Calvinism: A Conclusion

I'm currently reading through the books For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson.  This post is one of a series of posts where I discuss the thoughts, impressions, and questions that surface during this study.  Click here for the first post in this series.


I'll never be a famous blogger.  In order to build a successful blog, I'd need to post every day, and that's something I'll never do.  (And even then I'd need to contend with my lack of actual writing talent!)  You see, the original purpose of this blog is to be my mental clearing house.  A place for me to scrape the metaphorical turd off the bottom of my shoe (hence the name of my blog) and keep walking.  For me, hitting "Publish post" is like flushing the toilet.

This is the reason I haven't been posting more in this series about Calvinism.  As I made my way through the remainder of Roger Olson's book,  Against Calvinism , there were less and less aspects of it I wanted to write about... As he took the five points of TULIP and discussed each one in depth, I found very little that compelled me to write.  I found it difficult to even make my way through the remainder of the book.  The reason is very simple: I was sold.  

Although I'll certainly give Horton's  For Calvinism  it's fair shot, I'll be honest and admit that the topic is off my radar.  My family has started going to an Arminian church, (independent, but historically Wesleyan) and I'm relatively at peace with this issue that has bothered me for a long time.

As I think through this whole issue, one thing has become clear: I've always been an Arminian.  My Reformed upbringing is not without affect: I can fall in line when needed, supplying the typical Calvinist answers to the common questions when the situation arises.  But deep down, the God I've always believed in is a God who has limited his own sovereignty to allow me the genuine choice between right and wrong, to believe in Him or not.  

Before anyone calls me a historical revisionist, take a look at four of my posts from 2008.  In my response to an essay by atheist Richard Carrier titled Why I am Not a Christian, I give my rebuttals to each of his arguments.  Without exception, the God I defend is the God revealed by Arminian theology.  Take a look at my own words from four years ago:

From my response to "God is Silent":

God took the ultimate risk: He gave us free will, and in doing so, took the risk that we would reject Him; that our choice would result in eternal separation from Him. 

From my response to "God is Inert":

Part of loving God is obeying Him. A lot of the evil in the world arises from human beings exercising their free will, disobeying God. Creatures that are free to love must be free to choose.

And in my response to "Christianity Predicts a Different Universe" I adopt Kenneth Miller's words as my own:

God's love and gift of freedom are genuine - so genuine that they include the power to choose evil and, if we wish, to freely send ourselves to Hell. -Kenneth Miller, in Finding Darwin's God [pp. 285-291]

I really struggled with those posts; Trying to clearly communicate why, even in the face of massive doubts, I believe that the Christian God is real.  Looking back has helped me see one reason why I've felt so out of place in my Calvinistic Baptist church:  For me, the god of Calvinism is indefensible, and I simply do not believe he exists.  I believe in a God who offers a choice between good and evil.  And I've believed in him all along.

"I" - Irresistible Grace: Summary and Thoughts

I'm currently reading through the books For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson.  This post is one of a series of posts where I discuss the thoughts, impressions, and questions that surface during this study.  Click here for the first post in this series. 


Chapter 3 continues with Olson describing irresistible grace like this:

A person chosen by God for salvation will not, because he or she cannot, resist the "inward call" of God because God "bends their will."  It is not a matter of coercion; the Holy Spirit does not overwhelm and force the person to repent and believe; rather, the Holy Spirit transforms the persons heart so that he or she wants to repent and believe.

And then a little later,

[T]he work of the Holy Spirit in regenerating grace, although irresistible, never violates the person's free agency: "The elect are so influenced by divine power that their coming is an act of voluntary choice. 

 

And then, before the words were out of my mouth:

This seems peculiarly paradoxical, but that doesn't bother Boettner or other Calvinists.

Okay, the first statement makes sense to me: The Holy Spirit fundamentally changes a person's heart, so that they want to (and always will) believe.  But that's not a violation of free agency?  Did the person have any say in whether their heart was transformed?  Obviously not.  I think you get the point.  This is another area where it will be interesting to see Horton's perspective.

Olson also raises two scriptural concerns with irresistible grace that I thought were interesting:

1) "Draw" vs. "Compel"

Olson describes how Calvinists claim that the word "draw" in John 6:44 really means "compel". Olson suggests that if the Greek word for "draw" can only mean "compel" then John 12:32 (which uses the same word) teaches universal salvation.

Obviously Olson must make the case that the Greek word for "draw" cannot have two similar (but different) meanings in the two contexts for this to be a valid argument.  I'm not one to dig into the Greek and try to make a determination myself.  (I know people that would, and more power to them, but I'd just be fooling myself.) I'll look forward to Olson's full discussion in chapter 7, and (I assume) Horton's opposite viewpoint in For Calvinism.

2) The order of regeneration and faith

This concept was completely new to me: Since repentance and faith are not possible unless a person has been regenerated (according to the Calvinist system) then logically regeneration must precede repentance and faith.

This is obviously opposite of typical experience, as well as counter to the message of "believe and be saved" as normally presented (even by Calvinists).  In reference to this, Olson cites John 3:1-21:

Jesus tells Nicodumus that he must be born again and that belief in him will accomplish that (v. 14).  There is really no way to reconcile this passage with belief that regeneration precedes faith. (pp. 52, emphasis mine)

I'm not sure how verse 14 relates to that (did he mean v. 15?) but even so, this whole issue of regeneration preceding faith seems like one of these theological fabrications that just must be so, because a theological system requires it...  

"U" - Unconditional Election: Summary and Thoughts

I'm currently reading through the books For Calvinism by Michael Horton and Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson.  This post is one of a series of posts where I discuss the thoughts, impressions, and questions that surface during this study.  Click here for the first post in this series.

In chapter 3, Olson defines unconditional election (the "U" of TULIP) by quoting Loraine Boettner's book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination:

The Reformed Faith has held to the existence of an eternal, divine decree which, antecedently to any difference or desert in men themselves, separates the human race into two portions and ordains one to everlasting life and the other to everlasting death [hell]. (pp. 43 in Olson)

Olson summarizes unconditional election in this way:

God's predestination of the eternal destinies of individual human beings has nothing whatever to do with their foreseen character or choices. [emphasis his] (pp. 46)

Olson then goes on to describe what he calls "the dark side" of unconditional election, that because salvation and reprobation are unconditional, God could save everyone if he chose, but does not.  He gives the Calvinist explanation of why this is so by quoting again from Boettner:

The condemnation of the non-elect is designed primarily to furnish an external exhibition, before men and angels, of God's hatred for sin, or, in other words, it is to be an eternal manifestation of the justice of God.

That certainly is an explanation of the purpose/reason for hell that I needed to digest for a while... I think I've heard Piper say something similar, basically that hell exists to display God's justice for His ultimate glory.  Perhaps I'm blind, but I don't see that as very glorious.  

C.S. Lewis gives a different explanation of hell in his excellent book, The Great Divorce.  In the book, Lewis explains hell not as punishment for sin, but as an option that God mercifully allows.  God respects an individual's choice to remain separate from Him.   Lewis puts it this way:

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' All that are in Hell chose it.

I see this issue (and I believe Olson would agree) as the main problem with Calvinism.  I've discussed this before, and I'm reminded of Wesley's poem Oh Horrible Decree.  Here's my favorite part, which still gives me goose bumps and tugs at tears every time I read it:

Oh Horrible Decree

Worthy of whence it came!

Forgive their hellish blasphemy

Who Charge it on the Lamb. 

The righteous God consigned

Them over to their doom,

And sent the Savior of mankind

To damn them from the womb;

To damn for falling short

Of what they could not do

For not believing the report

Of that which was not true.

Some changes

Although I have approximately zero regular readers (give or take a few) I thought it would be good to post an update, since a lot has changed with me in the last couple years.  Here's a quick snapshot:

1) I spent the vast majority of my commute time listening to the sermons/lectures of D.A. Carson.  I've really enjoyed his frank, no BS approach to studying the Bible, and his theology has really resonated with me.  In particular, I'm attracted by his refusal to draw conclusions where there is insufficient biblical data.  Most teachers seem to strive to draw conclusions that support their overall theological system, even from texts that have zero relevance or even contradict that system.  Other than at a few points, I've found his teaching to be quite convincing, and this has led to a general quieting of the doubts and related issues that have fed this blog in the last two years.  (Hence the reason for the inactivity in this blog)

Some of Carson's stuff that I've found particularly interesting and useful are:

The God Who Is There - This is actually an evangelistic series intended for biblically illiterate college students, but I found it to be extremely good, if you can get past the coddling at the beginning.

1 John - This is a verse-by-verse exposition of the book of 1st John.

2) I moved.  I have lived the past decade in a city in upstate New York, and have recently moved back to my home state of Michigan.  My new job just happens to be in Holland, MI, just 30 minutes or so from my hometown.  One of the many reasons this is significant, is that Holland (like me) is very Dutch, and (less like me) very Reformed.  This move leads to the next big change:

3) I'm looking for a church.  The move means that I had to leave the church that I love, and now must find someplace new.  The upside in this is that I have a lot to choose from;  Holland is the historical home of the Dutch Reformed Church, and it is still one of the most conservative areas in the country.  There are literally two churches on every corner (sometimes three) but by my count, 3/4 to 4/5 of them are either CRC or RCA.

A (hypothetical) regular reader of mine would recall that I've asked a lot of questions regarding Calvinism in the past, and often wondered if my former church (a Baptist, John Piper-esque Calvinistic church) is the best place for me.  This is one of the reasons for the next item:

4) I'm reading about Calvinism. This one I'll cover in my next post. :)

Some new faces around here...

I knew something was up when I saw the traffic for my blog yesterday:

It turns out that David Heddle over at the blog He Lives has mentioned my posts on Calvinism.  When a nobody like me gets mentioned on a great blog like He Lives, StatCounter is sure to go into a tizzy.  This has happened once before, with similar results.

In both cases, the bloggers in question have disagreed with me, which is really great.  I'm used to a religious environment where conformity is highly valued, and questions are seen as a lack of faith.  I long for a church family where open questions are encouraged, and certainty is acknowledged as the elusive vapor it really is.  (That sounds postmodern, but I've had that label thrown at me too many times in the last week, so keep it to yourself, okay?)

In any case, here are a couple posts from He Lives regarding Calvinism and the issues I've been discussing lately:

Sproul chapter two: God's Sovereignty
Sproul chapter three: Free Will

Enjoy!

Total Depravity and Calvinism's Ugly God

This sunday my Pastor preached a sermon on the topic of Total Depravity, or as he put it: "Your Instincts Stink." You can hear it online (at least for a few weeks) here. This is the kind of sermon that makes me want to look for an Arminian church, not because I dislike my church, (on the contrary, I love it and the people there) but because sermons like this can damage my faith.

My pastor did an excellent job communicating the Calvinist belief that man cannot accomplish anything good on his own. This ideas was expressed via the teachings of Johnathan Edwards and Augustine that

"Man will always act according to his strongest inclination at that moment."

Now, the idea here is that our inclinations (and therefore our actions) are (because of the fall) always evil, and only by the grace of God can we do anything good, including believe and have faith. Salvation is accomplished solely by God, through the sacrifice of Jesus and the election of God's chosen people who are able to believe through power given them by God. Going back to the Edwards/Augustine quote above, God changes our inclinations, allowing us to act differently, to believe, and to be saved. Man has absolutely no part in it anything.

I can see how this is comforting. The ball is in God's court. I don't have to worry about it. But to me it is extremely troubling. If you always act according to your strongest inclinations, you have absolutely no ability to change the course of your life whatsoever. You may think you can simply examine your inclinations/motivations, (this was suggested in the sermon) and try to change them, but if this idea is correct, the action you took to examine your motivations was in iteself a response to your strongest inclination at that moment. You are a deterministic being. Your life has already been determined, and your future actions, thoughts, feelings, and emotions are already determined, unless God intervines.

Of course the whole Calvinist system is based on the belief that (for the elect) God WILL intervine, and help us change our inclinations, giving us the ability to believe in Jesus and be saved.

But that's not the only problem with Calvinism. As I've discussed before, the problem of evil is a very difficult one for anyone who believes in a personal god. The ugly God of Calvinism is a god who created this world, orchastrated evil, saves some people of His own choosing, and damns the rest to hell for not believing something that isn't true. Calvinism heightnens the problem of evil so greatly that a better alternative is that God does not exist at all.

I think the Arminian system gives a much more believable (and palletable) scenario, while still taking seriously what the Bible says about election: That God, by his grace, created man with a choice, and "elects" some by pursuing them, (perhaps as a result of their choices) and further enabling them to choose better still.

A Calvinist might say "But you are undermining Gods soverignty! God is in control, not man!" Blogger Ken Schenck at the blog Quadrilateral Thoughts answers this well:

"If God can create the world out of nothing, then He is certainly able to empower a person, by his prevenient grace, to reach the smallest point of volition ex nihilo, a point of the barest will either to remain depraved as they are or to signify ever so slightly a desire for more grace... leading to God's empowerment to signify a desire for more grace still. Would you suggest that God is not clever enough to figure out how to do this, to empower totally depraved humanity to begin to make a choice?"

Now back to what I mentioned above, about sermons like this, and how they can damage my faith:  There is nothing wrong with going to a church that teaches ideas that are contrary to your own beliefs.  If one is actively engaged with their faith, and continually examining their beliefs, this is inevitable.  But when ideas like this are presented in a way that suggests something is wrong if you don't totally agree, or that there isn't room for discussion, I begin to wonder if I am worshiping in the right place.  I'm not suggesting that any belief be accepted as equal, but some discussion of alternate (but equally biblical) views should be accepted.

Of course, a Calvinist would claim that Arminianism is unbiblical based on their selected proof texts...

Justice, The Image of God, and Calvinism

A couple weeks ago, our Sunday School class discussed "The Image of God", and what that might be.  We divided up into groups and listed several possibilities.  At the top of virtually every groups list were entries like "morality", "sense of right and wrong" and "desire for justice".  Our deeply-rooted sense of injustice when we're wronged [Hey, that's not fair!] seems to be the human trait that we believe comes directly from God himself.

[As a side note, it was interesting to see how absent any form of "physical appearance" was from our lists.  It seems that modern science has finally eradicated (at least among the people present) the delusion that our bodies somehow uniquely reflect a portion of God's being.]

There are, of course, good reasons why we believe that our morality and desire for justice is also a fundamental characteristic of Gods.  Throughout the Bible we see God fighting for justice, or commanding his followers to seek justice.  Countless passages tell of  how God "loves justice" (Isaiah 61:8, Psalm 33:5) and hates those who make unjust laws or withhold justice (Isaiah 10:1-4, Deuteronomy 27:19).  So it seems that we share with God a fundamental desire for fairness, justice, and righteousness, and this may be what is meant by "the image of God".

As I thought about this conversation in the days after the class, I began to wonder why Calvinists don't see a terrible problem with their cherished theological system...

A Calvinist believes that God is the only entity involved in our salvation in any way; He conceives, initiates, and completes the salvation of "the elect" without any contribution from them at all.  They believe that some people are created for the sole purpose of eternal destruction, while others are created to be the objects of God's love, and are destined for eternal life.  According to Calvinists, there is absolutely no difference between the two types of people other than Gods choice.

If your "injustice meter" isn't red-lined, get it checked.

So I ask the question:  How could a God who is so concerned with justice invent a system that is so unjust?  I think the answer is simple:  He couldn't.

I'm reminded of a poem I read a few years ago by Charles Wesley, which discusses what he calls "The Calvinistic Conundrum".  Here's a small portion:

Oh Horrible Decree

Worthy of whence it came!

Forgive their hellish blasphemy

Who Charge it on the Lamb. 

The righteous God consigned

Them over to their doom,

And sent the Savior of mankind

To damn them from the womb;

To damn for falling short

Of what they could not do

For not believing the report

Of that which was not true.

Taking God's Sovereignty Too Far?

Today in our Sunday school class, the teacher spoke on the subject "What every Christian should know about SIN".  Naturally, the subject of evil, it's origin, and effect on creation was high on his list of discussion topics.

The teacher, coming from a strongly Calvinistic viewpoint, emphasized the soverignty of God while maintaining that God allowed sin, but did not originate sin.  From this perspective, there really is no reason sin must exist, except to create a problem for which there is only one solution: Jesus Christ.

This is obviously (at least to me) a pretty weak argument, and I suspect most who hold to it would recognize this.  That's why the age-old fall back of "mystery" is so often peddled as the stop-gap between our common sense and the weaknesses of a particular theological position.

During the Q&A portion of the class, someone brought up the solution to this problem I think is most viable: That evil is the result of God's choice to give us the ability to sin; Evil exists in the world because a world without freedom is a world without love. We were created by God to love him, and true love cannot be forced.

The response from the teacher was something about being cautious that we don't undermine God's sovereignty, and the mystery of the balance between God's control over everything (including our choices) and the fact that God holds us responsible for our choices.

Why is it so horrible to suggest that God might choose to limit himself, specifically that he might limit his power over our own choices?

It's not like there isn't any biblical precident:  The doctrince of divine kenosis (self-limiting) in the person of Jesus is well known and accepted.  Why is it so scandalous to suggest that God would choose to limit himself in other ways?  Isn't that the story of Adam and Eve; That God gives them the REAL choice to obey or not?  Haven't we distorted this story into something else in order to defend the soverignty of God?

And I won't even mention open theology. (oh, wait... I just did)

Am I missing something, or is it plainly obvious that God's choice to limit himself does not diminish his sovereignty in any way?

What's the big deal?

Boyd's "Letters From a Skeptic"

This is my first post in two months. The reasons for this blogging silence are several. For one, it's summer and I have lots of other things to do . But I've also been taking a pretty deep dive into the NPP (by reading this book with a couple friends and also frequently sampling these three books.) I'm sure I'll blog on that later. Anyway, my apologies to all three of my loyal readers!

Another drain on my time has been my fledgling book business (the details of which shall remain a closely guarded secret). One side benefit of this enterprise has been the acquisition of some very interesting books at almost no cost. When I see something that piques my interest, or lines up with an already established interest, I get it. So today I acquired a book that I'm excited to read: Letters From a Skeptic - A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianity by Gregory A. Boyd.

Although I've never read any of Boyd's books, I've heard plenty about him, and I've been meaning to grab one and page through it. Boyd intrigues me from two different perspectives:

On the one side, he has an approach to the Bible and to faith that really resonates with me. He believes in evolution, which shows me that he doesn't ignore the historical and literary contexts of the Hebrew Bible. His views on politics, (although I've not read The Myth of a Christian Nation and don't have much interest in politics) I agree with. His refusal to endorse Republican candidates from the pulpit and insistence that non-violence and love should be our national model (since that's what Jesus teaches) both ring true with me. Most interestingly, he is one of the leading proponents of open theism, a view of God's knowledge that suggests the partial openness of the future, where God's foreknowledge consists only of a realm of possibilities, since man, whom he created and endowed with the ability to choose, has not yet made these choices.

With that resume, one might expect him to be a pretty liberal Christian. But...

On the other side of the coin, he is a Baptist. [Gasp!] A member of the same Baptist affiliation (the BGC) as the uber-Calvinist John Piper, these two are sure to clash, (and have). Sure, as events at my church plainly show, the label "Baptist" doesn't mean much these days. But being a member of the BGC does mean something (as the scuffle between Boyd and Piper shows), it means Boyd isn't a liberal Christian. Boyd has also been an outspoken critic of liberal historical Jesus scholars, especially those of the Jesus Seminar.

In any case, the book is interesting to me for more reasons than it's authorship. First, although I'm true to my generation in that I shun labels, I think I would be hard-pressed to argue that I am not a skeptic. Second, the book is about a conversation between Boyd and his father where they discuss real, hard, honest questions about Christianity. My own relationship with my Dad has been similar, although more off-and-on and addressing different questions.

The most interesting thing about this book is that it addresses several (if not all) of what I've come to call THE BIG FIVE. In this recent post, I listed my top five "understandings I'm seeking;" issues with the Bible and faith that I don't understand and that often affect my faith. I was excited when I opened Boyd's book and immediately saw that at least three of the five were addressed directly, while the other two were likely discussed as peripheral issues in other chapters.

As I read the book (or at least the most relevant sections) I'll post on each of the BIG FIVE and how Boyd's thoughts in his book relate to each.

Understandings I'm Seeking

This is a post I’ve been meaning to write for a long time now, simply because it’s subject is really the reason this blog exists.  As I said in my newly-updated About This Blog post, this is where I put some of those thoughts about my faith (speaking very generally) that bounce around in my head, and just won’t go away.  It helps to have a place to organize my thoughts, and I can come back to a particular post if I forget where my thinking was on a particular topic.  Also, for those doubts or questions that don’t really have good answers, clicking that “Publish Post” button is like flushing the toilet. 

Several months ago, Cliff Martin over at Outside The Box (a blog that I used to read regularly) posted his list of Understandings I’m Seeking – A list of difficult issues he was interested in understanding better.  Ever since, I’ve kept a mental list of my own, to which I add as new issues become important to me, and subtract as I gain understanding on some issues.  

Lately, my “Understandings I’m Seeking” list has become stagnant.  The same issues have been at the top of the list for quite a while, which means that they have remained important to me, while simultaneously proving difficult to understand, at least for me.  It is for this reason I think it is time for my own “Understandings I’m Seeking” post.  

Understandings I’m Seeking 

1. The relationship between the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul 

I'm seeking to understand how the teachings of Jesus are related to those of the Apostle Paul.  In particular, I want to understand why Jesus' teachings are so different from those of Paul, especially when it comes to the requirements for salvation.  

In my own Baptist tradition, the words of Jesus are constantly twisted to fit into a Paul-shaped mold, and to me, that just seems wrong.  I hope one might be able to assume that God-incarnate would be able to get it right!  But instead I constantly hear (in reference to Jesus' words) "Well.... You have to read that in light of ..."  - And then some passage from Romans or Hebrews.

I understand the desire to harmonize the Scriptures, and the belief that inspired Scripture must fit together.  But if God really did become man, and that man is Jesus Christ, than something is wrong.  I am seeking to understand what that is.

2. The second coming of Jesus and the New Testament expectation that it was immanent 

I’m seeking to better understand why the first Christians (and especially Jesus Himself) expected Jesus’ second coming to happen soon, as recorded in passages like Matt. 10:23, Matt. 16:27-28, Luke 21:5-36  1 Thess 4:14-15, Rev. 1:1, and many, many others.  This expectation is typically explained away by claiming that Jesus, when He said "this generation will not pass away" before He returns, did not mean "generation" but instead meant the nation of Israel or even the generation that is alive when Jesus returns. (How convenient!)  

I’m continually flabbergasted that the same people who insist on using the “plain reading” of Genesis 1-2 will put forth such flimsy explanations for the very plain statements of the expectation of the imminent return of Jesus.  Once again, if God did become man, and that man is Jesus Christ, can't we expect Him to know what He was talking about?

I've done a significant amount of reading about the eschatological belief called preterism, which claims that all of Jesus' end-times prophecies were fulfilled within the timeframe he predicted, specifically in 70AD during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army.  This is not the place for a discussion on eschatology, but I should say that neither futurism nor preterism have provided satisfactory explanations for Biblical end-times prophesy.

I am seeking to understand what Jesus really meant by his end-times prophecies, and how this fits in with the rest of Biblical teaching.  I especially am seeking to understand the implications of a successful eschatology on they way I view the world:  Is the world coming to an end, or is it getting better and better?  Is Jesus coming back, and will that be soon?

3. The dogma of Biblical inspiration and (secondarily) inerrancy 

I’m seeking to understand why some Christians believe in the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration. (The equal inspiration of every word of scripture)  Christians always give passages like 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as proof that the Bible (every single word of it) is equally inspired by God.  Why don't these Christians notice the blatant circularity of this claim?  A text within the New Testament that refers to "scripture" cannot be referring to the New Testament.  At best, these proof texts can only refer to the Hebrew Scriptures (The Old Testament), and any texts considered “scripture” at the time the proof-text was written, if any. 

I am seeking to understand the reality of Biblical inspiration as opposed to the dogma of Biblical inspiration.  I believe that the Bible is inspired, and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, but I am unconvinced by any argument for verbal, plenary inspiration that takes the form: "The Bible is inspired because it says it is inspired."  I realize that any "proof" of inspiration that refuses to grant authority to any source other than the Bible will always be circular.  I just wish that this fact were not constantly ignored.  

Of secondary importance is my desire to understand why some Christians believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.  This is only of secondary importance because I have come to a settled belief that this position is entirely indefensible.  Still, I am seeking to understand the implications of this apparent fact; On how it affects the way I should read the Bible, and how it affects the task of biblical interpretation. 

4. The relationship between the Old and New Testaments

This issue has troubled me from the time I was a little kid:  I am seeking to understand why God is portrayed so differently in the Old and New Testaments.  The God of the Old Testament commands his people to kill rebellious teenagers, beat their slaves to within an inch of their death, to destroy entire cities, killing all men, women, children and babies, (including nursing babies and "ripping open" pregnant women) and actively participates in these slayings by chucking hailstones from heaven.  In contrast, the God of the New Testament commands us to be peaceful, merciful,  to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, return blessing for evil, and to live at peace with everyone.  Are we talking about the same God here?

I understand that all people are sinners and deserve death.  God can choose to do whatever he wants.  This is not the issue.  I am seeking to understand why God's message to His people, His communication to them about what is important, and His overal approach to justice is so startlingly different between the Old and New Testaments.

5. The soverignty of God and the problem of Theodicy (the problem of the existence of evil)

This issue is a little different:  It involves two seemingly seperate issues on which I have come to a general understanding (or acceptance), but my thinking on these two issues is incompatible.

It is evident to me that God (in many occasions, if not all) chooses those with whom he is going to form a relationship: God chose Adam, not vice-versa.  God chose Noah, not vice-versa. God chose Abraham, not vice-versa.  God chose Moses, not vice-versa.  God chose the 12 disciples, not vice-versa.  You get the point.  And it's hard to deny the reality of election with Bible passages like Mark 13:20, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:14-24, and on and on... The entire Bible shows God constantly choosing us, not the other way around.  

Now, this doesn't mean we don't have a choice in whether to love God.  A man can choose to romantically pursue a particular woman, but she will still have a choice of whether to reciprocate.  Excuse the imperfect analogy, but this may be the situation between God and us.  And God's power to woo surely surpasses even that of Giacoma Cassanova.  Still, it is obvious to me that in some way, my relationship with God is more dependent on He than on me.

The second issue involves theodicy; the problem of existence of evil in the world, and the general lack of evidence for God's existence.  I've written about this before: To me it seems the best explanation for this is that God created us to love, and love cannot be forced.  Ironically, pastor-turned-atheist Dan Barker says it best:

It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being.  [source]

I agree with Dan, and this is why God doesn't loudly proclaim His existence, doesn't do much to fix our broken world, and doesn't prove to us that He exists; He wants to give us a chance to love Him, and to do that He must give us the freedom to choose.

The problem lies in the integration of the two issues above.  If God chooses those with whom He has a relationship, then why is there evil in the world?  Why is there a need?  (And please, don't say "The Fall" - The fall came as a result of God giving Man a choice)  Conversely, if God values our free will enough to accept all the things that go along with it (i.e. evil, suffering) then does he really choose his "elect"?  In order to answer theses two questions, I must talk out of both sides of my mouth, and that really bothers me.  The answer may be as simple as my Cassanova example (above) but that has so far been unsatisfying.

So there's my list.  If you can help on any of the above, by all means, email me.  Or better yet, leave a comment on this post and let everyone benefit.  I have fantasies of someday writing a single post on each of the above, but I know better than to commit.  I'll just take it one post at a time.

Choosing to Believe

In my previous post, I talked about belief, and how our actions reveal what we truly believe.  One question that was left unanswered, however, is one posed by Richard Dawkins, among others:

Believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of policy.  At least, it is not something I can decide to do as an act of will.  I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed, and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that I believe every word inside them.  But none of that can make me actually believe it if I don't.  Pascal's Wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God.  And the God that you claim to believe in had better not be of the omniscient kind or he'd see through the deception. [The God Delusion, p.104]

Dawkins makes a good point, one that  I struggled with it for a long time.  I didn't believe, and I knew it.  I really wanted to believe, but couldn't.  What advice would you give someone in this situation?  

For some, the issue really is that they don't want to believe.  For Dawkins, I suspect that he poses the question not out of a genuine desire to believe, but to simply point out that it is truly ridiculous to ask someone to "just believe".  He's right.  We can't just decide to change our beliefs. 

Like my last post, Dallas Willard's book, Renovation of the Heart can shed some light on this (at least it did for me).  Willard agrees with Dawkins:

We do not choose to believe (or not).  Our beliefs and feelings cannot be changed by choice.  We cannot just choose to have different beliefs and feelings...

But Willard continues:

 ...but we do have some liberty to take in different ideas and think about things in different ways. We can choose to take in the Word of God and when we do that beliefs and feelings will be steadily pulled in a Godly direction.

So if Dallas Willard is correct, (and I think he is) then we are not able, in the current moment, to change our beliefs by simply choosing to do so.  But this does not mean that belief is completely out of our control.  Our choices today can (and do) influence the things we believe tomorrow.  So if we choose to read and absorb the Bible and think in ways that will, over time, cause our beliefs to change.

Dawkins was correct when he wrote that:

I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed...

True, he could decide to do that.  But he doesn't.  And of course, he doesn't believe.  I'm not saying that going to church or reciting a creed will help someone believe in God.  I am only saying (mostly from experience) that if one decides that he is going to live like God exists, his life will include things like going to church and reading the Bible.  And these activities, sincerely pursued, will slowly change his beliefs.

So we are responsible for our beliefs, but not in a direct way.  This has great implications for how we present the Gospel.  In Willards words:

One of the worst mistakes that can be made in practical ministry is to think that people can choose to believe and can feel differently.  Following that, we will mistakenly try to generate faith by going through the will, possibly trying to move the will by playing on emotion.  Rather, the will must be moved by insight into truth and reality.  Such insight will evoke emotion, appropriate to a new set of the will.  That is the order of real inward change.

My pastor frequently says things like: 

You're too busy to read your Bible? Well, you see, we make time for the things that are important to us.  So make time to read your Bible.

Is it just me, or does that not make sense at all?  How does that change whether I find it important to read my Bible?  And if what he says is true, I will not begin to read my Bible until I find it relevant to my life.  My will can do nothing (over the long run) to change my habits.  My Bible reading will come through a change in my inner character, which will in turn change my priorities.

 In the same way, no amount of willpower will enable me to believe something that I do not see adequate evidence for.  True belief will come through experience of the truth of God's existence.

A Response to "Why I Am Not a Christian" (4/4) - Christianity Predicts a Different Universe

This is the last post in a series of four with the intention of discussing an essay by Richard Carrier entitled Why I Am Not a Christian. In his essay, he presents four reasons why he does not believe in the Christian God. I'll dedicate one post to each of these arguments. Each post discusses one of his four main points:
#1: God Is Silent
#2: God Is Inert
#3: The Evidence Is Inadequate
#4: Christianity Predicts a Different Universe

The fourth reason Carrier says he is not a Christian is that Christianity predicts a very different universe from what we actually observe. He suggests that the universe that we inhabit looks exactly like a universe should look if there were no god.

Right out of the gate, Carrier reveals one of his presuppositions that I think leads to this conclusion:

For a loving God who wanted to create a universe solely to provide a home for human beings, and to bring his plan of salvation to fruition, would never have invented this universe, but something quite different.

Carrier's starting assumption is that of God's purpose for creating the universe - that God created it solely to provide a place for us to live, and to bring about His "plan of salvation". As I've described in the first three posts on this topic, this is short-sighted. Of course, this universe was created to provide us a place to live, and He is in fact carrying out his plan of redemption. But these are not His only (or even primary) objectives. Carrier leaves out the key ingredient: free will.

If you haven't yet read my first post dealing with Carrier's essay, you should do so before continuing. It deals with the apparent fact that God values our free choice enough to allow us to choose to reject Him; to choose to spend eternity separated from Him.

I have chosen to use the words of Kenneth Miller to complete the rest of this post. He says it better than I could, anyway. I apologize for the long quote; if this bothers you, pretend they are my words. I believe every one of them.

Here are the last few paragraphs of his book, Finding Darwin's God, (with a few of my edits):

Science in general, and evolutionary science in particular... reveals a universe that is dynamic, flexible, and logically complete. It presents a vision of life that spreads across the planet with endless variety and intricate beauty. It suggests a world in which our material existence is not an impossible illusion propped up by magic, but the genuine article, a world in which things are exactly what they seem. A world in which we were formed, as the Creator once told us, from the dust of the earth itself.

It is often said that a Darwinian universe is one whose randomness cannot be reconciled with meaning. I disagree. A world truly without meaning would be one in which a deity pulled the string of every human puppet, indeed of every material particle. In such a world, physical and biological events would be carefully controlled, evil and suffering could be minimized, and the outcome of historical processes strictly regulated. All things would move toward the Creator's clear, distinct, established goals. Such control and predictability, however, comes at the price of independence. [This is the world Carrier says Christianity predicts, but...] Always in control, such a Creator would deny his creatures any real opportunity to know and worship him - authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation. Such freedom is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution.

If he so chose, the God whose presence is taught by most Western religions could have fashioned anything, ourselves included, ex nihilo, from his wish alone. In our childhood as a species, that might have been the only way in which we could imagine the fulfillment of a divine will. [This is why, as Carrier describes, early Christians (and todays Creationists) believed in ex nihilo creation.] But we've grown up, and something remarkable has happened: we have begun to understand the physical basis of life itself. If a string of constant miracles were needed for each turn of the cell cycle or each flicker of a cilium, the hand of God would be written directly into every living thing - his presence at the edge of the human sandbox would be unmistakable. Such findings might confirm our faith, but they would also undermine our independence. How could we fairly choose between God and man when the presence and the power of the divine so obviously and so literally controlled our every breath? Our freedom as his creatures requires a little space and integrity. In the material world, it requires self-sufficiency and consistency with the laws of nature.

Evolution is neither more nor less than the result of respecting the reality and consistency of the physical world over time. To fashion material beings with an independent physical existence, any Creator would have had to produce an independent material universe in which our evolution over time was a contingent possibility. A believer in the divine accepts that God's love and gift of freedom are genuine - so genuine that they include the power to choose evil and, if we wish, to freely send ourselves to Hell. Not all believers will accept the stark conditions of that bargain, but our freedom to act has to have a physical and biological basis. Evolution and its sister sciences of genetics and molecular biology provide that basis. In biological terms, evolution is the only way a Creator could have made us the creatures we are - free beings in a world of authentic and meaningful moral and spiritual choices.

Those who ask from science a final argument, an ultimate proof, an unassailable position from which the issue of God may be decided will always be disappointed. [Stephen Carrier included.] As a scientist I claim no new proofs, no revolutionary data, no stunning insight into nature that can tip the balance in one direction or another. But I do claim that to a believer, even in the most traditional sense, evolutionary biology is not at all the obstacle we often believe it to be. In many respects, evolution is the key to understanding our relationship with God.

-Kenneth Miller in Finding Darwin's God [pp. 285-291] (bold emphasis and bracketed text mine)

So it looks like the universe in which we find ourselves (the one described by the current scientific consensus) could be a necessary ingredient for God's plan to create beings free to choose to love him. What does that imply for the Creationist who rejects the scientific consensus of cosmology, biology, and geology? Must they also reject free will? Maybe not, but I have to agree with Miller, the Creationist's god is a weaker, marginalized version of the true Christian God.