If Abraham had been a Socinian: Foreknowledge, trustworthiness and the sins of the Amorites

Those who have chosen to deny God's exhaustive foreknowledge, whether in the seventeenth or twenty first centuries, have always been met with able defenders of the Biblical doctrine.

Here is an extract from the Puritan Stephen Charnock's discourse on God's knowledge.  Archaic language aside, his foot on the head of this snake remains as forceful as it was in the days when it was thought acceptable for men to have big gold buckles on their shoes.

His truth hath depended on his foresight.

Let us consider that in Gen. 15:16, but 'the fourth generation, they shall come hither again;' that, the posterity of Abraham shall come into Canaan; 'for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.'

God makes a promise to Abraham of giving his posterity the land of Canaan, not presently, but in the fourth generation.  If the truth of God be infallible in the performance of his promise, his understanding is as infallible in the foresight of the Amorites' sin: the fulness of their iniquity was to precede the Israelites' possession.

Did the truth of God depend upon an uncertainty? Did he make the promise hand over head, as we say?

How could he with any wisdom and truth assure Israel of the possession of the land in the fourth generation, if he had not been sure that the Amorites would fill up the measure of their iniquities by that time?

If Abraham had been a Socinian, to deny God's knowledge of the free acts of men, had he not a fine excuse for unbelief?

What would his reply have been to God?

Alas, Lord, this is not a promise to be relied upon; the Amorites iniquity depends on the acts of their free will, and such thou canst have no knowledge of.  Thou canst see no more than a likelihood of their iniquity being full, and therefore there is but a likelihood of they performing thy promise, and not a certainty.

Would not this be judged not only a saucy, but a blashemous answer?

And upon these principles the truth of the most faithful God had been dashed to uncertainty and a peradventure.

An Old Jedi Mind Trick: Open Theists do not affirm omniscience

Open theists affirm that God is omniscient.  This is not the kind of omniscience that the Christian Church has always confessed (exhaustive omniscience) but a claim that God knows all that it is possible to know.  The future, unknowable even to God, is not a part of what may be known. Confessing God to be ignorant of the future is thereby not seen to be an imperfection in God.

This affirmation is about as convincing as buying a cheap Rolex at a car boot sale.  The word 'Rolex' isn't enough to inspire confidence that the time piece is the genuine article.  Open theists redefine omniscience and then affirm the redefinition.  But if you look closely you can see how the magic trick works.

The following quotations from the late Clark Pinnock are taken from his chapter “From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology.” He frames his journey, throughout that chapter, in the language of being freed from Calvinist logic. In his new found emancipation he was now able to listen to what the Bible was saying. 

A careful reading of the whole chapter, and from the extracts below, reveal, however, that there is a commitment on his part to following the logic of a non-negotiable premise, namely libertarian free will:

Finally I had to rethink the divine omniscience and reluctantly ask whether we ought to think of it as an exhaustive foreknowledge of everything that will ever happen, as even most Arminians do.

I found I could not shake off the intuition that such a total omniscience would necessarily mean that everything we will ever choose in the future will have been spelled out in the divine knowledge register, and consequently the belief that we have truly significant choices to make would seem to be mistaken.

I knew the Calvinist argument that exhaustive foreknowledge was tantamount to predestination because it implies the fixity of all things from"eternity past," and I could not shake off its logical force. I feared that, if we view God as timeless and omniscient, we will land back in the camp of theological determinism where these notions naturally belong.

It makes no sense to espouse conditionality and then threaten it by other assumptions that we make. (Clark Pinnock, “From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology” in Pinnock [ed.], The Grace of God and the Will of Man, p. 25)

The same pursuit of consistency, even at the cost of revising divine omniscience can be found in author Richard Rice:

In the earlier part of this discussion we noticed the considerable difficulties encountered by those who seek to reconcile the concept of absolute divine foreknowledge with an affirmation of creaturely freedom. Now we can identify the basic cause of these problems. They arise from the attempt to combine contradictory elements from different views of God, specifically from the attempt to incorporate elements of the Calvinist view of God with the Arminian model.

The concept of absolute foreknowledge retained from Calvinism is incompatible with the dynamic portrait of God that is basic to Arminianism. Absolute foreknowledge--the idea that God sees the entire future in advance--is incompatible with the concept that God interacts with his creatures on a momentary basis.

But we cannot make such changes in our concept of God coherently while clinging to the traditional concept of divine foreknowledge. To be consistent, we must reformulate our understanding of omniscience. (Richard Rice "Divine Knowledge and Free-Will Theism" in Pinnock [ed.], The Grace of God and the Will of Man,p. 133-4)

Compare the position adopted by Pinnock and Rice with the description of the Socinian denial of God's exhaustive foreknowledge found in William Cunningham's Historical Theology Volume 2 (1862).

Summarizing the Socinian argument Cunningham wrote:

That they may seem, indeed, not to derogate from God's omniscience, they admit indeed that God knows all things that are knowable; but then they contend that future contingent events, such as the future actions of responsible agents, are not knowable,--do not come within the scope of what may be known, even by an infinite Being; and, upon this ground, they allege that it is no derogation from the omniscience of God, that He does not, and cannot, know what is not knowable. (Historical Theology Volume 2, p. 173)

Thomas Hardy and the Doctrine of Providence

"Darkness and silence ruled everywhere around.  Above them rose the primeval yews and oaks of The Chase, in which there poised gentle roosting birds in their last nap; and about them stole the hopping rabbits and hares.  But, might some say, where was Tess's guardian angel? Where was the providence of her simple faith?  Perhaps, like that other god of whom the ironical Tishbite spoke, he was talking, or he was pursuing, or he was on a journey, or he was sleeping and not to be awaked."

Tess of the D'Urbervilles (1891)

"What has Providence done to Mr Hardy that he should rise up in the arable land of Wessex
and shake his fist at his Creator?"

Edmund Gosse (1896)

I re-read Hardy's magisterial Tess of the D'Urbervilles last summer some fifteen years after my first exposure to it.  For all his invectives against the doctrine of providence, that lie in the text like sermons in miniature, for all his widening of the fissures in Victorian Christianity and undermining of confidence in the God of the Bible, the name of the malevolent deity who causes Tess Durbeyfield to suffer so much at the hands of men is of course none other than Thomas Hardy.

As the author of the tragedy Hardy is both primary cause of all the events and the determiner of how the secondary causes fall out. 

When Tess joins in with the laughter directed toward Car Darch, the Queen of Spades, Car singles her out for retribution.  Tess, says Hardy, "could not help joining in with the rest" but "It was a misfortune -- in more ways than one."  The confrontation is soon followed by the untimely arrival of the would-be rescuer Alec D'Urberville.  As they ride off Car's mother remarks that it is "Out of the frying pan into the fire!"  Tess will soon be "Maiden no more."

Later in the volume Tess's attempt to reveal her past to Angel Clare, before their marriage, is thwarted by a trivial occurrence.  Having slipped her written confession underneath the door of his den at Talbothays she finds it unopened a few days later having "in her haste thrust it beneath the carpet as well as beneath the door."  With the revealtion still sealed Hardy comments that "The mountain had not yet been removed."

Hardy's own explanation for invoking the "President of the Immortals" whose work of sporting with Tess ends with her execution, was that it was not uncommon in imaginative prose and poetry for "the forces opposed to the heroine" to be "allegorized as a personality."  The offering of the explanation was one thing, the plausibility of the explanation another, especially as so many of his principle characters suffer at the hands of the author.

The observations of Hardy's critic Irving Howe are worth noting:

Because Hardy remained enough of a Christian to believe that purpose courses through the universe but not enough of a Christian to believe that purpose is benevolent or the attribute of a particular Being, he had to make his plots convey the oppressiveness of fatality without positing an agency determining the course of fate ... The result was that he often seems to be coercing  his plots ... and sometimes ... he seems to be plotting against his own characters.

A similar assessment has been made by Claire Tomalin in her biography of Thomas Hardy:

To suggest that readers should see that "the President of the Immortals" is meant only to symbolize the forces of society that brought Tess down will not do as a defence.  There is something more there, something that makes sport with her sufferings, and making sport with suffering is cruelty.

Given the opaqueness of his bleak fatalism, even though he regarded himself as a meliorist, Tomalin offers the following summary:

Neither Hardy nor anyone else explained where his black view of life came from.  I have suggested that something in his constitution made him extraordinarily sensitive to humiliations, griefs and disappointments, and that the wounds they inflicted never healed but went on hurting him throughout his life.  In a sense he never got over his loss of Christian belief, which removed hope.

Can you sing about retributive justice?

The Bible contains songs about salvation and songs about judgement (Rev. 15:3-4; 19:1-3).  Not of course that they are held far apart, or that you can sing the one and go mute on the other because you only want to sing the nice ones.  You can't skip verses about judgement when you sing Exodus 15:1-18. 

God's acts of retributive justice are praiseworthy because he is just (Rev. 16:5-6), and because he is just in his holy character we can say 'true and just are your judgements' (Rev. 16:7) and worship him because his 'righteous acts have been revealed' (Rev. 25:4)..

Where did we learn to sing songs about judgement? Surely it is because we have joined the choir that sings a 'new song' about the Lamb slain, who bore the wrath in our place and purchased men for God (Rev. 5:9-10).  If you don't want to sing God's praises for his true and just judgements you will also find yourself departing from the original lyrics of that 'new song'.

Our trouble, if we refuse to sing these songs, is that we are like the failed applicants at the audition stage on the X Factor or American Idol.  We think we know enough about sin, and the judgement that sinners deserve, that we don't need to be corrected when we are off-key.  We think we are pitch perfect already.  

Listening to these discordant notes is not an expert behind a desk, but the Composer, Lyricist and Conductor of heaven's songs and heaven's choirs.  And he is seated upon a throne.

When it comes to singing and speaking about judgement don't think that you have the right to judge the Judge when you are hitting all the wrong notes.

Today is the day of salvation.  Earnestly, winsomely, prayerfully, we plead with people to face up to the reality of judgement and to come to Christ.  Their lost condition grieves us and moves us.  We long to have them join us in singing the song of the Lamb.  But, this day of opportunity will end, and our God will not be unjust when Jesus judges the living and the dead.. 

The final judgement is not a final act of cruelty but an awesome, public, display of justice.  Or, in other words, sinners will be treated as their sins deserve -- 'they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done' (Rev. 20:12, 13; 'He will render to each one according to his works' Rom. 2:6; see also Psalm 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Job 34:11; Jer. 17:10; 32:19; Matthew 16:27).

Here is Augustine's take on the matter:

Now the reason why eternal punishment appears harsh and unjust to human sensibilities, is that in this feeble condition of those sensibilities under their condition of mortality man lacks the sensibility of the highest and purest wisdom, the sense which should enable him to feel the gravity of the wickedness in the first act of disobedience.

Luther was singing from the same hymn sheet:

Since God is a just Judge, we must love and laud his justice and thus rejoice in God even when he miserably destroys the wicked in body and soul; for in all this his high and inexpressible justice shines forth. And so even Hell, no less than Heaven, is full of God and the highest good. For the justice of God is God himself; and God is the highest good. Therefore even as his mercy, so his justice or judgement, must be loved, praised, and glorified above all things.

The heart of sophisticated unbelief

I'm reading through Mike Horton's stimulating new tome The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way (a mere 990 pages if one chops off the glossary and indices).  There is a fascinating footnote (p. 64, n.81, to be precise) with some representative extracts from Immanuel Kant. 

Note the following from Religion and Rational Theology:

It is totally inconceivable, however, how a rational human being who knows himself to deserve punishment could seriously believe that he only has to believe the news of a satisfaction having been rendered for him, and (as the jurists say) accept it utiliter [for one's advantage], in order to regard his guilt as done away with...No thoughtful person can bring himself to this faith.

That is Enlightenment man showing incredulity toward the atonement.

What lays at the very heart of sophisticated unbelief?

An attempt to deny the claims of God.  The exclusion of God's assessment of our condition by nature and as a result of sin, the silencing of the voice from heaven in favour of our own meditations on our nature, identity and capacities.  The declaration that man and not the living God will have the final say as to what is right, true and good. 

At the epistemic level Kant located himself on the side of the serpent.  The thoughtful and rational person, in Kant's vision, is too good to need saving, and certainly too thoughtful to flee to Christ and his cross for refuge, even if he is deserving of punishment.  Instead of bowing his head before the claims of the Heavenly King we are confronted with a resistance at every turn against the external pressure of God's revelation.

Horton sums it up perfectly:

Kant, therefore, saw with great clarity the correlation between one's presuppositions about the human predicament and religious epistemology.  None of the Enlightenment figures wanted knowledge for invoking the name of God (i.e., the gospel), because they did not believe they needed to be saved. (p. 110)

The Gospel Coalition and Irenaeus on Christ in the OT (1)

Over at the Gospel Coalition site there is an essential starter kit for preaching Christ from the OT made up of resources by contemporary and modern authors.  It is worthwhile to turn back the clock to the second century and to look at Irenaeus of Lyon's essential starter kit for knowing Christ in the OT as he wrestled with the Gnostic heretics.

Throughout the following extracts from Irenaeus two foundational points are being made.

1.  With regard to revelation, it is impossible to know God aright unless he is revealed to us in and by the Son.  This foundational truth is not something that holds true from the time of the incarnation.

2.  The Son appears personally in the OT to reveal God, to reveal the gospel beforehand through the prophets, to be the object of faith, and to rescue his people.

As far as Irenaeus was concerned the OT patriarchs could not have penned a volume with the title The Jesus We Never Knew.

Here are some extracts from his magisterial work Against Heresies (from whence this blog derives its title):

Here [Psalm 110:1] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; he who gave him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to his all his enemies.  Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord.

And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the LORD out of heaven" [Gen. 19:24].  For it here points out that the Son, who had been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness.

And this does declare the same truth [Psalm 45:6-7]...For the Spirit designates both of them by the name of God--both him who is anointed as Son, and him who does anoint, that is, the Father. (Book 3: Ch. 6: Sect. 1)

And again, when the Son speaks to Moses, He says, "I am come down to deliver this people" [Ex. 3:14].  For it is he who descended and ascended for the salvation of men.  Therefore God has been declared through the Son, who is in the Father, and has the Father in himself. (3:6:2)

On John the Baptist's relationship to Christ and the OT prophets he wrote:

For all the other prophets preached the advent of the paternal Light, and desired to be worthy of seeing him whom they preached; but John did both announce [the advent] beforehand, in a like manner as did the others, and actually saw him when he came, and pointed him out, and persuaded many to believe on him, so that he did himself hold the place of both prophet and apostle. (3:11:3)

On the personal appearance of Christ in the OT Irenaeus says the following:

And the Word of God himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with his divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service. (3:11:8)

Christ himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spake to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers. (4:5:2)

[Abraham]...followed the Word of God, walking as a pilgrim with the Word, that he might [afterwards] have his abode with the Word. (4:5:2)

Since, therefore, Abraham was a prophet, and saw in the Spirit the day of the Lord's coming, and the dispensation of his suffering, through whom both he himself and all who, following the example of his faith, trust in God, should be saved, he rejoiced exceedingly.  The Lord, therefore, was not unknown to Abraham, whose day he desired to see; nor again was the Lord's Father, for he had learned from the Word of the Lord, and believed him. (4:5:5)

"No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; nor the Father, save the Son, and those to whom the Son shall reveal him" [Matt. 11:27]. For "shall reveal" was not said with reference to the future alone, as if then [only] the Word had begun to manifest the Father when he was born of Mary, but it applies indifferently throughout all time. (4:6:7)

With reference to John 8:56 he wrote:

For not alone upon Abraham's account did he say these things, but also that he might point out how all who have known God from the beginning, and have foretold the advent of Christ, have received the revelation from the Son himself; who also in the last times was made visible and passible... (4:7:2)

And here are some more extracts:

Therefore have the Jews departed from God, in not receiving the Word, by imagining that they could know the Father [apart] by himself, without the Word, that is, without the Son; they being ignorant of that God who spake in human shape to Abraham, and again to Moses, saying "I have surely seen the affliction of my people in Egypt, and I have come down to deliver them" [Exodus 3:7-8]. (4:7:4)

"For if you had believed Moses, you would also have believed me; for he wrote of me" [John 5:39-40] [saying this] no doubt, because the Son of God is implanted everywhere throughout his writings: at one time, indeed, speaking with Abraham, when about to eat with him; at another time with Noah, giving him the dimensions [of the ark]; at another, inquiring after Adam; at another, bringing down judgement upon the Sodomites; and again, when he became visible, and directs Jacob on his journey, and speaks with Moses from the bush.  And it would be endless to recount [the occasions] upon which the Son of God is shown forth by Moses. [4:10:1]

Theology at high altitude

This post is a short addendum to the four previous ones on Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears' criticisms of the eternal generation of the Son (and procession of the Spirit).  Compare their words with those of W. G. T Shedd written in 1887.

Driscoll and Breshears

The whole attempt to define the eternal relations in the immanent or ontological Trinity seems misguided...God has given us no revelation of the nature of their eternal relations.  We should follow the command of the Bible: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God" and refuse to speculate...begotten unavoidably implies a beginning of the one begotten.  That would certainly lend support to the the Arian heresy that the Son is a created being and not the Creator God.

For these reasons it is best to omit the creedal terms "begotten" and "proceeds" from our definition of the Trinity.  Our authority is not in creeds but in Scripture. We stand with the universal Trinitarian definition of the church to confess that God is one God, eternally existing in three persons, Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. (Doctrine, p. 27-28)

The following from W. G. T. Shedd shows us, at the very least, that there is nothing new about the proposal being put forward in Doctrine:

In some sections of Christendom, it has been contended that the doctrine of the Trinity should be received without any attempt to establish it's rationality and intrinsic necessity.  In this case, the tenets of eternal generation and procession have been regarded as going beyond the Scripture data, and if not positively rejected, have been thought to hinder rather than assist faith in three divine persons and one God.


But the history of opinions shows that such sections of the church have not proved to be the stongest defenders of the Scripture statement, nor the most successful in keeping clear of the Sabellian, Arian, or even Socinian departure from it.

"Introductory Essay" to Augustine's De Trinitate, in Philip Schaff [ed.], Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. III, p. 3 (Emphasis added)

When the riddles are not resolved

God has called his children, this side of heaven, to live by faith and not by sight, to live looking for a city with enduring foundations, and to live by his promises and not by exhaustive explanations.

I found these reflections by Herman Bavinck, on the grace of God in the gospel and the providence of God in the world, really helpful:

In the case of the Christian, belief in God's providence is not a tenet of natural theology to which saving faith is later mechanically added.  Instead, it is saving faith that for the first time prompts us to believe wholeheartedly in God's providence in the world, to see its significance, and to experience its consoling power...the Christian has witnessed God's special providence at work in the cross of Christ and experienced it in the forgiving and regenerating grace of God, which has come to one's own heart.


And from the vantage point of this new and certain experience in one's own life, the Christian believer now surveys the whole of existence and the entire world and discovers in all things, not chance or fate, but the leading of God's fatherly hand.


Special revelation is distinct from general revelation, and a saving faith in the person of Christ is different from a general belief in God's government in the world.  It is above all by faith in Christ that believers are enabled -- in spite of the riddles that perplex them -- to cling to the conviction that the God who rules the world is the same loving and compassionate Father who in Christ forgave them all their sins, accepted them as his children, and will bequeath to them eternal blessedness.


In that case faith in God's providence is no illusion, but secure and certain; it rests on the revelation of God in Christ and carries within it the conviction that nature is subordinate and serviceable to grace, and the world [is likewise subject] to the kingdom of God.  

Thus, through all its tears and suffering, it looks forward with joy to the future.  Although the riddles are not resolved, faith in God's fatherly hand always again arises from the depths and even enables us to boast in afflictions.

Reformed Dogmatics Vol. 2: God and Creation, p. 594-5

To which I say, "Amen."

Not by chance

Great providence of heaven--
What wonders shine
In its profound display
Of God's design:
It guards the dust of earth,
Commands the hosts above,
Fulfils the mighty plan

Of his great love

The kingdoms of this world
Lie in its hand;
See how they rise or fall
At its command
Through sorrow and distress,
Tempestuous storms that rage,
God's kingdom yet endures
From age to age

Its darkness dense is but
A radiant light;
Its oft-perplexing ways
Are ordered right.
Soon all its winding paths
Will end, and then the tale
Of wonder shall be told
Beyond the veil.

David Charles, 1762-1834;

Translated from the Welsh by Edmund Tudor Owen

Article 7: 

Of God's Providence 
in the Preservation and Government of the World

Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Confession of Faith 

(1823)

God, in his wise, holy, and righteous providence, 

upholds and governs 

all creatures and their actions. 

His providence extends over 

all places, 

all events, 

  all changes, 

    and all times. 

His providence, in its operation,
is full of eyes to behold, 

and
powerful to perform, 

and
makes all things work together for good 

to them
that love God. 

It overrules the sinful actions of men; 

nevertheless, 

it neither causes nor occasions the sinfulness of any of them.

Truly, this doctrine brings immeasurable comfort to us

The Belgic Confession

Article 13

About the Providence of God

We believe that this Most High God, after He created all things, did not in the least hand them over to fate or the rule of fortune, but continually rules and governs them according to the precept of His sacrosanct will so that nothing may happen in this world apart from His decree and ordination. 


Neither is it possible to say that God is the author of or the guilty party in the evils that occur in this world. For both His power and goodness lie widely open as immeasurable and incomprehensible, and His work and proceedings are sacredly and justly determined and executed, although both the Devil and the wicked unjustly act. 


Truly, whatsoever He does, having exceeded human constraints, we do not wish to inquire about these things pryingly and beyond our constraints. In fact, on the contrary, we nevertheless humbly and reverently adore the hidden and just judgments of God. For it is enough for us, as disciples of Christ, to learn no more than that which He Himself teaches us in His Word, without transgressing the limits that we regard as lawful. 


Truly, this doctrine brings immeasurable comfort to us. For from it we know that nothing happens to us by fortune, but only all things by the will of our heavenly Father, Who truly keeps watch for us with fatherly care, having subjugated all things unto Himself so that not even a hair our head (which have all been numbered down to the individual one) can be plucked out, nor can the smallest chick fall to the ground, apart from the will of our Father. 


And so we thoroughly rest in this, acknowledging that God restrains the devils and all our enemies, just as curbed with whips, so that no one is strong enough to hurt us apart from His will and good permission.

All you need for Christmas is the Trinity

Well, that's the title of a sermon I preached a few years back. 

But this post is not about a sermon, it is about two day conferences for ministers happening next year hosted by the Evangelical Movement of Wales.

We don't have a title as of yet but here are the essential details so far:

The day conferences will be on the Trinity with three sessions on the Father, the Son and the Spirit (yes, in that order) and the implications and applications of the Tri-unity of God for worship, prayer and pastoral ministry.  Each session will be 45 minutes long followed by around 15 minutes for questions.

Our speaker is Prof. Douglas F. Kelly (Richard John Professor of Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary).  Doug Kelly is the author of several books including Systematic Theology Vol. 1: The God Who is, The Holy Trinity (Mentor: Christian Focus, 2009)

Concerning the doctrine of the Trinity Augustine wrote that "In no other subject is error more dangerous, or inquiry more laborious, or the discovery of truth more profitable" (De Trinitate 1.3.5). Directly or indirectly every Christian belief is rooted in and connected to the doctrine of the Trinity.  It is the most important doctrine of the Christian faith. 

With apologies to Martin Luther, of the doctrine of the Trinity it should be said that "we cannot know it too well, preach it too often, and we need to beat it into our heads continually."  

What could be better for ministers of the gospel than spending the day contemplating and adoring the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are the same in substance and equal in power and glory? 

The dates for your diary are:

Monday 28th February 2011 in Bala (for those in North and Mid Wales, Liverpool, Manchester, Shrewsbury, the West Midlands etc.)

Tuesday 1st March 2011 in Bridgend (for those in South Wales, Bristol, Worcester and the South West)

But if you want to come from further afield we won't stop you.

There will be a charge for the days.  Drinks will be provided, you can bring your own lunch or buy locally (or order at the conference centre if you are coming to the day in North Wales).

Tearing up truth by the roots

To confess that God exists, 

and at the same time to deny that he has foreknowledge of future things, 

is 

the most manifest folly...

For one who is not prescient of all future things is not God.

Augustine

The Puritan Stephen Charnock, in evaluating the implications of the denial of God's exhaustive foreknowledge of the future free acts of his creatures, and underlining Augustine's remarks, said that in the book of Isaiah "God submits the being of his deity to this trial" and that "If God foreknows not the secret motions of man's will, how can he foretell them? If we strip him of the perfection of prescience, why should we believe a word of Scripture predictions? All the credit of the word of God is torn up by the roots."

In Scripture, from the temptation in the Garden to the temptations in the wilderness, Satan has always sought to cast doubt on the veracity of God's word. The stakes are very high. Open theism gives us a portrait of God that is distorted, misleading, seductive and destructive. It stands opposed to the clear testimony of the Church down through the ages and jeopardizes confidence in God's total truthfulness. 

If we cannot trust that God is true to his word, that every word of God will prove true, we cannot trust him at all.

There is no shallow end

Before I learned to swim I would always look for the shallow end of the pool.  When it comes to the doctrine of God there is no shallow end:

His judgements are unsearchable (Rom. 11:33)
His ways are inscrutable (Rom. 11:33)
No one has known his mind (Rom. 11:34)
No one has been his counsellor (Rom. 11:34)

His greatness is unsearchable (Psalm 145:3)

His understanding is unsearchable (Isa. 40:28)

Heaven, even the highest heaven cannot contain him (1 Kings 8:27)

He inhabits eternity (Isa. 57:15)

From everlasting to everlasting he is God (Psalm 90:2)

The depths of God are searched by the Spirit, and the Spirit comprehends the thoughts of God (1 Cor. 2:10-11)

No one has seen God, God the only begotten, who is at the Father's side, has made him known (John 1:18)

The love of Christ surpasses knowledge (Ephesians 3:19)

Until and unless the weight of God's infinite being is straining your thoughts to breaking point, until and unless you have felt the finitude of your mental powers in contemplating the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, you have not even begun to fathom the unfathomable depths of the One, Living, True, and Triune God.

When we say that Jesus existed "pre" his incarnation, we do not mean he preceded it by any finite amount of time.  The Son of God preexisted his incarnation the way that the Creator preexisted creation: infinitely.


Preexistence may be easy to say, but that one little syllable, pre-, is a quantum leap from Here to There, from time to eternity.  Before you have finished that syllable, you have left behind everything measurable and manageable.

Fred Sanders, Embracing the Trinity, p. 85

In the absence of God: Sartre, Dostoevsky and the New Atheists

The trouble with the "new atheists" is that their moral outrage, most recently voiced against Papa-Ratzi during his state visit to the UK, is ultimately built upon the shifting sands of moral relativism.  When they take the moral high ground they need to presuppose theism at the same time as they deny it.

The implications of the denial and disappearance of God for morality were drawn out forcibly by the atheist existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) in a lecture that he gave in 1946.  Sartre's eyes were wide open to the implications of atheism, and in his following words he doesn't try to hold on to or smuggle in a morality that depends upon the existence of God.

It is somewhat ironic that the "new atheists" have not caught up with the insights of Neitzsche or Sartre.  Perhaps the explanation of that irony is due to a lack of interest in philosophic literature and rigorous philosophic thinking.  It is also due, I have no doubt, to the vanity of trying to re-write the rules of the universe.

Read on:

When we speak of “abandonment” – a favorite word of Heidegger – we only mean to say that God does not exist, and that it is necessary to draw the consequences of his absence right to the end. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain type of secular moralism which seeks to suppress God at the least possible expense. 

Towards 1880, when the French professors endeavoured to formulate a secular morality, they said something like this: God is a useless and costly hypothesis, so we will do without it. However, if we are to have morality, a society and a law-abiding world, it is essential that certain values should be taken seriously; they must have an a priori existence ascribed to them. It must be considered obligatory a priori to be honest, not to lie, not to beat one’s wife, to bring up children and so forth; so we are going to do a little work on this subject, which will enable us to show that these values exist all the same, inscribed in an intelligible heaven although, of course, there is no God. 

In other words – and this is, I believe, the purport of all that we in France call radicalism – nothing will be changed if God does not exist; we shall rediscover the same norms of honesty, progress and humanity, and we shall have disposed of God as an out-of-date hypothesis which will die away quietly of itself. 

The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that “the good” exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote: “If God did not exist, everything would be permitted”; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. 

Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself. He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one’s action by reference to a given and specific human nature; in other words, there is no determinism – man is free, man is freedom. Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimise our behaviour. Thus we have neither behind us, nor before us in a luminous realm of values, any means of justification or excuse. – We are left alone, without excuse. 

Cranmer on the hidden idolatry of the heart

In recent years there has been something of a recovery of the relevance of idolatry to practical Christian living and pastoral care.  I deliberately say recovery, or rediscovery, for one can find this train of thought in Calvin, Luther and Cranmer.

The following is taken from Cranmer's Catechismus, or to give it it's full title:

Catechismus, 

that is to say, A Short Instruction Into Christian Religion, 

for the singular commodity and profit of children and young people: 

set forth by the most reverend father in God, 

Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan (1548).

...by fearing, by trusting, and by loving, we may easily make a god out of a creature, which indeed is no god, but rather an idol, set up by our own fancy.  But this is a horrible sin against the first commandment of God, and so much the more perilous, because it lurks in the corners of man's heart most secretly.

When a man fears any creature, and thinks thus with himself, 'If such a thing be taken away from me; if such a great man be angry with me; if I escape not such a danger, then I am utterly undone, then I know not whither to run for aid and succour.  Whither then shall I go?  Who shall save or help me?

If thou have any such thought of any creature truly in thy heart, thou makest it a god, although with thy mouth thou dost not call it a god.  And this affection lies lurking so deeply hid within many men's hearts, that they themselves scarcely feel or perceive it.

But this fear ought to be removed far from us.  For we must cleave steadfastly by faith to the true and living God, and in all kind of adversity reason on this fashion:

Although men of great power be mine enemies; although this or that peril press me very sore; although I see nothing before mine eyes but present death or danger; yet will I not despair, yet will I not mistrust God, yet will I not hurt my soul with sin.  For I am sure that this creature, which so sorely persecutes, vexes, or troubles me, is no god, but is under the hand and power of the true living God.

I know that one hair of my head cannot be taken away from me, without the will of him who is only and alone the true living God.  Him will I fear more than the mighty power of any man, more than the crafty imaginations of mine enemies, yea, more than any creature in heaven or on earth.

And when this question shall be demanded of you, How do you understand the first commandment? then shall ye answer thus: In this precept we are commanded to fear God with all out heart, and to put our whole trust and confidence in him. 

Accounting for basic texts: James White debating open theist John Sanders

Sometimes bad theological ideas cannot negotiate basic texts.  The following is a good example of that.

Stripping God of his deity

Exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events is a perfection in God.  To deny it as the Socinians and open theists have done does not advance our understanding of God but destroys it.

Augustine said, that "to confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that he has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly...For one who is not prescient of all future things is not God."

The Puritan Stephen Charnock, in evaluating the implications of the denial of God's exhaustive foreknowledge of the future free acts of his creatures, and underlining Augustine's remarks, said that in the book of Isaiah “God submits the being of his deity to this trial” and that “If God foreknows not the secret motions of man's will, how can he foretell them? If we strip him of the perfection of prescience, why should we believe a word of Scripture predictions? All the credit of the word of God is torn up by the roots.”

What does God know? Augustine vs. Cicero on God's exhaustive foreknowledge

My thanks to Paul Helm for pointing me this section on God's exhaustive foreknowledge in Augustine's City of God (Book Five, Chapter Nine, "Concerning the foreknowledge of God and the free will of man, in opposition to the definition of Cicero")

To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly

What is it, then, that Cicero feared in the prescience of future things?  Doubtless it was this,—that if all future things have been foreknown, they will happen in the order in which they have been foreknown; and if they come to pass in this order, there is a certain order of things foreknown by God; and if a certain order of things, then a certain order of causes, for nothing can happen which is not preceded by some efficient cause.  

But if there is a certain order of causes according to which everything happens which does happen, then by fate, says he, all things happen which do happen.  But if this be so, then is there nothing in our own power, and there is no such thing as freedom of will; and if we grant that, says he, the whole economy of human life is subverted.  

In vain are laws enacted.  In vain are reproaches, praises, chidings, exhortations had recourse to; and there is no justice whatever in the appointment of rewards for the good, and punishments for the wicked.  And that consequences so disgraceful, and absurd, and pernicious to humanity may not follow, Cicero chooses to reject the foreknowledge of future things, and shuts up the religious mind to this alternative, to make choice between two things, either that something is in our own power, or that there is foreknowledge,—both of which cannot be true; but if the one is affirmed, the other is thereby denied.  

He therefore, like a truly great and wise man, and one who consulted very much and very skillfully for the good of humanity, of those two chose the freedom of the will, to confirm which he denied the foreknowledge of future things; and thus, wishing to make men free he makes them sacrilegious.  But the religious mind chooses both, confesses both, and maintains both by the faith of piety. 


Now, against the sacrilegious and impious darings of reason, we assert both that God knows all things before they come to pass, and that we do by our free will whatsoever we know and feel to be done by us only because we will it.  But that all things come to pass by fate, we do not say; nay we affirm that nothing comes to pass by fate; for we demonstrate that the name of fate, as it is wont to be used by those who speak of fate, meaning thereby the position of the stars at the time of each one’s conception or birth, is an unmeaning word, for astrology itself is a delusion.  But an order of causes in which the highest efficiency is attributed to the will of God...

Cicero, then, contends with those who call this order of causes fatal, or rather designate this order itself by the name of fate; to which we have an abhorrence, especially on account of the word, which men have become accustomed to understand as meaning what is not true.  But, whereas he denies that the order of all causes is most certain, and perfectly clear to the prescience of God, we detest his opinion more than the Stoics do.  

For he either denies that God exists,—which, indeed, in an assumed personage, he has labored to do, in his book De Natura Deorum,—or if he confesses that He exists, but denies that He is prescient of future things, what is that but just “the fool saying in his heart there is no God?”  For one who is not prescient of all future things is not God.

God, the final reference point

Van Til got it right:

If one does not make human knowledge wholly dependent upon the original self-knowledge and consequent revelation of God to man, then man will have to seek knowledge within himself as the final reference point.

Then he will seek to have an exhaustive understanding of reality.  Then he will have to hold that if he cannot attain to such exhaustive understanding of reality, he has no true knowledge of anything at all.  Either man must then know everything or he knows nothing.


The only way by which this dilemma can be indicated clearly is by making plain that the final reference point in predication is God as the self-sufficient One.

A Christian Theory of Knowledge, p. 17

The insufficient explanatory power of Modalism

Before I post part two of my assessment of the rejection of the eternal generation of the Son of God by Driscoll & Breshears in Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe let me post this item from the archives.  This may be helpful in the light of the discussion thread on the previous post...

One of the heresies to trouble the early church, and not only the early church, for it has to a lesser or greater extent continued to present itself as a plausible alternative to Trinitarian orthodoxy, was the heresy of modalism.

This heresy posits no distinction between the persons in the Godhead, refusing to speak of three eternally distinct persons in communion. Rather, what we have is a God who is one in essence and person. The modalist understanding is that although God manifests himself as Father, Son and Spirit these are not three distinct, co-equal and co-eternal persons. The appearance of the three persons is only the successive appearance of three modes by which God reveals himself.

The modalist interpretation of the relationship between the being of God and the titles Father, Son and Spirit, is, at the very least, an exegetical failure. It fails to fully account for all the biblical material, it fails it synthesize that data, and it fails assign the proper meaning to the texts at hand. This deficiency was pointed out by the fourth century father Hilary of Poitiers:

For there have risen many who have given to the plain words of Holy Writ some arbitrary interpretation of their own, instead of its true and only sense, and this in defiance of the clear meaning of words. Heresy lies in the sense assigned, not in the word written; the guilt is that of the expositor, not of the text.

On the Trinity, Book 2, section 3


Since, therefore, they cannot make any change in the facts recorded, they bring novel principles and theories of man’s device to bear upon them. Sabellius, for instance, makes the Son an extension of the Father, and the faith in this regard a matter of words rather than of reality, for he makes one and the same Person, Son to Himself and also Father.

Book 2, section 4

In contrast to that a minimal framework for Trinitarian belief would include the following affirmations:

A. There is only one God

B. There are three distinct persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son and the Spirit

C. Each of these persons is fully God

What should we consider to be the necessary and sufficient evidence to affirm these points?

1. That it can be shown from Scripture that there are distinctions between the persons, distinctions that show that the threeness of persons and oneness of essence are equally ultimate.

2. That it can be shown from Scripture that the titles, works, and worship that belong properly to the one true and living God, are given to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

3. That we read and interpret the biblical data conscious that the lens through which we view the Trinity is that of the economy of salvation (the Father sending the Son, the Son humbling himself and becoming incarnate as the last Adam, the Spirit of God coming to glorify Christ and apply his saving work). This lens is itself part of the biblical data.

On point (1) this evidence would include texts that speak of :

1.1. The sending of one divine person by another (e.g. Exodus 23:20-21; Isaiah 48:16; Malachi 3:1-2; John 15:26)

1.2. The work of one divine person in relation to another divine person (e.g. Isaiah 61:1-2; Hosea 1:7)

1.3. The ascription of divine titles and works to more than one person within the same literary unit (e.g. Genesis 19:24; Zechariah 2:9-12; Psalm 110:1; Joshua 24:2-12 cf. Judges 2:1-4; Malachi 3:1-2; John 1:1, 18; Galatians 1:3; Revelation 1:8, 17; 22:12-13)

1.4. Reference being made to more than one divine person within the same literary unit, to whom elsewhere in Scripture divine titles and works have been ascribed (e.g. Isaiah 48:16; 63:9-12)

1.5. One divine person speaking of another divine person (e.g. Exodus 23:20-22; Isaiah 48:16; Isaiah 52:13, cf. Isaiah 6:1, 57:15, Hosea 1:6-7; Mark 1:11; Mark 9:7; John 15:26)

1.6. One divine person speaking to another divine person (e.g. Genesis 1:26-27; Psalm 45:6-7; Psalm 110:1; John 17:5)

Some of the texts and categories above are obviously interconnected. Exodus 23:20-21 fits into 1.1./1.3./ and 1.5. The selection of passages above is only representative. As there is a superabundance of NT passages I have chosen more from the OT.

By the way, modalists tie themselves up in knots when the try to explain away the obvious. Jesus prays to his Father. Is this not clear evidence that they are two distinct persons? The modalist would have to say that Jesus' human nature is praying to his own divine nature. But persons speak to each other, not natures.