Tag: open theism

Jesus, The Devil and Suffering

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

Christians, like everyone else suffer pain and sorrow in this world. Many blame such suffering on the devil, from a praiseworthy desire not to blame God. Other Christians do blame God and doubt his provision and love for them. How could God let this happen to me? She was such a good person, it just doesn’t seem fair!

Worldly-wise secularists take a more intelligent position, they think. God isn’t there; or if He is, He isn’t concerned enough or able to interact in such a way to help prevent us from suffering. They grin and bear suffering, and encourage those friends and family who are suffering. And really, most Christians do this as well. But they won’t say God can’t intervene, rather they will credit God for helping them through the suffering.

With the recent tragedy of the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, my pastor John Piper gave an explanation of the Reformed view of suffering. God controls all things and has a purpose in everything that happens. He wasn’t surprised by the bridge collapse, and He is at work helping the grieving and suffering, as well as working out many other hidden designs in and through this single tragic event. Most Christians generally agree, although they might hesitate to affirm that God plans and causes such tragedies to happen.

On the opposite spectrum, Greg Boyd, also a Minneapolis area pastor, spoke out against Piper’s view. Boyd, representing the open theist position, claimed that God was surprised by the event as well, and in no way planned or caused it to happen. As I said above, in some respects Boyd’s position is noble. He doesn’t want anyone to blame God for the evil suffering caused by the bridge collapse. But as Denny Burk has shown, in his response to Boyd’s post, Boyd’s position doesn’t stack up with Scripture. Most of evangelicalism would also agree that God certainly knew of the event before it happened (the traditional view of God’s omniscience). [For several Reformed responses to open theism click here.]

But even for those of us who affirm God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and omniscience, we still struggle with how God can let evil happen to Christians. Isn’t the devil to blame too?

I bring up all of this as background to an excellent new article by John Piper which is available online. He discussed the roles of Jesus and the Devil in suffering with his daughter, and shared his conversation with us. The verse in question is Revelation 2:10 “Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.”

I encourage you to check out the article and ponder this issue now, before suffering comes your way. “When Satan Hurts Christ’s People: Reflections on Why Christians Suffer Losses” by John Piper.

And if you would like, you can subscribe to these weekly devotional articles [feed here] by John Piper or sign up for a free email subscription.

Puppets, Popoli & The Open Theism Debate

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

I’m sure my astute readers are all up to speed on the open theism debate. Then again, some of you probably aren’t. And I haven’t really ever debated the issue, so I had to do some homework too.

The Issue

Open Theism is the belief that God is in a sense bound by time. He knows as much as can be known, but not absolutely all things in the traditional sense of “omniscience”. He can’t know the free decisions of humans before those decisions occur, otherwise they wouldn’t be completely free.

This is obviously not a Calvinistic idea, but even most Arminians would repudiate the idea as just plain wrong. Yet the open theists have some verses they will marshal, verses showing that God changes his mind, repents, is surprised by things, and gives contingent prophecies. They also have some logical arguments at their disposal. It can sound plausible, and even helps make Christianity more palatable for the post-modern atheists of today. And– surprise, suprise– open theism is gaining in popularity among evangelicals today.

Puppets & Popoli?

I mention all of this because my friend “jamsco” runs a blog named “The Responsible Puppet“. His title stems from his adherence to what he dubs “hyper-compatibleism”: God is the puppetmaster, yet we are totally responsible for our actions. He is still working out his position which is not quite 5 point Calvinism, he tells me.

Jamsco links to Vox Popoli (with the “read at your own risk” warning, for Vox’s sometimes-edgy views & speech), who he knew personally in college, largely because he takes issue with Vox’s adherence to OT. Vox does a great job of tearing down popular atheistic arguments, yet he often employs OT in his efforts to disarm his opponents. Jamsco wants to defend a compatibleist view and I’m sure wishes he could convince Vox of the error of his ways.

So Vox for most of this year has had Jamsco on his blogroll under the section “target-rich environments”. And he has promised to interact on the issue.

Round 1

So round 1 of the debate has begun. Vox has responded to Jamsco’s “A Defense of the Omniderigence of God” (where Jamsco had interacted with some of Vox’s views). In his characteristic witty style, Vox does a good job advancing his argument (and answering Jamsco). Jamsco has yet to respond, but its easy to get lost in the hundreds of comments Vox’s posts generate.

Now Vox mentions me in the post, since I had commented under Jamsco’s original post. I stand corrected, yet I did follow up with some comments of my own on the issue. I look forward to Jamsco’s response, and Vox’s promised follow up of Scriptural proof for his view. It will be good to be aware of what kind of arguments are out there on this, and gain an education on this issue.

Recommendations

In doing my homework for my comment under Vox’s post, I came across some excellent articles I should recommend here. A couple are fairly short and yet give a good overview of a conservative response to OT. They are worth reading at some point.