Noah's Ark in Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian & Babylonian Lore, Part 2 - Interpretation & Shape

Noah's Ark in Sumerian, Akkadian,

Assyrian & Babylonian Lore

Part 2 - Interpretaion & Shape

by R.E. Slater

NASB Bible Verses - Genesis 5:32 to 10:1

ESV Bible Verses - Genesis 5:32 to 10:1

RSV Bible Verses - Genesis 5:32 to 10:1

Wikipedia - Noah's Ark

SERIES - "INDEX - Noah & the Genesis Flood"

Abridged Genesis Script

by Chabad.Org

Note: Chabad uses G-d for "God"

The Wickedness of the People

Methusealah’s wisdom and knowledge were inherited by his grandson Noah, the son of Lemech. Noah was a righteous and pious man.

When Noah was five hundred years old, he had three sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth. They too were good and pious men, fearing and loving G‑d, and unlike all the other inhabitants of the earth, who had gradually become more and more depraved. Yet neither Noah nor Methuselah could change the evil ways of the people around them, in spite of the many warnings G‑d sent through them to their fellow-men. Everyone thought only of his own welfare and recognized only the laws that were in his own favor. Mutual respect and cooperation had given way to violence and sin.

Finally G‑d gave them a last chance. He ordered Noah to build an ark slowly, and to complete it in one hundred and twenty years. This was to be the last period of grace within which the people could change their evil ways. Time passed and yet the people had not repented. So fearful was the prevailing corruption that G‑d determined to destroy all life by a universal Deluge; not only the men but the beasts also were to perish, so that no trace might remain of that wicked age.

Only Noah found grace in the eyes of G‑d, and he was to be spared the fate of all the other living things, because he was the only pious person who had tried to arouse the conscience of the people and warn them of the punishment to come.

The Ark

G‑d told Noah to build his ark in public and to tell everyone its purpose: that it would save him from the coming Flood. The Ark was to be three hundred cubits in length, fifty in width, and thirty in height, and was to consist of three stories, divided into small rooms to hold people, animals, and food. Noah and his wife, their three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives were to live in it. Some animals of every kind in the world were to live in the Ark too. Noah’s family and the animals were to live in the Ark until the Flood ended. Noah did as G‑d commanded. His neighbors made fun of him for his faith, and they paid no attention to his warnings of the Flood that was to come.

The Flood

Noah was six hundred year old when G‑d told him to go into the Ark with his whole family, and to admit the animals which G‑d had selected.

The Flood commenced on the seventeenth day of the second month. The gates of heaven broke loose, and the depths of the earth opened to send forth streams of raging, boiling water, swallowing everything in its path. Rain fell for forty days and forty nights and the water which covered the earth rose higher and higher. It covered the peaks of the highest mountains. Every living thing died, and all growing things were destroyed. Amid this terrible scene of ruins and devastation the Ark, guided by G‑d, floated securely. But the ship was fiercely tossed about and shaken at the heights of the stormy flood, so that it seemed to Noah that it was about to break apart.

The Flood Recedes

Noah and his children prayed constantly, and at last the flood quieted down. A wind blew over the earth and the Ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ararat, after it had been afloat for seven months.

The Raven and the Dove

Gradually the water subsided; and on the first day of the tenth month the peaks of the mountains could be seen again. Noah, still imprisoned in the Ark, looked forth upon the wide spreading though decreasing waters; and after waiting forty days longer, he sent forth a raven from the Ark. This bird, glad to regain and to enjoy its liberty, returned to the Ark only to be fed, flying to and fro, until the waters had quite abated. Yet, Noah, anxiously hoping that the floods were disappearing from the land, sent out another bird, and this time a dove. But the dove, more delicate than the raven, found no resting place, and returned to the Ark. After seven days it was again sent forth, and now it returned at evening-time with a fresh olive leaf in its mouth. Then Noah knew that the earth was almost free from the flood, although still unfit for habitation.

After another seven days, the winged messenger was sent out again and returned no more. A feeling of gladness must in truth have filled Noah’s heart, for in the beginning of the first month, the surf ace of the earth was cleared from the waters, and three hundred and sixty-five days after the beginning of the Flood, the ground was perfectly dry.

The Flood had passed, but it had changed the appearance of the earth and of the entire universe. Everything, even the light of the sun, had lost some of its original strength and power, and the earth was barren and unyielding.

Noah Offering

Noah and his family spent a whole year in the Ark. Then G‑d ordered them to leave the Ark. Noah built an altar and brought an offering which G‑d accepted graciously. And G‑d promised that He would never again curse the earth because of man. Seasons, heat and cold, day and night, and all the other laws of nature would never again fail altogether, as they had done in the time of the Flood.

The Seven Laws

G‑d blessed Noah and his sons with the same blessing He had given Adam and Eve, giving them power over all living creatures. Before, they had been allowed to eat only herbs and plants. Now they were allowed to use meat for food, but only after the animal had been killed. To eat flesh torn from a living animal was forbidden. And stern was His decree against the shedder of human blood. Murder was to be punished by death; for could a greater crime be conceived than that of destroying a being created by G‑d in His own image? Other commandments were, the establishment of Courts of justice, the prohibition of blasphemy, indecency, idolatry, and stealing.

Covenant with Noah

These rules G‑d included in a treaty with Noah and Noah’s sons.

As a sign of the Covenant G‑d showed them a rainbow, up in the clouds, as a permanent record for all times to come.

* * * * * *

The Ark Encounter by Ken Hamm near Cincinnati, Ohio

A popular view of Noah's Ark

Wikipedia - Noah's Ark

30 cubits / 51 ft. deep x 50 cubits / 85 ft across x 300 cubits / 450-510 ft in length: “This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.”  Genesis 6:15

If one takes the popular view of Noah's Art with a fore-and-aft uprisen keels and circumscribes the craft from its lengthened form to a circular form then from a distance it would look like a normally long boat but up close one could tell that it was rounded. - re slater

Question

From the images above what might you guess is:

1 - The Christian view of Noah's Ark?

2 - The biblical view of the Ark?

3 - And the ancient view of an Ark?

Visit the Ark Encounter

Irving Finkel | The Ark Before Noah: A Great Adventure

The Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures

Noah's Ark in Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian & Babylonian Lore, Part 1 - Setting

Noah's Ark in Sumerian, Akkadian,

Assyrian & Babylonian Lore

Part 1 - Setting

by R.E. Slater

NASB Bible Verses - Genesis 5:32 to 10:1

ESV Bible Verses - Genesis 5:32 to 10:1

RSV Bible Verses - Genesis 5:32 to 10:1

Wikipedia - Noah's Ark

SERIES - "INDEX - Noah & the Genesis Flood"

Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians and then Babylonian.

The Sumerians were called the «Black people». They probably split from the earlier civilisation of Aratta in the Armenian Highlands/Ukraine.

There was a huge flood which caused mass destruction of the contemporary civilisations when the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea connected, some time from 4000–5000 BC.

It may be that this flooding caused the myth of the biblical flood milleniums later.

- Quora: Shivan Perumaal

Mesopotamian timelines, references and maps...

[Global] Cradle(s) of Civilizations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization

History of the Middle East

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East

World History Encyclopedia - Ancient Mesopotamia

https://www.worldhistory.org/Mesopotamia/

History of Mesopotamia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mesopotamia

Ancient Mediterranean + Europe

https://smarthistory.org/ancient-mediterranean/

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

 

Sumerians were neither Indo-European nor Semitic people, but everyone else on this list was largely Semitic - as in, they spoke Semitic languages (Babylonians and Assyrians spoke Akkadian, Assyrians today speak various Aramaic dialects and Akkadians spoke Akkadian themselves).

Akkadians were a Semitic-speaking people who ruled over Mesopotamia when they conquered Sumer and eventually established an empire - Akkadian Empire, which reached its peak during the rule of Sargon of Akkad.

Akkadian Empire

Assyrians ruled Northern Mesopotamia, while Chaldeans ruled in the south, in an empire called Babylon or Babylonia. Consequently, the Assyrians are the Assyrians, while the Chaldeans are/were the Babylonians.

Assyrians formed a military dynasty while Babylonians became merchants and agriculturalists.

Assyrians worship animism or animistic beliefs, while Babylonians are polytheistic. They worship several gods and thousands of minor gods.

- Quora: Alice Giam

Assyrian Empire

On the map are two major cities, Asshur the center of Assyria, and Babylon. Each was an empire at different times.

However, Babylon was the center of an empire for only two relatively brief periods. For much of the time, it was subject to Assyria.

The Assyrians lived in that area from at least 2600 BCE. Apparently, they were influenced by Akkad and spoke Akkadian

Babylon, however, was founded by Amorites who had moved into Mesopotamia around 2000 from northern Canaan. In 1792, Hammurabi established a kingdom and built the city of Babylon up from a town. His empire rapidly declined after his death in 1750.

Sometime after that, the Assyrians gained control over Babylon, although Babylon remained an important religious center.

In 625, as the Assyrian Empire finally began to fail, Babylon joined the Medes and others in rebelling against Assyria, which was wiped out by 609. The Babylonians had a second empire until 539 when the Medes and Persians conquered Babylon. Babylon remained an important city for a long time after that.

Bottom line, Babylon gets a lot of credit for what Sumer and Akkad accomplished, but it wasn’t a great power for any length of time. Instead, it was an important trading and religious center.

The Babylonians’ big significance was taking the Jews into exile from 605–586, when they destroyed Jerusalem. The Medes and Persians returned the Jews and other exiled nations in 539. 

- Quora: Steve Page

Babylonian Empire + Wikipedia

Assyrian vs Babylonian

The two neighboring sister-states of ancient Mesopotamia competed for dominance and as such grew widely different in character.

History

Assyria took its name from the town of Ashur, which was the main town but it may also apply to the wide empire that was captured and ruled by the Assyrians. Assyria had better climate than Babylonia owing to the fact that it was located in a highland region north of Babylonia. Assyrians were not entirely Semitic and their true origin is not really known. Their culture, however, was largely indebted to the Babylonians, the Hurrians and the Hittites. Their religion was an adoption from the Babylonians except that the presiding god of the city of Ashur became Assyria’s chief deity. Their nature of worship was animistic.

Babylonia was located at the eastern end of the fertile crescent of west Asia with its capitol as Babylon. At times it was referred to as the land of the Chaldeans. There were originally two political divisions namely Sumer and Akkad. Both the Assyrians and Babylonians made use of the Cuneiform script and all people including royalty, priests, merchants and teachers relied on writing. Nebuchadnezzar ruled Babylon for many years, his reign eventually becoming one of the longest and most accomplished in human history. Some historical moments during his reign include twice capturing. Jerusalem and destroying it and the buildings and walls he built in the city, which were admired by Greek historians.

Organization

While merchants and agriculturalists sprung up in Babylonia, Assyrians became more militaristic, forming an organized military camp ruled over by an autocratic king as the supreme ruler. Successful generals then founded Assyrian dynasties and the king was the autocratic general of an army, who was in the early days surrounded by feudal nobility. These nobles were aided, from the reign of Tiglath-Pileser onwards, by an elaborate bureaucracy. The king’s palace was more sumptuous than the worship houses (temples) of the gods from which it was separate. All people were soldiers or little else to the extent that even the sailor belonged to the state. This resulted to the sudden collapse of the Assyrian during the age of Ashurbanipal when it was drained of its warrior population. In the neighboring Babylonia, the priesthood was the highest authority with priests having been raised to the throne by the revolution. Under the control of a powerful hierarchy, the Babylonian king remained a priest to the end.

Summary

1. Assyria was located north of Babylonia, its highland location giving it better climate than Babylonia.

2. Assyrians formed a military dynasty whereas Babylonians became merchants and agriculturalists.

3. The supreme ruler in Assyria was an autocratic king while in Babylonia, priesthood was the highest authority.

4. Assyrians’ nature of worship was animistic and that of idolatry while for Babylonians it was in a Supreme God.

- Source: Wikipaedia / Quora: Mary Bennett

A Faith for Generations Y & Z, Part II - Follow Up: Process v Reformed Theology

click to enlarge

A Faith for Generations Y & Z

PART II

Follow Up: Process v Reformed Theology

by R.E. Slater

October 23, 2023

Baby boomers are the eldest, born between the years 1946 and 1964.

Generation X follows, and they were born between 1965 and 1980.

Next comes Generation Y (more commonly known as Millennials), born between roughly 1981 and 1994.

The youngest generation in today's workforce is Gen Z, who were born between 1995 and 2009.

 

My previous article, A Faith for Y & Z Generations - Process Theology vs. Reformed Theology, felt like it needed a follow up. And quite honestly, I would've thought there might have been a few more articles on Google than what I found. One, by my Internet Arminian "mentor" and traditional Baptist theologian, Roger Olson, who in 2013 really struggled with defining what process theology was becoming; and, a 2013 follow up article by Tripp Fuller's Calvinist Reformed friend, Paul Capetz.

To these articles come my own articles from 2011-2016 here at Relevancy22 which are accounted for in the topical column and Indexes under assorted references and probably number in the hundreds as I struggled with leaving my Baptist heritage and Reformed Calvinist education for something I didn't even realize was out there until I stumbled across it.

This kinda-sorta happened as I was updating Olson's Arminianism towards an Open and Relational theology. Two other fields I knew nothing about. And it wasn't until six months later as I was "developing" these theologies when I discovered there were other theologians doing the same. One, by my friend Thomas Oord who was also a process theologian even as I was moving in that direction myself.

Moreover, the evangelical side of Open Theology and Relational Theology needed to be joined and united. So I did. And it wasn't until several more years later (2019??) that I discovered that these contemporary Arminian (and evangelical) positions functioned better as outcomes to a larger, more integral theology known as process theology.

 

This then is what finally propelled me to leave the Platonic et al Westernizations of traditional Protestant and later, contemporary evangelical theologies, for the philosophic-theology of AN Whitehead's process philosophy and its derivative, process theology as begun under John Cobb, Jr.

To this end, after reuniting open and relational theologies together I then completed them as Open and Relational PROCESS theologies. This is where both theologies belonged. Not in theologically dated and scientifically outmoded Calvinistic evangelicalism but in a post-evangelical landscape underlaid philosophically by process thought.

To which, since 2019 or 2020, I have been slowly expanding process thought to every Christian systematic doctrine, dogma, church polity, and missionary outreach over the past number of years. And I've also noticed that more and more protestant Christians of every denomination, sect, stripe, association, and synod are also beginning to explore for themselves, their schools, institutions, and organization how process philosophy and theology might update their own faiths in forms of societal currency.

For myself, the youth of the world is where I want to leave my labors for their generations to absorb it and expand process thinking across every form of discipline and endeavor. I began by writing for my grandchildren so that they would find a credible direction for their Christian faiths which could deal ably with evolution, the quantum sciences from biology to neuroscience, AI + technology, psychology and sociology, political economic theory, and most of all, the polyplurality intersections of racial harmony with institutional forms of equality and justice.

In my own Baptist-based evangelical and Covenant Reformed structures this was a much harder task to accomplish even as a "progressive (but not processual) evangelic). But with a process-based Christianity I can now easily embrace gender and sexual intersectionalism, interfaith religions, and the more generous forms of loving, value-centric democracies.

The key to all of this is that each area must have some form of process basis as a common language moving towards cooperative, resource sharing, and dialogic centrism within their religion, beliefs, and societal attitudes. Process in the binder. It works because God's creation functions processually. Perhaps a century later we may have other terms and ideas about processual ecological-cosmology (ecocosmology).

But for now, this is a growing field of expression which is filled with opportunity as it values relationships, mutual and beneficial experiences of the part and the whole TOGETHER, and the spiritual realm of not only humanity but creation itself.

Value, value, value is the teleological driver to any processual evolution regardless of forms or disciplines. My Christian word - or theistic/theological word for value - is LOVE. Specifically God's LOVE imparted from God's being to creation's being.

And guess what? In Whitehead's schemata of a processual cosmology BEING is always BECOMING. It is never static but always dynamic. Which means Spirit-driven inspiration is never at rest but always meeting the needs of creation - of which humanity is a kind or type of being within the greater complex of creation!

Which also answer's the evangelical eschatological phrase of "Jesus Come!" To a process Christian this phrase is more adequately-and-ably expressed as "Jesus BECOME ! " And guess what? If God's love is the common derivative-and-definition to the processual descriptor of VALUE re a generative and beneficial living evolutionary teleology within an entropic universe, then as the Beatles once sang, "All we need is Love." And to that we may all say, "Amen and Amen."

Peace,

R.E. Slater

October 23, 2023

click to enlarge

* * * * * * *

Why Process Theology Is an

Alternative to [Traditional] Christianity

Article Link

by Roger E. Olson

March 8, 2019

This past Sunday (March 3, 2019) my local city newspaper included on its editorial page a column by a local pastor urging that an “outmoded” idea of God be discarded in favor of a better one. It read like a sermon, so I assume it was some version of one she preached to her congregation. She began by mentioning the Transfiguration narrative because it was Transfiguration Sunday. But that was her text (or pretext) for launching into a talk about two views of God—one “outmoded” and the other better for political and personal reasons. And she claimed the new, kinder, gentler idea of God (my words) is also more biblical than the outmoded idea of God.

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

The “outmoded” picture of God she offered up is that God is secretly “in charge” of everything that happens and uses “coercive power” to control people and events. That “God” is, she said, “dictatorial” and “despotic.” She did not name any names, but perhaps she was thinking of the God of Calvinism. (She is Presbyterian.)

The only alternative to that outmoded picture of God that she offered is of a God who acts relationally and persuasively and does not “coerce” anyone or anything. She indirectly dismissed the traditional divine attribute of omnipotence.

As a student and at least “wannabe” scholar of modern theology I recognized her talk/sermon/essay as rooted in and expressive of what is generally known as Process Theology. It is taught in many so-called “mainline Protestant” seminaries. It is a distinctly modern type of theology rooted in the ideas about God and the world of philosophers Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne.

Process theology “bloomed” in the 1970s especially in the United States. It’s main interpreters and promoters included theologians John Cobb, David Ray Griffin, Delwin Brown, Schubert Ogden, Daniel Day Williams, and Marjorie Suchocki.

In 1979, while in seminary, I took a course in “Process Christology” at Luther Seminary’s extension “Shalom” in Sioux Falls, S.D. It was taught by a theologian on the faculty of Augustana College. We read, among other volumes, Process Philosophy and Christian Thought edited by Delwin Brown (Bobbs-Merrill, 1971). I kept up a lively interest in Process Theology ever after that and wrote a chapter on the subject in 20th Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age (with Stanley Grenz) (InterVarsity Press) and The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction (InterVarsity Press). Over the years I got to know several process theologians and devoured numerous books and articles by process thinkers.

All that is simply to say I know process theology when I see (or hear) it.

The late Lutheran theologian Robert Jenson is recorded as having said that the only thing wrong with Process Theology is that it is such an attractive alternative to Christianity. Of course, many, perhaps most, process theologians are Christians. I don’t think Jenson meant to imply otherwise. Both of us (although I hesitate to speak for him) believe(d) one can be Christian while holding to a theology that is seriously defective and problematic from any orthodox version of Christianity.

As I read the pastor’s essay/sermon/column about exchanging an outmoded view of God for this new, improved one (Process Theism), I wondered how many readers would catch on to the following:

First, the essay/sermon/column presented a false either-or with an excluded middle. Well, many excluded middles. One need not throw the baby of divine omnipotence out with the bathwater of a “dictatorial” and “despotic” idea of God. There are many Christian (and other) views of God that fit neither model. I think, for example, of Jürgen Moltmann’s vision of God as self-limiting (but still omnipotent) love. I think, for example, of Robert Jenson’s own Karl Barth-inspired view of God in several books such as God after God (Bobbs-Merrill) and The Triune Identity (Fortress Press).

Second, the essay/sermon/column presented an idea of God that would, by logical extension and implication (as with all Process Theology) rule out miracles including especially God’s promised intervention at the end of history as we know it, in the future, to finally, once-and-for-all defeat evil. A God who has no other power than persuasive power leaves the future in our human hands. The old saying “Man proposes, but God disposes” has to be revised as “God proposes, but man disposes.” Our hope, then, is in ourselves, not in God.

In my own, humble opinion, the amputation of realistic, future eschatology (whatever the details may be) is one that effectively kills the patient of biblical, orthodox Christianity.

All that is not to say the pastor-writer of the essay/sermon/column is not a Christian. All I am saying is that her theology, Process Theology, is very seriously defective—biblically, in terms of Christian orthodoxy, and experientially (for hope).

So why does it matter? A person who drinks deeply at the wells of Process Theology, like a person who drinks deeply at the wells of Calvinism, ironically, cannot pray petitionary prayers hoped to make a real differences in what is going to happen. And that practice is central to Jesus’s own message (viz., importunity in petitionary prayer to God). A God who has only persuasive power, like a God who is all-determining, is not a God one can pray to to change the course of life and history.

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).

* * * * * * *

A Calvinist Loving On Process Theology

article link

by Tripp Fuller & Paul Capetz

January 11, 2012

Paul Capetz – a real deal Calvinist, professional theologian, & Fuller Family Christmas Guest decided to replay to my sovereignty smack talking this week with a Calvinist rejoinder.  This is awesome and I am sure it will inspire you to get his book on the history of the doctrine of God (it’s awesome & for general audience) and check out the podcast 500th birthday we threw for Calvin.  Now…here’s Paul!

I applaud Tripp Fuller for initiating this stimulating and provocative discussion about Calvin’s theology and the question of metaphysical determinism.  As someone with a deep appreciation for Calvin (I have taught 6 seminars on Calvin at my school in the past 20 years as well as written a book on Calvin’s understanding of religion), I hope I can add some words that are intended not polemically but thoughtfully, thereby giving expression to some of the issues with which I have had to wrestle as a student and teacher of Calvin.

Let me begin by stating that of all the premodern theologians, Calvin best captures the whole of what is important in my understanding of Christian faith.  He is deeply indebted to Luther in his doctrine of justification, he is profoundly Augustinian in his understanding that religion is a matter of the heart and its affections, and he veers in the direction of Wesley with his emphasis upon sanctification.  Moreover, his high view of the Old Testament and his belief that the third use of the law is its primary purpose account for his oft-noted affinities with Judaism and thus make him an important bridge between Jews and Christians.  Finally, one cannot help but notice that Calvin is also vitally concerned with the political life and the shaping of society in the direction of greater justice for all and care for the needy.  In each of these respects, I follow Calvin without reservation!

But there is another side of Calvin that explains the stereotypically negative picture of him.  First, there is his utterly deterministic view of divine providence.  Not only does God allow events we deem evil to occur but God is the active agent behind each and every event.  Of course, Calvin strives valiantly not to impugn God’s character by accusing God of injustice.  Still, it is hard for even the most sympathetic reader of Calvin’s theology not to find a logical problem in his theology at this point.  Second, his doctrine of election means that before creation God has predestined who is to be a recipient of salvation and who is to be damned.  Again, it is hard not to suspect that his position here leads to insuperable problems.  After all, what is the point of preaching the gospel if some people (indeed, the majority of people!) are incapable of responding to it by virtue of God’s decision to damn them before they are born?

As a theologian I employ an existential hermeneutic, if I may call it that.  What I mean is that I always look for the existential question being addressed behind any particular theological statement of doctrine.  So, for example, it is clear in the above two cases that Calvin is addressing two concerns near and dear to his heart.  First, his doctrine of providence is concerned to assure us that the events of personal life and history are meaningful because God is actively involved in all events.  Second, his doctrine of election is concerned to uphold the priority of God’s grace in human salvation.  But, having identified the motivating questions behind his formulations of these doctrines, we have to ask: are there other ways we could affirm these religious points without Calvin’s problematic interpretations of these doctrines?  This is how I believe we should approach the question of whether metaphysical determinism is really as essential to Calvin’s theology as most of those who call themselves “Calvinists” believe to be the case.

Process theologians and others with related viewpoints have correctly pointed to the influence of Greek metaphysical assumptions upon all classical Christian theology, whether Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Protestant.  There can be no serious doubt, I think, that the classical tradition is guided by an unquestioned axiom regarding God’s impassibility.  I have found process theology particularly helpful in offering new ways to think about this issue, especially its insistence that there can be a perfect exemplification of receptivity in God.  If we let go of the classical bias that looks upon change and passibility as imperfections—and I think we should—then there might be another way of working through the problematic aspects of Calvin’s theology identified above.

There is, in my judgment, one other problem with Calvin’s theology and that is a formal or methodological one.  Calvin, like all the premodern Protestants, believed it is necessary to account for every single statement within the Bible and to make them cohere with one another in a “system” of doctrine.  Calvin’s Institutes of 1559 is probably the finest achievement in the era of the Reformation of this form of biblical theology.  Two centuries of historical-critical labor, however, have sufficed to demonstrate that there are multiple theological perspectives in the Bible that cannot be harmonized apart from doing damage to the integrity of the biblical text itself.  Let’s take the example of divine determinism.

Obviously, Calvin has plenty of exegetical support for his deterministic doctrines of providence and election in both testaments.  Yet the Bible itself also offers counter-examples where the emphasis is precisely to assert human responsibility and hope for a redemptive outcome of even the most desperate circumstances if only sinful human beings will repent of their destructive ways.  I believe that an honest reckoning with the Bible requires us to leave behind Calvin’s basic methodological assumption of a unitary biblical theology and to think systematically about the various possibilities offered to us by the Bible for thinking about providence and election.  But agreement with my view means that we have to move away from the understanding of exegesis and theology bequeathed to us by the sixteenth-century Reformers and to grapple with the difficult issues of modern theology that have arisen of necessity from the historical-critical study of the Bible.

In sum, I believe that there is much of importance to retrieve in Calvin’s theology but that it cannot be salvaged in its entirety.  But is this a betrayal of Calvin?  I think not.  If Calvin was able to adopt a critical posture toward Luther, why cannot Reformed theologians today adopt a critical posture toward Calvin?  I might note in closing that two of the finest heirs of Calvin’s tradition in the modern world have done precisely that: Schleiermacher and Barth.

Paul E. Capetz

Professor of Historical Theology

United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities