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…..
Wait a second, that wasn't "long" and "lengthy"? :)
Let me think on this for a bit....
We happen to be going through Romans 9 right now in our church. It took us forever to get here and we will probably be in the book for a few more years but you might enjoy listening to this weeks sermon which did cover the 2 wills of God which is I think the only conclusion you can come to in scripture. I don't call myself a Calvinist and neither does our Pastor since labels often lead in the wrong direction but you might enjoy taking a listen.
http://www.compasschurch.org/sermons/
Hi Jim,
I will listen to the sermon before I comment on the 2 wills; I'll try to listen to it today or tomorrow.
I have a new respect for Calvinism (or reformed if you prefer that term). Funny - Arminians don't like to be called Arminians either.
Do you have any issues with any of the other "cons" on the list? Do you understand/believe free will in the compatibilist sense?
Hey Larry,
If I understand compatibilist I would say that I agree but I have to read up on it a bit more to be sure. There is an unavoidable tension in scripture and to get rid of the tension is to fall down on either side (total determinism or total free choice) and both are wrong.
-----------------------
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.
------------------------------------
You may be interested in the 4 part series we are doing now on Romans 9. Part 4 is next week. Our Pastor explains better than I could how the "all" in these passages is "without DISTINCTION" but not "without EXCEPTION" -- something I am still pondering but it seems to make good sense
Jim
I don't have to fall down on one side or the other for peace. My peace is in knowing I will never understand the mind of God. He's God, I'm not and I can rest in the fact that while I dig deep, I will never understand where all things meet in His mind.
Craig I agree we'll never understand the mind of God but we certainly can't accept an explicit contradiction either. If we can accept an explicit contradiction, then everything is suspect and nothing is certain (no promise of God could be counted on).
Compatibilism is at least a non-contradictory way of explaining it, and for that I give Calvinism some props. I don't really think anyone deep down thinks that is free will but what we all think doesn't matter.
Jim I listened to that sermon in the background while I worked today but he didn't really talk about the 2 wills?
Sorry...the 2 wills must have been in last weeks sermon, not yesterdays. You can listen to them all on the website. Next week is part 4 or 4
Larry-I fully agree. My son has these debates with a Berkeley honor student who is so wrapped up in knowledge he can't except the simplicity of the gospel. That being said, we should always strive to know truth and be ready to give an account. I must admit I am a Calvinist, or as I prefer to label it, a biblisist. :o) I do not embrace everything of Calvin but I struggle to accept free will in regard to salvation when 1 Cor. 2:14 says we are dead and its impossible for us to hear without the quickening of the Holy Spirit. I believe our free will begins after salvation. Now I know that may open up a lot of questions but that's where I am. Dead men don't make choices. Living men do.
Craig - great argument and I hear you. I see people that LOVE their sin and think they just can't see because they are dead or blind. But how do you reconcile I Tim 2:3-7?
3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. 7And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.
Or Jesus himself wanting Jerusalem to listen to Him?
Luke 13:34
34"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!"
Do you also subscribe to the 2-will theory? I thought the will of the omnipotent is never thwarted?
In answer to the 1 Tim 2:3-7 question let me give you the conclusion. By doing so I am leaving out the process of getting to the conclusion since there is limited time and space but if needed we can get into the process of coming to this conclusion.
In most every place in scripture where All is used related to salvation it is speaking of All without DISTINCTION but not all without EXCEPTION. All tribes, people groups, throughout history etc but not every specific person
This is where the problem lies - those verses don't really say that, you have to assume it and make your case as "there are other Scriptures that speak more clearly". The Arminians do the exact same thing. They'll say that Romans 8:29-30 (the golden chain of Calvinism) is speaking of election CORPORATELY in Christ not about individual people. Then when it appears to be very specific (such as Esau or Pharoah) they will appeal to the "more clear" Scriptures.
Who gets to decide which Scriptures are "the most clear"?
I don't think there is anything wrong with taking scripture as a whole to understand a given set of verses. We know that Paul in Romans 9:25-29 quoted Hosea 2 and Hosea 1 and Isaiah to make his point. So for us to do the same would just be being good students of scripture. I think the problem can arise when we get "tunnel visioned" into a specific scripture. In that case we might end up with Sovereignty without Responsibility
Jim - I agree - use the whole Bible! Speaking of tunnel vision - Reformed believers seem to be fixated on Romans.
It's weird but I'm finally at peace with this.
I'm centering my theology on Christ. Jesus elected disciples, Paul, etc so there's proof of absolute election. He responded to individual requests in real time, He wept, felt sorrow and disappointment, anger, surprise, etc, so there's proof of dynamic omniscience or at least Him limiting His omniscience. So I guess God does both - elects some and allows others to choose Him.
Larry-Your on the right track. I had many professors in school that argued that election was limited to service. That is, as you said, Jesus chose the 12, God chose Israel to be His voice of redemption, Moses, Joseph, and on and on. The argue election is only regarding service. I don't believe that but I thought I would throw this in given your answer :o)
It is a complex topic for all. I am very glad that our Pastor goes through books of the bible 1 at a time. The previous book was Hebrews and now we are in the 57th week of Romans (who knows when we will finish) :)
I also enjoy reading luis de molina, a christian philosopher of the 1600's along with William Lane Craig (alive currently) to allow philosophy to aid in the discussion. I don't always agree but it sure helps me think outside the box