The sovereign activity of God can be seen in many instances in Scripture. In fact, the truth is found throughout the entire biblical record. This is part of what led to my own embrace of this powerful truth almost forty years ago. Christians disagree about the particulars, at least in terms of how they define man's will and God's sovereignty, but they should not disagree about the basic fact of divine providence.
Providence is the doctrine of God's care for the creation, involving his preservation of it and his guiding it to his intended ends. The famous Heidelberg Catechism, personally my favorite catechism, says that providence is: "The almighty and everywhere present power of God, whereby, as it were by His hand, He still upholds heaven, earth, and all creatures, and so governs them that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, food and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, yea, all things, comes not by chance but by His Fatherly hand."
Note the primary emphasis seems to call on this point: All things come about by the Father's purpose not by chance!
The following question (No. 28) in Heidelberg, says that this truth profits us so that we "may be patient in adversity, thankful in prosperity, and with a view to the future may have good confidence in our faithful God and Father that no creature shall separate us from His love, since all creatures are in His hand that without His will they cannot so much as move."
My life bears witness to this truth. I have found again and again that I do not need to figure out what is happening to me, or get a direct answer to all the "why" questions. I can rest with deep patience in the midst of dark adversity and I can give thanks in prosperity. I do not know how else to live well.
I believe the only logical alternative to a deeply Christian confession, at least for real Christians, is to believe that God responds to events, as they transpire, with love and mercy. But in this view His mercy is not rooted in perfect knowledge or the divine control of what actually happens. This is the primary reason why I believe the "openness of God" view is the only real alternative to this classical view of providence. Most Christian views link divine foreknowledge with providence. But these alternative views, to that stated by Heidelberg, tend to fall flat under the sheer weight of biblical evidence. I believe this is the reason the "openness" view has found acceptance among some young evangelical Christians who reject the classical doctrine because they sincerely see "fatalism" in it. (Understand, there is mystery in every Christian view and the classical view, which I firmly believe, embraces this mystery with profound wonder!) Those who embrace the openness view cannot accept the traditional alternatives to a strong (Augustinian) view of divine providence, believing that these alternative views (Arminian) do not fit the biblical evidence and/or their philosophical presuppositions. For this reason the "openness" view has gained some acceptance among thoughtful Christians, some of whom I count as my personal friends.
The openness debate has sparked some pretty acrimonious hostility among evangelicals. At its core the openness view teaches that God can and does change his mind. It is argued that freedom is an illusion if someone, even God, cannot change his mind. And if God knows, with absolute certainty, what will happen then it will happen whether you embrace this fact as an Arminian (foreknowledge) or a Calvinist (foreordination). This is why those who embrace openness see no freedom in either the Arminian or the Calvinist approach. They reason that in order to be free one must be able to decide and act otherwise. This means that God cannot know what will come to pass, except perhaps in the ultimate sense of the intended goal, or He would not be truly free. Clark Pinnock, a first-rate theologian and a fine Christian man I know and love, pictures God's relationship with free human beings as a dance. God leads, but human beings play their parts too. God's will and ways are flexible, thus He truly responds to human beings without possessing complete knowledge of the future. Pinnock believes that God is both omniresourceful and omnipotent. And Pinnock further believes that He can be surprised, but not thwarted! As much as I reject openness theology (and I do seriously reject it) I think Pinnock's point should be respected for what he is actually saying, not what his critics infer that he is saying. As with all theological controversy among serious confessing Christians, and Pinnock is one such Christian, we should be careful about how we reject what they teach, not just the content of what they teach. I visited this debate online while I was writing this post and was again appalled at the hostility and hype I saw in the writing of many who agree with my view. They have concluded that theologians like Clark Pinnock are, ipso facto, not real Christians! They attack not only his ideas but his person and his character. The acrimonious nature of this debate profoundly troubles me, which will make more than a few on my side of the debate despise me and question my motives. Is this type of theological polemic truly fruitful? Does it make us any more like Christ? Does it solve all the problems that honest Christians have when they seek to understand the Scriptures and the historic theological differences that exist among earnest Christians?
I thought about this whole debate, and thus the doctrine of providence, while reading the daily paper last Monday, Memorial Day. Thirty years ago (May 25) American Airlines flight 191, bound for Los Angeles, crashed at O'Hare Airport on takeoff. All 271 people on board died and two more people perished on the ground. It was the worst disaster in the history of O'Hare. I still remember seeing the terrible fire and smoke more than 15 miles away. I knew immediately that something tragic had happened. I quickly turned on the radio in my car and heard the first reports. It is one of those days you simply never forget.
Our paper featured a number of stories about various people who lost loved ones that awful day. (A move is underway to erect a memo
rial on the site.) Some peop
le who were not on that flight, and had been scheduled to travel on flight 191, also noted how the last thirty years had unfolded for them. One such person is the novelist John Powers, who had just hit it big with his best-selling book, Do Black Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect Up? Powers was scheduled to fly to LA on flight 191 but because of a cold he chose to rest and fly the next day. The paper included a piece about his life since 1979. In looking back, now at the age of 63, Powers said, "I think we all get those kind of situations that aren't nearly as dramatic. You catch a yellow light or whatever. We all live by luck."
It is that last phrase that struck me so profoundly. I think this is the clear difference between Christians and non-Christians on these matters. Even the most ardent proponent of openness theology does not believe that we live by luck! However you understand divine providence you cannot take God completely out of the equation and still have real hope, the kind of hope that springs from complete confidence in God's loving purpose. Classical theists, and openness evangelicals, differ strongly about how they understand the nature and character of God at this point, but I am quite sure that they all disagree with John Powers' statement: "We all live by luck." I know Clark Pinnock and he does not believe that at all. To suggest that he does is scandalous misrepresentation.
Related Posts
Comments
Comments are closed.
My Latest Book!
Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!
JA writes:
“This is why those who embrace openness see no freedom in either the Arminian or the Calvinist approach. They reason that in order to be free one must be able to decide and act otherwise. This means that God cannot know what will come to pass, except perhaps in the ultimate sense of the intended goal, or He would not be truly free. Clark Pinnock, a first-rate theologian and a fine Christian man I know and love, pictures God’s relationship with free human beings as a dance.”
And the point above also reveals why Clark Pinnock’s views lead to the alarming conclusion that God is **capable** (though proponents will say God hasn’t …..yet) of committing sin.
I find this view stemming from an embrace of Metaphysical Libertarianism (not to be confused with Libertarianism in the Philosophy of Politics like Austrian economists or von Mises blog) to be inconsistent with Numbers 23:19 in my humble opinion.
Numbers 23:19 is a convenient and compelling proof text against any degree of openness theology. However, like so many proof text attempts to settle an argument, advocates of God’s openness would simply point to the many places in the whole story of the bible where God “seemingly” does change his mind and then argue Numbers 23:19 simply means that God doesn’t change his mind like man – he changes his mind like God. His direction of will as well as the change point of that direction of will are perfect expressions of his ENTIRE plan for creation.
That all being said, Dr. A., I greatly appreciate your sensitive approach to this topic. I’m not decided on it (and honestly hope that I always am able to maintain a level of comfort with not-knowing). I do think it’s important we keep a healthy perspective of how God, in his many ways and being, is so very mysterious.
In terms of the topic, I am not familiar with Pinnock’s view so much on openness as I am on his view of salvation and Christian inclusiveness. I owe it to myself to study Pinnock more. I am, however, very attracted to Greg Boyd’s writings on this. One thing you wrote specifically, “God’s will and ways are flexible, thus He truly responds to human beings without possessing complete knowledge of the future,” I’m not so sure about in light of Boyd’s work. I believe Boyd (holding to a degree of openness) would state that no, God DOES in fact have a complete knowledge and understanding of the future – that being “all possible futures,” given they have not yet been created. Boyd would continue to state this applies even a greater awesomeness to God.
Which God is more powerful and more knowing – 1) the God who knows the future because there is only one possible “next” or 2) the God who knows all of the (near infinite) possible futures that might come and still be able to respond to each in power and glory?
I like the “game theory” analogy, especially in light of how intelligent computing works and the nature of my professional career. Think of creation as a chess board and all the pieces on it. God created it and set the pieces in their original places by his great design. Further, he made all the rules which govern creation. Additionally, the game is fixed! Regardless of how the game is played from the move of the first piece to the move of the last – the conclusion is already decided – God wins!
The greatest chess players (including Deep Blue and other computers) win by being able to calculate all possible next moves and all subsequent next moves in relation to the initial play. Further, the player is able to calculate all next moves and possible futures moves faster and more completely than their opponent, knowing precisely which next move is the best move at every decision point. Some initial moves seem like bad ones or lead to loss, only to later prove to be set-ups guaranteeing the ultimate win. To make God even greater in this analogy, we see that there are actually more than two players. The game is not limited to God and “player b.” Chess-player-God is so awesome, he can play a near limitless number of games simultaneously with a near limitless number of players (free agents, including Satan and his minions – that part is important)…AND HE STILL WINS THEM ALL. I just think that view of God is AWESOME. It seems so much more grand than the more traditional/classic view.
I think one of the reasons why so many have a problem with this, beyond not being considered generally accepted doctrine, (again, I’m not fully convinced of the view but simply greatly impressed with it), is that it implies God is less focused (less concerned?) with individual pieces of his creation than he is with “winning the game.” So much of Christianity today, and over the last 500 years, has been about the individual and God…that God is so big and so great that he can have a real, complete, and whole relationship with me (one of millions/billions)…just like he does with his son whom I share position with. I think this is true, but I also think those who stop there limit how God can act.
It’s like this, in light of the chess game theory: Jesus is King (obviously). We who put our faith in him share in his royalty, but we are not also Kings to be used/moved exactly like Jesus. The board cannot be filled with billions of kings. It doesn’t make practical sense, and it is not true to how God set everything up to begin with. The problem is that no one wants to think of themselves as a pawn, and I certainly don’t want to be thought of as a queen…LOL. Yet I believe our sinful nature, even after coming to know Jesus, desires we all be treated like kings. Only when we’re not treated like kings do we point to the mystery of God’s will or the enormity and complexity of God’s plan. Few people talk about the abundance in their lives in terms of how mysterious God is or how impossible it is to know God’s plan. It’s almost hypocritical, I think.
Furthermore, I think stopping our theology at the individual “play” between God and the believer also flies in the face of the whole story of the bible where everything is about how God relates to his “people.” Even Jesus told us that is how we should pray. He said we should start with “Our Father” not “My Father.” All that aside, I think the highly individualized faith expressed in ever greater degrees since the Reformation is the main obstacle to seeing God’s omniscience in the way Greg Boyd (and possibly Pinnock) describe – knowing all possible futures and still being able to use them to his advantage versus only knowing “the one future.” One possible future is easier for me the individual to stomach when I only have to consider me in it and in relation to God. It’s a problem of perspective.
Can you tell I love talking about this stuff?
P.S. I’ve only slept 2 hours in the last 29. Does it show here? LOL.
Peace,
Dan Jones DJ|AMDG
I live im mystery. But one of the difficulties I have is providence via “Calvinist (foreordination)”.
I get confused because that seems to say that God foreordained the Fall. Which then suggests that God foreordained many to be eternally separated from God. While I have no right to know (or, I guess, even ask), it does puzzle me why God went to all the trouble if He foreordained the Fall.
Then I also wonder why St. Paul urges his readers to live by the spirit, not by the flesh. If all is foreordained, why?
The Protestant Reformed Church split from the Christian Reformed Church (in the 1920’s, I think) over the value of missionaries given foreordination. It seems that logically they were correct although violating the clear directive to tell the story. Maybe someone has this all worked out, but I have not stumbled across the resolution.
Dan Jones writes:
“he can play a near limitless number of games simultaneously with a near limitless number of players (free agents, including Satan and his minions – that part is important)…AND HE STILL WINS THEM ALL. I just think that view of God is AWESOME. It seems so much more grand than the more traditional/classic view.”
Hi Dan:
May I share my .02?
Given your view expressed in your comment above, do you believe that God may lose sometime in the “possible future?” If not, would you say that God wins every single time?
I believe both the Basinger brothers and Richard Rice and Boyd would agree that openness theology entails a committment to Metaphysical Libertarian Free Will, and the accompanying absence of any “guarantees” or “known outcomes” pertaining to God winning every chess game containing free will agents, including Satan, etc.
But the essence of theological perspectives that adhere to Metaphysical Libertarian Free Will is that there are no “guarantees.” There are no known outcomes for “possible futures.” That is why themes like “risk-taking God,” “flexibility”, “dynamism”, “suffering God”, are present in this theology, and static and fixed categories like known outcomes are absent.
If, as Openness Theology adherents and Clark Pinnock believe, God’s nature includes Libertarian Free Will, then there are no “causal influences that can decisively and sufficiently incline the direction of the will” in one way or another. This entails that ultimately, there are no guarantees simply because there is no metaphysical ability to predict future events.
All of this follows from a metaphysical committment to Libertarian Free Will.
You write:
“Can you tell I love talking about this stuff?
P.S. I’ve only slept 2 hours in the last 29. Does it show here? LOL.
Peace,
Dan Jones DJ|AMDG”
My secret is Diet Mountain Dew. I have pulled many an all-nighter. So I started buying stock in it.
ColtsFan,
Wonderful response! Thank you so much. I suspect your study on the subject is greater than mine. On the subject of God losing, I did mention that somewhat. “Additionally, the game is fixed! Regardless of how the game is played from the move of the first piece to the move of the last – the conclusion is already decided – God wins!”
I do not think God is ever “surprised.” If there are only 5 possible choice you a free agent can make, and I know all of them, regardless the choice you make – I won’t be surprised. Further, because I know all possible choices and impacts before they are made, I can plan a response for each that perfectly addresses whatever condition is created by your choice. I’m not surprised nor can I lose because whatever choice you make I have the power and knowledge available to use it to my advantage. A near infinite number of these scenarios strung together means no matter what anyone else does, I’ll always come out on top in the end. I think the movie Next, with Nic Cage, although not a great movie, is an example of what I’m talking about on a basic level.
Regardless, although I may never be surprised and I will always end up on top (in God’s case he will always be glorified), I can and will be sorrowful, angry, and what not when you make “wrong” choices. Scripture is full of places where God expresses those negative emotions in response to the “wrong” choices of his creation. If there was ever to only be one choice and God knew what it was to be, why get upset about it? Better put, if you have only one choice to make in relation to me, and I know what that choice is, AND that choice will result in me being full of sorrow or anger – then I’m not all powerful am I? I’m just as much forced by “fate” as you. I’m not sure I’m comfortable saying that there is only one possible future, God fully knows what it is, and the times it results in him being full of sorrow or anger for his people…well, that’s how it was written. That perspective seems to limit God more than glorify him.
I am attracted to the other kind of omniscience, the one I think is better, the one where God does “know” everything there is to know (since it has already been created), and for that which has not been created (the future) God knows every possible iteration of what it could be. Further, because he knows all of the possible choices and futures and impacts that may be AND he is omnipotent (able to apply whatever degree of power he deems necessary at whatever specific point required to bring glory to his name), he can leverage that knowledge in such a way the he “CAN” win whatever individual battles he chooses (again, as an way to “point-in-time” glorify his name,) and he “WILL” win the war.
“WILL” probably isn’t even accurate as it has already been written that it’s won. It is finished. There can be no other outcome at this point.
Frankly, I’m still very uncomfortable with how attracted I am to this thinking. I recognize how NOT orthodox many believe it to be. I do see it providing a more satisfying explanation for the evil, spiritual warfare, a God who weeps, and the conflict rising out of having free agents in God’s creation.
I also think it speaks to post modern culture and those aware of things like relativity and quantum conditions, while still maintaining a very high opinion of God’s nature (omniscience and omnipotence).
P.S. Going on 36 hours now, and have only had 4 diet cokes. I’ve taken a meeting, written a ton (probably junk), shopped extensively for my daughters 3rd b-day on Sat., done some dishes, done some laundry, and changed 4 diapers…LOL.
Stillllll going…
DJ|AMDG
I’m not quite sure how Neo-Theism is the only real alternative to classic orthodox theism? Nor am I clear on how it is that Neo-Theism is not based in the same sort of Naturalism upon which the pagan idea of luck is based?
If God does not have control of events, that means that events occur on their own. He may interact with events, but they are taking place with or without Him. If that’s true, then what happens is up to the multiple agents participating in those events, not the one individual, God. If that is true, then whatever direction an event takes is contingent upon whatever the multiple factors, which go into directing it arbitrarily, decide to take it. Since it is not of unified mind, but up to multiple contradicting agents, then ultimately an outcome of any given event is nothing but chance (i.e., luck), whether God is involved or not.
Am I missing something here?
Secondly, when it is stated that it is the only real alternative to classical theism, in what sense is this true? Classical Theism does not put forth a universe of chance as Neo-Theism does. Classical Theism puts forth a completely different system of soteriology from start to finish than does Neo-Theism. Classical Theism stems mainly from didactic theological statements made in Scripture, which has always been regarded as the control for narrative-descriptive statements; whereas Neo-Theism begins primarily from narrative description and seeks to use them as presuppositional controls upon the didactic statements made.
It’s not any more consistent philosophically than Arminian theology. I just don’t see how this somehow is a greater alternative to Calvinism than are any of the other competing theories of God’s knowledge and human freedom; nor do I see Neo-Theism really answering the classic passages of the doctrines of grace which would seem to completely decimate it. Whereas all views use Scripture, they do not all use it with equal sophistication and exegesis (which is something I would say for systematicians in general).
Can someone enlighten me further?
“I believe the only logical alternative to a deeply Christian confession, at least for real Christians, is to believe that God responds to events, as they transpire, with love and mercy.”
I think it would be helpful to understand that up to this point, the Calvinist would not object. God can have absolute knowledge of an event and also choose to experience the event in time. These are not contradictory. The parting of the ways comes with the next statement:
“But in this view His mercy is not rooted in perfect knowledge or the divine control of what actually happens.”
The Calvinist could say that God’s mercy is rooted in His perfect knowledge and divine control of all that happens AND responds to events experientially as they happen, something that is possible because of the incarnational ministry of the transcendent God in this world.
Dan,
If I might just make an observation…
When you say, “Frankly, I’m still very uncomfortable with how attracted I am to this thinking. I recognize how NOT orthodox many believe it to be. I do see it providing a more satisfying explanation for the evil, spiritual warfare, a God who weeps, and the conflict rising out of having free agents in God’s creation.
I also think it speaks to post modern culture and those aware of things like relativity and quantum conditions, while still maintaining a very high opinion of God’s nature (omniscience and omnipotence).”
I would argue that this is precisely why we need to be careful with this view. We are all going to be attracted to it because it makes God more “understandable.” But then again, so does Zeus or Baal. This reminds me of a conversation I just had with some Jehovah’s witnesses when speaking about the Trinity. Their main objection and attraction to their own view is that the Trinity doesn’t make sense to them and presents God in an “nonhuman” fashion. He is too otherworldly when presented this way. That’s why we like making God more like us (per Rom 1). It makes us feel like we are in more control and less threatened by Him. It gives us better explanations for the world (that’s precisely why the pagan gods were crafted). My caution then is simply that we may be attracted to this line of thinking, not because it is true, but because we, as Calvin many times said, are all master crafters of idols. He called our minds “idol factories.” I think this is true. It does not mean that Neo-Theism is wrong because it explains God in more human terms, but simply because it gives us better explanations and makes us more comfortable with “who God is” is not a reason to consider it true either.
Just a thought on that.
“Numbers 23:19 is a convenient and compelling proof text against any degree of openness theology. However, like so many proof text attempts to settle an argument, advocates of God’s openness would simply point to the many places in the whole story of the bible where God “seemingly” does change his mind and then argue Numbers 23:19 simply means that God doesn’t change his mind like man – he changes his mind like God. His direction of will as well as the change point of that direction of will are perfect expressions of his ENTIRE plan for creation.”
Like so many prooftexting answers to prooftexting, however, this would fail to consider the context.
The text is arguing that what God says He will do, will be done. Therefore, Israel can rest assure that if God says A in situation B, He will do C. If God says A in situation D, He will do E.
Hence, God not being a man and therefore able to lie is in synonymous parallelism with God not being a man and able to change His mind (although there are nuances to the Hebrew root nhm that we don’t have in an equivalent English word, which leads to more confusion on that matter sometimes).
If, as the Neo-Theists claim, God in fact can change His mind, this whole passage falls on its face. There is nothing that would allow the Israelites to trust that if God says A in situation B, He will do C because God may change His mind and decide to do D instead.
Hence, the author has Balaam state, “Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”
Balaam is, of course, arguing here that He can’t get God to change His mind because God doesn’t change His mind.
If one wanted to get around this I suppose he or she could say that this is Balaam’s false opinion; but thus far the author of Numbers has tried to convince the reader that Balaam, although a shady character, has spoken only the truth about God. Hence, this theology in the form of poetry is recorded for us in Scripture as a dialogue between the voice of truth (Balaam’s here) and the voice of opposition to it (Balak’s). All of this not to mention that it is God who has told Balaam to say this to Balak.
Hi DJ/AMDG:
Thank you for your carefully thought-out and reasoned response.
I re-read, briefly, Clark Pinnock’s contribution in IVP’s classic, “Predestination and Free Will: 4 views of Divine Sovereignty and Free Will,”…..
Pinnock skates close to Process Theology, but then on page 147 ……..attempts to put philosophical distance between process folks and his position.
Pinnock even (amazingly in my “own 2 cents” opinion) writes, “nothing can happen which God has not anticipated or cannot handle.” He means for this statement to cohere at the very same time as his denial of the traditional view of God’s omniscience defined on page 153.
Some Arminians hold to a libertarian free will position: which holds that there are no causal influences that decisively incline the will to choose X rather than Y, or vice versa. These same Arminians will then display the “omniscience card” by laying that “Ace” on the table in front of the Calvinist and say, “but God knows what will happen with the free will choices that sinful men choose of their own doing….”
But the above is different from the Pinnock approach.
The Clark Pinnock brand comes very close to ordering omniscience to walk the plank (pg. 150) in order to win the release of the, “we can ..finally….solve the problem of evil” hostage.
My own heritage, as a biographical note, is that I grew up Arminian, and later studied philosophy at secular schools, where I became very troubled and distressed with the Christian always being on the defensive with regard to the Problem of Evil. So I briefly entertained the Basinger brothers (Messiah College philosophers; Richard Rice, etc) position, which is very, very close to Clark Pinnock and the open theism crowd. I still have their books, most of which are published by IVP.
I abandoned the Clark Pinnock position when my pastor told me to study my Bible more. I then became a Calvinist primarily because I was attracted to the Reformed view of Sanctification: it just seemed like every day became like “Christmas” to me once I finally understood what the Reformers were arguing for.
By the way, from reading your comment, are you a IT guy into Game Theory? Personally, I am thinking about taking some classes like C++, VB, etc. Just curious…..:-)
Regarding your lack of sleep, I don’t know how you do it!!!
Thank you for the dialogue.
Hi Everyone,
Thanks John for your sympathetic treatment of open theism even if you disagree with it. I remember reading Pinnock’s earlier works on this subject, there were like three big issues coming from the open theism perspective.
1. The Bible does not teach the immortality of the soul but the resurrection of the body. I agree . . .
2. To take the Scriptures literally means taking those texts of God changing him mind seriously. Open theists see God as more open and flexible than certain past fixed and static conceptions of God. Again, no problem.
3. God does not know the future with a lot of interesting exegesis (proof texts) from people like Pinnock Sanders, and Boyd. This is where I parted company with open theism.
Lastly, I spent a weekend at a conference a few years ago with Clark Pinnock and I never in my life met such a humble man of God as well as unruly, controversial, and even “Can I get away from this person before I get in trouble for being with him!”
Pinnock is both lamb-like and lion-like. After my encounter with Pinnock, I suddenly came to the conclusion that this is probably what it must have been like to been in the presence of Jesus. Sometimes you just loved the guy and wanted to be around him all the time and other times, he scared the hell out of you in what he was saying, how he said things, and who he was speaking to and all the while you just wanted run and go hide somewhere.
By the way, Pinnock is not only an intellectual giant who loves living in Canada but he is physically a giant as well.
Of interest, Grace Community Church elder and executive director of Grace to You, Phil Johnson, is a Baptistic Calvinist. This statement appears on his website: “Theologically, Phil is a committed Calvinist—with a decidedly Baptistic bent.” (Who is Phillip R. Johnson?) Even more interesting is this statement: “He…is a member of the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals (FIRE).” The slogan of FIRE is “In essentials Unity, In non-essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.” (FIRE) Why is this interesting? FIRE’s slogan is nearly identical to the slogan of Phoenix Freemasonry! “It is the glory of Masonry to teach Unity in essentials, Liberty in details, Charity in all things; and by this sign its spirit must at last prevail.”
This type of blog post demonstrates to me how difficult it is to communicate clearly and to be heard correctly. The failure to communicate clearly is typically my fault. The failure to be heard correctly depends entirely on the reader and listener.
I am NOT agreeing in any way with openness theology. I am saying that we should listen to our brothers and sisters about this matter and not demonize them so quickly. I reject openness theology AND I am not a fatalist in any meaningful sense of this word. This means I affirm all that the creeds and confessions of my church and what they teach about the nature of God. God does not foreordain evil if these words are used properly. The problem in this understanding has to do with a misunderstanding of what the Calvinist is actually claiming. The real mystery is in the fact that two things are true, we are free and responsible and God is sovereign, and they seem to us to be in conflict. In God’s mind they are resolved but not in ours. All of revelation, at least to some extent, is a mystery thus we cannot explain HOW Jesus can be human and divine, etc. The Calvinist often comes down on one side so strongly that he stresses only divine sovereignty. The other side wants to protect human freedom, decision making and choice. I believe both are true. We are not free to do anything we desire but we are moral agents and choose to obey or not obey God. We are not robots!
I am not sure how Phil Johnson’s name came into this response. The Phil Johnson you reference is NOT the Philip Johnson of Intelligent Design teaching/writing. The Phil Johnson you reference is quite orthodox and a member of the fine group you cite, a group I also have friends in as well.
As for the reference to Masonry they may use this phrase but the idea comes from St. Augustine, not the Masons. They borrowed it and use it in a way that is not Christian.
John Armstrong: “The Calvinist often comes down on one side so strongly that he stresses only divine sovereignty. The other side wants to protect human freedom, decision making and choice. I believe both are true.”
In my current church (we moved, I don’t church shop), I hear the first so much—-not in sermons, but from members. My pastor once commented that those who try to work out the relationship between human responsibility and God’s act of election ended up in heresy. Thus, like you, John, I must live in mystery—both are true. As you point out, there are many mysteries.
One aspect of “classic Theism” theology that I haven’t read in this discussion is the mystery of how God exists outside of time and space. Time and space as we know and experience it are part of the created order, and are therefore also subject to God’s Providence. Somehow, to me it always seems that the discussion as to how God knows and guides or controls all human events seems to place God within the limits of the time/space continuum. I may be misunderstanding the statements made by both Calvinists and Arminians, but I have tried to study and wrestle with these doctrines for several years. I agree with John Armstrong in that the scriptures seem to teach the simultaneous reality of Absolute Divine Providence and the genuine reality of real human freedom (volition) and responsibility. However, I wonder if God’s timelessness, and the fact that God maintains both a transcendent and an immanent relation to His created order provide some insight into the great mystery of Divine Providence and human responsibility? Just some “food for theological thought” here.