I have drafted a statement that outlines Woven Theology. The whole document is in work, it’s a large task to outline my theological views, and I am finding that this theology is common, but no one has put it down as a written statement. I hope this will help us in our disccusion and bring some unity by finding some common ground. Here is the link.
http://jdanbarnes.blogspot.com/2012/06/statement-of-woven-theology.html
Hi Dan,
You wrote:
“We affirm that God’s sovereign plan exists outside out time and in the realm of eternity. God’s plan is set out, preordained and can never be thwarted or undone.”
How comprehensive do you see the plan? Is every single thing that occurs on earth a part of this plan in a meticulous sense?
And I have another question. You write:
“We believe that God’s eternal nature is higher than man’s ability to comprehend and to fathom.”
And:
“We believe that God interacts with us in a relational and temporal nature in which we interact with in a very personal way.”
So he is both temporal and eternal? How can God be simultaneously unchangeable and relational to us (which demands a give-and-take)? I’m curious to see how this works out.
Jim G.
Yes, God exists in both eternal and temporal ways in a seemingly paradoxical situation, yet it completely balanced. Let me give you the best biblical illustration. In 1 Samuel 15:11 and verse 35, we read that the Lord regretted making Saul king. It uses the word regret. In verse 29, Samuel say the Lord does not lie or have regret. In chapter 15, we see a contradiction.
What we have is God’s eternal nature that has set out the plan and laid out all of redemptive history from the fall to judgement. This included Saul being king, being rejected and David being king. This was set in motion by God. In the same way, God is relational and Saul is rejected. In the temporal and relational aspect of God’s nature, we have to believe the scripture that God regretted He made Saul king. The situation grieved God, even though God was fully in control. There are two aspects of His nature in one chapter of scripture.
Hi Dan,
I think David Tsumura, in his commentary on 1 Samuel (NICOT) on pg. 407 does a good job with the idea of “regret” or “repent” in 1 Sam 15. I think you should check it out. He does not need the eternal/temporal distinction you have made to resolve the issue. He does so textually, and fairly convincingly in my opinion.
If God’s plan of redemptive history is laid out and complete, let me ask this: did God plan the fall? Did he plan Jerry Sandusky’s actions or does he plan to reject some people from eternity?
How comprehensive is the plan?
Jim G.
Jim G,
Would you be concerned if even one atom was outside the sovereign control/plan of God?
I know I would.
I’ll say this, Anthony. I’m a whole lot more concerned if everything as we now see it is going exactly according to plan.
I do not define “sovereign” as “meticulous control.” I fully agree that God is sovereign over all, but that (in my way of thinking) does not imply that God meticulously controls all. Equating sovereignty with meticulous control opens up Pandora’s box.
Jim G.
In the mind of men, God can be reduced to OUR idea of ‘sovereign’ which makes Him anthropomorphic . . .
I suppose that is how we get the concept from some people that God could use His power to foster evil . . . and since fostering evil is one characteristic flaw of the free will of men, when it is attributed to God, the theology that flows from this reduces God to a ‘man-made image’.
The truth is that evil is not God’s doing.
There is evil in the world that He permits to happen for reasons we do not yet understand, but that evil is not something He has ordained as ‘Sovereign’. He does not will evil. He does not foster evil. He does not create evil.
Evil is the absence of goodness.
Jim G,
How can God be Omniscient without being meticulously in control?
These things can be difficult to understand with our finite minds, and sometimes we find ourselves speculating on things that are outside the realm of what God thought that we should know.
Can you expand briefly on this? Forgive my ignorance.
Thanks
Hi Anthony,
I do not see meticulous control as a pre-requisite for omniscience. I think the most obvious counter-example is human sinfulness. Does God “know” I will commit a certain sin? Yes. Does God ordain that I commit that sin and meticulously render it certain? No. I hope that helps clarify.
Jim G.
Anthony, you said These things can be difficult to understand with our finite minds and that fits exactly my point to God’s eternal nature. We must just accept some of those aspects because we cannot comprehend them without limits and errors. I believe that is why we have such a limited view of eternity and Heaven, because we cannot fathom it.
The fall and Sandusky fall into the area that God has given man responsibility. Man is fully responsible for his sin, yet God has ordained there be a salvation and has fully put out all of Salvation history.
Hi Dan,
Okay, I understand the responsibility part. But did God specifically ordain the fall, as well as every other evil that has ever occurred or will occur?
Jim G.
God is not the author of evil, yet He allows evil for two purposes. First and foremost for His plan, because without evil, without sin there is no grace. Second is because the existence of sin creates the existence of relationship. In the absence of man’s responsibility, there is no relationship. The ability to walk towards something requires the ability to walk away from something. No negate sin also negates the ability to make the choice (even if the choice is more theoretical than actual) and without the choice, the relationship is stagnant. This is something that I continue to struggle with and wrestle with in my own theology, but I strive to see how it all fits into the plan.
Hi Dan,
“First and foremost for His plan, because without evil, without sin there is no grace.”
Jesus, who was without sin, was also full of grace and truth. It is only when the idea of merit (or the absence thereof) is tied to grace that we get difficulty. Thanks, Augustine.
“Second is because the existence of sin creates the existence of relationship.”
I think you want to say that a true relationship, at least as far as humans are concerned, allows for the possibility of rejection (or sin). Is that what you mean?
Still, does God ordain the fall and every other sin? If you answer in the affirmative, then I see no real distinction between your position and the Augustinian-Calvin synthesis. If you answer in the negative, then Wovenism MIGHT be able to stand on its own.
Jim G.
Yes, Jesus was full of grace as the giver of grace. Where sin bounds, grace abounds all the more.
I wouldn’t use the word “ordain” but allows. Here is how I explain it to youth.
God allows us to make daily choices, and He does no limit those choices. Because of the nature of sin that is in my flesh, because I know good and evil, I choose sin and once I choose sin, I become in bondage to that sin. The sin then reigns in me and draws me ever closer to sin and death. God allows me to make those choices.
It gets complicated when the choices I make then begin to fit into God’s plan, for example. God was going to take the Hebrew people to Egypt. He did that though Joseph, who became the second in command because his brothers sinned by selling him into slavery, his bosses wife lied about him and got him thrown in jail. The sins of the people who put Joseph in Egypt were completely the choice of those making the decisions, yet God’s plan was still accomplished in and through them. It’s hard to see from our prospective in time, yet God ordains these things from outside of time, making it. . . well complicated.
Hi Dan,
I think I understand, but let me ask one more question. Could Adam have resisted the temptation to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and therefore remained sinless and lived forever? Or did he HAVE to eat because it was the plan of god?
Jim G.
And I have read his commentary on the text, as well as others. You can of course make the argument that Tsumura does and skip the concepts of eternal and temporal nature, but as I read and study the text, this is what I see. It may not be for everyone, I know not everyone will agree, in fact in recent conversations I see about Salvation theology, it’s hard to find people who agree.
Yes, Dan, it can be hard to find people who agree. And we spend (me included) a lot of time on things we do not fully know.
But I think it might be wise to follow Tsumura on the text. He does solve the problem textually without appealing to a metaphysical temporal/eternal construct. I’m not saying that Tsumura’s answer discounts your model, but I am saying that his somewhat simpler (in terms of philosophical commitments) explanation of 1 Samuel 15 probably has more force than an appeal to divine nature within the confines of that text. That’s all.
Jim G.
This is really interesting to me. I don’t think God, in His sovereignty, has to have meticulous control. Omnipotence and omniscience allow God to put certain things in motion, because He knows the paths and effects those things will take. So obviously God knew the fall would happen, and in that sense it was part of the plan.
If you know your dog is a biter, and you let him loose, you are responsible for the bites he inflicts, even if you would rather he didn’t bite people, and you didn’t make him bite people. God is not the author of sin, but He created the universe knowing that Satan, his followers, and eventually all of humanity would sin. For some reason, despite his aversion to sin, he still saw it as the right and good thing to do.
God didn’t make Adam fall, but he created a world in which it was not only possible that Adam would fall, but inevitable (from God’s perspective). That doesn’t excuse Adam, but Adam, like all people, believers and non-believers, ultimately fulfill God’s purposes. (eg. Judas)
I agree fully that God is both eternal and temporal. As a finer philosophical point, God doesn’t exist eternally because existence is exclusively temporal. Eternal existence is classified differently as “substance” or “essence” – timeless, intangible, spiritual. The lie of existentialism is that existence precedes (or is foundational to) essence. But we believe that God created all temporal things so essence precedes existence. And so I’ve heard it put this way, that technically speaking it is inaccurate to say that God exists: rather, He is existence.
I am curious who or what you are reading that led you to this philosophical point, but you always must be aware of the danger to assume we all agree on these philosophical foundations such as “existence is exclusively temporal” which is not a Biblical truth, but a philosophical reasoning that I don’t fully agree with.
Dan, your statement is quite reasonable and largely agreeable with Reformed soteriology. What I like most is that this is the way to discuss something. If I have a point of debate with any aspect of it, you are clearly welcoming of it and have not been disrespectful of what has not been identified as a heresy. The “traditionalists” (and also those mean Calvinists that we are always being told about) could learn something from your approach.
“Dan, your statement is quite reasonable and largely agreeable with Reformed soteriology.”
I agree. It takes the same approach to resolving the paradoxical tension between God’s Sovereignty and man’s free will and responsibility as Reform Calvinism.
I’m not really sure of any major (significant) distinctions between being a Wovenist and a Doctrines of Grace Calvinist.
I think the largest distinction comes from the idea of the Eternal and Temporal natures of God. I have wrestled with some texts, prayed, read and studied and the issue for me is not even so much how Salvation works, but how we interact with God.
Moses spoke with God on the mountain, God said he was going to destroy Israel, Moses pleaded and He “relented” or “repented”. Here are the options I see.
First, this is a figure of speech, and God said He changed His mind, but He really didn’t, making this a dishonest passage.
Second, God changes His mind, so the scriptures that say He doesn’t change His mind are dishonest.
Third, in the eternal nature of God, He has set things in place and does not change, repent, regret or alter. God however exists in a temporal way in which it is possible for the scripture to say “God repented” without being dishonest or being a contradiction to other scripture.
This is how I also find a way to reconcile that Jesus prayed “not my will by yours” without having a Will of Jesus and a Will of the Father. The Father is in the eternal nature with Salvation established, Jesus praying in time, in that temporal nature, experiencing and expressing through humanity.
Hi Dan,
On the wills of Jesus, the monothelite controversy of the 7th century was waged. The ancient formula is that will is a property of nature, rather than of person. Since Jesus definitely has two natures (divine and human), he therefore has two wills.
But I think you are trying to say (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the Father has two natures, and they are eternal and temporal. If that is the case, how do we begin to understand such a “hypostatic” union in the person of the Father? Is there a communicatio idiomatum there as well? I’m trying to understand, rather than critique.
Jim G.
This is a concept that I have in my mind, but I am finding it hard to communicate. I wouldn’t say God has two wills or even two natures, but two. . . planes of existence and interact differently in each plane. The idea of Temporal and Eternal really comes down to God in His Sovereign nature and God in His relational nature, and they are not two distinct natures, but two aspects of the whole. I hope I didn’t just make the confusion worse.
God ‘enters into’ time.
He does not have a ‘temporal’ nature, no.
The mystery of the Incarnation is vast and complex . . . as is the early Christian struggle to define ‘Who Christ Is’ . . .
but we know that God is immutable and does not change, He is ‘in the moment’, He is ‘in all moments’, at the ‘same time’.
He ‘transcends’ our concept of ‘time’ as the nature of the Creation is permitted to ‘unfold’ together with the natural rhythms of existence.
The Jews have some understanding of what it means for mankind to ‘enter into God’s sacred space’, as they celebrate the Passover AS THOUGH THEY WERE THERE, PRESENT, WITH THEIR ANCESTORS, and in this way, the ‘Passover’ is also, for them, a kind of salvation from slavery and a deliverance by God from evil into a land of ‘milk and honey’.
This foreshadows much for Christian people,
and, for some Christian people, notably Catholic and Orthodox, the celebration of Eucharist is held in the same spirit as the Jews celebrate Passover:
‘time’ is transcended, and we are THERE, at the foot of the Cross, at the table with Our Lord, and in Eucharist, He ‘is with us always’ . . .
a ‘memory’? or something more?
Christian people have different ideas of when and how God enters into time, and transcends time, simultaneously.
And Christian people know that they, too, have been invited into the life of God, through Our Lord in a way that transcends the boundaries of separation which all men endure amongst themselves, existing here in ‘past’, ‘present’, and ‘future’, with all the separation of loved ones through death and the resulting grief of human hearts.
God enters into time, so that we can enter into eternity, in Him, with Him, and through Him.
On the question does God ordain or just allow sin: I find the greatest example of God’s planning on sin to be the murder of Jesus. God did not “allow” it to happen, He planned on it. If He can be found to have planned the greatest sin committed, why else would any sin be a problem. God is not glorified despite sin but through it.
Thanks for all the questions. These will all be things I will work on for when the book comes out.
I am also considering teaching some and making some videos to help explain, some of the material I think I didn’t flesh out well enough. Of course, this is a quick statement, it’s not a complete synopsis of Woven Theology, that is still in the works. This has been helpful to get everyone’s feedback, and I appreciate it.
Hi Bill,
(I responded down here because the thread was getting long).
I agree for the most part with what you say. I do not believe for one second that God ordained or desired the fall. I also do not think it caught him by surprise, so to speak.
I think I know the reason God chose to create this world where sin was a real possibility among men and angels – he wanted his creation to share in his love. Love must be freely given; it cannot be coerced and is resistible. In order to make a world populated with beings capable of genuine love for the creator, the possibility of the rejection of that love (sin and evil) is metaphysically built in to the system. When Lucifer and Adam chose to spurn the love of God by disobeying him, they brought sin, death, and evil into this world. My only reflection on this is that love must be worth so much to God that he would risk so much (the chaos that has ensued) to have it.
Jim G.
Jim: I see where you are coming from, but I’m definitely not comfortable with the word risk. Risk involves uncertainty and with God there is no uncertainty. There was no risk with Satan, or Adam. God knew they were going to fall. From his perspective it was a certainty. He did not hope they would not fall.
As for God ordaining the fall, I’m not sure the proper usage of the word ordain. If God sees that the Fall will happen if He creates the universe a certain way, and He goes ahead, then in that sense he ordains it, doesn’t he? I’m using the word in the sense of foreknowing, acknowledging, and allowing to happen. Obviously, in the mind of God (wow, that sounds presumptous), He knew that allowing the fall was the right thing to do.