1517

Reformation Day sale on the Reformation Study Bible.

Get it for $15.17.

Regular price, $39.99.

Just for Fun

Some entertainment, in celebration of my 29th year.

Debating the Year of Living Biblically

Good looks = Bad theology. You know what they say, “If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife.” I’ll be looking for an ugly husband.

Election help. I matched with John Cox (who?), Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney (gag me), and Ron Paul (funny, feisty little man).

I’m half-done with midterms. I think I did well on the Systematic essays: a) What is the relationship between the NT Church and OT Israel, b) According to Clowney, what is the structure of the church, and c) What is the role of women in ministry? I’ll post my answers if I pass. :)

I finally came up with a paper topic for Gospels, though I haven’t started any research. I'd like to look at the role of suffering/persecution as the Church body and the implications of that for missions. Primarily, I would be looking at John 15:19-20, Matt. 5:10-12, Matt 25:40, and John 13:34-35, with significant support from the Epistles, and connecting both the suffering of Christ and the relationship between Israel and the Church in the gathering of nations. I will essentially be making the argument that supporting the indigenous and often suffering church in a global context is essential for the spread of the Gospel, and that ultimately, the call of the church is to suffer with our brothers and sisters.

And last but not least, all I’d really like for my birthday are some squash recipes that do not involve acorn squash with butter and brown sugar. Come on, people, be creative!

UPDATE: Squash recipes are all good, but on second thought, I'd really like a bb gun to shoot the #*%&$ squirrels that keep eating my snapdragons. Grrrr.

Ethical unease

I am settling into the new world of non-profit fundraising and research. I love my job. It is amazing to enjoy going to work each day. I am also in over my head in seminary. I put Hebrew first because I know my tendency with languages is to be overwhelmed and give-up. Thankfully, that's not the case so far. We'll see what the midterm says. I was encouraged when I was the only one in the class that caught a spelling error (in Hebrew) on a quiz. But as for Systematic and Gospels...

Back to the title topic. Today brought an interesting dilemma to the new work adventure. Being the development coordinator, I get to mess in everyone's business. I get to have an opinion on marketing, research, logos, everything down to how the receptionist answers the phone. Idea being that, as a non-profit, you bend over backwards to get folks to give you money. This is the part of my job that I hate. I hate asking people for money. I can't think about it like that. I prefer to talk of "partnerships" and "supporters" rather than "donors" or "clients." But, at the end of the day, it's my job to convince people to take out their checkbooks. I'm happy to do this only because I fully believe in the call of the organization; we bear the unique claim of aiding the suffering, global Church. (I'll write more about this later when I finish my paper for Gospels.)

So, we're a Christian organization that takes money from Christians and gives it to Christians around the world to help impoverished, persecuted or suffering Christians. On the whole, we make no distinctions along denominational lines. I know where my organizations stands, and I know where my individual coworkers stand on theological/doctrinal issues, and they are in agreement with my own.

However, the issue came up today of how far is acceptable to go to solicit funds from those with questionable theology. I'm not talking about differences between, say, Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians. I mean more like beyond Emergent and into the realm of Joel Osteen. The advertising in question wouldn't directly link us to anyone; but it would target a very theologically diverse crowd.

So, is this a necessary line to draw? Do we ask supporters if they adhere to the Westminster Confession before they give, or just gratefully take their money, send a (personalized) thank-you and pass it along to those in need? Is this, as Dr. G raised in class last night, the slippery slope of distinguishing the visible church from the invisible church?

Digests?

In Gospels, we've been tasked by Guy Waters to write a "digest" for each book assigned in class. I take it this was intended to capture the essence of the book, but I'm still a little fuzzy on the point of this exercise. It was not supposed to be a response or book review. And, we could do it in small paragraphs or in outline format. I opted for the outline.

However, outlining two 600-page books was not the simple process I thought it would be. In short, I now have 10-page outlines for Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Everett Ferguson) and Jesus and the Gospels (Craig L. Blomberg). But, I've not really read them nor did I retain anything. This was by far the most useless assignment I've done in seminary, and possibly in my entire graduate career.

See, my reading retention is so painfully poor that I make 3 x 5 index cards for every book or article I read. I started to do this with Ferguson, realized about 1/3 into the book that
I would never have enough time or space (10-page limit) to type it all, and proceeded to outline the rest based on subheadings and italicised points. Granted, I'm sure my index-card process could be more efficient, but I've got a reading and writing process that earned me one graduate degree and I'm not really keen on changing it all that much. I'm tempted to ask Professor Waters if I can just turn in my index cards for the next two books, or I'll never actually learn anything in this class. Well, that's not entirely true. From what I could tell of headings and subheadings, Waters is sticking pretty close to the books.

But I still don't have a paper topic and class starts in an hour and a half.

Traveling

As much as I'd like to say I'm leaving in the Wiener Mobile, I'll only be flying home tomorrow. This was on my block a few weeks ago. Very random, I must say.

I'm headed to visit my family over the next week. It feels a little like I'm stuck in a lengthy transitory phase... moving, switching jobs, starting school again, etc. And yet, I seem to thrive on this sort of thing. I can't imagine being "settled" in the sense that I can't imagine I won't want to try new challenges even when I am "settled." It's difficult to imagine what settled even looks like.

School is saturating me with theology. I'm on overload and haven't really been able to produce any fruitful thoughts to share here as of late. Perhaps a week in the cornfields with intermittent internet access will give me time to reflect. That's my hope anyway. At the least, I'll have to catch up on reading, write two papers and faithfully flip through my Hebrew flash cards.

I have to pick a topic for the research paper in my Gospels class. I wanted to do some research on the Gnostic gospels but the prof is limiting us to the Canon. So, any controversial verses out there you'd like to have researched? Suggestions so far: Matt 24:34, Mark 9:1 and Mark 13:10. Any other ideas?

Uncertainty

His secret will is no cause for doubt.

Recent changes in my life have left me feeling a bit overwhelmed. I remind myself that I’ve done work and school before, and that I really just need to take it one day or week at a time. And really, both are amazing opportunities that I’m blessed to have. As one college friend wrote, “think of all the thousands of people who just make widgets to get by. You get to do something you’ll love!” This is very, very true, and as I began to grumble over biblical Hebrew and Geerhardus Vos yesterday afternoon, I was struck with the thought that my life is in His hands.

Wow, Ryann, you’ve just now caught on to this? Yes, it is one thing to look back at situations, trials and mistakes that He’s brought me through and know that He was with me. It is a different experience to look forward, to know there will be clouds and storms, and to trust that He’ll take me there, only by His lead.

This article was passed to me, and tells of Sudanese Christians fleeing to Israel in the face of horrible circumstances. The friend who sent it marveled that many of these who Christians end up at her church still praise the Lord in the face of such tragedy. It is because they know this truth, perhaps more profoundly than we can understand in the land of good and plenty.

There are infinite uncertainties in life. Where will I find food, work or housing? How will I manage my time and finances? Will I ever be able to pay off my student loans and buy a house? Will I get married, have kids, and die old or young? (Will Apple stop making gadgets for me to covet?) And ultimately, so very little of these uncertainties matter.

And yet, He holds us in His hands. All that is uncertain to us – all the decisions we face, the curve balls life throws our way, even the fleeting thoughts of the frailness and transience of life – do not catch Him by surprise. All is certain with Him. My life will unfold exactly as it should. This reminder was a tremendous comfort and brought to mind the quote from Pierre Marcel. I originally thought this quote was speaking of faith-doubt, implying that not knowing His unrevealed will is no cause to doubt His existence in general. But there is another aspect to the wisdom here. His secret will for our lives – the uncertainty we feel – is no reason for us to doubt that He has a perfect plan in place, and that He has the power to see it to fruition, because He is the master of that plan.

Mystical longings?

Amid the revelations by Mother Teresa that her communion with the Lord was not what she’d hoped, and questions from a friend about whether or not it is appropriate to ask for a “religious experience” to be granted, I’ve been pondering the role of, the request for, and the desire for mystical elements in our spiritual lives. This is one of those contentious points where I’m not sure that I fully agree with the Reformed cessationist stance, but I’m also not at a point (or in any position) to formulate a new theological perspective. In fact, my thoughts on the matter are quite conflicting and incomplete. I’m not even sure that the termination of tongues and other manifestations of the Holy Spirit are of the same element as mystical experiences. That said, the following thoughts are very raw, and something I hope to flesh out more in the next few months.

I was asked the other day – advised, I should say, to try visualizing handing Jesus my heart, full of its anxiety, troubles, fears; broken and bruised, etc., and to imagine my Lord handing it back to me whole and healed.

I was turned off by this suggestion. It felt too modern psychology, additional, even extra-biblical. Was this an appropriate method to interact with G-d? I’ve done exercises like this before. Tacking my “sins” on a piece of paper to a giant wooden cross, or burning them in a campfire at some retreat or camp. These never seemed like fruitful endeavors, but I thought that perhaps I’m just not a visual learner and that others gain from this experience when for me it was almost irritating.

Did the Lord ever ask us to visualize, I wondered? Certainly there are visions throughout the Bible, and Jesus frequently used parables as illustrations. But they were concrete, at least to the extent that their formulation was governed and distributed by G-d. And, generally speaking, these experiences were given, not sought. This holds true in my experience as well. The images that I do have in my mind’s eye are those that I did not conjure up at will, but that came to me in times of prayer, reflection, or dreams. They have brought great peace in times of loneliness or sorrow, unlike the superficial actions mentioned above.

Yet, we are visual people who need visual experiences. We are even spiritual people who need mystical or religious experiences. I do not mean to suggest we must all have Revelations of Divine Love, or be moved to write mystical poetry. But we are given – very intentionally – visual and tangible symbols of the covenant as means of grace in baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

What I find wrapped in these symbols are mystical elements that the Church likes to simply call “mysteries” rather than flirt with the notions of mysticism. Webster’s highlights mystery as “a religious truth that one can know only by revelation and cannot fully understand,” and mysticism is defined as “the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight).” The slight difference I see is that of subjective experience on the mystical side. One could argue that partaking in communion is objective, in that its purpose is stated, even if mysterious. But do we not each connect differently during that time of private reflection? Isn’t that the great mystery that this same means of grace – one Grace for all – touches us each uniquely and transforms each person differently?

It seems to me, and not just with communion, but with many of the mysteries of our faith – the virgin birth, fulfilled prophecy, Jesus as both fully human and fully divine, etc., that if they were not wrapped in the cloak of Christian history, if they did not carry the weight of the human-touched Church through the centuries, if we could be so bold as to imagine them as new ideas – would they not strike us as mystical and strange? Is their familiarity a tarnish to what should be our very own mystical experience, fulfilling our mystical longings?

Lasting Impressions

Recently, a debate began among my friends over an issue that I felt was governed by social construct. Now, I fully believe that the person in dissent is a rational human being, and came to the opposing conclusion based on his convictions, and thus it should not be a contentious issue among believers. However, it did hurt some feelings (not all mine), raise questions about social mores, and the weight they should bear on our convictions.

The topic at hand was alcohol. The debate was not over whether or not one should drink, since all those around the table were in agreement that the moderate consumption of alcohol is no problem at all, in most circumstances. No, the conflict came when the dissenter expressed that he did not feel women should drink beer, and that it was only proper for a lady to consume wine. It was a good thing that the only beverages being had at the time were Frosty’s.

I unsuccessfully attempted to engage this friend in a dialogue about the matter. I argued that drinking habits are often influenced by family, social construct and even social class. I appealed to time and place, affluence and poverty, availability and popularity – all to no avail. Finally, I pleaded with taste. Beer goes with burgers and pizza! Wine does not!

How much of our convictions are shaped by our surroundings? I think about the more liberal-ish and social gospel churches I know and it draws to mind friends with tattoos, piercings, and other ways of living that are “gray areas,” but that my more conservative Christian friends might find distasteful or questionable. I think about interactions between my friends of the opposite sex that would be detrimental to my witness in some contexts but not in others. More so, I think of the passing judgment that we dole out, without thinking of the consequences to the Church as a whole, and wonder if many of these are Romans 14 issues. In that light, I wonder how I am to respond when I know that I should respect someone’s convictions, however much I disagree with them. I’m upset by how much this makes me conscious of my actions around said friend, and irritated that I’ve let it upset me.

More importantly, I’m still struggling to find a wine that goes with burgers. My roommate, thankfully, found one that goes with pizza. Whew.

Transition, and preparation

I'm settling in to a new living abode. I've been here three weeks; it's finally starting to feel like home, although I'm still not fond of my commute to work.

This afternoon, I have a second interview with the organization I really, really, really want to work for. There was some up-and-down last week with their two offices going back and forth over whether or not I'd be able to work via internet/Skype. Their main office is in the UK, and I'd be working at a branch office here in the US. We'll see if it works out this afternoon.

I'm also in the process of preparing for classes in a few weeks. I just put all the books for ST VI in my Amazon basket, and combined with the Hebrew text book, my total is right at $100. Not bad at all!

So, in a brief span of time, I've moved and could possibly be changing jobs, all while starting school full time in about 3 weeks. Whew. It's been emotional at times, and I'm reminded to stay close to the Word. (Somewhere in the back of my mind, I hear Mad Eye Moody's "Constant Vigilance!")

Here's what I'll be reading for ST IV: Ecclesiology & Sacraments this semester. Likely than not, it will influence both the content and frequency of my posting.


1. Geerhardus Vos, The Kingdom of God and the Church
2. Richard B. Gaffin, Perspectives On Pentecost
3. Edmund P. Clowney, The Church
4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. F. L. Battles, Book 4, Chapters 1-20.
5. Edmund P. Clowney, “The Politics of the Kingdom,” Westminster Theological Journal 41:2 (1979): 291-310.
6. Richard B. Gaffin, "Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Postmillennialism," from Theonomy, A Reformed Critique, 197-224.
7. Edmund P. Clowney, “The Final Temple” Westminster Theological Journal 35 (1973): 156-189.
8. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapters 20-23, 25-31.
9. Vern S. Poythress, "Indifferentism and Rigorism in the Church: With Implications for Baptizing Small Children," Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997), 13-29.
10. Vern S. Poythress, "Linking Small Children With Infants in the Theology of Baptizing,” Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997), 143-58.
11. John Murray, The Covenant of Grace: A Biblico-Theological Study
13. John Murray, Christian Baptism
14. The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper, Sermons by Robert Bruce, ed. and trans. Thomas F. Torrance

Sunday Worship

Sometimes, Sundays feel too harried and forced, and I find myself in a dilemma of whether or not corporate worship will do more good than harm. I'm put off by the routine, the primping and labor of going to church, fellowshiping at lunch, church again, and another social activity on top of that. I find an unnatural pressure to fill the entire day with fellowship-related events. Granted, if I felt like that every Sunday, it might be cause for concern, and generally I am all for Sunday corporate worship. But, I do find I must prioritize what my other Sunday activities will be, and on this end, I seem to be coming across as anti-social.

However, if I do not have some sense that I've rested on the Sabbath, my week is far more stressful, for myself, and for those around me. I maintain a loose definition of rest, and I completely understand that my idea of rest differs from another. For some, spending the day full of gatherings with family and friends is restful. For me, if I do not spend at least one day alone a week, my mental and emotional well-being suffers dramatically. In fact, if I don't get that time to myself, to regroup, process, and allow the introvert in me to recharge, I can easily become so nasty that I alienate friends and am entirely unpleasant company.



So today, after an intense week of too many activities, and camping all weekend with friends, I took a break. What I find frustrating is that twinge of remorse - not that I should have been at church, but that I've disappointed people. This has lessened as I've grown more, and understood the ramifications of me not resting. And I'm reminded that Jesus modeled this balance of community fellowship with times of individual reflection and isolation. If I did not guard this time, if I did not in some way make it a holy offering between me and my Lord, I'd be unable to fully give myself to the church, my friends, my week, my job, etc., without causing irreparable damage to myself, or to those relationships I cherish.

But, this is not always easily explained, for lack of ability to articulate it in words that make sense, in my critical self-view. I find myself fearing that a tone of voice hints either hurt feelings or condescension when I have to say "No" to activities, but I don't know how to communicate that it's actually because I so value fellowship that at times I must remove myself from it, in order to be a productive contributor to it.

Disobedience, Moving, and Harry Potter

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” Matthew 7:7-8

Twice I listened to Piper’s sermon on this passage. And it took twice for it to sink in: it’s not all about asking. I’m great at that asking part. Crying over earthly things I know I can’t afford. Begging, pleading, fasting, throwing what amounts to a spiritual tantrum, and even feeling justified in doing so – why would He give me these desires if He had no intention of fulfilling them?

And then I came face to face with my disobedience. After an emotionally trying experience, I realized that I’d been waiting on the decisions of another to move forward. While I was actively seeking G-d’s will in the situation, I wasn’t actively seeking His will for me. I prided myself on being flexible and adaptable, when no matter what; I should have been following the Lord’s lead for my life. Even more so when that made it clear that my path was here, not there.

Now I saw the connection between asking and seeking… but knocking? Why did I never realize this verb meant action on my part? That’s not to say that I can make the door open; it’s just to say that there must be some element of proactively doing on our part. It’s wise to see the order here. Only after pouring out our hearts and listening for His lead can we really have a sense of where to knock. But I’d had that sense for a while, and I was stubbornly ignoring it, though it really was what I truly desired.

I wanted to go back to school, full-time, and to make it financially plausible, I wanted to do it for free. I felt selfish in asking this. Don’t I have enough degrees? I should be happy with what I’ve got, and if the Lord wants me to do this later (i.e., after raising a family), then maybe it will work out then. I’d projected my own timeline onto the situation, hoping that my first desire (husband and family) would come first (duh), and that the second desire (to teach), could wait. So, I didn’t knock. I even knew where the door was and didn’t knock.

Until two weeks ago, that is. I called up the director of the seminary affiliated with my church and asked to meet with him to talk. I had outlined my questions, concerns, and what would need to happen for me to be able to pursue an MA in Religion. First, I wanted to make sure all of the courses would be offered in a two-year span, to ensure I wouldn’t be spending 6 years completing another degree. Second, I wanted to make sure I could fit in Hebrew and Greek without having to take extra credits. Third, I “needed” a full scholarship. I have too much school debt already to tack on more. And finally, I really wanted a new job that would be flexible with my class schedule, pay the bills, and maybe even be in my field.

I knew it was a tall order. But I had to knock and see if the door opened, and trust that if this really was where the Lord wanted me, He would provide.

I sat down at the meeting two weeks ago, and the director answered ever one of my questions before I’d asked. Yes, he was obligated to offer the full rotation of MA classes in a two-year cycle, and Greek and Hebrew are the exact number of elective credit hours to complete the program. He also needed a Special Events Coordinator, and because of my TA position last semester, he knew I would be great at orchestrating their Spring Concert, lecture series, and graduation. And, he would give me full tuition to do so. He also happens to be on the board of an organization that works with persecuted Christians in the Muslim world, and low and behold, he knew they were looking to hire on more folks – specifically someone with writing skills and knowledge of the Middle East. In fact, when he’d read my paper for the Islam class, it confirmed that I would be an excellent candidate for the job.

I don’t have the job in the bank, yet. It may not come through at all. But I know I’ll be in school this fall, studying what I love to prepare me to do what I’ll love. And I know that I’ll be moving at the end of July, to a townhouse that’s closer to school, potentially closer to the new job and with three other girls from church. Moving was not a necessity; especially since I don’t know if I’ll get this job or not, and if I don’t, I’ll be adding a significant commute to my current job. It’s also caused a great deal of anxiety, as I look around my apartment, where I’ve grown extremely comfortable in the last three years. This is home. I’ve been here longer than any one place since I was fifteen. But if I don’t leave now, I fear I’ll become complacent. I’ll wake up five years from now, in the same dead-end job, in the same apartment, stuck in a rut.

Some change is good. Multiple changes are stressful. And I find myself seeking refuge not in the Lord, where I should be, but in Harry Potter. Sad but true. I know I’m distracting myself, not wanting to deal with the emotional drain of a relationship let-down, the packing and sorting of moving, or the prospects of changing jobs. You would think after just learning a lesson in disobedience, after seeing the Lord open doors and growing deeper in an understanding of what it means to trust in Him, that I would be most keen on spending my spare time in His word, with Him. But I’ve been sucked into the world of wizards and Muggles, the timeless saga of good versus evil, and the challenge of trying to catch up before book seven’s release. Lest you fret I’ve gone too far, there’s a great dialogue on Christians and HP here.

Back to this passage in Matthew: I think the repetition – ask, seek, knock – speaks highly to our human nature. It’s simple and instructive. And it’s clearly something we have to come back to, over and over again.

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)