Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
PH: John, I think your criticism is based on a misunderstanding of my position. Believe it or not, my understanding of divine guidance is not that divergent from yours. While I do believe that God has a detailed plan for each of our lives, I don't believe that the Scriptures instruct us to try to discover this plan before it unfolds so as to bring our lives in conformity to it. What God has decreed is only known before it happens in the event that God makes it known by means of prophecy. Otherwise, we don't know what he has ordained except as it is worked out in history. What we ARE responsible for is our obedience to the revealed moral will of God. It's from this that we are to seek guidance for life. We are to apply God's commands and revealed principles to our specific situations and on that basis make our decisions. The leading of the Spirit, as I understand it, is the Spirit's work of inclining our wills and enabling us to walk in the ways of God's law. I conclude this on the basis that the two instances where the apostle Paul writes of being "led by the Spirit," Galatians 5:18 and Romans 8:14, are in the context of sanctification.
KP: I'm glad you brought that up, Dr. Helm. It reminds me of another important biblical theme I wanted to discuss. Clearly, the concept of covenant is prominent throughout the Bible. God makes covenants with individuals like Noah, Abraham, and David. He enters into a covenant with the nation of Israel to which they are repeatedly disloyal. And through the prophets, he promises a day in which he will make a new covenant with Israel which will be far better than the Mosaic Covenant.
Dr. Sanders, I was disappointed that you failed to make any mention of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the New Covenant because I wanted to see how you saw them fitting in with your model of providence. The passage that I kept hoping you'd interact with is Ezekiel 36:27 where God says, "And I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules." Jeremiah 31:33 is, of course, a parallel text in which God promises to write his law upon human hearts. My question to you, Dr. Sanders, is given your view of human freedom, in what sense can God cause anyone to walk in obedience to his statutes?
JS: I'd have to examine the text in question more thoroughly before giving a definitive answer. Offhand, I'm not sure of the Hebrew word translated as "cause" in the version you're quoting. I doubt seriously though, that the intended meaning is that God will cause people to act in some mechanistic way. God interacts with people as persons, not billiard balls involved in some chain reaction.
PH: John, this biblical theme is very pertinent to our discussion because I think it addresses a number of the objections you raised to the no-risk model's understanding of salvation. You say that sin is a broken relationship as opposed to a condition. Certainly sin results in severed relationships but I don't think that they can be equated. The Bible does depict sin as a corrupt condition of fallen humanity. In fact, the promises of the New Covenant recorded in the Old Testament focus on the heart's need to be renewed and transformed by the gracious activity of God. Our hearts in their natural condition are unresponsive to God which why the Lord promises that he will remove the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh in Ezekiel 36:26. The corrupt condition of the heart is described throughout the Bible.
God's promise of a New Covenant, in which he will so act in the hearts of his people that they will obey him, also appears problematic for your view of omniscience. You allow God to have certain knowledge of what he intends to do in the future yet deny that he can have such certainty regarding the free acts of human beings. However, in this case, we see God not only declaring what he will do, but also what humans will do as a result of his action. It's as if their actions will somehow be guaranteed as a result of his own. How could this possibly be according to your model? Are we to take this divine prediction as nothing more than an educated guess on God's part? I don't think so.
It's because of what the Bible says about the efficacy of God's grace that I reject the idea that providence is "risky." If humans have the kind of freedom you propose, and God cannot ensure that anyone will trust in Christ for redemption, then promises such as these are meaningless. This, not my loyalty to Plato, is why I believe that we must understand those biblical passages that describe God as repenting and being ignorant of certain things as instances of accommodation on God's part.
JS: Paul, you and Keith have raised some very challenging topics that I'll have to give further thought to. Nevertheless, I fail to see how what you're suggesting differs from puppetry or rape on God's part. There is no genuine responsiveness in what you're saying. God may be personal in the model you're presenting but we are not.
PH: Perhaps we need to ask whether our understandings of what it means to be a person in relationship with another originates from the Scriptures or from some outside source.
KP: That would be very interesting, I'm sure, but I think we'll have to draw our discussion to a close. Gentlemen, thanks again for making time to talk about this very important doctrine. There are so many more related topics I'd like to discuss with you. You've both obviously spent a long time thinking about and researching this issue. For my part, I have to say that I find Dr. Helm's case to be most persuasive because I believe it more comprehensively and coherently accounts for the biblical data.
I'm sorry we never got back around to the problem of evil in more depth but perhaps that's something we can devote an entire discussion to in the future. I know all of our schedules are quite full but perhaps we'll be able to meet again to pick up where we left off.
JS: Who knows? That just might happen.
PH: Lord willing, it shall.
Showing posts with label providence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label providence. Show all posts
Sunday, July 03, 2005
A Fictitious Dialogue Between Paul Helm and John Sanders (Part 3)
Part 1 Part 2
PH: Keith, the answer to your question is complex but I'll give it a shot. Yes, I believe that even the thoughts and intentions of the human heart are under the sovereign direction of the Lord. Concerning God's justice in holding us responsible for those intentions, I think it's necessary to refer to the Bible to see what it has to say about the grounds for our culpability. I think John and I agree that a necessary condition for moral responsibility is knowledge of what is required. Furthermore, it's necessary that we consent to an action in order to be responsible for it. In other words, we have to be acting voluntarily and not under compulsion. I know John thinks that my view involves God's "forcing" us to act in certain ways but in this he is mistaken. Finally, it must be within our power to produce an outcome at will.
There's a need to make further distinctions, though. God does ordain both good and evil in order to accomplish his purposes. However, God does not intend evil as evil in the same way that the human agent does. That this is so is evident from the Isaiah 10 passage you mentioned. It can also be seen in Joseph's words to his conniving brothers in Genesis 50:20: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." Notice that the same verb is used with respect to God and Joseph's brothers. What the brothers intended for evil, God intended in order to accomplish his good purpose. So, God does not intend evil as evil. He cannot, because he is the absolute measure of goodness. He finds no pleasure or delight in evil as such, but ordains it in order to accomplish the ultimate good, namely, the manifestation of his glory. His relationship to evil acts, then, is not symmetrical with his relationship to righteous acts. Although he ordains both, he does not cause evil as he does good since he is the source of moral perfection. This we must affirm in order to be faithful to his revelation in Scripture.
As for your interjection, John, I think you're being woefully inconsistent.
JS: What do you mean? I've never suggested that God has ordained what is clearly contrary to his will.
PH: Well, you claim that if God does indeed control all that comes to pass, then there is no reason for his being angry with those who disobey his commands. yet, in your book you cite a biblical example of that very thing, namely the Lord's inciting David to number Israel and then becoming angry with him for doing so.
JS: As I say in the book, this is a problematic text. However, I believe that the mercy of God as well as his covenant love for his people is evidenced even in that passage.
PH: John, that's not being disputed. My point is simply that here we have at least one case in which God is said to be angered by an act that he caused to come about.
JS: Point taken.
KP: Dr. Helm, in your book you write about the need to distinguish between different senses of what is meant by "God's will." Is that at all relevant here?
PH: Most definitely. You'll notice that throughout John's book he speaks of God's intention or will univocally. He regards the distinction I make between God's will of decree and will precept as unnecessary and contrived. However, I think that it's biblically warranted and that unless we recognize this distinction, we have no choice but to conclude that the Bible contradicts itself.
KP: Can you give us an example?
PH: Sure. In Romans 9:19, the apostle Paul anticipates an objection to his teaching about God's sovereign right to dispense mercy and compassion to whomever he desires as well las to harden whomever he so chooses. To paraphrase, the objection sounds something like this: "If God's sovereignty is as exhaustive as you claim it is, then why does God still hold us responsible for our actions, for who can resist his will?" As an aside, this is exactly the kind of objection that John and other "relational theists" raise against my understanding of the extent of God's sovereignty. Such an objection would never arise if Paul had been advocating libertarian freedom.
Anyway, the will of God referred to here cannot be a reference to his moral precepts. The force of the anticipated objector would be gone if that were the case, because people break the law of God all the time. So, what is in mind here is God's sovereign will by which he ordains whatever comes to pa ss, including the actions of men and women. You find the same idea in James 4:15 where the author rebukes those who boast of their future plans as though they were the ultimate determiners of what will be. "Instead, you ought to say, 'If the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that.'" Again, this is a reference to God's sovereign will, which is incapable of being thwarted. Elsewhere, however, the term "God's will" is used with reference to God's moral statutes and commands, that which he enjoins upon us and which we are responsible to obey. First Thessalonians 4:3 is an example of this: "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality." Taken in this sense, God's will is violated all the time. So, we have some passages that declare that God's will is incapable of being violated and others that identify God's will with his law, which we know is violated all the time. Unless we make the distinction I'm defending, we're faced with the conclusion that the Bible is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.
JS: But Paul, if what you're saying is true, then however we interpret our circumstances at any given time, is exactly how God wants us to interpret them. Even if our conclusions about what God is up to in our lives are faulty, they are exactly the conclusions that God wanted us to have. We couldn't be sure about what God was leading us to do since even our misinterpretations of God's guidance would be divinely ordained. When David's men sought to persuade him that God had delivered Saul into his hand to kill, David denied that this was the case. But if everything turns out just as God wants it, including my misguided notions about what God wants me to do, then how can I ever discern his leading with assurance?
A related difficulty that I see for your view is that it allows me to excuse my sinfulness and lack of holiness by appealing to god's will. After all, he's in control of everything. If I'm not making efforts to grow in my relationship with him and to resist temptation, then it must be because that's what he wants for the time beginning. Isn't that a lot like Adam saying, "The woman you gave me....?"
Part 4
PH: Keith, the answer to your question is complex but I'll give it a shot. Yes, I believe that even the thoughts and intentions of the human heart are under the sovereign direction of the Lord. Concerning God's justice in holding us responsible for those intentions, I think it's necessary to refer to the Bible to see what it has to say about the grounds for our culpability. I think John and I agree that a necessary condition for moral responsibility is knowledge of what is required. Furthermore, it's necessary that we consent to an action in order to be responsible for it. In other words, we have to be acting voluntarily and not under compulsion. I know John thinks that my view involves God's "forcing" us to act in certain ways but in this he is mistaken. Finally, it must be within our power to produce an outcome at will.
There's a need to make further distinctions, though. God does ordain both good and evil in order to accomplish his purposes. However, God does not intend evil as evil in the same way that the human agent does. That this is so is evident from the Isaiah 10 passage you mentioned. It can also be seen in Joseph's words to his conniving brothers in Genesis 50:20: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." Notice that the same verb is used with respect to God and Joseph's brothers. What the brothers intended for evil, God intended in order to accomplish his good purpose. So, God does not intend evil as evil. He cannot, because he is the absolute measure of goodness. He finds no pleasure or delight in evil as such, but ordains it in order to accomplish the ultimate good, namely, the manifestation of his glory. His relationship to evil acts, then, is not symmetrical with his relationship to righteous acts. Although he ordains both, he does not cause evil as he does good since he is the source of moral perfection. This we must affirm in order to be faithful to his revelation in Scripture.
As for your interjection, John, I think you're being woefully inconsistent.
JS: What do you mean? I've never suggested that God has ordained what is clearly contrary to his will.
PH: Well, you claim that if God does indeed control all that comes to pass, then there is no reason for his being angry with those who disobey his commands. yet, in your book you cite a biblical example of that very thing, namely the Lord's inciting David to number Israel and then becoming angry with him for doing so.
JS: As I say in the book, this is a problematic text. However, I believe that the mercy of God as well as his covenant love for his people is evidenced even in that passage.
PH: John, that's not being disputed. My point is simply that here we have at least one case in which God is said to be angered by an act that he caused to come about.
JS: Point taken.
KP: Dr. Helm, in your book you write about the need to distinguish between different senses of what is meant by "God's will." Is that at all relevant here?
PH: Most definitely. You'll notice that throughout John's book he speaks of God's intention or will univocally. He regards the distinction I make between God's will of decree and will precept as unnecessary and contrived. However, I think that it's biblically warranted and that unless we recognize this distinction, we have no choice but to conclude that the Bible contradicts itself.
KP: Can you give us an example?
PH: Sure. In Romans 9:19, the apostle Paul anticipates an objection to his teaching about God's sovereign right to dispense mercy and compassion to whomever he desires as well las to harden whomever he so chooses. To paraphrase, the objection sounds something like this: "If God's sovereignty is as exhaustive as you claim it is, then why does God still hold us responsible for our actions, for who can resist his will?" As an aside, this is exactly the kind of objection that John and other "relational theists" raise against my understanding of the extent of God's sovereignty. Such an objection would never arise if Paul had been advocating libertarian freedom.
Anyway, the will of God referred to here cannot be a reference to his moral precepts. The force of the anticipated objector would be gone if that were the case, because people break the law of God all the time. So, what is in mind here is God's sovereign will by which he ordains whatever comes to pa ss, including the actions of men and women. You find the same idea in James 4:15 where the author rebukes those who boast of their future plans as though they were the ultimate determiners of what will be. "Instead, you ought to say, 'If the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that.'" Again, this is a reference to God's sovereign will, which is incapable of being thwarted. Elsewhere, however, the term "God's will" is used with reference to God's moral statutes and commands, that which he enjoins upon us and which we are responsible to obey. First Thessalonians 4:3 is an example of this: "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality." Taken in this sense, God's will is violated all the time. So, we have some passages that declare that God's will is incapable of being violated and others that identify God's will with his law, which we know is violated all the time. Unless we make the distinction I'm defending, we're faced with the conclusion that the Bible is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.
JS: But Paul, if what you're saying is true, then however we interpret our circumstances at any given time, is exactly how God wants us to interpret them. Even if our conclusions about what God is up to in our lives are faulty, they are exactly the conclusions that God wanted us to have. We couldn't be sure about what God was leading us to do since even our misinterpretations of God's guidance would be divinely ordained. When David's men sought to persuade him that God had delivered Saul into his hand to kill, David denied that this was the case. But if everything turns out just as God wants it, including my misguided notions about what God wants me to do, then how can I ever discern his leading with assurance?
A related difficulty that I see for your view is that it allows me to excuse my sinfulness and lack of holiness by appealing to god's will. After all, he's in control of everything. If I'm not making efforts to grow in my relationship with him and to resist temptation, then it must be because that's what he wants for the time beginning. Isn't that a lot like Adam saying, "The woman you gave me....?"
Part 4
Friday, July 01, 2005
A Fictitious Dialogue Between Paul Helm and John Sanders (Part 2)
Continued from Part 1
KP: Dr. Sanders, your understanding of the nature of God's divine project obviously plays a crucial role in your thinking. Dr. Helm, do you agree with Dr. Sanders about God's ultimate purpose?
PH: Well, I don't deny that God is desirous of loving relationships with His creatures (though John and I certainly don't see eye to eye concerning what constitutes a genuine, personal relationship). However, I don't see the Bible presenting this as the ultimate end of all that God does. Rather, I see God's utmost purpose as displaying his own glory in all its fullness: His goodness, mercy, grace, and wisdom, as well as His justice and wrath. God Himself is uppermost in his own affections, as Jonathan Edwards was fond of saying. And He does all things for the sake of his own name and glory. This was his reason for creating the nation of Israel as is stated in Isaiah 43:7 and this is his ultimate aim in redemption as well.
Keith, a little while ago you mentioned the first chapter of the book of Ephesians. This wonderful doxology is emphatic that God's purpose in redeeming us is the display and praise of His glory. In verses 5 and 6 we read: "....he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace...." Again in verse 12, Paul gives the reason for God's choosing us: "so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory." Finally in verse 14, the apostle says that our redemption is "to the praise of his glory."
If I may, though, I'd like to return to something John said earlier.
KP: Please do.
PH: Thank you. John suggested that my reason for believing in specific sovereignty has to do with the imbibing of extrabiblical philosophical categories. That's not the case. I'm not beginning with some abstract idea of the most perfect being and superimposing it on the Scriptures. My reason for believing as I do about the relationship between God and the world is that I can't make sense of much of the biblical narrative given the model that John is proposing. There are a number of biblical accounts in which human agents make uncoerced decisions for which they are held morally responsible although the divine intention is offered as the ultimate cause for their actions. Moses says the reason that Sihon, King of Heshbon was unwilling to allow the Israelites to pass through is land was because "the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your had, as he is this day" (Deut. 2:30).Those cities which refused to make peace treaties with Joshua, acted as they did, according to Joshua 11:20, "For it was the LORD's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction." Eli's' wicked sons refused to heed his rebuke concerning their immoral behavior "....for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death" (1 Samuel 2:25).
John does not even acknowledge these references in his book and I imagine the reason for such an omission is because they are completely unintelligible in terms of the kind of freedom he insists we have. However, all of these are perfectly consistent with compatibilism and it is because of biblical data such as these that I hold the view I do.
JS: Paul, it wasn't my intent to provide an exhaustive biblical exegesis of every relevant text. I did acknowledge what I consider a problematic text for my position, namely God's inciting David to number Israel and then punishing him for it. That's in note 170 on page 298.
PH: Yes, I recall reading that but you failed to offer any explanation as to how that is at all compatible with your indeterminism.
JS: I'll have to give some more thought to that as well as the other passages you cited.
KP: Related to that, Dr. Sanders, I had a question about your treatment of other passages that at first glance seem to teach that God's sovereignty extends to the acts of humans. I'm thinking about texts such as Proverbs 21:1 and 16:9. You call it "hermeneutical malpractice" to universalize particular statements like these, right?
JS: Yes. I think these have to be taken in context of the overall purpose of the book, which is to instruct in wisdom. God eagerly desires that his people not rely on their own understanding but that they rely on his wisdom and truth. Understood in light of the whole, all these verses are saying is that God gives direction and guidance to his people when they seek him for wisdom.
KP: OK, I can understand how a case might be made for that in the case of those verses, but what of verse 4 of Proverbs 16? It says, "The LORD works out everything for his own ends - even the wicked for a day of disaster." Now, the wicked wouldn't be seeking God for wisdom, would they?
JS: No, they wouldn't.
KP: Then how could God make sure that even they will accomplish his purpose?
JS: He can't. And I don't believe that the verse in question is intended to be understood as a blanket statement about God's control of the evil actions of people. Keep in mind that the book of Proverbs is filled with general principles and maxims, not all of which are to be taken as universal absolutes that are applicable in every particular situation. God cannot ensure that evil people will conform to his purposes but this is not a mar against him since it was his sovereign choice to create a world filled with authentically free, personal beings, capable of giving and receiving love, affecting, and being affected.
Though he can't guarantee that every little detail works out as he would like, God is nevertheless very wise and resourceful, adopting his plan in response to our actions - including our wicked actions.
KP: Thank you, Dr. Sanders.
Dr. Helm, I have a question for you. If, in fact, God exercises meticulous control over all that he has made, then doesn't it follow that even the intentions and motives of men's hearts are directed by him? And if so, is it really fair or just to hold people responsible for desires and intentions that have their ultimate cause in God? I see the force of the biblical case you make for compatibilism yet there's something that still doesn't sit right with me. Take Isaiah 10:15-19, for example. Here, God says that he has sent Assyria against Israel for her ungodliness but he also pronounces woe on Assyria's king because he didn't intend to serve God but rather sought only to destroy Israel for his own gain. Now, if what you're saying is true, isn't it also true that the king's intentions were under God's control?
JS: Exactly my point! If God controls everything that happens, then nothing can thwart his will. He gets everything He wants and there is no reason for him to be angry. Paul's view leads to the logical conclusion that God intends sin and is therefore not fundamentally opposed to it - a blasphemous thought! Furthermore, this kind of doctrine suggests disunity between the members of the Trinity. If God, the Father, actually intended the sin and disobedience that exists in the world and made sure that it was actualized, then Jesus has come into the world to clean up after what his Father wanted to happen.
To be continued....
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
A Fictitious Dialogue Between Paul Helm and John Sanders on Divine Providence (Part 1)
A good way to check how well you understand an opposing viewpoint is to try to make the strongest case you can in its defense. This is also a good exercise for cultivating charity toward those with whom we disagree. Intellectual virtue requires that while we contend vigorously for our own convictions, we nevertheless present our opponent's arguments in such a way that he or she feels that we've at least taken the time to understand them.
A few years back I took a class on divine providence and human action in which the professor assigned the task of writing a fictitious dialogue between John Sanders, an outspoken advocate of open theism, and Paul Helm, a Reformed theologian, with ourselves serving as moderators. Since I love efficiency and recycling, I thought I'd post it here.
If this is of interest to you, be sure to read Tim Challies' informative article on open theism in his series on challenges to the church.
KP: Dr. Helm and Dr. Sanders, it's a pleasure to meet you both. I've read your books on the providence of God and count it a great privilege to be able to discuss this matter with you. Thanks so much for taking time out of your busy schedules. Dr. Sanders, I know from reading The God Who Risks that you're familiar with Dr. Helm's The Providence of God. Dr. Helm, have you read Dr. Sanders' book?
PH: Yes, I have.
KP: Very good. Before we proceed, it might help if I tell you a little about why I'm so eager to discuss this subject with you. The bulk of my responsibilities as a pastor consists of counseling. Of course, the question of God's relationship to the events of life comes up frequently in the course of my counseling ministry. I can't tell you how many times I've sat across from someone whose life has been severely disrupted by such tragedies as sexual abuse, the death of a child, or the walking out of a spouse and been asked, "Where was God in all this?" Honestly, it's a question I've often hoped would never be asked and one that I often skirted. On one hand I wanted to distance God from any involvement in such atrocities, upholding his holiness and love as well as human freedom and culpability. Yet, I wanted, too, to affirm his power and sovereignty.
JS: I understand what you're saying, Keith. However, I don't think that we necessarily have to conceive of God's goodness as being in conflict with his sovereignty. Yes, he is fundamentally opposed to sin and evil. That is without question. Similarly, if we are to be faithful to the Bible we must also affirm His sovereignty. But a conflict only arises if by sovereignty we mean that God exhaustively controls everything that happens in the universe including the thoughts and actions of human beings. I reject this understanding. According to my view, God is sovereign in that he freely chose to create the kind of world that he has; a world inhabited by significantly free creatures capable of entering into genuinely personal relationships with Him; a world in which the future is open, waiting to be determined both by him and them.
I agree with you that what we're talking about here is far more than theoretical philosophy and theology. Suffering is real and anyone who has looked intently at the injustice, cruelty, and grief that is all too often a part of human existence, can't help but question what God's relationship to it all is. In fact, my own brother's tragic death a few years ago was a major factor in my thinking about divine providence as much as I have.
KP: When I read about that I couldn't help wondering how big a part the loss of your brother played in the formulation of your model of providence.
JS: Well, as I mention in the book, I was a nominal Methodist at the time and didn't believe that God caused everything that happens so it's not like the accident led me to significantly alter my beliefs.
KP: That may be so. But I did find it interesting that your initial response was to ask God why he killed your brother.
JS: Well, the view that God exercises specific as opposed to general sovereignty so permeates our culture that I probably just reacted that way out of conditioning.
KP: I see. Well, I'm getting ahead of myself, anyway. I want to come back to the problem of evil later but for now I'd like to focus on the broader issues that lead the two of you to think so differently. Dr. Helm, you've been quiet. Is there anything you'd like to add?
PH: Yes, there is. I agree with John that God's goodness and sovereignty are not in conflict with one another. He does not delight in sin for his very nature is the absolute standard of righteousness and justice. I also understand the Scriptures to simultaneously affirm that humans are morally accountable for their actions and God is absolutely sovereign over all that comes to pass, including the free actions of human beings. This is a substantial difference between John and me. I hold to a compatibilist view of freedom according to which human choices are free to the extent that they are in accordance with the subject's desires. In other words, I am free in making a particular choice if I choose what I really want and am not forced to choose something against my will.
John, on the other hand, believes that people are only free if they have what is called libertarian freedom. According to this notion of freedom, a choice is only free if it is not causally determined. All things being equal, a person could choose contrary to what he actually did in the exact same circumstances. I don't mean any offense, but in my opinion, it's the desire to preserve this preconceived and unbiblical concept of human freedom that motivates John and other proponents of so-called "relational" or "freewill" theism to advocate the model that they do.
JS: Paul, that's a very common accusation from those from the theological tradition that you represent but I have to say it's simply untrue. It's not the wish to protect some cherished view of human freedom that leads me and others to arrive at the conclusions we do. Rather, it's the desire to be faithful to what God has revealed concerning his divine project. Although God is self-sufficient and in need of nothing outside of himself, and although there has always been love and fellowship between the members of the Trinity, nevertheless, he freely chose to create us for the purpose of entering into a genuine, give-and-take love relationship with him.
Love cannot be forced or manipulated. The nature of personal relationships requires that they be reciprocal and that both parties in the relationship are capable of freely responding to each other. I don't think anyone here will deny that the Scriptures throughout portray God as one who longs for the love of his people and responds to their actions, taking their requests into consideration. He grieved over the sin that entered the world through Adam and Eve's rebellion. The Bible even goes so far as to say that his heart was filled with pain in Genesis 6:6. This was obviously his reaction because something he did not intend occurred. When Moses interceded with him concerning his plan to exterminate the Israelites, the Lord changed his mind. These are just a few examples that demonstrate that God is somehow conditioned by human actions.
Now, I know that the classical theists will say that these are only anthropomorphisms, but my question then is how he knows that they are not to be taken literally. I think that what leads him to conclude that such language is only figurative is a greater reliance on extrabiblical, abstract reasoning about the divine nature than on God's revelation in history especially in the person of Jesus Christ. Underlying the classical theistic model is the Platonic assumption that perfection must be static since any change would necessarily be a change toward imperfection. I submit that this assumption is logically fallacious, not to mention contrary to the portrait of God offered in the Old and New Testaments.
KP: May I jump in here, Dr. Sanders? We all agree that the Bible does, in fact, use language that describes God as changing his mind, being ignorant of certain facts, and vacillating in his emotional life in response to human decisions. It also portrays people as acting contrary to God's will. There are also a number of texts that affirm that God is unchanging, knowledgeable of not only the past and present but also of the future, and in control of all things. Now, Dr. Sanders, you charge the classical model with neglecting or misinterpreting some biblical texts due to a precommitment to certain philosophical assumptions. I'm curious about the criterion you use to decide that those passages that speak of God as being subject to change and disappointment should take precedence over those that don't. I realize that you couldn't possibly have dealt with all of the relevant texts in your book, but I have to say that I was surprised by your failure to deal with some of the most problematic ones for your thesis. Take Ephesians 1:11, for example: "In him we were also chosen having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will." This appears to be very good support for specific sovereignty, doesn't it?
JS: As for the criterion we should use to determine which set of biblical texts should serve as "control" texts, again I'd have to say that we have to interpret everything in light of what it is that God has revealed is His purpose for creating the world He has. And you're right, I couldn't possibly have dealt with all the relevant biblical material. However, I really don't see the verse you mentioned as being at all problematic for my position. Of course God works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will. But we have to be clear about what that purpose is. As I've already said, his purpose is to invite and persuade individuals into a loving relationship with him through Christ. He cannot guarantee that people will favorably respond but he makes use of all his wisdom, competence, and resourcefulness to accomplish that purpose as best he can. In creating the kind of world in which such relationships are possible, God chose to limit his power. Could he have created a world in which He controlled every detail, including the actions of people? Of course! However, this would not have allowed for authentic personal relationships between God and humans.
To be continued....
A few years back I took a class on divine providence and human action in which the professor assigned the task of writing a fictitious dialogue between John Sanders, an outspoken advocate of open theism, and Paul Helm, a Reformed theologian, with ourselves serving as moderators. Since I love efficiency and recycling, I thought I'd post it here.
If this is of interest to you, be sure to read Tim Challies' informative article on open theism in his series on challenges to the church.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KP: Dr. Helm and Dr. Sanders, it's a pleasure to meet you both. I've read your books on the providence of God and count it a great privilege to be able to discuss this matter with you. Thanks so much for taking time out of your busy schedules. Dr. Sanders, I know from reading The God Who Risks that you're familiar with Dr. Helm's The Providence of God. Dr. Helm, have you read Dr. Sanders' book?
PH: Yes, I have.
KP: Very good. Before we proceed, it might help if I tell you a little about why I'm so eager to discuss this subject with you. The bulk of my responsibilities as a pastor consists of counseling. Of course, the question of God's relationship to the events of life comes up frequently in the course of my counseling ministry. I can't tell you how many times I've sat across from someone whose life has been severely disrupted by such tragedies as sexual abuse, the death of a child, or the walking out of a spouse and been asked, "Where was God in all this?" Honestly, it's a question I've often hoped would never be asked and one that I often skirted. On one hand I wanted to distance God from any involvement in such atrocities, upholding his holiness and love as well as human freedom and culpability. Yet, I wanted, too, to affirm his power and sovereignty.
JS: I understand what you're saying, Keith. However, I don't think that we necessarily have to conceive of God's goodness as being in conflict with his sovereignty. Yes, he is fundamentally opposed to sin and evil. That is without question. Similarly, if we are to be faithful to the Bible we must also affirm His sovereignty. But a conflict only arises if by sovereignty we mean that God exhaustively controls everything that happens in the universe including the thoughts and actions of human beings. I reject this understanding. According to my view, God is sovereign in that he freely chose to create the kind of world that he has; a world inhabited by significantly free creatures capable of entering into genuinely personal relationships with Him; a world in which the future is open, waiting to be determined both by him and them.
I agree with you that what we're talking about here is far more than theoretical philosophy and theology. Suffering is real and anyone who has looked intently at the injustice, cruelty, and grief that is all too often a part of human existence, can't help but question what God's relationship to it all is. In fact, my own brother's tragic death a few years ago was a major factor in my thinking about divine providence as much as I have.
KP: When I read about that I couldn't help wondering how big a part the loss of your brother played in the formulation of your model of providence.
JS: Well, as I mention in the book, I was a nominal Methodist at the time and didn't believe that God caused everything that happens so it's not like the accident led me to significantly alter my beliefs.
KP: That may be so. But I did find it interesting that your initial response was to ask God why he killed your brother.
JS: Well, the view that God exercises specific as opposed to general sovereignty so permeates our culture that I probably just reacted that way out of conditioning.
KP: I see. Well, I'm getting ahead of myself, anyway. I want to come back to the problem of evil later but for now I'd like to focus on the broader issues that lead the two of you to think so differently. Dr. Helm, you've been quiet. Is there anything you'd like to add?
PH: Yes, there is. I agree with John that God's goodness and sovereignty are not in conflict with one another. He does not delight in sin for his very nature is the absolute standard of righteousness and justice. I also understand the Scriptures to simultaneously affirm that humans are morally accountable for their actions and God is absolutely sovereign over all that comes to pass, including the free actions of human beings. This is a substantial difference between John and me. I hold to a compatibilist view of freedom according to which human choices are free to the extent that they are in accordance with the subject's desires. In other words, I am free in making a particular choice if I choose what I really want and am not forced to choose something against my will.
John, on the other hand, believes that people are only free if they have what is called libertarian freedom. According to this notion of freedom, a choice is only free if it is not causally determined. All things being equal, a person could choose contrary to what he actually did in the exact same circumstances. I don't mean any offense, but in my opinion, it's the desire to preserve this preconceived and unbiblical concept of human freedom that motivates John and other proponents of so-called "relational" or "freewill" theism to advocate the model that they do.
JS: Paul, that's a very common accusation from those from the theological tradition that you represent but I have to say it's simply untrue. It's not the wish to protect some cherished view of human freedom that leads me and others to arrive at the conclusions we do. Rather, it's the desire to be faithful to what God has revealed concerning his divine project. Although God is self-sufficient and in need of nothing outside of himself, and although there has always been love and fellowship between the members of the Trinity, nevertheless, he freely chose to create us for the purpose of entering into a genuine, give-and-take love relationship with him.
Love cannot be forced or manipulated. The nature of personal relationships requires that they be reciprocal and that both parties in the relationship are capable of freely responding to each other. I don't think anyone here will deny that the Scriptures throughout portray God as one who longs for the love of his people and responds to their actions, taking their requests into consideration. He grieved over the sin that entered the world through Adam and Eve's rebellion. The Bible even goes so far as to say that his heart was filled with pain in Genesis 6:6. This was obviously his reaction because something he did not intend occurred. When Moses interceded with him concerning his plan to exterminate the Israelites, the Lord changed his mind. These are just a few examples that demonstrate that God is somehow conditioned by human actions.
Now, I know that the classical theists will say that these are only anthropomorphisms, but my question then is how he knows that they are not to be taken literally. I think that what leads him to conclude that such language is only figurative is a greater reliance on extrabiblical, abstract reasoning about the divine nature than on God's revelation in history especially in the person of Jesus Christ. Underlying the classical theistic model is the Platonic assumption that perfection must be static since any change would necessarily be a change toward imperfection. I submit that this assumption is logically fallacious, not to mention contrary to the portrait of God offered in the Old and New Testaments.
KP: May I jump in here, Dr. Sanders? We all agree that the Bible does, in fact, use language that describes God as changing his mind, being ignorant of certain facts, and vacillating in his emotional life in response to human decisions. It also portrays people as acting contrary to God's will. There are also a number of texts that affirm that God is unchanging, knowledgeable of not only the past and present but also of the future, and in control of all things. Now, Dr. Sanders, you charge the classical model with neglecting or misinterpreting some biblical texts due to a precommitment to certain philosophical assumptions. I'm curious about the criterion you use to decide that those passages that speak of God as being subject to change and disappointment should take precedence over those that don't. I realize that you couldn't possibly have dealt with all of the relevant texts in your book, but I have to say that I was surprised by your failure to deal with some of the most problematic ones for your thesis. Take Ephesians 1:11, for example: "In him we were also chosen having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will." This appears to be very good support for specific sovereignty, doesn't it?
JS: As for the criterion we should use to determine which set of biblical texts should serve as "control" texts, again I'd have to say that we have to interpret everything in light of what it is that God has revealed is His purpose for creating the world He has. And you're right, I couldn't possibly have dealt with all the relevant biblical material. However, I really don't see the verse you mentioned as being at all problematic for my position. Of course God works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will. But we have to be clear about what that purpose is. As I've already said, his purpose is to invite and persuade individuals into a loving relationship with him through Christ. He cannot guarantee that people will favorably respond but he makes use of all his wisdom, competence, and resourcefulness to accomplish that purpose as best he can. In creating the kind of world in which such relationships are possible, God chose to limit his power. Could he have created a world in which He controlled every detail, including the actions of people? Of course! However, this would not have allowed for authentic personal relationships between God and humans.
To be continued....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)