What Brand of Philosophical Theism Do You Carry In Your Bible?

Greek Philosopher Socrates

The other day Roger Olson mentioned "philosophical theism" in his article "Can God Make Himself Dependent Upon Us?" which I thought was both a good descriptive phrase as well as a most curious one. Curious in that any classic Christian position of theism is in itself embedded within its own vested "philosophical theism" of which there are many kinds and flavors: Greek Hellenism, Medieval Scholasticism, Rational Enlightenment, Secular Modernism, and so forth. Hence, to describe any theology (or theologian) one must necessarily look at their philosophical orientation embedded within their own education and schooling, the culture they write from, their predisposition towards the contemporary and vernacular, and so forth. To simply lob the title of philosophical theism upon someone is both too general and too non-specific to be of any help. The better question to ask is what kind of philosophical theism or faith tradition is the theologian in question espousing through his or her's theology, preaching, pulpiteering, and publishing?

Which gets to the greater problem of evangelicalism that tends to defend itself through mis-directive phrases and hot button idioms. For example, by saying that "THAT theologian is a philosophical theist!" "Oh my!" the naive respondent replies, "That's bad!" Not realizing that EVERY theologian is a philosophical theist, and the more responsible ones make a great personal effort in identifying their brand of philosophical theism, its limitations and any necessary qualifications within their own system of writing and thinking rather than simply declaring it as "orthodox," or what they think passes for "orthodoxy". Those less bothered by such prejudicial sentiments (or accuracy) will regard their own Christian faith traditions and heritage as the most appropriate to be written, published, and communicated to others. Nonetheless, it behooves the reader (and listener) to "critique" their favorite "bedrock" theologians for disposition, veracity, breadth, and wisdom. Without which there is only statement versus anti-statement as two or more philosophical traditions clash together in withering fire and lament (realizing, of course, that "traditions" are layered upon one another, and not so logically clean as first supposed).

Consequently, today's article written by Roger Olson follows up on his previous statement by his own words. Words that I think should be reconsidered and evaluated because the subject matter is so large and wide and deep. A subject that requires a pervasity of spirit and a mindedness of theological control, if not restraint and patience.

R.E. Slater

August 22, 2014

* * * * * * * * *

Intuitive Evangelical Theology versus Scholastic Evangelical Theology: “Classical Christian Theism” as Case Study

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/08/intuitive-evangelical-theology-versus-scholastic-evangelical-theology-classical-christian-theism-as-case-study/

by Roger Olson

August 15, 2014

Comments

I have long been impressed by how foreign scholastic evangelical theology is to even the most devout, biblically literate evangelical lay people. What do I mean by “scholastic evangelical theology?” I don’t know a better term for the “official” theology taken for granted and promoted as “orthodoxy” by many conservative evangelical systematic theologians. When I was in seminary we were required to read Calvinist Baptist Augustus Hopkins Strong’s Systematic Theology and the book of the same title by Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof (not to be confused with revisionist Reformed theologian Hendrikus Berkhof). They are stellar examples of what I mean by “scholastic evangelical theology,” but there are Arminian-Wesleyan examples as well (though not as many, I would dare to say).

While Strong and Berkhof are long dead, their influences live on. Many of the standard, best-selling evangelical systematic theologies are little more than updatings of Strong and Berkhof (or Hodge and Warfield who influenced Berkhof). Backing up in time…what I am calling “scholastic evangelical theology” derives from and is strongly influenced by Protestant Scholastic Orthodoxy—a technical term for theologians and theologies almost nobody but historical theologians ever read or even know about. Perhaps the best example is Francis Turretin (d. 1687). His Institutio Theologiae Elencticae was required reading for students at Princeton Theological Seminary until Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology replaced it in the late nineteenth century. Turretin’s Institutions was one of the most influential examples of Protestant (especially Reformed) scholasticism.

When I read Hodge, Strong, Berkhof and their contemporary successors among conservative evangelical theologians I am always impressed with how, in my opinion, nobody just reading the Bible would ever even guess at some of what they promote as “orthodoxy”—especially in the doctrine of God. Of course there are differences of nuance among them, but, for the most part, they all articulate, defend and promote as “biblical orthodoxy” what is, in my opinion, a barely Christianized version of Greek philosophical theology. The story of that begins, of course, with the second Christian Apologists Justin Martyr and Athenagoras and the Alexandrian church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Even Athanasius and the Cappadocians were steeped in it—although they struggled to Christianize Greek philosophical theology. I don’t think they were entirely successful.

Here’s what I mean—to be specific. What ordinary lay Christian, just reading his or her Bible, without the help of any of the standard conservative evangelical systematic theologies, would ever arrive at the doctrines of divine simplicity, immutability, or impassibility as articulated by those systematic theologians (e.g., “without body, parts or passions” as the Westminster Confession has it)? Without body, okay. But without parts or passions? The average reader of Hosea, for example, gets the image of God as passionate. While “parts” isn’t exactly the best term for the persons of the Trinity, a biblical reader will probably think of God as complex and dynamic being rather than as “simple substance.”

Take the doctrine of God’s “aseity”—absolute self-sufficiency. According to Protestant (and Catholic) scholasticism, including much conservative evangelical theology, God cannot be affected by anything outside himself. He is “pure actuality without potentiality.” Who would guess that from just reading the Bible? I wouldn’t. And yet it is touted by many conservative evangelicals as orthodox doctrine not to be questioned. To question it is to dishonor God and detract from his glory!

I much prefer “biblical personalism”—a term I borrow from Emil Brunner. I don’t agree with Brunner about everything, but he was right to take the doctrine of God back to the Bible and strip it of philosophical theism—especially attributes derived from the Greek idea of perfection. The God of the Bible is intensely personal, relational, interactive, emotional, even reactive. Or shall we throw Hosea out of the Bible? Oh, I remember—from seminary: it’s all “anthropomorphism.” There is anthropomorphism in the Bible (God does not literally have hands or eyes as we do except in the incarnation), but to attempt to explain the passions of God in Hosea (and other parts of the Bible) as all anthropomorphism is to start down the road of de-personalizing God. The end point is [Paul] Tillich’s Ground of Being or Being Itself. (Of course, conservative evangelicals never arrive there, but sometimes what they say about God’s attributes leaves one cold as ice with God seeming to be unfeeling and anything but relational.)

---

[One of the problems of theology, especially systematic theology, is the use of language itself. It is never pure syntax or syllogistic logicism but narrative and personalization, poetry and metaphor, if not very ambiguity itself in the very language it uses to tell us of God and ourselves. Perhaps the better question to ask is which philosophies best allow the many traditions of the biblical text to breath its greatest airs? I suspect we must always start with the tradition of the text itself in the ancient lost lands of the middle east, its bygone kingdoms, mindsets, and idioms if possible. At which point we must also use today's most current philosophies to critique those of their past heirs and precedents. Hence, "to strip theology of its philosophies" is to foist yet another "philosophy" upon the Bible. It cannot be done and would be naive to think to do so.  - R.E. Slater]

---

I’ve taught Christian doctrine and systematic theology for thirty-two years now and I have one recurring experience when introducing students who grew up in evangelical Christian homes and churches and are themselves biblically literate to standard conservative evangelical teaching about God’s attributes. They usually say something like “I’ve never heard anything like that.” And often “where’s that in the Bible?” I have to agree with them that much of it is foreign to the Bible, alien to Christian experience, and spiritually deadening. How does one relate to a God “without passions?”

No doubt many conservative evangelical theologians (and others) think they are honoring God by paying him metaphysical compliments derived from Greek-inspired philosophical theology, but what they are really doing is making God very much unlike Jesus who wept, was provoked to anger, rejoiced, etc. Scholastic theology tends to say those were only possible for the Son of God in and through his humanity—as if emotions are ungodly. Interestingly, virtually all theologians who portray God as unemotional are men and men are often inclined to view emotions as feminine and therefore unworthy of God. Could it be that traditional scholastic theology is infected with a tendency to justify male aversion to emotions, especially those associated with tenderness, by denying that the God of the Bible has such emotions?

This is where narrative theology (about which I have posted here before) can be helpful. Our doctrine of God should not be derived from philosophical presuppositions about what is appropriate for the divine but should be derived primarily from the biblical story of God—beginning with Jesus Christ as the fullest revelation of God’s person and character and spreading out from there to embrace the passionate God of the Bible who dared to open himself up to pain and peace, sorrow and joy in relation to the world and who could do that because feelings and emotions are part of being personal and God is eternally personal. Having appropriate emotional feelings is part of being in the image of God whereas scholastic theology tends to portray the image of God as reason ruling over emotion, being apathetic.

Estrangement: Living Alone Without Family

Shaheen Hasmat hasn't spoken to her family for six years Photo: KATE PETERS

It's rarely discussed, but 27 per cent of people will be estranged from family at some point.

Here, Shaheen Hashmat, 31, who's cut off all contact with her parents, tells her story -

and says the stigma of estrangement is one of society's last major taboos.

Estrangement: 'I haven't spoken to my family for 6 years'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11046600/Estranged-from-my-family-I-havent-spoken-to-my-parents-in-six-years.html

By Shaheen Hashmat
7:00AM BST 22 Aug 2014
Comments

Our families are supposed to be the ones who love us the most, who will take care of us and support us through difficult times. But what happens when they treat you so badly that you have to walk away?

Estrangement is not a subject that’s spoken about often, but it affects 27 per cent of people - who cut contact with at least one member of their family at some point in their lives. More than 8,000 adults in the UK are estranged from their loved ones at this very moment. The word ‘estrangement’ actually originated from the French 'estranger' and then Latin 'extraneare', meaning ‘to treat as a stranger’, or ‘not belonging to the family’.

For me, this is the perfect description of a situation that can leave those affected in a profound state of isolation and has a deeply negative impact on mental health and wellbeing.

When I was twelve years old, I was helped to escape the threat of forced marriage and honour abuse. I'd seen it happen to other members of my family and suffered various abuses myself, although I was made to feel like the 'attitude problem' was mine. The local police force and social services helped me get away, but that wasn't the end of my ordeal.

For thirteen years afterwards I struggled to overcome great confusion and emotional turmoil in an effort to maintain some semblance of a relationship with my parents. In this I was unsuccessful: the abuse continued, in less extreme forms that prolonged the psychological damage that had already been wrought.

I had a huge panic attack

When I was twenty-five years old, I finally realised that things were never going to change. I simply could not have a relationship with people who so consistently trampled on my boundaries. Since then, my mother has attempted to contact me only once. When I recognised the number she was calling from, I had a huge panic attack, from which it took me two days to recover. It’s been six years since I exchanged a word with either of my parents. The impact of legal and local authority involvement in my escape tore the family apart, and over the years I stopped speaking to all my relatives, except for one sibling with who I exchange a rare text, or phone call.

Shaheen Hashmat

Of all the psychological issues associated with escaping from honour abuse, I believe that estrangement poses the most serious challenge to recovery. Since there is usually more than one perpetrator, it’s not just the devastating loss of close family ties that victims have to deal with - they often become estranged from their entire community as well. It’s also likely that they have been raised in an isolated, highly restricted environment at home.

So they often have to learn how to socialise in a culture that feels completely unfamiliar to them, in order to form new friendships with other people. Without the close-knit support network that so many take for granted, it’s impossible to survive. It can be hard enough to lose just one family member. To lose so many made me feel like a ghost.

Estranged people tend to withdraw

Stand Alone is a UK-based charity, founded in 2012 by CEO Becca Bland, who has herself been affected by estrangement. Bland agrees that the experience can often leave people very vulnerable.

"Because of the stigma surrounding estrangement, people tend to withdraw. They feel scared about properly interacting with others and revealing their situation. Abuse survivors and others who have been rejected may have problems trusting others. For students who are estranged there is the added problem of needing to find somewhere to live when the end of term comes. Many spend the summer months sofa surfing, but there are others who run a real risk of homelessness.”

Compounding the pain of estrangement itself is the strong stigma associated with it. There is deep judgement towards those who, for any number of valid reasons, have chosen to cut contact with family. I’ve lived in London for ten years now, but my Scottish accent is still strong. It’s natural for new people I meet to ask questions.

My heart often sinks when, upon hearing that I’m not in contact with my parents, they say, ‘but they’re your parents! How can you just not talk to them?’ Or, ‘you’ll regret it before long – they won’t be around forever you know’.

We need to accept estrangement

Stand Alone

There is no consideration of what those parents are sometimes capable of doing to their children. And the stigma doesn’t stop with well-meaning strangers. An old boyfriend of mine was told by his father that he could do better than being with someone from a “broken home”. When new partners, or their families, discover that they can’t meet my family, there is a definite sense of mistrust - as though estrangement indicates ungratefulness, or an inability on my part to do the work it takes to commit to a relationship. Bland says: “There is a strong pressure to reconcile, when in fact what’s needed is acceptance of the reality of estrangement and provision of support to help people deal with the impact of this on their wellbeing.”

Stand Alone provides a range of services for those who are affected by estrangement, from regular therapeutic meetings in a group setting, adult foster care for those aged between 18 and 30 years, and practical support for students experiencing issues with finance and accommodation (as detailed in a 2008 NUS report).

Their work is unique. What's more, I’m glad to finally hear it said, publicly, that “there are always times when it’s right to walk away”.

I’ve come to realise that, despite the pain of estrangement, I have greater freedom than most to explore and create my own identity, and to enjoy the autonomy previously denied to me. The friends I have now are the family I wish I had. Even through the worst of times, they have loved and supported me unconditionally. I’m also able to offer support to others who have been through similar experiences. Although I still encounter stigma on occasion, I can be confident that my partner will love and respect me for the person I am, rather than judging me by the absence of family I left behind.

Stand Alone

Faith v. Logic: "Holding Creative Tensions Against A Binary Way of Thinking"

faith is messy–which is where God is found

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/08/faith-is-messy-which-is-where-god-is-found/

by Peter Enns

August 17, 2014

Comments

"As long as you can deal with life in universal abstractions, you can pretend that the usual binary way of thinking is true, but once you deal with a specific or concrete reality, it is always, without exception a mixture of darkness and light, death and life, good and bad, attractive and unattractive.

"We who are trained in philosophy and theology have all kinds of trouble with that, because our preferred position is to deal with life in terms of abstractions and universals. We want it to be true “on paper” whether it is totally true in concrete situations is less important or even denied.

"This is what the dualistic mind does because it does not know how to hold creative tensions. It actually confuses rigid thinking or black and white thinking with faith itself. In my opinion, faith is exactly the opposite—which is precisely why we call it “faith” and not logic.

"The universal divine incarnation must always show itself in the specific, the concrete, the particular (as in Jesus), and it always refuses to be a mere abstraction. No one says this better than Christian Wiman:

“If nature abhors a vacuum, Christ abhors a vagueness. If God is love, Christ is love

for this one person, this one place, this one time-bound and time ravaged self.”

"When we start with big universal ideas, at the level of concepts and –isms, we too often stay there—and forever argue about theory, and making more “crucial distinctions.” At that level, the mind is totally in charge. It is then easy to think that “I love people” (but not any individual people). We defend universal principles of justice but would not actually live fully just lives ourselves. The universal usually just gives us a way out. The concrete gives us a way in!"

Richard Rohr (from his Daily Meditations)

Adapted from A New Way of Seeing, a New Way of Being: Jesus and Paul (CD, MP3 download);

and Holding the Tension: The Power of Paradox, discs 1 and 3 (CD, MP3 download);

and Eager to Love: The Alternative Way of Francis of Assisi , pp. 71-72

* * * * * * * * *

CHRISTIAN WIMAN:

Eight years ago, Christian Wiman, a well-known poet and the editor of Poetry magazine, wrote a now-famous essay about having faith in the face of death. My Bright Abyss, composed in the difficult years since and completed in the wake of a bone marrow transplant, is a moving meditation on what a viable contemporary faith—responsive not only to modern thought and science but also to religious tradition—might look like.

Joyful, sorrowful, and beautifully written, My Bright Abyss is destined to become a spiritual classic, useful not only to believers but to anyone whose experience of life and art seems at times to overbrim its boundaries. How do we answer this “burn of being”? Wiman asks. What might it mean for our lives—and for our deaths—if we acknowledge the “insistent, persistent ghost” that some of us call God?

One of Publishers Weekly's Best Religion Books of 2013

An Analysis of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy by Peter Enns

Several years ago in June of 2011 Peter Enns gave an analysis of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy which may be helpful to those wishing to read through its vernaculars. As you do remember that the editorial language and phraseology used by Dr. Enns may be a bit dated and require some nuancing in light of more recent discussion.

R.E. Slater
August 22, 2014

---

Science, Faith, and Inerrancy
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/science-faith-and-inerrancy/

by Peter Enns
August 22, 2014

Below is a link to a PDF of a 14-part blog series I did for BioLogos between June and August  2011: Science, Faith, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (Enns) – Edited. (For a non-watermarked version, click Science, Faith, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (Enns) – Edited (no watermark).) The series is no longer on BioLogos’s website. The PDF was created by Mike Beidler, who got permission from BioLogos to do so.

BioLogos asked me to write this series in an effort to diagnose those elements of CBSI that impede evangelicals from entering into a fruitful dialogue with evolution. I am not sure if I would write this series today (in 2014) exactly as I did back then, especially after collecting my thoughts in an essay in inerrancy last year. Still, I think some may find it useful.

* * * * * * * * *


continue to -

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 1 - Albert Mohler

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 2a - Peter Enns

Peter Enns - "Five Views of Inerrancy," Part 2b - Peter Enns Responds

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 3 - Mike Bird

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 4 - Kevin Vanhoozer

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 5 - John Franke

RJS - Inspiration? Yes! – Inerrancy? No.

An Analysis of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy by Peter Enns

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 6 - Scot McKnight

Roger Wolsey - 16 Ways Progressive Christians Interpret the Bible

Can God Make Himself Dependent on Us?

“If God is merely impassible He has not made room for Himself in our agonied existence,

if He is merely immutable He has neither place nor time for frail evanescent creatures

in His unchanging existence. But the God who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ as

sharing our lot is the God who is really free to make Himself poor, that we through His

poverty might be made rich, the God invariant in love but not impassible, constant in

faithfulness but not immutable.”  - T.F. Torrance

Can God Make Himself Dependent on Us?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/08/can-god-make-himself-dependent-on-us/

by Roger Olson

August 9, 2014

Comments

My recent post about “stealth Calvinism” [see next article below] has stirred up some interesting debate about the appropriateness of saying that God is in any way dependent on humans (or any creature reality). If you did not read that post, it would be helpful to go back and read it, but it’s not absolutely necessary to understand the gist of what I am saying here.

The catalyst question was whether God’s knowledge of humans’ free decisions and actions is independent of them. I argue (and still believe) that to say so is to affirm Calvinism (whether intentionally or unintentionally) because the only way God could know humans’ decisions and actions independently of them is by decreeing them and rendering them certain (divine determinism). This raised even some Arminians’ protests. They don’t like any talk of God being in any way dependent on anything outside of himself.

I have said in response to some objections that I am not afraid of such talk—so long as we understand that God’s dependence on us is voluntary. Here I will add that God’s dependence does not affect his eternal nature or character. That is, God’s voluntary “making himself dependent” on us (a form of divine self-limitation) does not open him up to change in his being. He remains always who he is, always was, and always will be.

However, I see no problem, if we conceive of God as personal in a way analogous to our own personness (because ours is created in his image and likeness), with saying that the eternal, unchanging (in nature and character) God opens himself up to change in relation with us.

I’ve quoted T. F. Torrance on this subject before. Here I’ll do it again simply because he expressed what I am saying so well:

“Does the intersection of His reality with our this-worldly reality in Jesus Christ mean anything for God? We have noted already that it means that space and time are affirmed as real for God in the actuality of his relations with us, which binds us to space and time, so that neither we nor God can contract out of them. Does this mean that God has so opened Himself to our world that our this-worldly experiences have import for Him as taking our hurt and pain into Himself?

… If God is merely impassible He has not made room for Himself in our agonied existence, and if He is merely immutable He has neither place nor time for frail evanescent creatures in His unchanging existence. But the God who has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ as sharing our lot is the God who is really free to make Himself poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich, the God invariant in love but not impassible, constant in faithfulness but not immutable.” (Incarnation in Space and Time, 74-75)

One can find similar affirmations in Karl Barth and Hendrikus Berkhof. While they might not use the word “dependent” I think that word, if qualified rightly, is appropriate to what they say about the God of Jesus Christ and of the biblical story. God makes himself dependent in Jesus Christ—not for his existence or being or character or attributes but for a part of his experience.

A whole line of biblically-serious Christian theologians of the past 150 years have finally shaken off the philosophical ideas of God that became part and parcel of the “Christian classical theism” over the centuries and have dared to condition and qualify God’s immutability and impassibility, simplicity and aseity. My own study of historical theology leads me to believe the first among them were Horace Bushnell (d. 1876) and I. A. Dorner (d. 1884). Both were “mediating theologians” (as I describe that category in The Journey of Modern Theology), not liberal theologians. Among 20th century theologians who affirmed, in one way or another, God’s voluntary dependence on creatures without falling into sheer panentheism (in its original sense of making God eternally and essentially dependent on the world) are Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Jürgen Moltmann, Eberhard Jüngel, Adrio König, Hendrikus Berkhof, Robert Jenson, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Donald Bloesch, and Paul Fiddes. Of course add T. F. Torrance to that list.

Now, just to be clear, I am not saying any of them used the word “dependent,” but I am saying that they all developed doctrines of God from Scripture (as opposed to philosophy) that strongly implied that God voluntarily chooses not to be strictly independent of the world in every way. And I would argue that classical Arminian theology, even if it rarely has gone so far as to say God is dependent on the world for anything, requires that God not be thought of as strictly independent of the world in every possible sense. God’s knowledge of libertarian free decisions and actions of human persons cannot be strictly independent of those persons’ decisions and actions.

If the theologians I have mentioned above hesitate to say that God is in any sense, even voluntarily, dependent on the world I think that is because they were/are wary of people’s natural tendency to misunderstand that to mean panentheism (in the original sense)—something I have made crystal clear here and elsewhere I do not mean. Let me be clear: I believe the God of the Bible could have remained God in every essential way, having all his attributes, fulfilled in himself, without any creation. However, once God decided to created the world (I realize that language is philosophically problematic but it is biblically faithful nonetheless) he voluntarily became dependent on the world for some parts of his life experience.

To put it poetically he “made room for the world in himself.” If there was no creation, God would still be God. But since there is creation and covenant, God experiences the world which alters his experience from what it was and would have been apart from creation. That is what I mean by “dependent” when I say that some of God’s knowledge and experience is dependent on human decisions and actions.

I understand that this language sends shivers down some Christians’ (and others’) spines and raises their hackles, but it doesn’t do that to me. I find this language perfectly consistent with the biblical narrative that identifies God—once its interpretation is stripped of the overlay of philosophical theism that began with the Christian “Apologists” in the second century.

And a P.S.: I don’t see the difference between “logical dependence” and “causal dependence” when we are talking about personal relationships. The former is only independent of causal dependence in matters solely analytical (e.g., mathematics).

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Addendum

Though I approach this same subject matter from an "open theism" and "process theological" point of view (what Roger calls philosophical theism) still we are in agreement. Too, his warrant to be wary of panentheism would be my own caution as well when using process theology's approach in this matter. Basically, our future is open, and God will experience our future with us. Hence, we are not alone in the dark spaces of this wicked world. Moreover, Jesus' redemption now gives to the church the responsibility with God to renew this world together. Hence, we proceed apace by both Spirit and flesh in mutual solidarity towards recreation, renewal, rebirth, reclamation, revival, and redemption. This means that the deep civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, must be our burden of reconciliation. So too must our solidarity be with our Muslim brothers in the middle-East and Iraq who now suffer the evils of ISIS. We are truly "brothers," in the sense of our common bond / burden of humanity, and truly, if in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord. So then, be ye  salt and light. But be ye something and not nothing.

R.E. Slater

August 20, 2014

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Beware of Stealth Calvinism!

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/07/beware-of-stealth-calvinism/

by Roger Olson
July 31, 2014
Comments

Several times here I have expressed concern that some Calvinists are attempting to take over churches by stealth. I frequently hear from church members (mostly Baptists but occasionally also Pentecostals and other evangelicals) that their new pastor turned out to be a five point Calvinist without their knowing that when he was called. They only contact me about this when the new pastor attempts to impose Calvinism on the congregation—for example by insisting that all deacons and elders be Calvinists, etc. Numerous reports of this have arisen from especially Southern Baptist congregations that traditionally allowed leaders to be either Calvinist or non-Calvinist.

Now I am beginning to hear reports of denominations that have traditionally included both Calvinists and non-Calvinists subtly attempting to impose Calvinism by means of new statements of faith or amendments to old statements of faith. Usually this happens under the guise of attempting to rule out open theism. Here is the most recent example:

A pastor has reported to me that his district of an evangelical denomination (which I know very well) has amended its statement of faith. Under the guise of attempting to exclude open theists the denomination has asked its member churches to affirm the following:

We believe God’s knowledge is exhaustive; that He fully knows the past, present, and future independent of human decisions and actions. The Father does everything in accordance with His perfect will, though His sovereignty neither eliminates nor minimizes our personal responsibility.

I can’t help but note that “independent” should be “independently.” (What is happening to adverbs in American English? They are disappearing.) However, my main objection is that no Arminian should sign such a statement and any church that adopts it is automatically affirming Calvinism—whether they know it or not. Only a Calvinist (or someone who believes in the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty) can say that God’s knowledge is independent of human decisions and actions. Even a Molinist cannot say that and mean it.

I suspect many people in that denomination will affirm this statement without any awareness of its Calvinist nature or that it excludes Arminianism. Any church that adopts this statement is adopting Calvinism whether it knows it or not.

The only way God’s knowledge can be independent of human decisions and actions is if God foreordains them and renders them certain.

(Just to head off objections from Lutherans—Yes, some Lutherans believe in that same view of God’s sovereignty, but among evangelicals especially this is especially associated with Calvinism.)

So what do I think is going on in this case? I don’t know, but it certainly appears to me that whoever wrote that statement knew what they were doing. If not, they shouldn’t be writing statements of faith for a denomination and its churches.

(No, I’m not going to name the denomination. I have no desire to get into a wrangle with them over this or anything else. Hopefully, however, they will hear of my objections and change their statement of faith. If they don’t, they are automatically excommunicating all their Arminians—a significant portion of their pastors and members—whether intentionally or not insofar as this statement of faith becomes an instrument of doctrinal accountability. And if it’s not intended as an instrument of doctrinal accountability, why write it and ask churches to affirm it? It will eventually become an instrument of doctrinal accountability even if its initial intention is not such.)

This appears to me to be another case, on a grander scale, of stealth Calvinism.

I have been warning fellow Arminians for a long time that the Calvinist attacks on open theism will come around to haunt us. I knew that because all the evangelical books attacking open theism include arguments that, if valid, would also rule out Arminianism (e.g., that the open theist God cannot guarantee such-and-such in history because he allegedly lacks the knowledge necessary for that).

This statement (above in italics) is probably being promoted as a guard against open theism, but it’s much, much more than that. If adopted by my church I would have to give up my membership—not because I’m an open theist (I’m not) but because whether intentionally or not it excludes classical Arminianism. It makes any church that adopts it automatically, de facto, Calvinist.

Arminians—beware! This tactic is continuing among evangelicals. Privileging Calvinism is already the case in many evangelical organizations that have always included both Calvinists and Arminians. That is one thing that caused me to begin raising my voice about Calvinism and Arminianism twenty-plus years ago. (For example, a faculty member at a major non-denominational seminary told me that no Arminian would ever be hired to teach there—not because the seminary’s statement of faith ruled out Arminianism [it doesn't] but because the theology faculty would block his or her hiring. At that time my own president called himself a “recovering Arminian.” He meant it as humor, but to a real Arminian it sounds like the rhetoric of exclusion.)

Now something more than “privileging Calvinism” is going on. Some Calvinists are attempting to impose Calvinism on Christian organizations that have traditionally been neutral with regard to Calvinism and Arminianism and have included both. They are often doing this under the guise of warding off open theism. Arminians need to band together, in spite of our differences over things like open theism (whether it’s a legitimate evangelical option or not) and push back when this happens.

Kenosis and God’s Eternal Nature

In Christian theology, kenosis (from the Greek word for emptiness κένωσις, kénōsis) is the

'self-emptying' of one's own will and becoming entirely receptive to God's divine will.

The word ἐκένωσεν (ekénōsen) is used in Philippians 2:7, "[Jesus] made himself nothing ..."

[Phil. 2:7] (NIV) or "...[he] emptied himself..."[Phil. 2:7] (NRSV), using the verb form

κενόω (kenóō) "to empty". See also Strong's G2758.

- Wikipedia

Kenosis and God’s Eternal Nature

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/blog/archives/kenosis_and_gods_eternal_nature/#.U_VYyfldXfs

by Thomas Jay Oord

August 19, 2014

Deer in Moonlight. [Photo by Thomas Jay Oord]

A growing number of Christians think Jesus' kenotic love tell us something about God's essential nature. If true, this sheds light on ongoing questions about the relationship between divine love and power.

The verb form of the Greek word “kenosis” appears about a half dozen times in the New Testament. Perhaps the most discussed appearance comes in the Apostle Paul’s letter to believers in the city of Philippi. Here is the Philippians text in the New Revised Standard Version translation, including verses surrounding the word “kenosis” to provide context for help finding its meaning:

"Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself (kenosis), taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death -- even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:3-13).

What Does It Mean?

All Scripture requires interpretation. Theologians interpret this passage in various ways and apply it to various issues. Before looking at those interpretations, let me summarize the context in which we find the word “kenosis.”

The passage begins with Apostle Paul’s ethical instructions: look to the interests of others, not your own. He points to Jesus Christ, who is divine, as the primary example of someone who expresses other-oriented love. Jesus’ love is evident, says Paul, in his diminished power and his service to others. The weakness of the cross is an especially powerful example of Jesus acting for the good of others. God endorses Jesus’ other-oriented love, and God enables those who follow Jesus’ example to pursue salvation. God desires that we take this approach to life. Paul tells readers to pursue the good life (salvation) fastidiously.

When considering the meaning of kenosis in this passage, most theologians in previous centuries focused on the phrase just prior to kenosis: “(Jesus) did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited.” They believed it provided clues for explaining Jesus’ humanity and divinity.

At a fifth-century meeting in Chalcedon, Christian theologians issued a statement saying Jesus Christ has two natures “communicated to” one person. Jesus is the God-human, they said, because he is fully divine and fully human.

Theologians thereafter pondered which divine attributes Jesus retained in his human life and which, as a result of self-emptying, he did not. The Chalcedonian creedal statement offers little to no help in answering the specifics of this issue. Theologians today still ponder how Jesus is both human and divine.

Kenosis Tells Us about God

In recent decades, however, discussions of kenosis have shifted. Instead of appealing to kenosis in the debate over how much of God’s nature Jesus possesses, theologians today use kenosis primarily to describe how Jesus reveals God’s nature. Instead of imagining how God may have relinquished attributes when becoming incarnate, many now think Jesus’ kenosis is less about relinquishing attributes and more about telling us who God is and how God acts.

The contemporary shift to thinking of kenosis as Jesus’ revealing God’s nature moves theologians away from phrases in the passage preceding kenosis. Many now read kenosis primarily in light of “taking the form of a slave,” “humbled himself,” and “death on a cross.” These phrases focus on Jesus’ diminished power and his service to others. They describe forms of other-oriented love.

I follow the contemporary trend of interpreting kenosis primarily as Jesus’ qualified power, other-orientation, and servant love. This interpretation seems more fruitful overall than discussions about what might be communicated between Christ’s two natures, although I don’t mean to say such discussions have no place. My interpretation also helps us consider God’s essential power given God’s loving nature and orientation toward loving creation. Consequently, I refer to kenosis to talk not so much about how God became incarnate as who God is in light of incarnate love.

In short, we know something about God’s eternal nature in the light of Jesus Christ’s kenotic love.

RJS - Inspiration? Yes! – Inerrancy? No.

David Livingstone

Pre-Adamism and Hermeneutics (RJS)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/08/14/pre-adamism-and-hermeneutics-rjs/

by RJS

Aug 14, 2014

Comments

Several years ago I read and posted on David Livingstone’s book Adam’s Ancestors: Race, Religion, and the Politics of Human Origins. This is a book I enjoyed reading, so it was a real pleasure to meet David at the Evolution and Christian Faith Workshop last month, and to have an opportunity to talk about the book among other things. Given our recent focus on the question of Adam, not to mention the discussion of Biblical Inerrancy, Adam’s Ancestors is a book that warrants another look and some edited reposts. Today we have the final installment.

In Chapter 9, Dimensions: concluding reflections, Livingstone ties together several themes running through his book. For our purposes today I would like to consider one of these – concordism and the role of concordism in our understanding of the relationship between science and scripture.

Concordism expects a concord, an agreement between claims of scripture and reality. On one level I am a concordist – for example I believe that the historical and theological claims relating to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus match reality. There is a historical and a theological concordance with reality.

But is concordism the right approach to all of scripture? When and at what level is agreement to be expected?

When it comes to Genesis 1-4 I am not a concordist … or am I? Perhaps the line is not so clear. I certainly don’t think that the purpose of Genesis One is to teach cosmology, history or science. Concordist approaches – finding modern science in the ancient text – seem deeply flawed.

On the other hand an accommodationist view – that God “accommodated” his message to the knowledge and understanding of the day has problems of its own. Some find these problems particularly apparent in the issues such as Adam and Fall, the image of God and the soul. The accommodationist approach can simply dismiss features of the text as an artifact of the ancient context and fail to consider fully the meaning and intent of the text.

Both traditional concordist and accommodationist views seem to miss the target in understanding the nature of this Scripture passage as “God-breathed.”

Taking a slightly different look at the problem, as Christians we expect a concord between the teaching of scripture and reality. One of the difficulties is that the teaching of scripture can take many forms…poetry, story, proverbs, history, prophecy, apocalyptic imagery, and more. These forms are molded in time and place – not only by the worldview and knowledge of the day (ANE cosmology for example), but also by the literary forms at work in the culture. Neither concordism nor accommodation seems to provide the correct nuance of understanding and approach.

In the history of the development of thinking about pre-adamite man the concept wavered between a defense of the authority of scripture and a challenge to the authority of scripture. By and large, however, pre-adamite man is a concept that was and is embraced to keep faith with both science and scripture. Livingstone suggests that the investigation of the history of pre-adamism sheds light on concordism and the role of concordism.

As such it [pre-adamism] discloses something about the general nature of concordist proposals. By working to preserve the peace between science and theology, it is not so much that pre-adamism acted as a conceptual bridge between two discrete spheres of knowledge and belief. Rather it functioned as a kind of mold that sculpted both scientific commitment and theological conviction into a distinctive shape. Harmonizing schemes are not to be thought of as passively zipping together two disparate sets of beliefs. They are, rather, agents actively fashioning both scientific theory and religious doctrine into new forms. … Harmonizing strategies are thus rarely single-unit ideas; rather, they are conceptual systems – packages of ideas – that transform the very notions they seek to unite. (pp. 220-221)

Livingstone’s insight – that harmonizing strategies are generally a package of ideas that transform the notions they seek to unite – is worth serious consideration. Every Christian thinker has wrestled with scripture and the story of scripture in the context of a day and age. Perhaps this two way street – with scientific theories informing and transforming interpretation and doctrine shaping the view of science – is the normal, natural, God ordained approach. We read Augustine, not to see threads of modern science in his thought, but to see how he wrestled with the common knowledge of his day and the story of scripture. We read Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Warfield, and Ramm, and see how they wrestled and thought, achieving a harmony between what they saw in scripture and what they knew from the world around them.

Paul told Timothy that all scripture is God-breathed, but it is in the context of a statement that defines a purpose for scripture. It gives “wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ” and it is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” I suggest – and put out for discussion – the idea that both the concordist approach and the accommodationist approach miss the point. They fail to wrestle fully with the nature of scripture, its purpose and its form.

I’ve rambled somewhat here – but would like to conclude with a question or two and open a discussion.

• What role do you think harmonization should play in our understanding of scripture?
• At what level should we expect a concord between science and scripture?
• What approach should we take toward scripture?

David Livingstone’s new book Dealing with Darwin: Place, Politics, and Rhetoric in Religious Engagements with Evolution was the basis for his lecture in Oxford. I’ve ordered the book and will post on it soon – it should prove as interesting as Adam’s Ancestors.

* * * * * * * * *

Inspiration? Yes! – Inerrancy? (RJS)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/08/19/inspiration-yes-inerrancy-rjs/

by RJS
Aug 19, 2014
Comments

The post last Thursday (Pre-adamism and Hermeneutics) focused on the methods of biblical interpretation brought to bear in considerations of Adam and pre-adamic populations, particularly on the role concordism played and the effect of the harmonizing strategies on interpretation. The discussion of concordism and harmonizing strategies developed to keep faith with both science and scripture leads quite naturally into a broader discussion of biblical inspiration, inerrancy and the authority of scripture as the Word of God. After all, the purpose of a concordist approach is to preserve the inerrancy and thus authority of the text.

What does inerrancy have to do with inspiration and/or authority? A commenter on one of Scot’s posts on Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy brought up Charles Ryrie’s statement on biblical inspiration (the commenter found it in a Study Bible, but I also find it on p. 76 of Basic Theology):

Formerly all that was necessary to affirm one’s belief in full inspiration was the statement, “I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.” But when some did not extend inspiration to the words of the text it became necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.” To counter the teaching that not all parts of the Bible were inspired, one had to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible.” Then because some did not want to ascribe total accuracy to the Bible, it was necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration of the Bible.” But then “infallible” and “inerrant” began to be limited to matters of faith only rather than also embracing all that the Bible records (including historical facts, genealogies, accounts of Creation, etc.), so it became necessary to add the concept of “unlimited inerrancy.” Each addition to the basic statement arose because of an erroneous teaching. (emphasis added)

Ryrie continues (also p. 76) …

The doctrine of inspiration is not something theologians have to force on the Bible. Rather it is a teaching of the Bible itself, a conclusion derived from the data contained in it.

I agree with Ryrie – inspiration is not something theologians have to force on the Bible and I believe in the inspiration of the Bible. But most of the subsequent refinements (responses to what Ryrie considered erroneous teachings), that define exactly what is meant to some people by “inspiration” culminating in “unlimited inerrancy,” do have to be forced on the text. These are not really something the Bible teaches of itself as a whole or conclusions that can be derived from the data contained in it. In fact they lead to a great deal of cognitive dissonance as many come to fear (or realize) that the text does not live up to the pronouncements.

Concern with inerrancy changes our focus. There is another consequence as well. David Livingstone pointed out that the harmonizing strategies used to achieve concord between science and the Bible transform our understanding of the message of scripture. This isn’t just true for questions of science. Harmonizing strategies within scripture also tend to fall into the same trap … strategies reconciling the details of the differing accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 and even Job; the histories in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles; the details in the Gospels (there are differences both between John and the synoptic gospels and between incidents within the synoptic gospels – as with the fig tree for example: Wither the Fig Tree, Whither the Wandering Saints); Paul’s account of his post Damascus journey with the account given in Acts; and this isn’t a complete list. The harmonizing strategies used transform the notions they seek to unite. At the very least harmonizing strategies draw attention away from the core message of passages they seek to defend.

Inerrancy and all the ensuing imperatives, fine-tuned definitions, and fights, with bodies thrown off the boat, churned up in the wake, seems a largely irrelevant and sometimes destructive concept. We need to take scripture seriously – but taking scripture seriously means reading it (all of it) and living it. Neither rigid literalism nor a sifting of error from truth are appropriate.

The alternatives. When it comes to scripture the alternative to inerrant isn’t errant. I do not believe the bible is errant. But “inerrant” (at least inerrant as it has come to be defined in evangelical Christianity) is simply not a useful term to describe what scripture actually is or what it testifies about itself. We have to take the bible as we have it, with poetry, story, proverbs, history, prophecy, apocalyptic imagery, satire, ancient Near Eastern myth, anachronisms, … with all of the trappings. Here we have a faithful transmission of God’s work in his world, his law, his character and more, recorded in forms shaped by experience and context of the people involved, including authors and editors. It is foolishness (the wisdom of the world) to force it into a mold (unlimited inerrancy) of our own making.

Perhaps the best alternative to inerrant is quite simply to return to Ryrie’s first statement without all the detailed baggage he wishes to encumber upon it – I believe in the inspiration of the Bible. And we can go a step further with Paul. Paul wrote to Timothy that all scripture is God-breathed (inspired) in the context of a statement that defines the purpose for scripture. It gives “wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ” and it is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

When we try to define a tighter fence we will become entangled in the rusty barbed wire we have used and we add to scripture (the message of the cross) a structure of our own human construction.

My 2¢ for what it is worth (and I realize that some will think it worth nothing or even less than nothing).

* * * * * * * * *


continue to -

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 1 - Albert Mohler

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 2a - Peter Enns

Peter Enns - "Five Views of Inerrancy," Part 2b - Peter Enns Responds

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 3 - Mike Bird

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 4 - Kevin Vanhoozer

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 5 - John Franke

RJS - Inspiration? Yes! – Inerrancy? No.

An Analysis of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy by Peter Enns

Scot McKnight's Review of "Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy," Part 6 - Scot McKnight

Roger Wolsey - 16 Ways Progressive Christians Interpret the Bible