New Bible

I haven't had a new Bible in a long time, not that I really need more than one. But a friend told me about the ESV Journaling Bible and I couldn't resist. My initial impressions are that I like the size and the space available for notes. But the font is tiny, and there is no full concordance, only a small reference section on select topics at the front. Introductions to the books are grouped at the back, rather than at the beginning of each.

It'll be put to the test in a few hours when I head to small group.

Back from the Beach

Well, I wasn't there long, but I'm back. In fact, we spent more time getting there than we did on the beach, but that's ok. Water and sunshine make me happy. Just finished my Islam final, too, so now I'll have more time to post. In theory. In reality, I'd like to spend as little time inside as possible during the remaining summer months. Which may just mean posting from my balcony.

Primarily, what I've learned in the last few weeks was not an easy lesson... those always take a while longer to sort out and formulate in print. I can sum it up in two words: Disobedience and Grace. Nothing like a lazy afternoon on the sand with nothing but my own thoughts to drive those two parts home.

ST: Critique of Open Theism

The paper, continued. This is it. I think I've fit it in two posts. Kind of sad, really. I could have said more but we were limited to 12 pages in 12 point font.

~ ~ ~

Critical Response to Regret in Open Theism

The open theistic understanding of G-d’s regret, specifically in the account of Saul found in I Samuel, incorrectly categorizes the emotion, fails to see Saul in the scope of redemptive history, and raises problematic theological implications. The use of “repent” in place of regret is mistaken, and the inexplicable avoidance of putting I Samuel 15 in context with the rest of 1 Samuel is inexcusable. Open theism also unavoidably leads to a G-d stripped of his revelatory authority.

Rice uses “divine repentance” for the Flood, Saul, Nineveh, etc. It is his catch-all phrase for a variety of G-d’s emotions, translating sorry, relent, regret, and grief all as repentance.[1] Citing Jonah and Joel, Rice equates G-d’s mercy with his “repentance.” Let’s look at these verses:

Jonah 4:2b: “I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate G-d, slow to anger and abounding in love, a G-d who relents from sending calamity.”

Joel 2:13b: “Return to the Lord your G-d, for he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, and he relents from sending calamity.”

How is relenting from due punishment repentance? Jonah is referring to the just judgment Nineveh deserved, and Joel is calling Israel to return to the Lord because of their rebellion. Yet, Rice claims “formulations like these demonstrate that repentance is not an exceptional action on God’s part, let alone something that is out of character for him,”[2] implying that when he “relents from calamity,” G-d is repenting.

Rice is adamant that this be translated “repent” rather than “relent.” But, both Jonah and Joel are referencing G-d’s revelation of himself to Moses on Mount Sinai, where it is clear that “he relents from sending calamity” is parallel to G-d’s forgiveness and mercy, not divine repentance.[3]

The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious G-d, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. (Exodus 34:6-7, emphasis mine)

Repentance implies sin. This is not a matter of a lack of foreknowledge, but a lack of knowledge to make the right decision – period. How can G-d be wrong? This limits His deity entirely, by suggesting that G-d, who is perfect in all ways, can make mistakes. If we allow for a G-d who can be wrong, we find ourselves worshiping an incomplete deity; a deity imagined on human understanding of emotions, and not grounded in Scripture where man is made in G-d’s image, not vice versa.[4] Regret can be because of a poor decision, or it can just be sadness over what we know will come to pass, i.e., grief. This is what Ware describes as the proper understanding of this emotion in I Samuel, and what the NIV translates:

"I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the LORD all that night. (1 Sam 15:11)

Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel. (I Sam 15:35)

Ware describes the use of regret in this context as that of “weak regret” versus “strong regret.”[5] Strong regret is the sense in which we most experience regret. In hindsight, when we have a more complete picture of events and new information, we experience regret over poor choices, actions, etc. But the Lord is not caught off guard by new information because he is all-wise, and fully aware of all future actions (Ps 139:4, 16; 147:5). The sense of regret G-d expresses is the weak sense, meaning he experiences sadness over watching painful events come to pass. G-d is always grieved over witnessing sin; to rob him of this steals his righteousness. John Piper further expounds this emotion:

So my alternative way of thinking about these texts is: God foreknows the grievous and sorrowful effects of some of his own choices – for example, to create Adam and Eve, and to make Saul king. These effects are genuinely grievous to God as he sees them in themselves. Yet he does not regard his choices as mistakes that he would do differently if only he foreknew what was coming. Rather, he wills to do some things which he then genuinely grieves over in part when the grievous effect comes to pass.[6]

There are deeper theological implications of a G-d who regrets. To suggest G-d cannot know the future, and is dependent on human acts, and can therefore regret his own decisions based on the actions of others, implies an incompleteness to revelation. Countless passages tell us G-d’s decrees – and that his plans will come to pass. If we cannot trust that G-d will make wise decisions, we cannot trust his promises, and the whole of Scripture comes into question. Open theism argues that his plans will come to realization; he just doesn’t have the specifics laid out. But this is a slippery-slope at best and heretical at heart. It begs the question: Can G-d be trusted to do what he says? The answer, against open theism, is emphatically yes. Not only because G-d is in complete control of all future actions, but that has he ordained them. His sovereign order gives us confidence that his Word is trustworthy and complete, and that he alone can be trusted (Prov 30:5-6; Ps 145:13).

Both open theism and Ware fail to point to Saul in the greater context of I Samuel (cf. I Sam 8:6-18, below). Here we see the Lord is punishing Israel for rejecting him as king, by appointing a king who will rule, as all earthly kings do, with force. It does not matter if this passage is directly about Saul, for Saul is the establishment of a kingship for G-d’s chosen people; a kingship for a fickle people, which will bring them much hardship, but that brings also the line and rule of the King of Kings. The following exchange takes place when Samuel approaches the Lord about the Israelite desire for a king:

6But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do." 10Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:6-18)

It is clear from Samuel’s prophecy that G-d knew exactly what he was doing by establishing a kingship and anointing Saul king. To see Saul in perspective, we must look at him in redemptive history. G-d is punishing his rebellious chosen people, and yet, he is ushering in David the Messianic King, pointing towards Christ. Think also of the Psalms attributed to David as he was pursued by Saul (Ps 18, 52, 54, 57, 59, 142). And, would David have written the Messianic Psalms had he not learned a deep trust and reliance upon the Lord, seen his pleas for rescue answered, and the glory of G-d’s faithfulness? Clearly, G-d’s plan for Saul went beyond Saul. What is also evident from seeing Saul through the lens of redemptive history is not only did good come from bad, but G-d intended it to all along (I Samuel 12:14-15, 12:20-25 and 13:14).

Another aspect of putting the regret passages into the context of all Scripture understands that G-d sometimes says thing for our own realization. Our Lord’s actions illustrate this in the story of Lazarus found in John. Not only does Christ display genuine sorrow for Lazarus’ death, even though he knew it would not last, he also prays “for the benefit of the people standing here” (John 11:41). Seeing G-d’s grief through redemptive history is part of understanding that G-d acts in history.[7] Because of this, we can trust that good can from bad, evil, wrong and suffering; we do not endure hardships needlessly. This is not in the patronizing sense that we must learn our lessons “for our own good,” but that we may trust our sufferings are not pointless and that he works all things for good (Rom 8:28).

Knowing that G-d is for us, working sovereignty in our lives, we can trust his promises, and can fully believe that what he promises in Scripture will come to pass, because he is in complete control. The orthodox view of G-d vindicates the divine authority of his word because it upholds G-d’s wisdom to make right choices, keeping providence under his rule and thus maintaining that his promises can be trusted. Whereas open theism states, “since God does not necessarily know exactly what will happen in the future, it is always possible that even that which God in his unparalleled wisdom believes to be the best course of action at any given time may not produce the anticipate results in the long run;”[8] we have the benefit of resting in his providence. For all their protection of libertarian freewill, open theists actually limit freedom by not trusting fully in the only one who can be trusted to know what the future holds. Knowing that his promises stand firm, we can lean on his Word as everlasting truth, trusting its divine authority to be complete.


[1] Rice, 27
[2] Rice, 31
[3] Ware and Piper both make room for use of this term. Whether this is kept as a counterargument tactic is unclear. Granted, I don’t know Biblical Hebrew, but I find the use of divine repentance, even from the reformed perspective, disturbing.
[4] Ware, 35 (2003)
[5] Ware, 33 (2003)
[6] Ware, 97 (2000)
[7] Ware, 91, 93 (2000)
[8] Ware, 171 (2000); David Basinger

~ ~ ~

Yes, I did get teased by friends for using that giant block of Scripture but I felt it was necessary for my argument, and the professor did not say anything about it in his comments. And yes, I still would've made the page requirements had I not included it. :)

ST: Paper Intro, Part II

Got the paper back last week. Did much better than I thought I would, so I'm confident enough to post it in increments. Here is the remainder of the first section. Part of this overlaps with the first Introduction post. I'll post the rest in bits over the week.

~ ~ ~

One common objection to open theism is that it is dangerously close to suggesting that G-d lies. Two passages, Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 are often used by opponents of open theism because they state G-d does not lie. Rice argues against these passages; first by equating lie with repent. [1] Next, Rice states that by saying G-d will not repent, it implies he can if he so chooses.[2] For Rice, this gets back to how G-d intentionally designed the world. G-d purposefully cannot see future free choices, protecting our libertarian freedom, so that he can engage with us in a genuine, meaningful manner. Ware agrees the two terms are related, but goes on to expound that since G-d never lies (2 Tim 2:13, Titus 1:2, Heb 6:18), it is more accurate to understand this as parallelism and not a substitution of terminology.[3]

Regret or repentance indicates that G-d has no foreknowledge of the future in open theism. Greg Boyd argues,

We must wonder how the Lord could truly experience regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain that Saul would act the way he did. Could God genuinely confess, “I regret that I made Saul king” if he could in the same breath also proclaim, “I was certain of what Saul would do when I made him king”? I do not see how… Common sense tells us that we can only regret a decision we made if the decision resulted in an outcome other than what we expected or hoped for when the decision was made.[4]

And Boyd’s argument does make sense – if we are to understand this in terms of human feelings and emotions. We certainly make poor decisions, with imperfect information, in a fallen and sinful world. But we are speaking of the G-d of the universe here, and as Ware points out, I Samuel 15:29 plainly states that G-d is not like man.[5]

Others support the openness of G-d from Scripture, and it cannot be denied that there are instances where G-d appears to change his mind or shows regret that need to be addressed. There are several passages used by the open view to illustrate G-d’s regret. The most common example is that of The Flood, where Genesis tells us, “Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood” (Gen. 8:11; cf. 8:12-16). Ware does an excellent job expounding this event from the orthodox perspective.[6]

I will focus on another frequently cited passage, the account of Saul, the first king of Israel, in I Samuel. The Israelites had grown restless, and requested the prophet Samuel appoint a king to lead them. Saul was chosen – appointed by G-d – to lead his chosen people. Saul then disobeyed the Lord, and the Lord “regrets” making him king. Let us look at the verse in question (I Samuel 15:11) in different translations:

“I am sorry that I ever made Saul king, for he has not been loyal to me and has refused to obey my command.” Samuel was so deeply moved when he heard this that he cried out to the Lord all night. (NLT)

"I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments." And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the LORD all night. (ESV)

The open view explains that this passage indicates G-d’s regret over His own decision to make Saul king. G-d had high hopes for Saul, and believed he would lead the Israelites well. However, Saul made several poor decisions and disobeyed the Lord’s commands, thus displeasing the Lord, and causing Him to regret making Saul king (cf. I Samuel 13:13). For open theists, this shows that G-d did not know Saul would be a bad king, and he speaks of his regret over this poor decision.

The ramifications of a G-d who can regret his own choices are profound. The positive pastoral implications for open theists are that when bad things happen to good people, G-d never intended and did not know it would happen. This is how Boyd explains why a woman’s husband could have an affair, without G-d ever having foreknowledge, and thus control, of her husband’s painful actions.[7] Counseling her, Boyd explains that “by framing the ordeal within the context of an open future, she was able to understand the tragedy of her life in a new way. She… didn’t have to accept that somehow God intended this ordeal “for her own good”… This isn’t a testimony to his [G-d’s] exhaustive definite foreknowledge; it’s a testimony to his unfathomable wisdom.”[8] John Sanders also tackles suffering from the open view. He calls some suffering “pointless evil,” and believes that “the possibility of gratuitous evil has a point but its actuality does not.”[9] Further, he states “God does not have a specific purpose in mind for these occurrences.”[10] This view comes dangerously close to suggesting a G-d that doesn’t care, and is indifferent to the sufferings of his people. Granted, the proponents of open theism would disagree, but how can he care if “the G-d of open theism does not know, intend, or will good out of any future suffering?”[11] And, if suffering is pointless, what do open theists’ make of the Cross? Does not the Suffering Servant become obsolete?

[1] Rice, 33
[2] Rice, 32
[3] Ware, 33 (2003); Ware, 88 (2000). Ware also challenges the open theist use of Hosea 11:8-9.
[4] Ware, 26 (2003); Ware, 52 (2000)
[5] Ware, 33 (2003)
[6] Ware, 159 (2000) Although the same arguments can apply to Saul, I will defer to Ware here, as the Flood is not the focus of this paper.
[7] Ware, 64-65 (2003)
[8] Ware, 65 (2003)
[9] Ware, 66 (2003)
[10] Ware, 66 (2003)
[11] Ware, 67 (2003); emphasis mine.

Self Portrait

Took this a few weeks ago while I was studying on the waterfront.

Muddled Mess

I alluded to an internal debate I’ve had over the past few weeks a while back. I’m still stuck.

Here’s the thought-flow process:

1. G-d’s essence is eternal, lacking nothing, and cannot be added to or subtracted from.
2. What does this say of His Wrath and Mercy? Both are clearly unnecessary in the relationship of the godhead.
3. His Wrath we can attribute to His Righteousness; it is an outpouring of His Righteous character. We would not say “G-d is Wrath,” though we understand that it is part of His natural response to sin.
4. What of Mercy? If His essence is eternal and cannot be changed, and there is no need for Him to display Mercy to Himself, what is this an outpouring of? And, can we not say “G-d is Mercy”?
5. Dr. Griffith’s answer was to suggest that while G-d does not change, in His wisdom and foreknowledge, He plans for change, and thus planned to be merciful.
6. I can’t buy it. This implies that Mercy resided in His character from eternity for He planned it to be that way. And, in my mind, that comes dangerously close to suggesting that He needed to create us to display His Mercy.
7. (I’m picking on Mercy here, but I think the same argument could be said for Grace.)
8. Does it lessen G-d to say that He is not Mercy, (but merciful) i.e., that it is not part of His eternal essence? I think it does.
9. Thus, my standstill. I cannot reconcile His eternal essence with His unchangeablity and His lack of need for us.

Package surprises

I checked the front desk today, hoping a present I ordered last week would be waiting for me. There was indeed a package, but not what I was expecting. I used this book repeatedly for my thesis. At the time, it was the most comprehensively researched work I could find on my subject. Since then, I've looked for it on Amazon, only to find it out of stock or ridiculously expensive. A few months ago, I got the bright idea to email the author directly and request a copy. That's what arrived today. As my grandma would say, "I'm tickled pink."

However, I now need to figure out how to do a bank transfer to Norway.

ST: Paper Introduction

I realized my paper would be far too long to post on here all at once. So, here is the introduction, and part of the first section. This is still a rough draft, and I'd love feedback. :)


Introduction

Open theists would like to prove their beliefs on the grounds of the Word of G-d, but they are confronting the very authority of Scripture. Clark Pinnock, et al, present their views in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. Open theism cannot continue to manipulate Scripture to promote its heretical theology without a Biblical response from the confessing church. Bruce Ware addresses the Biblical and theological problems of open theism in two works, Their God is Too Small: Open Theism and the Undermining of Confidence in God, and God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. The open view of G-d claims that G-d’s emotional responses to human actions suggest he is dependent on human choices, and must “wait-and-see” before he can pursue his eternal plans. Open theists often use G-d’s regret over making Saul king (I Sam 15:11, 35) as a primary example that G-d did not know Saul would disobey him. I intend to show that this is categorically false, as it is both a willfully misguided interpretation of “regret” in the passage, and fails to see the story of Saul in the larger context of I Samuel (cf. 8:6-18), and in the organic path of redemptive history foreshadowed by the kingship of David.

What is Open Theism?[1]

Open theism presents itself as the alternative to placing G-d in the confines of a predetermined world. The openness of G-d refers to His open approach to the future, and the view emphasizes divine love. He has designed the world, allowing freewill humans to hold sway in their future, the fate of humanity, and the specifics of G-d’s redemptive plan. It’s important to understand that, under open theism, G-d has purposefully limited his future omniscience to create a give-and-take relationship between Himself and his creation. This granting of freedom allows us to collaborate or frustrate G-d’s will, and He adjusts His plans to fit situations in order to accomplish His goals. This is crucial for understanding the framework of open theism. Open theists protect G-d’s sovereignty by claming that G-d does not control everything that happens because he’s designed the world to operate that way. He waits to respond to human decisions, showing Himself as a loving and kind G-d.

This idea of an ultra-relational G-d is caught on the notion that human freedom and G-d’s control of future events are at odds. How can there be real love between G-d and man if we are just robots, and cannot truly choose to love him? For open theists, human freewill must be defined in the libertarian sense. A choice can only be free if it is truly free; there can be no outside forces influencing the decision-maker – including the self. Only when an action can be changed by the actor up until the moment of the act, is there truly a free choice being made. Apart from the ability to do so, we cannot have freewill.

This understanding of freewill is critical to open theism. If G-d comprehensively knows the future, the future must be fixed. If so, open theism purports, then man cannot really be free to make his own decisions.[2] This becomes a cyclical dependence on libertarian freedom: G-d cannot have foreknowledge of the future to protect our free choices and we must be completely free to vindicate G-d’s lack of future freewill actions.

The open view sees G-d’s emotions displayed in Scripture as exhibiting his openness. Open theists believe that instances where G-d appears to change his mind, get angry, or show regret, indicates he was unaware of the impacts of human interactions and is now responding to freewill human choices. Because G-d waits for us to act, he is sometimes upset by how events unfold. G-d can even be disappointed when choices he makes do not develop the way he anticipated. This emotion – be it disappointment, regret, or sorrow – is often used to support the open view.


A presentation of G-d’s regret from the openness perspective is found in Pinnock, et al, as addressed by Richard Rice. Rice outlines G-d’s intentions as we understand human intentions: desires, goals, objectives.[3] G-d’s plans are just that – plans; he can adapt, respond, change, etc., to human influence. He is not bound by a determined set of events and enjoys interacting with his creation to work out his plans. In the open view, the story of Saul in the Old Testament illustrates this point. G-d hoped Saul would be a good king (I Sam 15:35). He planned for Saul to be a good, faithful king. Saul, however, in his freewill, rejected G-d’s plan, causing G-d to regret making him king.

One common objection to open theism is that it is dangerously close to suggesting that G-d that lies. Rice argues against two passages, often used by opponents of open theism, that say G-d will not lie (Num 23:19 & I Sam 15:29). First, he equates lie with repent. [4] Ware agrees the two terms are related, but goes on to expound that since G-d never lies (2 Tim 2:13, Titus 1:2, Heb 6:18), it is more accurate to understand this as parallelism and not a substitution of terminology.[5] Next, Rice states that by saying G-d will not repent, it implies he can if he so chooses.[6] For Rice, this gets back to how G-d intentionally designed the world. G-d purposefully cannot see future free choices, protecting our libertarian freedom, so that he can engage with us in a genuine, meaningful manner.

It’s important to understand why regret indicates that G-d has no foreknowledge of the future in open theism. Greg Boyd argues, “We must wonder how the Lord could truly experience regret for making Saul king if he was absolutely certain that Saul would act the way he did. Could G-d genuinely confess, “I regret that I made Saul king” if he could in the same breath also proclaim, “I was certain of what Saul would do when I made him king”? I do not see how… Common sense tells us that we can only regret a decision we made if the decision resulted in an outcome other than what we expected or hoped for when the decision was made.”[7] And Boyd’s argument does make sense – if we are to understand this in terms of human feelings and emotions. We certainly make poor decisions, with imperfect information, in a fallen and sinful world. But we are speaking of the G-d of the universe here, and as Ware points out, I Samuel 15:29 plainly states that G-d is not like man.[8]

[1] Ware outlines the tenants of open theism in ten distinct points on p. 67-68 (2003).
[2] Frame, 486
[3] Rice, 26
[4] Rice, 33
[5] Ware, 33 (2003); Ware, 88 (2000). Ware also challenges the open theist use of Hosea 11:8-9.
[6] Rice, 32
[7] Ware, 26 (2003); Ware, 52 (2000)
[8] Ware, 33 (2003)

Internal Debates

I started a post last week about a topic I'd been internally debating. I thought I'd reached a satisfactory conclusion, until I started to type it out. I'll have to re-work the post now, and I'm just too tired to do so at the moment.

Had Islam class this weekend. Sadly, I don't have time to think about it... I worked on the ST paper during class! Our ST paper has to be on some aspect of open theism. I'm doing mine on regret: What does it mean when Scripture says G-d regretted? Specifically, I'm using the account of Saul in I Samuel (15:11, 35), where G-d says He regrets making Saul king. I'll post a draft of my paper when it's presentable. But, I really would like to know what you all (the mass of devout readers that I have) think about the above question.

I'll leave you with some pictures from this afternoon's hike.

(It's hard to see, but there's a nest in the branches)

Missing Mercy

Mercy is a strong word. It's not one I think of as overused, and even its Biblical roots show in Webster's: a blessing that is an act of divine favor or compassion. We all pretty well understand that we sometimes receive pardon we did not deserve. It can be as small as a warning when we warranted a speeding ticket, or the Ultimate Mercy of G-d's pardon for our disobedience to him.

But for me, Mercy is also a sweet, bright little girl, the sister of my best friend. I met Mercy when she was four, and immediately we were connected. I was a senior in high school, on my way to graduation and college. This clearly made me super cool, and far more interesting than her siblings. Eventually, I became part of Mercy's family, spending holidays, college breaks, and weekends home, crashed on her older sisters' floor. But Mercy was the first to adopt me, and always the first to greet me at the door.

"Ryyyyaaaaannnnn!" She'd cry, and wrap her skinny frame around my waist and legs, before I could set down luggage or take off my coat. "I missed you! Where have you been? Why didn't you come home sooner?" No amount of explaining final exams, papers, or other obligations would suffice. She'd beg me puzzle with her, read with her, sit with her, sit by her at dinner, anything with her. And who doesn't want that? She embodied unconditional love to me. No matter how long I'd been gone, what my grades were like that semester, what my heart looked like that semester; I knew that the second I walked through the door, Mercy would be there to greet me, loving just the very fact that I was there.

I wish everyone had a Mercy.

Mercy got sick in January 2004, while her parents' were overseas. She had leukemia, and passed away June 30, 2004. Today is her birthday. Her sister emailed this morning that her gravestone was ready and the family was gathering this afternoon at her grave.

Her family no longer lives in that house. Her sister is happily married, with an apartment of their own. It makes it easier to go back and visit, but every time I ache, wanting her to be there at the door.

I miss Mercy.

Q & A

Below is an email dialogue with my professor, Dr Griffith, about the Gaffin article. Dr Griffith is super cool, by far. His responses are in blue, and I've added some links.

~ ~ ~

Hi Dr. Griffith,

I did have some questions related to the Gaffin article. I'll preface by saying that I'm coming from a Vineyard background, and while I'm sold on Reformed theology now, I'm still trying to reconcile some of those charismatic influences. I would agree, like most, that the role of the apostle was finished with the early Church, as is clear from the very criteria defining an apostle. And, I've always been a little uncomfortable with speaking in tongues. My issue is really with that of prophets/prophecy.

Gaffin uses one verse (Eph. 2:20) to make this link -- that both apostles and prophets are foundational once-for-all finished participants. (a) I'm leery of any argument that is based on one verse, with unclear or ambiguous cross-references (He later uses Matt. 13:11; Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Tim. 3:16...references I really didn't find helpful).

He puts Eph 2:20 in its larger Ephesians context, 2:11-22, where Paul writes about the "house-building" project that is the New Covenant Church. That's a little more than 1 verse, but I'll grant that Gaffin does give a big emphasis to the "foundation" metaphor. At the same time though, it is Paul who includes prophets in the foundation. You have to wrestle with what that inclusion implies. It rests on the character of revelation, the place of apostles as organs of final revelation, and the relation of NT prophets to the apostles. If you want it more carefully argued, Gaffin does that in his book Perspectives on Pentecost.

These cross-references are all used to show that the word "mystery" in the NT always refers to the fulfillment of the plan of redemption. That fulfillment came about by Christ's coming, death and exaltation. Gaffin's point in this context is that the "mysteries" Paul refers to in 1 Cor 14, as the subjects of prophecies, are revelations, or words from God explaining the significance of the redemption accomplished by Christ. As I described that revelation in lecture, it is organic, covenantal, and progressive. The point in Gaffin's context is that these messages in 1 Cor 14 were fully revelational; not "a thought I have from God," but divinely inspired words for the whole church.

(b) I'm also not entirely convinced that prophets and prophetic revelations are the same thing. "Prophets", like apostles, suggests an appointed office, i.e., Tom is the Prophet in our congregation. I don't know that that's necessarily the case; it's unclear to me how prophets were established in the early church. Clearly in the OT, Prophets were appointed by G-d to carry a specific message to a specific people.

I think there is a link between prophecies as events (or as gifts given to men and women) and the office of prophet. How often did a prophet prophesy? That's not easy to say, nor to say how he took the position. There's no indication of "appointment," but I don't think it really matters much. The point is that in the NT church, Paul can refer to "prophets" as a distinguishable group and expect his readers to know whom he's talking about. Not everyone has this gift. Paul is explicit about that. Look at Ephesians 4:11, and 1 Cor 12:29 and 1 Cor 14:29 and 32.

And while I do think that is true -- we are no longer in an era when prophecies occur for the entire church body, I have a difficult time making the leap that individual-specific prophecies cannot occur. This, I admit, is due to my own perception of the prophetic in my life, and therefore could be entirely faulty. But take this example: I dream that X will happen to A. Some length of time later (a few days, weeks, months, years), X does in fact, happen to A. Is that coincidence? Is it revelation? Is it prophetic? I have no idea. All I know is that it happens, and it happens to me more frequently than I'm comfortable with. The point being that it's not entirely impossible for the office of prophet to have ceased, while G-d still chooses to reveal events in a prophetic manner. I'd never claim to be a prophet, but I know that when I sense Y will happen to B, chances are, it will happen. How can I reconcile that with Reformed theology? Are all my premonitions just that, and nothing more?

Again, you state the issues well. The point I would want to make theologically is just what you agree with - we are no longer in an era where prophecies occur for the entire church body - what you have to wrestle with is, that is what prophecy was. It was for the whole church body (there in Corinth or wherever). There was no such thing as "private" prophecy. Why not? Because every spiritual gift was/is given for the common good of the whole church body. [emphasis mine] That is Paul's point in 1 Cor 12:7-11 and 1 Peter 4:10-12.

About your experience of "accurate dreaming," I'd say that is different than prophecy, because it is not a verbal message coming from the Holy Spirit. Is it just premonition? I'd say, not "just," but yes, that is what it is. Some people have a sharper sense of things around them, even things that are going to happen, than others. This is a gift of the Spirit. I'd prefer to call that "wisdom," which I think is the biblical category for it. That distinguishes it from verbally inspired words coming supernaturally from God, as we see in 2 Peter 1:20-21. The distinction is important.

At the same time, your dreams are a gift from God. They are something to be used for his glory. But they don't have the same authority as his Word does (I know you realize this). You should also factor in that sometimes (I expect) your dreams are wrong. My only theological point is that the equation of such with prophecy distorts the nature of NT prophecy. Anyway, that's how I'd start to answer your good questions!

~ ~ ~

Ah, good stuff. Another comment Dr Griffith made in class that I really enjoyed was something along the lines of this:

We cannot accept Reformed theology on the basis of its intellectual appeal. That's an easy pit to fall in, because it is such a sound argument. We must, however, look at what the revelation of Scripture says, and if Reformed thinking does, in fact, match with the Word of G-d, then we can accept it, based solely on the truth of Scripture. But with all things, we must go back and check it against the Word.

Small Signs of Spring

Today was the perfect day for a trip up to Great Falls. And half of the metro area thought so as well. Still got a few great shots, despite the hordes of people.

I loved this odd dip in the river.

The bird (white dot in the middle) took off about 3 seconds after I took this shot.

I caught him right then, but the shot came out blurry.

First buds of Spring.



More buds; better focus.



There were a handful of daffodils in one spot in the park.

Couldn't tell if they were planted or wild.

Didn't see a bird the whole day.

On my way out, this little guy posed for me.

Thoughts on covenant children

Since, this Dilbert aptly describes my work week, I'm making every attempt to use my time wisely, including, but not limited to, studying, perusing online articles (both frivolous and educational), changing car insurance companies, and preparing for small group.

We're in Romans these days, Chapter 9:1-29. Reading versus 6-8, Paul is describing the makeup of Israel : not all natural children are included, and others are adopted in as children of the promise. Tim Keller points to the distinction between physical and spiritual descendents, using the examples of Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau. (From Keller’s Romans: A Study Course in the Gospel). This passage suggests a decisive break in the Jewish ethnic-descendent requirements of the OT. But what are the implications for the elect today? More on that in a moment.

Sunday I witnessed my first covenant baptism. I've seen infant baptisms before, but never administered in the Reformed tradition, or enveloped with the understanding of Reformed theology. Like much of my newfound awareness of grace, Sunday's baptism was awesome, in all verity and proper use of the word. The covenant relationship between promise and people, the foreshadowing and connection of circumcision and baptism, and the affirmation of a community that it is by His merciful choosing any of us can stand and call ourselves His, were all present with the sprinkling of water on a crying baby’s head. (And boy, did he cry!)

But now, pairing my experience on Sunday with the passage above, I have questions. I'm sure they are short of profound, and I'm not entirely perplexed; I'm just in the process of fleshing things out, and I'm bringing the two of you who read this blog along for the ride.

Are all children born into covenant families covenant children, i.e., chosen children of the promise? Doesn't this place the emphasis back on parental, physical lineage? I've just barely begun to scratch the surface of articles available online on this subject, but if anyone has authors to point me towards, that would be great.

There are some harsh criticisms for the failure of covenant parents who raise children that do not produce lives of faith. However, what I've found in general is more along the lines of the following excerpts:

"The situation of children who are born of believing parents is a special one. They do not have in themselves that quality of faith which is in the adult believer. Yet it cannot be the case that those who have been sanctified by birth and have been separated from the children of unbelievers, do not have the seed and germ of faith. The promise, accepted by the parents in faith, also includes their children to a thousand generations. . . . If it is objected that not all of them who are born of believing parents are elect, seeing that God did not choose all the children of Abraham and Isaac, we do not lack an answer. Though we do not deny that this is the case, still we say that this hidden judgment must be left to God and that normally, by virtue of the promise, all who have been born of believing parents, or if one of the parents believes, are sanctified." (Beza, Confessio Christianae Fidei , IV, 48).

"We do not ascribe this (the enjoyment of the benefits of the covenant) to birth in the flesh as the principle and true cause, for our children's salvation is only by the election and mercy of God, which often accompanies natural birth. . . This is not out of necessity, for the promise is not generally applicable to the whole seed but only to that seed in which election converges. . . But because we must not curiously investigate the hidden providence and election of God, we assume that the children of believers are holy, as long as in growing up they do not demonstrate themselves to be estranged from Christ. We do not exclude them from the church, but accept them as members, with the hope that they are partakers of the divine election and have the grace and Spirit of Christ, even as they are the seed of saints. On that basis we baptize them. We do not need to respond to those who object and ask whether the minister is deceived, whether perhaps the infant is in truth no child of the promise, of divine election and mercy. Similar diatribes could be adduced with regard to adults, for we do not know whether they come deceptively, whether they truly believe, whether they are children of election or perdition, etc." (Martyr, Loci Communes , IV,
8, 7).

I sense that my introverted brain is taking longer to process things theses days – a sure sign that I need to take more time for purposeful reflection as the intensity of the semester increases. I haven’t forgotten the post I promised on my response to Gaffin’s article. I just got my prof’s response today, and I’ll be mulling over his answers and Scripture references this evening.

Sunshine, trust and restlessness

Spring is finally shedding its light on the dullness of the city. This pleasant and much needed newness does not lighten my overbooked schedule, but it does make for improved spirits and general well-being.

To complement my mood this morning, I donned my spring rain jacket, a light yellow linen fitted trench coat. I love this jacket, even though I can really only wear it about two months out of the year. It's Ann Taylor LOFT, and fits perfectly; very feminine and the yellow contrast with my brown hair is pretty. (At least, I think it is).

I do realize that it is not technically spring for a few more days and yellow is a bit bold, but still, it's not breaking the White Rule for the few of us ladies out there who preserve it. I did not, however, expect quite the positive reaction it drew from my coworkers. My new nickname is Sunshine, and I've been serenaded with:

"You are my Sunshine, My Only Sunshine," "You are the Sunshine of my life" (Stevie Wonder), and "Sunshine Superman" (Donovan).

I could get used to this. :)

~~~

Today I also made an observation, and I'm not sure what, if anything, to make of it. There's a woman in my Cubicleland who I know to be a Christian. She's very pleasant, friendly, and talks openly about her faith, at least in the women's restroom. What I noticed yesterday was her underlying statement of distrust in her coworkers. She carried her purse to the copier. At first I thought maybe she was on her way out and just stopped at the copier, but she did it multiple times during the day. And today, I realized that she takes her purse with her everywhere, every time she leaves her cubicle. I could possibly understand this if a) we didn't work in a secure building, or b) each cubicle didn't have multiple lockable cabinets. Maybe she's had personal belongings stolen before. I do, I admit, put my iPod in a drawer when I walk away. But I don't lock it up. Because I generally trust that my coworkers are not going to raid my desk, looking for things to steal. I'm curious to know what message she's sending. "I'm a Christian and I don't trust people?" I suppose that would be the ultimate conclusion of total depravity.

~~~

Finally, I was reminded of the restlessness of my soul today; that eager yearning that cannot be explained, the longing for “home.” Strolling to work in my fabulous yellow coat, I listened to the lyrics of Caedmon’s Call, Valleys Fill First.

It’s like that long Saturday
Between your death and the rising day
When no one wrote a word
And wondered is this the end

In some sense, I feel this tension everyday. That we are ________, but not yet. The Kingdom has come, but not yet. But Paul writes definitively that we are called, justified, glorified (Rom. 8:29-30). I am, and we are; but we are not, too. We are living in that painfully long Saturday between the first and second coming, and this morning I felt the acute sense of division between the flesh that knows it is not yet fully sanctified, and the spirit that lives justified by grace.

~~~

I’m working on a post in response to this article for ST. Waiting on feedback from the professor.

Things future, nor things that are now,
Not all things below or above,
Can make Him His purpose forego,
Or sever my soul from his love. (Toplady)

Already Behind

Typical to my organized-but-overscheduled life, I’m behind in Systematic Theology. I plan well, I mean well, but life just plain gets in the way. I find some joy and comfort in that; I’ll never have it all mapped out and that’s just the way it ought be. I should preserve a measure of flexibility and perspective to counterbalance my perfectionist nature.

Packer’s Fundamentalism finally arrived, and I immediately skipped ahead (or caught up, depending on point of reference) to an intriguing article, “Why Scientists Must Believe in God” by Vern Poythress. I’m half through; I’ll post more thoughts when I finish.

I did, however, finish the first chapter of the Westminster Confession (WCF), which is not long in and of itself, but I am digesting G. I. Williamson’s study commentary alongside. Chapter One is “Of the Holy Scriptures,” and outlines why, exactly, we should believe that the Scriptures are the infallible, authoritative Word of G-d. In class, we’ve discussed revelation as the principium of theology, the aseity of G-d, and the perspicuity of Scripture. We are just now getting into general revelation and the differences between Barth and the Reformed view of revelation and Scripture. I suppose Barth is easy to use as the anti-Reformed example, even though he had great influence (and still does) on the Reformed church. Our professor’s use of him as dunce prompted him to say, “Now, Barth is not evil, he’s not Satan; he just took some of his ideas too far.” I laughed out loud.

I really only have one observation thus far. I’m slightly disturbed by WCF 1.8:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

So, let’s just add some gold tablets in the sky, eternal and uncreated in Hebrew and Greek and you’ve darn well got a Qur’an. Kind of made my stomach churn. I do, thanks to Williamson, understand what they were getting at here. Just came too close for comfort in my mind.

Premonition

Overall, this weekend will rank fairly high on my list of enjoyable weekends. My Friday morning started with a brief negotiation for a raise (due to increased job responsibilities) that went so ridiculously well, I still find it absurd. As if Fridays were not wonderful enough. This weekend was also the first meeting of the course I’m TA-ing, Introduction to Islamic Studies. So, Friday (7-10pm) and Saturday (9-4pm), I listened to Dr. Sookhdeo give a (very) concise history of Islam. It was refreshing to know that the majority of his lectures were refreshers for me, and that I was able to answer students’ questions without sounding like a moron. This was also the first time I’ve been exposed to a Christian perspective on Islam from a true academic. Dr. Sookhdeo is not apologetic about the inherent problems in Islam, nor does he shy from challenging the Western church to protect our fellow Christians living as persecuted minorities in the Muslim world.

After class on Saturday, I went to see Amazing Grace, an excellent film with a powerful and convicting story.

It is this morning that has me a bit bothered. I’d intended to visit a friend’s church but they canceled services do to inclement weather. It wasn’t really bad out, I thought. My church hadn’t canceled services, and neither had another church I was interested in visiting. The roads didn’t look slick, but by the time I left, a soft, wet snow was beginning to fall. Flurries, I thought. I’m from Chicago, this is nothing. I left early, assuming all the other drivers would be taking their sweet time getting to-and-fro. And the roads really weren’t bad. When I started. By the time I’d almost reached my destination, I’d slowed down considerably, and was driving cautiously.

And then I sensed something. I was coming up on a curve in the road – one I know to be sketchy even in fine weather, when you are not paying attention and take it too fast. This will be difficult, slick, I thought. Slow down as much as possible and do not touch the breaks unless absolutely necessary. And, whatever you do, don’t fishtail. Wouldn’t that suck if I fishtailed and went over the small grassy median? Wouldn’t it?

That’s exactly what happened. I let off the gas, downshifted and began to take the turn. The car in front of me was going too quickly and needed to break, thus I had to follow suit or rear-end him. My back end fishtailed; I tried to turn away from the median but got pulled towards it. Somehow, I managed to check my mirrors for cars behind me (there weren’t). I tried to turn into the turn, hoping to avoid crossing the median and just stop facing the wrong way on the northbound side of the road, and continued to pray for no cars. Thankfully, there were no cars behind me, or on the southbound side of the median, because that’s where I stopped, facing southbound but at an angle. My car had gone up and over the median (curbed, maybe six feet wide, with grass and bushes.) I remember hoping the bushes would stop me and keep me from going into traffic. But there was no traffic, and as I came to a stop, a car coming southbound saw me, stopped and buffered me from other cars. I was safe but still a hazard to other drivers. I realized then that though I’d remembered to push in the clutch, I hadn’t taken the car out of gear and I was stuck. I don’t think the cars coming up behind me realized I’d not been their southbound company a moment earlier and just thought I was stalled. It took a few tries to get my car to start, get in gear and move out of the way, onto the only spot of shoulder along the road. A very, very kind man with his son stopped to make sure I was ok, and offered to follow me where ever I needed to go. (And he did.)

THANK G-D I’m fine. My car is fine, and no one else was hit or skidded because of me. I was able to spend the afternoon with a friend playing computer video games which, while a splendid waste of time, was also a pleasant distraction from an upsetting event.

What has me bothered is the premonition. This type of thing happens to me frequently, only it typically does not actually involve me. I have hunches, intuitions, or dreams; most often dreams. I hesitate to call them prophetic because, well, they don’t feel prophetic, and many of them having nothing to do with G-d. I don’t know what prophetic is supposed to feel like; I just don’t feel like that. But I know when some things will happen and when other things won’t happen. These events are not always good, nor always bad. For the most part, they are usually things I can do nothing about, and so I’m never really sure what to do with this information.

I’ve generally don’t discuss this openly. Recently, I started telling a few friends when something happens involving them that I’ve dreamt about, but no one seemed to respond, so I stopped. Last week, a close friend had a rough day. I’d dreamt about it weeks before, but I don’t always know the outcome of events, so I didn’t say anything. Should I? Does it matter? What is the purpose?

New Series: Systematic Theology (ST)

After fighting G-d for years on this, I'm finally going to seminary. I didn't really see the point... I don't want to be a pastor or even a pastor's wife. But there are degrees besides MDiv's, and at this point, it actually makes sense for me to go. I'll be learning Greek and Hebrew, which will help later on down the road when I prepare to write a doctoral thesis on Jesus in the Qur'an. (That's not the exact focus, but I can't give away all my secrets!)

Anyway, I figured I'd do what all the other seminary students out there taking Systematic Theology do: blog about my classes.

The first selection for reading was J.I. Packer's "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God, forever lost to the U.S. Postal service. (A new copy is on the way.) So, I skipped ahead to the second readings. We are reading John Murray's "The Attestation of Scripture," found in Ned Stonehouse's The Infallible Word. I'm not fond of Murray's style. It irritates me that he uses circular arguments to justify his self-acknowledged circular reasoning. If he'd stated upfront that he was attacking Barth's view of Scripture, it would've done wonders for his thesis, as his point for the first two-thirds of the article is unclear. As it stands, I'm finding G. I. Williamson's study guide on The Westminster Confession of Faith far more concise and persuasive. I still need to finish sections 8-10 of Chapter I, and then I'll post some more thoughts.

Farewell to a Legacy

Today is a sad day for Illinoisans everywhere. The University of Illinois, after decades of controversy and under the pressure of sanctions by the NCAA, officially retired Chief Illiniwek today. While the spoilers call him a racist mascot, and say his appearances at halftimes are exaggerated exploitations of Native American culture, I have always, and will always see the Chief as a respectful tradition, honoring not only the history of the Native Americans in Illinois, but the embodying the spirit of the University itself.

I can't really explain the Chief because he has to be experienced. And now he will be no more. The Chief is the U of I. His history holds the fertile soil of the Morrow Plots, his artistry mirrors the excellence of the Krannert Center for the Performing Arts, and his passion is echoed in the strive for academic achievement, supported by the University Library, the largest public library in the world (and the sole reason my undergraduate thesis was any good).

The decision today warranted text messages from fellow alumni, and phone calls to my Dad. For me, the retiring of Chief Illiniwek means a family tradition will die, too. I'm a third generation Illini. I grew up going to football games with my Granddad, one of the fondest memories I have from my childhood, and I distinctly remember the reverence my family taught me towards the Chief. Conversations with my Grandma, instead of just being about the weather or the birds on her porch, are sprinkled with Illini basketball statistics - from her, not me. And my strongest connection with my stepmom's parents came when I went to Illinois. When the dementia set in, Mary's one remaining link to my reality was to sing the Alma Mater over the phone whenever I called home, well after I'd graduated. My parents met at Illinois. I met Jesus at Illinois. I'm not trying to equate fondness towards a symbol to my love for Christ. But those memories are intertwined, because they both belong to Illinois.

Hail to the Orange, Hail to the Blue

Hail Alma Mater, ever so true (so true).

We love no other, so let our motto be,

Victory, Illinois, Varsity.

Grown-Up Snow Days

Grown-up snow days are far superior to my childhood memories. Maybe that says more about my childhood memories than I'd like. That's not to say that sledding, snowball fights, building snow forts, drinking gallons of hot chocolate, etc., were not enjoyable. Good times, they were. But typically, even on snow days, we were at the mercy of whatever parents could get off work to supervise and chauffeur.

Alas today was my first free snow day. Ever. (The one time in college classes were cancelled, the cancelling occurred after I sat through an 8am class in the dark, with no heat.)

I did go to work this morning. Well, we were on a 2-hour delay, so I went at 10am. And no one was there... not my co-workers, my boss, or his boss. So, I packed up a binder with a bunch of reading that needed to get done, and headed to Starbucks to work the rest of the day over a hot cup of tea.

I just happened to make a few stops along the way... and, to justify the warm-fuzzy-but-practical-boots purchase, my feet were soaking wet. Once landed in Starbucks, I made a feigned attempt at working. I pulled the binder out of my backpack. But who wants to work when there is John Murray's "The Attestation of Scripture" to be read?

And now there is banana bread to bake, treadmills to run and LOST to watch.

Oh, did I mention that I found a dozen roses on the sidewalk? Who drops a dozen roses and doesn't notice? They were a little frozen, but they still look lovely as my dining table centerpiece.

Chicago Pics

A few moments from my trip...

New snow, outside V and Dave's window this morning.

Dad, this one's for you. From the Coonley House, donated by the Howlett's, no less!

My favorite painting at the Art Institute.

Doesn't that look like something you'd see in a museum? Oh, right...