While we could certainly carry on for much longer about the topic of total depravity, I thought we might move on for the moment to the "U" in Tulip -- as long as we all understand that this acronym is a feeble attempt at synthesizing the thought of John Calvin and the Reformed tradition -- which stands for "unconditional election." Of course, I will leave it to Oscar to fully explain what those of the Calvinist tradition mean by "unconditional election," but I will start by explaining the Wesleyan-Arminian position of "conditional election."
Did God know from the foundations of creation, before there was time, that certain people would live forever with Himself in glory and that another group would be damned for all eternity? I answer that He did not. Now I know the red flags pop up as soon as I say "God does not know...(fill in the blank)" because that seems to deny his omniscience. So how does a Wesleyan preserve a belief in God's omniscience while maintaining that he did not pre-elect some people to salvation and others to damnation. There really are two popular solutions.
First, many (and I would say most) Wesleyans believe that God KNOWS the future, but that he does not CAUSE the future. So, for example, I could know that it is raining outside of my window, but that does not mean that I am causing it to rain. In a similar way, God might ultimately know if I will accept or reject Him but that does not necessarily mean that my choices were all predetermined. This is the line of reasoning that C. S. Lewis takes in Appendix B of his book "Miracles" (which, in my opinion, is the best part of the whole book).
A second and more radical option is taken by those who call themselves "open theists." The open theist believes that in order to preserve genuine, authentic human free will, He has limited his knowledge. From this perspective, if God knows something will happen, then it is absolutely predetermined that it will happen since God cannot be wrong. And, if He knows whether or not I end up in heaven or in hell, then nothing that I can do or not do will change that fact. The "fact" of my eternity is already written in a book and that book's ink is immutable. The open theist still believes that she is orthodox in believing that God is omniscient as long as omniscience is properly defined as "knowing all that may be known." If God could choose to limit his knowledge in order to allow for perfectly free agents to exist apart from himself, then he could still know all that is possible to know, but also not know my every move before it happens. (A similar argument is made for omnipotence: Can God make a square circle? I answer "no." To say that God is omnipotent is to say that he can do all that is possible to do).
I just have to throw one of my favorite Homer Simpson quotes here: "Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?"
But underlying all of these issues is the fundamental issue of free will and of God's character. The Wesleyan believe, above all, insists that God is love and that as a God of love "he is not willing that any should perish, but that all may come to eternal life" (2 Peter 3:9). For God to have created the world knowing full well that many (or most) human beings would choose to reject relationship with Him and live forever in damnation seems to me to be inconsistent with a God of LOVE. Instead, I believe in a God who genuinely desires that ALL humans would enter into relationship with Him, that none of these people are predetermined to either accept or reject Him, and that He gives human beings the choice to accept or reject his love. Any alternative to this seems to me to be less than a God of LOVE. (This is why the great Nazarene theologian Mildred Wynkoop titled her book about Wesleyan-Arminian theology "A Theology of Love").
I write this with all due respect to my Reformed sisters and brothers and recognize that they too believe in a God of love. I'm simply trying to explain why some aspects of Reformed Theology seem to exist in tension with my understanding of love. I am open to learn.
Grace and Peace,
Greg the Arminian
Greg, I am glad to see you contrast C.S. Lewis' view of a God who is outside time, able to see the end without causing the end, against open theology's God in time, unable to see the end because the end has not yet occurred, therefore doesn't exist. I wonder how the concept of "prophecy" fits into either view?
ReplyDeleteAnother question I would like to see clarified is whether unconditional atonement is a matter of substance or simply degree. For example, let's say that God allows something to happen that could harden one person's will against faith, while softening another person's will. I may say some small thing, while teaching a class, that I know will cause my students to work a little harder. Have I not in effect swayed their final course grade, even though ever so slightly? If I, as an instructor, can change a student's will and thereby change their course grade, how could God, who knows how I am wired not change my will? If God can and does do such things, has he not shaped and thereby predestined me at least to some extent? So back to my earlier thought. Is free will vs. predestination a matter of substance (either/or) or degree (both/and)?
Greg,
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am open to other views, I have tended to think of the issue along similar lines to "open theism." But rather than coming from a Protestant perspective (which I think open theism does), I've come by it through the Catholic pipeline.
Since, as you say, we believe in a God of love, we could say that God -- becoming involved with his creation through love -- has compromised his own aseity (fancy word for things whose existence derives from no other source outside itself). Or as Lucien Richard puts it: "God has surrendered his triumphant self-sufficiency and brought about his own need."
Much of our previous understanding of the God-Creation relationship has been one of efficient causality -- God causes creation to be, and creation is an effect outside of God. That's great from a Greek perspective, but if we're to incorporate a doctrine of grace, we might say that God involves himself with his creation in such a way that it becomes part of God's own history. If we followed the "causality" formulation, then God could only "know" the world in terms of his original, eternal idea of it -- in its possible form(s). But once that "idea" becomes reality, it also changes God (including his "knowledge").
One of my favorite quotes regarding this idea is from Paul Tillich's "Systematic Theology": "God participates in everything that is; he has community with it; he shares in its destiny." In creating the world, God is, in a sense, creating himself. He can only truly become what he is through his creation -- Creator, Reedemer, Sustainer.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteThat's a great thought. Is the playing field even so to speak or skewed in some way? Has God rigged the classroom? (I think I'm understanding your point). In short, I believe that God does intervene, but generally he does so in order to show is love in greater depth and to further "woo" all people to himself. There might be a rare instance in which he "hardens the hearts" of people, but I believe this would only be in response to their previous stubbornness. So, in a way, I agree with you, but I see God as the kind of teacher who wants ALL his students to pass (like any good teacher).
Christopher,
I think some of your comments here are incredibly insightful and (in my opinion) much more in line with Wesleyan thinking that with Reformed thinking. If we look at the love displayed on the cross, we see the opposite of self-sufficiency/asceity. And, if we really believe that the incarnation and cross is the ultimate revelation of God's character, then we must reject this notion of him as detached or other than creation. (Having said that, I do not think we can go so far as the process theologians who suggest that God's essence depends upon creation or that he "grows" with it. I believe he is the Uncontingent One). But there is no doubt that he has limited Himself by creating other free agents and by enter their world.
I love the Tillich quote. So do you agree that God is not contingent upon creation or would you for further to say that God somehow relies on his own creation?
Greg,
ReplyDeleteI'm only vaguely familiar with process thought. Most of my understanding is coming from my time with the Jesuits and Dominicans.
I wouldn't say that God RELIES on his own creation for establishing his BEING in the same sense that we (the creation) rely on God for our being -- He is the Unmoved Mover. But I would say (as I quoted in my previous comment), that by creating, God willfully brought about his own need.
I think of it in terms of KENOSIS as I read Karl Rahner:
"The primary phenomenon given by faith is precisely the self-emptying of God, his becoming, the kenosis and genesis of God himself. He can become insofar as, in establishing the other which comes from him, he himself becomes what has come from him, without having to become in his own and original self... He creates by emptying himself, and therefore, of course, he himself is in the emptying... Because he truly wants to have the other as his own, he constitutes it in its genuine reality. God goes out of himself, he himself, he as the self-giving fullness. Because he can do this, because this is his free and primary possibility, for this reason he is defined in scripture as love." (Foundations of Christian Faith)
Sorry for the lengthy quote, but if you know anything about Rahner, it's the only way he comes. And as you rightly noted in your commment, we see that same self-emptying love in its fullest on the Cross. But as you and I both know, the story doesn't end there -- we, ourselves, are called to love in the same way. I believe it is this sense that we can see God's "need" for us. Not in some imperfect, faulty God sort of way. But as 1 John 4 expresses that "[God's] love is brought to perfection in us." Until he creates beings who, themselves, love, God's love is not PERFECTLY what it should be.
I've heard "love" described this way: When we say, "I love you," we are essentially saying, "You make such a difference in my life that I would not be who I am without you." In other words, we are changed by the one we love. I believe the same is true of God.
All that to say, no, I don't believe God is contingent in an absolute sense. God is God. But God being CREATOR, or God being LOVE, is contingent on God creating and loving. But God still remains the source. However, I believe he does CHOOSE to be affected by his creation, so I don't know that I would hold to a core immutability in a traditional sense. I don't know if that puts me in line with process thought or not. Again, most of it is coming from Rahner, and probably some Raymond Brown and Teilhard as well.
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteWhat a wonderful post! It is fascinating to me how you, coming from the Jesuit and Dominican traditions, and I, from the Methodist tradition, have arrived at such similar conclusions. I love the Rahner quote as he is one of my favorites.
I am glad that you don't consider yourself a pantheist (which is all the rage in some circles these days), but I do agree with you that God has limited himself by creating. I like the term "panentheism" which describes a more orthodox position and which I think you and I would both embrace.
Good thoughts. Keep sharing.
- Greg
Greg,
ReplyDeleteYes. I am somewhat of a hodge-podge. While studying with the Dominicans/Jesuits, I was a member of the Free Methodist Church (and am now still technically a member of the United Methodist Church), so I too was pleased at the resonance I experienced there.
I agree with you as well on describing the God-human relation in terms of "panentheism." Much of traditional theism tends to set God wholly apart from creation, while pantheism rejects a wholly independent creator. Panentheism seems to mediate those two extremes and reminds me of Ephesians 4 that God is "above all and through all and in all" -- both immanent and transcendent.