth Century. It is universally assumed by Christians that the case laws of Exodus are null and void, and should be" (emphasis in the original).

"The tools of dominion, God's law, sit unused, and generally-unread by those who call themselves Christians. They are the best weapons that Christians possess for moral self-defense, since the best defense is a good offense, yet they steadfastly refuse to use them. To use God's revealed law effectively would require them to become intimately familiar with its many subtleties and complex applications, and, even less appealing, to discipline themselves in terms of it. They prefer to let is sit unopened, either in their laps or on their shelves. Christians, therefore, continue to lose the war for civilization."

Opposition to Gracious Election and the Kingship of Jesus

In Matthew 21:5, Jesus refers to himself as "king," using  Zechariah 9:9. And, indeed, this is closely followed by the royal welcome he received to Jerusalem in the immediately following verses. Under the influence of Dispensationalism, Christians have mostly stopped talking about the kingly office of Christ, though it carried great significance to our ancestors. For example, we can look at the Westminster Larger Catechism: "Question 45: How does Christ execute the office of a king? Answer : Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to Himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which He visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon His elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for His own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel."

We also have the words of Jesus, as He portrayed the nature of His kingship in a parable: "As for these enemies of Mine, who did not want Me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before Me" (Luke 19:27). As king, He will by right judge unbelievers to destruction for their rebellion against His proper rule over them. 

That parable is the New Testament parallel to Psalm 2, which is the promise of the Father to the then-preincarnate Son. Verses 1-3 is the gloating of the rebels: "Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 'Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us." These are the same ones described in Luke 18 as refusing to submit to their rightful ruler. However, the Father is unimpressed by their bluster: "He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then He will speak to them in His wrath, and terrify them in His fury, saying, 'As for Me, I have set My King on Zion, My holy hill'" (verses 4-6). So, He says to the Son, "The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel" (verses 7-9). 

We have a concept in our modern society that religion is a voluntary thing, that believing in Jesus or not is a person choice, and either one is equally valid. Well, we can tell ourselves that, but it is not what God says. Unbelief is rebellion, and is, therefore, under the judgment of God. This error is even found among professing evangelicals, who have adopted the cultural assumption of religious freedom binding even on God. He rejects that claim, and even tells us of His sovereign choice of who shall be a sheep, i.e., a valued citizen of His kingdom, and who shall be a goat, i. e., a rebel (John 10:27-29). One sign of who is which is their response to this doctrine.

"There is much violent and bitter opposition to that account of it [i. e., election] which places a crown of absolute sovereignty on the head of Jehovah, and prostrates man in entire dependency upon His will" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

The Irrational and Self-Refuting Worldview of the Secularist

That our modern world, with life in its multitudinous forms is the result of chance has become dogma in the United States, taught in public schools and accepted as the educated belief in the media. To deny the secularist orthodoxy is to place yourself in the inbred gap-toothed hillbilly camp for most people.

Okay, so it is orthodoxy, but is it true? Are their rational reasons for denying it? Is there a possibility for the self-respecting Christian to hold to a different worldview?

Yes, too all of those questions.

Science and education require a consistent, rational, predictable universe, exactly the opposite of chance. Yet the secularist blocks that incompatibility from his mind, lest the foundations of his worldview be shaken.

The creation is intelligible exactly because it was created by a personal, rational God. Chance could not produce an understandable universe. It is just as we know that the straight furrows of a farm require an organized mind to have made them. Unbelievers avoid this basic logic because it implies an absolute God to whom they are accountable. They want a self-existing universe because then there could be no morality or accountability. Yet reason requires a rational universe. Therefore, they depend on the biblical worldview to provide a context for reason and morality, but then deny that same worldview to maintain their myth of autonomy. 

In other words, if the secularist worldview is true, then it must be false, because it cannot sustain itself. The secularist worldview can only be sustained if the biblical, Christian worldview is true. However, again, if the Christian worldview is true, then the secularist worldview is false. No matter how you examine it, the secularist worldview is unsustainable, and, therefore, irrational. 

The Necessity of Imputed, Exterior Righteousness

Every false religion, that is, every religion other than biblical Christianity, is based on innate human righteousness, the things that men can do to establish themselves as good enough for whatever value that religion holds, whether it is heaven or Nirvana or just a sense of moral superiority. In other words, they all teach some form of salvation by works, by law. Even secular humanism claims to be making the superior man, if we can just tweak the right government program.

In contrast, biblical Christianity says of men, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). And, "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23), because "your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear" (Isaiah 59:2). Why? "Your [i. e., God's] eyes are too pure to look upon evil, and You cannot tolerate wrongdoing" (Habakkuk 1:13).

So, what about the answer given by humanism and other unbiblical religions? What about just straightening oneself up? What about producing human improvement through passing the right political law or public education? "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away" (Isaiah 64:6). The problem with any system of salvation by good works is that men only have good works when compared to each other. However, compared to God's perfection, the best works of men are putrid garbage.

Why is that important? Because, without holiness, no one will see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). Sin is such an insult to the holy God, that He will not accept it into His presence.

So, if all men are sinners, and thereby separated from God, then how can we have that relationship restored? Not by anything is us, but only by an alien, or exterior, holiness. "Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the Lord said to Satan, 'The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?' Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, 'Remove the filthy garments from him.' And to him He said, 'Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.' And I said, 'Let them put a clean turban on his head.' So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord was standing by." (Zechariah 3:1-5). This vision symbolizes salvation, with our sin and its punishment taken away and replaced with the righteousness of Christ. This is called imputation.

This is salvation! The holiness that we need in order to be restored to fellowship with God comes not from ourselves, but from Jesus! "I will greatly rejoice in the LORD; my soul shall exult in my God, for He has clothed me with the garments of salvation; He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels" (Isaiah 61:10).

"O LORD, You will ordain peace for us, for You have indeed done for us all our works" (Isaiah 26:12).

The New American Babel: Humanism

I love America. It is my homeland, and the home of my ancestors for three hundred years, not even counting my American Indian ancestors. It is as a patriot and a believer that I recognize that she is currently dominated by secular humanism, the religious view that holds that the intellect of men is the standard of morality. Even most professing Christians are actually humanists, judging all things according to whether those things make them feel good.

However, the Bible gives God's answer to humanism: "The LORD of hosts has purposed it, to defile the pompous pride of all glory, to dishonor all the honored of the earth" (Isaiah 23:9). the more that men lift themselves up, regardless of the Christian terminology they put on it, the more they are setting themselves up to be overthrown. What effect that will have on the nation as a whole, I don't know.

What I do know is that this is not a new problem. it is exactly what happened soon after men started to rebuild after the Flood: "Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, 'Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.' And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, 'Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth'" (Genesis 11:1-4). So soon after godly Noah, his descendants were pursuing their own glory, just as their predecessors had. However, God witnessed their conspiracy: "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the Lord said, 'Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.' So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth" (Genesis 11:5-9).

The Tower of Babel represented the decision of men to glorify themselves as men. However, God saw and confounded their plans. The issue is that men may reject our place as creatures, and thus God's place as Creator. However, God never does either.

Now, my fear is what God will do to America, when He wearies of her tower of humanism. Every prior empire has been cast down violently. I pray they He will bring repentance before He brings judgment.

Humanistic Autonomy and God's Rule over the Wicked

If you ask a random person, at least among professing Christians, "Is God sovereign?" virtually 100% will answer "yes." However, if you dig a little more deeply and ask, "Over what is God sovereign?" you will probably get blank stares.

That's because most people hold to mixed worldviews, with some elements from a Christian tradition mixed with humanistic elements that they have absorbed from the society around us, properly known as "syncretism." They just blank out whatever conflicts occur between the parts of the worldview, like oil and vinegar as they separate in the bottle.

I have discussed God's sovereignty in salvation numerous times, but that isn't my issue this time. My question today is, Is God sovereign over evil, especially over evil people? Most people will answer something like, "Of course not; the wicked have used their free will to oppose God." In other words, men are autonomous from God, and good and evil depend on our choice to be under His government.

That is false. In fact, that answer is an example of an idea from the humanistic worldview. To go further, it is an expression of Satan's worldview, a paraphrase of his temptation to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:5: "God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." "Knowing" here doesn't mean "knowing about," but rather "knowing by choice." Satan was offering, though falsely, autonomy from the interpretive will of God, so that Adam and Eve could decide good and evil for themselves. 

What the humanistic worldview avoids is the knowledge that there is no such autonomy: "The LORD has made everything for His purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble" (Proverbs 16:4). What Solomon tells us here is that all things, even the wicked, exist to serve the purposes of God, not their supposedly-autonomous self-will. And that's why the idea is so unpopular with Americans. We, especially, think of ourselves as the rulers of our own destinies. However, the Bible reveals to us that that idea comes from Satan. It is improperly the part of the worldview of any Christian, as we can see in the consequences that it brought on our first parents (Genesis 3:14-19).

Elijah and the Rise of Persecution in America

We are living in time where it is becoming more difficult to be a Christian in America. The humanists have succeeded in defining the right to free exercise of religion as a right to private exercise, such as at home or in church. But definitely not in the public square. The First Amendment has been turned on its head, from a protection of religious practice from government oppression to a means to sterilize public discourse, so that only humanism is acceptable as the basis for public policy or morality.

Christians seem to have forgotten the answer the Apostles made to such pressure in their own day: "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). And that assertion was made in the face of times to come, when all of the Apostles died a violent death, except John, and even he was imprisoned for a time. We do not, yet, face that danger in America.

The problem is that this public pressure has put American Christians into a crisis of loyalty. To whom do we owe our highest loyalty? To government, especially in the face of its own lawlessness? Or to God?

The Scriptures are clear: "You shall not fall in with the many to do evil" (Exodus 23:2). In giving witness against evil, we are not allowed to consider whether the crowd agrees with us. The only consideration we are allowed is whether we agree with God. If so, then our calling is to stand for what God says, whether everyone is with us, or everyone is against us. And that can be a very difficult thing.

The Prophet Elijah faced the situation where he alone stood for the true and living God, against a culture that had turned to pagan gods: "I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away" (I Kings 19:10). This is serious depression. Elijah saw himself alone against a culture given over to paganism, and he had no strength to continue the fight. But what did God answer him? "Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him" (verse 18). God had another seven thousand faithful Israelites who needed to witness Elijah's faithfulness, because they, too, thought that they were alone. Every one of those men and women believed that he was the last of the faithful.

And that is the calling of each of today's American Christians. We are to remain faithful, no matter the opposition we face. Our first concern is faithfulness to God. However, we also need to consider the other timid Christians who need to be strengthened by knowing that they are not alone, and then they may be empowered to speak, as well.

Human Pride versus the God-Centeredness of God

"He is unchangeable, and who can turn Him back? What He desires, that He does." 
- Job 23:13

Among American evangelicals, there is an unstated belief that God is a giant Santa Claus in the sky, who exists to take care of us, to make us happy, and to satisfy our whims. We see this most plainly in the Prosperity Gospel teachers, who suggest that anyone who is poor or has a physical ailment is, somehow, unfaithful. God has been turned into an indulgent but toothless grandfather, no longer the Creator and Lord. 

The problem with that is that it bears no similarity to the God of the Bible. It is a violation of both the First and Second Commandments. That God, the true living God, is pursuing, not our glory, but His own; not our desires, but His own; not our gratification, but His own. We see it in the verse at the top of this article. 

I think that atheism is preferable. The atheist honestly admits that He hates God, and, therefore, rejects Him. In contrast, the average evangelical will gush about how much he loves God, but with that one unstated proviso: I will love God as long as He makes me happy. Such a Christian is proud that he keeps God on perpetual probation.

What is God's answer? "For My own sake, for My own sake, do I act, for how should My name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another" (Isaiah 48:11). God always acts to promote His own glory. If He were to do otherwise, at any time for any mere creature, then He would be transferring His glory to that person, and that is something that He will never do.

And that attitude drives the professing, but false, believer absolutely crazy. Try telling it to people, and watch the moral umbrage come steaming out of their nostrils and flashing from their eyes. "Who does God think He is? GOD or something?" And the answer, of course, is yes, He does think that. 

Humanist Blasphemy Laws and Freedom of Religion in America

There is a widespread belief and assertion that the United States has complete freedom of religion, with no established religion or church. To that end, the First Amendment to the Constitution is often cited: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is nowhere near as true as people think that it is.

In some countries, there are blasphemy laws, laws that criminalize speech that supposedly attacks the official religion of that nation. A recent case from Pakistan has been widely publicized. We are also seeing the rise of laws forbidding the criticism of Islam in historically-Christian countries, such as Great Britain.

It is true that the United States has no such blasphemy laws. Does that mean that religious speech is protected in America? While we aren't as far down the road as Great Britain, religious freedom is not what it used to be in the United States.

There is an unstated, unofficial, but established religion in the United States, called variously "humanism," "secularism," "materialism." It is protected by the courts, with all competing religious speech and symbols sterilized from the public forum. Since that state religious doesn't have a god, the courts have not considered it a violation of the First Amendment. However, its opposition has been considered such, as crosses have been removed from property paid for with the tax money of Christians. Now, the First Amendment no longer protects Christians from the government, but rather excludes Christians from public life.

My point here is that America, in spite of its public image, certainly has a form of blasphemy laws of its own. They aren't laws that protect religion, or churches, or God Himself, but rather protect the humanist religion which has been quietly imposed on American society, and is now empowered to silence any opposition to its dominance.

A God-Centered God versus Man-Centered Men

I often get a challenge, both from atheists and from cults, "Why did God do X?" The thing about that challenge is its irrationality. Given belief in God, why would a believer expect - or be expected - to be able to explain the actions of God?

Except in the cases where Scripture gives god's explanation, the most we can say is that He chose to act for the sake of His own glory: "So that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of His glory" (Ephesians 1:12; see also verses 6 and 14, and I Corinthians 10:31). This shows us why the unbeliever does not understand that answer. the man-centered mentality believes that it is exists for its own glory. In fact, even many professing Christians share that mentality. Such Christians are worse, though, because they also imagine that God exists for their glory. Their worldview is the reverse of their profession.

However, God does not sympathize with the man-centered mentality: "For My own sake, for My own sake, I do it, for how should My name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another" (Isaiah 48:11; see also 42:8). We see here God's god-centered attitude, quite contrary to the expectations of sinful men. that is why he feels no compulsion to explain Himself to mere creatures: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29).

As the great Southern Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell said: "His works are so many mirrors in which He reflects so much of His own image  as they are able to behold. There they may read what he is by contemplating what he does. They cannot approach His awful throne: the light would be intolerable to created eyes. But they can behold Him veiled and shadowed in His works. They cannot fathom His glorious essence, but they can learn His character from what He hath wrought before them and around them. It is this manifestation of His character and perfections, which in themselves are infinitely glorious, that the Scriptures mean when they speak of God's working all things with a reference to His glory" (from "The Gospel, God's Power and Wisdom").