“Possibilities
are real.”
-
Gregory A. Boyd
Greetings,
all. It has been some time since I've written an article, and in this
article I will be revisiting the same topic I wrote about previously,
which is the topic of Open Theism. However, things will be slightly
different this time, as a good friend of mine has addressed my
article via his podcast, sharing disagreements and such, and,
therefore, I will be providing a response to this podcast, among
other things. If you'd like to listen to the podcast first, you can
find it here,
and if you haven't read the article under our microscope, you can
find that here.
Michael
Miano, the voice behind the podcast and pastor of Blue Point Bible
Church, in Blue Point, New York, shared his disagreements with my
article from his Calvinist perspective. Michael had approached me
with the opportunity to join him on the broadcast to discuss my view
and bounce some thoughts off one another. Regretfully, scheduling did
not permit it, but I was pleased to see Michael still address my
article, anyway.
Michael
and I have known each other for a number of years now—around four,
roughly—having become acquainted with one another very soon after I
became a Preterist. In fact, Michael may not remember this, but he
and I befriended one another around the time of his “cRapture”
broadcast series on Miano Gone Wild (perhaps named Christianity Gone
Wild at the time), as he had invited me to take part in one of his
broadcasts. Michael was also one of the first Full Preterists I ever
met, and I have been blessed to call him my brother ever since. It is
with this spirit, this attitude, that he and I discuss the
scriptures.
I
was finally able to get to the podcast a couple days after he made
it, and now it is my turn to offer some thoughts on his
counterpoints. Likewise, I seek to clarify some details I feel
Michael did not accurately convey regarding Open Theism, as some of
Michael's misinformation led to a few unintended straw man arguments,
so I thought it best to clear some of these up. And in the event that
it was my article which caused the confusion, I offer my apologies
and hope I can better present my position this time around.
Defining
Terms
In case the article linked above
wasn't clear, or you simply didn't read it, it may be suiting to
define our terms a bit. During brother Miano's podcast, it became
evident to me early on that he was addressing Open Theism without
understanding Open Theism. That is, my article supplied arguments
with which he disagreed, which resulted in generating a response from
him; addressing the points in my article and addressing Open Theism
as a whole are two different things, however, for while I share much
in common with Open Theists across the board, there are also things I
disagree with them on—rather, my views are actually taken a step
further in some regards, though this isn't necessarily the case with
the points made in the article. Nevertheless, I do wish to provide
clarity by stating the necessity of one's individual study of Open
Theism to understand the position, and not to rely on one man's brief
overview, for I make no claims to be an expert in the field.
When
I watch videos of people confronting Calvinism, I find myself a
little annoyed at their lack of understanding (not to say my
understanding of Calvinism is perfect, of course). To many,
Calvinists deny any concept of a free will; the pizza you ate last
night, the shower you took before bed, and your 'choice'
to hit snooze eight times the next morning, were all predetermined
by God to occur, they claim. Yet, few, if any Calvinists would accept
this, I reckon. Instead, the issue is one revolving around the nature
of a being:
Augustine
further elaborated on the Christian understanding of freedom. He
argued that people choose according who they are. If they are good,
they make good choices. If they are bad, they make bad choices. These
choices are
free, they just lack liberty. In other words, a person does not
become a sinner because they sin, they sin because they are a sinner.
It is an issue of nature first. If people are identified with the
fallen nature of Adam, then they will make choices similar to that of
Adam because it is who they are. Yes, they
are making a free choice, but this choice does not include the
liberty of freedom of contrary choice.
(http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/03/a-calvinists-understanding-of-free-will/)
In
essence, we're still slaves to this sin
nature,
even if some of our choices are free, it is claimed. We can freely
choose to eat that pizza, but when it comes to anything contrary to
our nature, we can't make a decision outside the confines of that
nature. Therefore, it is by the grace of God that any goodness can
come from man, for as all are sons of Adam, and thus, born into the
sin he brought into the world, we are all inherently bad.
Open Theists take a different
approach, substituting these make believe concepts of inherent sin
nature and the shackles it places on us, with a libertarian free will
and a future open to possibilities. To have a libertarian free will,
one is able to act contrary to their “nature,” we'll say. Our
choices are truly our own and are truly free. However, the article
quoted above continues to reject such a reality as even possible:
Think about all that goes into
making 'who you are.' We are born in the fallen line of Adam.
Spiritually speaking we have an inbred inclination toward sin. All of
our being is infected with sin. This is called 'total depravity.'
Every aspect of our being is infected with sin, even if we don't act
it out to a maximal degree.
But
even if this were not the case,--even if total depravity were a false
doctrine—libertarian freedom would still be untenable. Not only are
you who you are because of your identification with a fallen human
race, but notice all these factors that
you did not choose that
go into the set up for any given 'free will' decision made …
The
author of the article proceeds to list such factors as not choosing
when we were born, or where we were born, who our parents are, early
life influences, our genetics, our looks, our body type, etc. This is
a bit of a straw man argument, however, as no one is arguing against
natural limitations placed upon us, or the fact that outside
influences are a factor in who we may
become. For instance, both of my parents smoked while I was growing
up. I never did. Having been around it my entire life, I could have
chosen
to follow in their life choices. I may not have chosen my parents or
their habits, but I certainly chose not to follow their example. In
other words, whether my parents were smokers played no part in
determining my choice not to become one. And one may argue that it
was their choice to smoke, but it was my dislike of it which drove me
not to smoke. Duly noted! However, one arguing as such would now be
stepping into the realm of possibilities,
which means stepping into the realm of Open Theism.
The
author of the quote also presupposes a sort of sin
gene
passed along to Adam's offspring, from Cain and Seth to you and me
today. I do not share belief in such a limitation or factor. I'll not
touch on this topic at this time, as I expect, should Michael proceed
with a response, we will address this issue at some point.
To summarize:
-Calvinists believe
we freely make choices.
-Those freely made choices are
confined to our inherent nature, which means we do not choose
salvation, or freely seek God, but rather, God elects us,
and by his irresistible grace are we saved.
-As such, life is fated to be as
determined by God, and no choice of ours is truly free (the opposite
of libertarian free will).
-Open Theists
believe we freely make choices.
-These freely made choices are
not confined to any such nature, and instead open up any number of
possibilities depending on the choices made (libertarian free will).
-As such, the future is not
determined to result any one way. Because of this, God's
foreknowledge is limited (by his own will) to that of the realm of
possibilities, knowing all that can be known (omniscience), but not
always knowing with certainty, as the existence of possibilities does
not allow for something to have been determined and is thus not a
body of knowledge that can be known. (This is not to say God
determines nothing. Prophecy is a result of that which God has
predetermined. I am not arguing against that.)
*If you'd like to understand this
further, please read my article on Open Theism, which I linked at the
beginning.
Examining Miano's Response
“God does everything. God
can, and does, and wills everything.”
- Michael Miano
The hour-long podcast saw only
fifteen of the last twenty minutes engaging my article. I believe it
is because of this time constraint that many of the finer points of
the article were not acknowledged. In this section, I will take you
through each of the disagreements Michael had with the portions he
analyzed.
The
first portion pastor Miano analyzed was Abraham's confrontation with
God as God spoke to him of passing judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. To
put it simply, my argument is that Abraham changed God's mind when he
pleaded for God to spare the cities if a (varying) number of
righteous remained. Michael, however, argues that God was simply
teaching Abraham a lesson, revealing to him the saving of a remnant,
which we know to occur numerous times through the old testament as
shadows pointing to the righteous remnant of the new covenant.
My point of agreement is in the
type/anti-type relationship. However, nowhere in the text is it
stated that God used this to teach Abraham such a lesson. If God
needed to do such a thing, pointing back to Noah would have sufficed.
Nevertheless, there is absolutely zero indication that God sought to
teach Abraham a lesson about the righteous remnant being saved, or to
relay his sovereignty to man, as Michael claims. What we do read, is
God pronouncing judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah for their
wickedness, and for fear of losing Lot, Abraham bargains with God to
spare the cities if fifty righteous remain. To test the limits of
God's mercy and to better guarantee Lot's survival, Abraham bargains
with God to spare cities if only ten righteous remain. God agrees,
and withdraws his judgment until this can be verified.
Had God known exactly how many
righteous were living in the city already, he would have assured
Abraham of this knowledge, spared Lot, and proceeded to lay waste to
the cities. Instead, God heeded his servant's pleas and gave the
cities a chance (he is a merciful God, after all). Of course,
ultimately it was only Lot and his family who would be saved, as the
cities were truly corrupt. It is simply not scriptural to read this
as a matter of God exercising his sovereignty and teaching Abraham a
lesson along the way. The only way to conclude as such would be to
read the text with Calvinistic presuppositions. The result of such
reading is evident in the way Michael, on numerous occasions,
concedes his misunderstanding in favor of claims of sovereignty,
declaring such instances of sovereignty as secret things which belong
to the Lord (Deuteronomy 29:29). And while there is much God did not
reveal to us in his word, our own lack of understanding should not
default to this, especially when the alternative is so apparent.
Case
in point, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not
predetermined, as God took time to observe whether the inhabitants
were truly guilty, meaning God did not have precise foreknowledge one
way or the other. Also, multiple times in a row Abraham had swayed
God's decision, which could not have been done if God predetermined
the destruction of the city. Therefore, we can logically and
scripturally deduce that God did not have the prescribed precise
foreknowledge attributed to him by Miano, and instead knew within the
realm of possibilities that Sodom and Gomorrah could
have been saved, despite all unlikelihood. The result, however, was
the destruction of the cities.
Similarly,
we find the same thing to occur when Moses pleads on behalf of his
people after they invoked God's anger:
10Now
therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and
that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
11And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy
wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out
of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
12Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he
bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them
from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of
this evil against thy people. 13Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel,
thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto
them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this
land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall
inherit it for ever. 14And the Lord repented of the evil which he
thought to do unto his people. (Exodus 32:10-14)
Throughout
Michael's analysis, he often states that God, in enforcing his
sovereignty, was revealing things to his servants. Instead of God
using scenarios to learn the hearts of his followers, God used the
scenarios for his followers to learn God's heart, in other words. In
regards to my citation of Jeremiah 18:6-10, brother Miano concedes to
just that. Miano states, “According to Jeremiah, it would look—from
the human standpoint it would look as if God changed his mind.
However, understanding
the sovereignty of God,
God did not change his mind.” But again, only by reading the text
with this presupposition can one find this to be an exercise of
sovereignty, rather than what it plainly is, which is God repenting
of his decisions because of the decisions of believers. I suspect
Michael would do the same regarding the Exodus passage quoted above,
if for no other reason than to remain consistent, rather than candid about what the text is telling us.
I
would argue Michael's Calvinism backs him into a corner of willful (or perhaps predetermined?) ignorance, conceding to not know God's plans at any given time (yet,
ironically being able to identify God's plan to save a righteous
remnant), and therefore, not be able to comprehend what scripture's
trying to convey in such instances. And
this isn't to say Michael lacks understanding or an ability to
rightfully divide the word of God. I've known him too long to know
that's not the case. Rather, I believe his efforts to remain
consistent alongside his presuppositions have forced him to trade the
obvious answers for the ones his presuppositions give him.
And I believe this is why Christianity as a whole lacks proper
knowledge and understanding. Christianity's reliance on such sayings
as, “God's got a plan for everyone,” or, “It's all in God's
hands,” causes believers to rely on inaction rather than action,
ignorance rather than wisdom, while everything we need regarding
“God's plan” and his will is contained within the scriptures.
Regarding Abraham's
near-sacrifice of Isaac, Miano asks, “Is this God learning from
Abraham, or Abraham learning from God?” And again, with this
question comes the presupposition of God enforcing his sovereignty
every step of the way. Miano's argument is that this entire scenario
was simply to prove what God had already put in Abraham (being
faith). This is simply Michael's Calvinism speaking, however. The
text tells us a something completely different, a test of a
believer's faithfulness. Let's observe the passage:
11And
the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said,
Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12And he said, Lay not
thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now
I know that thou fearest God,
seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
(Genesis 22:11-12)
Notice
that God's knowledge of Abraham's faith was dependent
on Abraham's actions, as the angel of the Lord said, “... now
I know ...” If that wasn't clear enough, a few verses later it is
made obvious:
15And
an angel of the Lord called Abraam the second time out of heaven,
saying, 16I have sworn by myself, says the Lord, because
thou hast done this thing, and on my account hast not spared thy
beloved son, 17surely blessing I will bless thee … (Genesis
22:15-17)
It
was because
of Abraham's actions that God knew the extent of his faith. James
reiterates this fact:
20But
wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21Was
not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac
his son upon the altar? 22Seest thou how faith wrought with his
works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23And the scripture was
fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto
him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (James
2:20-23)
However,
as has been done repeatedly up to this point, Michael defaults back
to God using this to establish a truth to Abraham. And while it's
easy to pick out a lesson to be learned here, nothing in the text
states or implies that this was the case, but instead a test of
Abraham's faith, which God observed every instance of until stopping
Abraham from following through with the task, in which God was then
able to reach a conclusion.
I
believe my previous observation stands affirmed: Because of the
presuppositions with which the text is read, the reader is forced
into a corner of misunderstanding, their comprehension shrouded by
what has been placed onto the text, rather than discerning what is
plainly being conveyed. Denying the reality of God's test surely is
to make God a liar, contrary to Miano's obvious, but mistaken
disagreement.
Strangely
enough, the final point Michael addressed was one he happened to
think provided support for his own side. I believe this perception is
simply the result of how he continues the read the text, however. In
Deuteronomy 8:2, God called for them to keep in memory the forty
years they spent in the wilderness, which God said he had done to
humble them, to prove
them, and to know what was in THEIR heart,
whether they would keep his commandments or not. Yet, according to
Michael, God did this for them to know God's heart, or for them to
learn something; God was merely enforcing his sovereignty, thinking,
“It's a good idea to leave them in the wilderness for forty years,”
simply so he could teach them something. Of course, we know scripture
speaks to the contrary. And while there were lessons to be learned,
we can be sure, it doesn't change the fact that the forty years in
the wilderness were for the sake of learning their hearts. In other
words, God was the one learning, not just man, contrary to what
Michael's Calvinism tells him to believe.
To
Conclude...
I
believe with absolute certainty that Biblical interpretation becomes
diminished when done through a Calvinistic lens. In Michael's podcast
there were a lot of opinions, personal thoughts, and ideas being
tossed around, which is fine to a point. But, when it came to
addressing my article, I do not feel Michael provided the scriptural
support necessary (if it exists) to refute my position. Instead, he
repeatedly used a presupposition to counter my claims, a
presupposition refuted by the consistent understanding of the
scriptures evident throughout my article.
This
current article was simply a response to Michael's podcast, and an
attempt to clarify some of the points I felt were not conveyed
properly during his presentation. I suspect there will be much more
in depth discussion should our responses continue from here.
Blessings,
Jason
