Whatsoever Comes to Pass. Really?
Mar 25th, 2008 by John
“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established” (WCF, III.I).
This is the core of classical determinism. WCF = Westminster Confession of Faith.
For all of classical determinism’s airtight logic, the very Confession has to beg off on its own logic.
God…did…of His own will…ordain whatsoever comes to pass… “Whatsoever” means “everything.”
Push it out to Satan and all evil. God has ordained Satan and has decreed all of Satan’s hostile activities against God himself and against humans and against creation itself. All this Satanic/demonic activity is done “all for the glory of God.”
Logically, God is the origin of evil. Sometime in eternity past nothing existed, but God. Evil now exists and God has ordained “whatsoever” has come to pass…uh, hello.
No, no! Read on to the “yet so”! We can’t have God and his decree be the origin of evil, “yet so,” we will make a plain logical blunder…”neither is God the author of sin…” Whew. We almost got our Reformed selves into some deep *stuff.* And furthermore, to rescue what this “decree” means to humans, the framers concocted this statement, “…nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures…” My, my, this is good. Everything whatsoever has been decreed, but, get this, no violence is done to the will of creatures. I feel so much better. But wait! “Will of creatures”?? Hello, there is no will of creatures. Whatsoever comes to pass is the will of God alone. Opening line of the WCF III.I.
I hear some say, “Oh, John, please. We are up against a holy, a very, very holy mystery here.” Oh, really? It sounds like we’re up against some pretty sloppy logic. I’d be reluctant to hijack a wonderful biblical term like “mystery” to cover a gross error in thinking (and writing).
Classical determinism is and has been a horrible imposition upon the biblical text. And I wonder as a pastor just how many people it has sent to the E-unit of the local hospitals.
“Doc, I ran over my little baby boy in the driveway. I killed him.”
“We know. We’re so sorry.”
“No, Doc, you don’t understand. I’m Reformed. God ordained I kill my child.”
“Oh, really?”
“Yeah, God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass, you see…”
“Well, it was a horrible, tragic accident.”
“No! No! You just don’t get it. There are no accidents in God’s universe. It’s all been planned!”
“I don’t think that is a healthy view of what just happened to you and your child.”
“You’re telling me! I am so hacked off at God! But my very being hacked off has been decreed, too. My very being hacked off at God is, here’s the kicker, is all for his glory. His glory. Isn’t that a neatest, tightest, most logical theology you’ve ever heard of? Is my little boy really dead?”
“John, the best Reformed minds are ahead of you. Read the end, ‘…nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established’.” Oh, that makes perfect sense. Not. Logical voodoo, again.
There is no logical way to get away from God being the origin of evil and sin while holding to the WCF III.I. All the logical shenanigans in the world can’t erase that fact. Once there was only God-Three-in-One. God in eternity decreed whatsoever comes to pass. Evils of all sorts have and do come to pass. You can invent philosophical contingencies up the whaazoo to “protect” God; contingencies that the common believer doesn’t care about or understand, but you can’t escape the logic of WCF III.I.
But, John, you’re making human logic the test of these undeniable biblical truths. No, I’m not. I am saying these are not undeniable biblical truths. So, for me they are both illogical and unbiblical.
We’re left with the greatest blunder of all: Augustine writing that for God there is no such thing as evil. Augustine wrote, “Evil does not exist at all and not only for you ["you" refers to God], but for your created universe, because there is nothing outside it which would break in and destroy the order which you have imposed upon it (emphasis added).” from his Confessions
What was the name of that “tree” again in the Garden of Eden? The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil-which-does-not-exist”? (Genesis 2:7)
There is only one word for Augustine’s belief: blasphemy.
No human being can live a sane life believing WCF III.I. Humans must and they do construct a humanizing theology that reflects the biblical unfolding Story.
Popularity: 4% [?]
I’ve often felt that an over-emphasis on the sovereignty of God (via the strict-determinist route) in matters of pre-ordination and predestination leads to absurdity. I do think there is an element of ‘mystery’ here, but I’m not sure why we must embrace this form of classical determinism as the de-facto position?
paul del signore,
I’m with you…and I’m all for holding to biblical “mystery.” But to slap biblical words over unbibilical constructs is unwise.
absurdity is right…and bull-dookie in the highest degree!!
masterful as always John! i’m thankful people are finally waking up to the God classical determinism has constructed. may we deconstruct this facade around the real IAM and offer Him anew to the world…
-jeremy
Jeremy,
Make no mistake about it, there will be shrieking weeping and gnashing of teeth as the old classical deterministic totalitarianism view goes into the theological archives (dust bend).
Thank you for this post. I attend a very typical “Reformed” congregation and I sometimes feel very alone in the thoughts you have expressed above. I greatly appreciate your blog.
Thanks, John. Just read it. Makes me smile. I lived too long in Cuckoo’s Nest. Nurse Ratched – the Reformed enforcer. R.P. McMurphy the liberator. Guess which one is most like Jesus? They tell me even Ken Kesey had it figured out.
Ken
PS The neo-Reformed crowd claims that the “system” satisfies their need for a “rational theology.” And yet, these contradictions are a frontal assault on reason.
Jeff,
Believe, friend, you are *not* alone. Many people are waking up to the sheer unreality of classical determinism.
John
Ken,
“Rational theology”?? It is blatantly irrational. It is, as my friend Jeremy says above, absurb. That it has passed as “theology” is almost unbelievable. It is the baptism of Platonism as theology.
Hi John:
You can preserve the logicality of the Westminster Confession by redefining the ordinary words it uses so that they mean something different from what most ordinary people mean when they use them. When I, who like ordinary words, refer to my own choices, I am referring to those mental events I myself initiate and which would not occur apart from my initiation of them. An event I initiate is an event for which there is no previous determination. If I chose to have oatmeal for breakfast today, then the sentence, “Phil will have oatmeal for breakfast tomorrow” was neither true nor false yesterday. It was at that time entirely indeterminate. (Which might be a problem for exhaustive foreknowledge.) This is what I am talking about when I use the expression “choice” or “will”. But this is not what the Westminster Divines were talking about.
It is certainly possible that there are no free choices like this and we (and the biblical writers) are quite mistaken in thinking there are. We ordinary mortals, then, are like the early chemists referring to “phlogiston” when no such substance exists. And the most straightforward way to confront us about our ostensible mistake here would be to say, “there is no such thing as a free choice” and try to help us live with our primitive mistake and just make do without the concept of “will”. The poor biblical writers seem to have embraced this same lamentable and primitive mistake. But the Westminster Divines instead of just telling us ordinary folk and the biblical writers that “will” is a benighted vacuous concept of the ancient mentality, play with ordinary folk like ourselves, who cry like a baby if our “will” concept is taken away, by just using the same phrase we use, but hooking it up with a view that shatters it into a million pieces. I guess we are not supposed to notice this slight of hand since we aren’t very smart.
If by “ordain” the Westminster divines were speaking of what most people mean by that word, then, by the first part of their claim, they have simply ruled out “choice” in the ordinary sense most ordinary people associate with that phrase. If by “choice” we are referring to those mental events that we always INCORRECTLY think we are initiating, then logic is no problem for the Westminster Confession. And this redefinition is just what defenders of the Confession have done. What they are referring to by “will” isn’t even the same thing I and most other ordinary people are talking about when we use that word. They really should have a footnote after the words “will” that says something like this “…we are using the expression ‘will’ as a techical expression referring to those internal mental events that ordinary people, universally err in believing to be initiated by themselves, and we are hereby free of causing any misunderstanding that might arise by taking the phrase ‘free will’ in its ordinary sense”. It just creates no end of confusion when they insist on using ordinary words, because if we stay with the ordinary definitions, then, John, you are absolutely right, they embrace a logical contradiction. Having your cake and eating it just doesn’t work, accept in some movies.
Blessings,
Phil
Ooh, John, you’re going to be in Troouuuubble with a capital T with some people! I agree with you that it is “absurb” and also that you were pre-ordained to make that typo
.
Also, Phil, the statement yesterday that “Phil will have oatmeal for breakfast tomorrow” was absolutely true, wasn’t it? Surely you don’t think it was absolutely true only after the fact? Have you not heard of the prophetic word? Again,
.
I can’t help myself; I’m not Presbyterian (or maybe that’s bad theology). My word, three
’s in one post.
Phil,
I knew it. I knew you would help me out. Thank you for exploring the WCF III.I deeper with me and pointing out the erudite, yet hidden definition(s) that the Westminster Divines assigned to ordinary words. If you read some Reformed websites, you literally need an education is philosophy, theology and linguistics to understand their amazing “song and dance” to keep the “random” movement of every nano-particle decreed by God and yet keep up the *illusion* of human freedom. Being verbose and obtuse is next to godliness apparently.
Bob,
Just whisper “open theism” in W Michigan and the Reformed thought police are rattling their sabers. The theological schizophrenia is rampant here. On the one hand, the Reformed types have to have an apathetic God (feelings are changable and God does not change) and yet they rant on forever about the “delight” of God and the “anger” of God and the “grief” of God. That’s not so bad until they define all these biblical realities as anthropopathisms, i.e., they are not real. Talk about reading INTO the text!
John,
Your post and Phil’s response:
priceless.
Wondering though… is what is currently presented as “open theism” the only alternative to WCF?
To Susan’s Response:
There are other alternatives, but open theism is the most comfortable one. In the WCF view, God’s control is absolute and unqualified; there is no space for chance, nothing is allowed to “play out”. In contast, in open theism, there is room for certain things to play out and there is room for genuine freedom of choice. But open theists do not wander too far from God’s absolute control. God’s hands are not constantly on the control knobs of the world, but he can always grab them if he needs to. Open theists talk as if God COULD control every last detail of every last thing if he wanted to, and they even talk as if God has POTENTIAL exhaustive knowledge of all future events but that he somehow chooses not to take advantage of these abilities. In some ways, open theism pictures God somehow choosing to limit the absolute control he would normally have, and choosing to limit the exhaustive knowledge he would naturally have, tying his hand behind his back, so to speak, in order to be able to have a genuine interaction with the likes of us. And this does seem to imply that things COULD get out of hand, which is a little uncomfortable. Opponents of open theism seem to get most worried that if one subatomic particle is not under God’s absolute control then things could really get ugly (which it seems they already are). Open theists seem to want to comfort us by talking about God’s POTENTIAL complete control (he could grab the knobs if he needs to) or his POTENTIAL exhaustive forknowledge, that he could somehow boot up, if he gets worried about where things are going. If control is the issue, open theists are trying to stay as close to classical theism as possible. They do not have obsessive compulsive disorder about God’s control, but they still check the locks a few times during the night. According to classical theism, even if God does not control every last detail, he still holds the ultimate trump card based on the classical view that all things besides God depend for their very existence on God. If things get too far out of hand, and if the control knobs malfunction, God can just pull the plug on their existence and “poof”…end of problem. So his purposes can be thwarted and frustrated and he cannot guarantee that things will go in a particular direction with open theism, but he has his hand on the plug. Other alternatives are a little less comfortable than this. Sorry this is so long.
Phil
Susan (#13),
Meaning Phil in #14.
What he said
Excellent words and points.
I totally agree with you brother.
Keep up the great blogging!
In Him,
Kinney Mabry
[...] and author, John Frye is taking on the Westminster Confession over at Jesus the Radical Pastor (click here). Here is just a portion of what he writes: We’re left with the greatest blunder of all: [...]
I nearly lost my faith over this determinism issue, particularly the idea that God created the majority of the human population for the predetermined purpose of inhabiting hell. I’d been so convinced that this was the only “biblical” position that I actually believed rejecting the Westminster Confession was tantamount to rejecting the faith. The idea of God creating, perpetuating, and then judging evil offended me so deeply, I was prepared to give up on Him altogether.
Clark Pinnock (and, of course, the Bible) helped me out of this one.
What continues to frustrate me is how quickly folks who normally boast in the intelligence and sophistication of their theological system will resort to a sort of illogical mysticism when questions like this are raised. If I had a dime for every time I’ve been told “God’s ways are higher than our ways,” in response to my objections to classical determinism, I’d be a rich woman.
I find it ironic that the context of that often quoted verse is this: “Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. ‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.’”
The context includes 1) a reference to free will in turning to God, and 2) a hint that it is God’s mercy, not his wrath, that is beyond human understanding.
I certainly don’t mind people holding to different theological viewpoints than myself, but I hope more work will be done to show young believers that there are a variety of options out there, and that no theological system can define the character of God.
Rachel H. Evans,
Make sure you tithe all those dimes!
It is unfortunate that so many who embrace the Reformed position (and it does offer a lot to the Church) don’t think out the sorry, sorry implications of the system. People have be taught the whole decree thing and God’s alleged “control” of everything and then they must FORGET IT if they want to live sanely. Predestination almost drove colonist David Brainard, the missionary to Native Americans, insane. He agonized over whether he was elect or not. The guy writes like he’s mentally ill, even though he is a revered “hero” of the faith in the eyes of many.
Preacherman,
Thanks for your encouraging words!
“whatsoever may come to pass” sounds an aweful lot like “will of allah, will of allah!” in Islam – it’s fatalistic. maybe I am misreading?
I don’t get it.
And that goes for the post, the comments, and God.
God is Soveriegn over all. No doubt about that. How is applying human logic and reasoning to an infinite God even possible?
God knows it all, yet I will be judged by the all knowing God?
You could drive yourself crazy trying to “logically” explain it all.
Didn’t Jesus teach in parables and some people still didn’t understand?
Didn’t Jesus come right out and say he’s the Messiah, you will kill me, I will die for you, I will rise from the dead, believe in me and you’ll live forever and people still don’t get it?
How are we suppose to get that God is omnipotent and omnipresent?
Did he know that when he said “Let ther be Light” exactly what it would look like?
Yep, probably.
Did he also know at that exact moment that I would type on a computer these exact words?
Yep, probably.
Do I understand how that can be?
Nope, not at all.
Do I still believe in him?
Absolutely.
Brian,
It is an interesting parallel you bring up. I don’t know enough about Islam to know if you’re misreading. However, I don’t know how Calvinists cannot escape that their theology is undeniably fatalistic when their very Confession declares that God has decreed from eternity past “whatsoever comes to pass…”
BrianM (#22),
Your response, my friend, is so typical of classical determinists who are pushed to reckon with the sheer unbiblical and fanciful nature of their *theory* of the eternal decree–”Who are we to figure out such an unsearchable God?” It sounds pious and humble, but it’s a diversion from the horribly warped view of God, the Scriptures and of reality itself. I don’t buy your “confusion.” Sorry.
It was the Westminster Divines who subjected God and theology to a tight, human logical system. So ask them why they tried to apply finite human logic to the Infinite God.
I’m not talking about the WCF or any creed or any confession or anything like that, I am talking about God.
None the less, I am curious as to what my “horribly warped view of God, the Scriptures, and of reality itself.” is. Based on the fact that my human brain can’t fathom whether me running over my 13 month old son would be to God’s glory, or it wouldn’t be, or is it part of an unfolding story, or is it on the page where if I run over my baby I turn to page 34, If I do not run over my baby I turn to page 74 in the book?
BrianM,
It seems you’re in a dilemma, then. You say, “I’m talking about God.” No confession, no creed, not anything like that…just you and your brain. You seem quite certain about your uncertainty. Am I missing something?
In the Augustinian/Reformed view, you running over your child, no matter what page it happens on, is IN FACT all to the glory of God. All evil is all to the glory of God, so that as Augustine wrote there is no such thing as evil to God. That little finite Augustinian brain figured that out. Amazing, eh?
I’d be careful of drawing any comparisons between Calvinism and Islam. I think that misrepresents the views of a lot of good Christian people who are just trying to make sense of God the way we all are.
While I strongly disagree with classical determinism (in favor of open theism, in fact), I still try to keep in mind the words of James. “Instead, you out to say, ‘If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.”
Classical determinism may not be especially biblical, but it is not without support from the Bible and Church tradition. It may be illogical, but a lot of smart people believe it. I guess I’m just having flashbacks to all the times I’ve been called a “relativist” or a “heretic” or even a “Buddhist” for my theological views. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but I really hate it when my intentions are questions or my views are misrepresented. I just don’t want to do the same thing to the Calvinists with whom I disagree.
Also, can we start running over or a dog or a cat or a leprechaun or something…I keep feeling sorry for this poor 13-month-old who’s been predetermined to get run over again and again with every post!
Rachel H. Evans (#27 & 28),
I agree. That is why I stated that I do not know enough about Islam to make any comparisons (#23). You make some very wise statements about this conversation.
Unless we make evil actual–there is no such thing as evil as a concept–we can scrape the Milky Way. A run over child is not pleasant, but neither in actual evil.
It seems to me that any philosophy that wonders whether the death of an infant is glorifying to God has some problems. I imagine somebody asking God whether he gloried in the death of King David’s newborn.
Let me paraphrase Lewis in Mere Christianity.
The Westminster Reformer: “If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realise that this also is glorifying to God.” The Christian replies. ‘Don’t talk damned nonsense.’
Sorry, I mispoke and did not intend to imply that Reform types aren’t Christians, that just happened to be part of the Lewis quote (Mere Christianity ch. 6).
Love that quote from Lewis!
Also, I get why we need to use the poor baby as an example. I’ve found that sometimes you have to get into the nitty gritty details of actual human suffering to have a good discussion. Otherwise, it can easily get all philosophical and heady and totally detached from reality.
Good discussion!
Still waiting…..
I left this comment (#25)
None the less, I am curious as to what my “horribly warped view of God, the Scriptures, and of reality itself.” is.
There’s a whole lot of things in regards to life, spirituality, and theology that I realize. Doesn’t mean I comprehend it. But I’m not sure where that means I have a “horribly warped view of God, the Scriptures, and of reality itself.”
Watchman (#30-31),
I echo Rachel–great quote from CS Lewis. Would you be so kind as to track down the actual quote for us all? I did not think your quote implied the Reformed folks are not Christians.
Rachel (#32),
I am glad you see the value in keeping “evil” concrete and not an abstract philosophical problem. Evil is not an idea, it is a daily incarnate reality. How the Calvinists believe that “whatsoever comes to pass” is decreed by God does not lead to the question “Exactly what kind of “god” is it that decreed so much evil and so little good in the world?” And then hide behind “Well, it’s all a big mystery and who are you to question God? He will make it all ‘beautiful’ someday.” What a crock!
BrianM (#33 related to #25),
You seem to be your own authority regarding these things. Here is how the Reformed view distorts…
1. God. With the Westminister Divines and their contemporary disciples we are left with this view as defined by Dallas Willard in his book *The Divine Conspiracy*. God becomes the “great unblinking Cosmic Stare.” No passions, no involvement, no response whatsoever to humans. God simply created an eternal decree and hit the “execute” key and passively watches the program play out. That is the meaning of the first line of the WCF III.I.
2. Scripture: The Bible from cover to cover presents a highly relational, interactive God who does in fact have “feelings” and who does in fact “change his mind (repents).” The Reformed view has to tamper with these plain texts and interpret them as anthropomorphisms or anthropopathisms. A simple word for this tampering is “eisegesis,” i.e., reading into the text what is not there.
3. Nature of reality. Simply put reality is more like a “thought” than like a “machine.” Enlightenment definitions of reality are falling into the dust-bend very rapidly and a more relational view of reality is being discerned. And, viola!, this “new” reality is more like the Bible says it is than how the Westminster Divines understood it to be. What a great era in which to be alive!
I hope this helps you understand the phrase: “…horribly warped view of God, the Scriptures, and of reality itself.” This phrase may not define your particular views, BrianM, since you seem to be your own self-appointed authority, but it is a fair critique of classical determinism.
I’m no authorative figure at all (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night).
Here’s the thing…..
When God said, Let there be light, There it was. Just as God had said it to be. Just as he knew it would be when he said it.
This and a whole host of other Scriptural text is why determinist (Calvinist as I like to call them) hold to their belief that God knew all along exactly what would happen with evil and all is to his Glory.
Maybe they are right.
When God was going to wipe out Israel and establish Moses as the new heir, Moses (you could say) got God to repent.
This and a whole host of other Scriptural text is why non-determinist (Arminian as I like to call them) hold to their belief that God is at work and play throughout history and into the future.
Maybe they are right.
But, not one of them on either side of the arguement has given anything proof positive that shows which way it is with God.
Which is why it is a mystery. It’s not pomp and circumstance and a false sense of humility on anyone’s part to say I have not one clue which way it plays. It’s legit true feelings on the subject.
It’s the Phariseeical air and attitude that everyone comes to the conversation with that is the real problem here.
It is my belief and understanding of Jesus and his teachings, that it doesn’t matter what I believe in the Calvinist/Armnian battle for Supremecy. Jesus said the Father knows all and Jesus prayed in the garden that he could avoid the crucifixtion. One camp says –see I told you, ultimately God had the plan of Jesus dying and so he had to go through it. The other camp says — see I told you, Jesus knew he could talk to His Father about this and maybe change the next chapter.
So which is it?
John,
Enjoying the conversation. The orignial context of the Lewis quote was regarding Pantheists making clearly evil circumstances into some amoral divinity. Here it is:
“But, of course, if you think some things really bad, and God really good, then you cannot talk like that. You must believe that God is separate from the world and that some of the things we see in it are contrary to His will. Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, ‘If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realise that this also is God.’ The Christian replies. ‘Don’t talk damned nonsense.’ For Christianity is a fighting religion. It thinks God made the world–that space and time, heat and cold, and all the colours and tastes, and all the animals and vegetables, are things that God ‘made up out of His head’ as a man makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again.”
I LOVE that quote!
BrianM,
I agree with you…under the Christian faith’s big tent there is room for Calvinists and Arminians; for classical determinists and open theists. Thanks for engaging this conversation.
I stayed at a Residence Inn once
John
Watchman,
High five for giving us the whole Clive Staples Lewis quote. I’m with you, I really like it!
[...] this today at John Fyre’s website. http://www.jesustheradicalpastor.com/whatsoever-comes-to-pass-really It has me wondering if open theism is that bad. I am not sure I am pro-OT but I do like Boyd’s [...]
I think you are correct in objecting to absolute determinism. But in response to several posts, I think open theism goes too far. Lewis again provides the answer I prefer by simply saying that God is outside of time. (This would make sense, else God is inside of time and time would be greater than God.) This would allow God to foreknow all things without having to decree their inevitability. Classis Arminianism is enough for me. Determinism may make God’s sovereignty too central, open theism seems to make God not sovereign at all.
Dan,
Thanks for commenting. Affirming God’s foreknowledge without affirming classical determinism does not support human freedom of choice (free will). If God foreknows what is not determined, can you make a choice not in his foreknowledge? No. If you make a choice contrary to God’s foreknowledge, then you jeopardize his omniscience, the very thing Arminians do not want to do.
Plus, open theists do not feel obligated to define “sovereignty” as meticulous control, i.e., that even the ‘random’ movements of nano-particles are decreed. Sovereignty is God’s knowledge, wisdom and ability to achieve his purposes EVEN AS he interacts with the choices of free creatures. I agree with Greg Boyd that open theism magnifies God’s sovereignty, not diminishes it. What is so sovereign about God as God passively watches his eternal decree unfold?
John Frye on Determinism in the Westminster Confession…
…
Good stuff, John. There’s also a self-contradiction in such deterministic theology: the determinism implicit in the WCF means that the WCF exists because God foreordained that it would exist, and would take the form that it did. Unfortunately, according to this logic, the theology of Jacob Arminius and John Wesley also exists because God foreordained that it would exist, and would take the form that it did. And one or the other is more convincing to each one of us because, well because God foreordained that each one of our minds would find one or the other more compelling (or Open Theism, or Islam, or Athiesm, or Taoism, or Scientology…. you get the idea). So according to the WCF, you can’t know whether your adherence to the WCF is because it is true, or because God has simply foreordained you to think it is true.
More about this in The Problem of Deterministic Arguments. You’re welcome to check it out. If, you know, God foreordains that you will.
Keith (#43),
Thanks for the link. I appreciate your encouraging remarks. I know I express myself somewhat with an edge, but it’s entirely designed to foster a vigorous conversation.
John
just caught the conversation again… actually in regard to the question of ” is open theism the only alternative to WCF?” … I would argue that the doctrine of Middle Knowledge is the best compromise to the sovereignty/ freewill positions. It doesn’t leave the future open to God as ‘open theism’ does, and it doesn’t push sovereignty to absurdity as strict determinism does.
In my opinion this is all speculation anyway, but if I was to choose a position in this debate, I would pick Middle Knowledge.
#27 “I’d be careful of drawing any comparisons between Calvinism and Islam. I think that misrepresents the views of a lot of good Christian people who are just trying to make sense of God the way we all are.”
Not to mention that comparing Calvinism to Islam misrepresents the view of a lot of good Muslim folk who are just trying to make sense of God the way we all are:)
I have a lot of Muslim acquaintances and friends. There are almost as many variations of Islam as of Christianity. Muslims have their version of the Calvinists too. But they also have their moderates, non-determinist conservatives, liberals and progressives. Christian theological debates have many very close parallels in Islam. In fact I’ve often felt conservative Christians and Muslims would have more in common ideologically than conservative and liberal Christians. Ditto for the liberals. So in spite of my tongue-in-cheek response, comparing Calvinists to determinist conservative Muslims (not the terrorist sort who are no more true Muslims than that Army of God are true Christians) is a pretty valid comparison.
John,
I recently finished reading the Joseph story in Genesis. Seems to have analogies to the fictional deceased toddler of your post. The brothers did as the freely chose, Potiphar, the cupbearer and Pharoah made their decisions, yet God meant all of these choices (even the evil ones) for good (and his glory?) to preserve his people’s existence.
I see the WCF and Open Theists (OT) and Arminians trying to make sense of this (and of reconciling or holding in tension verses stating/implying God’s absolute control, his not being the author of sin/evil and human freedom/accountability. Personally, I find the traditional Reformed view (although not always it’s proponents or presentations) to resolve these in the least dissatisfying way.
Of what comfort to the grieving parent is the thought that – along OT lines that God can “grab the controls” when he wants – that he chose not to when the car struck my child? If God’s glory is invoked then this sounds Reformed.
Sadly, I see a great lack of humility in so many Reformed folks, when their system ought to make them the most humble – see 1 Cor 4:7.
In Christ, Bill
sacred vapor,
Interesting. I’ll have to learn about ‘middle knowledge.’
mariam,
Again, I don’t know enough to make any meaningful comparisons, and am reluctant to do so. Your comments are intriguing, especially, “
Miriam,
Oops! I clicked the wrong button. Comment #49 should end with, “In fact I’ve often felt conservative Christians and Muslims would have more in common ideologically than conservative and liberal Christians.”
Bill Crawford,
I know that all those wrestling with the different takes on God’s sovereignty and true human choice are trying to make sense of a huge reality. I am with you, however, when you conclude, “Personally, I find the traditional Reformed view (although not always it’s proponents or presentations) to resolve these in the least dissatisfying way.”
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Perhaps this is a description of “Middle Knowledge”, but, I prefer to view the picture as: The future is unfolding between the outstretched and parallel arms of God, defining what is too far to the left and right (i.e., the limits of our freedom). But between is much room for us to make our free choices. Some, even some that are very horrible to us, have no adverse affect on the ultimate outcome (i.e., God’s unconquerable plan). Such as running over a child. So what might be too far left or right, and would be trumped? Well, perhaps all out nuclear war, which would wipe out all life as we know it. Perhaps allowing the Arab world to annihilate Israel. (Apparently, even letting the Lions win a Superbowl.) Those would be not be in keeping with God’s revealed plan, and could not be tolerated. So why does he not step in before we run over our child? Because we live in a dangerous and corrupt world, by the choices of Man. And we must suffer the consequences of our choices. At least those that we’re allowed to make. Do you step in and override all the poor decisions that your children make, to avoid them suffering any consequences? Or do you let some of those proceed, as part of the child’s growth and learning? Of course, you step in when you see them threaten their own lives, or others’, when you can, out of “compassion”. So who is the better parent? …I sometimes think we place more importance in life here on Earth than He does. He sees clearly what waits beyond, which we mortally fear.
Z-man,
I appreciate these thoughts, especially these questions: “Do you step in and override all the poor decisions that your children make, to avoid them suffering any consequences? Or do you let some of those proceed, as part of the child’s growth and learning?” The idea of process and growth–can these legitimately be applied to God himself? That is the question that freaks out a lot of classical determinists. It goes against their idea of “perfection.”
John-
Certainly I wasn’t referring to God doing the growth and learning. So I take your response as introducing a tangential notion, or twist: Can God grow? …Well, the open-theist proposes that God knows all things (knowable), and that the future is unknowable. So, as the future unfolds, it brings new knowledge to the Universe. And since God always knows all things (knowable), then yes, God’s knowledge too would grow as the future unfolds. Therefore, God would grow. But that knowledge would essentially be limited to merely discovering the choices we’ve yet to make. And that gained knowledge wouldn’t amount to much in comparison to what he already knows. It’s not like he’s waiting for us to figure out whether Higgins boson exists, or how many licks it takes to get to the middle of a Tootsie-Pop, so that he too will finally know.
Z-man,
Some propose, and I don’t know a lot about the view, that when a relational God (Trinity) created authentically free creaturely agents (angels and humans), God did so taking the risk of not knowing how they would use their freedom of choice. As God truly interacts with free beings, God then “learns” or “grows” within those interactions. Again, this idea of God growing has to engage the classical view of God as ideal “Perfection.” That which is perfect cannot ever change because to do so would reveal that it was not “perfect.” Can we imagine a kind of authentic Perfection that does in fact change without jeopardizing Perfection?
Brian M,
I think I’m with you on this one…I’m not a WCF gal — but I’m not into open theism. It has always come across to me as just as much a human-sized box as classical determinism is, only in the opposite direction. I think you’ve asked some good questions; just wanted to say you’re not the only one asking. I’m not looking for the most comfortable solutions to classical determinism because I never embraced CD in the first place…. the ‘unblinking eye’ has not been a problem I’ve needed to solve. However, if you do see God as an unflinching control freak from whom every moment of history has its origin and purpose and meaning… this is a good conversation to engage.
John Frye,
You are the BEST at posting provocative and inspiring posts. From your poetry and story to your musings on the implications of the WCF — its awesome. I am So looking forward to having more time to interact on the blogs instead of post-n-run like I’ve been having to do this semester. …. less than 30 days to turning in the final version of the thesis – yeah! Grad. is May 17th!
Susan,
You are in the “home stretch.” Get that thesis hammered out. Thanks for the kind words about ‘Jesus the Radical Pastor.’
So, you’re not a ‘WCF gal’ nor an ‘open theist.’ Is there a title for your theological position on these nettlesome things?
sacred vapor (#45),
I’ve asked a good friend, Phil (see comments #9 and #14), about middle knowledge. As I understand it, even middle knowledge does not preserve authentic free choice, even though middle knowledge factors in the potentialities that we have and God’s knowledge of our dispositions and God’s guidance toward a choice, but not a decreed choice. If God’s doesn’t know exactly what choice I will make, but governs it so that he does know the one I won’t make, I am still not truly free. Also, the introduction of counter-factuals does not contribute much. A counter-factual is something like, “If Abraham Lincoln had lived to age ninety, he would have driven a ‘horseless carriage’.” Is that true or false? And does it EVEN matter? Middle knowledge does not totally escape determinism.
I am not nearly as well read or learned as the rest of the commenters here, but in my (humble) belief system it strikes me that when one chooses to love, inherently (and immediately) one gives up power to the object of one’s affections. As a parent and a wife I have experienced this. Love in its purest form gives without asking for return, but in the process makes itself vulnerable to the will and actions of love’s recipient. In other words, if I love without vulnerability, I have not really loved at all. In the same way, I believe that while God is certainly all powerful, for him to love us he has to “give up” some of that power, or else it really isn’t love at all, as demonstrated by his submission to death on a cross. To dictate the every action of one’s beloved is not love; it is obsessive (unhealthy) control.
This, IMO, is really the message of the Gospel, repeated several times, “give up your power,” “the last become first and the first last,” “put others above yourself.” And again, Jesus Himself demonstrates this by putting all others above himself in his march up Calvary Hill. Looked at in that light, it’s really not so hard to conceive of a God who, for the sake of Love, gives up his power in significant ways, even knowing that there will be many sorrowful consequences.
And I really don’t know what theological camp that puts me in.
Nora,
I really like the direction of your comments. I wholeheartedly agree that love must be freely offered (not decreed) or it is not love at all. Thanks for sharing your thoughts so well.
John
John-
“Can we imagine a kind of authentic Perfection that does in fact change without jeopardizing Perfection?”
I think the answer hinges on the definition of perfection. If some say that his knowledge would have to be less than perfect if it can grow, then they would also have to accept that his knowledge is less than perfect when he allows it to shrink. When does he ever allow that? When he forgets our sin! Does he become less than perfect when he forgives us?
Further, do we not become perfect in his sight, through Christ? Do we then become God in our forgiveness? In our forgiveness, does our knowledge become as infinite as his? Certainly not. So, clearly “perfection” is not even limited to God. So perhaps “perfect knowledge” doesn’t even require knowing all things. …?
Z-man,
Interesting thoughts. I agree that the definition of perfection is a crucial aspect of this conversation. The Platonic definition carries within it the idea of an inherent immutability (inability to change). Thus, classical determinists, leaning more on Platonism than on the Bible, freak out over the many times the Old Testament speaks of God “changing his mind.” This can’t be! God’s “perfection” is jeopardized. I am not sure that it logically follows that change in itself jeopardizes a perfect being. But I am a novice in these things.
Nora (#59) hits a home run. Phil
John,
will come back to this and your question. …this week/weekend is a conference at the sem. and I’ve been crazy-busier…
-Susan
Susan,
I look forward to your thoughts. You’re almost done!
John,
I haven’t checked in on your blog for a week or so, so I realize I am late on this post. I walked away from the Reformed Church about 30 years ago because of such issues as this – vowing I would never return. One thing I learned from that decision was that I really can never say “Never” to God – I returned to an RCA fellowship about 12 years ago. Fortunately they do not demand that I adhere to all of their traditional theological positions.
The issue of your topic here was very close to the surface of a discussion in one of our adult ed classes recently. I threw out the statement; “Just because God knows everything doesn’t mean He determines everything.” You would have thought I dropped the ‘F-bomb’ in there. (In fact, that may have been less offensive in some ways.) But there it was … so it had to be dealt with. Soon the discussion actually became amiable, and people were beginning to wonder why they ‘believed’ what they do believe. I think it’s healthy to challenge our beliefs so that we can establish for ourselves our core-convictions. It helps to eradicate dogmatism – one of the biggest hindrances to the expansion of the Gospel.
God’s people are thinking again. Thanks for the post.
Ken,
This is a most encouraging statement: “God’s people are thinking again.” This issue in particular needs more thought. The pastoral fall-out from classical determinism is epidemic. No one *really* lives by strict determinism; everyone is an Arminian in real life or an “open theist” in practice.
Has anyone read Udo Middlemann’s recent book “The Innocence of God?” A unique and insightful alternative to the excesses of both Calvinism and Open Theism. And yet not entirely comfortable.
I have also observed that most Calvinists are closet Arminians, just as most Arminians are closet Calvinists. It seems we chose(!) whichever doctrinal stance suits us at the time. Perhaps some of us were predestined to be Arminians and OT’s