Ariminius and Open Theism

March 5, 2013

Ever since the emergence of open theism on the evangelical scene in the 1990s, there have been several attempts to saddle Arminianism with the theological interests of open theism. On the one hand, Reformed theologians find it to their advantage to identify Arminianism and open theism, if for no other reason than the slippery slope argument has a concrete example. Open theists, on the other hand, seek some historical legitimacy through identification with Arminianism if not also some kind of theological cover. As a result, whether one is seeking to delegitimize open theism (as Reformed theologians intend) or to legitimize it (as open theists intend), it is to the mutual benefit of Reformed theology and open theism to classify Arminianism and open theism together.

Arminius affirms with Reformed theology a “meticulous providence” where God has such sovereignty over evil such that no evil act is autonomous and uncircumscribed by God’s intent for good. God is so sovereign that God concurs with the act itself such that its effect has specific meaning and significance. This is a critical difference between classic Arminianism and open theism.

On the other hand, classic Arminianism and open thesim share a common conviction that human freedom is, in some sense, libertarian rather than compatibilist. God permits sin; God is not the primary cause of sin. In the permission of sin, according to Arminius, God does not concur in the efficacy of the act though God does concur in the ontology and capacity of the act. Here open theists and classic Arminians stand together.

Historically, there are at least three positions in this discussion with Classic Arminianism holding the “middle ground.” (1) The Sovereignty of the Divine Decrees where God has decreed from eternity what will happen within human history (Reformed scholasticism); (2) The Sovereignty of Divine Engagement where God is active, or concurs, in every event within human history such that every event has divine purpose and meaning though without divine decrees determining what will happen within human history (classic Arminianism); and (3) The Sovereignty of the Divine Project where God, for the sake of the divine project risks the effects and meaning of human history in such a way that it is beyond divine management for the greater good but does not endanger God’s ultimate goal or project (open theism).

These are some paragraphs taken from my article published last year as “Classical Arminianism and Open Theism: A Substantial Difference in Their Theologies of Providence,” Trinity Journal 33ns (2012) 3-18. The article is now available for reading through the above link.


David Lipscomb on God’s Role in Worldly Conflicts

April 12, 2012

In the second issue of the rebirthed Gospel Advocate in 1866, Lipscomb addresses the question of how God was or was not involved in the Civil War which ended eight months ago. He asks, “Does God Take Part in the Conflicts of the Kingdoms of this World?”  His answer, “Yes!”

God has a role in everything within the creation.God uses the nations to accomplish his purposes, including their bloody conflicts. God is a sovereign over the nations, including their wars.

While I have included the full article below, I wanted to highlight what Lipscomb says to his southern and northern friends.  Here is his advice:

We would say to our friends of the South then, their duty and interests are to submit quietly and cheerfully to the decision Providence has made in the fearful arbitrament of their own choosing. While taking this decision as a providential indication that God intends them not to run a race of political human nationality, let them accept it as a divine call to find labor and honor in a higher, holier, heavenly nationality. While it, to some extent, weans them from their undue affection for the worldly, may that affection be transferred and concentrated in the glorious and immortal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Then, indeed, would the chastening rod prove a blessing, and the hour of humiliation be the moment of highest exaltation. To our friends of the North we say, “be not high-minded, but fear.” The self-sufficient spirit has ever been offensive to God.

*********Lipscomb’s  Article*****

David Lipscomb, “Does God Take Part in the Conflicts of the Kingdoms of this World?” Gospel Advocate 8.2 (9 January 1866) 22-24.

It is a question of interest with many, whether God, in his providence, takes part in, or in any manner overrules the strifes and conflicts in which people and nations frequently engage in the present age of the world. It is clear, from the teachings of the Bible, that in ancient days he directed and controlled the Jewish nation. He fought their battles for them when they obeyed and trusted him, withdrew his aid and overthrew them when their faith grew weak or they refused obedience to him. God’s dealings with the Jews were had, not alone for themselves, as Paul says but for us who should come after them. “Now these things were our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.” “Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted and were destroyed of serpents—neither murmur ye as some of them murmured and were destroyed of the destroyer.” “Now all these things happened unto them for examples, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom are come the ends of the world.” 1 Cor. X, 6, 11. Yet no political government at the present day occupies the same relationship to God, that the Jewish did. It was the type, not of the political governments of the world, but of the Church of Jesus Christ. God deals with the church, not the nation, to-day, as he dealt with the Jews in the days gone by.

The Jews, the natural branches were broken off, through unbelief, and the believing Gentiles engrafted into their position. These teachings, admonitions, examples, &c., are instructive lessons to the church and to Christians, but whoever applies them to the governments and the unbelieving of earth, grossly perverts the scriptures of truth. We must seek for our example in some other institution than the Jewish nation. We may easily find these types in the human institutions of the ancients. The human governments of the present are the direct, legitimate descendants of the human governments of ancient times. The Kingdom of Babel, the first organized human government known either to sacred or profane history, founded by Nimrod, the grandson of ham, soon grew into the mighty Babylon, reigned as a hectoring tyrant over the weaker nations of the earth, that sprang into existence after its own example, rioted in sin and died weltering in the blood of its own subjects, leaving as the inheritor of its possessions, pretensions and wickedness, the Medo-Persian Empire, which inherited, too, its fate, as presented to us by Daniel in his interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. It soon gave way to the Grecian, an it, in turn, to the Roman; of which last, all the governments and nations of earth, are but the broken and severed fragments. Do we wish to learn then the nature, mission, and destiny of these earthly governments, the true position they occupy with reference to God and his church, together with the principles of God’s dealings with them, we must go to the record of his dealings with those ancient governments of human mould [sic]. No one certainly can doubt, but that he took cognizance of these wicked nations, and to a certain extent overruled their actions and destinies. He used them often to accomplish his purposes, not as his approved institutions, but as fitted for certain kinds of work. See Isaiah x, 5. “O, Assyrian the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the prey and tot read them down like the mire of the streets. However, he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so, but it is in his heart to destroy and to cut off nations not a few.” Here we find it distinctly stated that God used th Assyrian government, to punish his own hypocritical nation, the Jewish people, who professed to obey him, yet did it not. Still he says that this Assyrian does it not with the view of honoring God, “he meaneth not so,” or for the purpose of punishing and so purifying his servants. In the 15th verse the prophet represented him as merely an instrument in the hands of God, yet has himself no idea of honoring God. “It is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.” From the 10th to the 19th verse, God’s punishment of this same Assyrian for his crimes in cherishing this wicked spirit, is plainly foretold. Again, Jeremiah xxv, tells how he uses Babylon, wicked, ambitious and blood-thirsty as she was, to destroy other wicked nations around, and to punish by captivity and slavery, his unfaithful children. In the 1st chapter, the prophet gives an account of the fearful day of reckoning with Babylon, for the blood-thirsty spirit, which God had not made, but simply overruled and directed. Thus we find God using and controlling the world—institutions of ancient times, as instruments for punishing his wicked children, destroying his enemies, and in turn destroying those he has thus used, with a fearful desolation. We find no intimation of a change of God’s course with reference to them, but rather that he still thus uses them, and will, to the end, Rev. xvii, 17. “For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will , and to agree and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.” It is no evidence then at all that one nation is more wicked or less approved of God than another, because in their conflicts the latter overcomes or overthrows the former. Babylon was not less odious in the sight of god than the world kingdoms which she destroyed, and especially was she not more approved and beloved than Judea whom she carried captive. The day of her reckoning had not come. Judea was punished, Babylon was destroyed. The Jews continue in a state of punishment to this day, but, doubtless, have yet a glorious future in store. Babylon is a howling waste, and her people have long been extinct. See Isaiah xxvii, 7.

We would say to our friends of the South then, their duty and interests are to submit quietly and cheerfully to the decision Providence has made in the fearful arbitrament of their own choosing. While taking this decision as a providential indication that God intends them not to run a race of political human nationality, let them accept it as a divine call to find labor and honor in a higher, holier, heavenly nationality. While it, to some extent, weans them from their undue affection for the worldly, may that affection be transferred and concentrated in the glorious and immortal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Then, indeed, would the chastening rod prove a blessing, and the hour of humiliation be the moment of highest exaltation. To our friends of the North we say, “be not high-minded, but fear.” The self-sufficient spirit has ever been offensive to God.

The vindicative [sic], vengeful temper, even when overruled by God to the punishment of his enemies, always had meted to it a full, overflowing measure of its own dealings. “Recompense her according to her work, according to all that she hath done, do unto her.” Jeremiah iv, 29, was the fiat of God with reference to the nation he had called his own battle-axe “the hammer of his wrath.” Her king was even denominated “my servant,’ in punishing his enemies. Yet because he did these things not for the honor of God, but to gratify his own ambition and vindictiveness, and to promote his own earthly grandeur, God said, “recompense him according to all he hath done.”


David Lipscomb on “Pray in Faith”

February 10, 2012

How we pray, how often we pray and why we pray reveals much about our spiritual walk with God.

David Lipscomb printed a statement by a friend who encountered people among the Stone-Campbell Movement who did not seem to pray fervently.  The inquirer wrote, “I heard one of your leading ministers say a short time ago that he did not pray believing that his prayers would be answered, but that he prayed because he believed it was his duty to pray. He said it always makes a man better to do his duty….”

Lipscomb responded, in part, by writing (Salvation from Sin, pp. 321-22):

A man must not only believe that God hears and answers prayer, but he must pray continually and in faith, to be a Christian. No mortal can live a Christian life without constant, earnest, faithful prayer. We cannot live the Christian life without the help God gives in answer to prayer. The trouble is that an element of rationalistic infidelity has entered all the churches that seeks to eliminate the divine in religion, to conform everything to the conceptions of human reason, and to explain everything by natural laws, ignoring the God of nature and the Author of all laws. It is in all the churches.

A man cannot live the Christian life one day without the help and strength that comes through humble and earnest prayer to God through Christ Jesus our Lord. No man can believe on Jesus and realize his lost and helpless condition–his dependence upon God–without at every step he takes praying for mercy and for help.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.


Meeting God at the Shack — Published on Kindle

December 3, 2011

Since the publication of William Young’s book The Shack in the light of my own personal journey into the world of spiritual recovery (which I experienced in 2008).  I found much in Young’s novel that paralleled my own experience.

My friend, Bob Lewis, prepared a kindle edition of my reflections on this journey.  It is now available on Kindle entitled:  Meeting God at the Shack: A Journey into Spiritual Recovery.

For those who have read my previous material on God, faith and suffering (such as Yet Will I Trust Him or Anchors for the Soul), this book is a continuation of my journey. I think it is more profound and more mature than my previous writings on the subject. It is, nevertheless, still ultimately inadequate as an “answer” to the struggle of life, faith and peace in human hearts, including my own. Nevertheless, God offers peace even when there are no “answers”.

The first part of this book discusses spiritual recovery while the second part addresses some of the theological questions that concern many. But even in the second part I am much more interested in how this parable and the theological questions it raises offer an entrance into the substantial themes of divine love, forgiveness, healing and hope. These are the main concerns of the book.

I think the question the novel addresses is this:  How do wounded people come to believe that God really is “especially fond” of them?

Only after reading the book through this lens are we able to understand how Young uses some rather unconventional metaphors to deepen his point.

My interest is to unfold the story of recovery in The Shack as I experienced it through my own journey. So, I invite you to walk with me through the maze of grief, hurt, and pain as we, through experiencing Mackenzie’s shack, face our own “shacks.”


The Prologue of Job: Three Questions

September 8, 2011

In my last post I noted three hermeneutical keys for reading the book of Job.  But is there dissonance within the Prologue as well that might undermine those keys? Three questions are particularly important.

  1.  Is Job a Legalist?

Some think the description of Job in 1:5 is a bit neurotic. They may have a point.  Though wise, Job does seem a bit obsessed with his sacrifices for his children. Offering an animal for each child (ten, including the sisters) is certainly more than the Torah ever required and seems excessive. The motive also seems excessive since Job is not aware of any sin per se but only the potential for sin—the children may have cursed God “in their hearts.” Job does not know, so he covers this bases. And this is perceived by some as legalistic.

At the same time, a patriarchal head held responsibility for his family (cf. Genesis 8:20; 31:54; 46:1). The sacrifices may simply express a sincere piety towards God. The sacrifices bespeak his love for his children as much as they do any impropriety.

While not legalistic—as if Job is in a frantic scurry to make sure he is on God’s good side—there seems to be a latent fear in Job’s heart. He fears that his children’s feasting may incur God’s judgment due to their sin. Perhaps he fears calamity. And it is ironic that the sin Job fears his children may commit is the very one which the whole poetic drama waits to see if Job will commit.  Will Job curse God?

Job 1:4-5 may have a dual purpose. It may underscore Job’s piety, but it may also illuminate Job’s fear. While Job is wise, he is not perfect. Indeed, in Job’s first lament, he will voice that what he had “greatly feared” (NJKV) had happened to him (Job 3:25). Even the wisest people sometimes still live with some fears.

What we might anticipate, then, is that while Job is wise, he still has room for growth in the fear of Yahweh. Job, though wise, is still a work in progress.

2.  Is Satan the Evil Angel?

This is a thorny question. Readers of the New Testament automatically associate this “Satan” with the figure in the Gospels (e.g., Matthew 4:10; Mark 1:13; Luke 10:18) and Paul’s epistles (e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:5; 7:5). “Satan” in Job seems to act in ways that would reflect Satanic activity in the New Testament. The association seems natural and canonical.

But it is possible that Christian translators ant tradition have made this move too easily and without critical thought. The Hebrew term “satan” simply means adversary and the noun occurs often in the Hebrew Bible in that general sense. Indeed, here the noun is not a personal name as in “Satan” but is a designation, that is, this angelic being is “the satan” or “the adversary” (like Zechariah 3:1 but unlike 1 Chronicles 21:1). The article indicates it is not a personal name any more than “the abraham” would mean “Abraham” as a name rather than “the father of a multitude.”

But whose adversary is he? He belongs among the “sons of God”—when they gather, he gathers with them. He is one of them. He is not singled out because he is different from the others but because the accusation sets up the story. He is not God’s adversary. Rather, he is humanity’s accuser, specifically Job’s accuser. He is an adversary in the sense that he questions Job’s commitment to Yahweh. The accuser does not believe that Job (or any human?) serves God for God’s sake.

But does not the adversary’s activity indicate his malevolence? In this context, not any more than God’s responsibility for it.  Whatever happens is attributed to Yahweh. “The satan” disappears from the rest of the book. He is not a player in the drama itself.  The poetic drama is a wrestling between God, Job and the friends—the adversary plays no role in the drama itself.  The role of “the satan” is not of major hermeneutical interest for the book as a whole but only as the “setup-person” for the drama itself. The resolution to whatever problem the book is addressing is not found in the function of “the satan.”

Consequently, the satan does not play a role in the resolution of the issues of the book.  The issues are solved in the sovereignty of God, not in the activity of the satan.  It is the sovereignty of God that permits the satan to act as he does.  Instead, the satan is introduced to give us the “trial framework” of Job’s suffering.  The satan is the means by which Job is tried–that is his only function in the book.  Once he has completed his task, there is no more reason for involving the character in the rest of the story.

3.  Are Job’s Responses Examples of Naiveté?

Some think that Job’s responses (Job 1:21; 2:10) to his tragedies are at best naïve statements of misguided faith and at worst fundamentally wrong and dangerous to faith despite their pious sound. The statements supposedly sound like the friends (e.g., Job 5:18). It is thought by some that these are moments when Job spoke of things he did not understand (cf. Job 42:3).

But even if it sounds like the friends (which is questionable), it sounds like Job himself throughout the dialogue, and it sounds like the narrator of the Epilogue as well (42:11), and Yahweh does not deny it. Attributing responsibility to Yahweh is one of the key truths of the whole drama itself.  How can it be naive when the whole prologue underscores the point which Job acknowledges?

At the same time, Job’s resignation and acceptance seems in tension with his lament in chapter 3 after seven days of mourning. How can such acceptance, even blessing of God, explode into lament, questioning and anger?

I don’t find that strange. I can remember in the midst of my first days of loss a sense of faith and strength that exceeded my own expectations. But in the days and weeks ahead that strength gave way to deep lament, questioning and anger.

I would suggest that we read Job’s responses at two levels.  First, we read it as the pious acceptance of a wise man whose faith in Yahweh shapes his engagement with life. That acceptance is later shaken, debated, discussed, and questioned…but it still ultimately remains intact throughout the dialogue.

Second, we read it as the narrator’s answer to the question raised by “the satan.” Job accepts, surrenders to, and trusts in God’s handling of the world.  Instead of “cursing” Yahweh, Job blesses Yahweh. “The satan” was wrong.

In Job’s responses we actually see the primary purpose of the book coming into play. Job models how human beings respond to suffering, but it is only the beginning of the story.  Job will go through a valley before he again returns to this loving, praise-filled, humbled acceptance. That is the journey of the dramatic poem. That is the journey of lament.  Through Job’s journey with his friends, we learn how to speak of God well (like Job) and how to speak badly (like the friends).  Job spoke well but the friends badly, according to the Epilogue (Job 42:7-8).

Job’s response is the response of Israel. “Blessed be the name of Yahweh” is a liturgical prayer within the community of faith (Psalm 113:2). Job exemplifies the proper response to suffering, to all reality, since Yahweh alone is the Lord of the universe. Job is a model for Israel and for all humanity.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 936 other followers

%d bloggers like this: