7 Things that I appreciate about John Frame on Open Theism

I've just finished John Frame's No Other God: A Response To Open Theism (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2001). Here's 7 things that I appreciate about it:

1) Frame gives a clear outline of what Open Theists are arguing for, in contrast with what classical traditional theism teaches (p.22-23):

Traditional Theism:

a. emphasises God's sovereignty, majesty, and glory

b. God's will is the final explanation of everything

c. His will is irresistible

d. He is caring and benevolent, but he is glorified equally in the destruction of the everything.

e. He is supratemporal

f. He knows everything in the past, present, and future.

g. He is essentially unaffected by human events and experiences.

Open Theism:

a. Love is God's most important quality

b. Love is not only care and commitment, but also being sensitive and responsive

c. Creatures exert an influence on God

d. God's will is not the ultimate explanation of everything. History is the combined result of what God and his creatures decide to do.

e. God does not know everything timelessly, but learns from events as they take place.

f. So God is dependent on the world in some ways

g. Human beings are free in the libertarian sense

2) While some proponents of Open Theism portray it as something new and as a contemporary option for a "new model" of the doctrine of God (e.g. John Sanders, Clark Pinnock), Frame shows us Open Theism is actually rooted in the classical doctrinal error of Socinianism (from Lelio Socinus (1525-62) and Fausto Socinus (1539-1604)), who denied not only that God foreordains events, but that he also has foreknowledge of these events.

3) Frame reminds us that while love is an important attribute of God, it is another thing to make love the single central attribute of God, like what the Open Theists have done. In fact, the kind of love they want to see in God is one of "vulnerability". Frame instead argues that the essential attributes of God are "perspectival" (his goodness, his wisdom, his eternity, his love, his lordship) - each of them describes everything that God is, from a different perspective. He states, "In one sense, any attribute may be taken as central, and the others seen in relation to it. But in that sense, the doctrine of God has many centres, not just one." (p.52).

4) While armed with a strong systematic theological and philosophical background, Frame nonetheless begins and anchors his arguments in exegesis of Scripture passages. This is seen for example in his impressive listing and exegesis of Scriptural passages where he argues for God's will as the ultimate explanation over everything incl. the natural world; human history; individual human lives; human decisions; (even) sins (in terms of God's foreordination of it); and faith and salvation (chapter 5). He even highlights the exegesis of the Open Theists, outlining their presupposition in the passages which they exegete, and their silence in those key passages which they have left out.

5) Where key decisions regarding presuppositions and definitions have to be made (especially when considering the accusations Open Theists throw at us), one appreciates Frame's robust defence of classical reformed theology or philosophical concepts that support the reformed theological framework. For example:

• Addressing the question raised by Open Theists that God's will seems to be able to be "thwarted" at times, Frame helpfully distinguishes between Reformed Theology's distinction of God's decretive will and his preceptive will, where God's decretive will is his eternal purpose by which he foreordains everything that comes to pass, while his preceptive will is his valuations, as revealed to us in His Word. God's decretive will cannot be successfully opposed, while it is possible for creatures to disobey God's preceptive will - as we often do. Another simpler way of putting it, "God does not intend to bring about everything he values, but he never fails to bring about what he intends." (p.113)


• In rejecting libertarian freedom (a major presupposition for Open Theists where true freedom is devoid of influences of anything or anyone), Frame instead proposes compatibilist freedom (p.131-132), a freedom that takes into account how our actions arise from the deepest desires of our hearts. Such freedom is compatible with determinism which is the view that every event has a sufficient cause other than itself. Compatibilist freedom means that even if every act we perform is caused by something outside ourselves, we are still free, for we can still act according to our character and desires. What is insightful is Frame's analysis of how libertarian freedom ultimately destroys moral responsibility (p.126), while compatibilist freedom provides a genuine condition for moral responsibility.

One must not think that Frame simply jumps to his philosophical framework immediately in order to defend his Reformed theological framework, but instead he supports his philosophical suggestions from Scripture as much as he can. And at all times, Scripture guides his philosophical framework, rather than vice-versa. This is seen especially in his honest treatment of the question of evil. Rather than try to provide a robust philosophical defence against the Open Theists' argument that libertarian freedom provides a logical and 'tighter' answer to the problem of evil (i.e. God took a 'risk' with evil in granting humankind libertarian freedom), Frame acknowledges Scripture does not lead us down a path towards a water-tight logical answer to the problem of evil, but instead leaves it as an ultimate mystery, focusing instead on the hope of its elimination in the consumation.

6) While relying on a strong reformed framework of traditional theism, Frame is no blind slave to it either. Instead, guided by the voice of Scripture, Frame 'modifies' traditional theism where necessary. This is seen clearly in Frame's treatment of:

• the question of whether God is in time? Based on Scripture, Frame argues that because God is both transcendent and immanent, God is both the Lord in time and the Lord above time. Because God's redemptive actions in Scripture are temporally successive (worked out in salvation history), it not only testifies to his sovereignty, but also to the importance of temporal relationships in the divinely ordained course of history. God is both 'inside and outside of the temporal box - a box that can neither confine him nor keep him out. That is the model that does the most justice to the biblical data (p.159)'


• the question of whether God changes? Once again, in a similar approach to above, Frame affirms that God is unchanging in his essential attributes; in his decretive will; in his covenantal faithfulness, and in the truth of his revelation. However, because God exists both above and within time, God is unchangeable in his atemporal or supratemporal existence, but 'when he is present in our world of time, he looks at his creatures from within and shares the perspective of his creatures' (p.176). In this sense, I think Frame's proposal offers the best explanation to those passages in Scripture where God relents. God's 'relenting' (seen from the perspective within time) is the means by which his decretive will is carried out (seen from the perspective outside of time). Frame's analogy is interesting: "History is like a novel written by God. In a great novel, the author brings about everything that happens, but events can also be explained within the world that the author creates. God's historical novel is a logical, temporal sequence, in which one event arises naturally out of the one before. When God himself becomes an actor in the drama, he acts in accordance with that sequence." (p.178)


• the question of whether God Suffers? Frame suggests that God has feelings and emotions, and in this sense he objects to portrayals of classical theism which portray God's impassibility as him being devoid of emotions of feelings. But God's emotions and feelings do not cause him to suffer injury or loss, unlike us. Frame also suggests that because the person of Jesus suffered on the cross (and what suffered was not the human "nature" but the person of Jesus), and because the persons of the Godhead are in perichoretic relationship, you could say God suffered as well, though not having the same exact experiences of suffering and death that the Son has.

7) Frame's last chapter in the book where he shows how Open Theism (while being located under the Doctrine of God), inevitably affects all other doctrines like biblical inspiration, sin, redemption, Assurance, Heaven and Hell and Guidance. He also provides an honest sharing of how Open Theism has helped him see that there is more "give-and-take" between God and his creatures than traditional theology has generally acknowledged, but cautions against what Open Theism has destroyed - divine sovereignty and human responsibility before God. His conclusion is worth remembering:

"A gospel of grace is a gospel of divine sovereignty. That message may be distasteful to modern people, but it is the word of God, and without it we have no hope. Free will leaves us in despair. Only sovereign grace can bring salvation, faith, and hope" (p.212)

On Biblical Inerrancy

Recently in the past few years, there has been quite a few books released on the subject of biblical inerrancy (either directly or indirectly), as seen from Robert Yarbrough's article in the recent issue of Themelios (see here). This has spurred me to organise and put up some of my thoughts on this subject matter, which have been brewing inside for quite some time now.

Firstly, we must ask what do we mean by 'biblical inerrancy'? i.e. we need a definition. I think much of the discussion (or confusion!) often proceeds without defining the term, and it is often assumed what each other means when we say 'inerrancy of the bible'. Such an assumption can no longer be taken for granted for the sake of clarity in the discussion. For this, I follow the lead of Jason Sexton in the same issue of Themelios (see here) who suggests the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (henceforth CSBI) should be highlighted more as a starting basepoint for a definition in the discussion. We reproduce the summary statement of the CSBI which essentially covers what CSBI means by inerrancy:

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby toreveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge.Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness andopens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its ownliterary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Secondly, we ask What is biblical inerrancy built on? i.e. What's the basis or evidence for biblical inerrancy? The best answer we can give in this regard is that it is a natural and logical conclusion from the twofold Scriptural evidence regarding the nature of Scripture and the fact that God does not lie. The two key passages on the nature of Scripture from 2 Tim 3:16 that 'all Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos)' and 2 Pet 1:21 that 'men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit' lends us to a conclusion that the words of Scripture are the words of God, i.e. though written by human hands, the words are nonetheless the words of God, so much so that we can say that 'it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men' (Calvin Inst. 1.7.5). Another way of stating it is that every word of Scripture is there as God intended it to be (Careful observation on 2 Tim 3:16 will also lead us to realise that the quality of being God-breathed or inspired is attached to the text of Scripture, and not to the writers or even to the recipients). The other set of passages would be those stating God does not lie (e.g. Tit 1:2, Heb 6:18). Together, these two truths lead to the natural and logical conclusion that since God spoke the words of Scripture and since God does not lie, all the words of Scripture must be true, or inerrant. The latest writer who has restated this argument is Timothy Ward in his book Words of Life (IVP):

"The claim that the Bible is inerrant is a conclusion that is directly drawn from what Scripture says about God, and about itself in relation to God. Scripture says, as we have seen, that it is breathed out by God, as his own words. In addition, in Scripture God states with great clarity that his character is such that he cannot lie, and that he alone is utterly true and trustworthy. (Titus 1:2, Heb. 6.18) The conclusion that the Bible is inerrant is essentially derived from linking these two related truths closely together." (see here for the quote)

Thirdly, we ask What are some objections to biblical inerrancy? They can be summarised to a few main categories.

Firstly, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy almost seems to lead one to lean towards an almost mechanical dictative mode of Scripture writing, resulting in a non-present or at best, present-by-name only kind of human agency. I think this is an unfair caricature. The CSBI clearly states the involvement of human agency (see summary statement 2 'written by men', and Article VIII 'We affirm that God is His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities'). The key is in the superintendence of the Spirit. Rather, those who object to biblical inerrancy on this count have to ask themselves if there is any hidden assumption within them that human agency must necessitate error. If so, this assumption is not necessarily true. We make dozens of statements every day that are completely true. This point is captured in the CSBI under Article IX '[...] We deny that fortitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word'.

Secondly and somewhat related to the first, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy 'flattens' the nature and genres of Scripture by reducing Scripture to merely propositional facts, which are determined as either true or untrue. Carson, picking up on Vanhoozer's work in speech acts in distinguishing between the locutionary (what we mean in saying something), the illocutionary (what we do in saying something) and the prelocutionary (what we bring about in saying something), has this to say: "We cannot say that every passage of Scripture conveys the truth [because of the genre of certain passages], but we can say that every passage is inerrant, i.e. never affirms in matter of fact what is false [considering the illocutionary effects]" (own comments added) (The Gagging of God, 166). Perhaps Carson's statement might help to shed some light on how we can proceed with calling the Bible inerrant while recognising the variety of genres within the Bible, and the rich and complex ways in which these different genres appeal to truth? In any case, this is definitely an objection which must be thought through deeper in discussions of inerrancy (something which the CSBI, unfortunately, does not address much).

Thirdly, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is an argument based on rationalism. One of the latest writers who have taken this line of argument is A.T.B. McGowan in The Divine Spiration of Scripture (Nottingham: APOLLOS, 2007). The clearest articulation of his objection to the term biblical inerrancy comes in pages 113-119. McGowan first highlights that inerrancy is 'at best, an implication [of the doctrine of inspiration of Scripture] rather than a biblical doctrine'. This, we agree with him. The next question is if such an implication is legitimate, which McGowan does not think so. He views that this implication is highly rationalistic:

"Their [referring to the Princeton theologians of Hodge and Warfield] reasoning was essentially simple: in order to develop a solid epistemology, we must have propositional truth that can be guaranteed with scientific accuracy. We must then handle that truth by using a scientific method. The result is thus a belief in the inerrancy of the autographa and a theological method that reduces Scripture to a set of propositions under the theologian's control." (p.117).

McGowan views such an approach, in turn, limits God to act in a way that conforms to our expectations. "It assumes that our desire for epistemological certainty must be satisfied and it can be satisfied only through the receiving from God of inerrant autographic texts." (p.118).

McGowan's concerns and what he is trying to achieve must be clearly heard and understood in its context. Having done that, however, we have two genuine difficulties with his proposal. Firstly, is the doctrine of inerrancy such an illegitimate implication as McGowan makes it out to be? We think not. Rather, it seems to be a most natural and logical implication that flows from the two truths of God speaking and God not lying (in saying this, however, we are not negating our 2nd point about the differentiated genres of Scripture). In fact, one has to ask if the implications or conclusions of two truths are so clear, then doesn't that make the implication achieve the status of the truth itself? I'm thinking here of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Nowhere is the doctrine of the Trinity mentioned outright in Scripture, but the implications from the whole voice of the Scriptures is so clear that it is right to draw the implications and the doctrine of the Trinity from the witness. The other observation to make is also what forms the base or foundation for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy? Is it the evidence from Scriptures leading to one drawing the conclusion? Or is it the argument of the inerrant autographa? It seems to me to be the first rather than the second. Secondly, I think McGowan in presenting his case has fallen into the error of what he said those on the inerrantist camp has committed - boxing God up. He writes further in his book:

"My argument is that Scripture, having been divinely spirated, is as God intended it to be. Having freely chosen to use human beings, God knew what he was doing. He did not give us an inerrant autographical text, because he did not intend to do so." (p.124, my emphasis)

The above statement is too quick in the light of the discussion. It would have been better to leave things more in a nuetral position rather than to push the argument so hard and risk committing the same error McGowan accuses the other camp of doing.

Nonetheless, McGowan has reminded those of us who hold onto biblical inerrancy to ever be clear of why we hold on to the doctrine (from a natural and logical conclusion of the evidence in Scripture rather than from an epistemic standpoint bordering on epistemic pride), and to be mindful of the way we go about presenting it.

Finally, we ask What's the way forward? It's clear to me that discussion of biblical inerrancy is largely linked to the nature of Scripture. Our discussion of inerrancy hinges on how we understand the nature of Scripture, mainly how we understand the divine and human agencies in Scripture coming together. Whatever the most recent proposal provided (e.g. John Webster's proposal of the creaturely reality of Scripture being sanctified to serve in the saving economy of God's self-communication), there are entailments for the doctrine of inerrancy. Perhaps a way to proceed forward is to take the idea of inerrancy to focus more on the content of Scripture, rather than the form (of the words) of Scripture. By focusing on its content (of which of course the words play a part in forming it), Scripture is shown to be true in what it affirms because of the fulfillment of the promissory nature of it, seen most evidently in the gospel of our Lord Jesus. Francis Watson captures this idea well in his summary article 'An Evangelical Response', in The Trustworthiness of God: Perspectives on the Nature of Scripture (ed. Paul Helm and Carl Trueman; Leicester: APOLLOS, 2002), 285-89. He states:

""Evangelical" discussions of the trustworthiness of Scripture often seem to bypass the euangelion. [...] The result is a doctrine of scriptural "trustworthiness" or "Authority" in which Jesus himself is relatively marginal. [...] The writings of both Testaments converge on the figure of Jesus and on the triune divine identity disclosed in Jesus, and this convergence is the basis of their authority and trustworthiness." (p.288)

In conclusion, then, what's my view on biblical inerrancy? I think I would see myself as a 'soft' inerrantist. I'm still an inerrantist in the sense that I'm not willing to forsake the term and go for others (be it 'infallibilist' or 'limited inerrantist'). I think there's too much at stake in dropping the term and adopting a new term, because the implications of the other camp will automatically be assumed in whatever new term that is adopted, mainly Scripture has errors, something which I do not agree with. But yet, I see myself as a 'soft' inerrantist, in that I really agree with Francis Watson that a better way to discuss inerrancy is to begin with the content of Scripture in the truthfulness it bears to Christ, rather than to begin with the form of the words. This also accounts better for the variegated nature of the genre of Scripture.

Albert Mohler Jr. on the New Atheism

Here's what Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and author of Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists (Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008), has to say about the 'eight hallmarks of the New Atheism [...] that set it apart from older forms of atheism and that frame its challenge to Christian belief' (p.54).

1) The New Atheism is marked by an unprecedented new boldness. Unlike other forms of atheism, which in a way betrays some sense that something important has been lost (for e.g. "the Victorian Loss of Faith" - the slide from Christian belief present during the Victorian era which was accompanied by a sense of mourning and loss), the New Atheist has no such sense of loss, and is instead characterised by a 'cultural cheerfulness'. "The New Atheists seem genuinely to believe that God is dead, but that humanity can now move cheerily along into a brave secular future." (p.23). Along with such cheer comes a sense of boldness and determinism to attach on what they see as the pretensions of theism.

2) There is a clear and specific rejection of the Christian God of the Bible. Note here that the attack is not against some philosophical notion of a supernatural being or the evil of a God who does not prevent moral evil, but rather the attack is specifically against the God of the Bible. It is evil to believe in such a God, they say. A huge part of it has got to do with the fact that majority of people are going to be in eternal torment in hell. "By any measure, [...] such a God is an evil God, and those who would believe in such a God are themselves evil." (p.56).

3) The New Atheists explicitly reject Jesus Christ. Christopher Hitchens views that the book of Revelation presents Jesus as far more vengeful than the God of the Old Testament. Sam Harris states that Jesus clearly believes people are going to hell. Richard Dawkins believes belief in Jesus creates restrictivism - an "in" group and an "out" group, and any thing that promotes such restrictivism is problematic.

4) The New Atheism is specifically grounded in scientific argument. Three of the four main proponents of the New Atheism are scientists by training, and they are explicitly committed to scientism - believing that science must explain everything that is explicable, resulting in a worldview that is naturalism and materialism. Another entailment of their scientism is also that they see science as the way of liberation, the way of freedom, and the way of enlightenment. With such thinking, they see Christianity naturally as an obstacle blocking the way. In my mind, this is one of the points that makes the new atheism so dangerous - it combines the conclusions of the philosophical atheism of someone like Nietzsche, who saw the death of God as necessary for the emergence of the truly free and strong human being, with a scientific explanation so as to make the idea of the death of God actually seem possible and valid.

5) The New Atheism is new in its refusal to tolerate moderate and liberal forms of belief. This point is interesting because the New Atheist see liberal Christianity as on the same side as just as dangerous as conservative Christianity. "They [the liberals] are just enabling the fundamentalists - the real believers - because they are able to fly under the radar, covered by the moderates' popularity and tolerance." (p.61). Mohler is right to conclude from this point the lesson that accommodationist theism gets one nowhere and impresses no one.

6) It attacks toleration. Here, it is interesting again that the New Atheist consider freedom of expression too dangerous, as it legitimates the kinds of belief systems that are dangerous (e.g. Christianity). Sam Harris even states that religious toleration is an experiment that has become 'too expensive'. Here, the viciousness of the New Atheism is seen. It is not only trying to force Christianity into a quiet little corner and domesticate her there, but it is going all out to knock the living daylights out of Christianity and throw her out of the boxing ring. And the New Atheist will do this even if it means going against the postmodern ethos of tolerance and acceptance and relativism.

7) The New Atheists are questioning the right of parents to inculcate belief in their own children. They, especially Dawkins, see this as child abuse. In today's political and cultural climate, such words if framed cleverly in terms of the child's rights and protecting the child from harm, can be very potent and deadly words. Rings straight against the commands of Scripture to instruct our children in the ways of the Lord (Deut 6:4-9, Eph 6:4). If they win the political argument in this area, the impact and structure of the family unit will also be adversely affected. What role do parents then play if what traditionally has been recognised as their prerogative in terms of passing on values and traditions is now seen as criminal and an act of child abuse? Who then will take over the passing on of values and provide the context for our children to grow up in? The state? Culture?

8) The New Atheists argue that religion itself must be eliminated in order to preserve human freedom. "Freedom is the one great good for these secularists, and thus any restriction on human freedom is by definition wrong. In their view, humanity can never be free if the authority of God and church are not overturned." (p.63). Seems like freedom in modern day discussions has been elevated to the supreme good. But have we really understood freedom? (See my earlier post)

These are the eight hallmarks of the New Atheism, as presented by Mohler. And this is probably the best part of his book where we see his analysis at its sharpest and its best. In the rest of the book, Mohler goes on to trace responses from others to The New Atheism - from a Christian scientist and theologian (McGrath) to a Christian philosopher (Plantinga) to theologians who embrace a more revisionist and accomodationst form of theology (Tina Beattie and John Haught). While providing a good summary and overall good insight into their approaches, Mohler is right to say that ultimately,

"the burden of our concern is not merely to refute atheism or to argue for the intellectual credibility of theism in any generic or minimal form. Instead, our task is to present, to teach, to explain, and to defend Christian theism. On this point, the defense of biblical theism reveals the great divide in intellectual thought to be not merely over the existence of God but over the question of whether he has spoken. The materialism and naturalism that are so central to the New Atheism simply reject the category of revelation out of hand. This, in the end, is the real impasse. The issue is not merely metaphysics, but epistemology." (p.84-85)

Here's where I wish Mohler would say more. Having teased out the way forward, it would have been wonderful if Mohler went on to propose a method or way of engaging with the New Atheist with the above conviction in mind. Unfortunately, he doesn't (to be fair to him, that may not have been the intention of the book. But it does one feeling a sense of despair, in that we've seen the problem, we've been pointed to the solution, but have absolutely no idea how to move towards that way). Thinking further, in reality, I think it would be hard to convince a New Atheist of a speaking and revealing God. We would first have to fight the uphill battle of convincing him there is a God to be begin with! And here, the scientific arguments and philosophical arguments of McGrath and Plantinga would help. Having established the grounds for the possibility of God, it would then be more natural to take it to the next step that such a God actually has spoken and revealed. Another angle that also could be explored in engaging with New Atheist is through that of worldviews. How coherent is the New Atheism worldview? What are the consequences that it leads to? Think though these questions through the lens of the New Atheism worldview, and then challenge the New Atheist to consider the Christian worldview, revealed to us by a gracious speaking God, whose very words in Scripture form a storyline which provides nothing less than a comprehensive view of the world and this life we live in.

Karl Barth's doctrine of election and its implication for theological ontology

Reading my former lecturer's post the other day on Professor Bruce McCormack's paper on reconstructing Barth's doctrine of the Trinity in light of his later Christology (which he presented at the Trinitarian Conference in Auckland) reminded me of one his articles I've read earlier in college. The title of the essay is 'Grace and being: The role of God's gracious election in Karl Barth's theological ontology' in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth (ed. John Webster; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 92-110.

Here, Professor McCormack contends that, from the vantage point of a hundred years from now, Barth's greatest contribution to the development of church doctrine will be located in his doctrine of election. His doctrine '[established] a hermeneutical rule which would allow the church to speak authoritatively about what God was doing - and indeed, who and what God was/is - 'before the foundation of the world', without engaging in speculation'. (92, his emphasis). For those in the know, the unique facet of Barth's doctrine of election was that he saw Jesus Christ, the God-man, as both the Subject of election and its Object; as both the electing God and the elect human. While Barth's doctrine of election has attracted accusations of it heading towards universalism (since Jesus is the elected man who represents the entire human race), Professor McCormack highlights that what was really at stake for Barth in this issue was a question of divine ontology. "The electing God, Barth argues, is not an unknown 'x'. He is a God whose very being - already in eternity - is determined, defined by what he reveals himself to be in Jesus Christ; viz. a God of love and mercy towards the whole human race." (97). The following quote summarises the issue at stake:

What we see in the collision between Calvin and Barth, then, is not simply a clash between two views of the extent of election. At the most fundamental level, it is a clash between a theologian working with what we might call an 'essentialist' ontology and a theologian working with an 'actualistic' ontology. Calvin knows of a mode of being or existence on the part of the Logos asarkos which is independent of his being/existence as Redeemer. Such a view presupposes an 'essentialist' ontology in accordance with which the 'essence' of the Logos (or, as we might prefer, the 'self-identical element' which makes the Logos to be the Subject that it is) is understood to be complete in itself apart from and prior to all actions and relations of that Subject. And divine 'essence', on this view, is something hidden to human perception and ,finally, unknowable.

Barth too, knows of an 'essence' (a self-identical element) in God, but for him 'essence' is given in the act of electing and is, in fact, constituted by that eternal act. It is not an independent 'something' that stands behind all God's acts and relations. God's being, for Barth, is a being-in-act; first, as a being-in-act in eternity and then corresponding to that, as a being-in-act in time. [...] Most importantly, if the eternal being of God is constituted by His eternal act of turning towards the human race - if that is what God is 'essentially' - then God's essence is not hidden to human perception. It is knowable because it is constituted by the act of turning towards us. God in himself is God 'for us'. Knowing God in this way, we can trust that the love and mercy toward the whole human race demonstrated in Jesus' subjection of himself to death on a cross is 'essential' to God and that election is therefore universal in scope. (98-99, emphasis in bold mine)

Deep and interesting words! Shows that for Barth, the issue has ultimately to do with knowing God - or more strictly, knowing God's essence, which is constituted by the act of the incarnation. This does not render the incarnation to be a non-historical event, but it does mean that for Barth, God's essence or being pre-incarnation is one that is already anticipative of the incarnation, and God decided it to be so through his election of Jesus Christ.

While the logic of Barth's thought does lead one to a greater confidence and assurance that God in himself is God 'for us', and in this sense we can say with a greater confidence that we know (because it has been revealed this way) even the essence of God, we have to ask if Barth's doctrine of election can be supported by Scripture. Scripture seems to present more of specific human beings as the object of election (Eph 1:3-4), though Christ is the mirror by which we contemplate our own election (Inst. 3.24.5), and Scripture presents God the Father as the one who does the electing. Also, while Barth's doctrine of election may secure a more knowable 'God in himself', we have to admit that one entailment of his doctrine is that it is hard to escape from the charge of universalism, a point repeatedly refuted by Scripture. So on the balance, my personal preference is to go with Calvin. While that in turn will lead to us ultimately not knowing the essence of God, as Barth and Professor McCormack has pointed out, we just have to trust in the axiom that the 'economic Trinity best reveals the immanent Trinity', i.e. if the love God showed for us in the economy of salvation is the love that flows out from his inter-Trinitarian love that he has in Himself, then we can trust that God in Himself will very much be like how God is towards us, while ultimately leaving space for a godly silence that resists any form of pinpoint accuracy.

A Framework for a more 'biblical-theological' way of doing (systematic) theology? Part II

This is part II of an earlier post.

In these two posts, I'm trying to see if we can come up with some sort of an initial framework for doing (systematic) theology in a way that is more integrally connected with salvation-history as revealed in the Bible's plot-line, using the discussion generated in Carson's Gagging of God (GOG) chapters 5 and 6 as a base. The earlier post was an initial stab after reading chapter 5, where Carson considers 'opening moves' in the bible's plot-line consisting of Creation, Fall, and (only very briefly) election and history of Israel.

First, a summary of his chapter 6: 'What God has spoken: Climatic Moves in the Bible's Plot-line', before an attempt to synthesise things together.

Carson in this chapter considers the next few key climatic moves in the Bible's plot-line, found in the NT. He rightly highlights that 'some of the features of the New Testament's plot-line have already been introduced by running them from their base in the Old Testament' (p.253), but many of these features and themes 'are sharpened or heightened in the New Testament segment (e.g. God's love, wrath, and his personal triune being). Yet, continuity is not the only name to the game. There are also some other themes 'cast up by the New Testament plot-line which though they have their roots in the Old Testament, play a far larger part in the unfolding drama than did their roots in the earlier stage - and, correspondingly, some prominent features in the Old Testament plot-line now fade away, or, more commonly, are transposed, as it were, to a new key'. So, as Carson states, '[...] Kingdom, Christology, eschatology, church, gospel, become dominat terms of themes. Temple, priest, sacrifice, law, and much more are transposed; national and tribal outlooks gradually fade from view'. (p.254) This point, I think, is Carson's underlying conviction as he works through the rest of the chapter.

He then explores the following elements in the NT plot-line. His first sub-heading is Jesus and the Gospels, where he explores the incarnation; the kingdom that Jesus brings in, and the unity of the canonical Gospels in 'telling the story of Jesus so that the rush of the narrative is toward the cross' (p.263). The second heading is The Coming of the Spirit, where he traces out the person of the Spirit; how the Spirit is integrally linked to the heirs of the new covenant (as a guarantee of the consumation and in terms of his life transforming work in the believer), and the Spirit's work of illumination and conviction. The third heading is The Contribution of the Epistles, where Carson makes three points, of which only one is related to our discussion -that the themes introduced into the Bible at an earlier stage of the story-line are further developed in the epistles (the other two are related more to matters on pluralism, which is the aim of Carson's book). The fourth heading is The Climax, where Carson describes the final state of things as shown in Revelation (though his discussion is slanted more towards denying universalistic salvation). Carson concludes (at least for what is of interest to us) with this statement:

"All of these elements, and more besides, constitute the Bible's story-line. Together they establish what the gospel is, that from which we are saved, the nature of the One to whom we must give an account, the relative importance of this world and the next so far as the focus of our hopes and investments is concerned, the desperate plight in which we find ourselves as we reject the grace of God, the wonders of God's grace along with the ineffable brilliance of his holiness, and much more." (p.277)

So the big question is - is there more light at the end of the tunnel after reading this chapter for how we might come up with a framework for theology that is more sensitive to salvation history? I'm not too sure. But here are some initial thoughts on the whole matter:

1. I think there is some truth in saying that this way of thinking about theology is more 'time-sensitive' and 'worldview-oriented' than the traditional systematic theology approach, which tends towards an atemporal framework. While my personal belief is that both are needed (hence I'm not pitting one against the other), there's some wisdom in what Carson says about preaching the gospel in our increasingly puralistic 'unchurched' culture, where he advocates this approach over the 'purely atemporal' systematic theological one.

"In short, the good news of Jesus Christ is virtually incoherent unless it is securely set into a biblical worldview. [...] To establish [a systematic theological] framework while simultaneously tracing out the rudiments of the Bible's plot-line strikes me as wiser, more strategic. One is simultaneously setting forth a structure of thought, and a meta-narrative; one is constructing a worldview, and showing how that worldview is grounded in the Bible itself. One is teaching people how to read the Bible." (p.502)

2. The second point flows from the first. Because such a way of doing theology is more sensitive and integrally connected to the whole of salvation history found in the Bible's plot-line, there are more 'controls' and guides over the traditional systematic theological approach, which tends to be in the danger of 'stringing' together bible passages isolated out of their salvation-historical context, with the result that some particular doctrines may be emphasised at the expense of others, or worse still, pitted against the other (e.g. God's personal nature pitted against his sovereignty, as perhaps shown most clearly in the case of Open Theism). Biblical theology in some sense help guards against this danger by doing two things. Firstly, any doctrine raised is passed through the salvation historical plotline to see how it develops (e.g. the love of God - love for the world shown in his providential care TO God's love to the world with salvific intent TO God's particular love for his elect, while not excluding other themes like the love the Father has for the Son within the Godhead). Secondly, any doctrine raised is interacted with others as it passes through the salvation historical plotline (e.g. the love of God is interacted with the wrath of God and does not end up diminishing wrath and exalting love, or the love of God is understood in the context of his transcendence, hence excluding the notion that God's love for the world must thus mean he must open himself to what the world experiences).

3. The third point (flowing on from the 2nd) is that because of this interaction between the different doctrines or themes raised, the framework of such a way of doing theology will inevitably ensure a greater interaction and a greater need to define connections between the 7 topics of the 'systematic theology' approach. For e.g., one cannot start to consider the Doctrine of God without considering Christology; or doctrine of church without considering doctrine of man (afterall, we who are in Christ are in the 2nd Adam, and in the true and new humanity defined by Christ); or doctrine of the work of Christ and application of salvation without a serious consideration of the doctrine of sin (and for that matter of fact, doctrine of creation, which grounds accountability for sin), or the doctrine of creation without considering the doctrine of eschatology! In another words, the 7 topics cannot sit so aloof from one another as they can in some traditional systematic theological considerations.

4. And frankly, I have to admit, here is the difficulty. Because of these interactions, it is hard to present things in a systematic presentation or according to major themes and topics when attempting to come up with a framework for theology which is more sensitive to biblical theology.

Perhaps the best that can be suggested at this point is something like this?

The opening moves of Creation and Fall in the Bible's plot-line establishes the key doctrines of God, man and the problem of sin. The points raised under these doctrines are then developed (with an emphasis on either contiunuity or discontinuity) as they pass through the turning moments of Israel's election and history into the coming of Christ and God's new Kingdom in which we as Christians live in this present age. Along the way, the doctrines of Christology, Application of Salvation, and the Church, while having their beginning roots in the OT, will only be fully heightened or sharpened at this point. The climax move of the consumation spells out most clearly the doctrine of eschatology and provides us with a fitting view of the end.

While this sounds almost like the standard layout of the topics in traditional systematic theological textbooks (!), the difference is in the three earlier points seen above.

That's all I've got to at this point. Definitely, more work and thinking needs to be done. I hope to blog on this again after reading the related essays in ed. McGowan's Always Reforming, and Charles Scobie's The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology, where he has a more thematic approach to doing biblical theology, than a strictly systematic or historical one.

Reading Biblical Themes as a Whole

Carson (Gagging of God, 285-6) highlights that very often, out treatment of certain biblical themes and topic can be reductionistic - in that, we isolate certain passages of Scripture, and 'add' them up together to produce the content of the topic or theme we are looking at, without seeing how the particular theme is teased out in light of the whole bible's redemptive historical plot-line. He states:

"One of the most important hermeneutical constraints one should adopt in order to avoid such reductionism is this: Permit the various attributes and characteristics of God to function in your theology only in the ways they function in Scripture; nerver permit them to function in your theology in such a way that the primary data, the data of Scripture, are contradicted. Thus one must not infer fatalism from the sweeping biblical data about God's sovereignty; one must not infer that God is finite from the constant biblical protrayal of God personally interacting with finite persons. From God's knowledge and sovereignty we must not justify praylessness; from the exhortations to pray and not give up, we must not suppose God is coerced by our speaking [...]. Precisely because God is so gloriously rich and complex a being, we must draw out the lessons the biblical writers draw out, and no others." (p.286)

What good advice for us as we try to do systematic theology! There is a need not only to be 'biblical' in our systematic theology, but to be 'biblical theological'!

A Framework for a more 'biblical-theological' way of doing (systematic) theology?

As you know from the last post, I'm currently ploughing my way through Carson's Gagging of God and I've just finished chapter 5 "What God had spoken: Opening Moves in the Bible's plot-line." It is interesting seeing how Carson presents this chapter where he considers the major turning points of redemptive history of Creation, Fall, Election and History of Israel, and their implications for the Christian worldview and faith.

The thing that strikes me is that Carson might just have shown us a way of doing (systematic) theology that is much more integrally connected with redemptive history or salvation history as revealed in the Bible's plot-line. The usual way in which topics are arranged in systematic theology treatments are doctrine of Revelation and Scripture; God; Man (and Creation); Christ (and the HS); Application of Redemption (sometimes the HS is covered here); Church (and sacraments) and Eschatology. The order of topics are not random, but highlight a certain system of thought. With the influx of post-foundationalism, some have put the doctrine of God first, and revelation and Scripture as something God does - He speaks. Also, in the topics listed above, questions are raised as to whether there is a central topic that should form the 'core', in the sense that this topic has a stronger and more direct bearing on the others. I've earlier offered a suggestion as to what that topic would be. For theologian John Frame, such a 'core' would be the doctrine of God - the Lordship of God.

I want to declare that Carson by no means leaves any impression that such a way of covering theology (systematically) is mistaken or faulty. But rather, it has it's place (see his article on 'biblical theology and systematic theology' in NDBT). And here, I also want to declare that I agree with Carson. But nonetheless, Carson insightfully states:

"[...] the fact remains that the Bible as a whole document tells a story, and properly used, that story can serve as a metanarrative that shapes our grasp of the entire Christian faith." (GOG, 194)

And he goes on to show in the rest of the chapter how this is so (at least for the OT Scriptures first), following the headings of

A. Creation
Salient points include the doctrine of creation as one that presents a "controlled universe" in which God is both creator and sustainer/ruler (p.201), and also 4 implications that arise from the doctrine of creation (p.201-203)
B. Human Beings
Salient points include a teasing out inductively of what is meant by "the image of God" (p.204-205); how human accountability to the Creator God grounds not only the biblical plot-line, but establishes the significance of our actions and our self-identity (p.206-209); our being created in the 'image of God' means we will be endlessly restless in suppressing the truth of God and at the same time is what enables true knowledge of the living God (p.209-211), and finally our relation with nature, having been created in the image of God (p.211-212)
C. Fall
Salient points include how the significance of the Fall in Genesis 3 is most seen by tracing its effect and its interpretation across Scripture (p. 212-216), and how as Christians we must get our understanding of sin right, for that affects how we grasp the solution (p.220-221)
D. God
Salient points include how God is personal (here Carson discusses the Trinity because this is the 'most remarkable feature to the personhood of God' (p.226)) and yet transcendent and sovereign at the same time (p.223-232, 234-237); how God is offended (the wrath of God) (p.232-234), and the providence of God.
E. The Love of God
Salient points include how love is not just something God is capable of doing, but actually is very much a part of his Trinitarian nature (p.239); the need to take into regard nuances and different levels of speaking of God's love (p.239-241); and how talk of the love of God, as precious as it is, must not be separated from his holiness, transcendence, and even the wrath of God (p.241).
F. Some Other Major Movements in the History of Redemption
Here, interestingly, Carson focuses on the Abrahamic account and suggest 6 themes arising from the account - election, covenant, faith and obedience, nation and land, Gentiles, and Family order and social justice (p.242-244). Carson suggests that the same thing can be done for the other major movements of Exodus, giving of law, cultic system, establishment of kings and Davidic dynasty, and the prophetic movement. "But the lessons would be similar", he states (p.245)

At first glance, Carson's presentation seems a bit random and leaves one wondering how this could be a way of presenting theology that is more integrally connected with salvation history. But there is more that meets the eye. Carson is right in saying and having as his premise that to just treat a topic which is raised up within a particular turning point in salvation history and not seeing how that topic is further expounded along salvation history is reductionistic. The danger is that when treatments of particular topics are abstracted from the Bible's plot-line, their true significance and proportion will almost be entirely lost (p.248). This is why he does not hesitate to spell out the implications of the Fall as seen not just from Genesis 3, but more crucially from the rest of the Bible's plot-line (same for his discussion on the wrath of God, or the love of God, or the other attributes of God). This is why Carson also covers the doctrine of the Trinity as part of the personal God in this chapter.

With this in mind, could we suggest that the opening moves in the bible plot-line (and here I'm thinking of Creation and Fall) straightaway introduces us to the key concepts (or doctrines) of God, Man, and the relationship between them? And keeping Carson's premise in mind, we should then take these doctrines, and specifically whatever is raised about them - for e.g. the fact that God is personal, yet sovereign and transcendent; God's wrath and love; or the doctrine of sin and effects of the Fall - and run them through the salvation-history timeline to develop the teaching to it's fullest degree. In this case, the next major turning point - the election of Israel and its history - really becomes the case-in-point for the flashing out of the doctrine under discussion (so for example God's love in this case would be seen in the electing love of Israel), with additional new elements being spelt out (e.g. covenant).

Would such a way present theology in a way that is more integral to the salvation-history plot-line of the Bible?

Hopefully, this initial idea can be further consolidated after reading the next chapter where Carson looks at the 'climatic moves in the Bible's plot-line'.

Carson on Revelation

I've been reading Carson's The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) in preparation for 2 talks I've to give on 'God's Big Picture'. Chapters 5-7 of his book provide an excellent way of doing the talks. Instead of expounding the details of redemptive history (like what we would normally do for a bible overview talk), what Carson does instead is to tease out the implications of the major turning points of redemptive history (e.g. creation, fall, election of Israel, Christ, the church and Final Judgement and consumation) for our lives and our worldview. I'm trying to follow the same approach.

But in chapter 4, he first covers the basis of authority of revelation. His last two points in this chapter are excellent. And I quote:

6. However complex the subject, there are distinguishable paths by which a person may see the truth of the gospel and gladly come under its authority. The assumption behind all of them is revelation (my emphasis, p.182)

How true! I guess the key presupposition (if I may use such a term) in discussing this topic is that we must hold onto the idea of revelation - that is God has spoken. Now, that's hard to show or prove in today's postmodern climate, but Carson is ultimately right in saying that such a belief can only come through the power of the Spirit. He states:

"[We] require not only the Spirit's work to remove our willful incapacity to believe and recognise the truth (even when we live in a believing subculture), but necessarily for anyone in the Western culture of philosophical pluralism it also requires Spirit-empowered willingness to adopt a quite different worldview." (p.188)

With this in mind, Carson concludes the point with:

"Thus despite the best efforts we rebels can mount, God will not be gagged. We invent new ways of gagging God, of silencing him, of marginalising or dismissing his revelation. But God has spoken, and by his Spirit through the Word still speaks." (p.189)

His last point following on from this is:

7. What God has disclosed of himself in Scripture does not permit us to pick and choose (p.189)

Carson continues, "On the other hand, it mandates that we interpret what he has disclosed within the constraints that he himself has imposed - i.e., with full recognition of the developing plot-line in Scripture, and of Scripture's highly diverse literary genres." (p.189, his emphasis)

This thought is further developed and brought out beautifully in The Gospel Coalition's Theological Vision for Ministry (of which Carson is part of the team)It states:

1. Reading “along” the whole Bible. To read along the whole Bible is to discern the single basic plot–line of the Bible as God’s story of redemption (e.g., Luke 24:44) as well as the themes of the Bible (e.g., covenant, kingship, temple) that run through every stage of history and every part of the canon, climaxing in Jesus Christ. In this perspective, the gospel appears as creation, fall, redemption, restoration. It brings out the purpose of salvation, namely, a renewed creation. [...] [God] providentially brings about his eternal good purposes to redeem a people for himself and restore his fallen creation, to the praise of his glorious grace.

2. Reading “across” the whole Bible. To read across the whole Bible is to collect its declarations, summons, promises, and truth–claims into categories of thought (e.g., theology, Christology, eschatology) and arrive at a coherent understanding of what it teaches summarily (e.g., Luke 24:46–47). In this perspective, the gospel appears as God, sin, Christ, faith. It brings out the means of salvation, namely the substitutionary work of Christ and our responsibility to embrace it by faith. [...] Jesus Christ acted as our representative and substitute, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (my emphasis)

As we read the Bible in the above way, what the Bible does is that it 'provides us with a metanarrative, a comprehensive "story" that provides the framework for a comprehesive explanation, a comprehensive worldview' (GOG, p.191) - a worldview large enough to answer the six questions of everyone, "If there is a God, what is he like?"; "Where do I come from?"; "Who am I?"; "Why is there so much suffering and things are not the way it should be?"; "What is the problem, and how is it resolved?"; "Why am I here? What does the future hold?", and finally, "What time is it? Which part of this framework do I belong to?"

Hopefully, as we find our questions answered, we would want to be (by the power of the Spirit) holding on to this worldview, and find ourselves on the right side of God's metanarrative, his 'Big Picture' to us.