March 29, 1999

Dear Fellow BGC Pastor,

Greetings,

This letter reflects our apprehension regarding the “exhaustive foreknowledge” resolution. In February, our churches received in the mail a packet of materials prepared by a group of “concerned Pastors” about a resolution for the annual meeting in June of 1999 in Florida. We as pastors and church leaders are apprehensive about the tone and intent of the action these “concerned Pastors” are taking. Please let us share our perspective with you. Their effort is to encourage the conference to pass a resolution on the “exhaustive foreknowledge” of God and use the resolution as a tool through which all other theological debates are filtered. First, we are troubled that their strategy is an attempt to amend the Affirmation of Faith through a resolution format rather than through the defined amendment process contained in the BGC Constitution. Clearly “exhaustive foreknowledge” is not found in the Affirmation and needs to be dealt with as an amendment.

Second, we are alarmed that this attempt to modify the 1951 Affirmation of Faith through a resolution will redefine a consensus core of beliefs that have held together a denomination and its educational institutions in ways that include persons from the Reformed, Arminian and Evangelical Pietist traditions. It moves the “Affirmation” towards a dangerous “creedalism” that is an anathema to our Baptist heritage.

Third, we are disheartened that a representative group of these Pastors chose not to honor the BGC leadership team’s request by letter (twelve of our district Executive Ministers, the President of the BGC, the executive Vice Presidents and the Chairman of the Board of Overseers) to withdraw the proposed resolution and to engage in a two year theological discussion about the foreknowledge of God issue and its importance. By their action of pressing ahead on this issue and ignoring the counsel of the leadership team they have politicized this issue. (see enclosed letter) Some could accuse us of the same tactic. However, we believe a dissenting viewpoint needs to be given an equal hearing.

Fourth, we are disappointed that these Pastors found unacceptable a report of theologians organized by the President of Bethel who investigated Dr. Boyd’s theological positions and unanimously found them to be within the spectrum of evangelical belief.

Fifth, we are troubled that some of the Pastors have misrepresented Dr. Boyd based solely on his belief of an Open View of the Future (through circulated theological articles) and have failed to acknowledge his ardent defense of Scripture, the trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by faith, etc., which he expounds in class, in the pulpit in his BGC church, and on secular campuses throughout the Twin Cities. We have included a summary of Dr. Boyd’s position on the Open View of the Future.

Sixth, we believe this resolution, as proposed, raises as many or more questions than it seeks to clarify. Does “exhaustive foreknowledge” mean one has to believe in an extreme Calvinistic view of predestination? Is it helpful to propose a resolution clarifying the 1951 framer’s intention using an argument from silence? Does this new “hermeneutic” determine how one interprets the other sections of the Affirmation? Does a commitment to a specific interpretation of “exhaustive foreknowledge” have additional implications for issues like prayer, missions and theologies of evangelism?

Finally, the current Affirmation of Faith has allowed persons from diverse evangelical theological positions to respect one another and join together in the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We fear that some of the framers of the resolution have articulated commitments that could lead to the pulling apart of this coalition. For example, some believe that God’s exhaustive foreknowledge must necessitate one’s belief in God’s predestinarian will (John Piper, “Comments on Trinity and Process”). Some hold that the evangelical Arminian tradition itself is suspect. For example, “Arminians think dangerous things and are on the brink of heresy frequently.” (John Piper in the 1998 Piper/Boyd foreknowledge debate).

We believe, therefore, that a resolution like this needs to be challenged. It has the potential to divide the Conference and unnecessarily divert us from our primary responsibility of building God’s kingdom. We want to maintain and strengthen our commitments to Pietism, evangelism and civility and not jeopardize them. Throughout the history of the BGC four Pietist themes have had the highest priority: 1) redemption through the shed blood of Jesus Christ; 2) a Bible-centered faith; 3) a desire for holy living; and 4) a commitment to evangelism. Pietists are known for their commitment to the irenic spirit and a prayer-filled life. Our prayer in this dialogue is Eph. 4:3; “make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

If you are of a similar mind and heart and want to be part of an effort to either defeat this resolution and/or support the recommendation of the leadership team, please let us hear from you. Our organizing committee needs your input and support. If you respond we want to 1) list you as a supporting leader with your permission; 2) seek your input on issues to address; and 3) encourage you to participate with us in the development of a strategy for the annual meeting in Florida. It is our intent to conduct our analysis of the resolution issues in a spirit of civility and to proclaim as important preserving the Conference’s Baptist pietistic historical tradition. We have enclosed background material for the discussion of the “resolution.”

Thank you for considering our perspectives. We believe the stakes are high and look forward to your input and discussion.

Joyfully a Servant,

Ron Saari

Central Baptist Church

420 N. Roy

St. Paul, MN 55105

Ph: 651-646-2751

Fax: 651-646-0372

E-Mail: central at centralbaptistchurch dot com

Produced by the Communications Department, Baptist General Conference.

Please address comments or questions to GMBGCSTD at aol dot com

The post Preserving Civility and Piety within the BGC appeared first on OpenTheism.info.

Theology Today; Princeton; Apr 1996;

Volume: 53

Issue: 1

Start Page: 15

ISSN: 00405736

Abstract: Pinnock dicusses the sovereignty of God and the many challenges to it. Given the atrocities in the Holocaust and Cambodia, it is difficult to say that God rules over and controls history.

Full Text: © Theology Today Apr 1996

Divine sovereignty is a central theme of Christian worship. We exalt God as our creator and ruler: “The Lord is king, he is robed in majesty; the Lord is robed, he is girded in strength. He has established the world; it shall never be moved; your throne is established from old; you are from everlasting” (Ps. 93:1-2). Islam, Judaism, and Christianity unite in pointing to the glory and rule of God. During periods of renewal, testimony only increases about the greatness of our God. The majesty of God’s rule is deeply biblical. The prophet has a vision of the Lord, seated upon a throne, high and lifted up, his robe filling the temple (Isa. 6:1). Paul praises God as “the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,” who alone “has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see” (1 Tim. 6:15). The elders fall down before God’s throne, saying: “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created” (Rev. 4:11). We confess in the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth.” The God we serve is the Lord, sovereign and free, the adorable mystery that transcends the world and empowers creation. The world’s existence is an expression of God’s purposes, as Paul says: “From him and through him and to him are all things” (Rom. 11:36). Everything depends on God-nothing is too hard for God (Jer. 32:17).

St. Theresa of Avila writes: “My sovereign Lord, your power is infinite and you are supremely good and wise. There is no limit to your works which are beyond time and understanding. You are a fathomless ocean of wonders and your beauty encompasses all other forms of beauty, You are strength itself” (The Way of Perfection).

The theme of sovereignty is not universally popular, however. The psalmist declares that the rulers of this world take counsel against the Lord and his anointed, saying: “Let us burst their bonds asunder and cast their cords from us” (Ps. 2:2-3). Even more than in the modern world, there is rebellion against divine transcendent rule. Nietzsche declared God dead, and secularists vow to take no account of any divine reality. Even in the churches, some say God is becoming weightless as people are assigning God to the periphery, creating, in effect, an easy-going deity whose reality is little different from our own. The culture is pressing us to worship a God who will satisfy our needs, not the Lord God almighty.^[1] But sovereignty can be a genuine puzzle for faithful people as well. Given our experience of such evils as the Holocaust and Cambodia, how can one say that God rules over and controls history? What divine purpose can be detected in death camps and killing fields? History itself seems to call the sovereignty of God into question and to require us to rethink it.

Defining Sovereignty

The definition of sovereignty is important if people are going to be able to receive it. In politics (whence the term originates) sovereignty is understood in various ways. We distinguish among the sovereignty of the tyrant, the rule of a constitutional monarch, the authority of an elected president, and the like. Political sovereignty may include respect for the governed or it may not.

Sovereignty has various meanings in theology also. It may mean total control or some less coercive influence. In Western theology since Augustine, the definition of sovereignty that has been preferred is one at the power end of the spectrum. Our theologians have taught that God predestines everything that happens in detail. Although employing a free-will defense in relation to the problem of evil, Augustine held a view of sovereignty in considerable tension with it. While (on the one hand) blaming Adam for sin and the fall, he did not believe that God’s will could be thwarted or God’s purposes be successfully resisted. He writes: “He is not truly called almighty if he cannot do whatsoever he pleases, or if the power of his almighty will is hindered by the will of any creature” (Enchiridion, 96). Furthermore, Augustine held that God knows everything that will happen and that all future choices are fixed and certain before they have been made (City of God, 11.21).

Calvin held to a similar concept of sovereignty as an all-determining power. He declared that all creatures “are governed by God’s secret plan in such a way that nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.16.3). Sovereignty then refers to the power by which God controls everything and is able to bring every event into conformity with the divine will. Calvin’s view gained ever wider influence through the Canons of Dort, the theology of John Knox, and the Westminster Confession.

The Confession states: “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (3.1). This includes the final destiny of everyone whether in heaven or in hell (3.3). God is said to govern all creatures according to his free and immutable will (5.1). In a classic phrase, B. B. Warfield stated that God’s rule is “broad enough to embrace the whole universe, minute enough to be concerned with the smallest details, and actualizes itself with inevitable certainty in every event that comes to pass.” ^[2]

There is no denying the appeal in such a position. What a magnificent portrait of divine majesty, enthroned above the rough-and-tumble of history, perfectly serene and in complete control of everything! It is comforting to know that everything that happens has meaning and reassuring to deny any element of risk or chance. But there are severe difficulties with this position as well. The Bible seems to portray more genuine interaction and relationality in God’s dealings with creatures than theological determinism allows. A sovereignty of control seems to deny that human beings possess the kind of (libertarian) freedom with which they are able either to obey God’s will or to move against God’s purposes. It certainly aggravates the problem of evil in requiring God to bear sole responsibility for evil. It would seem that we need a better model of divine sovereignty than that of total control.

An Open View Of Sovereignty

Another way to look at sovereignty is to think of it as open and flexible, placing the emphasis more on the resourcefulness than on the domination of God. An open view would cohere better with the dynamic God-world relationship implied by the Bible and be less theoretically and practically problematic. The Scriptures tell us that God is a loving Parent (abba), who is sensitive and responsive. They depict a relationship with “give and take” not just control. We are not given the impression that history is decided unilaterally by God but that our decisions also contribute to it. God is not responsible for everything that happens. Many outcomes are conditional upon human decisions, and the relationship between God and the creature is personal and interactive.

Open sovereignty, in distinction from process thinking, agrees with the traditional view that God is the superior power who depends on nothing outside of God’s self in order to exist and who is (therefore) free in a most fundamental way. God’s freedom even includes the power to create a world whose details God does not completely determine. If God could not do so, a certain freedom would be lacking in the deity. We cannot limit God in this way. We agree with determinists that God could actualize a determined world but deny that this world is like that. The world we experience and the world the Bible describes is not a wholly determined world. God has evidently chosen to actualize a world with significantly free agents and to exercise sovereignty in an open manner.

God decided not to keep a monopoly on power but to give some away to the creature. In making responsible creaturely agents, God willed not to exercise domination and control over the world but to establish an order of real significance and genuine autonomy. Wishing to interact with significant creatures rather than to dominate the world, God willed a dynamic history that would flow from the decisions of finite persons. One could say that, in creating such a world, God accepted certain limitations on the divine power. In effect, God rejected sovereignty in the form of domination and control, at least in this creation. Open sovereignty would make possible what was wanted.

What God values and desires in this creation is genuine relationship with creatures able to respond to God’s love. The gift of freedom made that possible, since love is not something that can be forced. Human beings are different from animals in the way they can respond to God and the environment. They are open to the future, and the future is open to them. This is something God wanted to actualize. One might put it in terms of God’s resting on the seventh day. This was a rest not of weariness but of delight. In effect, God was pausing to delight in the flourishing of the creature and in the anticipation of all that could happen in a dynamic world. In the work of creation, God was sharing power with us. In summoning us to have dominion over the world, God made us partners, letting us participate in God’s own rule. It is the difference between watching a video and experiencing live interaction. Endowed with freedom, the world is a fruitful and delightful creation. It has a genuine life of its own and is a source of value and delight both to God and to us.

By delegating power to the creature, God chooses to become vulnerable. Had God actualized a determined world, everything would have been controlled. But as it is, God took the risk that freedom might be abused and that the creature might decide to work against God’s purposes. In such a universe, God’s plans can be adversely affected by perversity and disobedience. God accepts the risks that accompany genuine relationship. Though ontologically strong, God chooses to become “weak” by the decision to create a significant world God would not control. God decided to work within a history whose outcome is not predetermined and to rule over a world that is able to resist.

This view helps us deal with the problem of evil. God made a world where evil was possible but not inevitable. We can say that God did not ordain moral evil but that it arose from the misuse of freedom. Ours is a world in which God does not normally override human decisions but lets them play out, because God regards them as significant. God may be responsible for creating a world with moral agents capable of rebelling, but God is not to blame for what human beings do with their freedom. The gift of freedom is costly and carries precariousness with it. But to make a world with free beings is surely a worthwhile thing to do.

Is not open sovereignty implied in Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom? He said that God’s kingdom (sovereignty) was near but not yet fully present. It was breaking into history but not with full effect. At present, God’s sovereignty is actually being resisted by the powers of darkness. There are rival powers with which Jesus has to struggle. He asks us to pray that God’s will be done on earth because it is not happening. Prayer itself is a powerful indicator of how God draws us up into God’s own sovereignty over the world. Paul speaks of the creation groaning as it awaits full redemption (Rom. 8:23). He agrees that God is not wholly sovereign over the world at the present time. The Son has not yet handed the kingdom over to the Father as all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).

God does not rule everything according to blueprint. The present situation involves a struggle between the forces of good and the forces of evil. Though much neglected by theology, spiritual warfare is a reality. God is not now in control-we anticipate complete victory over evil only in the future. This orientation to the future allows us to clarify a point about open sovereignty. Up to a point and in certain areas, we can resist God’s will. But the coming of the Lord tells us that not everything can be thwarted by human freedom. The Lord will come; what we do may affect its timing but not its reality. It is something God intends to do and will certainly do. What we decide may affect when but not whether God does it. The apostle says that we both hasten and delay the return of Christ (2 Pet. 3:9,12). If the parousia appears slow in coming, this is because God wants more sinners to repent that God’s house may be full. God delays the coming to give them more time to respond to divine grace.

A Subtler Deployment Of Power

Because the world is dynamic and capable of producing novelty, God’s power in relation to the world is deployed in subtle ways. In creation, God made room for creatures to exist, and, in providence, God makes room for them to use the finite self-determination that has been given to them. A sovereignty of control would be impressive, but the sovereignty required to rule over a free and dynamic world is even more marvelous. What is needed to rule in this universe is infinite resourcefulness in the subtle use of power; what is required is a style of sovereignty that is open to the world and can respond to the unexpected. The sovereignty requisite to ruling over a world with powers of self-determination is surely more admirable than the sovereignty of manipulation.

Perhaps we should not speak of divine “weakness” just because God (in a sense) accepts defeat at the hands of creatures not wholly under divine control. After all, if God wanted them to be able to decide for or against God, it is not a defeat if some of them decide against. Open sovereignty surely reveals God’s strength not weakness. It requires considerable power to rule over an undetermined world. How marvelous to be able to respond to the unexpected and to deal with new situations as they arise! Open sovereignty requires omnipotence in its own way. The power of love, the power that wills genuine relationships, is certainly not a diminished or inferior form of power.

Perhaps we admire too highly power to force others to do our will. God’s power is greater than the power of coercion. It is the power to make agents who are creators in their own right and the power to continue to rule even when they work against God. We are wrong to measure the greatness of power by a standard of compulsion. This is to confuse sovereignty with the excessive omnipotence of tyranny, which deploys itself against other powers, never alongside them. We have to realize that God wills and loves the existence of free creatures and delights in all their possibilities.

By the grace of creation, God wills to be “God for us” and alongside us. Rather than standing aloof, God is willing to be affected by the world. We celebrate the sovereignty of a heavenly father, not the power of an autocrat. Human fathers have authority over their children and set guidelines for them, but they should not do so as tyrants. They want their offspring to choose to live by right values not by compulsion. God is like that. Jesus likens God to a father who lets his son leave home and learn for himself that sin leads to destruction. When the son repents and returns, the father is thankful and calls for celebration. Our God, who rules over the world, is grieved when we refuse the divine love and rejoices when we embrace it. God’s true power is revealed in the cross of Jesus Christ. In this act of self-sacrificing, God deploys power in the mode of servanthood, overcoming enemies not by annihilating them but by loving them. What an unexpected form of power! Is it not a subtler and higher form of power than coercion? It is a power that respects the mutuality and reciprocity of love.

Growing In Understanding

Despite the appeal of an open view of sovereignty, it is an idea that will take getting used to, for tradition has taught us to think of God’s rule in the mode of control. We are not used to thinking of God as responding flexibly to situations and taking risks. Fortunately, however, our experience of God is in tune with such a view. Not only do the Scriptures speak in these terms but we as God’s children personally know the give and take of relationship. We experience risks and perils and know that we are being taken seriously when God invites us to pray. We experience God interacting without overruling.

If divine sovereignty is to be recovered as a meaningful category, we need to think of it as open and flexible. God created a universe with a degree of self-determination, a world in which things can go wrong, even terribly wrong. God does not rule over it in a way that would render everything cut and dried. God limits divine power and chooses not to control history or even (I would add) to foreknow every outcome that depends on creaturely choices. Sovereignty does not mean that God controls everything, since God gives power to other agents. It means that God is omnicompetent in relation to any circumstance that arises and is unable to be defeated in any ultimate sense. God delights in an open creation precisely because God does not completely control it. The open model of sovereignty does not diminish but augments the glory of God’s rule.

Reformed theology has been a tradition most insistent on seeing sovereignty as total control. It is therefore pleasing to read this conclusion about the matter from a Scottish theologian: “Rather than presiding over a plan immutable in every detail, providence might better be conceived of as the infinite resourcefulness of God in dealing with human creatures in a manner that is in accordance with the purpose disclosed and fulfilled in Christ.” ^[3]

^[1] On the weightlessness of God, see David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1994), chapter 5.

^[2] B. Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1952), p. 276.

^[3] David A. S. Fergusson, “Predestination: A Scottish Perspective,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 46 (1993), p. 477. For further reflection along these lines, see Clark H. Pinnock et al., The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994).

Author note: Clark H. Pinnock is Professor of Theology at McMaster Divinity College and author of A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (1992) and the forthcoming Living Flame of Love: Overcoming our Forgetfulness of the Spirit.

* Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

The post God’s Sovereignty in Today’s World appeared first on OpenTheism.info.

In his reply William Hasker urges that while the theological tradition is worthy of respect, the kind of deference to tradition insisted on by Freddoso is excessive and unreasonable; in the past, such deference might well have prevented theological developments now recognized as beneficial and important. It may be desirable to characterize divine transcendence in a “deep” metaphysical way, but the lack of such a characterization by no means leaves the interpreter of Scripture at the mercy of subjective prejudice. Finally, he argues for the superiority of the reading of the parable of the good Samaritan offered by the open view of God in comparison.

It is a pleasure to continue a discussion with my friend Fred Freddoso that has been going on for a number of years, and from which I have profited greatly.^[1] Fred has rightly discerned ^[2] the general nature and purpose of The Openness of God–and it is, of course, unbelievably gracious of him not to take us to task for the many faults he enumerates! Furthermore, he indicates quite accurately the nature of the issues which he between us. In reading over his critique, I am reminded of the subtitle of the book: “a biblical challenge to the traditional understanding of God.” To be sure, it would be an oversimplification to regard our differences as simply a matter of “Scripture versus tradition.” Yet that element does enter into our disagreements, as we shall see.

Tradition

I’ll begin my response by underscoring what I wrote about Augustine in my article. Reading the Confessions and other works by him was for me a major spiritual as well as intellectual experience, and It brought about in me a love for Augustine that persists to this day. I can’t testify to a similar personal and spiritual impact from the writings of Thomas Aquinas, but I have nothing but respect and admiration for his enormous achievements in both philosophy and theology, as well as for his deep piety.

The difference between our approaches to these two men lies principally in the fact that I am, and Freddoso is not, willing to contemplate the possibility that, despite their sanctity and intellectual eminence, either or both of them may have been mistaken about some fairly important matters. I really have no choice but to think this possible, in view of my unavoidable rejection of Augustine’s doctrine of predestination (a doctrine, incidentally, that Freddoso also rejects, though apparently less vehemently than I do). I also reject Augustine’s contention that we humans, in dealing with tragic situations in life, ought to abstain from feeling grief over the suffering and death of persons close to us — an inference he draws from the doctrine of divine “impassibility.” (Fortunately, Augustine’s rich emotional nature prevented him from fully carrying out his own injunctions in this matter.) ^[3] And I emphatically disagree with the doctrine of both Anselm and Aquinas that God’s compassion consists in the fact that “God acts as we would expect a compassionate person to act-but the feeling of compassion forms no part of the divine life and experience.”^[4]

I must confess I don’t see why it is so shocking to suggest that the writings of these two men are affected by “philosophical elements contrary to the Christian Faith.” ^[5] Anyone who engages with philosophy at all is bound to come into contact with ideas originating from pagan thinkers. (Even if one decided, unwisely, to read only Christian philosophers, one would still be affected by the pagans at second, or third, or fourth hand.) Augustine was under no illusion that Plotinus was a Christian, nor did Thomas suffer from such an illusion concerning Aristotle. What this meant was, that both of these men needed to make a conscious effort to correct those elements in the philosophers’ teachings that were contrary to the faith–and the eminence of Augustine and Aquinas as Christian thinkers testifies to their considerable success in this endeavor. But to insist that no “philosophical elements contrary to faith” remained, is to insist that they were 100% successful in every case in removing all “alien” elements and in transforming the pagan systems of thought into something that is Christian without remainder. And that is a great deal to ask, even of such wise and holy men as Augustine and Thomas.

Permit me the luxury of a historical conjecture: If Thomas had been as deferential towards the past in his own day as Freddoso thinks we now ought to be, he would never have been able to carry through his major achievement, that of welding together Aristotelian philosophy and Christian thought into a unified system. This is no idle supposition. The new-fangled Aristotelianism of the thirteenth century was in conflict at important points with the tradition of Platonized Christian theology stemming from Anselm John of Damascus, and the Greek Fathers-and from Augustine. ^[6] In 1277, just two years after Thomas’s death, the bishop of Paris condemned a long list of “Aristotelian” propositions, including some endorsed by Aquinas. Even after Thomas had been canonized, the dominant Augustinian tradition continued to resist and to reject many of his most important insights. The preeminence we now attribute to Aquinas is more a product of retrospective appreciation than it is an accurate reflection of the actual situation at the time. ^[7] What a good thing, then, that Aquinas refused to be intimidated by those who reproached him for “setting aside some of the principal metaphysical claims” of the “brilliant and holy men” who were his predecessors!

Divine Transcendence

One of the things Freddoso finds lacking in the book (and indeed, in analytic philosophy of religion generally) is “a philosophically rigorous account of God’s transcendence.” It is important to see just what Freddoso is complaining about here. He is not denying that contemporary analytic philosophers have devoted energy and attention to producing careful, detailed, and sophisticated analyses of the various divine attributes, the characteristics which distinguish the divine being from all actual and possible creatures. In fact, an enormous amount of work has been done along these lines (some of it by Freddoso himself), and this work is reflected in The Openness of God to the extent that it contributes to the book’s purpose ^[8]

What Freddoso finds lacking is rather a “forceful metaphysical account” of God’s transcendence, one that would be comparable to Aquinas’s description of God as pure actuality (derived from the Aristotelian tradition) and as unparticipated being (derived from the Platonic tradition). Such notions as these characterize the ontological divide between creator and creatures in a “deep” metaphysical way, and they provide a principled basis for deciding which scriptural descriptions of God should be taken as literal and which as metaphorical. Lacking any such deep metaphysical account of transcendence, we proponents of divine openness are very much at the mercy of our own (highly fallible) metaphysical predispositions (or, to put it more plainly, our prejudices). “Why, for instance, do they cling to the idea that God is immaterial and thereby relegate a whole host of Scriptural descriptions of God to the realm of the metaphorical, given that immateriality is just another one of those ‘Hellenistic’ divine attributes that has little appeal for the modem mind.”

I must admit that I do not, at present, have any such deep metaphysical account of divine transcendence to put forward. And on the other hand, I am not of a mind to dismiss such a project as chimerical. At this point Freddoso’s reminder that analytic metaphysics is of fairly recent appearance on the philosophical scene is very much in point. So I am willing to accept his suggestion that the formulation of such an account deserves a place on the agenda of analytical philosophers of religion. ^[9]

But given that we are, for the time being, lacking such an account, does this leave us at the mercy of arbitrary prejudice? I think not. Somewhere, I have heard, it is written that “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth”; God is also referred to as “the King of ages, immortal, invisible.” ^[10] Even in the Old Testament, most of the biblical descriptions of God as possessing bodily parts seem to have been consciously metaphorical. There is, in fact, a fairly clear and consistent biblical tradition supporting the immateriality of God–something that emphatically cannot be said of the metaphysical attributes championed by Freddoso. There is not even a hint in Scripture of anything like the scholastic doctrine of divine simplicity, and the same is true of divine timelessness, in spite of misguided attempts to read this doctrine into such texts as Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. ^[11] And the biblical affirmations of divine changelessness do not by any means support the metaphysical doctrine of immutability espoused by classical theologians; rather, they attest to the reliability of God, the fact that he, unlike changeable mortals, can be relied on to remain true to his intentions and constant in his character and capabilities.

I don’t mean to suggest by this that the search for a penetrating philosophical understanding of the various divine attributes is pointless; far from it. Nor do I mean to imply that all is clear sailing for those who seek in the Bible for an account of the nature and attributes of God. There is much difficult and demanding work to be done here, and on many points legitimate differences of opinion may remain. (As one says, the theory is underdetermined by the data.) My point is simply this: lacking such a deep metaphysical characterization of divine transcendence as is given by Aquinas, one is not left at the mercy of sheer prejudice; there remains the option-rather, the indispensable necessity-of interpreting Scripture by Scripture. And if we find, as I think we do find, that the formulas of the classical theologians force us to relegate too much of the scriptural witness to the realm of metaphor, then we need to look for better formulas-or if need be, to five for a time without formulas.

The Waiting Father

Finally, let us turn once again to the parable of the Prodigal Son — or as some have called it, the Waiting Father. As Freddoso correctly observes, “Hasker invites us to conclude that if the traditional conception of God is correct, then the parable of the Prodigal Son is at least in part misleading, since it portrays the father as having certain traits which are of central importance to the story and yet which a divine being could not possibly have.” As Freddoso views the matter, the key question here is whether, if God were to become human, he would be like the father of the parable. He observes that, if we knew of God only what has been said by philosophers ignorant of the Christian revelation, we would find it incredible that God in human form would be like the father. But as Christians “we have a pretty good idea of what our transcendent God would be like as a human being – namely, exactly like Jesus Christ.” And as a result, “We Christians hardly need to invent an ‘open’ conception of the divine nature in order to marvel at the ‘folly’ of a risk-taking, passible God; all we need to do is to contemplate Christ crucified.”

This strikes me as peculiar reasoning. In the first place, the issue with regard to the parable is not what God would be like if he were to become human, but what God is in fact like quite apart from any consideration of his becoming human. Jesus told the story about the Father, not about himself, and he told it to hearers lacking the faintest notion of the doctrine of the Incarnation.

But suppose we waive this point, and view the parable as Freddoso suggests. What exactly does he think we should learn from it? Apparently, we are to find in Christ crucified “the ‘folly’ of a risk-taking, passible God.” So, we learn from Christ that God-is indeed capable of suffering, and that God is a risk-taker? But that is exactly what the open view of God affirms; it can’t possibly be what Freddoso has in mind. Perhaps, then, the following sentence will give us a better clue: “According to the traditional Christian understanding of God, it is precisely in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ that the impassible, immutable, eternal and ineffably transcendent God becomes passible, mutable, and time-bound.” These words seem to suggest that God, who prior to the Incarnation was impassible, immutable, and eternal, underwent a change after the conception and birth of Jesus, so that now, if not before, the suffering and vulnerability of the father in the parable come to characterize the divine nature. But that can’t be right either; immutability, unchangeableness, is precisely one of the attributes Freddoso is most concerned to uphold. But in that case, what shall we understand him to be saying?

What is intended, of course, is that in Jesus we see God suffering and taking risks because Jesus is God; the human mind and body of Jesus constitute the human nature of the eternal divine Logos, the second Person of the holy Trinity. So far there is agreement between Freddoso and the friends of divine openness. But here is the question: What does this tell us about the divine nature itself? Freddoso’s answer to this has to be: virtually nothing. The divine nature – the nature of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-is and remains impassible and immutable. The humanity of Jesus is the human nature of the eternal Son. But Jesus’ sufferings concern only his human nature; the impassibility of the eternal Son means precisely that the sufferings of Jesus form no part of the divine life. In the end, the most Freddoso can say about the Waiting Father is what Anselm and Aquinas said about the divine compassion: God acts as such a father would act, in that he remains ready to forgive and restore the errant sinner, but the anguish, the hopefulness, and the emotional risk experienced by such a father play no part in the life of God.

But if the meaning Freddoso intends for his words is in the end unsatisfying, the words themselves suggest something much better. Indeed we have no need to “invent an ‘open’ conception of the divine nature.” But we may need to rediscover such a conception, and if so we can do no better than heed Freddoso’s advice and contemplate Christ crucified, holding fast to the deep conviction that in Christ’s sufferings we are coming to know the very mind and heart of the everlasting God.

The post Tradition, Divine Transcendence, and the Waiting Father appeared first on OpenTheism.info.