Sometimes portions of scripture seem elusive. Remember, it is translated from an ancient language, often using illustrations and metaphors from an ancient time, from an ancient culture. Not all portions of scripture are like this, but some certainly are. These verses in Romans can be confusing, especially verses 5 through 8. Here is re-write I feel captures the essence of the truth God conveys.
People, all of us included, have a terrible habit of arrogance. We even try to tell God what is best, and worse, we become deeply offended when the sovereign God of all creation reminds us that He has everything under control...and that while He loves us deeply, He doesn't need our help. On the contrary, we are the ones desperate for His help.
Each of us are born with a curse, human nature. Our natural inclination is selfishness and while we may have commendable moments, we are sure to slip back into our self-centeredness. We think that if we just try harder, make a stronger effort, we can change. That too is part of the curse of our humanity, the arrogance of total self-reliance.
There is only one hope for humanity and that hope is Jesus. He came from heaven to earth to live a perfect life, never once a moment of selfishness, and then submitted Himself, voluntarily, to a physical death from which, He rose from the dead. In doing all this, He broke the power of the curse over mankind. Even if you discover some power, a power that no one in all of human history has yet to discover, to begin living a perfect life...and you should know that God says no such power exists apart from Him...but just for the sake of argument you discover such a power...you still are left with the pressing question, "What about all the wrong, all the mistakes, all the hurt, all the sorrow I've caused already?"
Jesus' death on the cross stands as the greatest act of courage in history, never to be surpassed as long as the human race endures. He took the punishment for every selfish act ever committed by every human being ever to live and who will ever live in the tomorrows of history. There is only one way to be forgiven and that is to give Jesus our complete devotion and in that moment, we become the benefactor of His death, we stand forgiven.
But there's more, Jesus doesn't just offer forgiveness, He promises true power to change, to be transformed, to begin to break free from our natural inclination for self-centeredness. In the moment of our giving complete devotion to Jesus, in that moment of being forgiven by God because He sees we've accepted Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf, something miraculous occurs. God comes and fills us with His Spirit, amazing isn't it! And now, with His power at work in us, the same power that created the Universe in all its splendor, the same power that raised Christ from the dead, we can begin to learn how live a life free from the curse of our humanity. We still won't get all the way to perfection, but we'll make it farther than we could have ever dreamed possible, and we'll make it into eternity with God because of the forgiveness we have now received. And oh yeah, by the way, this promise is for anyone, I mean anyone who would only believe.
Believe!
Pastor Fred
Monday, December 22, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Help...I'm biased!
Hebrews 10:24-25
And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.
I love reading several chapters of scripture in sequence when I have the time. I remembering waking up one morning at 5:30am, on my day off, couldn't fall back to sleep, it was ugly. At our house, we have a special name for that hour of the day, especially on your day off. Some call it the "crack of dawn." We call it "the butt crack of dawn" because being up at that hour, on your day of rest, is ugly, uglier than plumber's pants.
So, I love reading several chapters in sequence because it affords us the opportunity to discover themes and truths that are born out of the connectedness of the text as opposed to themes and truths that you find in the context of a few verses. Let me share one that came into focus from reading the first several chapters in the Gospel of John.
All of us have biases and assumptions that we carry. They are a part of us. They affect the way we think, the conclusions we reach, the judgments we make, and they even give us expectations. They result from our spiritual gifts, passions, personalities, life experiences, teaching we have embraced, and even cultural practices. Often, they are valid, justified, they make sense and in these instances, the worst that can happen is that we might be surprised if our expectations aren't met. But when they wrong, when our biases are incorrect. They mislead us, like a guide that pretends to know the way and in our following him, we too become lost.
(Read John 2:1-3, 8-10)
During such feasts, one would always serve the best wine first, just as the text stated. When so much wine is being consumed, the guests' palettes become numb with intoxication. The more they drink, the less they are able to appreciate the complexities of finer wines. Thus, the better wines are served first. Because this was everyone's practice, it became a cultural norm. In becoming a cultural norm, it created assumptions in people, assumptions that led to expectations. When people attended a wedding feast, no one had to explain that the first wine would be the best wine. It was their expectation and thus the surprise of the master of the feast in John 2. God is putting this truth into play here in John 2 in a culturally relevant way because He wants us to understand the impact biases and assumptions have on our lives, on our ability to make sound judgments, especially when those judgments have spiritual implications.
As one continues to read in the Gospel of John, chapter 3, chapter 4, chapter 5, chapter 6, this theme of biases and assumptions continues to confront us. Nicodemus in John 3 questioned, "how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" His limiting bias was that the physical realm always had to be considered, even in dealing with spiritual matters. In John 4, the Samaritan woman upon realizing that she was in the presence of a prophet, a holy man of God, proceeds to ask Him a question of doctrine! What was her bias, that the primary purpose of religion is to solve our doctrinal and political conundrums. Isn't it interesting that she was willing to engage Him in a conversation about her deepest needs, her physical needs, her emotional needs, until she realized He was prophet. And then, it became about doctrine and politics. Then, there is the lame man at the Pool of Bethesda in John 5. Who told him that he had to lie and wait for the angel to stir the water for his healing? It was the cultural practice of his day. The text tells us this in verse 6, "When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, "Do you want to be made well?" Jesus was saying to him, shed your bias, you never had to wait for an angel, you just had to come to the Father in faith, and if it was His will to heal you, it would have been done. John 6, "…where shall we buy bread, that these may eat?" The biases and assumptions that we carry often blind us to the true realities of life with God. Thus, one of Jesus' greatest ministries on this earth was to expose the biases and assumptions of people's hearts, just as we have seen in these 6 chapters.
Hebrews 10:24-25
And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.
One of the great ministries that we find, that we experience, that we receive in the community of the church is that people, in assembling together, exhort one another, continuing the work of Christ, speaking the truth in love, helping one another see the biases and assumptions in our lives that blind us to the realities of life with God.
Be seen by others, expose yourself...well you know what I mean...let someone show you your biases!
Pastor Fred
And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.
I love reading several chapters of scripture in sequence when I have the time. I remembering waking up one morning at 5:30am, on my day off, couldn't fall back to sleep, it was ugly. At our house, we have a special name for that hour of the day, especially on your day off. Some call it the "crack of dawn." We call it "the butt crack of dawn" because being up at that hour, on your day of rest, is ugly, uglier than plumber's pants.
So, I love reading several chapters in sequence because it affords us the opportunity to discover themes and truths that are born out of the connectedness of the text as opposed to themes and truths that you find in the context of a few verses. Let me share one that came into focus from reading the first several chapters in the Gospel of John.
All of us have biases and assumptions that we carry. They are a part of us. They affect the way we think, the conclusions we reach, the judgments we make, and they even give us expectations. They result from our spiritual gifts, passions, personalities, life experiences, teaching we have embraced, and even cultural practices. Often, they are valid, justified, they make sense and in these instances, the worst that can happen is that we might be surprised if our expectations aren't met. But when they wrong, when our biases are incorrect. They mislead us, like a guide that pretends to know the way and in our following him, we too become lost.
(Read John 2:1-3, 8-10)
During such feasts, one would always serve the best wine first, just as the text stated. When so much wine is being consumed, the guests' palettes become numb with intoxication. The more they drink, the less they are able to appreciate the complexities of finer wines. Thus, the better wines are served first. Because this was everyone's practice, it became a cultural norm. In becoming a cultural norm, it created assumptions in people, assumptions that led to expectations. When people attended a wedding feast, no one had to explain that the first wine would be the best wine. It was their expectation and thus the surprise of the master of the feast in John 2. God is putting this truth into play here in John 2 in a culturally relevant way because He wants us to understand the impact biases and assumptions have on our lives, on our ability to make sound judgments, especially when those judgments have spiritual implications.
As one continues to read in the Gospel of John, chapter 3, chapter 4, chapter 5, chapter 6, this theme of biases and assumptions continues to confront us. Nicodemus in John 3 questioned, "how can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" His limiting bias was that the physical realm always had to be considered, even in dealing with spiritual matters. In John 4, the Samaritan woman upon realizing that she was in the presence of a prophet, a holy man of God, proceeds to ask Him a question of doctrine! What was her bias, that the primary purpose of religion is to solve our doctrinal and political conundrums. Isn't it interesting that she was willing to engage Him in a conversation about her deepest needs, her physical needs, her emotional needs, until she realized He was prophet. And then, it became about doctrine and politics. Then, there is the lame man at the Pool of Bethesda in John 5. Who told him that he had to lie and wait for the angel to stir the water for his healing? It was the cultural practice of his day. The text tells us this in verse 6, "When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, "Do you want to be made well?" Jesus was saying to him, shed your bias, you never had to wait for an angel, you just had to come to the Father in faith, and if it was His will to heal you, it would have been done. John 6, "…where shall we buy bread, that these may eat?" The biases and assumptions that we carry often blind us to the true realities of life with God. Thus, one of Jesus' greatest ministries on this earth was to expose the biases and assumptions of people's hearts, just as we have seen in these 6 chapters.
Hebrews 10:24-25
And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.
One of the great ministries that we find, that we experience, that we receive in the community of the church is that people, in assembling together, exhort one another, continuing the work of Christ, speaking the truth in love, helping one another see the biases and assumptions in our lives that blind us to the realities of life with God.
Be seen by others, expose yourself...well you know what I mean...let someone show you your biases!
Pastor Fred
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Question
I thought I'd share a question, the question, someone posed to me recently...why would a benevolent God condemn people to hell? I call it The Question because it is the one I find most commonly asked by people who are interested in Christianity but just can't seem to trust God because of this apparent contradiction...here are my thoughts on this one...
I'll be the first to admit that many churches have focused on the wrong thing. Churches have been trying to frighten people into repeating a prayer after some deacon standing at an altar for years that only makes the church's roles get bigger but I'm not sure has any real impact on the person, no real change happens in the person's life. It frustrates me!
I like your question but I think it is better understood when we answer the more important question. Does God make any promises to me? His promises are more than we can number! He promises a life filled with meaning, purpose, significance, acceptance, calm, peace, enthusiasm, perseverance, endurance...and yes, forever...the best possible existence in this life and then, not just indescribably better after death but that which will one day be indescribable will never end...almost too much for my simple mind to grasp.
I don't know if you are much of reader but C.S. Lewis has this great little book called The Great Divorce. He has a very interesting view of "hell." He basically says that the very essence of hell is an existence void of God with no hope of changing that condition. You should check it out, very interesting.
So back to your question...I was just thinking today that how you and I would agree that every country in the world has leader, a president, a dictator in some instances. There would be no arguing about that list, it's factual. The second thing we would quickly agree on is that to be protected by that leader, their laws...one would have to be a citizen of that country. I may know everything there is to know about a particular country but I only have rights where I have citizenship.
The Kingdom of Heaven is open to anyone. Citizenship is available to anyone. There is no criteria, no test, no status to meet, no nothing. Think of it as a country with completely open borders, with no border patrol!
There is however an issue of allegiance. While it is open to all, all who expect the rights of "country" must be willing to give a sacred vow of loyalty. In fact, I would argue that all we see in this temporal world in regards to citizenship and culture and etc. was by God's design to point us to how His Heavenly Kingdom works. The moment I pledged my allegiance to Jesus, yes, as my King, I became a citizen of Heaven, with all the rights and privileges according to His Constitution and Bill of Rights, what we know to be the Bible. That happened for me in December of 1990.
From that day, I began to learn what I like to call the culture of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus' teachings are all about culture...what is true, how to act in certain situations, how to feel in certain situations...when you really stop and listen to what Jesus said, He's saying this is how God's citizens should conduct their lives. I've devoted my life to it and I've got to tell you it has been one incredible journey...and is only going to get better if I truly believe all His promises, and I certainly do.
I also believe, just as with all sovereigns, there is an enemy. I believe the devil is real. A real presence in this universe. Real evil. I believe he has once sense of purpose and that is to prevent as many people as possible from "citizenship." I want to be direct with you because that is also one of my frustrations with some churches. People want real answers to their questions. I trust you do too. The devil's best trick is to get people to ask the wrong questions. Seriously, pick up and start reading in any of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and you'll find that Jesus is always correcting people's questions or just answering something all together different from what they asked...why...because He is trying to get them back on focus.
The question why would a benevolent God condemn people to an eternal hell is the wrong question. The right question is why would any person ever reject a benevolent God? Like C.S. Lewis, I believe that hell is both now and forever, for anyone who rejects God. Hell describes the state we are in, apart from a benevolent God. The devil wants us to believe that it is about God rejecting us. It is what the devil does...he takes a concept that is true and twists it just enough to distract us but leaves enough in there to keep us feeling like we are on the right track. That is the nature of deception. Are you a LOST fan? Sawyer, the con man in the series, will tell you a good con always has an element of truth.
This is where it gets serious. God says that citizenship has to be determined in this life, while we have breath. Why He designed it to be that way, I can't answer that. For me, I trust that since He created the universe, He knows what He is doing. Are there second chances for people after death? The Bible seems to be clear that there isn't, but for me, that's not the point. Why would anyone reject a benevolent God now, reject all the promises He makes to us in this life, why? He is so perfect, so complete, so everything. Why would anyone want to exist for another moment without all that He freely gives.
I know that you love your children deeply, like we do ours. But one day, when our children become adults, they too will have to choose to be in right relationship with us. Just like you do with your Mom. I know she loves you deeply, just as you love your son. I know this is not your situation but as an example if you chose a destructive life style, she would always be there for you to come home to but would never accommodate your own self destruction, if she truly loves you. I pray you'll never have to make that decision with your son...and I believe in your heart, you feel the truth of the words I am sharing with you. As parents, we unconditionally love our children but must never accommodate their self-destruction.
As a pastor, my heart breaks for all the children who reject their parents for a life that always ends up in heart ache and misery. The greater sin is however the parent who keeps them there because they are forever accommodating. God can't accommodate our own personal self destruction. God has never in all of history ever rejected anyone. He is always waiting with open arms. The question is whether or not we'll come home.
To take it a step further, one might say, "I understand all that but if He really loves us that much, why doesn't He just rescue us?" I would say He already has. Imagine someone you love standing in a burning building. You can see them, they can see you, you can hear one another. You are calling to them to come out, the door is open and safety is just steps away. Yet, perplexingly, they just stand there. I know courage would compel you to do what I would do, run in at your own risk. But what if they fight you, resist you, nothing you do is able to move them, they insist on staying.
Has God rushed in? I think He has. That is the beauty of the story of Jesus. Jesus came from heaven to earth, He rushed into the burning building of our humanity. Why won't people follow Him to safety, to life? I've devoted my whole life to asking people that question. Where are you?
I'm teaching about this on Sunday...I hope you come to listen. (blog readers can hear the pod cast from our site, http://www.thecitylifechurch.com/ for the Sunday message on 10/19).
Pastor Fred
I'll be the first to admit that many churches have focused on the wrong thing. Churches have been trying to frighten people into repeating a prayer after some deacon standing at an altar for years that only makes the church's roles get bigger but I'm not sure has any real impact on the person, no real change happens in the person's life. It frustrates me!
I like your question but I think it is better understood when we answer the more important question. Does God make any promises to me? His promises are more than we can number! He promises a life filled with meaning, purpose, significance, acceptance, calm, peace, enthusiasm, perseverance, endurance...and yes, forever...the best possible existence in this life and then, not just indescribably better after death but that which will one day be indescribable will never end...almost too much for my simple mind to grasp.
I don't know if you are much of reader but C.S. Lewis has this great little book called The Great Divorce. He has a very interesting view of "hell." He basically says that the very essence of hell is an existence void of God with no hope of changing that condition. You should check it out, very interesting.
So back to your question...I was just thinking today that how you and I would agree that every country in the world has leader, a president, a dictator in some instances. There would be no arguing about that list, it's factual. The second thing we would quickly agree on is that to be protected by that leader, their laws...one would have to be a citizen of that country. I may know everything there is to know about a particular country but I only have rights where I have citizenship.
The Kingdom of Heaven is open to anyone. Citizenship is available to anyone. There is no criteria, no test, no status to meet, no nothing. Think of it as a country with completely open borders, with no border patrol!
There is however an issue of allegiance. While it is open to all, all who expect the rights of "country" must be willing to give a sacred vow of loyalty. In fact, I would argue that all we see in this temporal world in regards to citizenship and culture and etc. was by God's design to point us to how His Heavenly Kingdom works. The moment I pledged my allegiance to Jesus, yes, as my King, I became a citizen of Heaven, with all the rights and privileges according to His Constitution and Bill of Rights, what we know to be the Bible. That happened for me in December of 1990.
From that day, I began to learn what I like to call the culture of the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus' teachings are all about culture...what is true, how to act in certain situations, how to feel in certain situations...when you really stop and listen to what Jesus said, He's saying this is how God's citizens should conduct their lives. I've devoted my life to it and I've got to tell you it has been one incredible journey...and is only going to get better if I truly believe all His promises, and I certainly do.
I also believe, just as with all sovereigns, there is an enemy. I believe the devil is real. A real presence in this universe. Real evil. I believe he has once sense of purpose and that is to prevent as many people as possible from "citizenship." I want to be direct with you because that is also one of my frustrations with some churches. People want real answers to their questions. I trust you do too. The devil's best trick is to get people to ask the wrong questions. Seriously, pick up and start reading in any of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and you'll find that Jesus is always correcting people's questions or just answering something all together different from what they asked...why...because He is trying to get them back on focus.
The question why would a benevolent God condemn people to an eternal hell is the wrong question. The right question is why would any person ever reject a benevolent God? Like C.S. Lewis, I believe that hell is both now and forever, for anyone who rejects God. Hell describes the state we are in, apart from a benevolent God. The devil wants us to believe that it is about God rejecting us. It is what the devil does...he takes a concept that is true and twists it just enough to distract us but leaves enough in there to keep us feeling like we are on the right track. That is the nature of deception. Are you a LOST fan? Sawyer, the con man in the series, will tell you a good con always has an element of truth.
This is where it gets serious. God says that citizenship has to be determined in this life, while we have breath. Why He designed it to be that way, I can't answer that. For me, I trust that since He created the universe, He knows what He is doing. Are there second chances for people after death? The Bible seems to be clear that there isn't, but for me, that's not the point. Why would anyone reject a benevolent God now, reject all the promises He makes to us in this life, why? He is so perfect, so complete, so everything. Why would anyone want to exist for another moment without all that He freely gives.
I know that you love your children deeply, like we do ours. But one day, when our children become adults, they too will have to choose to be in right relationship with us. Just like you do with your Mom. I know she loves you deeply, just as you love your son. I know this is not your situation but as an example if you chose a destructive life style, she would always be there for you to come home to but would never accommodate your own self destruction, if she truly loves you. I pray you'll never have to make that decision with your son...and I believe in your heart, you feel the truth of the words I am sharing with you. As parents, we unconditionally love our children but must never accommodate their self-destruction.
As a pastor, my heart breaks for all the children who reject their parents for a life that always ends up in heart ache and misery. The greater sin is however the parent who keeps them there because they are forever accommodating. God can't accommodate our own personal self destruction. God has never in all of history ever rejected anyone. He is always waiting with open arms. The question is whether or not we'll come home.
To take it a step further, one might say, "I understand all that but if He really loves us that much, why doesn't He just rescue us?" I would say He already has. Imagine someone you love standing in a burning building. You can see them, they can see you, you can hear one another. You are calling to them to come out, the door is open and safety is just steps away. Yet, perplexingly, they just stand there. I know courage would compel you to do what I would do, run in at your own risk. But what if they fight you, resist you, nothing you do is able to move them, they insist on staying.
Has God rushed in? I think He has. That is the beauty of the story of Jesus. Jesus came from heaven to earth, He rushed into the burning building of our humanity. Why won't people follow Him to safety, to life? I've devoted my whole life to asking people that question. Where are you?
I'm teaching about this on Sunday...I hope you come to listen. (blog readers can hear the pod cast from our site, http://www.thecitylifechurch.com/ for the Sunday message on 10/19).
Pastor Fred
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Eternal Punishment?
Here's a great question someone posed to me recently. What happened to people in the times of the Old Testament when they died? Also, here is a link to the doctrinal position of The Assemblies of God regarding eternal punishment. I find their site has doctrinal positions that resonate deeply with me, as well as a host of positions papers on contemporary issues.
http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4172_eternal_punishment.pdf
There is a place of paradise and a place of suffering where the righteous and the unrighteous go after death. How we understand the difference between the times of the OT and the NT is still and will always be slightly elusive because we just do not fully know, yet! (1 Corinthians 13:12)
However, Luke 16:19-31 is a great source of at least some understanding. It is clear here too that before Jesus, there was a means to paradise through the general revelation of God of Himself to the world. There was just not yet any way for the Spirit of God to dwell within the spirit of man until after Christ's death.
Some argue that before Jesus' death, this place of paradise for the OT righteous was not yet in the "full" presence of God...like a waiting room and that after Jesus' death, it was possible for them to be in His full presence, no longer vulnerable to His holiness because of the atoning work of Jesus on the cross. Those waiting in a place of suffering is not as confusing. The Bible is clear they will continue to wait in their suffering until their final judgement and what we term as the "second death" when they are cast into internal separation from God.
Others believe that paradise for OT and NT has always been the same and that how people from the OT could have been in the presence of God's holiness before Jesus' death is a mystery we will not fully understand until we get there ourselves. The one thing we know is not true is that after death we "sleep" or in some sort of holding phase...Luke 16 clearly rejects this. We also know that just as the suffering of the unrighteous will be transitioned from where they are now to a different place (see article above), that the paradise the Bible speaks of now will also transition. Jesus is at work creating a new heaven, a new paradise for all the righteous to enter into with Him for all eternity after the final judgement. (see the Assemblies of God web-site for a more detailed description of these, under the 16 Fundamental Truths, numbers 13, 14, 15, & 16).
Regardless of where you shake out on this, remember, eternal paradise and eternal punishment are our only two choices and the difference is based on a single choice we make in this life...embracing Jesus fully and being a devoted follower of His now. I hope you'll take the journey with us, so you can discover the full depth of life now and have the hope of paradise at your departure!
Pastor Fred
http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4172_eternal_punishment.pdf
There is a place of paradise and a place of suffering where the righteous and the unrighteous go after death. How we understand the difference between the times of the OT and the NT is still and will always be slightly elusive because we just do not fully know, yet! (1 Corinthians 13:12)
However, Luke 16:19-31 is a great source of at least some understanding. It is clear here too that before Jesus, there was a means to paradise through the general revelation of God of Himself to the world. There was just not yet any way for the Spirit of God to dwell within the spirit of man until after Christ's death.
Some argue that before Jesus' death, this place of paradise for the OT righteous was not yet in the "full" presence of God...like a waiting room and that after Jesus' death, it was possible for them to be in His full presence, no longer vulnerable to His holiness because of the atoning work of Jesus on the cross. Those waiting in a place of suffering is not as confusing. The Bible is clear they will continue to wait in their suffering until their final judgement and what we term as the "second death" when they are cast into internal separation from God.
Others believe that paradise for OT and NT has always been the same and that how people from the OT could have been in the presence of God's holiness before Jesus' death is a mystery we will not fully understand until we get there ourselves. The one thing we know is not true is that after death we "sleep" or in some sort of holding phase...Luke 16 clearly rejects this. We also know that just as the suffering of the unrighteous will be transitioned from where they are now to a different place (see article above), that the paradise the Bible speaks of now will also transition. Jesus is at work creating a new heaven, a new paradise for all the righteous to enter into with Him for all eternity after the final judgement. (see the Assemblies of God web-site for a more detailed description of these, under the 16 Fundamental Truths, numbers 13, 14, 15, & 16).
Regardless of where you shake out on this, remember, eternal paradise and eternal punishment are our only two choices and the difference is based on a single choice we make in this life...embracing Jesus fully and being a devoted follower of His now. I hope you'll take the journey with us, so you can discover the full depth of life now and have the hope of paradise at your departure!
Pastor Fred
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Adultery or Matrimony
The Sermon on the Mount is one of Jesus' most well known expositions on how to live out our beliefs day to day. Clearly, for Jesus, faith is not something to be explored in thought alone but reflected in our actions, our attitudes, our choices, instructing us, defining us, directing us, the foundation our identity. Jesus did not teach about spirituality as a component of our humanity but as the transcendent context over our entire lives. And in the fifth chapter of Matthew, verses 31 and 32, Jesus lays down some teaching that has been a source discussion, debate, and even division as He speaks to how our love for God and one another should govern marriage relationships, specifically divorce and remarriage.
"It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce. But I tell you, everyone who divorces his wife, except in a case of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
The Apostle Paul comes along and adds to what is often viewed as a "list that releases" by stating in his first letter to the Corinthians, the seventh chapter, that if one has a spouse who is not a devoted follower of Christ and does not want to be married to their spouse who is a devoted follower of Christ (the implication being that the believing spouse is being asked to choose between their faith in Christ and their spouse), then the unbelieving spouse is free to leave the marriage, to divorce.
The third most common reason clergy are willing to preside over weddings even if their has been a divorce in the past of one of the engaged parties is if the divorce occurred prior to their making a full profession of faith in Christ and living as one of His devoted followers. The logic being, and I agree, that we cannot expect people to live according to scripture in their spiritually unregenerate condition.
Because I believe the latter two are seldom in dispute, I want to concentrate my comments on the words spoken by Jesus in Matthew chapter 5. Granted, some would say that what Paul writes in Corinthians may be clear in regards to a person being free to divorce but being free to remarry is another issue entirely. We won't take up that issue in this posting, but I will say that I believe Paul's use of the phrase "is not bound" in verse 15 of 1 Corinthians chapter 7 implies being free to remarry if divorced in a way that is Biblical.
So, let's create the most difficult of scenarios. A man and a woman are devoted followers of Christ and their marriage ends in divorce. There is no adultery, by either spouse. We can imagine any of a number of instances. For example, they had special needs children and the demand of their care exhausted them. Or, one person seemed only interested in their career, never being home, completely neglecting the emotional needs of the other. Or, there was some trauma experienced, overwhelming grief of some kind that left one or both emotionally inept. Or, two people came to no longer love one another, both befuddled as to how they got there but both agreed the marriage was over. And for good measure, let's make it hard on ourselves, one spouse begged the other to stay, pledged to do whatever it would take to make it work, yet in the end, the other spouse denied their plea and the divorce ensued.
I'm sure you can think of many other circumstances, maybe your own personal circumstances. Some are maybe more complex, others maybe even more seemly inexcusable. The question before us is simply, are either spouse free to remarry without being viewed by God and The Church as an adulterer?
I may be on the verge of being accused of over-simplifying this very serious matter, but in my defense, I think that is in keeping with how Jesus Himself often responded to complex questions posed to Him. I don't believe that God ever intended the instructions of Jesus and Paul to be a closed, exhaustive list. I believe that God intended to teach a principle that is conveyed through examples given. I believe the principle that distinguishes between adultery or matrimony is whether or not the marriage has suffered damage that was irreparable. Jesus is saying that sexual immorality can be irreparable. Paul is saying spiritual discord can be irreparable. I believe God would agree that repeated physical abuse can leave a marriage in an irreparable state. If we take the stance that Matthew 5 and 1 Corinthians 7 are exhaustive lists, we've made no room for abuse. This alone compels me to believe a principle of irreparable condition is being taught and not a list to legalistically apply.
My approach as a pastor is to help a person who is divorced and intends to remarry to explore whether or not their past marriage is reconcilable or irreparable. Through prayer, honest conversation, hard questions, even professional counseling, we trust the Holy Spirit will guide us. This must be an honest, committed process, one that is often painful and even excrucitating. I am NOT proposing an "easy out" for people that just want to move on with The Church's "blessing." We are talking about a soul searching journey that may very well redeem a past relationship and if not, well prepare them so as not to repeat their past.
If we agree that the former marriage is irreconcilable, then a new process begins. Is it wise for the relationship they are in now to move forward towards marriage and how? There are a host of assessment tools available to clergy today, like Marriage Savers and for us to not avail ourselves and our marriage counselees to such resources is irresponsible. People who have been married before, if they have children, if there is abuse and trauma in their past, if they are culturally mixed...we must prepare them for the challenges this proposed marriage will face. Otherwise, we set them up for failure, more divorce.
If you would accuse me of lessening the sacredness of marriage, that I am elevating the need of the individual above the holiness of matrimony, I would rebut by saying that if we are going to turn the tide of divorce in our society, restore the sacredness of marriage, it will only be through the abundant propagation of healthy Christ centered marriages! Liberty grounded in wisdom and not restraint born out of legalism is always the prudent course.
I don't believe that God works off of lists. I believe His being is governed by truth. And the governing truth for me as a pastor in regards to discerning between Adultery and Matrimony is the principle of the irreparable relationship, beyond repair, that not only releases people to divorce but also gives them the liberty to re-marry.
Thanks for thinking with me!
Pastor Fred
"It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce. But I tell you, everyone who divorces his wife, except in a case of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
The Apostle Paul comes along and adds to what is often viewed as a "list that releases" by stating in his first letter to the Corinthians, the seventh chapter, that if one has a spouse who is not a devoted follower of Christ and does not want to be married to their spouse who is a devoted follower of Christ (the implication being that the believing spouse is being asked to choose between their faith in Christ and their spouse), then the unbelieving spouse is free to leave the marriage, to divorce.
The third most common reason clergy are willing to preside over weddings even if their has been a divorce in the past of one of the engaged parties is if the divorce occurred prior to their making a full profession of faith in Christ and living as one of His devoted followers. The logic being, and I agree, that we cannot expect people to live according to scripture in their spiritually unregenerate condition.
Because I believe the latter two are seldom in dispute, I want to concentrate my comments on the words spoken by Jesus in Matthew chapter 5. Granted, some would say that what Paul writes in Corinthians may be clear in regards to a person being free to divorce but being free to remarry is another issue entirely. We won't take up that issue in this posting, but I will say that I believe Paul's use of the phrase "is not bound" in verse 15 of 1 Corinthians chapter 7 implies being free to remarry if divorced in a way that is Biblical.
So, let's create the most difficult of scenarios. A man and a woman are devoted followers of Christ and their marriage ends in divorce. There is no adultery, by either spouse. We can imagine any of a number of instances. For example, they had special needs children and the demand of their care exhausted them. Or, one person seemed only interested in their career, never being home, completely neglecting the emotional needs of the other. Or, there was some trauma experienced, overwhelming grief of some kind that left one or both emotionally inept. Or, two people came to no longer love one another, both befuddled as to how they got there but both agreed the marriage was over. And for good measure, let's make it hard on ourselves, one spouse begged the other to stay, pledged to do whatever it would take to make it work, yet in the end, the other spouse denied their plea and the divorce ensued.
I'm sure you can think of many other circumstances, maybe your own personal circumstances. Some are maybe more complex, others maybe even more seemly inexcusable. The question before us is simply, are either spouse free to remarry without being viewed by God and The Church as an adulterer?
I may be on the verge of being accused of over-simplifying this very serious matter, but in my defense, I think that is in keeping with how Jesus Himself often responded to complex questions posed to Him. I don't believe that God ever intended the instructions of Jesus and Paul to be a closed, exhaustive list. I believe that God intended to teach a principle that is conveyed through examples given. I believe the principle that distinguishes between adultery or matrimony is whether or not the marriage has suffered damage that was irreparable. Jesus is saying that sexual immorality can be irreparable. Paul is saying spiritual discord can be irreparable. I believe God would agree that repeated physical abuse can leave a marriage in an irreparable state. If we take the stance that Matthew 5 and 1 Corinthians 7 are exhaustive lists, we've made no room for abuse. This alone compels me to believe a principle of irreparable condition is being taught and not a list to legalistically apply.
My approach as a pastor is to help a person who is divorced and intends to remarry to explore whether or not their past marriage is reconcilable or irreparable. Through prayer, honest conversation, hard questions, even professional counseling, we trust the Holy Spirit will guide us. This must be an honest, committed process, one that is often painful and even excrucitating. I am NOT proposing an "easy out" for people that just want to move on with The Church's "blessing." We are talking about a soul searching journey that may very well redeem a past relationship and if not, well prepare them so as not to repeat their past.
If we agree that the former marriage is irreconcilable, then a new process begins. Is it wise for the relationship they are in now to move forward towards marriage and how? There are a host of assessment tools available to clergy today, like Marriage Savers and for us to not avail ourselves and our marriage counselees to such resources is irresponsible. People who have been married before, if they have children, if there is abuse and trauma in their past, if they are culturally mixed...we must prepare them for the challenges this proposed marriage will face. Otherwise, we set them up for failure, more divorce.
If you would accuse me of lessening the sacredness of marriage, that I am elevating the need of the individual above the holiness of matrimony, I would rebut by saying that if we are going to turn the tide of divorce in our society, restore the sacredness of marriage, it will only be through the abundant propagation of healthy Christ centered marriages! Liberty grounded in wisdom and not restraint born out of legalism is always the prudent course.
I don't believe that God works off of lists. I believe His being is governed by truth. And the governing truth for me as a pastor in regards to discerning between Adultery and Matrimony is the principle of the irreparable relationship, beyond repair, that not only releases people to divorce but also gives them the liberty to re-marry.
Thanks for thinking with me!
Pastor Fred
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Camping
We went camping as a family for the first time this past weekend to celebrate my son's 8th birthday. Advice: don't choose a 100 degree day for your first camping trip! Advice Two: Make sure your wife actually brings the tent you are supposed to sleep in!!
One of the amenities this camp site had, yes, amenities, there must be some, was what they called a comfort station. Let's just say that a shower after 12 hours of 100 degrees makes the name comfort station seem too inadequate to express the relief one can find from cold running water. Being in the water, at the comfort station brought a profound thought to me. Am I a comfort station to people around me? I began to think of all the people I come in contact with every day, strangers, acquaintances, and friends alike...is my presence refreshing, rejuvenating, comforting? It should be. Jesus certainly was. If you were within His reach, their was comfort to be had. I want my life to be that, don't you?
So, back to the tent...did I mention that my wife packed the tent she was sleeping in? It was four person tent, just the right size for mom and the three children! I slept out under the night sky, sounds chivalrous doesn't it! Amazingly, there were no bugs, still can't figure that one out. I'm counting it towards divine intervention! It actually wasn't that bad until I was awakened by a noise of some sort. Since it was a full moon, you didn't feel too terribly vulnerable. You could see quite well. There at the foot of my air mattress, yes we did have air mattresses, unfortunately not tempurpedic!, was a raccoon I'm quite certain was big enough to star in a movie entitled, "The Raccoon That Ate Lake Anna State Park." It was massive. I hurled some rocks at that didn't seem to phase it at all. I then reached for my aluminum bat, yes, that along with an air mattress are a great comfort combo, and my flashlight. I had this picture of being stitched up in the Emergency Room telling the attendant, "...well you see, there was this raccoon..." He shuffled away as I stood up...more came later throughout the night however, one actually opened our cooler! I'm sure those campsites are a buffet throughout the year for the raccoon population there. I got me thinking though. What kind of critters do have in my life? Have I grown accustomed to, tolerating, gotten used to, anything in my life that is robbing me. Maybe it seems harmless, maybe it seems not too terribly threatening, maybe even a little humorous, but ultimately a consuming presence. Holy Spirit, is there anything like that in me?
My last reflection from our trip was that they had comment cards to fill out. Cards on which you could make suggestions, share ideas, give feedback. If we had one of those attached to us, open to anyone who may want to take one and pass on some thoughts to us, about us, what would they write? What would we find characterizes us? How would others define us? We can learn a lot about ourselves through the experiences of others who are with us. Maybe you know some friends who would be willing to do something like this for you. Make up some comment cards...heck "borrow" one from somewhere and copy it. Ask some close friends to fill it out and be honest in what they write. One of the great gifts of friendship is the voice it is into our lives, revealing our blind spots, making it possible for us to change...Jesus said in Matthew 5:48, "Be ye therefore perfect." We won't ever get all the way there, but let's endeavor to get closer and closer throughout our days.
Pastor Fred
One of the amenities this camp site had, yes, amenities, there must be some, was what they called a comfort station. Let's just say that a shower after 12 hours of 100 degrees makes the name comfort station seem too inadequate to express the relief one can find from cold running water. Being in the water, at the comfort station brought a profound thought to me. Am I a comfort station to people around me? I began to think of all the people I come in contact with every day, strangers, acquaintances, and friends alike...is my presence refreshing, rejuvenating, comforting? It should be. Jesus certainly was. If you were within His reach, their was comfort to be had. I want my life to be that, don't you?
So, back to the tent...did I mention that my wife packed the tent she was sleeping in? It was four person tent, just the right size for mom and the three children! I slept out under the night sky, sounds chivalrous doesn't it! Amazingly, there were no bugs, still can't figure that one out. I'm counting it towards divine intervention! It actually wasn't that bad until I was awakened by a noise of some sort. Since it was a full moon, you didn't feel too terribly vulnerable. You could see quite well. There at the foot of my air mattress, yes we did have air mattresses, unfortunately not tempurpedic!, was a raccoon I'm quite certain was big enough to star in a movie entitled, "The Raccoon That Ate Lake Anna State Park." It was massive. I hurled some rocks at that didn't seem to phase it at all. I then reached for my aluminum bat, yes, that along with an air mattress are a great comfort combo, and my flashlight. I had this picture of being stitched up in the Emergency Room telling the attendant, "...well you see, there was this raccoon..." He shuffled away as I stood up...more came later throughout the night however, one actually opened our cooler! I'm sure those campsites are a buffet throughout the year for the raccoon population there. I got me thinking though. What kind of critters do have in my life? Have I grown accustomed to, tolerating, gotten used to, anything in my life that is robbing me. Maybe it seems harmless, maybe it seems not too terribly threatening, maybe even a little humorous, but ultimately a consuming presence. Holy Spirit, is there anything like that in me?
My last reflection from our trip was that they had comment cards to fill out. Cards on which you could make suggestions, share ideas, give feedback. If we had one of those attached to us, open to anyone who may want to take one and pass on some thoughts to us, about us, what would they write? What would we find characterizes us? How would others define us? We can learn a lot about ourselves through the experiences of others who are with us. Maybe you know some friends who would be willing to do something like this for you. Make up some comment cards...heck "borrow" one from somewhere and copy it. Ask some close friends to fill it out and be honest in what they write. One of the great gifts of friendship is the voice it is into our lives, revealing our blind spots, making it possible for us to change...Jesus said in Matthew 5:48, "Be ye therefore perfect." We won't ever get all the way there, but let's endeavor to get closer and closer throughout our days.
Pastor Fred
Friday, July 4, 2008
Providence
My intellectual affair with Pascal has come to an end...do you ever feel that way? Do you sometimes get frustrated with your inability to finish so many books? I know this plagues me! But I am learning to appreciate the impact and benefit I get out of however much I read, whatever progress I make. I think we all struggle with our puritanical drive to always finish what we started. Life is too short to expend our energy and emotion finishing things that don't ultimately matter. So, be free! If a book stops speaking life into, stops being as enjoyable as it once was, put it down! Make sure your perseverance reservoir is reserved for following through on more eternally significant fronts, like your family relationships, your commitment to spiritual disciplines, your devotion to your local church...let these things be the benefactor of your perseverance reservoir when enthusiasm seems to wane, let your unfailing follow through be given to what truly matters!
Your God given destiny is another worthy recipient of your unwavering determination. Did you know that God is not just the God of the details of this universe, but He is equally the God of the details of your life. He has a perfect plan for your life and feeling of deep meaning, purpose, and significance will be forever elusive until you find a sense of confidence that you are in the middle of your destiny. This idea of providence is believing that God is intentional, directive, active, not passive, not lackadaisical about the intricate details of this world. And only this world but our individual lives. He is orchestrating the elements of of our moments to lead and direct us into a specific future.
If these thoughts are foreign to you, let me recommend a book to you that I am about to use in taking a couple of small groups of men through. The book is entitled "Finding Your Greater Yes" by Dan Erickson. He has a ministry called "People Matter Ministries." You could Google that to find out more about him. I have had the privilege of hearing him speak a couple times and one of the things I so appreciate about Dan is that he just doesn't get us excited about our destiny, what he calls our "greater yes" but he shows us how to determine it and then run after it! You don't want to miss your "greater yes!"
This 4th of July weekend I am reminded of all of this because our founding fathers and mothers understood that God of this universe was the God of their individual lives that they had a role in history, in fact, that as they gave themselves fully to their personal destinies, together, they would be fulfilling God broader destiny for a nation, a nation that had and has a destiny in this universe. Wow! Imagine! God sees you and I, personally and individually as indispensable contributors to His great, grand, and eternal plan for eternity!
I hope you take the time to watch this 7 minute media clip for how our nation came to have a National Anthem. In it, like it did for me, you will be reminding that you too have a story, maybe it will never be written in history books, but it will be recorded in the books of heaven. You have a part to play in this world, a vital part, a necessary part, an essential part. Don't miss it!
http://wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=9954
Have a Jesus Filled 4th!
Pastor Fred
Your God given destiny is another worthy recipient of your unwavering determination. Did you know that God is not just the God of the details of this universe, but He is equally the God of the details of your life. He has a perfect plan for your life and feeling of deep meaning, purpose, and significance will be forever elusive until you find a sense of confidence that you are in the middle of your destiny. This idea of providence is believing that God is intentional, directive, active, not passive, not lackadaisical about the intricate details of this world. And only this world but our individual lives. He is orchestrating the elements of of our moments to lead and direct us into a specific future.
If these thoughts are foreign to you, let me recommend a book to you that I am about to use in taking a couple of small groups of men through. The book is entitled "Finding Your Greater Yes" by Dan Erickson. He has a ministry called "People Matter Ministries." You could Google that to find out more about him. I have had the privilege of hearing him speak a couple times and one of the things I so appreciate about Dan is that he just doesn't get us excited about our destiny, what he calls our "greater yes" but he shows us how to determine it and then run after it! You don't want to miss your "greater yes!"
This 4th of July weekend I am reminded of all of this because our founding fathers and mothers understood that God of this universe was the God of their individual lives that they had a role in history, in fact, that as they gave themselves fully to their personal destinies, together, they would be fulfilling God broader destiny for a nation, a nation that had and has a destiny in this universe. Wow! Imagine! God sees you and I, personally and individually as indispensable contributors to His great, grand, and eternal plan for eternity!
I hope you take the time to watch this 7 minute media clip for how our nation came to have a National Anthem. In it, like it did for me, you will be reminding that you too have a story, maybe it will never be written in history books, but it will be recorded in the books of heaven. You have a part to play in this world, a vital part, a necessary part, an essential part. Don't miss it!
http://wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=9954
Have a Jesus Filled 4th!
Pastor Fred
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Mind on Fire
I came across a book the other day at my local public library (it's a building in a neighborhood where lots of books are kept that are loned to people for free!) called Mind on Fire. Apparently, it is a in a series called Classics of Faith and Devotion. This one in particular is a compilation of Blaise Pascal's writings in his famous Pensees. The sub-title for Mind on Fire: A Faith for the Skeptical and Indifferent...what a great line! For the next two weeks, at least, I want to share some excerpts from this book.
"In what I am writing, let no one think I am saying anything new. It is only the arrangement of my material that may be new. For it is like a game of tennis, where we both play with the same ball, but one of us uses it to better advantage. So I would like it to be said that I am simply using well-worn words in a new framework. For when familiar thoughts are rearranged, they simply present a different way of communicating the truth. So too, we can use our words."
"Before we examine the evidence of the truth of Christianity, I need to point out an inconsistency of those who are careless about the truth. Yet it is vital to them, for it intimately affects their lives. Of all their miscalculations, this is what most blatantly shows up their blind folly. It is this: This present life is momentary, but the state of death is eternal. How terribly important it is, then, to live in the light of the eternal, since it ultimately affects all that we do or think! Since nothing is more obvious than this observation, how absurd it is to behave differently.
Seen from this angle, how absurd it is for people to go through life without regard for their final destiny. Instead, they are led as they feel inclined and as they indulge themselves, unreflective and careless, as though they could wipe out eternity and enjoy some passing happiness merely by represing their thoughts. Yet death is real, for it threatens us at every moment of time, while eternity is also real, and is in fact a threat of ultimate destruction and misery.
This creates the prospect of terrible consequences; indeed, it is the prospect of eternal damnation. Yet people do no even bother to find out if eternity is merely an old wives' tale. Though this stares them in the face, they do not even trouble to find out if the arguments for it are valid. They have no idea whether they should or should not refuse to face up to this question. What an appalling way to behave!"
Blaise Pascal (1623-16662)
How about you?
Pastor Fred
"In what I am writing, let no one think I am saying anything new. It is only the arrangement of my material that may be new. For it is like a game of tennis, where we both play with the same ball, but one of us uses it to better advantage. So I would like it to be said that I am simply using well-worn words in a new framework. For when familiar thoughts are rearranged, they simply present a different way of communicating the truth. So too, we can use our words."
"Before we examine the evidence of the truth of Christianity, I need to point out an inconsistency of those who are careless about the truth. Yet it is vital to them, for it intimately affects their lives. Of all their miscalculations, this is what most blatantly shows up their blind folly. It is this: This present life is momentary, but the state of death is eternal. How terribly important it is, then, to live in the light of the eternal, since it ultimately affects all that we do or think! Since nothing is more obvious than this observation, how absurd it is to behave differently.
Seen from this angle, how absurd it is for people to go through life without regard for their final destiny. Instead, they are led as they feel inclined and as they indulge themselves, unreflective and careless, as though they could wipe out eternity and enjoy some passing happiness merely by represing their thoughts. Yet death is real, for it threatens us at every moment of time, while eternity is also real, and is in fact a threat of ultimate destruction and misery.
This creates the prospect of terrible consequences; indeed, it is the prospect of eternal damnation. Yet people do no even bother to find out if eternity is merely an old wives' tale. Though this stares them in the face, they do not even trouble to find out if the arguments for it are valid. They have no idea whether they should or should not refuse to face up to this question. What an appalling way to behave!"
Blaise Pascal (1623-16662)
How about you?
Pastor Fred
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Planted or Potted?
My father-in-law who pastors a church a Williamsburg, VA shares a weekly email to encourge his congregation and others whith whom he ministers...myself being one of them, which I must say is a true privilege. He is a wise man of God who has been in vocational ministry for most of his life. I benefit from his insight and discernment as often as I can! Here is a sampling...from Pastor Tom Wells.
I was driving down the road the other day and the thought dropped into my heart out of Psalm 1:3 where it says, “HE SHALL BE LIKE A TREE PLANTED…”. This verse is explaining what will happen to the person who is “blessed”…because ‘he walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the paths of sinners nor sits in the seat of the scornful’. There’s a big difference between a tree PLANTED and a tree POTTED. The tree potted looks the same right now, but does not have the potential of growing and bearing fruit. The potted tree just showcases what a young tree looks like before it begins to really ‘take off’ in its native habitat. The potted tree is green now, but has not grown the right root system to sustain it if a dry time comes; that tree is very dependent upon getting water daily and it takes much more moment to moment care…because it is not “planted” yet.
The PLANTED tree however, has a root ball where the canvas has been taken off and has negotiated a long term stay IN THE GROUND. It has made the decision to be IN THERE for the long haul…and has forfeited the life of being transient. We are much the same being “God’s field or garden” (1 Corinthians 3:9); before salvation we were not in soil that we could grow spiritually because we were spiritually dormant. But when we made that decision to give our life to Christ and follow Him, God undertakes the transition of taking us from being “potted” in our own cares, goals and preferences…to being planted in His House, in Him. The old ‘potted’ lifestyle has to go…the frequent waterings of selfishness and stroking our egos has to die so we can be TREES PLANTED BY THE RIVERS OF WATER. Those rivers flow in God’s House, in God’s building made out of living stones. This is where we come into a commitment to the Lord by being planted in the House of God: the benefits are plentiful…4-fold:
You’ll be planted by “the rivers of water”: lots of moisture, fulfillment, purpose as your life takes a God-track. Relational fulfillment and growing purpose abounds…
You will “bring forth your fruit in its season”: your life will begin to carry the weight of maturing, ripening fruit that affects people and brings lasting change.
“Your leaf also shall not wither”: in the past we had seasons of things going well and working out…but those were reciprocated by times where our leaf “withered”…showed the signs of no life and lost purpose, not knowing where we were going. That STOPS when I get ‘planted’ in the House of God (local church).
“And whatever he does shall prosper”: there is a decree that God will be your promotion and He will sustain what you do and make sure it multiplies.
This is Pastor Fred again...remember, wisdom is not so much what you understand to be true but how you live that understanding every day. Let's agree to be people of wisdom today, planted trees, living up to the truth we know and have connected to our lives.
Happy Memorial Day weekend! Find someone you know, a family who may have someone close to them serving in the military and let them know how much you appreciate their sacrifice!!!
Life to the Full!
Pastor Fred
I was driving down the road the other day and the thought dropped into my heart out of Psalm 1:3 where it says, “HE SHALL BE LIKE A TREE PLANTED…”. This verse is explaining what will happen to the person who is “blessed”…because ‘he walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stands in the paths of sinners nor sits in the seat of the scornful’. There’s a big difference between a tree PLANTED and a tree POTTED. The tree potted looks the same right now, but does not have the potential of growing and bearing fruit. The potted tree just showcases what a young tree looks like before it begins to really ‘take off’ in its native habitat. The potted tree is green now, but has not grown the right root system to sustain it if a dry time comes; that tree is very dependent upon getting water daily and it takes much more moment to moment care…because it is not “planted” yet.
The PLANTED tree however, has a root ball where the canvas has been taken off and has negotiated a long term stay IN THE GROUND. It has made the decision to be IN THERE for the long haul…and has forfeited the life of being transient. We are much the same being “God’s field or garden” (1 Corinthians 3:9); before salvation we were not in soil that we could grow spiritually because we were spiritually dormant. But when we made that decision to give our life to Christ and follow Him, God undertakes the transition of taking us from being “potted” in our own cares, goals and preferences…to being planted in His House, in Him. The old ‘potted’ lifestyle has to go…the frequent waterings of selfishness and stroking our egos has to die so we can be TREES PLANTED BY THE RIVERS OF WATER. Those rivers flow in God’s House, in God’s building made out of living stones. This is where we come into a commitment to the Lord by being planted in the House of God: the benefits are plentiful…4-fold:
You’ll be planted by “the rivers of water”: lots of moisture, fulfillment, purpose as your life takes a God-track. Relational fulfillment and growing purpose abounds…
You will “bring forth your fruit in its season”: your life will begin to carry the weight of maturing, ripening fruit that affects people and brings lasting change.
“Your leaf also shall not wither”: in the past we had seasons of things going well and working out…but those were reciprocated by times where our leaf “withered”…showed the signs of no life and lost purpose, not knowing where we were going. That STOPS when I get ‘planted’ in the House of God (local church).
“And whatever he does shall prosper”: there is a decree that God will be your promotion and He will sustain what you do and make sure it multiplies.
This is Pastor Fred again...remember, wisdom is not so much what you understand to be true but how you live that understanding every day. Let's agree to be people of wisdom today, planted trees, living up to the truth we know and have connected to our lives.
Happy Memorial Day weekend! Find someone you know, a family who may have someone close to them serving in the military and let them know how much you appreciate their sacrifice!!!
Life to the Full!
Pastor Fred
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Profanity
Do you have a cringe? You know, that internal reaction we have at the moment we encounter something we deem inappropriate. Think for a minute, when do you cringe? Is it when you see a parent reacting in anger to his/her child instead of bringing instruction with grace? Is it when you see on the news a minority suffering injustice because of prejudice? I would hope all of us cringe at least in the face of the most egregious offenses we often have the occasion to observe.
But, how sensitive is our cringe? Does it take something most all of society would agree as being egregious to trigger our cringe? I want my cringe to react in concert with Jesus' cringe. We've all heard of the popular WWJD (what would Jesus do)...I am asking WWJC (when would Jesus cringe)? For example, we are watching some form of media: movie, television, on the web, and something sensual occurs, something suggestive, do we cringe...WWJC? We are with friends and someone begins to tell a joke that demeans another ethnicity, do we cringe...WWJC? We are listening...music, media, comedian, friend, stranger...and the expletives come, profane words are used, do we cringe...WWJC?
I would like to suggest that one reason we should be cringing at profanity is because Proverbs tells us that "we eat from the fruit of our lips..." (I'm leaving the reference out in hopes that you'll do some digging yourself to find it, do a word search for fruit and lips and see what you can find in Proverbs). In a spiritual sense, we consume the words we speak. Angry people stay angry in part because they are feasting on angry words continually. Desperate people stay desperate in part because they are feasting on desperate words continually. You can keep that list going...now, certainly I am not suggesting that if we only change our words, we immediately change our disposition. However, I am saying with confidence that our disposition will not change without a change in our words. It is a key part. So much of our physical world was created by God to teach us about our spiritual life. Think of the impact the kinds of food you eat has on your physical well being. Why should the words we "eat" be any different? They aren't. We consume them spiritually and they either bring healthy nourishment or destructive effects.
How, does this relate to our cringe? We should be cringing because of what that person is doing to themselves. When we subject ourselves to a person spewing expletives, we are watching a person poisoning themselves; it is spiritually self-destructive behavior. Do you think Jesus cringes at that? Do we?
There is also the Biblical principle of whatever we allow to be planted in our lives will produce fruit (look in Galatians 6). Meaning, that the profanity that comes from another isn't just hurting them, it harms us. We should be cringing because by subjecting ourselves to profanity there is a planting taking place in our lives in a spiritual sense. Now follow me here, in Genesis the principal of producing after one's own kind was established. Meaning that an apple tree creates apples and only apples. In the same way, if we continually subject ourselves to profane language from others, what kind of fruit do you think it will produce in us: profane thoughts, profane language, all things profane. Fertile soils nurtures everything that is planted within. We are spiritually fertile; what kinds of seeds are we accepting?
What about laziness and ignorance? Does the Bible treat them as spiritual issues? I think in reading the book of Proverbs, one would be hard pressed to make an argument otherwise. Why is this relevant? Because profanity, in my opinion, is usually a result of one or the other. It is a matter if ignorance when we look to profanity to express feeling and thoughts that are larger or inconsistent with the vocabulary we have developed. We search for words, find none, reach for an expletive and move on to the next word. They are intellectual gap fillers. Reading, learning, conversation, contemplation, etc. all contribute to a growing vocabulary. We should all be committed to expelling ignorance from our lives, especially in the area of expression.
What about laziness? That is when we have a sufficient vocabulary to express whatever we may be feeling or thinking yet out of laziness, a poor intellectual work ethic, we reach for an expletive because it takes less mental effort than searching for the right words. Do you know people who only use profanity when they are tired, angry, frustrated...? When we are emotionally weary, intellectual laziness sets in and the expletives roll. Are we cringing yet, is He, WWJC?
Now, I'm not suggesting that we all deputize ourselves and become the profanity police. Remember, if our response to the people around us is judgmental, self-righteous, and arrogant then we will be causing them to cringe, the great cringe exchange! If it is a stranger, chances are praying for them quietly in the moment is your best response. If my children are being subjected to it then maybe I will kindly ask them to be mindful of the children that are present, and always I use it to talk to my children about there are words we don't use and why. If we know them, instead of coming down on them, why not say something like this, "Could I share something with you I learned recently about words?" No one likes to be judged, but I have seldom met a person who is not willing to have a gracious, caring conversation.
In closing, remember, you can control most of what comes into your life, and certainly, you have complete control over what you are putting in the lives of others.
WWJC?
Pastor Fred
But, how sensitive is our cringe? Does it take something most all of society would agree as being egregious to trigger our cringe? I want my cringe to react in concert with Jesus' cringe. We've all heard of the popular WWJD (what would Jesus do)...I am asking WWJC (when would Jesus cringe)? For example, we are watching some form of media: movie, television, on the web, and something sensual occurs, something suggestive, do we cringe...WWJC? We are with friends and someone begins to tell a joke that demeans another ethnicity, do we cringe...WWJC? We are listening...music, media, comedian, friend, stranger...and the expletives come, profane words are used, do we cringe...WWJC?
I would like to suggest that one reason we should be cringing at profanity is because Proverbs tells us that "we eat from the fruit of our lips..." (I'm leaving the reference out in hopes that you'll do some digging yourself to find it, do a word search for fruit and lips and see what you can find in Proverbs). In a spiritual sense, we consume the words we speak. Angry people stay angry in part because they are feasting on angry words continually. Desperate people stay desperate in part because they are feasting on desperate words continually. You can keep that list going...now, certainly I am not suggesting that if we only change our words, we immediately change our disposition. However, I am saying with confidence that our disposition will not change without a change in our words. It is a key part. So much of our physical world was created by God to teach us about our spiritual life. Think of the impact the kinds of food you eat has on your physical well being. Why should the words we "eat" be any different? They aren't. We consume them spiritually and they either bring healthy nourishment or destructive effects.
How, does this relate to our cringe? We should be cringing because of what that person is doing to themselves. When we subject ourselves to a person spewing expletives, we are watching a person poisoning themselves; it is spiritually self-destructive behavior. Do you think Jesus cringes at that? Do we?
There is also the Biblical principle of whatever we allow to be planted in our lives will produce fruit (look in Galatians 6). Meaning, that the profanity that comes from another isn't just hurting them, it harms us. We should be cringing because by subjecting ourselves to profanity there is a planting taking place in our lives in a spiritual sense. Now follow me here, in Genesis the principal of producing after one's own kind was established. Meaning that an apple tree creates apples and only apples. In the same way, if we continually subject ourselves to profane language from others, what kind of fruit do you think it will produce in us: profane thoughts, profane language, all things profane. Fertile soils nurtures everything that is planted within. We are spiritually fertile; what kinds of seeds are we accepting?
What about laziness and ignorance? Does the Bible treat them as spiritual issues? I think in reading the book of Proverbs, one would be hard pressed to make an argument otherwise. Why is this relevant? Because profanity, in my opinion, is usually a result of one or the other. It is a matter if ignorance when we look to profanity to express feeling and thoughts that are larger or inconsistent with the vocabulary we have developed. We search for words, find none, reach for an expletive and move on to the next word. They are intellectual gap fillers. Reading, learning, conversation, contemplation, etc. all contribute to a growing vocabulary. We should all be committed to expelling ignorance from our lives, especially in the area of expression.
What about laziness? That is when we have a sufficient vocabulary to express whatever we may be feeling or thinking yet out of laziness, a poor intellectual work ethic, we reach for an expletive because it takes less mental effort than searching for the right words. Do you know people who only use profanity when they are tired, angry, frustrated...? When we are emotionally weary, intellectual laziness sets in and the expletives roll. Are we cringing yet, is He, WWJC?
Now, I'm not suggesting that we all deputize ourselves and become the profanity police. Remember, if our response to the people around us is judgmental, self-righteous, and arrogant then we will be causing them to cringe, the great cringe exchange! If it is a stranger, chances are praying for them quietly in the moment is your best response. If my children are being subjected to it then maybe I will kindly ask them to be mindful of the children that are present, and always I use it to talk to my children about there are words we don't use and why. If we know them, instead of coming down on them, why not say something like this, "Could I share something with you I learned recently about words?" No one likes to be judged, but I have seldom met a person who is not willing to have a gracious, caring conversation.
In closing, remember, you can control most of what comes into your life, and certainly, you have complete control over what you are putting in the lives of others.
WWJC?
Pastor Fred
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Open Theism by Matthew K. Weber
This is a great paper written by a friend in our church...enjoy, be challenged, stir your intellect and remember that Jesus said that loving God with our mind along with the rest of our being is the greatest commandment!!
Pastor Fred Michaux
REGENT UNIVERSITY
THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION ON OPEN THEISM
A THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION PRESENTED TO
DR. ESTRELDA ALEXANDER
FOR TCDH 501 – SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY I
SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
BY
MATTHEW K. WEBER
APRIL 2008
INTRODUCTION
Rarely has there existed a time when the church lacked some sort of theological controversy. The modern time is no exception. The current theological discussion regarding open theism, also called free will determinism, is intense and sometimes heated. Theologians are passionate about their position regarding the controversy. Some even believe that those who hold to the open theist view hold to heretical teaching.[1] Whatever the verdict is on heresy or orthodoxy, there are strong emotions on both sides of the debate.
OPEN THEISM DEFINED
The main concept of open theism is fairly succinct and well defined. However, the ripples from the assertion travel far and wide in doctrine and practice. Greg Boyd provides a fitting summary when he asserts, “the future is settled to whatever extent the sovereign Creator decides to settle it.”[2] In other words, God decides how much of the future he foreknows and establishes as permanent future reality. Open theism is mainly a question of God’s foreknowledge and the nature of the future.
Boyd and others use language that indicates they believe God is sovereign, but in a different manner than the classical view. Boyd indicates that God does not need to “micromanage”[3] the creation because He has the ability to guide the ultimate outcomes of all events that He sees fit to guide according to His good pleasure. Most theologians who hold to this view believe that the future is largely if not exclusively determined by the actions of free-willed creatures instead of by the free-will of God.
PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER
This paper will provide an open reflection on the theological concept of open theism. The main tenants of open theism will be examined and contrasted to more orthodox classical views of God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge. Furthermore, the arguments for and against the open theist position will be studied.
MAJOR TENANTS AND PROPONENTS
The tenants of open theism are fairly simple, but the practical out-workings of those tenants are quite broad. In many ways the out-workings affect other important core doctrines of the Christian faith far more than the doctrine of foreknowledge and the future. There is a growing list of proponents to this doctrine, and it appears to be a discussion that the church will continue to engage in far into the future.
Some of the main proponents of open theism are Gregory Boyd, John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, William Hasker, and Richard Rice. Each of these scholars has published extensively in various periodicals and books. At least one professor at Regent University has also recent expressed support for the doctrine. Dr. J. Lyle Story expressed his support for the doctrine during the spring two thousand and seven session of the Unity of the Bible course. Each of the proponents mentioned clearly has a strong belief in the validity of the doctrine and has or is in the process of working vigorously to defend it.
One of the main assertions of the open theist viewpoint is the idea that Greek philosophy and worldview distorted the more biblical view of the future. According to John Sanders, who authored a chapter in the book The Openness of God, “Greek thought has played an extensive role in the development of the traditional doctrine of God.”[4] Sanders goes on to say that in some ways the early church fathers were “sell outs”[5] to Hellenism. He points out that particularly in the area of the nature of the universe and the nature of God, the early church fathers relied heavily on Hellenism in order to culturally translate the reality of Christianity to the broader culture of the time. This affirmation of the corruption of the biblical view of God opens the door for open theists to reexamine the current classical view on the nature of God and the nature of the future. Without this assertion of Hellenistic corruption, it is unlikely that open theism would be seriously discussed in many scholarly circles.
There is a necessary counter balance that must be struck to this point. As Steven Roy notes, Greek philosophy was not one “singular, unified Greek philosophy that spoke with one voice on the nature and extent of divine foreknowledge and its relationship to free human decisions.”[6] Roy points out the philosophy of Aristotle and the Roman philosopher Cicero both represent a view that does not support the omniscience of God, which is much closer to open-theism.[7] This fact must be taken into account when speaking about Greek philosophical influence into the doctrine of foreknowledge.
THE NATURE OF GOD
Gregory Boyd is one of the leading voices and proponents of open theism. His book God of the Possible highlights the majority of the tenants that open theists espouse. He does not give much depth to the discussion of these tenants in this work. However, he provides a good starting point to view into the tenants and out-workings of the doctrine especially in relation to the nature of God.
GOD REGRETS
Boyd asserts that God expresses regret.[8] Specifically in Genesis chapter six verse six God expresses regret for creating humanity. He then goes on to cause a massive flood in which Noah and his family are the only survivors. Again in first Samuel chapter fifteen God regrets making Saul king. Boyd observes, “we must wonder how the Lord could truly experience regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain that Saul would act the way he did.”[9] In other words, God chose not to see into the future to know what way Saul would choose. If God were in fact all knowing, He would have already known the outcome of Saul’s kingship and therefore could not show regret for making Saul king.
GOD RISKS
One main aspect of open theism is that God takes risks. In the classical view of God, there is no ambiguity in the outcome of the intentions and plans of God. However, the open theist position is quite the opposite. There is risk in all that God does because He does not know how events will transpire and how his plans will conclude. In The God Who Risks, John Sanders highlights this view with the following statement: “It is claimed that there is more than sufficient biblical data teaching that God does not exercise meticulous providence in such a way that the success of His project is, in all respects and without qualification, a foregone conclusion.”[10] It seems as though Sanders is saying that God does not exercise control over the outcome of events.
Boyd continues on this theme by asserting that taking risks is psychologically healthy.[11] He implies that if God does not in fact take risks, then God is not psychologically healthy. Further, Boyd asserts that “the only way to deny that God takes risks is to maintain that everything that occurs in world history is exactly what God wanted to occur.”[12] Opponents of open theism strongly protest this point. However, there is a certain logic that proponents of open theism use to support their position based on this understanding of God taking risks and God sometimes not getting His way.
“GOD ASKS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE”[13]
Several places in Scripture, God asks questions regarding the future. Asking questions about the future could mean that God does not entirely know the outcome of the future. This would imply that God does not totally control the future. As Boyd notes, these questions can be explained as rhetorical. However, he notes that “there is nothing in these texts or in the whole of Scripture that requires these questions to be rhetorical.”[14]
GOD EXPRESSES SURPRISE
Several times in Scripture God seems to be surprised at the outcome of a situation. Again, this interpretation of surprise is not a required interpretation of such passages, but it is a possible interpretation. Boyd challenges the classical position by asking, “If everything is eternally certain to God, as the classical view of foreknowledge holds, how could the Lord twice say that he ‘expected’ one thing to occur, only to have something different occur?”[15] This seems to be a fair question if one asserts this interpretation of certain sections of Scripture.
GOD EXPRESSES FRUSTRATION
Open theists claim that if God is totally sovereign and has foreknowledge of all future events, then He should never be frustrated. His plans should always be established and never be aggravated. An example of God displaying apparent frustration is seen in Moses’ lack of willingness to engage in the redemptive activities set apart for him.[16] Boyd notes, “If it was a foregone conclusion that Moses would not go along with God’s plan, however, one wonders why God frustrated himself trying to get Moses to do so.”[17] Again, if the interpretation of the passage supports or even requires indicating that God can be frustrated, then this is a valid point that should be discussed further.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
The historical development of open theism takes place over a number of centuries. However, the main tenants of the doctrine came together over the last fifteen years. In some ways the roots of open theism can be traced back to Greek thought. As previously mentioned, some strands of Greek thought are the antithesis of open theism. Without the antithesis, open theism may not have been established. The Greek philosophical position on the nature of God is nicely summed up by John Sanders when he says, “Aristotle says that this supreme God ‘is a substance which is eternal and unmovable…without parts and invisible…impassive and unalterable.”[18] If the unmovable God is the God of the Greeks, then the movable and pliable God is the God of the Open Theist.
Modern open theism seems to trace back to a group of several scholars. In nineteen ninety four Richard Rice, John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, and William Hasker contributed to a book entitled The Openness of God. Since its publication numerous additional materials have also been published both for and against the open theist position.
THE FREEDOM OF HUMAN WILL
By definition, the open theist position is highly concerned with expressing the freedom of human will. God no longer has primary control of the outcome of events. Rather, the choices of truly free actors determine the outcome of events. In many ways the open theist view is a subset of the free-will Arminian view. In both views human choices are real choices. The main difference is that according to the Arminian view God has complete understanding and knowledge of the future. The similarity between the two views has led some who were Arminian in theology to closely examine and sometimes adopt the open theist position.
BASIS IN SCRIPTURE
According to scholars who subscribe to open theism the Scriptures are bursting with examples indicating that the future is in fact open. Much of the argument occurs from the Old Testament.[19] One such argument can be found in Exodus chapter thirteen verse seventeen. The Scriptures say, “When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, ‘If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.’"[20] Here God clearly speaks in conditional terms.[21] God does not appear to know what the absolute outcome of this event would be. Boyd makes an excellent point that if we accept the verbal-plenary view of Scripture, “doesn’t it clearly imply that God considered the possibility, but no the certainty, that the Israelites would change their minds if they faced battle?”[22]
Jeremiah chapter eighteen could possibly in some ways be considered the locus classicus of open theism. In this chapter God appears to be saying that even if He says one thing, there is still room for Him to change His mind.
“If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.”[23]
The open theist position asks of this text, how can God know the future with absolute certainty if He says here that He is willing to change His mind depending on the actions of free-willed people? Boyd offers one of his weightiest critiques of the classical position when he says, “I suggest that if this text isn’t enough to convince us that God’s mind is not eternally settled, then our philosophical presuppositions are controlling our exegesis to a degree that no text could ever teach us this. People who affirm the divine authority of Scripture do not want to be guilty of this charge.”[24] This is a truly weighty charge to level against a person who takes the Scriptures to be God’s divine word. However, there are those who strongly disagree with this interpretation of Jeremiah chapter eighteen and seek balance from the whole of Scripture.
CRITIQUE OF CONCEPT
There is no shortage of critique on open theistic theology. In fact, some would probably argue it is one of the most controversial theological propositions of our time. Some argue that the critiques of open theism are based more on the philosophical understanding of God than the Scriptures themselves.[25] However, there are some important critiques that must be addressed by the open theist position in order for it to have any semblance of validity.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
One of the critiques is a counter to the claim that the classical view is primarily based on Greek philosophy instead of a truly biblical view. One key argument that John Sanders continually cites is found in the writings of John Owen[26]. Sanders cites the passage indicating that Owen implies that Greek philosophy deeply influenced the biblical view of God. Russell Fuller counters this argument by stating that “Owen is not saying that Greek philosophy corrupted scriptural teaching, as Sanders clearly implies in his citing of Owen, but that the Fathers and Philo used Greek philosophy for expression and for amplification of the divine attributes that the Scriptures teach.”[27] Fuller continues to critiques Sanders on continued misreading of G. L. Prestige.[28] Fuller wraps up by saying, “Sander’s historical claims and appeals are hopeless, in whole and in part. They should raise eyebrows, if not the hackles, of historians. These errors are serious, ominous with implications and grave with consequences for the openness view.”[29]
It appears as though the assertion of heavy Greek influence into the classical view must be severely tempered. Clearly, some Greek vocabulary was involved. However, it seems reasonable that “the Fathers inherited Hebrew theism and that the ‘main trunk of the Christian idea of God’…comes from the Hebrew Prophets not from Plato.”[30]
Anthropomorphism is one common defense that those who ascribe to the classical view make regarding Scriptures that may appear to indicate that God changes His mind. Jeremiah chapter eighteen, as previously noted, is one such example. Some argue that this defense has inherent problems because it interferes with the clear meaning of the text. A. B. Caneday writes of open theists, “they reify God’s self-disclosures in terms of human-like qualities. They transmute figurative portrayals of God into literal portraits. We need to address this problem.”[31] In other words, the Scriptures are rich in meaning and it is best to interpret Scripture according to the literary style in which the book was written. To ignore some anthropology, hyperbole, and other figures of speech is to severely misread the Scriptures. The question that is so crucial for correct interpretation so often revolves around literary context. It seems reasonable that God would sometimes speak of Himself in anthropomorphic terms. Could the passages that speak of God changing His mind be just such anthropomorphic passages?
Another major criticism of open theism is that it is out of step with all of Christian history. Historically, the church has embraced the idea that God knows the future in its entirety. To deviate from this affirmation is a major change in the view of God. God is no longer as powerful and omnipotent. John Piper states, “Every orthodox Christian communion for two thousand years has affirmed the exhaustive, definite foreknowledge of God. Departures from this view have been rejected as unorthodox by every major branch of the Christian church.”[32] Departing from twenty centuries of orthodoxy should not be taken lightly.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONCEPT
The implications of the open theist view are wide ranging in adjacent areas of theology as well as in practice. This seems to be the reason that this topic is so hotly debated. What is at stake is very weighty indeed.
Open theism implies “that God makes mistakes.”[33] Gregory Boyd indicates that God can “mis-predict”[34] future events. This is certainly possible if God cannot fully see into the future. However, Piper argues that mis-prediction should be called a mistake.[35] Therefore, God should not be considered perfect. This is a serious implication that must seriously be discussed.
Another implication of open theism that is daunting to say the least is that it implies that God is ignorant[36]. Again, this is a major deviation from the historical view of God being omniscient. Matthew chapter five verse forty eight says “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”[37] The question must be raised, is God still perfect if He is ignorant?
One of the major differentiators between the polytheistic gods of the Old Testament and the LORD God of the Hebrews was God’s ability to know all that would come to pass. John Piper points to Isaiah forty six verses nine through ten which point to God being the uniquely divine being with the ability to know the future and to bring His plans to fruition[38]. Therefore, it could be asked, if God does not have the power to certainly know the future, is God really God at all?
One of the major implications of open theism is it casts doubt on the deity of Christ. Piper writes, “Jesus teaches that his ability to predict the free acts of responsible people is an essential part of his divine glory, so that the denial of his foreknowledge is an unwitting undermining of the deity of Christ.”[39] Most open theists would not accept this as a valid implication. However, there is truth to the fact that Jesus knew the future. He did not simply make a highly educated guess about what the future could hold. Rather, He actually knew the future. Any denial of His ability to do this is a denial of His deity. A denial of the deity of Christ would be a major deviation indeed.
A question that is worth spending some time considering is how reliable God’s plan of redemption is from the open theist perspective. If God is not in control of the future and does not know what absolutely will happen in the future, then how can God’s plan of redemption be ensured? Second Timothy one verse nine says that God “saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.”[40] The question is immediately raised, how could God provide the redeeming grace of Jesus even before the ages began if He did not know that there would be a fall? Piper says of this issue, “In this way, our confidence in the accomplishment of redemption would be weakened because our view of God would nullify the eternal plan of redemption spelled out in the Scripture.”[41] Therefore, our sanctification and glorification are at risk. This is a very serious implication from open theism.
One of the perceived beneficial implications of open theism is it attempts to show God as being more loving and compassionate. If God does not know the future, then He cannot be held responsible for the evil events of the future. He is simply powerless to stop the evil event because He did not know it was about to occur. According to open theists God could make a wise guess that such events might occur, but He cannot say for sure. This removes all perceived culpability from God. Humankind is completely responsible for all evil in the world.
Open theists propose that the classical view of God “means that God kills people and causes disasters in the hope that some may then repent and confess Christ.”[42] This weighty allegation is one that open theists often pronounce against more Calvinistic views. Romans chapter eight verse twenty eight states that “for those who love God all things work together for good.”[43] Sanders writes that “God seeks to bring good out of tragedy, but there are no guarantees.”[44] Therefore, Sanders is saying that all things might work together for good, but don’t necessarily require it.
Loss of hope is another possible implication of this idea that God has limited control of evil. Piper discusses this from a pastoral perspective. He says:
“Therefore denying that ‘a good divine purpose lies behind all particular events’ is false. More than that, it undercuts the very hope it wants to create. If we deny that God could have used a million prior events to save a college student, what hope then do we have that God will use all the hard things of life to bless the surviving loved ones (spiritually or physically) in the hour of trial? The Bible teaches that God could have restrained the evil that killed the college student (Gen. 20:6)…But it was not in his plan to do it. Let us beware. If we spare God the burden of his sovereignty, we lose our only hope.”[45]
Denying the foreknowledge and sovereignty of God prevents a pastor from truly comforting those who are suffering. Is it more comforting to say that God had no idea that evil events would befall a person, or that God is even sovereign over evil events (not causing them directly) but has a purpose and plan that is in the midst of being fulfilled through them? In the case of open theism, there is no meaning in the event – no purpose or plan. In the case of the more classical view, there is definite purpose, plan, and design. From a pastoral perspective, this is a very significant difference.
CONCLUSION
The weighty issue of God’s foreknowledge or lack there of is far from settled. Some see open theism as an opportunity to “experience the triune love”[46] of God to a greater extent than previously imagined. Others see it as “theologically ruinous, dishonoring to God, belittling to Christ, and pastorally hurtful.”[47] With such divergent opinions on the subject, there seems little hope for a resolution of the issue any time in the near future. There are significant differences and significant implications for faith and practice from those differences. Humility is definitely called for, but so is truth. Going forward, may both humility and truth will continue to guide the discussion.
WORKS CONSULTED
Boyd, Gregory. God of the Possible, Ada, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
Grenz, Stanley J., Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 1994.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: IV Press, 1994.
Pinnock, Clark. Most Moved Mover. Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.
Piper, John., Taylor, Justin., et. al. Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the
Undermining of Biblical Christianity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003.
Rice, Richard., Sanders, John., et. al, The Openness of God. Downers Grove, IL: IV Press,
1994.
Roy, Steven. How much does God Foreknow?. Downers Grove, IL: IV Press, 2006.
Saia, Michael, R. Does God Know the Future?. Farfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2002.
Sanders, John, E. The God who Risks. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1998.
Schreiner, Thomas. “Editorial: God vs. God," Christianity Today, 7 February 2000, Vol. 44,
No. 2.
Ware, Bruce A. God's Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and The Christian Faith.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004.
Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway Books, 2000.
The Bible, NIV.
The Bible, ESV
[1] Bruce Ware, God’s Lesser Glory, (Wheaton: IL, Crossway Books, 2000), 33.
[2] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 31.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Richard Rice, John Sanders, et. al, The Openness of God, (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1994), 59.
[5] Ibid, 60.
[6] Steven C. Roy, How much does God Foreknow?, (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 2006), 198.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 55.
[9] Ibid, 56.
[10] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 40.
[11] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 57.
[12] Ibid, 58.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid, 59.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Exod. 4.
[17] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 62.
[18] Richard Rice, John Sanders, et. al, The Openness of God, (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1994), 66.
[19] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 31.
[20] Exodus 13:17, NIV.
[21] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 69.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Jeremiah 18:7-10, NIV.
[24] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 78.
[25] “Editorial: God vs. God," Christianity Today, 7 February 2000, Vol. 44, No. 2.
[26] John Sanders, The God Who Risks, : A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 141.
[27] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 30.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid, 31.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid, 153.
[32] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 372.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid., 373.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Matthew 5:48, NIV.
[38] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 374.
[39] Ibid.
[40] 2 Timothy 1:9, ESV.
[41] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 375.
[42] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 273.
[43] Romans 8:28, ESV.
[44] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 273.
[45] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 381.
[46] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 14.
[47] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 384.
Pastor Fred Michaux
REGENT UNIVERSITY
THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION ON OPEN THEISM
A THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION PRESENTED TO
DR. ESTRELDA ALEXANDER
FOR TCDH 501 – SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY I
SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
BY
MATTHEW K. WEBER
APRIL 2008
INTRODUCTION
Rarely has there existed a time when the church lacked some sort of theological controversy. The modern time is no exception. The current theological discussion regarding open theism, also called free will determinism, is intense and sometimes heated. Theologians are passionate about their position regarding the controversy. Some even believe that those who hold to the open theist view hold to heretical teaching.[1] Whatever the verdict is on heresy or orthodoxy, there are strong emotions on both sides of the debate.
OPEN THEISM DEFINED
The main concept of open theism is fairly succinct and well defined. However, the ripples from the assertion travel far and wide in doctrine and practice. Greg Boyd provides a fitting summary when he asserts, “the future is settled to whatever extent the sovereign Creator decides to settle it.”[2] In other words, God decides how much of the future he foreknows and establishes as permanent future reality. Open theism is mainly a question of God’s foreknowledge and the nature of the future.
Boyd and others use language that indicates they believe God is sovereign, but in a different manner than the classical view. Boyd indicates that God does not need to “micromanage”[3] the creation because He has the ability to guide the ultimate outcomes of all events that He sees fit to guide according to His good pleasure. Most theologians who hold to this view believe that the future is largely if not exclusively determined by the actions of free-willed creatures instead of by the free-will of God.
PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER
This paper will provide an open reflection on the theological concept of open theism. The main tenants of open theism will be examined and contrasted to more orthodox classical views of God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge. Furthermore, the arguments for and against the open theist position will be studied.
MAJOR TENANTS AND PROPONENTS
The tenants of open theism are fairly simple, but the practical out-workings of those tenants are quite broad. In many ways the out-workings affect other important core doctrines of the Christian faith far more than the doctrine of foreknowledge and the future. There is a growing list of proponents to this doctrine, and it appears to be a discussion that the church will continue to engage in far into the future.
Some of the main proponents of open theism are Gregory Boyd, John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, William Hasker, and Richard Rice. Each of these scholars has published extensively in various periodicals and books. At least one professor at Regent University has also recent expressed support for the doctrine. Dr. J. Lyle Story expressed his support for the doctrine during the spring two thousand and seven session of the Unity of the Bible course. Each of the proponents mentioned clearly has a strong belief in the validity of the doctrine and has or is in the process of working vigorously to defend it.
One of the main assertions of the open theist viewpoint is the idea that Greek philosophy and worldview distorted the more biblical view of the future. According to John Sanders, who authored a chapter in the book The Openness of God, “Greek thought has played an extensive role in the development of the traditional doctrine of God.”[4] Sanders goes on to say that in some ways the early church fathers were “sell outs”[5] to Hellenism. He points out that particularly in the area of the nature of the universe and the nature of God, the early church fathers relied heavily on Hellenism in order to culturally translate the reality of Christianity to the broader culture of the time. This affirmation of the corruption of the biblical view of God opens the door for open theists to reexamine the current classical view on the nature of God and the nature of the future. Without this assertion of Hellenistic corruption, it is unlikely that open theism would be seriously discussed in many scholarly circles.
There is a necessary counter balance that must be struck to this point. As Steven Roy notes, Greek philosophy was not one “singular, unified Greek philosophy that spoke with one voice on the nature and extent of divine foreknowledge and its relationship to free human decisions.”[6] Roy points out the philosophy of Aristotle and the Roman philosopher Cicero both represent a view that does not support the omniscience of God, which is much closer to open-theism.[7] This fact must be taken into account when speaking about Greek philosophical influence into the doctrine of foreknowledge.
THE NATURE OF GOD
Gregory Boyd is one of the leading voices and proponents of open theism. His book God of the Possible highlights the majority of the tenants that open theists espouse. He does not give much depth to the discussion of these tenants in this work. However, he provides a good starting point to view into the tenants and out-workings of the doctrine especially in relation to the nature of God.
GOD REGRETS
Boyd asserts that God expresses regret.[8] Specifically in Genesis chapter six verse six God expresses regret for creating humanity. He then goes on to cause a massive flood in which Noah and his family are the only survivors. Again in first Samuel chapter fifteen God regrets making Saul king. Boyd observes, “we must wonder how the Lord could truly experience regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain that Saul would act the way he did.”[9] In other words, God chose not to see into the future to know what way Saul would choose. If God were in fact all knowing, He would have already known the outcome of Saul’s kingship and therefore could not show regret for making Saul king.
GOD RISKS
One main aspect of open theism is that God takes risks. In the classical view of God, there is no ambiguity in the outcome of the intentions and plans of God. However, the open theist position is quite the opposite. There is risk in all that God does because He does not know how events will transpire and how his plans will conclude. In The God Who Risks, John Sanders highlights this view with the following statement: “It is claimed that there is more than sufficient biblical data teaching that God does not exercise meticulous providence in such a way that the success of His project is, in all respects and without qualification, a foregone conclusion.”[10] It seems as though Sanders is saying that God does not exercise control over the outcome of events.
Boyd continues on this theme by asserting that taking risks is psychologically healthy.[11] He implies that if God does not in fact take risks, then God is not psychologically healthy. Further, Boyd asserts that “the only way to deny that God takes risks is to maintain that everything that occurs in world history is exactly what God wanted to occur.”[12] Opponents of open theism strongly protest this point. However, there is a certain logic that proponents of open theism use to support their position based on this understanding of God taking risks and God sometimes not getting His way.
“GOD ASKS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE”[13]
Several places in Scripture, God asks questions regarding the future. Asking questions about the future could mean that God does not entirely know the outcome of the future. This would imply that God does not totally control the future. As Boyd notes, these questions can be explained as rhetorical. However, he notes that “there is nothing in these texts or in the whole of Scripture that requires these questions to be rhetorical.”[14]
GOD EXPRESSES SURPRISE
Several times in Scripture God seems to be surprised at the outcome of a situation. Again, this interpretation of surprise is not a required interpretation of such passages, but it is a possible interpretation. Boyd challenges the classical position by asking, “If everything is eternally certain to God, as the classical view of foreknowledge holds, how could the Lord twice say that he ‘expected’ one thing to occur, only to have something different occur?”[15] This seems to be a fair question if one asserts this interpretation of certain sections of Scripture.
GOD EXPRESSES FRUSTRATION
Open theists claim that if God is totally sovereign and has foreknowledge of all future events, then He should never be frustrated. His plans should always be established and never be aggravated. An example of God displaying apparent frustration is seen in Moses’ lack of willingness to engage in the redemptive activities set apart for him.[16] Boyd notes, “If it was a foregone conclusion that Moses would not go along with God’s plan, however, one wonders why God frustrated himself trying to get Moses to do so.”[17] Again, if the interpretation of the passage supports or even requires indicating that God can be frustrated, then this is a valid point that should be discussed further.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
The historical development of open theism takes place over a number of centuries. However, the main tenants of the doctrine came together over the last fifteen years. In some ways the roots of open theism can be traced back to Greek thought. As previously mentioned, some strands of Greek thought are the antithesis of open theism. Without the antithesis, open theism may not have been established. The Greek philosophical position on the nature of God is nicely summed up by John Sanders when he says, “Aristotle says that this supreme God ‘is a substance which is eternal and unmovable…without parts and invisible…impassive and unalterable.”[18] If the unmovable God is the God of the Greeks, then the movable and pliable God is the God of the Open Theist.
Modern open theism seems to trace back to a group of several scholars. In nineteen ninety four Richard Rice, John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, and William Hasker contributed to a book entitled The Openness of God. Since its publication numerous additional materials have also been published both for and against the open theist position.
THE FREEDOM OF HUMAN WILL
By definition, the open theist position is highly concerned with expressing the freedom of human will. God no longer has primary control of the outcome of events. Rather, the choices of truly free actors determine the outcome of events. In many ways the open theist view is a subset of the free-will Arminian view. In both views human choices are real choices. The main difference is that according to the Arminian view God has complete understanding and knowledge of the future. The similarity between the two views has led some who were Arminian in theology to closely examine and sometimes adopt the open theist position.
BASIS IN SCRIPTURE
According to scholars who subscribe to open theism the Scriptures are bursting with examples indicating that the future is in fact open. Much of the argument occurs from the Old Testament.[19] One such argument can be found in Exodus chapter thirteen verse seventeen. The Scriptures say, “When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was shorter. For God said, ‘If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.’"[20] Here God clearly speaks in conditional terms.[21] God does not appear to know what the absolute outcome of this event would be. Boyd makes an excellent point that if we accept the verbal-plenary view of Scripture, “doesn’t it clearly imply that God considered the possibility, but no the certainty, that the Israelites would change their minds if they faced battle?”[22]
Jeremiah chapter eighteen could possibly in some ways be considered the locus classicus of open theism. In this chapter God appears to be saying that even if He says one thing, there is still room for Him to change His mind.
“If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.”[23]
The open theist position asks of this text, how can God know the future with absolute certainty if He says here that He is willing to change His mind depending on the actions of free-willed people? Boyd offers one of his weightiest critiques of the classical position when he says, “I suggest that if this text isn’t enough to convince us that God’s mind is not eternally settled, then our philosophical presuppositions are controlling our exegesis to a degree that no text could ever teach us this. People who affirm the divine authority of Scripture do not want to be guilty of this charge.”[24] This is a truly weighty charge to level against a person who takes the Scriptures to be God’s divine word. However, there are those who strongly disagree with this interpretation of Jeremiah chapter eighteen and seek balance from the whole of Scripture.
CRITIQUE OF CONCEPT
There is no shortage of critique on open theistic theology. In fact, some would probably argue it is one of the most controversial theological propositions of our time. Some argue that the critiques of open theism are based more on the philosophical understanding of God than the Scriptures themselves.[25] However, there are some important critiques that must be addressed by the open theist position in order for it to have any semblance of validity.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
One of the critiques is a counter to the claim that the classical view is primarily based on Greek philosophy instead of a truly biblical view. One key argument that John Sanders continually cites is found in the writings of John Owen[26]. Sanders cites the passage indicating that Owen implies that Greek philosophy deeply influenced the biblical view of God. Russell Fuller counters this argument by stating that “Owen is not saying that Greek philosophy corrupted scriptural teaching, as Sanders clearly implies in his citing of Owen, but that the Fathers and Philo used Greek philosophy for expression and for amplification of the divine attributes that the Scriptures teach.”[27] Fuller continues to critiques Sanders on continued misreading of G. L. Prestige.[28] Fuller wraps up by saying, “Sander’s historical claims and appeals are hopeless, in whole and in part. They should raise eyebrows, if not the hackles, of historians. These errors are serious, ominous with implications and grave with consequences for the openness view.”[29]
It appears as though the assertion of heavy Greek influence into the classical view must be severely tempered. Clearly, some Greek vocabulary was involved. However, it seems reasonable that “the Fathers inherited Hebrew theism and that the ‘main trunk of the Christian idea of God’…comes from the Hebrew Prophets not from Plato.”[30]
Anthropomorphism is one common defense that those who ascribe to the classical view make regarding Scriptures that may appear to indicate that God changes His mind. Jeremiah chapter eighteen, as previously noted, is one such example. Some argue that this defense has inherent problems because it interferes with the clear meaning of the text. A. B. Caneday writes of open theists, “they reify God’s self-disclosures in terms of human-like qualities. They transmute figurative portrayals of God into literal portraits. We need to address this problem.”[31] In other words, the Scriptures are rich in meaning and it is best to interpret Scripture according to the literary style in which the book was written. To ignore some anthropology, hyperbole, and other figures of speech is to severely misread the Scriptures. The question that is so crucial for correct interpretation so often revolves around literary context. It seems reasonable that God would sometimes speak of Himself in anthropomorphic terms. Could the passages that speak of God changing His mind be just such anthropomorphic passages?
Another major criticism of open theism is that it is out of step with all of Christian history. Historically, the church has embraced the idea that God knows the future in its entirety. To deviate from this affirmation is a major change in the view of God. God is no longer as powerful and omnipotent. John Piper states, “Every orthodox Christian communion for two thousand years has affirmed the exhaustive, definite foreknowledge of God. Departures from this view have been rejected as unorthodox by every major branch of the Christian church.”[32] Departing from twenty centuries of orthodoxy should not be taken lightly.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONCEPT
The implications of the open theist view are wide ranging in adjacent areas of theology as well as in practice. This seems to be the reason that this topic is so hotly debated. What is at stake is very weighty indeed.
Open theism implies “that God makes mistakes.”[33] Gregory Boyd indicates that God can “mis-predict”[34] future events. This is certainly possible if God cannot fully see into the future. However, Piper argues that mis-prediction should be called a mistake.[35] Therefore, God should not be considered perfect. This is a serious implication that must seriously be discussed.
Another implication of open theism that is daunting to say the least is that it implies that God is ignorant[36]. Again, this is a major deviation from the historical view of God being omniscient. Matthew chapter five verse forty eight says “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”[37] The question must be raised, is God still perfect if He is ignorant?
One of the major differentiators between the polytheistic gods of the Old Testament and the LORD God of the Hebrews was God’s ability to know all that would come to pass. John Piper points to Isaiah forty six verses nine through ten which point to God being the uniquely divine being with the ability to know the future and to bring His plans to fruition[38]. Therefore, it could be asked, if God does not have the power to certainly know the future, is God really God at all?
One of the major implications of open theism is it casts doubt on the deity of Christ. Piper writes, “Jesus teaches that his ability to predict the free acts of responsible people is an essential part of his divine glory, so that the denial of his foreknowledge is an unwitting undermining of the deity of Christ.”[39] Most open theists would not accept this as a valid implication. However, there is truth to the fact that Jesus knew the future. He did not simply make a highly educated guess about what the future could hold. Rather, He actually knew the future. Any denial of His ability to do this is a denial of His deity. A denial of the deity of Christ would be a major deviation indeed.
A question that is worth spending some time considering is how reliable God’s plan of redemption is from the open theist perspective. If God is not in control of the future and does not know what absolutely will happen in the future, then how can God’s plan of redemption be ensured? Second Timothy one verse nine says that God “saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.”[40] The question is immediately raised, how could God provide the redeeming grace of Jesus even before the ages began if He did not know that there would be a fall? Piper says of this issue, “In this way, our confidence in the accomplishment of redemption would be weakened because our view of God would nullify the eternal plan of redemption spelled out in the Scripture.”[41] Therefore, our sanctification and glorification are at risk. This is a very serious implication from open theism.
One of the perceived beneficial implications of open theism is it attempts to show God as being more loving and compassionate. If God does not know the future, then He cannot be held responsible for the evil events of the future. He is simply powerless to stop the evil event because He did not know it was about to occur. According to open theists God could make a wise guess that such events might occur, but He cannot say for sure. This removes all perceived culpability from God. Humankind is completely responsible for all evil in the world.
Open theists propose that the classical view of God “means that God kills people and causes disasters in the hope that some may then repent and confess Christ.”[42] This weighty allegation is one that open theists often pronounce against more Calvinistic views. Romans chapter eight verse twenty eight states that “for those who love God all things work together for good.”[43] Sanders writes that “God seeks to bring good out of tragedy, but there are no guarantees.”[44] Therefore, Sanders is saying that all things might work together for good, but don’t necessarily require it.
Loss of hope is another possible implication of this idea that God has limited control of evil. Piper discusses this from a pastoral perspective. He says:
“Therefore denying that ‘a good divine purpose lies behind all particular events’ is false. More than that, it undercuts the very hope it wants to create. If we deny that God could have used a million prior events to save a college student, what hope then do we have that God will use all the hard things of life to bless the surviving loved ones (spiritually or physically) in the hour of trial? The Bible teaches that God could have restrained the evil that killed the college student (Gen. 20:6)…But it was not in his plan to do it. Let us beware. If we spare God the burden of his sovereignty, we lose our only hope.”[45]
Denying the foreknowledge and sovereignty of God prevents a pastor from truly comforting those who are suffering. Is it more comforting to say that God had no idea that evil events would befall a person, or that God is even sovereign over evil events (not causing them directly) but has a purpose and plan that is in the midst of being fulfilled through them? In the case of open theism, there is no meaning in the event – no purpose or plan. In the case of the more classical view, there is definite purpose, plan, and design. From a pastoral perspective, this is a very significant difference.
CONCLUSION
The weighty issue of God’s foreknowledge or lack there of is far from settled. Some see open theism as an opportunity to “experience the triune love”[46] of God to a greater extent than previously imagined. Others see it as “theologically ruinous, dishonoring to God, belittling to Christ, and pastorally hurtful.”[47] With such divergent opinions on the subject, there seems little hope for a resolution of the issue any time in the near future. There are significant differences and significant implications for faith and practice from those differences. Humility is definitely called for, but so is truth. Going forward, may both humility and truth will continue to guide the discussion.
WORKS CONSULTED
Boyd, Gregory. God of the Possible, Ada, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
Grenz, Stanley J., Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 1994.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: IV Press, 1994.
Pinnock, Clark. Most Moved Mover. Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.
Piper, John., Taylor, Justin., et. al. Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the
Undermining of Biblical Christianity. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003.
Rice, Richard., Sanders, John., et. al, The Openness of God. Downers Grove, IL: IV Press,
1994.
Roy, Steven. How much does God Foreknow?. Downers Grove, IL: IV Press, 2006.
Saia, Michael, R. Does God Know the Future?. Farfax, VA: Xulon Press, 2002.
Sanders, John, E. The God who Risks. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1998.
Schreiner, Thomas. “Editorial: God vs. God," Christianity Today, 7 February 2000, Vol. 44,
No. 2.
Ware, Bruce A. God's Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and The Christian Faith.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004.
Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway Books, 2000.
The Bible, NIV.
The Bible, ESV
[1] Bruce Ware, God’s Lesser Glory, (Wheaton: IL, Crossway Books, 2000), 33.
[2] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 31.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Richard Rice, John Sanders, et. al, The Openness of God, (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1994), 59.
[5] Ibid, 60.
[6] Steven C. Roy, How much does God Foreknow?, (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 2006), 198.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 55.
[9] Ibid, 56.
[10] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 40.
[11] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 57.
[12] Ibid, 58.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid, 59.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Exod. 4.
[17] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 62.
[18] Richard Rice, John Sanders, et. al, The Openness of God, (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1994), 66.
[19] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 31.
[20] Exodus 13:17, NIV.
[21] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 69.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Jeremiah 18:7-10, NIV.
[24] Gregory Body, God of the Possible, (Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Books, 2000), 78.
[25] “Editorial: God vs. God," Christianity Today, 7 February 2000, Vol. 44, No. 2.
[26] John Sanders, The God Who Risks, : A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 141.
[27] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 30.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid, 31.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid, 153.
[32] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 372.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid., 373.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Matthew 5:48, NIV.
[38] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 374.
[39] Ibid.
[40] 2 Timothy 1:9, ESV.
[41] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 375.
[42] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 273.
[43] Romans 8:28, ESV.
[44] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 273.
[45] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 381.
[46] John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove: IL, IV Press, 1998), 14.
[47] John Piper, Justin Taylor, et. al, Beyond the, Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity, (Wheaton, IL, Crossway Books, 2003), 384.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Who Am I?
Our church (http://www.thecitylifechurch.com/) is in a sermon series entitled "Passing The Test." We are exploring 1 John and it's hard hitting message of what is necessary to be certain of our eternal life. John not only says that we can know but that we should know, meaning that the consequences are just too great to settle for anything other than certainty. Are you certain? Read 1 John and check out the pod casts of the sermon series, beginning with the first Sunday in April.
According the Expositor's Bible Commentary, 1 John was probably a circular letter to the seven churches that would today be in modern Turkey over which he had apostolic authority, rather, under his supervision. Clearly, from the letter, people had begun to lose sight of the breadth of evidences necessary to be certain of their adoption into the family of God or what is also spoken of as eternal life. I believe one could categorize 1 John into four tests, resulting in determining the certainty of one's eternal life: the test of believing, the test of obeying, the test of loving, and the test of experiencing.
Many people I talk with think that the test of believing is the only one that matters, referencing John 3:16 or Romans 10:9,10; however, I always point out that the gospel of John and the epistle of Romans are not the only two books of the Bible. There are 66, not two. Our beliefs must always find the voice of the full counsel of scripture. 1 John, in my opinion, adds to the test of believing. And I would argue that John in his gospel and Paul in writing Romans only and always intended their readers to understand that believing necessitated life transformation, belief that would change the way we live. 1 John is an exhortation what that change should look like.
In the first part of our sermon on The Test of Obeying, we talked about how we tend to understand the answer to this blogs title question, Who Am I, by considering all our many life roles, passions, personal history, etc. We used the illustration of a library that has scores of collections. Our lives are a collection of various identity giving experiences. Unfortunately, our life as a devoted follower of Jesus becomes a part of "our collection" rather than being what houses all the rest of who we are. For example, instead of my being a father, brother, Jesus follower, neighbor, sporting clay shooter...I should see myself as a Christian father, Christian brother, Christian neighbor, Christian sporting clay shooter, etc. We are not supposed to compartmentalize our Christianity but rather allow our Christianity to compartmentalize us.
What does this have to do with obedience you ask? What got me thinking about this was a question someone asked me recently when we were talking about the do's and don'ts of Christians. You know, is it right to listen to secular music, is it right to watch R rated movies...you know the drill. Of course we talked about the difference between absolutes, matters of conscience, and forgoing liberties and where each of the issues we discussed properly fall. We talked too about how even among committed Christians, we will tend to categorize things differently in those three groupings.
But in the end, what I began to realize, was that our identity ultimately determines how we categorize "things" within those three categories. Meaning, that if I see myself first and foremost as a child of The Living God, a devoted follower of Jesus Christ, it just changes the way I think, act, feel, etc. not just about issues of right and wrong but everything in life. It reminded me that identity is one of those foundational questions we must understand, answer. It is our anchor in life, our foundation. And that many Christians categorize the do's and don'ts with such a wide variation because many Christians have compartmentalized their faith instead of being compartmentalized by their Christianity.
So, back to my conversation I was having...I shared that I had chosen to abstain from the use of any alcohol or tobacco because I felt that my doing so would cause others who knew me to be a pastor to have a hard time, and for some possibly even question their own faith. I could see people being surprised to learn, if I did, that I used alcohol and tobacco and question my sincerity to my calling...which is what forgoing a liberty is all about, giving something up you may feel at liberty to do but forgo because of the possible negative impact on others. The question was then posed to me, "Well, what if you were on a deserted island and there was no possible way for anyone to know?" I said, "Well hell, I'd cuss, drink, and smoke cigars!" Just kidding! I said no, not even then.
This is what I'm learning about being a devoted follower of Jesus, a child of The Living God. Where I am should never determine who I am, rather who I am should only and always dictate what I do wherever I might be.
Know who you are and you'll find that many of the other questions you are facing aren't quite so perplexing anymore, especially if you are child of The Living God, a devoted follower of Jesus Christ. If you are not certain about that, then read 1 John and listen to our sermon series Passing The Test!
Pastor Fred Michaux
According the Expositor's Bible Commentary, 1 John was probably a circular letter to the seven churches that would today be in modern Turkey over which he had apostolic authority, rather, under his supervision. Clearly, from the letter, people had begun to lose sight of the breadth of evidences necessary to be certain of their adoption into the family of God or what is also spoken of as eternal life. I believe one could categorize 1 John into four tests, resulting in determining the certainty of one's eternal life: the test of believing, the test of obeying, the test of loving, and the test of experiencing.
Many people I talk with think that the test of believing is the only one that matters, referencing John 3:16 or Romans 10:9,10; however, I always point out that the gospel of John and the epistle of Romans are not the only two books of the Bible. There are 66, not two. Our beliefs must always find the voice of the full counsel of scripture. 1 John, in my opinion, adds to the test of believing. And I would argue that John in his gospel and Paul in writing Romans only and always intended their readers to understand that believing necessitated life transformation, belief that would change the way we live. 1 John is an exhortation what that change should look like.
In the first part of our sermon on The Test of Obeying, we talked about how we tend to understand the answer to this blogs title question, Who Am I, by considering all our many life roles, passions, personal history, etc. We used the illustration of a library that has scores of collections. Our lives are a collection of various identity giving experiences. Unfortunately, our life as a devoted follower of Jesus becomes a part of "our collection" rather than being what houses all the rest of who we are. For example, instead of my being a father, brother, Jesus follower, neighbor, sporting clay shooter...I should see myself as a Christian father, Christian brother, Christian neighbor, Christian sporting clay shooter, etc. We are not supposed to compartmentalize our Christianity but rather allow our Christianity to compartmentalize us.
What does this have to do with obedience you ask? What got me thinking about this was a question someone asked me recently when we were talking about the do's and don'ts of Christians. You know, is it right to listen to secular music, is it right to watch R rated movies...you know the drill. Of course we talked about the difference between absolutes, matters of conscience, and forgoing liberties and where each of the issues we discussed properly fall. We talked too about how even among committed Christians, we will tend to categorize things differently in those three groupings.
But in the end, what I began to realize, was that our identity ultimately determines how we categorize "things" within those three categories. Meaning, that if I see myself first and foremost as a child of The Living God, a devoted follower of Jesus Christ, it just changes the way I think, act, feel, etc. not just about issues of right and wrong but everything in life. It reminded me that identity is one of those foundational questions we must understand, answer. It is our anchor in life, our foundation. And that many Christians categorize the do's and don'ts with such a wide variation because many Christians have compartmentalized their faith instead of being compartmentalized by their Christianity.
So, back to my conversation I was having...I shared that I had chosen to abstain from the use of any alcohol or tobacco because I felt that my doing so would cause others who knew me to be a pastor to have a hard time, and for some possibly even question their own faith. I could see people being surprised to learn, if I did, that I used alcohol and tobacco and question my sincerity to my calling...which is what forgoing a liberty is all about, giving something up you may feel at liberty to do but forgo because of the possible negative impact on others. The question was then posed to me, "Well, what if you were on a deserted island and there was no possible way for anyone to know?" I said, "Well hell, I'd cuss, drink, and smoke cigars!" Just kidding! I said no, not even then.
This is what I'm learning about being a devoted follower of Jesus, a child of The Living God. Where I am should never determine who I am, rather who I am should only and always dictate what I do wherever I might be.
Know who you are and you'll find that many of the other questions you are facing aren't quite so perplexing anymore, especially if you are child of The Living God, a devoted follower of Jesus Christ. If you are not certain about that, then read 1 John and listen to our sermon series Passing The Test!
Pastor Fred Michaux
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
3 Impediments to God - Part 3
In our two previous conversations, we have focussed on two aspects of human nature that impede us from pursuing intimacy with our Creator, our Heavenly Father. The first was our inclination to form conclusions without all the facts. When we form conclusions about God without truly understanding who God is, His nature, and His motivations, we easily find ourselves avoiding the very thing we desperately need: a relationship with God (see discussion 1).
The next topic we addressed was our inclination for arrogance. Arrogance ultimately leads to declarations like, “We don’t need God!” We explored this in the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel (see discussion 2). Both of these inclinations or tendencies create very real and very powerful obstacles to our experiencing a relationship with God. The good news is that God has a lot of experience helping people find their around these road blocks of life!
There is still one more formidable impediment that is constantly working against us in our efforts to pursue intimacy with God. The Apostle Paul says it best in the Bible (Ephesians 6:12), “We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers…” What in the world does that mean?! That sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus non-sense! You are absolutely right, but unfortunately the idea of an evil spiritual force at work against us is very real.
More often than not, we are our worst enemy. Have you ever met someone that tends to find the Devil or some evil spirit behind every problem? Sometimes we give the Devil and his minions more credit than they deserve. However, forgetting them completely would be equally unwise. The creation story in the first book of the Bible is a perfect example of what we’ll call evil intervention. The Devil was hard at work to derail God’s perfect plans from the very beginning. In Genesis, we sim him successfully deceiving Adam and Eve. We see him at work again in the book of Job. This time, although he devastates Job’s life, he fails in his attempts to lead Job away from God (unlike Adam and Eve). In Matthew 4:1 we read where the Devil tried to distract Jesus from His earthly life and ministry. Let’s not look for the Devil behind every problem, but let’s not forget there is an evil force at work in this world working persistently against God, and his usual plan is attacking people. God is always at work orchestrating ways to draw us into a deeper and closer relationship with Him, out of which will come both the discovery of our destinies and a closeness with God that enables us to withstand the Devil's attempts at our personal destruction. Just as Jesus was successful in Matthew 4, so too can we!
If you have never read Frank Peretti’s book “This Present Darkness” then you are missing a great read. Who knows whether or not it is a completely accurate portrayal of how the physical and spiritual realms coexist, but he certainly succeeds in giving a powerful reminder to God’s children that there is a force at work against us. Our comfort though comes from promises in the Bible like the one in I John 4:4 that assures us that God in us is greater than any force opposing us!
This is all the more reason each of us should be a committed part of a local church family. Let’s take a lesson from sheep (especially since we are called sheep so frequently in the Bible) who have learned there is safety in numbers. In a church family we learn about the Bible, help one another discern the difference between the Devil, plain circumstances of life, and consequences of our own stupidity. I Peter 5:8 is a powerful reminder about the Devil as it says he is like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. By being a part of a church family, we find a strong defense against following in the footsteps of Adam and Eve and being deceived by the Devil who is still busy at work against God’s people even today.
Talk to some friends about times you really feel an evil force was trying to derail your relationship with God. Share what you did to withstand the temptation or tragedy. Ask someone you esteem as a seasoned Christian to share how they discern the difference between the Devil and simply a circumstance of life. Pray for God’s continued protection and safekeeping. Finally, if you are not a commited part of a local church family, visit one this Sunday and then keep searching/visiting until you find one that you can call home!!
Pastor Fred Michaux
The next topic we addressed was our inclination for arrogance. Arrogance ultimately leads to declarations like, “We don’t need God!” We explored this in the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel (see discussion 2). Both of these inclinations or tendencies create very real and very powerful obstacles to our experiencing a relationship with God. The good news is that God has a lot of experience helping people find their around these road blocks of life!
There is still one more formidable impediment that is constantly working against us in our efforts to pursue intimacy with God. The Apostle Paul says it best in the Bible (Ephesians 6:12), “We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers…” What in the world does that mean?! That sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus non-sense! You are absolutely right, but unfortunately the idea of an evil spiritual force at work against us is very real.
More often than not, we are our worst enemy. Have you ever met someone that tends to find the Devil or some evil spirit behind every problem? Sometimes we give the Devil and his minions more credit than they deserve. However, forgetting them completely would be equally unwise. The creation story in the first book of the Bible is a perfect example of what we’ll call evil intervention. The Devil was hard at work to derail God’s perfect plans from the very beginning. In Genesis, we sim him successfully deceiving Adam and Eve. We see him at work again in the book of Job. This time, although he devastates Job’s life, he fails in his attempts to lead Job away from God (unlike Adam and Eve). In Matthew 4:1 we read where the Devil tried to distract Jesus from His earthly life and ministry. Let’s not look for the Devil behind every problem, but let’s not forget there is an evil force at work in this world working persistently against God, and his usual plan is attacking people. God is always at work orchestrating ways to draw us into a deeper and closer relationship with Him, out of which will come both the discovery of our destinies and a closeness with God that enables us to withstand the Devil's attempts at our personal destruction. Just as Jesus was successful in Matthew 4, so too can we!
If you have never read Frank Peretti’s book “This Present Darkness” then you are missing a great read. Who knows whether or not it is a completely accurate portrayal of how the physical and spiritual realms coexist, but he certainly succeeds in giving a powerful reminder to God’s children that there is a force at work against us. Our comfort though comes from promises in the Bible like the one in I John 4:4 that assures us that God in us is greater than any force opposing us!
This is all the more reason each of us should be a committed part of a local church family. Let’s take a lesson from sheep (especially since we are called sheep so frequently in the Bible) who have learned there is safety in numbers. In a church family we learn about the Bible, help one another discern the difference between the Devil, plain circumstances of life, and consequences of our own stupidity. I Peter 5:8 is a powerful reminder about the Devil as it says he is like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. By being a part of a church family, we find a strong defense against following in the footsteps of Adam and Eve and being deceived by the Devil who is still busy at work against God’s people even today.
Talk to some friends about times you really feel an evil force was trying to derail your relationship with God. Share what you did to withstand the temptation or tragedy. Ask someone you esteem as a seasoned Christian to share how they discern the difference between the Devil and simply a circumstance of life. Pray for God’s continued protection and safekeeping. Finally, if you are not a commited part of a local church family, visit one this Sunday and then keep searching/visiting until you find one that you can call home!!
Pastor Fred Michaux
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)