HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS THE OPENNESS OF GOD chapter 2 John Sanders Greek thought has greatly affected the development of the traditional doctrine of God. This theological predisposition inhibits our interpretation of many different Bible passages that tells us God is interactive, caring and reactive. How did this theological predisposition develop? Let's look first at the cultural framework which the Early Church was experiencing when it developed its view of God. Greek philosophy dominated the intellectual atmosphere where the Early Church Fathers lived. The Early Christians wanted to show that God was not just an ethnic creation of the Jews, but that He was the Universal God, the Creator of the world – the God that Greek philosophers proclaimed. Although the early fathers did not sell out to Greek philosophy, they did use certain points to defend and explain Christian truths concerning God. Therefore a biblical-classical synthesis (the combination of classical Greek philosophical ideas with Biblical truth) developed. It became so commonplace that most theologians simply began to assume all the ideas were scriptural. There came to be a sort of preunderstanding. This became a problem when certain Greek ideas ruled out certain biblical interpretations that did not fit their views of God derived from Greek metaphysics. Greek thought has "boxed up" the God described in the Bible and had a tremendous impact on present day views of the nature of God, the Trinity, election, sin, grace, the covenant, the sovereignty of God, prayer, salvation, and the incarnation.
their cleansing of the old mythological ideas had to eliminate all anthropomorphic1 concepts of deity. They tried to explain all verses as simply figurative, describing God as having “human” characteristics. The goal was to present God as perfect according to the Greek idea of perfection2. In time these ideas influenced Christian, Jewish and Muslim views of God. Several Philosophers before Socrates produced ideas discussed later by Plato. The first was Thales. He was looking for the "ultimate Principle" to which all concepts of a god should be subordinate. He claimed that all reality was water. Anaximanes agreed with the concept of the ultimate principle, though he defined it as the "unlimited" which is beyond all that humans can know. It is indescribable. It can have no description or definition. Anaximenes took exception to one aspect of the Ultimate principle by saying it had being and therefore capable of some characteristics and some definition. Heraclitus introduced the concept of "logos" to denote one thing that remains constant when everything else changes. It gives order and understanding to the changing world. Xenophanes ridiculed the anthropomorphic deities and claimed that "the one" or God was "motionless." Paramenides held that "being," the One, is eternally full and complete and so is unchangeable. He introduced the definition of eternity as timelessness, existence without time. "The One…was not in the past, nor shall it be, since it is now, all at once." Plato
Greek Philosophical Conceptions of God The roots of Greek philosophy lie in Greek religion. Both were interested in the ultimate source and explanation of why things happen. Religion spoke in terms of fate or destiny and philosophy dealt with the notion of necessity. Behind necessity, there is a law (certainty). Behind the gods of the Greek, there was a personal dimension in the nature of reality, a will that was fickle, arbitrary (capricious and unpredictable). Yet Greek philosophy saw reality as impersonal, above the personal gods of religion. Therefore, they aimed to "purify" their religious concepts of imperfect, personal gods with philosophical concepts of perfection. They viewed ultimate reality as abstract and impersonal. FALLACY #1: God cannot be "personal" like man. If He were he would be imperfect, fickle and arbitrary like the gods in Greek mythology. The Greek philosophers thought that
1
Anthropomorphic: The idea that God in some ways in the same form that people have, having a face, arms, hands, personality with intellect, will, and emotions. 2
PER'FECT, Finished; complete; consummate. Not changed or affected by anything else.
Most of these ideas made their way into Plato's thinking. It appears that Plato had two separate concepts of God and good. He elevated the idea of good, as an impersonal principle over the concept of the personal god. God would be defined by Plato's concept of perfection. If He is perfect, Plato insisted God could not change. God must be immutable, for if He changed, He would no longer be perfect. The ideas and values presented by Plato's Greek culture were those of immutability, timelessness and impassability3. Fallacy #2: The Greek idea of Perfection is something that cannot change in any way (We must consider later if this is the biblical idea of perfection.) Plato declared that the perfect God he cannot change (Immutable); cannot experience time, (Timelessness); cannot experience emotions (Impassable.) Plato would not have believed God came as Jesus for that would mean God is changeable and not perfect. Also God could not experience joy or sorrow or pleasure as those emotions would disturb the perfection of his soul. Moreover God would not truly love (Eros), for one loves only what one lacks and God lacks nothing. His concept of God's interaction with man is unclear. However, he did describe God's care for man as primarily through creating the best possible world. Yet being changeless, God would not be active in human history. Therefore, Plato declared that the Greek religious views of the gods fail to measure up to what a perfect being would be, and must be only the product of human imagination. This concept of God gave us the idea that since God is the best thing we could possibly imagine, He could never change in regard to virtue, beauty or truth. Therefore as God is all knowing and all powerful, He has these abilities in a timeless sense. God could not be thought of in the past or the future. This developed into the concept that God's knowledge and will could never change. Perfection does not change. FALLACY #3: God's knowledge can never change for that would mean that He was not always perfect. He is immutable. Therefore, God must have all knowledge timelessly. He can never learn anything. Greek philosophy considered matter to be coeternal with God and not created ex nihilo (out of nothing). So God created the best world he could, although he
3
IMPASSIV'ITY, n. The quality of being incapable of having emotions, is without feeling, pain or suffering.
wished all things should be good and nothing bad, so far as this was attainable. Aristotle Aristotle does not mention the concept of god much except to define it as a metaphysical4 principle needed to explain motion. Aristotle sought to discover the highest form of being that causes all else to move. He viewed Plato's ideas as inadequate to explain motion. He insisted that there must be an unmoved mover who could be eternal and not changing in any way, but who set change into motion. If it moved, it would no longer be perfect. God moves the universe as a final causation . . . or as Aristotle explained it, the universe is drawn by God's beauty and perfection. God does not move toward the universe, the universe moves toward God. God cannot have any relationship with the world, as that would make him dependent on the world. God is immaterial, since matter is corruptible and changeable. God must be completely immutable. It also follows that God cannot be affected by any other being (impassible – no relational interactiveness and emotional responses) since he has no room for change. Aristotle departed from the ultimate metaphysical principle…."the unmoved mover" concept of Plato in that he said God has consciousness and is divine. Aristotle's ultimate God is a mind (not a soul) that thinks about what is perfect and unchangeable – itself. In Aristotle's thinking, the object and the subject of thought are one and the same. FALLACY #4: God cannot be affected by the world or by anyone. He does not react, He only acts and the world reacts to Him. He is the "unmoved mover.” He is impassible.
4
METAPHYS'ICS, It is said that this name was given by Aristotle or his followers, who studied natural bodies, physics, as the first in the order of studies, and the science of mind or intelligence to be the second.] It is the study of the principles and causes of all things that exists – hence, the science of mind or intelligence. This science comprehends ontology (the study of nature, essence, and qualities or attributes of being), cosmology (the study of the nature and laws of matter and of motion), anthroposophy (the study of the power of man, and the motions by which life is produced), psychology (the study of the intellectual soul), pneumatology (the study of spirits or angels). Metaphysical theology, called by Leibnitz and others theodicy, is the study of the existence of God, his essence and attributes. The natural division of things that exist is into body and mind, things material and immaterial. The study of material existence is called physics, and the study of immaterial existence is called metaphysics.
This concludes that this "self-thinking" thought is so radically independent (aseity) and is such pure actuality that it cannot receive the knowledge of other beings. To receive knowledge from others would denote deficiency or dependency. Aristotle said God does not need to enter into relations with others and is not aware of anything outside Himself. God is literally apathetic toward the world and has no feelings toward it. God does not interact with the world or enter into covenants. He is neither providential nor righteous in regard to the world. God is not an imperative ruler. Aristotle said God is a metaphysical necessity to explain motion in his philosophical system. God is a "substance which is eternal and unmovable . . . without parts and indivisible . . . impassive and unalterable." He said that God compels our wonder, but Aristotle did not worship Him. Although Aristotle's concepts are not religiously satisfying, several of his concepts have found their way into Christian traditions. The Stoics The stoics said the universe is a "great chain of being." God is the eternal and uncreated One who begets out of himself the whole of being by distributing the rational sperms (logoi sperma kikoi) and then resumes them all back into himself in never-ending cycles. The idea of procession and return to God is articulated by the stoics, neo-Platonists and utilized by many Christians. The stoics used a variety of names for God . . . Zeus, nature, providence, logos, fate, fire, and world soul. They speak of God in personal terms. The stoics introduced the concept of providence in that the logos so orders the world that nothing occurs that was not providentially ordained by God. All events in world history are placed in a single causal system amounting to absolute predestination. But they qualified this cosmological determinism by admitting that humans have control of their "inner responses.� FALLACY #5: God must have absolute control of everything that happens in order to be God and sovereign. Even evil is an instrument that God used to shape a more perfect reality and future. The problem of evil is explained as a matter of perspective. Since the stoics believe that everything is ordained by God, then evil, either liver cancer or the death of your child is actually for a good purpose and is part of God's overall plan. If something bad happens to you, you should not necessarily consider it "good" for you individually, but good for the universe as a whole. Therefore God is a playwright who assigns roles and the pious person will accept their destiny. Whatever happens to you is to build character. It is useless to pray
for God to change your situation since your circumstances are providentially ordained by God for the good of the whole. Cicero rejected this view. He believed the future to be open to changes, and those changes depend on what God and humans decide to do. There would be no real freedom if things were already caused before people had the opportunity to choose. He thought that if God were to have foreknowledge of every future event as already certain to occur, it would remove the human will. Although his views did not have much influence, Cicero believed that God did not know as a certainty what future choices that people may make. (NOTE: This would leave open the consideration that God would have foreknowledge of future certainties and future possibilities as possibilities.) From this limited survey of Hellenistic Rational theology, we see four tendencies emerge: 1. The Greek philosophers were looking for that which was stable in contrast to the earthly world of change. Perhaps this idea was influenced by the myth in which chronos (time) devours her children. Thus Greeks denoted that time destroys what it creates. It was almost a shared cultural value to believe that change and time represented corruption and a weakness, while immutability and timelessness represented strength, immortality and perfection. 2. This led to the distinction of being and becoming or reality and appearances. Appearance involves time and change while reality is timeless and immutable. 3. The world was understood as a system of universal relations that imply an eternal, immutable order. 4. Above the personal gods exists the impersonal principle of sufficient reason. This is the ultimate explanation of the why the world is the way it is. Therefore, Deity in this meaning is the universal principle of order to explain the natural order. As a result Godvis characterized by rationality, timelessness, and immutability. PHILO, A JEWISH THINKER: The bridge from the Greeks to the Christians is Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish thinker who wanted to reconcile Biblical teaching with Greek philosophy. Both the methods and content of his synthesis were closely followed later by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim thinkers. Although Philo creatively rejected much of Hellenistic thinking in his defense of Biblical revelation, nevertheless, in the end, philosophical presuppositions were placed above the Biblical descriptions of God. These ideas served as a pre-understanding that guided his reading of Scripture.
Philo described God's essence as unknowable. He held to the concept of an "anonymous" God who if he were named or defined, would be limited. FALLACY #6: God is not knowable. Knowing God would limit Him. Philo saw God as transcendent to human understanding and terminology even though God gave us intermediate beings to help us know his activities and existence. Philo developed a cosmology of three levels. At the top is the true God who is unknowable; He is super essence. The "logos" is the next level and exemplifies God's justice and love and refer to God's actions of creating and ruling the world. These Biblical definitions are not who God really is, but just descriptions of His actions. The third level is matter – the sensible, knowable realm. Thus the God of the Bible is subordinate to the Greek idea of the "true" unknowable, perfect God. Philo defined God as timeless. He reasoned that in eternity, there is no future or past, only the present. God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, simple, incorporeal, alone, self-sufficient, immutable, and impassible. Regarding God's self-sufficiency, Philo disagreed with Aristotle. He said God had "quasirelationships" in that He related to man without reciprocity, for that would denote dependency. Philo wrote much on God's immutability and impassibility. He believed that God is not acted upon or affected by the actions of others, He only acts. "God is not susceptible to any action at all." Philo's desire was to affirm God's faithfulness and to erase the ideas of capriciousness and fickleness of a personal God. Scriptures that declare that God repents or changes his mind or that is angry – such scriptures are downplayed by Philo. He said they are not to be taken literally, but that these are "anthropomorphisms" for the benefit of "duller" folk who cannot understand the true nature of God. Though Philo struggled over a static concept of immutability, the Greek metaphysical understanding of divinity ruled his interpretations of Biblical texts which describe God as genuinely responsive. Philo departed from Greek thinking in the activities of God, but not so much in the Nature of God. He believed the biblical doctrine of creation. Further He did not agree with the Greek idea that matter is eternal with God. Philo defined God's purposes as part of His nature to create that which would be good and beneficial. This caused some tension in Philo's thinking of God's freedom, since he defined God's will as subject to his nature. FALLACY #7: God is good because he has to be by nature. He does not choose to be good.
Philo also separated from Hellenistic thinking in that he rejected the determinism of the stoics. He insisted that humans have "libertarian" freedom (the ability to do otherwise). God providentially cares for us, but does not determine all that happens. Humans have the ability to produce events not determined by God. Natural disasters are also not caused by Divine Visitations, but by changes in elements. God intervenes miraculously. This depends on his foreknowledge of our future. Philo passed on these and other ideas in the development of a biblical-classical synthesis in regard to the nature of God. These would become so prevalent in Jewish, Christian and Islamic thought. THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS' Appropriation of the Philosophical God The church Fathers had several noble reasons for making use of Greek thought. One is that Greek Philosophy had some helpful critiques of the polytheistic gods. They also desired to show that the God of the Bible was a universal God and was compatible with the best thinking of the day. (Cultural relevance) Thirdly, they proclaimed that the Christian God was the fulfillment of the God sought by the philosophers. They did not believe Greek philosophy had the total truth about God. However they seldom allow the features they retained of the Biblical God to call into question the (Greek) philosophical understanding of the divine nature. There was a tense relationship between the two concepts: the idea of God as a world principle and the free Lord of history. The fathers exhibited a subtle shift of emphasis from the God of revelation history to the God beyond history. FALLACY #8: A Greek philosophical definition of the divine nature is given preference in interpreting biblical descriptions of God. Christian thinkers quickly adopted Greek philosophical vocabulary in discussing the nature of God and the nature of the incarnation. They paved the way for the synthesis of the biblical with the (classical) philosophical concepts of God. The following is a selection of various writers to show the impact of Greek philosophical reflection on the nature of God in the Christian tradition. Ignatius (d. 107) described God as timeless, invisible and impassible. He does allow for the sufferings of Jesus. However he does not seem to allow that God, as God can suffer. Justin Martyr refers to the Christian God as not a completely new revelation, but a fuller one compared to Hellenistic thought. He is comfortable in saying that God is unchangeable, eternal, incomprehensible, impassible, not corporeal and anonymous. Not even the names, God, Father, Creator or Lord actually apply to
God due to His immutability. But Justin is careful to maintain that God is patient, compassionate and loving. He declared that though there are no passions in God, He does care for us. Justin also argued for a libertarian definition of human freedom which God bestowed on man to distinguish him from the rest of creation. Thus they can be held morally responsible for their actions. He believed God foreknows all the choices man will make, and His election is based accordingly on that foreknowledge rather than on determinism. In this respect, God is somewhat dependent on human choices and therefore "responsive" for Justin. Athenagoras said that God is uncreated, eternal, invisible, incomprehensible, totally unlimited, and is apprehended by the understanding only. He said God is indivisible. Irenaeus gave the same picture. He affirmed the biblical doctrine of divine judgment by explaining it as indirect in the sense that the evil deed is its own punishment. This is his way to remove any hint of change in the divine blessedness. He also affirmed libertarian human freedom and rejected any predetermination on God's part concerning human decisions. Tertullian attempted to do away with all combination of philosophy and Christianity. He affirmed that God can change his mind as seen in His repentance of intention to destroy Nineveh. He sought to break free of the limitations of immutability and impassability and allow for a reading of the Biblical text that affirmed divine responsiveness to changes in the world. For Tertullian, God has many of the same feelings as man, but in a way that is "fitting" for God and does not affect his Divine nature. He is willing to speak of the "crucified" God who suffered on our behalf. He said that God is not in control of all that happens, and that although He foresaw evil, He chose not to rescind the liberty He had granted. Rather, he has chosen to respond with blessings or punishments to human actions. Although it appears that Tertullian is unaffected by Greek thought, elsewhere he wrote that only Jesus suffered in His humanity and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as God were incapable of suffering. God as eternal must be incapable of change, since it would imply loss. However Tertullian, more than those before him emphasized the personhood of God, in dynamic, responsive relationships with human beings. Origen followed Clement of Alexandria in believing that God is impassible, immutable, uncreated, simple, all-powerful, and all-knowing. He did not believe that God's foreknowledge of human decisions was their cause. Friends asked him why pray if God knows everything or predestined everything. In His response, he rejected predestination, though upholding foreknowledge. Origen also allows for God to rejoice over human conversion and to sorrow for human sin. Origen desired
to defend a genuine relationship between God and humanity, but he felt it difficult given the constraints of Hellenic thought. He described the scriptures referring to the passions of God as anthropomorphisms used because of human weakness and cannot be taken literally. He explained away the Biblical references to the repentance of God. Origen struggles with the idea of Jesus' suffering and ends up repeating those before him that only Jesus human side suffered. Gregory, one of Origen's students was more successful with breaking with the philosophical understanding of divine immutability and impassibility. He claimed that though God cannot be forced to suffer, He can suffer voluntarily and thus it does not affect His impassibility. The key point is that God's will is not limited by His nature. Lactantius, a Latin writer argued that God is able to experience emotions, anger, joy, benevolence or pity. If you remove these, you remove any genuine relationship with God. To those who described God as perfectly impassible and at rest, Lactantius replied that to be perfectly at rest is to be dead. He seemed to grasp the conflict of God's personhood with the Hellenistic concepts of God's transcendent immutability and impassibility. THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY The Arians denied that the Son was divine because the incarnation involved change and suffering. Since Jesus entered human history, he is not immutable and impassible and cannot be God. They argued that a "crucified God,� due to His connection with suffering and time, could not be fully divine. FALLACY #9: Divinity is defined by Greek metaphysical definitions rather than Biblical realities. Athanasius desired to discuss the historical salvation accomplished through the incarnation of Jesus. He affirmed the full divinity of Jesus, although agreeing that by nature he was impassible, immutable and ungraspable, so he could not have changed or suffered as God. Only his body suffered and changed. He defended the relationality of the Father and the Son. The Nicea and Constantinople Councils affirmed the Son's Divine nature. They contradicted one of the main Hellenistic principles in saying that "to be God is to be related" (or in relationship). They continued to wrestle with the biblical/classical synthesis. The Cappadocian fathers (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus) helped to shape the orthodox belief on the incarnation. Using the newly developed doctrine declaring the two natures of Christ (human and divine), they stated that the suffering of Christ implied that He was not of the same substance as the Father. Only the human side
experienced change. This became the orthodox answer to the Arian challenge. The neo-Arian, Eunomius claimed that God was a simple essence and could not be composed of any parts. Therefore the Son and the Spirit could not be fully God. He also believed that God could not beget nor communicate (share) from the divine essence, since God is a unitary, being devoid of internal relations. The Cappadocians responded that the term Father did not refer to the Divine essence (ousia) but to the relation of the Father and the Son. They held to the idea that the ultimate metaphysical category was “personhood,� not substance. In contrast to Eunomius, they claimed that God was supremely relational. God is not alone, but eternally related within the Trinity. God is then not an "in-itself" apart from others, but the epitome of community and love for others. The Cappadocians also had a different understanding of God's external relation to history and the created order. God can be entirely different from the creature, without being distant. The Creator is to be actively related to the Creature. In salvation history the activity of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit is the essence of God. Gregory claimed that the Arian's timeless God is inactive, whereas his God keeps things moving. This understanding displayed God as involved with time and as a relational being. He experiences relationships both internally (within the Trinity) and externally (with man). This concept was a tremendous break with Hellenic thought.
7. For the most part they believed that God created the world, ex nihilo, thus denying the eternality of the world. Many of these same desires are in conflict with Greek metaphysics and others are in agreement. 1. If God is utterly transcendent (unaffected) and immutable (cannot change), then every change in relationship between God and humanity must be a human change. 2. God does not have the sort of relationship with His creation that makes Him affected by what he loves. 3. This begins to undermine God's freedom and the reality of His action in history. 4. The doctrine of simplicity forms a gap between the God of biblical history, the God for us, and the God of theological reflection, the God in himself. Early prayers, liturgies and creeds followed the Biblical language of the God who is. But after Nicea, language changed and was replaced with abstract terminology about the God in himself. The historical relationship of the Father with Jesus faded in importance to the focus on the eternal (timeless) relationship of the Father and the Son. They began to argue for what is "fitting for God" to be. Significant aspects of biblical revelation such as suffering and temporality were revised to fit this understanding. Despite their good intentions for using immutability and impassability, in the absolute sense the faithfulness and love of the biblical God were distorted. So in the end, the true understanding of the divine nature was derived from metaphysics and then biblical revelation was made to conform to it.
SUMMARY OF THE EARLY FATHERS: AUGUSTINE 1. Their understanding of God is a mix of Greek metaphysics and biblical faith. They wrestled with how to explain the Christian God as the Universal God of Philosophical reflection. 2. They sought to uphold God's love and grace for us and affirm His faithfulness and moral constancy. 3. They sought to safeguard Him from compulsion or force. 4. They wished to maintain that God entered freely into relationship with man and in grace saves us. 5. The doctrines of immutability (absolute changelessness) and impassability (no emotion or sense of suffering) were intended to safeguard divine freedom and to prevent confusing the Christian God with the fickle pagan gods. 6. They understood the incarnation to be a decisive action of God in human history that drastically altered the course of the world.
Augustine is the most important of the church fathers for Western theology. His thinking profoundly influenced both the protestant and catholic understanding of God. For the history of the biblical classical synthesis, Augustine is the most significant. Deeply influenced by neo-Platonism, Augustine used to it interpret the Bible. 1. The neo-Platonic notions of God as creative force rather than He who fashions the world. 2. The immutability (changelessness) of divine reality. 3. Truth is to be sought by turning inward into our souls. 4. Evil is a lack of goodness. (connected to mutability and finitude) (Anything not changeless and eternal, or timeless is evil? bj) Augustine maintained the list of God's attributes as selfsufficient, impassible, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, timeless, ineffable, and simple. Augustine
wrote that "Whatever is changeable is not the most High God. That is truly real which remains immutable." This implies that neither God's will nor knowledge ever changes. Augustine made God's immunity to time, to change and to responsiveness to his creatures as the fundamental essential for western theology. Does not creation itself imply a change in God? A popular question in the early church was "what was God doing before He created the world?" Augustine declared that God did nothing before He created the world, because time was not created until the world came into being. "Before" had no meaning until the creation of time. Augustine connected God's timelessness with the immutability of God's will and knowledge. God willed once and for all everything that He wills. (There is no sequence or before and after.) God knows everything, including all future events, in one eternal moment of "spiritual vision." Augustine believed that divine foreknowledge and human freedom are compatible. He stated that if God does not know the future, then he is not God. But His knowledge is not the cause of future events. That would make Him dependent on the world in some sense. However elsewhere as Augustine discussed the nature of election, he takes back this concession of human freedom. Because of his view of man and his doctrine of God, Augustine rejected human freedom in salvation. He believed that the freedom necessary to respond to God positively was lost in the fall of Adam, so God must choose who will become believers. If God's predestination for salvation depended on His foreknowledge of those who would come to Christ, that would make His will dependent on humanity and violate divine immutability and impassibility. God is not dependent on anything or anyone, so the gift of salvation must be totally independent of human agents. Human wills cannot interfere with God, whose will is always undefeated. Augustine interpreted texts about God desiring all people to be saved such as I Timothy 2:4 as either meaning that only those people who God wills, will be saved, or that God wants all classes and types of people (such as kings and slaves) to be saved. The other implications that Augustine made of this concept of Divine sovereignty had to do with those who lose their faith after having professed it for a time. He concluded that only those who God truly predestined for salvation will persevere to the end. As far as the suffering and death of infants, Augustine also saw it as a result of God's will. He stated, "Though God's will is immutable, He always acts justly in the circumstances of life, so we should never question God's judgment." When Augustine applied the doctrines of divine immutability and impassability to the incarnation, he held that Jesus only suffered and underwent change in the inferior human nature. Regarding the numerous texts concerning the repentance of God, or His changing His mind, Augustine said they do not properly refer to God
and are written for babes. He said few Biblical texts truly define God's nature. Augustine filters the Biblical message with a (dignum deo), presupposition of what is thought to be fitting for God. He maintained that divine repentance is literally impossible, since God has complete foreknowledge of all that will happen and what He has ordained to do from eternity. He explained God's "changing His mind" by the removal of Saul as King as only a change in God's work, rather than His will. In other words, the effects changed, but God remained immutable. An immutable God may act upon, but not interact with others. He treats divine "passions" similarly. When God shows pity or anger, his heart is not changed. God experiences no emotion of pity or anger despite the fact that His work affects salvation and punishment. Augustine said that the Bible must not be taken literally when it speaks of divine wrath, anger, love, and mercy. Since God has already known who will be saved and punished, it makes no sense to ascribe temporal upset to God. All change is to be explained as a change in us, not in God. He followed the same line of thought in speaking of God's love and mercy at salvation. Though God began to be our Father when we were regenerated by His grace, He does not change. His love is the activity by which He causes us to exist or to be regenerated and His mercy is eternally foreknown and He predestined grace only to the elect. The Biblical references refer only to God's works, not to any emotions or any change in God's relationship to us and certainly no change in His substance. Can God become Lord over His creation after He created it? Augustine said that being Lord does not belong to the nature of God; otherwise the creation would have to be eternal. God may be said to "become" Lord, but it is only an "accidental" relation and does not affect the being of God. God's relation to us in salvation does not constitute what God is. God remains unaffected by every "relation" between Himself and the creature. Augustine defined God as having internal and external relations. God's being (or substance) is not conveyed in His relationships. God's external relationships with the temporal creation are accidental and do not affect the being of God. So, God has no "real relationship" with any other, including creation. This idea did not bother Augustine, because it agreed with his notions of absolute immutability and simplicity (no divisible parts) of God. He was also called the theologian of individual inwardness. For him, the true self (image of God) is to be found in the individual's inherent faculties, (memory, understanding and will), not in our relations with others. He thought that the nature of the Trinity can be known by turning inward and examining our own faculties. The soul images God. It was best to get away from the transitory history and human relations. Augustine's own intense
sensitivity to suffering in friendships and love gave him a dislike for interpersonal models of the Godhead. He made the substance of God's being the ultimate reality of God, not His relationships between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and certainly not between the triune God and His creatures. The author, Pelikan, notes that Augustine defined God, "in relation to absoluteness and impassibility rather than on the basis of the active involvement of God in creation and redemption." Though not his intention, Augustine did make God a remote deity, perilously close to being impersonal. Augustine's ideas have had a profound effect on Western thought in creation, psychology, anthropology, soteriology (nature of salvation), politics, and history. His understandings of grace, faith and God's "relationship" to creation are seen as more mechanical than personal and covenantal. His emphasis in God's immutability and simplicity take precedence over God's suffering, love and faithfulness. In would appear that he allowed neo-platonic metaphysics to constrain biblical revelation of God. He quoted the Bible extensively, but interpreted it within the neo-platonic framework. His consistent rejection of any change or emotion in God led to problems in understanding the nature of God's love and His covenant relationship with man. "The immunity of God to all 'real relationship' with creation became axiomatic (universally accepted) in scholastic theology." THE MIDDLE AGES A neo-platonic theologian of the late fifth century, who claimed to be Dionysius the Areopagite, a convert of Paul, produced some writings which carried immense authority throughout the Middle Ages. PseudoDionysius, as he is now called, claimed that we cannot know what God is. He says that God is "nonbeing" due to His surplus of being. He described God as beyond our thoughts and language. He said that the biblical language about God only occasionally hits the truth about God. John Scotus Erigena, whose main authority was Psuedo-Dionysius, said that the biblical descriptions of God are for the simple-minded. God is unknowable, for to know Him is to define Him and to define is to limit. God does not even know Himself. He says that God does not move, is not moved, does not love nor is loved. Though the Bible shouts on all sides that this view is false, he agues that we must take the Bible metaphorically. What is fitting for God (dignum Deo) gives us the literal truth. Anselm of Canterbury developed the perfect-being theology that described God as the most perfect being we can conceive. This led him to define God as timeless, immutable, impassable, ineffable, and so forth. He described God's compassion in light of his impassability. God is not compassionate, but it is we who experience compassion as the result of God's works.
Thomas Aquinas sought to harmonize the biblicalclassical (neo-platonic/Christian) theism with Aristotle. He believed that God is pure actuality, containing no potentiality. God's essence is to exist. He took up Augustine's view that divine election of individuals for salvation does not depend on His foreknowledge. God simply chooses those He will save. In fact, His knowledge of the world is not caused by the world. God knows the world by knowing Himself. He has no deliberation or reasoning from premises to conclusion as that would entail a transition from ignorance to knowledge. If God were to depend upon the creature to know history, He would be passive and dependent. Aquinas described God as like a stone column to which we stand in relation. Our relation to God is real, whereas His relationship to us is only "logical.� Aquinas epitomizes the tensions of the Biblical God of historical action with the God of metaphysical principle needed to explain the cosmos. Fallacy #10: God is unknowable, for to know Him is to define Him and to define Him is to limit Him. THE REFORMATION ERA In many respects the Reformers reoriented theology toward salvation through the cross. They achieved more in soteriology and ecclesiology than in the doctrine of God. They did not turn their backs entirely on the Christian tradition of going directly to the Bible for theology. However, they were deeply influenced by Augustine's thought as well as Scotist and Ockhamist tendencies of absolute divine sovereignty. Martin Luther Martin Luther instigated a tremendous revolution in theology beginning with the "God for us" in redemptive history rather than God known purely by rational thought (dignum Deo). Luther presented the God revealed in Jesus, the God who suffered and was crucified. His theology of the cross allowed him to return to the fatherhood of God by which he contrasts the God of the Bible and the God of Greek metaphysics. He is the God in Himself, apart from the world, but also the God of Israel who reveals Himself to us, binds Himself to His word and manifests Himself in Jesus. All is done for us, emphasizing God's loving relationship with the world. Luther explained the "communication of attributes" of Christ as the divine nature in Christ suffered and even died. It is clear, however that Luther did not completely break with tradition in his discussion of predestination. In The Bondage of the Will Luther followed Augustine in writing that God's will is the sole reason for individual salvation. He held to the idea that humans were too depraved to choose the good. They were free to choose only what they desired, and their desire was to
sin. God had to choose for man. He also wrote that "God foreknows nothing contingently, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will." God's will is the ultimate cause for everything, even His foreknowledge. God does not "respond" to human sin. Individual damnation and salvation are solely up to God, not humanity. However, in his later years, Luther retreated from this position and came more and more to the understanding of God's love for others as desiring a mutual relationship. John Calvin John Calvin also sought to return to a biblical theology. He used the Bible extensively in his writings. He used biblical terms in referring to the attributes of God. He described God as eternal, wise, kind, merciful, good, just, powerful and truthful. However he did not escape neo-platonic influences when he described God as self-existent, simple, impassible, and immutable. He used Augustine as his theological mentor. He understood God to have a free and sovereign will, not bound to what His divine nature determines. This was an attempt to free the divine will to make decisions not logically explained by the goodness of His nature. God does not will something because it is good; rather, it is good because God wills it. Fallacy # 11: God does not will something because it is good; rather, it is good because God wills it. According to Calvin, God does not look ahead and see what is going to happen, for that would make God dependent on the creatures' decisions. God does not decide what He will do in response to anything that the creatures will do. This effectively denies any sort of mutual relationship between God and His creatures. It makes life like a novel in which the characters do exactly what the author decides. Calvin followed his culture and interpreted divine kingship as domination and control. "Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him." On predestination, Calvin asserted that God's election is based solely on His will. In fact, God even decreed the fall into sin. Yet he denied that God is responsible for sin by defining human freedom in compatibilistic terms and making use of the notion that God works through secondary causes. As long as God only establishes the causes, not directly determining them, he is absolved of blame. Also, whatever God wills is right, for his will is the criteria for justice. Whatever happens in this life, even a mother lacking milk for her child, God has good reason for bringing it about. The personal relationship between God and man became a causal relationship. God is the cause, faith the effect. Calvin believed that God is incapable of changing his mind. Repentance of any kind would contradict His
immutable and impassible will and His foreknowledge. Though Genesis 6:6, says that God repented and is grieved, Calvin says that cannot mean what it says for such activities are impossible for God. God is not sorry or sad, but remains forever in His celestial happy repose. Calvin presupposes that sovereignty means domination. He denied the obvious meaning of the text. He says that texts referring to divine repentance do not reveal the truth of God and must be taken figuratively. There is an interesting tension in his thought. He speaks a very different language when he discussed the nature and value of prayer as if God does in fact respond in a reciprocal relationship with his creatures. Jacob Aminius Jacob Aminius described God's attributes as involving love, mercy, wisdom, justice and patience. But he also included that He is immutable (not changeable)*, impassible (not experiencing emotions)*, pure act (does not re-act)*, simple (not composed of any parts)* and eternal (timeless)*. However Arminius decisively modified the Reformed thought he had been taught when it came to the will and knowledge of God. He came to believe that God's foreknowledge was determined by what men freely decide to do, and not by God's own immutable will. Divine predestination is based on God's prevision of those who will freely come to Christ through grace. So God genuinely responds to his creatures. Divine sovereignty grants the creatures genuine freedom. Arminius' viewed God as free to enter into covenantal reciprocal relations with creatures. He apparently never saw the conflict with these ideas and those of such classical attributes as impassibility. *(Note: These are the Greek philosophical meaning of these terms. God can be constant (unchanging) in His faithfulness and still be interactive. God can experience emotion without being capricious or fickle. He governs His emotions in love and wisdom. The strict definitions of immutability and impassibility limited the biblical descriptions of God’s experiences. God can also be eternal without meaning He must exist without experiencing the sequence or duration of time. It appears that Arminius among other similar theologians had a somewhat different understanding of these terms. BJ) Contemporary Views of God Modern theology has witnessed a remarkable reexamination of the Nature and attributes of God. We will examine three sections: the progressives, the moderates, and the conservatives. Progressives Progressive theology ranges from anti-realism, where God is just our lifestyle, to process theology, where God is ontologically dependent on the world.
Progressives still wrestle with trying to explain God in the light of modern knowledge and the Biblical-Greek philosophical synthesis. They have an emphasis on divine immanence (totally defined by only by His relationship with the world) and a movement beyond biblical personalism. The theology of Paul Tillich is exemplary in this regard. Tillich drew upon many elements of classical (Greek) theism, modifying them for the modern age. He emphasized the ineffable and unnamed God, as he called "Being-Itself". The God that explains being does not exist along side other beings as that would make Him finite. God is infinite, containing no potentiality or mutability. God as Being-Itself does not even exist, since to exist is to experience estrangement and to possess non-being. God is fully immanent in the Cosmos. Tillich arrives at the same conclusion as many classical theists who emphasized divine transcendence (beyond experience and the material universe). God has no external relationships. Tillich's Systematic Theology states that, "It is an insult to the divine holiness to treat God as a partner or as one who collaborates or as a superior power whom one influences by rites and prayers." Though Tillich denigrates (makes it seem negative) biblical personalism, he does speak of God in personal terms. He utilizes his notion that biblical ideas of God such as personal, living and acting are "symbolic.� They are not the literal truth about God, but are pragmatic means for making life meaningful. In classic (Greek philosophical) tradition, the true God is the God of abstract reflection, beyond predication, not the biblical (symbolic) God. It would seem that, for Tillich, the living, forgiving, judging God is a description of our participation in Being-Itself. God is not a separate being, but immanent within our living and acting. He says, "We can only pray to the God who prays to himself through us." Tillich is thus a pantheist. His pantheism led him to explain creation as co-eternal with God, since it denotes our dependence on God rather than an event. He does not believe that God became flesh. Jesus, as the Christ, exemplified to a high degree a new way of life available to all human beings. Similar ideas are found in process theology. Process theology sees everything as related. God and the creation are interdependent. They criticize classical theology for its overemphasis on absolute transcendence5, immutability, and impassibility. Process theology states that God is an ever-changing being evolving toward the perfection until He ultimately becomes all that He potentially is. God becomes created as we act. In this view, God cannot unilaterally act upon
5
Absolute transcendence: The idea that God has no interactive relationship with people and is in no way affected by people.
the world. God can only lure the world toward his purposes, He cannot directly coerce. Process thought substitutes the metaphysics of change for the metaphysics of static substance, ending up with a God, that if personal at all, cannot act in history. What sort of relationship can we have with a God that cannot act or communicate clearly? Thus the doctrines of creation, incarnation, and salvation are radically revised. We still see the biblical-classical synthesis, but with an emphasis on divine immanence6 rather than divine transcendence and immutability. Conservative Protestant Views Modern conservative theologians have sought to maintain the biblical-classical synthesis. Thus they have emphasized immutability, timelessness, omnipotence, simplicity, exhaustive foreknowledge and the like. Though Stephen Charnock in his work, Discourses on the Existence and Attributes of God, claims to have arrived at all the classical attributes by sheer exegesis, it is clear he is controlled by presuppositions. All biblical texts that suggest that God changed His mind, or has suffered are explained as anthropomorphisms. He explains the scriptures as having two levels, one which defines God as He really is (transcendent, alone, independent, and immutable) and the other as He appears to be (immanent, suffering, changeable (reactive)). This two-layered approach to Scripture is also evidenced in the writings of William G.T. Shedd, A.H. Strong, Louis Berkhof, Herman Bavinck, Lewis Sperry Chafer, A.W. Tozer, Charles Ryrie and J.I. Packer. Many biblical commentaries also explain texts on divine repentance as not meaning what they say, since we know (dignum deo) what God is really like. God always knew what he would do, so He could not have repented. When conservatives apply these doctrines to prayer, the typical conclusion is that it is impossible to change God's mind. God could not change His will. All change as Tozer says, must be on our part. W. Bingham Hunter in his book on prayer claims that such texts as Exodus 32:9-14 which asserts that God changed His mind in response to human prayer are simply anthropomorphisms. Since the Bible in Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:29 explicitly says that God does not change his mind. However, these texts actually claim that in these specific situations God is not going to reverse His decision. But these texts are taken universally because they fit the philosophical framework of God, while the more numerous texts affirming divine changeability are taken more
6
Absolute Immanence: the idea that God only exists within His relationship with creation. If there were no creation, there would be no God.
anthropomorphically. Carl Henry, a leading evangelical theologian, concurs with these ideas. Following Plato, he says, "God is perfect and, if perfect, can only change for the worse." Even the charismatic theology of J. Rodman Williams shows this tension, claiming that God is personal and loving and relates to his creatures but also is timeless and immutable, does not repent and wills only what the divine nature necessitates. These thinkers exhibit the problems inherent in classical theism. The loving, interactive God of the Bible is simultaneously believed with the idea that of God being static, independent. Sometimes this results in an unusual understanding of God's love. Louis Berkhof says that God cannot find complete satisfaction in any object less than perfect. Hence, God loves his creatures for His own sake – He loves them in Himself. This is not the whole picture, for conservatives often speak of God's genuine relationship and response to us. It is common to hear clergy and laity asserting petitionary prayers to change God's mind, all the while asserting the classical attributes. There has also been some movement in the Divine attributes. The great Princeton theologian, Charles Hodge said that God has feelings, because the Bible says so. He rejects the traditional attempts to explain love as the causation or existence of happiness. Rather God as a personal being experiences genuine emotions as the Bible ascribes, joy, pity, anger, and love to God. He said we have to choose between mere philosophical speculation and the clear testimony of the Bible. Millard Erickson, a contemporary Baptist theologian also concurs with the argument that there is no God beyond the God of the Bible and that the traditional understanding of immutability must be reformed. Moderate Views of God Moderate theology stands between the classical theism of the conservatives and the radical revisions of the progressives. It represents a new movement toward the direction of an open God. Though there are some who would vary in different points, the general agreement is that God enters into genuine give-and-take relationships with His creatures and is resourceful, creative, and omni competent rather than all determining and immutable.. (This view differs from the process theologians who limit God to be ontologically dependent on creation rather than distinct from it.) God has made creatures who are significantly free and on whom he conditions some of His actions. God is truly involved in human history. Many also understand the Trinity as relating to one another in self-giving love. God is not the "alone" of Greek metaphysics, but the God who is for others. James Oliver Buswell, Jr. rejected the ideas of divine timelessness, immutability, impassibility and God as pure act. He says, "We should shake off the static ideology which has come into Christian theology
from non-Biblical sources." Nicholas Wolterstorf and Stephen Davis have given serious philosophical attention to divine temporality and possibility. These evangelicals break with those who cannot see God as doing anything conditioned by man (for example forgiveness on the condition of repentance, a withholding of judgment based on intercessory prayer, or salvation as a response to God's grace) or as a reaction to something in creation. This sort of thing is regarded as a contradiction to sovereignty. This view of sovereignty is that God can only act and never react. But God does react and enters into genuine responsive relationships. He is faithful and can and does, at times, change His mind. (This is not a capricious or fickle change of will, but a response to repentance, obedience or conditions met through intercessory prayer. God may also withhold an intended blessing or position of authority such as in the case of King Saul due to his disobedience. Bj) God may genuinely repent as the Bible repeatedly says. Evangelicals especially think of prayer in this regard. Richard Foster described prayer as genuine dialogue with God. Foster stated, "We have been taught that everything in the universe is already set, and so things cannot be changed. And if things cannot be changed, why pray? . . . It is Stoicism that demands a closed universe, not the Bible . . . In fact, the Bible stresses so forcefully the openness of our universe that ‌ it speaks of God . . . changing His mind in accord with His unchanging love‌We are working with God to change the future!" Echoing similar sentiments, Donald Bloesch wrote that through prayer "God makes Himself dependent on the requests of His children. This openness of God is the result of the fact that God's divine love does not force His will on His creatures. Instead, according to Gabriel Fackre, God makes himself vulnerable by taking the risk of being rejected. A growing number of evangelicals such as Phillip Yancey, Gilbert Bilezikian, Greg Boyd, John Boykin, Harry Boer, and others either affirm the full openness of God or at least make room for genuine divine responsiveness. Several notable Catholic and traditional theologians also see the need for understanding God on more relational terms. Terence Fretheim demonstrates the openness of God from biblical texts. Thomas Torrance speaks of the "openness of God" to his creatures. Drawing heavily on the church fathers, Thomas Oden says that God has a name, enters into history, has emotions, responds to us and takes new initiatives. Theologians such as Jurgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg see God's actions in the incarnation of Jesus as paramount for understanding the essence of God. Jesus reveals that God is involved in history and willing to be vulnerable and even suffer because of us and on our behalf. God acts in history and involves Himself in genuine relations with humans in time. Robert Jenson criticizes the biblical-classical synthesis and replaces it with a dynamic trinitarianism. The theologies of Emil
Brunner, Hendrikus Berkhof, Thomas Finger, Eberhard Jungel, Adrio Konig, Colin Gunton and C.S. Lewis manifest a movement back toward a more biblical understanding of God as personal and essentially relational. Catholic theologians, Catherine LaCugna and Elizabeth Johnson are sensitive to the classical traditions but evince a truly relational and responsive Trinitarian God. Finally contemporary philosophers of religion, Richard Swineburne, J.R. Lucas, Peter Geach, Richard Purtill and Keith Ward defend the openness of God. Concluding Reflections This has been a lengthy answer to why we do not usually interpret the Bible as in chapter one (as the interactive, personal, open God in history and relationships). The inevitable encounter of biblical thought with classical thought helped Christians to evangelize pagan thought and culture. But it also resulted in a synthesis of Greek classical philosophy and Biblical thought which permeates Christian theology and serves as the pre-understanding for the reading of the Bible. So that such biblical texts that speak of God's temporality, repentance, and being affected by His creatures are dismissed as anthropomorphisms. If God is immune to time, then biblical personalism is left behind and the divine nature is pursued according to the canons of what is fitting for God (dignum Deo). Biblical statements such as "I am who I am" (Ex. 3:14) are understood as describing the divine nature as atemporal (beyond time) and pure actuality and biblical statements such as the "one who is, was, and will be" (Rev. 1:4) are ignored or written off as figures of speech. Hellenic thought with its quest to escape the ravages of time gave the criteria to Christian theologians to make such distinctions. The Greek philosophers saw time as dividing life into parts and they sought for a God for whom there was only unity and absolute oneness, one who never waits for his desires to be fulfilled. The eternity of God, then becomes an abstraction from time, without a past or a future. By no means could there be any forward looking. Opposed to this is the biblical teaching of Yahweh as eternal in His faithfulness through time. He is the God of salvation history who leads us into the future with hope, patiently working through time to achieve His ends. In both Greek and progressive thought God is used as the ultimate principle that explains natural order. The Bible presents Yahweh not as a principle, but the name of a specific being who acts in history to fulfill His purposes. This is in contrast to the root metaphor of classical theism describing God as the nonrelating pillar around which we move. That makes it difficult to speak of a God who covenants with humanity and so that humans become significant partners in the building of the kingdom. Greek thought presents the understanding of divine love as a one-way, purely active benevolence
with no receptivity or passion. Western thought tends to define the divine freedom as unaffectedness from time and others rather than as openness to the future and others. The openness of God view sees persons in loving relationships as the root metaphor from which theology should grow. Furthermore when the classical divine attributes of impassibility, immutability, timelessness, and simplicity were applied to the God incarnate in Jesus, a host of problems arose for Christology and the Trinity. It became commonplace to deny any real suffering of the Son, and it was difficult to speak of relationality within the Godhead. The God of Greek thought is anonymous, self-sufficient, alone (unrelated), invulnerable, selfthinking thought, changeless and egocentric. In contrast, the triune God of the Bible has a name, has committed himself to love others, makes himself vulnerable, and manifests self-giving love. Nice established that God is essentially related between the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, since the creation, God enjoys genuine external relations with. His creatures. This personal God uses His divine freedom to enter into reciprocal, mutual relationships. Through tradition and good intentions, the immutability and impassibility used to protect God's freedom were taken too far and left no room to divine openness, where God in vulnerability, binds himself to others in love. Christian theology needs to reevaluate classical theism in the light of a more relational metaphysic (not all philosophy is bad!) so that the living, personal, responsive and loving God of the Bible may be spoken of more consistently in our theological reflection as well as in our devotional practice. Edited by Barbara P. Johnson 2002 notes added bj
Homework due Tuesday 12/11/12 1. List and explain each of the “fallacies� mentioned in this article. Do you believe the idea is a fallacy or not? Explain your answer and where possible give scriptural evidence to support your opinion.