Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Conversations with Pastor Miano

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

No comments:

Post a Comment