Comments on: Whatsoever Comes to Pass. Really?

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:10:26 +0000

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

By: John Frye

John Frye — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 21:47:33 +0000

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.

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:59:22 +0000

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.

By: John Frye

John Frye — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:54:48 +0000

Susan,
I look forward to your thoughts. You’re almost done!

By: Susan

Susan — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 03:41:12 +0000

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

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:29:50 +0000

Nora (#59) hits a home run. Phil

By: John Frye

John Frye — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:59:52 +0000

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.

By: Zman

Zman — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:40:42 +0000

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. …?

By: John Frye

John Frye — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:20:50 +0000

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

By: Nora

Nora — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:01:57 +0000

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.