Strangely Intimidated!

Yes I have been slow to post the first entry on the blog because I have been strangely intimidated by the simple technology. But I got over myself and dived in. So! Let me give an introduction. We are going to be examining a book by Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy called Across the Spectrum. It is a book that surveys theological positions that are considered to be within the 'spectrum' of orthodoxy by generally evangelical theologians. So far we have examined 3 major issues, they are;

The Inspiration Debate:

The two schools of thought include the Inerrantist View which claims the Bible to be without error of any kind, and the Infallibilist View, which sees the Bible as Infallible in matters of faith and practice. The Inerrantist View is probably best described by the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy of 1978. This view qualifies inerrancy by the claim that the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs. The major critique of this view is that those autographs are unavailable and cannot therefore undergo the scrutiny of the present copies. Defenders of this view point out that the manuscript evidence for scripture is amazingly consistent and that discrepancies in manuscripts are mostly limited to unessential details. The weakness of this view is that the endless qualifications of what is meant by 'inerrant' seem to weaken the original claim. Thus giving the Bible into the hands of its' worst critics.

The Infallibilist View holds that the scriptures are inspired by God and are completely faithful to the intentions of God for faith and practice. This view admits that there are numerous 'errors' in the details of texts but that these so-called errors do not obscure the meaning or intention of God with regard to our faith. In other words, following the scriptures will not cause us to fall into erroneous behaviors. The advantage of this view is that it is less on the defensive than the Inerrantist View because it simply admits the textual difficulties and does not claim that they need be reconciled to establish the God-given authority of the voice of the text. The weakness is that this view has been open to more liberties on the part of those who want to maintain connection with orthodoxy while deviating from some orthodox positions.

The Providence Debate:

Is God sovereign over all things as in the Calvinist view, or has God limited his own control by granting freedom to his creatures as in the Arminian view? This is an endless intramural debate in the Christian family. Calvinists hold that all things, including the self-determined acts of individuals are ultimately caused by God. For the Calvinist life is planned and orchestrated by God and yet humans are still personally responsible for their choices. A Calvinist will point out for example that the death of Christ was so overseen by God that it could be said to have been done by both the hands of wicked men and the predetermined plan of God. (Acts. 2:23)

The primary objection to this view is that it makes God responsible for evil. Not so, says the Calvinist a doctor may inflict pain but he intends it for healing. In the same way God, who is our father may oversee a painful project in our lives with a redemptive intention. Such as in the life of Joseph, but because God intends it for good and accomplishes his good then he cannot be impugned for temporary or collateral pain. The intention of God being good is determinative in the goodness of an act. Therefore, no one can accuse the Lord of evil.

Furthermore, God's intervention in our salvation is also necessary in this view. The Calvinist believes that because man's will is in bondage to sin therefore he cannot choose God. Thus God must choose those he intends to save while passing over those he has not intended to save. Thus God's providence is all-encompassing. (see Eph. 2) If God does all the work then he gets all the glory. So God's providential care over his elect ones is to his own glory. No one chooses God so no one can take credit or boast before the Lord. His providence oversees all.

The Arminian on the other hand believes that God granted humans self-determining freedom. Thus limiting himself in the process. God does not control the freewill choices of humanity. For this reason Arminians contend, mankind can genuinely love God and can genuinely be responsible for moral failure. If God controlled all human choices then how could anyone be said to genuinely love God. Love requires a choice. Also this view makes mankind, not God to be the author of evil. Calvinist claim that human choice indicts man but not God but that human choice is not self-determined. The Calvinists sees no contradiction in that while the Arminian loudly protests.

For the Arminian, God's desire for all to be saved, (I Tim. 4) is genuine and reflects that all may be saved. Thus human response to God is genuine and not predetermined. Furthermore the Arminian points out that prayer can influence the activity of God in the world. For the Calvinist, prayer is intended to reform and shape the thoughts of people to the will of God.

The Foreknowledge Debate:

This is the most controversial of the debates we have examined thus far. The Classical View of foreknowledge argues that God foreknows all that shall come to pass. In other words his foreknowledge is exhaustive, covering all things. The Open View maintains that God knows all that shall be and all that may be. The crux of this debate centers upon whether or not all future events are predetermined. The Classical View maintains that God knows all that shall come to pass because he has already preordained it to be. The Open View maintains that God has predetermined many things and thus knows them before they happen. However, this view maintains that God has left many things undetermined. In other words, while God knows every contingency, he has not predetermined every outcome. Thus some of the future is not available to be known until it comes to pass. While God knows every possible outcome he has not predetermined every act. God has left many things open to the freewill choices of humans.

Calvinists and Classical theologians have moved on every front to defeat this view and to condemn it as unorthodox. The idea of maintaining that anything is unknown to God is simply unthinkable them. Open Theists have countered that God is magnified by a view that sees him as completely competent to deal with every circumstance and to bring his good will to pass in the midst of competing wills. The Open Theists maintains that God limits his own knowledge by granting to his creatures genuine choice. They maintain that by definition an unpredetermined act cannot be known until it occurs. To the Classical theologian this makes wreckage of providence and leaves an uncertain future. It is seen as reducing God to being subject to the whims of man. Thus man is elevated above God. Open Theists counter that the accusation is simply untrue because God is able by his power to both accomplish everything his will intends and to countermand the free will acts of all rebels.

The Open Theist maintains that this view helps answer a great many Biblical difficulties. It removes direct responsibility for evil from God and places it squarely on humanity, it accounts for the natural readings of many texts where God is seen to be interacting with people in genuine relational ways, and it answers the question of the power and value of prayer. The Calvinists maintains that this view presents God as nothing more than a god or that it certainly lessens his glory and power. They furthermore state that it deviates from the entire history of Christianity in how God's omnipotence is understood.

Your interactions with one another are welcomed...and while I will not respond to every post, I will check in to see what the questions and discussion looks like. This is a public forum and I reserve the right to remove any post that I wish. This will mainly apply to posts that are ill-mannered, coarse, or unnecessarily combative. This is a discussion forum and civility and charity are expected. Otherwise, have fun.

Pastor alan