The Face of Contemporary Christianity Today

Must a Christian Believe in God? (“Godless Christianity?”)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/09/must-a-christian-believe-in-god-godless-christianity/

 

by Roger Olson

September 16, 2013

Comments

 

Over the years I’ve had many encounters with people claiming to be Christians who also say they either do not believe in God or are not sure whether they believe in God. And I’ve read several theologians who claim to be Christian who deny the existence/reality of God (that is, they deny “theistic realism”).

 

Must a person believe in God to be Christian?

 

Well, first, we have to parse the question and terms carefully. What do people like this mean by “God?” What do they mean by “believe in?” What do they mean by “existence” when applied to God?

 

Theologian Paul Tillich famously denied the existence of God. But so did Søren Kierkegaard. So have many existentialist theologians and theologians inclined toward negative theology. But what did they mean?

 

Tillich made much of the brokenness of finite existence; for him “existence” is cut off from “essence.” God transcends the divide between essence and existence. Also, to “exist” is to be an object; God transcends object-ness. God is not an object, a thing.

 

So some philosophers and theologians who deny God’s existence believe in God’s reality; they believe in God.

 

I wrote my entire doctoral dissertation (Rice University, 1984) on Pannenberg’s phrase “God does not yet exist.” One thing is clear; Pannenberg believes in God. (Read my chapters on Moltmann and Pannenberg in my forthcoming book The Journey of Modern Theology to find out what “God does not yet exist” meant in “eschatological theology” and why Moltmann, who clearly believes in God, once declared that “only a Christian can be a good atheist.”)

 

So we can’t take “God does not exist” at face value; we have to ask people who say that what they mean.

 

However, beginning at least in the 1960s, some self-identified Christian theologians began to talk about “Christian atheism” and claimed that they were Christians without believing in God’s reality. That is, they denied theistic realism—any reality of God except as a cipher for some dimension of nature or human spirituality. Thomas Altizer and William Hamilton were the most famous examples. Later Don Cupitt joined them in his own way, putting his own spin on “taking leave of God for God’s sake.” For him, as for many modern ,and postmodern, self-identified Christians, “God” is simply a cipher for “the call forward,” spirituality, self-transcendence.

 

So why did these people, the radical theologians, consider themselves Christians? As William Hamilton insisted, they are Christians because they “stand with Jesus” in the world. That is, their posture toward the world is one inspired by Jesus.

 

More recently one reads self-identified Christian thinkers like John Caputo and his popularizer Peter Rollins (not to say Rollins doesn’t have his own ideas or isn’t inspired by other thinkers than Caputo) and wonders whether they believe in God. I think they are being purposefully ambiguous about it in order to provoke thought about assumptions about “God.” They are bothered (to say the least) by what they consider distortions of God in folk religion and some scholarly religion as well. For them, it is a sin to objectify God. So most talk about God is demeaning to God. But that leaves us with little ability to talk about God. Of course, the mystics such as Meister Eckhart were saying much the same centuries ago. And Kierkegaard wrestled with this in his context of easy-believism in which “God” was often just a cipher for respectable Danish culture.

 

I worry, though, that these ideas are filtering down to non-theologically trained self-identified Christians in confused ways. I am hearing more and more about and from self-identified Christians who go to church, consider themselves Jesus-loving persons, engage in spiritual exercises, and yet say they do not believe in God or are not sure they believe in God. In fact, I would say this is an issue churches and church leaders must face.

 

A few years ago Reformed theologian Michael Horton wrote a book entitled Christless Christianity. I found myself in agreement with much of it. However, perhaps it’s time someone wrote a book entitled Godless Christianity—not to condemn genuinely concerned or confused self-identified Christians who are not sure they believe in God but to explore why some self-identified Christians do not believe in God or are not if they believe in God and then to explain why belief in God, faith in God (not proof of God) is necessary to authentic Christianity.

 

So why do many thoughtful, reflective, even “spiritual,” Jesus-loving people who consider themselves Christians either deny God or struggle with belief in God?

 

I’m sure there are many reasons, but here I’ll touch on a few.

 

First, I suspect many of them grew up thinking of God as a “God of the gaps” and finding out the gaps in knowledge they thought God was necessary to fill can be closed otherwise—for example by science.

 

Second, I suspect many of them grew up thinking of God as a cruel judge and even author of evil and innocent suffering and came to think that this all-determining, judgmental God was not worth believing in.

 

Third, I suspect many of them grew up thinking of God as the only source for moral living, that only believers in God could or would live “good lives,” and then found out agnostics and atheists can also live good, moral lives (often better than many people who believe in God!).

 

Fourth, I suspect many of them grew up thinking their parents were “God-like” and then, under disillusionment about their parents (or pastors), discarded belief in God (the inevitable results of what Feuerbach and Freud called “projection”).

 

Fifth, I suspect many of them found themselves unable to resist temptations, fell into sinful lifestyles, and simply decided believing in God was too much trouble for their consciences. Then they found intellectual arguments in the writings of atheists to support their preference not to believe in God (because believing in God would make them feel constantly guilty as they continued “living in sin”).

 

However, there’s a sixth reason—one more difficult to challenge than the first five. Many young self-identified Christians have simply come to identify “God” with the trivialized deity of much American Christianity who is little more than a cosmic prop for American values. They realize that what one author called “Good old plastic Jesus” is a farce and they want to hold on to Jesus as he really was and is, but they can dispense with God because he has been hopelessly trivialized by popular Christianity in numerous ways. In other words, for them, there simply remains no way to think or speak about God without including, implicitly if not explicitly, all those popular images.

 

I sympathize with these people. But I do not think it is necessary to give up on God just because it seems almost impossible to “rescue” God from cultural theisms. Our task as Christians ought to be to hold on to God (who is, of course, really holding on to us!) and rescue his reputation from the numerous ways in which he is demeaned, used, by “good Christian folks” and their leaders (politicians, television evangelists, popular apologetics writers, movie-makers, many pastors, etc.).

 

So, the proposed book Godless Christianity would have to deal with two issues:

 

(1) why belief in the real God, the God of Jesus Christ, is necessary for authentic Christianity and,

 

(2) why much of what passes as belief in God in America (I won’t speak of other countries but I’m sure America is not unique in this regard) is the cause of thoughtful, reflective, even spiritual people giving up on God.

 

Finally, then, why do I think belief in God (as distinct from proof of God) is a necessary, indispensable part of authentic Christianity? That it is may seem obvious to most people, but my whole point in this post is that they ought to rethink that as many young people today do not see it as obvious. I don’t think it’s really possible to believe in Jesus in any robust sense and dispense with Jesus’s God [(who himself was very God, as part of the Triune Godhead) - res]. God was part and parcel of Jesus’s message. But, of course, we have to learn from him, not from culture, who God is. And, if Jesus was not God, then we have no real reason to consider him unsurpassable. Why hold to him if there could be others, even living today, who are what he was (without God)—just a human prophet and example?

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

Select Comments

 

Austin - Interesting post - very timely too. There is a lot of discussion of Christian Atheism in theological circles because of the enormous popularity of Slavoj Zizek (another major influence on Rollins). I don't know if you noticed, but there was a fascinating guest post at Tony Jones' blog a few days ago on Zizek by someone who basically endorses his position. I thought I would share a link for you in case you hadn't seen it: "Slavoj Žižek and the Illusion of Religion."

 

Reply by Roger - I have read some of Zizek and he reminds me much of Altizer. The two have appeared together and I've watched their presentations and conversation on youtube. [These are] two who think alike [that have] found each other.

 

---

 

Brandon - Thanks for this post! I've noticed in the last year or so how many in the progressive/emergent camp seem to be attempting to resurrect "death of God" theology (pun certainly intended). To me, this seems highly problematic. From what I have heard from John Caputo and Pete Rollins, their Christology seems sketchy, at best. Am I correct in this assessment, or do you think that Caputo and Rollins are still within the bounds of orthodoxy, broadly speaking?

 

Reply from Roger - I want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Their main concern seems to be to point believers in God away from all idolatries. I sympathize with that while worrying that in their negative theology they may sometimes go too far.

 

Russ - Being around this a bit I think Roger is correct in giving to the new Continentalists the benefit of the doubt. As much as folklore religion has harmed Christianity so too this newer tradition is attempting to "re-right" the Christian faith by exploring it from the "bottom-up."

---

 

Russ - Good insights Roger. At first I wasn't going to read this post (thinking it might be the typical shrift) but was glad that I did. You do a good job at trying to keep abreast of contemporary movements while showing necessary reserve in judgment until more information comes to light (and sometimes that can be a very long time with a movement).

I recently took an online class on Radical Theology by Peter Rollins in which we studied classic Continentalists (Hegel, Heidegger, Bonhoeffer, Tillich) and today's newer figures like Caputo and Zizek. Unfortunately we skipped Derrida. What I wanted to discover was how to speak to today's postmodernism within a Christian context. To do that I needed a different language and mindset to approach it from. Being a conservative Christian with classic upbringings I didn't know if I could bridge the gap enough to do this. Still, I think its possible to create some form of God/Jesus-based Radical Theology that can speak to our postmodern times using a different paradigm than the typical evangelic one.
 
Too, in this class setting I found Peter to be more concrete in his speech and less nebulous. Certainly he's attracted to negative theology as a deconstructionist would be, but I also have discovered in him more of a reconstructionist attitude than he tries to let on. So we'll see. However, it is my responsibility not to be caught-in-translation and to speak of God to today's generation of postmodern skeptical Christians who seem to be quite lost in their own wildernesses of eclectic belief and misguided thoughts about the Christian faith - especially given the several reasons that you think many are dealing with. It makes for a very interesting potpourri to speak to in a positive way of faith stimulation and God-belief centered in Jesus. Thank you again.

 

 

Pushing up DAISY: Arminianism in Brief

http://www.thewardrobedoor.com/2010/08/pushing-up-daisy-arminianism-in-brief.html

by Aaron

with observations by R.E. Slater
August 2010

Arminianism actually developed from an attempt to defend Calvinism. Joseph [Jacobus] Arminius studied in [John] Calvin's theological school and was troubled by people attacking what would later be known as Reformed theology. He set out to study Scripture to rebuff those attacks. He was surprised to find his reading of the Bible did not match his Calvinist theology, so he began to develop a theological framework of his own.

After his death, his followers, the Remonstrants, developed and published five points to serve as the basis for their theology. It was in response to these five points that the Calvinist Synod of Dort developed what became the Calvinism TULIP.

It was not until John Wesley began his preaching ministry during the Great Awakening that Arminian theology was fully developed and began to have a truly mass appeal. Throughout history, most Baptists had been Calvinistic in their theology. However, from the time of Wesley forward Baptists had a much more Arminian influence and not just in the Free Will Baptist denominations.

So what does it mean to be an Arminian?

The following DAISY is developed from a Calvinistic perspective. It starts from a Reformed understanding of the terms and then points out the differences that way. That is a bit unfair, so while I will use the acrostic at the beginning, I will also include another version that seems more fair and will also bring up the actual five Remonstrant points that started it all.

ARMINIANISM: DAISY [from a TULIP perspective]

D: Diminished depravity - Humanity is depraved, but God uses prevenient grace to restore man's ability to respond to Him.
A: Abrogated election - God bases His election on His foreknowledge of those who freely choose Him.
I: Impersonal atonement - Christ died for everyone, making salvation possible for everyone.
S: Sedentary grace - God calls everyone to salvation, but many freely reject it.
Y: Yieldable justification - The saved can fall from grace and lose their salvation.

 

ARMINIANISM: DAISY [from a Remonstrant's perspective]

 

D: Deliberate sin - Humans choose to sin based on their own will, not their sinful nature.
A: All-encompassing call- Salvation is available to everyone who seeks or desires it.
I: Infinite love - God desires for everyone to be saved, not just the “elect."
S: Spontaneous faith - Faith, while a gift of God, is brought about by a human choice.
Y: Yieldedness of the Saints - It is possible for someone who is "saved" to lose their salvation.

 

The actual five points, though similar, have some distinctions from the modern ideas about Arminianism.

• The divine decree of predestination is conditional, not absolute.
• The atonement is in intention universal.
• Man cannot of himself exercise a saving faith.
• Though the grace of God is a necessary condition of human effort it does not act irresistibly.
• Believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

From these five points let's look at:

 

Conditional Election - God chooses the elect based on His foreknowledge of their decision. Some Arminians would say that God corporately elects the Church and then individuals can become part of that election through accepting the Gospel. Others would say that God elects individuals but it is based on their foreseen faith.

 

The strengths of this idea are that it affirms human free will and personal responsibility. It fits with our experience that we do actually have free will and it seems more fair and just to say that a person's eternal destiny is based on the actions they willfully chose.

 

Universal Atonement - Jesus died for everyone. His death opened the door for salvation. It provided access for "whosoever will" to come to Him and receive eternal life. This does not mean, as we will see later, that Christ's death is applied to everyone, therefore making everyone "saved." It simply means that Jesus' sacrificial death made a relationship with God available.

 

Saving Faith - This is where too many Calvinist caricature the Arminian position. Classical Arminianism does not say that man can come to God whenever and however he wants. The version developed by Wesley does not say that either. Both views hold that man is depraved and cannot come to God apart from His grace working in their life.

 

Wesley fully developed how this worked with his idea of prevenient grace. God knows that everyone is dead in sin and cannot respond to His call in their current status, so He extends prevenient grace to everyone enabling them to make a free will decision on the Gospel. God provides the way and the sinner is responsible for recognizing his condition and committing himself to Christ.

 

Resistible Grace - Because prevenient grace is extended to all, we know that it can be resisted because not everyone accepts the Gospel. Again, this idea places the blame for rejecting salvation all on the human. It is not that they were not chosen by God. It is that they were offered grace, had the ability to respond and freely chose to ignore Christ and live in their sin instead.

 

Falling Away [conditional security of the saints] - Since believers have the free choice to accept Christ, they also have the free choice to leave Christ and go back to their sin. Classical Arminianism holds that those who do so have no other chances. They have sealed their fate. Wesleyan Arminiansim says that believers may fall away and come back numerous times.

* * * * * *

[A mixed form of both positions, known as Cal-minism, says that believers who are saved are always saved though sin is always a reality in this life we live. Thus, one's salvation is sure in Christ but one's practice of faith, love, etc, are conflicted by sin's ever-present reality. Hence, the falling away is in one's practice, not in one's position in Christ. For in Christ our faith is made sure but in ourselves we bear sin's ravages which the NT calls "the old man" re the Apostle Paul.

Reversely, if one's Christian life has a pattern of unfaithfulness to Christ it is quite possible that Christ's salvation was never known until at this moment when a believing man or woman may submit to Christ and ask for atonement's appropriation into their life. For those with a sensitive conscience or a pre-disposition for continual introspection, the practicality of Christ's atonement in one's life must be continually acknowledged as sure despite one's head and heart arguing otherwise.

Since I don't believe Christ's work can be undone in our lives, than I would hold to this modified form of both branches of soteriological theology - Positional security with a Practicing faith. One where Christ is my Savior who is becoming my Lord.

Moreover, rather than affirming the supposed-biblical idea of apostasy I would affirm the idea of never receiving, having, obtaining, or knowing, the atoning work of Christ as applied by the Spirit to one's heart and life (Romans 8.1-14). Thus, I would deny this theological idea as being untrue and unbiblical against the sincere beliefs of many others. And where apostasy is mentioned in Scripture I would aver that it is rightfully mentioned of men and women who never knew Christ as Savior and Lord, having deceived themselves, and others (1 Jn 1.5-9) into thinking their where part of Christ's brotherhood bonded by the Spirit.

 - R.E. Slater]

* * * * * *

 OBJECTIONS

 

As with Calvinism, some objections have true merit, others are merely pointless digs from the other perspective.

 

Arminianism is the same as Open Theism. This charge is absurd for obvious reasons. Open Theism denies God's foreknowledge, saying that God cannot know what will happen in the future. Contrast that with Arminian theology which finds much of its basis in God foreknowing those whom would choose Him.

 

* * * * * *

[This assertion is not correct because Open Theism does admit to the ontological reality of God's foreknowledge, otherwise the process of redemption would not have been planned even as creation was being planned. This would make of God a blundering builder and architect having to implement Plan B of Redemption after discovering sin to have ruined His Plan A of original creation. So in terms of ontological reality God did both plan for, purposed, and foreknew, His involvement in creational redemption.

 

But what was not decreed by God is His exacted foreknowledge upon His indeterminate creation and free-willed mankind. Even as sin reduces man's freedom, so by divine fiat of redemption would God purposely enhance man's freedom leaving to both creation and humanity an open future. A future as much open to sin and destruction as it is to holiness and redemption. Though God foreknows His plans for redemption He leaves it open to ourselves to submit to His plans. But not without the provision of His Spirit who woos all towards God's will - and not just some (elect) as Calvinism would teach. To the Arminian, the "elect of God" are those men and women who obey God's call of redemption - not by God's foreknowledge, but by their own Spirit-driven calling founded upon God's (prevenient) grace.

 

Lastly, Arminiainists could not, at the time, have known of Open Theism as a 20th-century doctrinal idea 400 years later. However, it might be conjectured that if Open Theism had been extant at that time, then Jacobus Arminius - and perhaps John Wesley himself -  may have advocated for various forms of this doctrine as related to the Scriptural ideas of foreknowledge and predestination.

 

- R.E. Slater]

 

* * * * * *

 

It promotes works based salvation. Someone should really inform Paul that he is wrong to contrast faith with works, then. The Bible constantly portrays faith as the antithesis of works. Arminian theology does not require works for salvation, but says that man must exercise faith. Those are two very distinct things.

[Further, the Bible is strong in its declaration that without consistency in faith works/walk one might never have been of the faith they supposed. This does not mean that one cannot doubt, or fail, just that the Christian life is a series of ups-and-downs, of spiritual challenges and successes, when bearing the Spirit's calling, burden, and empowerment. - R.E. Slater]

 

It elevates man above God. This appears to have substance on the surface, but their is not much depth to the charge. Yes, Arminian theology does say that the final choice of whether to accept salvation or not lies in the hands of man [his free willed acceptance of God's salvation - res]. However, man only has that choice because of the work of Christ on the cross, the drawing of the Holy Spirit and the Father dispensing prevenient grace.

 

Arminianism empties "election" of all its meaning. This has much more merit. If Calvinism has to redefine free will to allow for the existence of the term in its theology, Arminianism has to do much the same with election. Scripture is clear about God's election. Arminian theology takes that concept and simply makes it God affirming our choice. You can call that election, but it means something much different than what the word would obviously mean.

 

Universal atonement makes Jesus our possibility, not our Savior. If Jesus did die for everyone, then his death does not provide salvation for the saved. It provides the opportunity to be saved. If it actually provided salvation, then everyone would be saved and neither orthodox Calvinism or Arminianism holds to that.

 

Falling away from grace eliminates the existence of eternal life. Upon our conversion, God gives us eternal life. If we can fall away, then the "eternal life" is not so eternal. How can eternal life be something that starts, then stops and, for some Arminians, starts again. Something cannot by definition be "eternal" if it ends.

[This then goes back to the concept of what the doctrine of salvation, known as soteriology, means and portends. However, it is my position that "once saved always saved," - but if so, Christian faith and works should follow, however imperfectly, from the day of one's conversion to the calling home to one's God in death. If not one's salvation was never in Christ but in one's self or in something else not of Christ. - R.E. Slater]

 

CONCLUSION

 

Arminianism, despite many claims to the contrary by some Calvinists, is well within orthodox Christianity. As a Christian position it has much to offer Christianity. It provides a logical motive to evangelism and to loving mankind through good works.

continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "Calvinism v. Arminianism"

 

 

 

 

Why Should the Christian Believe and Live Like John Wesley?

amazon.com

 

The theology "de jour" originates with John Calvin, with an emphasis on “the elect” and "sovereign will of God.”  So much Calvinism saturates our air that Christians may not know there is another way of thinking about their faith, one well represented by Wesley. But no matter what people think, many act in ways that promise to change the world by offering grace and hope but also by helping to provide food and shelter to hurting people. In other words, they believe like Calvinists but they live like Wesleyans.

 

This book is not intended to put down Calvin but to point to significant differences between [John] Calvin and [John] Wesley. Each wrote about major tenets of the church: who God is and what God's will is for us; the place of Scripture; the atonement of Christ; the role of human responsibility; the work of God’s grace, the relation of the church and world; and how these beliefs can connect to how people practice their faith. But Calvin and Wesley were different, and following their prescriptions will lead us down different paths.

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

 

An Excellent New Book about Calvin and Wesley

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/09/excellent-new-book-about-calvin-and-wesley/

 

by Roger Olson

September 14, 2013

Comments

 

A few months ago Abingdon Press (the United Methodist publisher) sent me the manuscript of a forthcoming (now published) book by my friend Don Thorsen who teaches theology at Azusa Pacific University. (Actually, he’s also the Chair of the Department of Theology and Ethics at APU’s Haggard Graduate School of Theology.) Don and I have been friends ever since we worked together on the editorial board of the Christian Scholar’s Review in the 1990s. Don is a good Wesleyan theologian.

 

The book, which I gladly recommended (my blurb appears on the back cover), is titled Calvin vs. Wesley: Bringing Belief in Line with Practice. On the back cover appears the following statement: “When we stand at the Pearly Gates, God will not ask us what we believed but how we lived.” Endorsements on the back cover (besides mine) are by Kenneth Collins (another good Wesleyan scholar who teaches at Asbury Theological Seminary), Amos Yong (Regent University) and Stephen Gunter (Duke Divinity School).

 

The book compares and contrasts Calvin’s theology (and Calvinism) with Wesley’s theology (and Wesleyanism). It’s a very fair and even-handed treatment of Calvin’s theology; Thorsen has clearly done a great deal of research into both theologians’ writings. But the thrust of the book is not systematic theology but Christian living. Thorsen’s whole project is to connect the two–doctrine and practice. If he is right, and I think he is, Wesley’s theology is much more biblical and practical than Calvin’s and many Calvinists live their Christian lives in a way more consistent with Wesley’s theology than with Calvin’s.

 

The book is not polemical; it’s main purpose is not to criticize or belittle or convince readers not to pay attention to Calvin. Thorsen praises Calvin and his theology for some distinctive ideas and practices. Overall, however, he believes Wesley’s theology is too little known–especially but not only outside of Wesleyan circles–and has much to offer for Christian living. I certainly agree.

 

Thorsen offers an alternative to TULIP–”ACURA.” You need to buy the book to find out what that is! I’m not giving it away here.

If you are looking for a good, popularly-written introduction to Calvinism versus Wesleyanism (or Arminianism as Wesleyan theology is basically Arminian) I strongly recommend this one.

 

One thing that excites me about Don’s work here and in other books (he’s authored several) is the evidence it provides that Wesleyan evangelicals are breaking out of their insularity and joining the larger evangelical conversation about theology and Christian life. When I was a beginning student of theology it wasn’t easy to find good Wesleyan theology for non-Wesleyans. Most Wesleyan theology was published by little known “Holiness” publishing houses operated by Holiness-Wesleyan denominations. Abingdon was publishing mostly liberal theology. Most evangelical theology was written by Reformed theologians. Exactly when and how that began to change is difficult to tell, but changing it is. I think that Thomas Oden has much to do with the renaissance of Arminian/Wesleyan theology and its emergence into mainstream evangelical theological life. Other Wesleyan scholars such as Ben Weatherington have done much to convince non-Wesleyan evangelicals that Wesleyans have much to offer evangelical scholarship.

 

I welcome Don Thorsen’s book and his voice into the wider evangelical conversation. May his tribe increase!

* * * * * * * * * *

 

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

 

 

DAISYs, TULIPs and Open Theism

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-have-installed-mr.html

 

by RE Slater

April 21, 2011

Pertaining to that system of soteriological thought within Protestant Christianity known as Calvinism and Arminianism, I have applied Dr. Olson's interview with Homebrewed Christianity to Calvinism's flaws (part 1, part 2) for the direct and immediate purposes of showing the logical consistencies that is found in Arminianism but which is so poorly understood by today's evangelic rank-and-file. In my estimation, it is one of the reasons why emergent Christianity is disliked by traditional evangelicals who mis-understand Arminian doctrine which perfectly balances God's Love with Man's Free Will.

These discussions are provided in hopes of persuading our evangelic brethren to better behave their tongues and speech when loudly declaring Emergent Christians as heretics (found exquisitely verbalized in reaction to Rob Bell's book Love Wins). Dr. Olson gives to the reader a very clear idea as to the illogic of Calvinism and, I think, of the demeaning popular charges of false doctrines being lumped upon the Love Wins readership who wish to discover the beauty and necessity of God's Love for all mankind.

However, Emergent Christianity's seminal ideas and missional message has been uniquely expressed through Love Wins... that God loves His creation and is actively involved in loving His creation. This is the heart-and-soul of the good news found in Jesus Christ who is the Incarnate God become fully man and fully God,  as He messages God's love to this, our fallen, wicked world. Who atones for our sin, propitiates for our offenses, justifies our repentance, and is resurrected to place stamp-and-seal upon our glorification into the Father's name in this life and the next.

Thus, I would direct the reader towards investigating the tenants of Arminianism's DAISY system and its doctrines of "God's Love" and "man's free will" to help more fully digest and appreciate Dr. Olson's separate discussions presented on Calvinism's major flaws. In addition, I have added here my own several observations that I think lend credence to the Arminian claim of logical consistencies.

 

Arminianism's DAISY System

First, for the uninitiated, the moniker DAISY, stands for, among other things, something that simply makes me want to crease my eyes and smile when I think of the open, sun-drenched flower of the field we call daisies - each so friendly and inviting to the heart-and-soul as to whisper good cheer and love to all, who gather and look upon its crowned head.

Otherwise, as a doctrinnaire system it stands for:
 

D - Depravity of all

A - Atonement for all

I  -  Inclusion of all

S - Salvation as gift to all

Y - You, or anyone, may accept or reject

It revolves around the idea that "God's love is for the purpose of creation and not simply for God's greater glory" as Calvinism would state. That God is glorified because God loves, not because He banishes His love from the non-elect, the undestined, the hell-bound. No, God is glorified because he seeks all mankind, loves all mankind, receives all mankind. This is how God gets glory and is glorified - not simply for who He is, but by what He does because of who Hhe is. As Irenaeus would observe, "The Glory of God is man fully alive" and we can rightly say that God's love is the purpose for creation.

 

Further, God's (prevenient) grace is always resistible (vs. Calvinism's "irresistible" dogmas) and when it's no longer resistible than it becomes salvific grace.

Alongside this concept is that of common grace which is not salvific but holds back the worst effects of the fall so that man may create just societies - great societies - societies that worship and honor the Creator God. Common grace is given at the very act of creation and is distinguished from God's attribute of mercy that is given to man at Adam's imputed Fall.

Because man is fallen (we call this total depravity) the initiative must be from God, which then avoids the semi-pelagian (sic. pelagianism) monikers Calvinists heap upon Arminian doctrine that it is man-centered. For it is not man who first reaches out to God but it is God who first (and continuously) reaches out to man through his prevenient grace (grace that is given to man in his depraved state, in his pre-decision state of being). Thus, salvation's initial (and initiating) act, reciprocating act, and final act is always God-centered.

Too, God's grace is a gift that we do not earn nor merit but is accepted upon the basis as a gift. Nor does the very act of exercising free will invalidate its reception as that of a meritoriously-earned gift. For it is in the nature of man's free will to chose, and in this case, to chose God's grace gifts of love and mercy. Calvinists claim that Arminianists "earn" God salvation by the exercise of our free will, however, the Arminian claims that man is simply "endorsing" the gift God has already presented to him through His grace (in this case, Himself, His love, and His eternal life in all of its sin-departed fullness). Salvation by it's very nature is a transactional GIFT which is "unearned" needing only to be "endorsed" (much as a $100 check given to us as a Christmas or birthday gift requires our signature to cash it in) . A personal grace gift which we may receive, or refuse, but which is totally unearned by its recipients).

 

Lastly, the Arminian doctrine of free will guards and protects the character of God from becoming seen as a monster who elects or (double) predestinates a large portion of mankind (but not all of mankind) to hell. Whom God professes to love and yet casts into hell's deep away from His very essence that professes love to His creation. Moreover, Calvinism's TULIP system makes God out to be a kind of devil who lies about who He is, His intentions and purposes. That shows God to be defective and not good, nor all-wise and all-loving, by declaring purposes of "limited atonement" whilst at the same time deceptively declaring His love for all mankind. 

The Five Points of Calvinism's TULIP System

T - Total Depravity - man is born into, and enslaved to, sin thus causing man to be totally unable to seek or love God because man is evil in every portion of his being.

U - Unconditional Election - God elects men unconditionally by mercy alone and apart from any foreseen virtue, merit or faith in those elected. Conversely, God has chosen from eternity that He will withhold Himself from the non-elect, those men and women whom He will condemned to His eternal wrath.

L - Limited Atonement - or "particular atonement" asserts that Jesus' work at Calvary's cross is limited, and applied, only to the elect of God who will be atoned my Jesus' death. Hence, Jesus' atonement is theoretically given to all mankind but practically limited only to the elect of God.

I -  Irresistible Grace - God's saving grace is only effectually applied to the elect so that over time the elect can no longer resist God's grace and must submit to His will of saving grace. A grace which is determinative and co-op's man's free will to effectually cooperate, believe, repent, or obey. In effect, man becomes an automaton and not a free willed agent. One who is elected and therefore bade to enter into God's elective grace.

 

P - Perseverance of the Saints - God is sovereign and cannot be frustrated by any human or human agency, nor by creation itself. Those whom God calls into communion with Himself will continue in faith until the end, whereas those who are not called will fall out of the faith. Conversely, those who fall away either never had true faith to begin with, or, were not effectually called by God. 

Variants to Calvinism's 5-Point TULIP system

Supra-Lapsarianism, or High-Calvinism - the Fall allows God to chose some to salvation and some to damnation.

Infra-Lapsarianism, or Low-Calvinism - the Fall was indeed planned but without reference to whom will or won't be saved.

4-Point Calvinism known as Amyraldism or (hypothetical) Universalism - where limited atonement now becomes unlimited atonement.

Hyper-Calvinism, that states that not all men are called by God's grace to salvation, but only the elect few.

Neo-Orthodoxy, Neo-Calvinism, Christian Reconstruction, and modern-day Calvinism are all variant responses in the Reformational faith movement to the Age of Enlightenment in its scientific, social and political imports. These deal more with the process and applications of the beliefs of Calvinism as a church culture and as a religion.

I should lastly note that by-and-large, evangelicalism is based upon Reformed theology and that Calvinism's systematic doctrinal TULIP system does not fully define Reformed theology. Rather, Reformed theology is a very large, very consistent, hermeneutic dispensing with the approbation of the Scriptures through covenant theology and all its particular details related to the covenantal ages of the bible.  And because of this, has given rise to many other systematic points of departure within Protestant faith communities, associations, denominations these past 500 years. But this is for discussion at another time.

Some Observations about Open Theism

Within Arminianism has grown a new branch known as Open Theism that says the future is unknowable because God doesn't know the future decisions of his morally "free" creatures (Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, John Cobb, Greg Boyd, Rob Bell). This concept, and related arguments, are based upon the nature of time rather than on the nature of God. And so, this is not a declaration against God's sovereignty and omniscience. Rather, it is an observation about the nature of time being "unknowable" (see references here). - R.E. Slater

 

"For the future is composed of some  things that are already settled, and, some things that are possible and not already settled. And that God knows them exactly as they are in that way so that God's knowledge is co-extensive with reality. As such, God knows all true facts of the past, the present, and the future." - Roger Olson  (in an interview with Homebrewed Christianity)

 

Further, says Olson in his interview, "Arminians are traditionalists when it comes to understanding God's foreknowledge, that God knows the future exhaustively and definitively so that it is not necessary to push Arminians into Open Theism as claimed by classic Calvinists (who seem to simply not like Arminianism and wish to push it off into whatever direction that will get it into the most trouble)." - Roger Olson

But rather than get into the particulars of this any further, I will publish at a later date more extensive articles on the eschaton of God, his foreknowledge and that of man's freedom and relationships as relates to all three groups. To this we should also discuss Universalism and its implications. - R.E. Slater

Final Observations on
Biblical v. Systematic Theology

Overall, I find myself to be a "systematic" eccleticist who tends to critique systems and take the best out of all of them; who purposely and objectively re-frames logical philosophic discussions towards what I think is the overall intent and meaning of the Scriptures. And since deductive logic and syllogistic systematic theology is a specialty of man and not of God's narrational Word per se, we may do this. Man's words are not God's words, and we may agree to debate one another's logicisms and fallacies of internal doctrines, finding in each argument its strengths and weaknesses.

 

However, in the end, we do not wish to work from a systematic theological viewpoint that I have here presently focused upon within this section. But from a biblical theological viewpoint that is rigorously defined while left open-ended to the changing societal perspectives, needs and apprehensions of the ages of man over time.

 

For within the field of systematics we may only expect to uncover theological paradoxes, logical frustrations, and philosophic debates. Whereas, within the heart of biblical theology we may find the expression of the mystery of the Godhead, of creation and the salvation of man, his hope or his demise. That we can speak to these tender issues with sublime wonder, thanksgiving and humility. Which, I think, is the heart-and-soul of a new form of Christianity currently known as Emergent, or Emerging, postmodern Christianity.

 

And it is through biblical theology, not systematic theology, that we can do this task - and do it very well indeed! - through the study of biblical theology as applied to the Scriptures. But when we do we must know why this is, and how we must proceed, as the only sure course of apprehension and expression of our Christian faith, according to the will of God and the power of His Spirit. 

 

 

For More Information

Arminianism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

Prevenient Grace - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace

Calvinism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_points_of_Calvinism#Five_points_of_Calvinism

Open Theism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

Pelagianism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism

Semi-Pelagianism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-pelagianism

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussions in Science and Religion - Week 2: "A Tale of Two Cities"

"Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics."

- Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, pg 5

"The universe itself has no single history, nor even an independent existence."

- Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, pg 6

INTRODUCTION

The title of Charles Dicken's "Tale of Two Cities" comes to mind when examining the philosophical and theological foundations behind the symmetry of science and religion - for a symmetry they most assuredly make each-to-the-other as unlikely companions giving necessary shape to each other's form and function. Begging the question which must lead-out first? Does Science? Does Religion? At first, many think religion had led out which either invigorated scientific discovery, or held it back. And then science willingly replied either to add to religious understanding, or to question all that religion held dear. Hence, the cathartic Ying-and-Yang pull of each discipline's tug upon the other has held a mystical attraction that is unlikely to abate, if ever, until the end of days.

Consequently, one finds it necessary to be as careful in developmental research and adjudicated thinking respective to either discipline's present understanding and conjectures. To not underplay, nor overplay, one's theories and philosophical insights to the detriment of the other, but to purposely try to allow each to temperately exist in an uneasy alliance between the other. Allowing each one as full a voice as the other while all-the-while attempting the high-wire act of balancing one's views - and knowledge of the other - in some primordial mix of positive critique, helpful questioning, perhaps homage, or complete indeference.

A good philosopher/theologian does not wish to be unawares of scientific research no less than a good scientist wishes to be unawares of the undercurrents in philosophy and theology. However, it would be naïve of either discipline to think that time does not create change to the behavior or impact of one upon the other. And since our focus at Relevancy22 is on the many contemporary topics of theology, it would be absurd to think that the Christian faith is held in some kind of a sealed time capsule irrespective to the ideas of science and society. To behave in a way that would not admit progression of theological perspective with the frenetic insights and topsy-turvy discoveries of postmodern research forcing the classical worlds of Greek logic and Medieval theology beyond yesteryear's inroads of enlightened modernism.

But to react to change by fighting it is not what is helpful to today's churched congregations. Nor should we be fearful of technology's rapid rate of flux and influx. But to be sensible in discerning its influences in a way that might be helpful to believers wishing to follow Jesus, who are themselves unsure just how to do this in today's 21st century techno-scientific revolution. One way to do this is to explore science's discoveries and our responses to its understandings perhaps by enlarging the boundary sets we live within that once gave us comfort and relief but now have become blown-to-bits if held beyond their normal life's expiration date (speaking philosophically, that is).

Thus the pastor turns to the philosopher/poet, or the scientist/theologian, or to the media's darlings who drive both good-and-bad ideas forward that s/he might explore with them the ramifications of their arguments, insights, and ideas. Philip Clayton is such a one who has spent a lifetime becoming conversant with both sides of the science-and-religion debate, working towards resolutions that might offer sanity in the face of seeming insanity. Comfort and counsel where there has been none. To this end, Philip has worked equally as hard at understanding science as he has religion... to be generous, reflective, constructive, and helpful. So that in week two's discussion of Cosmology and Quantum Physics we come to a place that must stop and reflect upon our universe's origins from both a biblical understanding as well as a scientific one.

ENTER THE QUANTUM PHYSICISTS

Accordingly, with such purposeful reflection has come my glad contentment for taking the time these past several years to explore these same subjects of theism and science on my own before coming to Philip's, or another's, aggregative counsel (and perhaps even aggravating! counsel, lol). While other fellow Christians were blasting the renown physicist Stephen Hawking for his atheistic reconstruction of the quantum universe I read with a vengeance all that he had to say on the subject trying to discern his understanding of quantum physics. So that by having read his thoughts I have found for myself a curious spiritual synthesis based upon the same equations-and-formulas Stephen felt well-advised to accept for himself in quite a different, more-materialistic direction.

So that when coming to Philip Clayton's quotations of John Wheeler about humans "changing the course of world history by mere observation" I could sense the misdirection of that phrase as to how it should more properly be used (sic, according to Hawking, our observation doesn't change the course of history of a particle, but views one instance of its infinite singular histories). That is not to say that Philip (or Wheeler) understate their exploration of quantum principles based upon the Feynmann Sum of Histories, only that they have selectively written of it within a context that presages their own understanding of cosmological science, rather than to run away from it as theologians. Even so, I'll let the ramifications of their conjectures be told by themselves as I have more probably misunderstood their observations already! (cf., pg 78 in Science and Religion).

Which is one of the reasons I have been reading Philip's book on Science and Religion, and listening to his lectures, not that I might gainsay him, but rather glean from his many years of exploration, knowing that we each come from differing backgrounds, theistic needs, and perceptions. Like himself, I have become one who wishes to err on the side of science - and not on the side of past classical (philosopohic or theological) arguments. Nor fall prey to Hawking's ascetic observation that "philosophy (and faith) have not kept up with science." But to make a concerted effort to update my Christian faith in as intelligent a way as possible without voiding its historical past. Yet, perhaps, enhancing its ancient past with today's newer scientific discoveries formed in the symbiotic relationships of theoretical balance and mutual partnership.

As such, for literary reasons, Philip encapsulates the Age of Scientific Materialism into three empirical categories - idealism, indeterminacy, and interconnectivity. For purposes of this discussion he has found these categories helpful for his listeners even as I found them more restrictive, perhaps even prejudicing towards a certain philosophical outcome based upon assumed parameters and logical elocution. Still, Philip has simplified a difficult subject by utilizing a practical methodology which necessitates my abbreviated review as to its merits of reflection, and not to mine own literary hesitancies or theoretic perambulations.

First, Newton and Einstein, according to Philip, were determinists disbelieving that "God plays dice with creation." They wanted order and natural explanation right down to the very last gravitational pull-and-push of (atomic) energy. Shortly, quantum physics came into being, and with it the death of scientific absolutism, crouched within a mathematics that would make absurd all previous scientific statements when beheld in the light of quantum indeterminacy, Planck's constant, and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Shortly, philosophers derived the (weak) Anthropic Principle stating that the universe 'must be compatible with the conscious life observing it" (Hawking prefers the term "Selection Principle" instead). Quickly it was modified under multiverse theory (sic, many universes each unlike the other holding different natural laws, dimensions, etc, that are impossible for our type of quantum existence) to a biophilic theory that was friendly to the emergence of life and not just human life. Subsumed under that came Hawking's M-Theory which basically states that "we are what we are because we are" which is really a form of the Strong Anthropic Principle that predisposes even the very atomic structure of the universe towards human life (sic, its atomic bonds, molecular covalences, electronic spins, quantum phases, amplitudes, vibrational strings, and etcetera). Thus "our universe and its physical laws appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way (Hawking, The Grand Design, pg 162).

For Hawking this means that we, and our universe, are part of a larger, indeterminate process. But for the theist, it means that God is its Maker and Sustainer of all - however He arranges this universe that we live in. Moreover, it should be of note that Hawking, as a theoretical physicist, was exploring the idea of String Theory to that of the universe's origins. A theory that might lead to his Theory of Everything while accounting for the supersymmetries found between bosons (energy) and fermions (matter). It was an ambitious undertaking that few theoreticists are able to take - and those that can continue to vigorously research it (cf., Higgs-Boson research, amongst other efforts such as string theory). Accordingly, M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find, and later in life revised his previous formulas to include the then unknown substances of dark matter (26.8%) and dark energy (69.3%) to balance off his equations of ordinary matter (which makes up 4.9% of the composition of the known universe). Making of him a dice thrower after all (even as we should be today).

CONCLUSION

The essence of Philip's arguments is one of finding the line between science and philosophy, and for him, as for myself, we each tend to erase that line as much as we can so that they both might bleed a little bit - if not a lotta bit - into the other. The other main argument Philip wishes to convey is that each discipline is housed within their own metaphysical arguments - certainly science, whether it is one of agnosticism or atheism, as much as theism, with its pushbacks and classicisms. As such, we must be aware that "today's lines can become tomorrow's laws" meaning that theoretical predictions, given time and observation, can become axiomatic and no longer postulates. As such, our theological certainties must always be tempered with epistemic humility... to be as skeptical of our own theological foundations as scientists have evidenced towards their own postulates and theorems.

What might we conclude then? That if we hold an eschatology that is orientated towards admission into a "New Heavens and New Earth" than more-than-likely we may show an evangelic carelessness towards ecological care and nurturing (even as the Reagan administrative did in its budgeting). Moreover, if we look to find God's integrity within creation's keeping than we will be disposed towards a quasi-science that misunderstands the physics of quantum indeterminacies - thinking we can change history merely by observing it. Not realizing that we are simply looking at one possible path of history over a sum of histories with infinite probabilities that is irrespective of the observer as timelines collapsed towards a state of singular infinities. (Which is why it was such fun to watch the TV show LOST as the Island timelines intersected, overlapped, bisected, and interfered with each character's timeline... better known as "quantum entanglement.") Of course the ramifications for the doctrines of sovereignty and evil can go far askew when held within a general misunderstanding of scientific principles. Even as Open Theism (cf. this site's sidebar under Theism) has thrived within this uncertain environment of humanity and creation (sic, the future is relational to both God and creation making it indeterminative in correspondent structure).

Of course, beyond Philip's ideas of idealism and indeterminacy is the idea of interconnectivity. That we inhabit a universe of localized energy-and-matter that influences other localized energy fields as they correspond to our Galaxy, our Solar System, our interactions with this world, and even with each other and ourselves. That everything is interconnected thus making everything relational.... Which is an idea that I like a lot as a Relational-Process theist (cf. the sidebar Theism). Overall we must accept the dictum that "truth may be informed by the past but must not become necessarily led by it" as both time-and-circumstances, events-and-society, evolve with each passing era. That we are responsible to form reasonable, open-minded opinions realizing that God is a God who is much bigger than we can think or imagine. That our metaphysical arguments cannot dictate to Him his essence and being much less His activity upon, within, through, for, by, around, or on behalf of, His creation. That we are part of God's amazing creation even as we have been made co-creators with Him in remaking, renewing, redeeming, rebirthing, and resurrecting, this old world into one verily in His image.

How? By the Spirit's empowerment of submission, humility, grace, mercy, peace, and forgiveness. These latter spiritual practices of course speak to a Weak Theology that is necessarily deconstructive to classic theism's insistence upon God meticulous control of all things in a mechanistic, pre-determined world as once thought by Newton et al. Thus my preferencing of Arminianism here at this blogsite, led by Dr. Roger Olson. And no, Arminianism is not a virus, its the practical side of Christian faith living: cup of water, helping hands, free will sort of thing that doesn't believe in God's meticulous sovereignty, but in a non-coercive, indeterminant creation that willfully partners with God even as God partners with His creation by its active allowance and submission. Thus we bear a Christian faith that allows worldly wills to become submissive to God's holy rule-and-reign even as our own wills are becoming formed now in the Spirit's apocalyptic event.

I have used these examples above to show how science can be relevant to theology. That theology can, and does, change at the behest of societal movement, whether we think it does or not.... And thus, it is my hope that these past recent discussions on Science and Religion might move the church past its own metaphysical localities onto faith's broader epistemological planes of reflected, Spirit-filled movement. Perhaps then, it should be so... even so, like any good Battle Star Galactic fan would say, "So Say We All."

R.E. Slater

September 18, 2013

Addendum

*What is the Difference between Weak v. Strong Anthropic Principles? (sic Wikipedia)

From Ken G's internet posting on this issue: "Actually, those are the weak/strong versions of Tipler and company-- the more standard original distinction by Carter (I got most of this from Wiki) is simply that the weak AP says that 'given the fundamental parameters we observe, we have to live in a place and time that is conducive to life.' Thus the WAP is only relevant to resolving "fine tuning" problems in regard to why we are here now, as opposed to somewhere else later. Given the cosmological principle that all places are more or less the same, the 'fine tuning' that is resolved is purely temporal-- why we are here after 13.7 billion years and not 1 year or 1 decillion years.

The strong AP goes on to look at the fundamental physical parameters themselves, and asserts that they also have to be fine tuned such that we could come along at some point in space and time. So it talks about why if you monkey even just a little with the dimensionless ratios of the universe, you seem to dramatically alter the resulting likelihood for generating life.

The reason the SAP is more speculative is that it is not clear what you are comparing-- you can compare life as it might develop in different places and times, and might scientifically find evidence for such life, but life in other hypothetical universes would seem to be a nonscientific issue. So the SAP is not really considered testable science, it's more philosophy, whereas the WAP is on a more solid footing in regard to the general requirements of a scientific explanation.

Personally, I don't think the SAP gives us any understanding of why the parameters are what they are, beyond the obvious point that given the laws we have found, the parameters would have to be within certain ranges or we couldn't be here. That doesn't qualify as "understanding" in my book. The idea that this does not require "fine tuning" on the grounds that there can be many other universes with other parameters that are not fine tuned, but we had to show up here, seems a fruitless and untestable claim. For example, how would one attribute a "probability" to a "universe"? Should we allow the laws to be anything in these hypothetical universes, or assert the laws have to be the same only with different parameters? What are we doing?"

Related Stephen Hawking articles -

Index to past articles on "Particle Physics, Quantum Science, and the Universe"

Lenticular Clouds at Sunset, Tioga Pass, Yosemite, California

Index to past discussions -
Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"