Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views

I just finished a Perspectives book on the subject of the Doctrine of God; the four contributors and their positions are Paul Helm (Classical Calvinism), Bruce Ware (Modified Calvinism), Roger Olson (Classical Arminian) and John Sanders (Open Theism).

1. Paul Helm was the first (suitably so) essayist; the responses to his essay by all three opponents (Olson, Sanders and to a lesser extent, Ware) seemed for the most part to criticize Helm on the same points, showing consistently where Helm went wrong. What's interesting is that they did not so much criticize Helms position (in regards to Classical Calvinism), there was no space for that after they quite easily dummied Helm by showing how inconceivable it is that someone with his credentials could be so mistaken or misleading. Olson took him to task swiftly and decisively, making Helm look silly. For starters Helm audaciously and arrogantly claims that Classical Calvinism is simply "the Tradition" of Christian belief, so that Classical Calvinism, unlike the other positions, is actually no position at all. Classical Calvinism is simply "the Tradition", and all the other "positions" are deviations from this tradition; this belief of his is simply unsustainable!

Helm opinion is (and was made so) demonstrably false, and for someone with Helm's credentials, it might even be suggested that he is intentionally misleading those who may enjoy his position and who know no-wiser. Another eyebrow raiser, is that while Helm criticise John Sanders and his Open Theism, and Bruce Ware and his Modified Calvinism, I found it interesting that he did not criticize Roger Olson and his Classical Arminianism. When he criticized the Arminian position, he ignored Olson and built his critique around a small fringe or subset group of Arminians who believe in Middle Knowledge as it is articulated my William Lane Craig. It was Olson (along with Helm, Ware, and Sanders), who was the fourth contributor to the book at hand, not Craig, why was it then that Helm avoids Olson's discussion of Classical Arminianism (with his view of Simple Foreknowledge), and brings up a position which has no place in the discussion and purpose of the book at hand?

2. Bruce Ware was the second essayist and I must admit, I was not fully prepared for it. Having read many Calvinistic material in the past, I expected more of the same old dogmatic, mean-spirited, arrogance that I've perceived from them (see Helm above), but not a hint of this was evident in Ware. His was one of the best articulated and most persuasive and fair-minded arguments for the Calvinists perspective of the doctrine of God which I have come by to date. Furthermore, Bruce's acknowledgment of the difficulties with the Classical Calvinists Perspective and his attempt to address and work out some of those difficulties and many of the ideas he purposes are commendable; thus his perspective, "Modified Calvinism".

Throughout his presentation, Ware sought to base his position firmly within the confines of scripture. As an Evangelical Christian, I must admire this commitment; his was a reminder of some of the difficulties I must overcame in articulating a Modified Arminian scripturally based perspective on God. All in all, I respect - though disagree - with Ware's presentation and conclusions.

3. I like Roger Olson; he's a graceful, sharp-witted and reasonable thinker who is open though not easily persuaded by other ideas and positions. I expected Olson's articulation of the Classical Arminian perspective to be the best essay in the book, I was disappointed for two reasons. For starters, it would have been nice to see a more biblical defense involving some specific examples and references. Under the subject of Biblical Evidence he says; "demanding biblical 'proof' of free will is something like demanding proof that George Washington believed in a free market economy rather than communism... the surest biblical 'proof' of libertarian freedom of will lies in the attempt to square divine determinism with God's goodness in the face of sin, evil, and hell" [p.159]. While I agree, as an evangelical Christian it would have been nice to see some scriptural 'proof' anyways.

Secondly, to the question of whether or not Simple Foreknowledge results in a determined future, Olson says "Just because God 'sees' the future does not mean it is determined" [p.157; he recommends Alvin Plantinga's God, Freedom and Evil for a philosophical argument showing that Simple Foreknowledge does not necessitate a determined future]. However, I cannot see any possible way to avoid that conclusion: God sees the actual future - what will happen, not what may happen - therefore the future cannot happen in any other way then how God sees it, otherwise God would be mistaken. Therefore the future is determined by his foreknowledge. Aside from these two points, it is always a pleasure to read Roger Olson.

4. John Sanders was the fourth and final essayist and his position, Open Theism, is beyond a doubt the most controversial one in the book. None the less, his essay - for what it's worth - was quite simply the finest of the four; but don't take my word for it, in a moment I'll quote the responses by Olson (who's favorable to Open Theism) and by Ware (who has written books against Open Theism). I think Sanders entered the discussion knowing he was doing so espousing a position as the "fringe" outsider in the group, and having to defend Open Theism in the past from every possible angle (Sanders, God Who Risks), his was a targeted, methodical, systematic, philosophical, biblical and seasoned defence of Open Theism.

Olson said: "I am not prepared at this point to adopt open theism even though I feel the force of John's arguments, and I do not see what core doctrines of the Christian faith would be negatively affected by it" [p.250]. Olson provides two reasons why he has not accepted the openness view, both of which, I judge, are in consequential.

Ware, who is diabolically opposed to Open Theism, gives an even stronger favorable review of Sanders essay, even though he rejects his system completely, he says:

"John Sanders should be commended for writing a very fine explanation and defense of the openness view... his lucid description of features of his model, his able defense through biblical and theological support, and his astute address of major objections that have been raised to the openness view commend this chapter as a clear and compelling treatment of the open view that Sanders espouses. As one who has interacted with openness literature for many years now, I gladly acknowledge that Sanders has done a superb job representing his own view, showing both a clear grasp of central issues and a maturity in his presentation that no doubt is the result of working hard on these issues over many years." [p.251-252]

I agree with Wares assessment.

Conclusion: As a whole I strongly recommend Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views. Paul Helm is the odd ball out because he doesn't really seem to know what is going on, that fact aside, the dialogue between Ware, Olson and Sanders is very helpful in working out and understand a doctrine of God. Two thumbs up.

In Christ,
Derek

Mexico Mission '08

[Above: We gave food and clothing to this little girl and her family; and through it we were blessed beyond measure.]

Mexico Mission '08
When I was in grade nine I watched a music video called I Pledge Allegiance to the Lamb which portrayed early Christians, from Stephen down through the ages, persecuted and killed for their faith in Christ. I can date my desire to visit the Colosseum in Rome to that day. I went there for my honeymoon, and although the experience was incredible, and the sights were breath-taking, still I was a little disappointed. Standing in the Colosseum did not evoke within me the emotions which I had fully expected. I thought that if I stood in the place where many were most probably martyred for their faith that I would – on some mystical level – relate to them, and in a very distant fashion I would be able to connect with the world of the first disciples.

When I was in Reynosa Mexico last week, though I did not ‘see’ the world of the first Christians, since I stood there on the opposite side of the globe; what I did see most certainly evoked within me some emotions which connected me to someone infinitely more prominent then the early disciples. When I saw the poor, and the lives which they lived, I felt as though I, for the first ‘real’ time perhaps, saw through the eyes of Jesus. In retrospect, given a choice between returning to Rome or visiting a place like Reynosa Mexico again, my hearts desire would certainly be the latter.

In blog like fashion, I’ll try and keep this brief and hit perhaps one or two highlights before turning my attention to a specific event.

While in Mexico we built a home for a Christian eight member family. The family lived in a poorest of the poor neighborhood where their current home was built out of scrap wood, old skids, metal or body parts of cars (such as a hood or roof). There was no floor; walking on the dirt ground outside, you continued to walk on the same dirt ground inside. For a family of eight, they had two mattresses which all eight members shared and which sat on the ground. Their only seating areas were two old ripped up van seats that sat in their yard. They had a small (really small) outhouse behind the house and behind that was a small squared-off area where they “showered”, and by showered I mean they take a bucket of stale and very dirty bug infested water out back and bath (this is out-side). I could go on (and many of their neighbors had it worse), but I’ll stop here just by saying that amidst all this and worse, they were a very happy musical family. (They had two old drums and a cymbal which hung from a tree which they beat on with sticks that were tied together. When someone from the mission team gave the dad a pair of old drumsticks he began to cry saying that no one had ever given him a “musical instrument” before, then he carried those drumsticks around telling everyone that someone gave him an instrument). We built them a house similar to the one on Little House on the Prairie, loft and latter included. We bought them new mattresses, curtains for the windows, and a dinner table with eight chairs – they’ve never been able to sit down and eat as a family before, a luxury we take for granted.

We also traveled the neighborhood delivering food, clothes, blankets and other necessities to as many families as possible. It was an incredible experience.

Movie Night with the Jesus Film
Mid week we traveled to another part of the city, a place were the citizens were a little more well off, and set up a make-shift out door Movie Theater. In a public park we put up a large white screen and set up several chairs then announced throughout the area that there was going to be a free movie for all to see – it was the Jesus Film put out by Campus Crusade in Spanish. No sooner did the film begin when the chairs were filled with curious strangers, and what’s more, the side walks were filled, kids on bicycles and families stopped in their cars on the streets; we had a packed… park, if you will.

I was amazed with the intensity of those who watched, enthralled. I thought, if this were in a park in Windsor, people would laugh at it, mock it, and leave. But then I was more amazed that when the film ended no one moved. No one got up off their chairs to leave, and so our missionary leader picked up a microphone and began to preach the Gospel, by sharing his testimony. The people leaned in, hanging on every word of this strange thing they were hearing. When he was finished his testimony he asked if anyone wanted to become a follower of this Jesus he was talking about. Nearly everyone stood up and crowded around him as he explained to them the ways of being a transformed follower of Christ; they all accepted the invitation.

Then when all was said and done, he exhorted them to find a local God-fearing bible believing church; gave them all New Testaments and – to my despair – sent them all away.

In that moment – the moment of silence that followed their new birth – as they pressed in, they leaned in, they did not want to go, they were hungry, they wanted more, much more, all I could think is, “now what?”

Having never been involved in Missions this way before, I wanted to see how our full-time missionary leader would follow this up, I wanted to learn from his ten years of experience. What would he do in this moment of silence, after introducing these to Christ, how would he conclude this incredible evening filled with hungry souls craving more.

He sent them home. Shows over ladies and gentlemen; thanks for accepting the invitation, here’s a bible for you willingness to be involved; now have a good evening. Of course he did not say any of that, but he might as well have.

Those people were pressing in, hungry for the Gospel of Jesus Christ; hungry for more. I remembered Jesus’ lament, “The harvest in ready but the workers are few”.

Another thought had occurred to me; this is how the Mission work of Paul and the first disciples worked! This is how Christianity spread far and wide so fast! This is how it was supposed to continue!!! When I say ‘this’ I mean with one terribly huge element which my Missionary leader simply totally absolutely dropped the ball on; which is why the ‘this’, the power of the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as it is made visible in the New Testament, the world transforming church planting epidemic known as ‘the Church’ was missing from our leaders work. And why many that day may not continue on in the hope they had heard.

I’m speaking here of communion! As I watched the crowd lean in, wanting, craving, almost desperate for more, I imagined we were in the first century and Paul was the Missionary preacher. What would he have done? The crowd wanted more; Paul would have given it. They would have selected a home of someone there; the crowd of strangers and misfits, now family, would have met in a home and bonded, he would have taught them and they would share each others burdens. Then they would have gone out and told their friends and family members about this guy they met named Jesus. Their friends and family members would have come and week after week, (perhaps day after day) he would have met with them and instructed them and they would have grown quickly into a solid body of believers. His time with them would have been anywhere from three to seven months to up to about two years. And that community would be more powerful and more effective a church in that city arguably then any church in North America is today!

Is this fanciful thinking? Perhaps; but maybe not; maybe I was witnessing the grounds on which the first churches began. And perhaps our missionary leader missed out on the opportunity of the ultimate fulfillment of his calling.

I read Viola’s home church material and have been nearly persuaded that what he purposes is simply unpractical in places were the church is entrenched two millennia deep in tradition. But after the experience in Mexico, I wonder if Viola is preaching to the wrong crowd; it’s as Jesus said, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. The established church of North America with all its faults is what it is and cannot erase two thousand years of history – for better or for worse – over night. But there is a mission field with a ground which is ready and more then willing to be established, and I think the first century approach may be the way to go.

Be that as it may, tears filled my eyes as I remember eightteen years earlier taking the same steps of faith as those Mexicans that day, and to the same message, the very same film (in English of course) as they. I was incredible touched that week, and I hope that I was as much a blessing to the Mexican’s as they were to me, for it was a tremendous blessing to be able to give as I did to them.

I am deliberating at the moment, but I will most likely return next years with my beautiful Mexican wife in tow. Pray for me and this decision and of course for the money we’ll need to raise again.

Derek