Open Theism and Romans 9 - Part 2 - Romans 9 in Context

Wow!  This series is a long time in coming back, but at the request of those who are interested, here it is. Looking back, I realize what happened.  I started this series in May of 2006, this and June 2006 were pretty rotten. The following months I resigned as pastor of my second church and pretty much told God to screw off.  The real issues of my life and the problem of evil I was wrestling with caused my to pretty much abandon Christianity at that point -secretly.  I was closet agnostic for a while through the entirety of 2007 and into the beginning of 2008.  I gave God one last chance by reading through the Bible chronologically and dared God to prove himself to me.  Ultimately, there were two factors that turned me around: 1) a full embracing of open theism concepts to the scripture which has reconciled most of the problem of evil issues for me and 2) the book of Ecclesiastes, but more on that for another blog.  The point is here I am five years later and returning to it. 

I want to make it clear that this series will not be my final word on the matter as I am currently engaged in going through the whole Bible as an open theist and have only just started, so I will end up at Romans 9 again someday.  The real issue is to make some preliminary observations on a critical chapter in a critical book regarding salvation.

Romans 9 has multiple contexts

1) The Context of the Whole of Scripture.
One thing remains clear to me is that Romans itself is not written until late in the game as far as revelation is concerned and so it requires and understanding of Old Testament issues and of the life and ministry of Christ.  Paul assumes that the people reading his letter understand this context or at least have knowledge of its contents. 

2) The Context of Paul's Writings
Romans is not Paul's first letter.  In fact it is his sixth after Galatians (also on salvation), 1st and Second Thessalonians, 1st and 2nd Corinthians.  This means that issues he is discussing have in some measure been addressed before.

3) The Context of Romans itself.
A common order about Romans and the simplest that can be made is this:

a) Romans 1-3 - Everybody is guilty
b) Romans 4-5 - God Justifies
c) Romans 6-8 - God Sanctifies
d) Romans 9-11 - Jews and Gentiles
e) Romans 12-16 - The Practical Implications of Salvation for Christian Living

What can be said here is that there is an age old rule of interpretation - 'context is everything'

Three things that can be noted
1) Paul expected his readers to know when he was quoting the Old Testament to support his points and he expected then to know the context of those quotes.
2) He also expected them to know some of his theology.  Galatians is written earlier and became an very passed around letter, so he might have expected them to have it, although he seems not to mention it.
3) This is the most important point, that Romans 9 is the opening argument for conclusions that Paul will draw about the Jews and Gentiles later in chapters 10-11.  This means that Romans 9 is probably not the conclusion itself, but the premise on which the other conclusions are based.  When people start drawing conclusions about salvation without consideration of the other chapters of Romans, they are ignoring the context of the book itself which is a violation of the rules of biblical interpretation.

One of the more immediate context problems is Romans 8:28-30.  I have already addressed this here, and my stance on Romans 8:28-30 has not changed much.  I also responded to the comment made on that post here so no one will think I was running from a fight but also it brings up some additional issues that I presented so read away and be enlightened. 

This brings up another context which is historical.  The main issue in the church at the time was the Gentiles, the Jews and where they both stood in regards to salvation through Christ.  Romans 9 is the beginning of an argument that answers this very question.

Next: Jacob and Esau
Previous: Overview

Opentheism.net

Opentheism.net is this site's new address.  I have finally taken the plunge to make this web site into a real one with its own registered domain name. 

The future holds my continued discussion of open theism through the Bible and I am reviving a few old series that need to be finished including the one on Romans 9.  Should be fun.

As always this site is dedicated to the discussion of the open view of God's foreknowledge and its implications on Christianity and life. 

Blessings.

Opinion: Reformation Theology and Open Theism

This post was largely inspired by one at Arminian Today.  I love Reformed Theologians, it's good to see that there are some people are so sure of their interpretations of Scripture that everyone else must be wrong, a heretic and going to hell even though they trust in Jesus for their salvation.  It means that I will still have work to do on both my theology blogs, this one and the Rabyd Theologian 2.0 to correct this error.  Job security, that's what it is.

It is the accusation that Arminianism denies the five solas that gets me:
 
1. Sola Scriptora (Scripture alone) The idea that Arminians object to the doctrine of predestination on purely philosophical grounds is false.  That has been as straw man for years but it is not true as their and my objection as an open theist is Biblical.  It is not about philosophical consideration at all.  It does not depart biblical teaching but Calvinist teaching and comes out to being a difference in interepretation of the Bible.  To assume because you teach it, it must be Biblical is arrogance.  You are teaching it, it does not necessarily follow that it lines up with the Bible.  Let's move on. 

2. Sola Fidi (Faith Alone) - I love how Reformed Theologians always try to win this argument by IMPOSING their definition of 'faith' on the Bible.  The Bible clearly defines the elements of faith - trust, belief and choice to serve.  But the Reformed Theologian dismisses all that as works because it does not line up with their definition of faith that they need to maintain Calvinism.  Sad, but True.

3. Sola Gratia (Grace Alone) - I am going to step off the reservation of the Reformation for a minute and say plainly that I believe in the grace of God as an essential part of salvation, but that ain't all there is to it.  Mostly because I understand that any gift that comes from God, including salvation, has a responsibility to it and a stewardship to be exercised once it is received.  In short, I agree with James in the last part of chapter 2 and Jesus in Matthew 25.

4. Sola deo gloria (To God alone be the glory), The idea that in order for God to get all the glory he must control it all is ridiculous to me.  If God gives me choice to serve him or not and I choose to serve him he still gets the glory because he is the creator and the final judge.  How does God not get the glory no matter what is done.  No matter what way it really is, HE GETS THE GLORY because He IS the beginning and the end. 

5. Sola Christus (Christ Alone) If you look for the fifth one, I didn't see it either in the article, but here it is.  Now you can understand why the guy didn't list it as a problem.  Because all of us regardless of theological persuasion are trusting in Christ for salvation.  Romans 10:9-10 makes the requirements for salvation short and clear.  When people want to add that you must beleive as they do doctrinally, they are adding to Scripture.

The real spirit of the Reformation was freedom and what I dislike is the Calvinists camp coming along and saying the ONLY REAL TRUE reformation theology is that of John Calvin.  Sorry, my guess is Luther, Arminius, the Anti-baptists, etc, etc, would all take exception to the idea.   So would some of the fruit of the reformation - the Pietists, Methodists, etc.  Sorry boys you're just one fish in the sea of ideas that are the product of the Reformation.

The other thing that bothers me is that the it must be that the 'five solas' have reached the point that they should be included in the Bible and not challenged themselves.  For people that say they are guided purely by Scripture, they sure use TULIP as a basic assumption and the Five Solas as some sort of creed.

The one thing I can say for us open theists, we are not afraid to challenge any INTERPRETATION of Scripture.  We do not hold as sacred and infallible any teaching of human being outside of Scripture to the point they are apocryphal additions to Holy Writ.  That by the way includes our own.  Sorry good theology is ever changing and coming to new understandings because the object of theology -- GOD -- is a little too BIG to completely understand and put in a box.  My biggest problem with Christian Reformed Church types is that they act as if  somehow John Calvin got into the Bible and so did the Latin sayings of Martin Luther.  I don't remember the Church Council where that happened.

Sorry, every now and then Sir Edward slaps on his Anti-Calvinist armor, pulls his sword and goes to war.  Allow me a moment to put them both away and tell you I love you guys but you really need to get a grip and develop some humility about what you think and believe.

Genesis 2: God, Good and Evil, and the Power of Choice

Genesis 2 in addition to giving some good reasons to believe in freewill (See here), also gives us a greater understanding of God and his relationship to man. 

Many look at the creation of mankind and see a God who is in complete control of everything and who is making every decision for man.  However because of commandment, man's naming the animals and spontaneous reaction to his wife, I would say that you actually see a God who is placing mankind in situations and seeing what they will do.  It is better looked at as a series of tests for his new creation to see what choices they will make.

I understand that if we have a classic view of God's foreknowledge we cannot view it this way, but the text indicates not a God who is controlling but testing.  This testing is culminated ultimately in the test mankind faces with the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  It is testing of this sort that indicates that God may have contingent knowledge.  That is, what course history takes is determined by choices and so God has knowledge of all the possibilities of what could happen but leaves the certainty of what will happen to the choices of the persons involved. 

From God's perspective is there any real point to conducting a test or giving a commandment if the outcome is certain?  Some think that God HAD to bring evil in the world to help develop man.  After all we only grow in adversity.  The problem is Man already had adversity: he is placed in the world with a task 'fill the earth and subdue it" and all he had was himself and the woman God gave him.  He had literally nothing else.  I firmly believe this is sufficient enough to develop any human and sin and evil are not necessary to grow a person's potential.  If anything, sin and evil only make realizing that potential more difficult, but it does not follow that such development will be better than development in a world without sin and evil.

Instead, God is giving opportunities for growth.  He tests mans creative capacity by letting him name the animals without influence.  He tests man's ability to love by giving him a woman to love.  Finally God tests man's resolve to love God though obedience with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

This tree fulfills its function regardless of what man chooses.  If man chooses not to eat it when tempted, he gains the knowledge of good and evil through choosing the good.  If he succumbs to temptation, he gains the knowledge of good and evil through the evil.  Either way, this knowledge is gained.  The real issue is teaching the man the power of choice.  It is ultimately a test where there are two paths that lead to the same knowledge, one however is a better path than the other.

Ultimately what we see here is not a God who is controlling but exercising stewardship over his creation.  He is asking his children to take the first important step in growing up to know the difference between making right decisions and wrong ones.  In order to learn this lesson God has only to create the test and then wait. 

When we make decisions, the impact of those decisions can cause great good or evil.  Mankind has real power because of the ability to choose their own destiny to a certain extent.  It is important to learn how to make good choices, in fact it may be the most important thing to learn.

Evidence for Freewill in Genesis Chapter 2

Genesis chapter two is ultimately a retelling of the creation of mankind story and it gives us the details. Freewill is always a debated topic giving the classical view of God's sovereignty but if the Genesis 2 story is looked at there are several evidences that Man has genuine choice and that God does not influence it. 

1. God Gives Commandments:  This is probably the most compelling reason to believe in freewill.  What is the point of giving a commandment if there is no genuine choice about whether a person can keep it or not?  God's commands imply that there are two possibilities just by the simple fact that commandment is given: obedience or disobedience.  If God forces either one then there is little point to having them in the first place.

2. Man's Naming of the Animals: Either we have Man exercising creative free choice or we have God being a ventriloquist.  This is also a case where God may know all the possibilities of what Adam could do but does not know definitely what Man will do. This actually makes the most sense.  Man is allowed by god to be creative and as such lets man choose.  God is enjoying His creation's own creative powers and lets man do as it seems best for him.  In this God creates a free environement for mankind to grow and learn.

3. Man's Spontaneous Reaction to Woman's Creation: Once again God is either allowing man spontaneous response or He is a ventriloquist.  In any case, the question could be asked as to what value would Man's response to seeing Woman have, if it is not genuinely his response?  It would have none in my estimation.

I all these cases we not only see freewill in action but the role God has taken for Himself.  God in all these cases is not acting as arbitrary controller, but thoughtful stewards.  He is allowing man to exercise freewill to grow and fulfill his role.  God may see all the possibilities of what man will do, but he also he lets the actual course of events simply unfold freely toward His purpose of having relationship with someone created in His image.     

The Image of God

Genesis 1:26-27 are very significant verses in the creation story.  Up until now God has been creating and doing things and declaring them good, but a decision is reached by God to create something unique and different than He has created up to this point.  Its not that the stuff that God will use will be different; both animals and man will be created out of the earth.  What is different is that God decides to create something in His image.  Something that when He looks at it, it reflects Himself back.  This decision results in the creation of mankind. 

It has long been debated what the image of God is and what nature it has, but one thing is for sure that if it does not in some way reflect something in the nature of God.  It must reflect something of His attributes or his decision and action to do so were complete failures.  For him to create something in His image, He must be successful and if He is successful then there is something about mankind that reflects the nature of God.

One thing this addresses from an open theist standpoint is anthropomorphic language.  This cannot be simply a figure of speech but there must truly be an image of God in mankind or God failed.  If so, then it is no crime or shame or even improper interpretation of Scripture to makes an equated statement between God an man as a way to describe God's attributes.  There must be something similar between God's will and our will or our mind and his mind; for example, or the image of God has no value in discussion.

Simply put people who use the classic view and a defense of  'that cannot be taken literally about God that's anthropomorphic language' are basically saying two things.  1) They are saying there is no relationship between us and God where we are similar and 2) by so saying, they are saying God failed in is attempt to create mankind in his image.  The problem is that this passage says boldly that God succeeded and that means there must be something in both God and us that is similar.  The image of God means we are like him in some way. What those ways may be has yet to be seen at this point but will come later when the creation of mankind is looked at in closer detail.

God Creates and It Was Good.

In the six days of Creation in the Bible, there is an expression "and God saw that it was good".  Most people think that this is a moral judgment about the nature of the world but according the two Hebrew instructors I have had, that is not accurate.  The idea is really of an artist looking at his work and saying He likes it.

This may be a minor open theist point but is seems if God has definite absolute knowledge of everything, such a statement would not be made.  If Moses' concept of God is all knowing in a classic sense, then wouldn't you say "and God knew it would be good".  At the very least it backs up the notion that as God is creating things, He is doing some things as He goes as it pleases Him.

That said, the way it is written means that God is in the process of evaluating His work each day and deciding if He likes it.  If that is so, then the idea that time is a creation of God and he transcends it takes a bit of  nasty knock.  What this would show that time and God are linked and as God goes along so does time.  What we see is a progressive unfolding of God's work and His interaction with it, not a completely predetermined plan where everything is carefully controlled.  God is planing and acting but is also open to change and interaction.  God is an artist and his evaluation is important because He is looking at His work and deciding if it is pleasing to Him.

One other point is that in the days of creation, you do see God giving order to time and ways of measuring it, but you never see him transcend it in the way classical theists think He does.  Once we see God create light on the first day, we do not see him go back to it.  Once, he hits the second day, the work of the first day is done.  If the  'God saw that it was good' expression is used in the artist sense, wouldn't God be able to go back and add something to make it better.  He would be able to do so if the classic view is correct, however, if God is caught up in time because of his own eternal nature, then the past is past to Him as much as anyone else.  Thus the importance of His evaluation of each day before calling it a day and going to the next one.