Questions Left Unanswered

For several years after I left for college, on Christmas Eve some buddies and I would get together at our old high school stadium and play a game of football. It was interesting to see each year who had gotten slower, who got winded the quickest, and to watch the younger guys who still worked out kick the old, lazy guys' butts.

One year, while we were taking a break from the action on the field, my friend Aaron asked me, "So what are you anyway Luke? Are you a Baptist or a Methodist?" Now, I believe the true intent of his question was, "Are you a Calvinist or an Armenian?" Aaron probably knew, and still knows, that I have difficulty applying labels--both to myself and others. Usually this is because I don't know what the fancy words mean, but also I find it very difficulty to place people and ideas in such cut-and-dry, black-and-white descriptions. Rarely does anyone live up to the entire meaning of labels that get applied. But I digress…

After accepting my recent job with Bryan Research and Engineering, I find myself spending a considerable amount of time on trains traversing different areas of Europe. Having beautiful scenery go by…and plenty of time on my hands…I find it very convenient for contemplative thought and reading. On a recent trip to Germany, I decided to dive back into the first real theological debate I ever became concerned with--open theism.

I reread "The God Who Risks" by Sanders and followed it up with "God's Lesser Glory" by Ware. I've matured a bit since the last time I read these books, and I found myself paying more attention than I had in the past.

I think Sanders makes a compelling argument for Open Theism. While Ware does a good job of rebuttal at times, I grew tired of the number of straw-men thrown up in God's Lesser Glory. Be assured that there are plenty of straw-men in Sander's book, but it didn't seem to be to the almost obscene extent that Ware used them.

But the reading, hearing from each side, brought me back to Aaron's question. And Aaron, I can tell you, unequivocally, I am a….

…Armenian with questions…or maybe a Calvinist with objections…or perhaps a limited open theist…take your pick, I find each of these systems less than adequate.

Let me start out with hermeneutics. I don't remember what the word means, but I see in my notes that beside it I wrote something, which means at some point I did know what it meant. For hermeneutics I wrote, "Either the straightforward literal meaning OR the most simple and obvious".

This is the way that I've always read the bible and I think it's a good way to go about the reading. I find it rather humorous that each side in the argument first brings their presuppositions to the text, and then chooses how to match the text to their presuppositions. Now, before you object, don't worry, I know that each side does this. And of course, I cannot shake my own bias (please see an earlier post). However, having a little bias and reading into the text what is obviously not there for my own convenience are horses of a completely different flavor.

In The God Who Risks, I am compelled by Sander's arguments in favor of God's ignorance (take a slow, deep breath, and then continue). It has always been my belief that God chose to limit Himself when He created Man; and the only way that He limited Himself was that He gave Man free choice. (Libertarian free will for those of you who like big words). God's ignorance, therefore, is simply that He does not know, absolutely, what individual choices we will make. He knows our hearts, knows what we are likely to do to a very high degree of certainty…but not absolutely.

Here's an analogy. My wife loves Dr. Pepper. I know this because she has told me that she loves Dr. Pepper, because we presently have some in our home (I'm a beer drinker myself), and because she always orders a Dr. Pepper when we go out for dinner. So when we sit down at a restaurant and the waitress comes by for a drink order while my wife is gone to the restroom…am I safe in ordering her a Dr. Pepper? To a very high degree of certainty…yes. But not absolutely! (And in fact, I have ordered her a Dr. Pepper when that day, for some strange reason, she wanted a Cherry Coke).

Now, sit back down, and please do not scream, "Ah ha Luke! So you're comparing yourself to God!?!" Please, this is not a valid argument (and the type I got tired of in Ware's book). This is merely an analogy to be taken at face value as a description of the relationship that God has with Man.

Because that's really what this is all about…relationship. Relationship requires God's involvement with limited control. If God was not involved, there obviously would be no relationship. If God controlled our every action and move, there obviously would not be a relationship there either.

I've heard many people say what they think the theme of the Bible is. I've heard Love, (a good one), Redemption, (also a good one), as well as a Demonstration of God's Glory (who can argue with that?). But to me, the theme of the Bible seems to be Relationship. That's why God created Man, that's why He worked with the nation of Israel, that's why He sent the prophets, that's why He sent His Son, and that's His plan for you and me. Relationship seems to permeate every section of the Bible, and I believe is quickly overlooked when people begin arguing their grand theories and systems.

Here's an example from Genesis (Abraham and Isaac). Classical theologians claim that the entire scenario is solely for the benefit of Abraham. God was merely shaping Abraham, teaching him a lesson, and playing along. He knew full and well what Abraham was going to do ahead of time (this, they claim, is the most simple and obvious meaning).

The open theism theorists claim that the scenario was mostly for God. That God was the one changing; God was the one learning about Abraham. Meanwhile Abraham was just obediently doing what God asked and hoping for the best. (The most straightforward, literal meaning)

But if you ask me, the straightforward literal meaning AND the most simple and obvious meaning apply here. BOTH members of the relationship learned from the experience, BOTH were taken further in their relationship with one another.

A lot of sword play has resulted over Genesis 22:12 where God says, "Now I know…" When God says this, it can be taken figuratively or literally, when placed in context with the entire story it simply does not matter. It was a defining moment in the relationship where Abraham outwardly shows his dedication to God. (Can anyone say Baptism?)

Too much is made of this verse. When God says, "Now I know that you fear God", he is stating an affirmation of the outward expression made by Abraham. It does not deny that God new Abraham's heart beforehand or that he knew what Abraham would do (absolutely). It's like saying, "That guy really IS crazy!" about someone who outwardly shows craziness you knew they already had (but not absolutely).

There's more in my notes from that train ride. But for now, I'll stop here. I'm unsatisfied with each of the systems I have seen, Calvinism, Armenianism, and Open Theism. I want a model and interpretation that makes the most sense, which fits with the theme of the Bible, and is coherent. I cannot accept things that do not make sense simply for coherency of the model (as Calvinists do) or allow blatant problems of sensibility exist (as Armenians do). Open theism has too large a variety of beliefs to refute like the Classical views. Suffice it to say that I find it weak overall on various points.

This is why I fit the mold of an opecalvimenian…with questions.