The Providence of God
Since I grew up in the Baptist church, we never really discussed how God relates to us or God’s providence in general. Baptists generally just don’t discuss it. I’ve had many discussions with other Christians in the past, but never really took the time to exegetically research my position.
I spent the last 2 months reading 3 books in the following order: Why I am not a Calvinist by Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence by John Sanders, and Why I am not an Arminian by Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams. I prayed often while reading this material and you need your Bible handy to do constant research and verify the passages quoted.
I could write a huge lengthy blog post about all of this as it is very fresh on my mind – but I won’t. I will quickly outline what my findings were as follows:
CALVINISM
PROS:
1. Completely explains God’s foreknowledge and election because he preordained it.
2. Easily explains how God can know the future with certainty (prophecy)
3. Very consistent theology that has few logical holes (philosophically sound). I will admit that when I first undertook this project I expected to be able to attack it from a philosophical standpoint but my respect for the position has changed greatly.
CONS:
1. Predestination to hell seems unavoidable to me. I mean individual predestination to hell before the world was ever created, before Adam ever sinned. I’ve not seen a sound logical argument that explains it otherwise.
2. Must define “free will” in the compatibulist sense (this is a huge difference). HOWEVER - when I read Scripture sometimes I feel like this is exactly what I see in the unsaved.
3. Makes God the author of evil (I read lots of attempts to remove the blame for evil from God but they really seem like very weak arguments to me).
4. Makes passages that say God wants everyone to be saved seem disingenuous at best. How can God want everyone to be saved, yet make 100% certain that some people (by His sovereign choice) will not? Calvin argued that there must be 2 wills in God. I’m not on board.
5. Must label all passages of God changing His mind or experiencing sorrow, etc as God “talking baby talk” to us (or “lisping” to use Calvin’s term). I find this particular point distressing. If God sometimes “baby talks” to us and sometimes does not, how do we determine which is happening?
ARMINIANISM
PROS:
1. “Free will” defined in the libertarian sense (common use of the term)
2. God is not the author of evil
3. God truly would like everyone to choose Him but will not force them to do so.
CONS:
1. More difficult to determine how God can know the future with certainty. Simple foreknowledge has its issues (especially with answered prayer) as does Molinism. I did not realize this problem until I undertook this study.
2. Must explain terms regarding election and predestination as corporate not individual despite some passages seeming to be very individual (Pharoah).
3. Must accept doctrine of prevenient grace that is not necessarily provable by Scripture (but many verses can be used to support the idea of the position).
OPEN THEISM (Dynamic Omniscience)
PROS:
1. Ability to easily explain all the Bible texts of God changing His mind, feeling sorrowful, being disappointed, etc.
2. The only theology that truly explains how God can relate to us personally, can answer prayer, responds to us in real time, etc.
CONS:
1. Must accept the idea that God knows all things past and knows all things present but CANNOT know the future with certainty. This is explained by saying the future is not a “thing” to know – it hasn’t happened yet. If people genuinely have free will then knowing exactly what they will do is not possible – it’s like knowing what a square triangle looks like.
2. Difficult to explain prophecy if there is no future. This is explained by saying God will bring it about, but the method of bringing it about remains open. This does explain why prophecies are sometimes very vague.
So where did I end up? About where I started. No theology explains all the Bible passages perfectly harmoniously. God can create any universe He wants. Jesus was God and Jesus certainly limited his power and knowledge while He was here, so God can limit his sovereignty if He wants. Maybe the Baptists are right on this one…..
I spent the last 2 months reading 3 books in the following order: Why I am not a Calvinist by Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence by John Sanders, and Why I am not an Arminian by Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams. I prayed often while reading this material and you need your Bible handy to do constant research and verify the passages quoted.
I could write a huge lengthy blog post about all of this as it is very fresh on my mind – but I won’t. I will quickly outline what my findings were as follows:
CALVINISM
PROS:
1. Completely explains God’s foreknowledge and election because he preordained it.
2. Easily explains how God can know the future with certainty (prophecy)
3. Very consistent theology that has few logical holes (philosophically sound). I will admit that when I first undertook this project I expected to be able to attack it from a philosophical standpoint but my respect for the position has changed greatly.
CONS:
1. Predestination to hell seems unavoidable to me. I mean individual predestination to hell before the world was ever created, before Adam ever sinned. I’ve not seen a sound logical argument that explains it otherwise.
2. Must define “free will” in the compatibulist sense (this is a huge difference). HOWEVER - when I read Scripture sometimes I feel like this is exactly what I see in the unsaved.
3. Makes God the author of evil (I read lots of attempts to remove the blame for evil from God but they really seem like very weak arguments to me).
4. Makes passages that say God wants everyone to be saved seem disingenuous at best. How can God want everyone to be saved, yet make 100% certain that some people (by His sovereign choice) will not? Calvin argued that there must be 2 wills in God. I’m not on board.
5. Must label all passages of God changing His mind or experiencing sorrow, etc as God “talking baby talk” to us (or “lisping” to use Calvin’s term). I find this particular point distressing. If God sometimes “baby talks” to us and sometimes does not, how do we determine which is happening?
ARMINIANISM
PROS:
1. “Free will” defined in the libertarian sense (common use of the term)
2. God is not the author of evil
3. God truly would like everyone to choose Him but will not force them to do so.
CONS:
1. More difficult to determine how God can know the future with certainty. Simple foreknowledge has its issues (especially with answered prayer) as does Molinism. I did not realize this problem until I undertook this study.
2. Must explain terms regarding election and predestination as corporate not individual despite some passages seeming to be very individual (Pharoah).
3. Must accept doctrine of prevenient grace that is not necessarily provable by Scripture (but many verses can be used to support the idea of the position).
OPEN THEISM (Dynamic Omniscience)
PROS:
1. Ability to easily explain all the Bible texts of God changing His mind, feeling sorrowful, being disappointed, etc.
2. The only theology that truly explains how God can relate to us personally, can answer prayer, responds to us in real time, etc.
CONS:
1. Must accept the idea that God knows all things past and knows all things present but CANNOT know the future with certainty. This is explained by saying the future is not a “thing” to know – it hasn’t happened yet. If people genuinely have free will then knowing exactly what they will do is not possible – it’s like knowing what a square triangle looks like.
2. Difficult to explain prophecy if there is no future. This is explained by saying God will bring it about, but the method of bringing it about remains open. This does explain why prophecies are sometimes very vague.
So where did I end up? About where I started. No theology explains all the Bible passages perfectly harmoniously. God can create any universe He wants. Jesus was God and Jesus certainly limited his power and knowledge while He was here, so God can limit his sovereignty if He wants. Maybe the Baptists are right on this one…..
