Links to Papers
Open Theism: Overview & Analysis
Theology & Religious Pluralism: An Overview and Response
The Masonic Lodge: A Theological Overview
Salvation and Universal Atonement
God for Us: Karl Barth's View of Election
The Holy Spirit in Karl Barth & Thomas Aquinas
The Diagnosis of Demon Possession and its Distinctiveness from Various Mental Disorders
Open Theism: Overview & Analysis
Open Theism and the Baptist General Conference:
Theology is a matter of emphasis. Though from the surface this may appear to be an abstract statement, the history of theology has certainly authenticated this claim. For all of the significant theological positions proposed and promoted have shared this element of emphasis; all had emphasized certain aspects of theology over others.
It is on this premise that I would argue for a collective cause, a cause rooted in what I would call a theology of need. For in each case, every individual or group emphasized a certain theological reaction that had its foundation in and subsequent formulation from what they saw as a definitive need in their ecclesiastical institutions and/or society. What was this need? It was the need to react. In each situation, there was a definitive need to react to something that was occurring in the Church and/or society. It was their reaction to this need that spawned the theological positions subsequently taken. In essence, their response found its expression in a theology.
Based on this conclusion, this paper will begin by focusing on the debate that has surfaced in recent times among the constituents of the Baptist General Conference (BGC) and the proponents of the view commonly referred to as open theism. Though there are indeed many aspects to open theism that are interesting and important to discuss amongst the universal and particular Christian community, of specific importance and relevance to this debate in the BGC regards the extent of God’s omniscience or foreknowledge (particularly, His knowledge and understanding of future events in the world).[1] The focus will not be to provide an exhaustive critique of either position or its proponents as to the validity or biblical fidelity that each may or may not represent, but to highlight the primary issue and the ramifications that have ensued and are continuing to develop in the BGC. In addition, the intended scope will not be a synopsis of all those in favor or not in favor of open theism, but to isolate the debate as presented in the proposed amendment to the Affirmation of Faith of the BGC, June 1999, in light of Dr. Gregory Boyd, professor at Bethel College, and his acceptance of open theism in the context of this BGC college.[2] Focusing attention on this particular situation is important because it is indicative, and in many respects representative, of the numerous theological discussions presently occurring, and succinctly outlines the extreme measures that some are taking to protect theological traditions at the expense of theological openness and grace. To conclude, two of the practical implications of open theism will be assessed, primarily that of evil/human suffering, and prayer.
What would spawn such a reaction from members of the BGC? [3] What is the background to this theological debate and proposed amendment? Baptists have traditionally accepted the interpretation of God generally classified as the Classical Orthodox position. Included in this interpretation is the view that God is entirely sovereign and supremely majestic. According to this model, God is the final explanation of everything that occurs. He is Creator of the entire universe and His will is irresistible. God is perfect, timeless, immutable, impassible, and has exhaustive omniscience and foreknowledge of all events, past, present, and future. God’s plans and intentions never change, and He is unmoved by anything that transpires within His creation. Everything comes to pass because he has planned it from all eternity. [4] This has been the generally accepted position of the Baptist faith, and more specifically the BGC.
In recent years, however, a number of evangelical theologians have introduced a “conception of God that significantly modifies the traditional view of God” (Erickson 67). Each individual comes from an Arminian background and their theological emphasis represents a major tenet of such, human free will. One person who has been much in support of such a model is Dr. Gregory Boyd, professor of theology at
Dr. Boyd has articulated his support of open theism in a number of literary works such as Letters from a Skeptic, 1994, and his most recent treatise being God of the Possible, 2000. In these books, Boyd highlighted the basic teachings of the open view of God: that He is a loving, caring parent, who experiences the world, interacts with His children, feels emotions, takes risks, and responds to developments in the world as they unfold by changing His mind and His course of action as necessary.
Of particular importance is the idea of God’s omniscience and what that entails. For Boyd, all Bible believers hold that God is omniscient, i.e., He sees everything in creation simultaneously, knows the number of the stars and angels, and knows everything about the deeds, thoughts, and the inner most intentions of people. However, the issue is not over whether or not God perfectly knows all of reality, but what is the reality that God perfectly knows. “The ‘Open” View holds that the future now is partly composed of indefinite possibilities as opposed to the view that it is exclusively composed of definite realities. It is in part constituted as a ‘maybe this or maybe that,’ not exclusively as a ‘certainly this and certainly that’ (Boyd, The “Open” View of the Future). In other words, some of the future is determined and foreknown, and some is not.
As was already mentioned, open theists highlight human freedom in the created order of things. This human freedom has been given by God and has significant implications. In regards to the power of God, His is the power to exist and the power to control all things. However, He does not hold a monopoly on this power. If such were the case, there could be no created order, certainly not one with free human agents. As a result, God created human free agents with the power of self-determination, giving them room to flourish. “In giving us dominion over the earth, God shares power with the creature” (Pinnock, Openness of God, 115). Not only does He act in relation to humanity, but also they act in relation to Him and He reacts or is affected by what they do. To use Erickson’s words, “God’s will is therefore not the sole cause of what occurs. History is a combined result of what God does and what humans do. We are partners with God in bringing about what occurs in the world” (71). [5]
As a result, “when God gave creatures freedom, he gave them an open future, a future in a degree to be shaped by their decisions, not a future already determined in its every detail” (Pinnock, Openness, 123). As Boyd has pointed out, “if we have been given freedom, we create the reality of our decisions by making them. And until we make them, they don’t exist . . . So God can’t foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they, in turn, create their decisions” (Letters from a Skeptic, 30). [6]
For certain members of the BGC, this was where the rubber met the road. As they declared, “a serious defective view of God, known as the ‘openness theology,’ is spreading among evangelicals. One element of this theology is the conviction that God does not infallibly foreknow all that shall come to pass” (Proposed Amendment 1999). Such a serious reaction is not isolated to this situation. Others such as Norman Geisler adamantly believe that God “knows everything that will yet be (to us) within his eternal and unchangeable essence” (111). Likewise, “all the instances of his knowledge of what free creatures will do indicate there is nothing he cannot and does not know” (Ware 141). It was because of such an emphasis that The Concerned Pastors and Leaders of the BGC proposed an amendment to the Affirmation of Faith, and made it available to all the delegates at the 1999 annual meeting in
The proposed amendment is set forth under paragraph three concerning God the Father, and the italicized words are the proposed addition.
We believe in God, the Father, an infinite, personal spirit, perfect in holiness, wisdom, power and love. We believe [that He foreknows infallibly all that shall come to pass,] that He concerns Himself mercifully in the affairs of each person, that He hears and answers prayer, and that He saves from sin and death all who come to Him through Jesus Christ.
These words were chosen because they were considered to be straightforward, and would be easily understood by both lay people and theologians alike. One word that may be less common for some was “infallibly.” They defined such in the ordinary sense as “free from mistakes or errors.” “The point of the word is to make explicit that the foreknowledge of God is perfect and involves no mistakes. That is, his foreknowledge is not probable knowledge based on the odds of present circumstances, but is completely reliable and unerring knowledge of what shall come to pass” (Proposed Amendment – Part 3, #3).
As can be seen quite clearly from this proposed amendment, the inclusion of the words, “that He foreknows infallibly all that shall come to pass,” is a direct reaction to the contrasting view of God’s foreknowledge as put forth by proponents of open theism, and specifically that of Greg Boyd. Though the previous inclusion had always been implicitly affirmed in the BGC Affirmation of Faith, they thought that the time had come for the BGC to make clear its identity on this matter with an explicit addition (Part 4, #4). Why now? Only because the unthinkable has happened. They believed that the reason no explicit affirmation of God’s foreknowledge was in the Affirmation of Faith was that it was unthinkable to the framers that it would ever be denied by pastors and teachers in their fellowship (Part 4, #5). However, because such has now presented itself and proposed a severe theological threat to the BGC at large, the Conference was now compelled to make explicit what they had always believed implicitly.
On many occasions they turned to history and tradition as a means to strengthen their argument. For example, they quoted John Alexis Edgren, founder of
But how did others in the BGC and
As part of Bethel’s established procedures of assessment, a committee for Theological Clarification and Assessment, made up of respected scholars from within and outside the BGC, concluded unanimously that his theology “is within the bound of evangelical Christian orthodoxy and compatible with the theological commitments expected of faculty members at Bethel” (Communications Bulletin – May 19, 1998). Though none may have agreed completely with Boyd’s thesis, they certainly did not view him to be in any sense the theological threat that the Edgren Fellowship and others in the BGC had concluded.
In addition to this committee, there were also others who felt differently than those of the Edgren Fellowship and certain members of the BGC. Included in a statement issued by the BGC communications department regarding Dr. Boyd were a number of other examples where people viewed things a little differently.
First, the leadership of the BGC,
Even though such a dogmatic stance was taken against Dr. Boyd and his views, the Concerned Pastors still say that they affirm all of the other positive work that he has done for the Kingdom, which in the end seems somewhat contradictory. When asked if they are eager for him to leave the BGC they responded: “We are not eager for Dr. Boyd to leave
In relation as to whether or not the academic freedom for Bethel professors is infringed upon by the proposed amendment, they stated that the freedom to think is precious, but “freedom to come to conclusions outside the defining vision of an institution is questioned” (Part 10, #36). These Leaders in the BGC believe with conviction that the truth that God knows infallibly all that shall come to pass is in no way restrictive on the faculty of
The underlying question is whether or not this issue is important enough to be included in the BGC Affirmation of Faith? Though these Concerned Pastors believe it is for fourteen reasons, only a few reasons will be listed here to better understand the general idea behind there logic.
First, “because giving legitimacy to the denial of historic Christian views of God’s foreknowledge erodes our common vision of the God we worship together” (Part 8, #24-1). They believe that legitimizing Open Theism will undermine the biblical foundation of their unity and force them to unite around less and less a common view of God. Secondly, if they deny God’s exhaustive foreknowledge this will in turn undermine the unifying force of the Affirmation of Faith (Part 8, #24-2). A third reason is that embracing Open Theism would put the BGC seriously out of step with the unified history of the Christian Church (#24-3). Fourth, they believe that the Openness view implies that God makes mistakes because of His uncertainty about the future (#24-4). Fifth, they believe that to deny that God foreknows all that shall come to pass is practically and pastorally harmful (#24-10). Finally, because “evangelical denominations and educational institutions move away from orthodox Christian faith for lack of vigilance over incremental defections from Biblical truth” (#24-14).
However, is the response from the Concerned Pastors and Leaders of the BGC in regard to Dr. Boyd and his acceptance of open theism’s attempt to re-examine God’s foreknowledge in light the Scripture warranted? Are the manner, tone, and intent of the Proposed Amendment not becoming of anticipated Christian character? More specifically, is their response in line with traditional Baptist practice?
Pastor Ron Saari of
Secondly, he is disheartened that a representative group of these Concerned Pastors chose not to honor the BGC leadership team’s request by letter to withdraw the proposed resolution and to engage in a two-year theological discussion about the foreknowledge of God issue and its importance. He likewise has stated that they have “politicized” the issue by pressing ahead and ignoring the counsel of the leadership.
Third, he is disappointed that these Pastors found unacceptable a report of theologians organized by the President of Bethel who found Dr. Boyd’s theological beliefs to be in the spectrum of evangelical belief.
Fourth, he believes that they have misrepresented Dr. Boyd based solely on the belief of an Open View of the future.
Saari also believes that the proposed amendment raises more questions than it answers. And finally, “the current Affirmation of Faith has allowed persons from diverse evangelical theological positions to respect one another and join together in the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” In fact, such a commitment has the potential of pulling apart the coalition. Saari’s primary concern is that such a resolution could divide the conference and divert them from the responsibility of building God’s kingdom (Preserving Civility and Piety Within the BGC – March 29, 1999).
Perhaps the best analysis has come from Dr. Roger E. Olson, professor of theology,
While he claimed that he is not an open theist, he is “open to the openness of God,” which is a valid and important starting point in any theological discussion. His foundation for such a belief is that “Christians who are committed to the supreme authority of the Holy Scripture over traditions, creeds, and systems of theology must be open to new theological proposals insofar as they make a reasonable appeal to Scripture and confess Jesus Christ as God, Savior and Center of divine revelation.” This clearly does not define the actions of the Concerned Pastors of the BGC. It seems to be quite clear that they were not interested in dialogue with Dr. Boyd or anyone else for that matter, but interpreted his views as an automatic threat to what they classified as Orthodox Christianity, and decided that only a severely dogmatic position in the form of an amendment to the Affirmation of Faith would adequately counter it. In the end, I see no openness here.
The Concerned Pastors in their document also appealed to tradition and history as a source of strength for their argument against open theism. As Olson has pointed out in relation to this, “appeals to tradition hold little weight for Baptists who believe that Scripture is our sole sufficient guide for faith and practice.” In conjunction, it is also ironic that many opponents of open theism accuse open theists of taking the Bible too literally (Ware 66-7). This becomes all the more ironic when one recalls that Evangelicals have always favored a reasonably literal interpretation of Scripture. Therefore, “it is essential that Christians who claim to hold to the authority of Scripture strictly avoid appealing to tradition against reasonable new interpretations of Scripture without careful, cautious, open-minded examination of those new interpretations.”
Olson continues: “Baptists suffered much in the past for holding fast to new interpretations of Scripture against tradition. How ironic it would be if Baptists now persecute and silence other Baptists by a new appeal to tradition.” How true it is.
In the end, the debate between classical theism and open theism among the BGC, and other places for that matter, is not a disagreement over the authority of Scripture, it is a disagreement over how the Scripture is to be interpreted. The primary difference here is that open theists tend to be more literal in their interpretation of Scripture, arguing that God reveals Himself throughout the Biblical narrative as actually responding to human petitions in a way that depends on human participation. “The only fair accusation against them may be that they are taking Scripture too literally. But that would be and is an ironic accusation coming from evangelical Christians.”
Indeed, the open view of God raises many questions and will no doubt be extensively explored and debated in reviews, panel discussions, and even book-length responses. One question it raises that should underlie everything else is this: how do American evangelical Christians handle theological diversity? Have we come of age enough to avoid heresy charges and breast-beating jeremiads in response to a new proposal that is conscientiously based on biblical reflection rather than on rebellious accommodation to modern thought? This may be the test. (Olson, Has God Been Held Hostage by Philosophy? – Christianity Today, Jan. 9, 1999)
Practical Implications:
Open Theism and Evil/Human Suffering:
Most who deny the omnipotence of God in light of the problem of evil do so because they believe that there is no other way to solve the problem of evil in the world.[8] As a result, by dramatically altering God’s power in the world, they believe that evil can be solved (process theology). However, such a debilitating doctrine is unacceptable, for God is all-powerful. He not only created the entire cosmos, but also continues to sustain such by His mighty power (Col. 1:15-20). He is the Supreme Being above all and deserves worship and adoration. Moreover, He relies on no one for existence, but yet interacts with His creation in love and compassion.
However, it is this description of God’s omnipotence that poses a problem in regards to evil. For if God is all-powerful, why did He allow evil to come into existence from the very beginning? Likewise, why does He not completely annihilate the evil in the world at the present time? [9] In order to effectively respond to these questions, it is imperative that God’s power be defined in relation to His creation of humanity and the ramifications of such an action.[10]
Richard Rice in his book God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will discusses at length the concept of the openness of God. In relation to creation and God’s omnipotence, the fact that humanity has been created in the “image of God” refers to “man’s position of creative sovereignty over the world.” This means that humanity did not have absolute sovereignty over the world, but was endowed with the capacity for further creative activity (Gen. 1:28; 2:19,20). [11] “It was as if God left part of creation deliberately unfinished, or open, in order for man to decide how it should be completed” (37-38).
As an extension of his thesis, Rice asserts that because God commanded Adam and Eve to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this also indicates another important way in which reality was open. This is consistent with the free will defence proposed by Stephen T. Davis. Here,
As a result, in making humans free God ran the risk that they would choose evil rather than good. For this kind of freedom also makes possible the unleashing of tremendous levels of anguish and evil in the world. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened (
The problem goes back to how one defines God’s omniscience. Free will proponents believe that God has absolute or exhaustive foreknowledge. This simply means that God sees everything as timeless and knows the future absolutely, rendering God as responsible for the existence of evil. As a result, absolute foreknowledge renders the free will defence ineffective. However, by revising God’s relation to the world, the open view of God makes it possible to affirm the free will defence theory (in a slightly modified form) and as a result relieve God of all responsibility for evil (Rice 51).
The fact that the future is not definite in its entirety, but left open on the basis of God-given creaturely freedom, means that God knew that humanity could rebel, but not that He knew for a certain that they would rebel. [14] The actuality regarding the rebellion of humanity was not made known, even for God, until it happened in time. Therefore, because God did not foresee the fall into sin until it occurred, He cannot possibly be held responsible for it in any way. He may have made it possible for humanity to sin, but He did not make it a necessity (unlike Erickson 423-425). Boyd concedes, “The potential for evil lies in the nature of free will. Once God gave this freedom, however, the purpose for their actions lays in them, not God. Since it was not settled ahead of time how people would use the freedom God gave them, God cannot be blamed for how they use it” (Possible 99). Therefore, “understanding God’s power gives us some help with the vexed problem of evil. If this is a world in which evil is possible but not inevitable, then it can be seen as stemming primarily from the misuse of freedom” (Pinnock 117).[15]
The second attribute of God that poses problems in regards to the existence of evil is His goodness. As was previously mentioned, there are those who state that God cannot possibly be considered good on account of the evil that exists. For instance, they would ask questions such as: if God is good, why does He allow evil to run rampant in the world? To be sure, this is a valid question, but God’s goodness can also be maintained in spite of it.
The goodness of God has been revealed to creation in numerous ways. First, His goodness is manifested in His eternal and immense love towards humanity. From the time of creation through to the present day, God’s love has been poured out upon that which He has created. Indeed, “God is love” (1 Jh. 4:8).
In addition, the manifestation of God’s love has been revealed most potently and explicitly in the giving of His Son, Jesus Christ. “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 8:32). “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (Jh. 3:16).
Furthermore, “it is remarkable that, while knowing that he himself was to become a victim (indeed, the major victim) of the evil resulting from sin, God allowed sin to occur anyway” (Erickson 432). While this statement may appear to be somewhat deterministic, it does not have to be. For the plan of God to send His Son to atone for the sin of humanity could have and probably was formulated in the mind of God after the fact of Adam and Eve’s transgression. This becomes abundantly clear when we realize that no one but God Himself could possibly atone for sin. As a result, there is no problem with holding to this view.
Therefore, as a logical consequence of this perspective (that God is the Victim of evil), the problem of evil is somewhat alleviated. Those who claim that it is a logical impossibility for God to be good and yet evil still exist have been dramatically corrected. For in the incarnation we see a picture of God who is a fellow sufferer with humanity regarding the evil in this world. We also see a God who is consequently able to deliver humanity from this evil. As Erickson concludes, “what a measure of love this is! Anyone who would impugn the goodness of God for allowing sin and consequently evil must measure that charge against the teaching of Scripture that God himself became the victim of evil so that he and we might be victors over evil” (432). It is with these arguments in mind that the goodness of God is a logical possibility, even in the face of the pervasiveness of evil in the world.[16]
However, to conclude at this point would do an injustice to the whole. Indeed, the child of God waits anxiously for the eschaton, that great and triumphant day when Christ will return to earth and eradicate evil in all its forms. In regards to this Proverbs declares, “Be sure of this: The wicked will not go unpunished, but those who are righteous will go free” (11:21). Those who have placed their hope in Christ will never be put to shame (
The world is indeed filled with the power of evil and the consequences of such; this no can deny (except for Hick of course). Similarly, the reality of God and His attributes of omnipotence and goodness are also very real and obvious. However, it is when these two realities are combined that apparent problems come into being. If God is all-powerful, why does He not eradicate all evil? Likewise, if God is so good, why does evil continue to run rampant throughout the world? These questions are valid in and of themselves, but are based on ignorance and are therefore in desperate need of divine revelation.
It is quite possible, in fact absolutely certain, that the three concepts: God is omnipotent, God is good, and evil exists, can and do co-exist without denying any one in order to provide an answer for the whole. This is made possible through a modified form of the free will defence argument, with additional input provided via the openness of God theology. For example, the omnipotence of God can be maintained when one defines that power in relation to the act of creation and the subsequent conferring of power upon humanity to continue in the act of creation (Boyd’s “say-so” theory). As a result, in giving humans’ power to create, God likewise gave them a free will, which makes possible the introduction of sin and evil. Because God does not have absolute foreknowledge, He could not see if this power of the human will would for certain result in sin, but only knew of its possibility. So when sin came into the world through Adam and Eve, God did not know this would happen until it actually did. As a result, He could not possibly be held responsible for sin and evil; not even indirectly responsible. The responsibility for evil rests on the shoulders of those who introduced it, humanity. [17]
Open Theism and Prayer:
Bibliography
Baptist General Conference. God, Foreknowledge and the Baptist General Conference –
Explanation and Rationale for the Proposed Amendment to the Affirmation of Faith of the Baptist General Conference. By the Concerned Pastors and Leaders, June 22-25, 1999. 36 Pages.
Baptist General Conference. Don’t Rush to Judgment!!! “Trusting God’s Word, Serving
Christ’s
Bounds, E.M. Winning the Invisible War.
Boyd, Gregory. Letters From a Skeptic.
1994.
---. The “Open” View of the Future. http://www.opentheism.org
---. God of the Possible.
Brightman, Edgar S. A Philosophy of Religion.
Clark, Gordon H. Religion, Reason, and Revelation.
Reformed, 1961.
Davis, Stephen T. Encountering Evil: Live options in Theodicy.
Knox Press, 1981.
Erickson, Millard, J. Christian Theology.
Erickson, Millard J. God the Father Almighty.
Fitch, William. God and Evil.
Geisler, Norman L. Creating God in the Image of Man?
Guthrie, Shirley C. Christian Doctrine.
Olson, Roger. Has God Been Held Hostage by Philosophy? Christianity Today, January
9, 1999.
Olson, Roger. A Brief Analysis of the “Openness of God” Theology.
http://www.bgc.bethel.edu/4know/analysis.htm
Pinnock, Clark. “From Augustine to Arminius: A Pilgrimage in Theology.” The Grace
of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism. Ed.
Pinnock, Clark, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker, and David Basinger. The
Openness of God.
Placher, William C. Narratives of a Vulnerable God.
Rice, Richard. God’s Foreknowledge & Man’s Free Will.
1985.
Sanders, John. The God Who Risks.
Tiessen, Terrance. Providence & Prayer.
Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory.
[1] Other theological emphases are God’s mutability, passibility, and eternality (not timelessness), which are all in direct contrast to the basic tenets of Classical Theism.
[2] Other major proponents of Open Theism are
[3] I say “members” because only a portion of the BGC reacted very negatively to open theism. These people classified themselves as “The Concerned Pastors and Leaders.”
[4] For a more thorough outline of the classical theistic position see Erickson, God the Father Almighty, pgs. 69-71.
[5] Also see Richard Rice in Openness of God, 15-16.
[6] “Decisions not yet made do not exist anywhere to be known even by God. They are potential – yet to be realized but not yet actual. God can predict a great deal of what we will choose to do, but not all of it, because some of it remains hidden in the mystery of human freedom” (Pinnock, The Grace of God, the Will of Man, 25-6).
[7] See also letter entitled “Preserving Civility and Piety Within the BGC,” March 29, 1999, Ron Saari.
[8] For example, David Griffin – 105 – Encountering Evil.
[9] Erickson argues, “Perhaps the only way to eradicate evil now would be to destroy every moral agent possessing a will capable of leading to evil” (425).
[10] Classical theologians have tended to agree that there is a specific divine purpose for every specific event, including specific evils. “It is this conclusion more than anything else that creates the problem of evil, for it immediately leads to the impervious mystery of what purpose an all-loving God might have had for allowing atrocities such as the Holocaust” (Boyd 99).
[11] “We can understand this model of divine openness free will theism. Upholding God’s power, it understands God to be voluntarily self-limited, making room for creaturely freedom” (Pinnock 117).
[12] Scripture is quite clear when it states that God gave a choice to both Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The fact that He told them what not to do implies that they could do otherwise. For if they could do no other, why even bother telling them what they could not do. So the element of choice comes clearly into view. Even Erickson agrees with this when he states “man would not be man if he did not have free will” (423).
[13] John Hick argues that evil plays an important role in the fulfillment of God’s purposes for the world. Therefore, God envisioned it from the beginning (253-261 – Evil and the God of Love.)
[14] Pinnock states, “the future is determined by God not alone but in partnership with human agents. God gives us a role in shaping what the future will be” (117).
[15] Bruce Ware disagrees with this argument when he states: “Either God created a world with significant freedom believing wrongly that the misuse of freedom to bring about suffering was unlikely, or he created such a world believing that this misuse of freedom was probable. In the first case, God is apparently a fool; in the second, and by openness standards themselves, he is seemingly malevolent. Open theism is not commended by either option” (209).
[16] Paradoxically, Ware concludes: “Upon examination . . . it is clear that open theism’s counsel is unbiblical, incoherent, and shallow” (215).
[17] For certain, sin and evil came before the transgression of Adam and Eve by Satan. But, Satan cannot be blamed for their decision; they do.
[18] Basinger comments: “God voluntarily forfeits control over earthly affairs in those cases where he allows us to exercise this freedom,” in addition, “we maintain that God does retain the right to intervene unilaterally in earthly affairs” (Openness 159).
[19] Guthrie writes: “The God of Scripture is a living Person: a God whose mind can be changed in response to prayer; an ever-present God who knows and cares for each one of us and is eager to give us what we need and help us learn what we should do to be faithful in our particular individual and social situation; a God who promises to say and do surprising, new things in world history and in our individual histories. We may be grateful that as such a living God, God does change” (115).
[20] “The Old Testament references to God’s emotional responses ought not to be taken as anthropopathisms of the same order as the anthropomorphic references to body parts. They are what distinguishes God from the false gods and from human beings. They portray the ‘inner life of God.’ It is because God’s fundamental desire is for life, not death, that ‘God hopes to be able to reverse himself’” (Tiessen 82).
[21] Tiessen points out that “over against two passages indicating that God does not repent (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29), we find about forty that say he does” (82).
[22] For further passages attesting to this theme see Boyd 83-85.
Theology & Religious Pluralism: An Overview and Response
Religious pluralism has taken a position of prominence in contemporary Christian dialogue, especially in regards to soteriology. As urban centres in
Fortunately, the Church has indeed responded to the call. However, their voice is not undivided. In fact, numerous responses have been articulated as a result. The more prominent and best-represented views across the Christian spectrum are: pluralism, inclusivism, and exclusivism. Arguments supporting each position have been well crafted. And, though areas of commonality exist, differences of emphasis amongst these three major perspectives are quite easy to detect. Yet, such distinctives are not unimportant and need to be evaluated for what they are and what ramifications stem from each as a result. Not only will a number of strengths and weaknesses for each position be discussed, but also how they relate to two major axioms, namely, the universal salvific will of God, and that salvation is found only through the grace of God in Christ.
Pluralism
D’Costa defined the pluralist paradigm as “one that maintains that other religions are equally salvific paths to the one God, and Christianity’s claim that it is the only path, or the fulfillment of other paths, should be rejected for good theological and phenomenological reasons” (22). Though it boasts a number of proponents, both Protestant and Catholic, John Hick is the “most thorough and far-reaching representative” (22).
At its core, Hick argues that the world religions all relate to the Ultimate Reality or the Real (God), but in very different ways and means. Yet, even though these various world religions have formulated various conceptions of the Real, they do experience a commonality in their soteriological orientation, turning individuals from self-centeredness to God-centeredness. As a result, according to Hick, there is no religion that can claim superiority.
Hick naturally continues by stating that if Christianity is indeed superior, as exclusivists would argue, should they also not be morally superior in comparison to the other world religions? Hick argues that such is not the case. And, if such is the case, then his pluralistic claims are indeed true. For he believes, through experience with participates of major world religions, that spiritual fruit (as categorized by Christianity) can be clearly seen not only in Christians, but also in devote Buddhists and/or Hindus. This common criterion reflects a general consensus of what society classifies as human goodness, a reflection of a right relationship with the Real.
Furthermore, he also rejects Christianity’s normative affirmation of Christ’s deity. His basis for is the lack of Jesus’ own claims to such in the biblical witness.[1] While still maintaining a distinct identification with Christianity, “Jesus is unique only for him and fellow Christians. Others have their own independent insight into God” (Okholm/Phillips 18).[2]
To say that such a radical viewpoint created a stir among evangelicals would be an understatement, and it is not difficult to comprehend why. However, a number of pluralistic claims do have positive aspects to contribute to the broader evangelical scene.
One such aspect is the quest to find some common ground between the religions of the world in order to help facilitate inter-religious dialogue. Hick’s passion for such is clearly evident in his efforts to conceptualize God, or the Real, in such a way as to include and not exclude anyone from the larger scope of major world religions, and isolate any one as being superior. Though problematic on a number of fronts, it does reveal his desire for dialogue, and any attempt at such is difficult to rebut.[3]
In spite of Hick’s clear passion for dialogue amongst world religions, it seems that his pluralist paradigm is flawed in a number of specific and important areas. First, though Hick does not completely deny differences of theology in the major religions, the brevity at which he addresses these theological distinctives and how he treats them is cause for concern. It seems that the basis for such a claim stems from his personal experience and observations of world faiths. Though experience and observation have a definitive role to play in how we interpret religious symbols and action, it can never be the final hermeneutical step by which one bases their conclusions.
A case in point is that although the language, concepts, and liturgy of the world religions are different from one another, from a religious perspective, “basically the same thing is going on in all of them, namely, human beings coming together within a framework of an ancient and highly developed tradition to open their hearts and minds to God” (Okholm/Phillips 38). Though this may be an accurate general observation, which may or may not hold elements of similarity, Hick’s final conclusion, that these various God-figures are different human awarenesses of the Real, takes his argument to a level beyond which it is capable of going. To reiterate, Hick bases such a conclusion on simple observation and experience of world religions. It seems that such a definitive, all-inclusive statement should and in fact needs to be founded upon something a little more concrete if it is to be taken more seriously and have the impact that Hick desires it to have. In the end, it seems that Hick’s argument in favor of such a position is necessary to help validate his overall pluralistic claims, and it seems that because it is in fact necessary, he includes it. It appears, however, that necessity should never be the sole reason why an argument is put forth as legitimate, especially in light of the vast ramifications brought forward by his claims.
A second area of weakness in Hick’s argument has to do with morality in the major world religions. As before, his foundation for such a claim is personal experience and observation. As he had come to know people from various religious traditions, he soon concluded that the level of spirituality found in these individuals, formed primarily by their relationship with these traditions, was remarkable. He continues by stating that he has found that no major religious faith can claim superiority in regards to morality. In fact, “they seem on average to be neither better nor worse than are Christians” (Okholm/Phillips 39). On this basis, he presupposes a general criterion, a sense of human goodness that reflects a right relationship made with God. “This is the universally recognized sense of goodness as consisting in concern for others” (39). Yet, as Pinnock so aptly recognized, “saintliness is not a sufficient argument for pluralism,” and furthermore, “he had an experience of saintliness and misinterpreted the theological significance of it” (Okholm/Phillips 61).
It seems that Hick’s approval of such a moral commonality among the world faiths denies the vital importance of belief and doctrine, as though the two are not linked. He would go far as to say that it does not matter what one thinks, as long as one acts morally. However, belief and practice are inter-linked. What one believes in regards to doctrine is important, and will affect how one lives out their lives in the circumstances of day-to-day living.[4]
A third and final area with regards to Hick’s argument for commonality has to do with Christology. In short, he denies the idea of Christ’s divinity as taught in the Scriptures. He does so on the basis that the idea of Jesus as “Son of God” was clearly not taught by Him in the Bible. Furthermore, it would have been quite natural that His followers would have thought of Him as Son of God. Yet, according to Hick, such a statement about Jesus was clearly intended as metaphor (Okholm/Phillips 36).
Hick’s desire to elucidate the commonality of the major world religions goes too far yet again. And, as statements in the preceding paragraphs suggests, his arguments in relation to Christology, while he believes them to be founded on historical and theological footings, nevertheless seem to be a position that his system requires, more so than a well-grounded theological statement. As Pinnock observed, “the effort to get rid of the incarnation has less to do with evidence than with ideology” (Okholm/Phillips 63). This seems to be an accurate assertion.
Finally, with regard to the axioms mentioned earlier, pluralism encapsulates the first, but excludes the second. God’s universal love and the theological axiom of the universal will of God is a fundamental tenet of the pluralist paradigm. However, such is not the case regarding the particularity axiom that God has acted definitively and redemptively in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Hick denies a literal understanding of the divinity of Christ for a metaphorical understanding. As a result, he abandons a central Christian truth and thereby subverts the distinctiveness of Christianity. Yet again, this seems to be a tactic necessary to hold his theory of religions in cohesion, and weakens his argument for commonality, rather than strengthen it.
Inclusivism
Another theological option in relation to Christianity and religious pluralism is inclusivism. It seems somewhat appropriate to place this position here as it has been deemed a middle option between pluralism and exclusivism.
Inclusivism has been defined as the approach “characterized as one that affirms the salvific presence of God in non-Christian religions while still maintaining that Christ is the definitive and authoritative revelation of God” (D’Costa 80). Pinnock elaborates in that he wants to explore “the possibility that the Spirit is operative in the sphere of human religion to prepare people for the gospel of Christ.” That God is in fact “redemptively at work in the religious dimension of human culture, just as he is in all the other spheres of creation” (Okholm/Phillips 96).
Propounded clearly in Vatican II and by Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, along with many other evangelicals, including
It has as its premise a very strong pneumatological orientation in that the Spirit is said to be present and involved in the whole world, and as its inference, even in the religious sphere of human existence. In fact, the Spirit is at work in advance of the mission to prepare the way for Jesus Christ. As a result, where the Spirit is present, so must also the grace of the Triune God, drawing people of every race and creed unto Himself for the purpose of relationship.
Evaluating inclusivism as a middle position, not unlike pluralism, contains strengths and weaknesses. One such weakness is the possibility of post-mortem salvation for those who have never heard the gospel message in life through no fault of their own. This stems in part to the emphasis upon the universal salvific will of God in the inclusivistic paradigm. Such an emphasis lends itself to the belief that somehow most of the world’s population must at least be presented with an opportunity to receive the gospel. And, since there still remain millions of people who have never heard, an opportunity must be created.
However, as important as optimism is to the idea of world evangelization, it does, and must, have limitations. Not in respect to whether or not such a task is possible, but in regard to what the biblical witness states in light of such hope. For while it is indeed God’s will that all come to repentance, there is no evidence in favor of a post-mortem experience to help further this universal salvific argument. In addition, if there is no biblical evidence to support such a claim, and a very significant claim at that, then it does not matter how much hope one has or not. Human expectation and openness can and should never override the biblical witness. Rather, human experience must be subservient to Scripture. Therefore, any post-mortem suggestion, while certainly by no means heretical, does elicit a fanciful and foundation less optimism.
Geivett/Phillips also raised an important point in their response to Pinnock’s article along the lines of the communication of the gospel message. Their greatest fear on this level is that it is promulgated that God somehow oversteps what He has revealed in Scripture as to the method of communication within the inclusivist paradigm. It was never their intention to limit the activity of the Spirit in the world, yet if “God reveals a particular method for saving individuals, his veracity limits his flexibility” (Okholm/Phillips 135). And, if it is suspected that God will somehow arrange for the salvation of an individual without the cooperation of His Church, then there may develop a tendency on the part of Christians to “doubt the necessity of obeying the great commission” (135). In fact, they believe that such an idea has the potential to “erode evangelistic zeal” (135). If they are correct in their prognosis, this does pose a great problem to proponents of inclusivism.
On the other hand, there are also a number of strengths in this paradigm that must be highlighted. The first is its commitment to a pneumatological orientation. As already mentioned, inclusivists believe that the Spirit is everywhere at work in the world, in advance of the mission, preparing the way for Jesus Christ. This is in light of the weakness of traditional theology of the Spirit, who has understood the Spirits activity almost exclusively through the lens of the Church. As a result, little room has been left for the Spirits working in the world in bringing people to the knowledge of Christ. However, it is vitally important that a broader pneumatological understanding be permitted. For “the Spirit is working on the inside and on the outside of the churches, pursuing his assignment from the Father to make all things new. Christians do not have a monopoly on the Spirit, and the Spirit is not tied to our apron strings” (Okholm/Phillips 105). While this may seem at odds with an earlier criticism regarding the communication of the gospel in inclusivism, in reality it is not. For the communication of the message can be biblically oriented, while at the same time hold to a strong, open view to the prepatory activity of the Spirit in the world in drawing people to God.
In relation to the two axioms, inclusivism pays great attention to both claims, and in my estimation, provides a better appreciation and treatment of them as well in comparison to pluralism and exclusivism. In fact, they are central to inclusivist claims. As Pinnock has pointed out, the “challenge to theology is to do justice to both these truths and not allow one to cancel out the other (141). And, inclusivism does indeed due justice to them both.
First, inclusivism acknowledges that no other name than Jesus Christ can offer hope and light to the nations of the world. They know of no other Savior, and all peoples, regardless of birthplace and cultural distinctives, are saved through the event of Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, God is constantly seeking to communicate his grace and love. As a result, He desires the salvation of all people. Inclusivism believes that “Jesus symbolizes particularity, and the Spirit symbolizes universality” (142). Therefore, inclusivism allows its proponents to hold to both particularity and universality simultaneously, thus providing adequate appreciation and space for them both.
Exclusivism
The final model of how Christianity can relate to religious pluralism is commonly known as exclusivism. Though there is considerable diversity amongst those who adopt this position, the exclusivist stance is heralded by many today, especially within the evangelical tradition.[6] It can be defined as “maintaining that other religions are marked by humankind’s fundamental sinfulness and are therefore erroneous, and that Christ (or Christianity) offers the only valid path to salvation” (D’Costa 52).
The Christian exclusivist upholds that Christianity embodies the uniquely authentic response to divine reality. They hold that individual salvation depends on explicit personal faith in Jesus Christ, and that such cannot occur apart from knowledge about Him. Therefore, in order to experience salvation, a specific confession has to be made, and a specific set of truths must be believed. Furthermore, hearing the gospel is a “natural prerequisite for the satisfaction of this condition” (235). Holding the Bible in highest esteem, exclusivists believe that the greatest biblical and extrabiblical evidence supports their position.
In considering the strengths of exclusivism, its biblical orientation is one of its strongest points in the whole of its argument. Though those of the pluralist persuasion would not view such so favourably, it does serve the majority of the evangelical scene quite well. Though some of the arguments in relation to their chosen texts may be questionable, their passion for Scripture and how it must form and inform Christian doctrine and practice is admirable and commendable.
However, not unlike the other positions, exclusivism too has areas of weakness. Perhaps the most notable being the relative coldness expressed towards the unevangelized, or maybe how little space it uses to address the issue at all. For while they do spend ample time discussing the particularity of the gospel, and how there must be present an explicit example of faith in Jesus Christ, they offer very little hope, if any, to those who have never heard the gospel through no fault of their own. As much as I would like to believe that the gospel will be preached in the whole world before the return of Christ, the possibility of that actually occurring seems to be a stretch for the imagination. This is especially true when one considers the 10/40 window, and the Islamic domination of that particular geographic area of the world.
While it may seem that I am suggesting a watering down of the message so as to make it more politically correct, such is not the case. However, the argument put forth by both pluralists and inclusivists alike makes much sense, particularly when viewed through the lens of God’s universal love, and the contemporary Trinitarian thought in general. That being true, how can a God of love eternally predestine the vast majority of humanity to condemnation? Principally, when many in this group have never even had an opportunity to hear the message even once? Exclusivists seem to treat those on the other side of the proverbial fence quite unfairly. While God’s holiness does indeed demand justice and judgement, there must be another option to the coldness and dogmatism of the exclusivist paradigm.
In relation to the two axioms mentioned throughout, exclusivism, while explicit on particularity, is obviously cold on universality. Though they may not want to promote themselves in such a manner, they do nonetheless. And, it does make their argument visibly one-sided.
However, such does not have to be the case, as the inclusivist model attempts to articulate. God’s grace, when viewed through His agape for humanity, clearly must posit another option towards the unevangelized (cf. 1 Jh. 4:8, 16). This does not mean that those who have never heard must automatically be acquitted on the grounds of ignorance, but other possibilities must be made available to them through God’s love and grace. Exclusivism fails dramatically in this very area and should re-consider their argumentation in light of such. It would serve us well to remember our own salvation experience, and how those precious moments had essentially nothing to do with us, and everything to do with God’s mercy. Surely, this same mercy is extended to the unevangelized and sometimes through means unknown to us. We would all do well to show a little humility.
Conclusion
In conclusion, religious pluralism has indeed taken a position of prominence in Christian theological circles, especially as cities continue to experience increased immigration and information globalization. As a result, Christianity has responded to this phenomenon in a number of ways and means. Three of the more accepted and well-crafted attempts to respond have been classified as pluralism, inclusivism, and exclusivism. Though each position boasts as the better option in comparison to the others, each has vulnerabilities, and need to reconsider some of its arguments and there basis. However, after all has been said and done, the position that seems to address the issue most accurately and sensibly is that of inclusivism. While certainly in need of continued study and examination, it does provide the superior alternative, as it endeavours to maintain a balance between the two axioms of universality and particularity within the gospel.
Back to Links to Papers
For further reading, check out Dr. Archie Spencer's (Northwest Baptist Seminary) article on the relationship between general revelation and non-Christian faith traditions at http://webzoom.freewebs.com/jkclarke/Pluralist_Inclusivist_Appeal.pdf
References:
Gavin D’Costa & Paul F. Knitter. The Meetings of Religions and the Trinity. Orbis Books, 2000.
Dennis Okholm & Timothy Phillips, eds. Four Views of Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Zondervan, 1996.
Clark H. Pinnock. A Wideness in God’s Mercy. 1992.
[1] Hick differs from conservative evangelicals not only at this point, but takes it a step further and questions the revelation and authority of Scripture in general. In fact, he has stated that it is not possible “to settle theological issues with ‘The Bible says…’” (Okholm/Phillips 33).
[2] See Okholm/Phillips 53-55.
[3] Pluralism posits an unknown Reality everywhere present in religion.
[4] See Okholm/Phillips 62. Also, my article posted at http://www.christianity.ca/faith/theology/2005/11.001.html
[5] Though there is plurality in the inclusivist camp, the views of
[6] Due to the brevity of this essay, the view of Geivett and Phillips will dominate, as it contains the basic tenets of the position, and because it represents the other side (extreme) of the theological spectrum in relation to this work.
The Masonic Lodge: A Theological Overview
There are many people in the craft of Freemasonry that would adamantly refute the idea that their organization has been labelled a religion. Masonic scholars such as Albert Mackey and Bernard F. Jones believe it to be just that. Others, such as Allan D. Large (32nd degree Mason) and Dr. Norman Vincent Peale (33rd degree Mason) would disagree totally (Mather, Nichols 29). According to the Webster’s New World Dictionary, religion is a “1.) belief in a divine or super human power . . . to be obeyed and worshipped as the Creator and ruler of the universe; 2.) [an] expression of [this] belief in conduct and ritual” (Ankerberg, Weldon 38). Freemasonry demands that all of its initiates believe in a Supreme Being (Ankerberg, Weldon 109). This Supreme Being is worshiped through various rituals that are “very similar to a church’s worship agenda in that it commonly includes prayers, pledges, and hymns” (Mather, Nichols 32). Bearing these things in mind, Freemasonry certainly fulfils the criteria necessary to qualify it as a religion.
The very fact that Masonry is a religion also means that it must have definitive doctrines and related practical applications. This is absolutely necessary for its diverse membership to obtain some kind of coherence. The theology of the Masonic Lodge is extremely broad in its content. Though officially formalised in 1717 in
For example, the universal symbol of the Masonic Lodge is the Square and the Compass (Rongstad 11). According to Jim Shaw, former 33rd degree Mason, men are originally taught that the Square serves to remind them “that they must be ‘square’ in their dealings with all men” (143). The Compass teaches them that they should “control their desires and be temperate” (143). However, the real meaning is sexual (143).
The Square represents the female (passive) generative principle, the earth, and the baser, sensual nature; and the Compass represents the male (active) generative principle, the sun/heavens, and the higher spiritual nature. The Compass, arranged above the Square, symbolises the (male) Sun, impregnating the passive(female) Earth with its life-giving rays. The true meanings then are two fold: the earthly (human) representations are of the man and his phallus, and the woman with her receptive eteis (vagina). The cosmic meaning is that of the active Sun (deity, the Sun-god) from above, impartin life into the passive Earth, (deity, the earth/fertility goddess) below and producing new life. (Shaw, Makenney 144). This Mason morality (or lack of it) is the basic foundation for the entirety of their theological construct.
However, do the numerous inconsistencies and mis-representations of Freemasonry automatically mark it as a cult? What are the distinguishing factors that reveal that a religious organisation is cultic? In Orthodox Christianity there are doctrines that are classified as the essentials of the faith. If religious groups of any origin transgress or deny these fundamental Christian trues, than this group automatically fulfils the requirements needed to be identified as a cult. In particular, there are four areas of doctrine that can reveal the cultic origins of any religious group. They are: their view of authority for faith and practice; their view of Jesus (Christology); their view of the Godhead; their view of salvation (Tucker 27,59,97,129). Freemasonry will be examined at these four fronts.
First, what does Freemasonry use as their primary authority for faith and practice? Orthodox Christianity affirms the ultimate authority of the Holy Bible. “By the authority of the Bible we mean that the Bible, as the expression of God’s will to us, possesses the right supremely to define what we are to believe and how we are to conduct ourselves” (Erickson 241). The Bible is the only text which Orthodoxy recognises as the very Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16) (Mather, Nichols 38).
However, Freemasonry has a different viewpoint. Masonry does indeed “affirm” the Bible as one of the three “great lights” of its craft (Ankerberg, Weldon 93). At the beginning degrees or levels (Blue Lodge), Masonry teaches that the Scriptures are their supreme authority (Ankerberg, Weldon 93). Yet, they really believe that the Scriptures is a symbol, “a symbol for the will of God” (Ankerberg, Weldon 94). However, God’s will can also be known through the sacred texts of other religious gatherings (Mather, Nichols 37). For example, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, and the Koran, are also considered to be “honoured as symbols of truth” (Ankerberg, Weldon 95). After all, “the source for all biblical inspiration is the same as that for all religious texts, namely, God” (Mather, Nichols 36). They allow this syncretism of sacred books to occur so as not to offend any member of their organisation who does not hold to the Bible as the supreme authority (Rongstad 25). What text they decide to use as authoritative is based solely on the “religion of the majority of members . . . in that particular Lodge” (Rongstad 25). One would have to remember that in order to receive the allegiance of a man in Masonry, he must swear his fidelity on the authority of the book they “hold dear” (Ankerberg, Weldon 95). In essence, “Masonry has no real respect for the contents of holy books, only an appreciation for their motivating power to secure one’s commitment to Masonry” (Ankerberg, Weldon 96). To conclude, Masonry believes that the Bible is not the literal Word of God, therefore, it should not be obeyed in that same manner (Shaw, Makenney 128).
Secondly, how does Freemasonry view Jesus Christ? Orthodox Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is God incarnate (John 1:1). He came to reveal the Father to humanity (John 1:18). He came to declare to people everywhere that He is the “only way by which fallen humanity may be saved” (Mather, Nichols 46) (Acts 4:12). Fully God and Fully Man, Christ possesses all of the relative attributes of deity (Col. 2:9). He is “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15); the “radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being” (Heb. 1:3). Christ is the only Mediator between God and humanity (1 Tim. 2:5). Our petitions must be addressed to Him alone, for He is our Great High Priest (Heb. 4:14,16).
However, Freemasonry views Jesus Christ completely different. They see Jesus as just another great man and philosopher of truth (Shaw, Makenney 126). They place Him on the same level as “Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras and Mohammed” (Shaw, Makenney 127). He is “not divine and certainly not the only means of redemption of lost mankind” (Shaw, Makenney 127). Some Masons do consider Jesus as the Son of God, but the “general practice, however, is to not invoke the name of Jesus when praying, regardless of one’s personal belief” (Mather, Nichols 44). Why is this the case? So any member who holds to another religious persuasion will not be offended (Mather, Nichols 44). In the Maryland Master Mason magazine, the following statement is made regarding prayer: “All prayers in Mason lodges should be directed to the one deity to whom all Masons refer as the Grand Architect of the Universe . . . using no additional words which would conflict with the religious beliefs of those present at meetings” (Ankerberg, Weldon 128).
They also deny the Christ as Saviour of the world. “Masonry completely excludes all particular biblical teachings about Christ such as His incarnation, redemptive mission, death and resurrection” (Ankerberg, Weldon 133). Former mason Edmond Ponayne confirms that “Freemasonry ‘carefully excludes’ the Lord Jesus from the Lodge and chapter, repudiates his mediatorship, rejects his atonement, denies and disowns his gospel” (Ankerberg, Weldon 133-4).
Thirdly, how does Freemasonry view the Godhead? Orthodox Christianity affirms that “God is Spirit (John 4:4), self-existent (1 Cor. 8:4,6), unchanging (Mal.3:6), almighty, and sovereign” (Shaw, Makenney 131). He is the Creator of all things (Gen.1:1), and exists in the three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Erickson 327). Though God exists in three persons, He is also one (monotheism) (1 Cor. 8:4; Deut. 6:4). There is no other God but Jehovah, and worship ascribed to any other “deity” is absolutely forbidden (Ex. 20:3-4).
Yet, Freemasonry believes something quite different. “God is, basically, whatever we perceive Him to be; our idea or concept of God becomes our God” (Shaw, Makenney 130). Though Masonry demands all of its initiates to believe in a Supreme Being, they totally disregard any mention of the God of the Scriptures (Rongstad 23). Instead of using Scriptural names for God, such as “Jehovah” (Gen 15:2), “I am” (Ex.3:14), and “Almighty God” (Gen.17:1), Masons substitute this with more general terms such as, “The Great Architect of the Universe”, “The All-Seeing Eye”, and “The Supreme Intelligence of the Universe” (Mather, Nichols 41). After all, all world religions acknowledge the same God (Mather, Nichols 40). Call God what you will, “Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, Vishnu, Shiva, or Great Geometer”, “Freemasonry cares not” (Ankerberg, Weldon 111). Masonic scholar Albert Mackey validates this when he declared, “God is equally present with the pious Hindu in the temple, the Jew in the synagogue . . . and the Christian in the Church” (Ankerberg, Weldon 111).
Masons also deny the concept of the Trinity on the basis of their belief in a unitarian Supreme Being (Ankerberg, Weldon 116). Since all religions worship the same God, then to affirm the Trinity of the Bible “would be to sponsor a religion” (Mather, Nichols 44). This goes against the root dogmas of Masonry, and therefore, is disregarded.
Finally, how does Freemasonry view the way of salvation? Orthodox Christianity teaches that all people everywhere “have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). From birth we are all sinners (Ps. 51:5), and by nature are hostile towards God (
However, Freemasonry renounces all of these Scriptural claims. Former Mason Jim Shaw states that, “redemption is a matter of self-improvement, morality, and good works, including obedience to the Mason’s obligation and all higher Masonic authorities” (132). He continues by stating, “faith in the atonement of Jesus has nothing to do with it; it is rather a matter of enlightenment, step by step, which comes with initiation into the Masonic degrees and their mysteries” (132). This clearly denies Ephesians 2:8-9.
Furthermore, human beings have within them the ability to ascend from “imperfection” toward “total perfection” (Mather, Nichols 49). This perfection lies inside every person and “may be discovered through education” (Mather, Nichols 49). In fact, this ascension towards “total perfection” begins when one is initiated into the Lodge and comes from darkness (the world) into light (the new birth of Masonry) (Mather, Nichols 78). They even go as far to declare that humanity has within itself the ability to “evolve from the stage of the mortal animal to a being immortal, super-human, godlike” (Mather, Nichols 50).
Heaven is also the final destination of all Masons for “he will be received into the all-perfect, celestial lodge above, for he will, by his life, have made of earth the porch-way into heaven” (Mather, Nichols 78).
Freemasonry certainly does run contrary to many of the truths laid out in Scripture. The greatest challenge is to help others to understand these important differences and decide for themselves what the best course of action should be.
Back to Links to Papers
Works Consulted
Ankerberg, John, and John Weldon. The Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge.
Baigent, Michael, and Richard Leigh. The
Decker,Ed. What You Need to Know About . . . Masons.
1992.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology.
Finney, Charles G. The Antichrist or the Masonic Society.
1984.
Freemasonry: From Darkness to Light? Videocassette. Jeremiah Films Inc. 34 min.
Mather, George A., and Larry A. Nichols. Masonic Lodge. Gen. ed. Alan W. Gomes.
Rhodes, Ron. Christ Before the Manger.
Rongstad, James L. How to Respond to the Lodge.
Shaw, James D., and Tom C. Makenney. The Deadly Deception.
Storms, E.M. Should a Christian Be a Mason? Fletcher: New Puritan Library, 1980.
Strong, James L. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Hendrickson Pub.,
1996.
Tucker, Bruce. Twisting the Truth.
Salvation and Universal Atonement
The fact that "Jesus saves is not disputed among true believers" (Nicole, Universalism 31). The Scriptures declare time and time again that this reality is indeed true (Matt. 1:21; 1 Tim. 1:15; Lk. 19:10). Yet, there are those who would attempt to limit the atoning work of Jesus Christ by stating that God "purposed to save only the elect, and that in consequence only they are saved" (Horne 35) (Matt. 1:21; 22:14; Acts 20:28). The conclusion drawn from this is that "God creates some persons in order to damn them" (Erickson 913). Paradoxically, there are those who believe in the unlimited atoning work of Jesus (He died for all people). Scripture provides sufficient grounds for such a doctrinal position (2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4). This paper will focus on verifying the latter view by examining the human predicament (universal sin), the explicit incarnational mission of Christ, and finally, the extent of the atonement based on the preceding arguments.
To begin, a working definition of both ideas will be given. Limited atonement is "a reference to the view that Christ's atoning death was only for the elect" (Erickson, Concise 97). Unlimited atonement is "a reference to the doctrine that Christ's redemptive death was for all persons" (Erickson, Concise 176) (Universal and unlimited atonement are used interchangeably). Before one can adequately address the question 'for whom did Christ die?', the human predicament, with regards to the universality of sin, must be affirmed. Why? Because this is the only means by which all of humanity can be classified as equal in terms of their status before a holy God. Only when sin is seen as the common thread that connects all of human kind can the universal need of a Saviour be truly realized (Rom. 3:9b). 'For whom did Christ die?' must be preceded by the statement that all people everywhere are in equal need of a Saviour, simply because of their collective status as sinners (Erickson 621). "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). "There is no one righteous, not even one" (Rom. 3:10). "The biblical writers are quite clear that sin is universal" (Stott, Basic 62).
In light of this, both Scripture itself and biblical scholars agree, that sin is a state, more so than a simple act or actions (Tambasco 35). "As a revolt against God's law it is an act of man's will; as separation from God, it becomes a sinful state" (Pearlman 134). Passages such as Psalm 51:5, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me"; and the proclamation of Paul in Romans 7:17 which states, "it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me", depict that sin is more than a mere act. It is also a disposition or state (Strong 552). Jesus Himself taught this truth in Mark 7:21-23 when He stated, "For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts." "Sin is not a mere act - something foreign to the being. It is a quality of being. There is no such thing as a sin apart from the sinner, or an act apart from an actor" [E.G. Robinson]" (Strong 550). Why is this the case? The fall of Adam (Rom. 5:12-21) "Adam, as the father of the race, passed on to his descendants a tendency or bias to sin" (Pearlman 135). Yet, even though humanities nature has been marred by sin, they are still "morally responsible agents" (Stott, The Cross 95) (Gen. 2:9b, 16-17; 3:6). Due to this reality, sin has its consequences.
The consequences of sin, like sin itself, has come through the fall of Adam (Rom. 5:12-21). "Whatever punishment was brought down upon our first parents has likewise pervaded and yet pursues all their posterity [Arminius]" (Miley 505). In particular, sin affects the relationship between God and the human race.
Millard J. Erickson describes four areas where humanities relationship with God has been affected because of sin. First, it produces "divine disfavour" (Christian 602). This divine disfavour is not something that occurs due to any change in God's disposition, but in actuality reveals His unchanging character (603) (Mal. 3:6). The totality of Scripture reveals that God is Holy (Isa. 6:1-4; Ex. 3; Ex. 26:33). Bearing this mind, God and sin are diametrically opposed. Sin brings God's disfavour upon an individual for He cannot even associate with sin.
Secondly, guilt affects one's relationship with God (605). Guilt in this context does not refer to guilty feelings that one may experience. Here, guilt "is the objective state of having violated God's intention for man and thus being liable to punishment" (605). Guilt is incurred when one has violated the Law of God and has brought upon themselves the just penalty for their sin (607).
Thirdly, Punishment is a direct result of sin against God (607). Though God's punishment is retributive in nature, it serves two other purposes as well (Isa. 1:24; 61:2;63:4). First, it is "intended to deter persons from wrongdoing (609) (Deut. 6:12-15; 8:11, 19-20). Secondly, punishment was administered to serve a disciplinary function (609). Why? To help convince the sinner the error of their ways in the hopes that they will turn from it (609) (Ps. 107:10-16).
Finally, death is also the result of sin (611)(Gen. 2:17). Death takes place in three areas. First, physical death (Gen. 3:19). The potential for death in the Garden of Eden has become actual because of sin (613)(Gen. 3:22; Rom. 5:12). Secondly, spiritual death came into being as a result of sin (613). "Spiritual death is the separation of the person, in the entirety of his or her nature, from God" (613-14)(Rom. 6:23). This takes place because God, who is holy, cannot have fellowship with sin (614). Thirdly, eternal death is a direct result of sin (614). Eternal death is the permanent separation between God and humanity which takes place at the point of physical death if the person was spiritually dead at that time (614)(Rev. 20:14). "This is the permanent state of what the sinner chose in life" (615). Though sin affects the individual involved and also society in general, the consequences of sin with regards to the broken relationship between God and people are of special revalence here. Why? To reveal both the equal status of all people with regards to the universality of sin, and also the essential need for a Saviour to reconcile humanity back to God. For without such a Saviour all of humanity would be eternally lost. This was the explicit purpose of Christ's incarnation.
The explicit mission of Jesus Christ has been, and still is, a topic of much debate throughout Christendom. In spite of this, both the Old and New Testaments articulate Christ's mission with clarity (
The first time the gospel was preached took place in Genesis 3:15. After Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit of which God had previously commanded them not to eat, He "had no choice but to pronounce judgement" (
Another passage which testifies to the promised Messiah is Micah 5:2. In this verse, Micah is prophesying about Christ and His upcoming birth in
Finally, the Book of Isaiah also speaks of the promised Christ. In fact, "he predicted the Messiah's virgin birth (Isa. 7:14), his deity and kingdom (9:1-7), his reign of righteousness (11: 2-5), his suffering and death on the cross for the sins of man (52:13-53:12), and much more" (
"Jesus clearly believed himself to be the Messiah the Old Testament predicted" (Stott, Basic 26) (Mk. 1:15; Lk. 10:23; 18:31b). In fact, even at the age of 12 He was "both speaking of God as 'my Father' and also feeling an inward compulsion to occupy himself with his Father's affairs. He knew he had a mission" (Stott, The Cross 25) (Lk. 2:41-50). However, Jesus did not begin to speak about His ultimate purpose until sometime later.
When Jesus asked the disciples who they believed Him to be at Caesarea Philippi, Peter exclaimed that He was God's Messiah (Mk. 8:29-30). Though Jesus responded by telling them not to speak about this revelation to anyone, He then began to teach His disciples about His mission and purpose for the first time (Mk. 8:31-31) (Wiersbe 18). Though Jesus may have alluded to His mission on an earlier occasion (Mk. 2:19-20), this was His first "prediction of the passion" (Stott, The Cross 26).
The second instance where Jesus spoke of His mission took place when He and His disciples were passing through
Jesus made a third declaration regarding His mission when they were heading for
The Synoptic writers also affirmed Christ's mission in their writings. On several occasions they wrote of Jesus' future sacrificial death (Mt. 26:2; Lk. 22:14-20; Mk. 14:43-50). "Thus, the Synoptic evangelists bear a common witness to the fact that Jesus both clearly foresaw and repeatedly foretold his coming death" (Stott, The Cross 28).
Finally, the apostle Paul also spoke of the purpose and mission of Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:3 states that "Christ died for our sins." In Acts 17:2-3, Paul proved that Christ must "suffer and rise from the dead." Other passages such as Romans 3:25 and Galatians 3:13 assert the same concept. Bearing the preceding arguments in mind with regards to the universality of sin, it's consequences, and the explicit mission of Jesus Christ in coming to earth, one can now effectively address the question 'for whom did Christ die?'.
The atoning death of Christ is said to be either limited or unlimited in its scope. However, before one can grasp the limited atonement theory, one should remember the following points. If all of humanity are sinners (by state and act), and all sin has it's definitive consequences (which includes eternal separation from God)(Stott, Basic 71), and "Christ's death has made the reconciliation of mankind to God possible" (Pearlman 211)(Col. 1:19-20), then it is also correct to contend that Christ died for all (1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2:4-6; Lk. 19:10). "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 Jh. 2:2). "In saying this, John was clearly affirming the view that Christ genuinely died for everyone. This does not mean, of course, that everyone will be saved. It means rather that anyone who hears the gospel can be saved if he so desires (Rev. 22:17)" (Hodges 887). "The atonement of Christ is, as
In conclusion, the fact that Jesus Christ saves is not disputed among true Christians. However, whether His death actually atoned for the sins of the entire world is a completely different story. Some say that it did not. Others say that it did. Yet, in spite of all the debate, it appears that the Scripture in its totality speaks a very clear message to everyone. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jh. 3:16).
Back to Links to Papers
Works Consulted
Buswell, J. Oliver. Sin and Atonment.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology.
Crockett, William V., and James G. Sigountos, eds. Through NoFault of Their Own?
Erickson, Millard J. Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology.
---. Christian Theology.
Erlandson, Charles. "Charles H. Spurgeon." A Heritage of Great Evangelical Teaching.
Freligh, Harold M. Newborn.
Hodges, Zane C. "1 John." The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Gen. eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Vol. 2.
Holy Bible. NIV.
Horne, Charles M. The Doctrine of Salvation.
Miley, John. Systematic Theology.
Miller, J. Graham. Calvin's Wisdom.
Nicole, Roger. "John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement."
---. "Universalism: Will Everyone Be Saved?" Christianity Today. 20 March 1987: 31-45.
Pearlman, Myer. Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible.
Punt, Neal. Unconditional Good News.
Rhodes, Ron. Christ Before the Manger.
Shank, Robert. Life in the Son.
Stott, John R.W. Basic Christianity.
---. The Cross of Christ.
Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology. Westwood: Flemming H. Revell Com., 1963.
Tambasco, Anthony J. A Theology of Atonement and Paul's Vision of Christianity. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1991.
Visse'rt Hooft, W.A. No Other Name.
Wells, Ronald A. "Can There Be a Christmas TULIP?" Reformed Journal 40 (1990): 7-8.
White,
Wiersbe, Warren W. The Cross of Jesus.
Theories of the Tribulation
When one considers the events that will take place during the end times, it is not difficult to get somewhat confused as to the timing of these various events and there actual meaning. Is the language used to describe these happenings merely symbolic, or do they have a literal meaning, meant to be understood in that same light. Even though a certain amount of mystery overshadows the book of Revelation and other passages which deal with the end times, history records a number of theories which speculate has to when the
The fact that a rapture will indeed occur is clearly evident in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 which states, "we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." This teaching appears to be universally accepted in the church throughout history (except for some on the post-tribulational side).
In light of this, the first viewpoint which will be examined is the pre-tribulation teaching. This is "the belief that Christ will rapture or remove the church from the world prior to the tribulation" (Erickson, Concise Dictionary 133). This removal of the church will "signal the beginning of the tribulation" (Horton 122). When the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 5:9 that "God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ", pre-tribulationists take this verse to help validate their claim that the church will be taken out of the world before the tribulation takes place. Also, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 reiterates this point when it states, "Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath." These verses, accompanied by others, help to verify the belief of the pre-tribulational teachers.
There are, however, certain distinct features which sets this theory apart from the others. First of all, pre-tribulationists "maintains that there will be two phrases in Christ's coming . . . There will also be three resurrections" (Erickson, Christian Theology 1218). The first will take place at the rapture. The second will take place at the end of the tribulation, and the third at the end of the millennium, where the unbelievers will be resurrected (Erickson, Christian Theology 1218).
Though there are some problems with the three resurrection teaching based on Revelation 20:5, which states that the saints who died during the tribulation will be resurrected from the dead as a part of the first resurrection, the two phases of Christ's coming is viable. For "some passages dealing with the Rapture speak of Christ's coming to snatch up believers to be with Him (1 Thess. 4:17), and other such passages speak of believers being with Him at His coming (Col. 3:4; Jude 14) (Horton 132). Also Revelation 19:11-16 clearly states that the armies which follow Jesus from heaven at the end of the tribulation will be dressed in "fine linen, white and clean." This statement speaks of those who have accepted Jesus as Saviour and Lord. For Revelation 19:8-9 reveals this to be the case because the "bride has made herself ready. Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear." These passages conclude that the saints must have been in heaven for a definite period of time prior to this appearing with Jesus. This positively confirms a pre-tribulational teaching.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, the apostle Paul describes the events which will take place during the time of the judgement of Christ upon the earth. In this explanation, Paul declares that there are certain things which must occur before the "Day of the Lord" begins. For example, verse 3 declares, that the "day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed." "These events do not precede the Day of the Lord, but are part of the judgement that God allows to come on the earth on the Day of the Lord" (Horton 131). In essence, Paul states that we can expect the rapture to take place before this judgement of God is poured out upon the unbelieving world (Horton 131).
The pre-tribulationists also place a strong emphasis upon the imminent return of Christ to earth (Erickson, Christian Theology, 1219). Various passages of Scripture deal specifically with the admonition to be always on guard; watching and waiting for the sudden return of Christ, "that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen" (Luke 21:34-36; Matt. 25:13). "Since it can occur at any moment, watchfulness and diligent activity are very much in order" (Erickson, Christian Theology 1219). This idea is conveyed in passages like that of the ten virgins (Matt.25:1-13), and the master who returns at a time when the workers least expected him to come (Matt. 25:45-51).
Christ's return is also imminent because the apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:18 explicitly states that believers should "encourage each other with these words" that are focused upon the rapture of the church. If the next great event to transpire was the great tribulation, then Paul would have never told the people at Thessalonica to encourage one another with these words concerning the imminent return of Christ. They are "never told to watch for the Great Tribulation or the appearance of the anti-Christ. To expect that such things must happen before the rapture destroys the teaching of imminence" (Horton 132). They are, however, to wait for God's Son from heaven (1 Thess. 1:10).
Finally, pre-tribulationists' state that there will be at least two judgements (Erickson, Christian Theology 1220). The first judgement will take place at the time of the rapture. This is the time when the saints will be judged according to their faithfulness in the great commission given by Jesus (Erickson, Christian Theology 1220). The second judgement will take place at the end of the millennium. It is at this time that the unbelievers will be judged based primarily upon the their personal rejection of God's Son Jesus Christ (Rev. 20:11-15).
The second viewpoint which will be examined is the post-tribulational teaching. This is "the belief that the church will go through the tribulation, not being removed until the return of Christ at the end of that period" (Erickson, Concise Dictionary 131).
The first aspect of this teaching is that post-tribulationists' deny that the Lord's return will take place in two stages (Horton 123). Unlike pre-tribulationists, this teaching states that Christ will not return before the tribulation begins, but will come only after the end of the tribulation. However, Hebrews 9:28 states that Christ will appear a second time to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him. When compared with 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, which pictures Christ coming to judge the unbelievers and to be glorified in the midst of His holy people, this rejection of the two stages of Christ's coming is nullified (Walvoord 976).
Secondly, while pre-tribulationists' stress a literal interpretation of Daniel 9:27, which states that the period of the great tribulation to be seven years, post-tribulationists' "hold merely that the tribulation will last a substantial period of time" (Erickson, Christian Theology 1220). Though the interpretation of Daniel 9:27 is just that, an interpretation, it nonetheless is the general position taken by much of the evangelical world, and makes much more sense.
Thirdly, post-tribulationists' declare that "the church will be present during and experience the great tribulation" (Erickson, Christian Theology 1220). They get this from the term 'elect' located in Matthew 24. Normally, this term is in reference to 'believers'. Therefore, "the term 'elect' has denoted the church" (Erickson, Christian Theology 1221). This is a strong argument for this particular viewpoint.
Fourthly, most post-tribulationists interpret the wrath of God as something entirely distinct from the torment of the great tribulation. For they consider the wrath of God to be the "final state of the wicked, the lake of fire" (Horton 124). They believe that Christians will indeed escape this fire, but that the troubles of the great tribulation, which is something completely different, will not be removed from our lives. They state that we shall have trouble and suffering in this world and that the only difference in this present tribulation and the events of the great tribulation is of "degree only, not of kind" (Erickson, Christian Theology 1221). However, "the judgements of the Great Tribulation are not in the same class - they are God's wrath" (Horton 125). The wrath of God cannot be narrowed down to the lake of fire, but it is clearly evident that this wrath is spoken of in the seals, trumpets, and bowls of God's judgement upon the unbelieving world during the great tribulation (Rev. 6:16-17; 8:6; 16:1). Hence, the argument that we will go through the great tribulation is rather weak in terms of it being supportive of the post-tribulational teaching.
Linked with the previous thought, post-tribulationists' state that "the church will be kept from the midst of the tribulation, not that it will be kept away from the tribulation" (Erickson, Christian Theology 1221). However, as the former argument was weak at this point, so it applies here for the same reasons.
Fifthly, post-tribulationists' have a different understanding of Paul's reference in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (Erickson Christian Theology 1222). In reference to the phrase "to meet", post-tribulationists' declare that this phrase "suggests a welcoming party that goes out to meet someone on the way and accompanies him back to where they came from" (Erickson, Christian Theology 1222). They state that the church will not go into heaven to engage in the marriage supper of the Lamb, but will meet Christ in the air and immediately return to earth (Erickson, Christian Theology 1223). However, this opposes the Scriptures which refer to the saints coming with Christ in the clouds to earth to fight the armies of the world (Rev. 19:11-21; Col. 3:4; Jude 14-15). In this light, this argument is also weak and cannot be used in support of the post-tribulational position.
Finally, post-tribulationalists' state that the coming of Christ is not imminent "in the sense that it could occur at any time" (Erickson, Christian Theology 1223). They prefer to use the word "impending" as opposed to "imminent" (Erickson, Christian Theology 1223). However, this clearly does not maintain the biblical position so prevalent throughout the Scriptures regarding the "imminent" return of Jesus Christ (Luke 21: 34-36; Matt. 25:1-13; Matt. 25:45-51).
In conclusion, though there are some definite problems in both the pre-tribulational and the post-tribulational positions, it appears from the various arguments given, that the pre-tribulational viewpoint is the strongest and therefore is the belief that is more favourable to this writer.
Back to Links to Papers
Works Cited
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology.
Holy Bible. New International Version.
Horton, Stanley M. Our Destiny: Biblical Teachings on the Last Things.
Walvoord, John F. "Revelation." The Bible knowledge Commentary. Gen. eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Vol.2.
God for Us: Karl Barth's View of Election
That God wills neither to be without the world nor against it can never be stated more clearly than when we speak of His election. (Barth II/2, p. 26.)
Introduction
Theology is a matter of emphasis. Though from the surface this may appear to be somewhat of an abstract statement, its primary thesis is easily identifiable as one reads the writings of various theologians. Nowhere is this more evident than in the work of Karl Barth. His was a theology of neo-orthodoxy, a sharp and well-defined work of theological science and art, articulated with very specific purposes in mind. Barth’s theological enquires were also very contextualized, “directed towards engagement in church life and theological teaching” from the 1920s to the early 1960s.[1]
Consumed by the work of reconstructing his personal account of the Christian faith, Barth felt compelled to call the church of his day to be defined solely by its confession of Jesus Christ, “the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.”[2] To be certain, theological reconstruction based in and through the person of Jesus Christ was Barth’s primary calling, his emphasis so to speak, witnessed preeminently in his re-working on a number of crucial tracts of Reformed teaching, the doctrine of election being a prime example. This paper then will focus on the development of the doctrine of election via Calvinism and Arminianism, Barth’s theological proposal as a reaction to these two classic options, and a conclusion evaluating his construction.
Overview of the Doctrine of Election
Of all the doctrines of the Christian faith, one of the most puzzling and difficult to understand is the doctrine of election. Seemed to be incomprehensible by some and even strange to others, its centrality to the faith is undeniable and therefore worthy of intense study and articulation. While many people have attempted to understand the doctrine, with many areas of emphasis being realized, there are two views which seem to personify the polarities involved in the doctrine itself. Those two constructions have been widely known as Calvinism and Arminianism.
Calvinism
What has been designated as Calvinism has taken many different forms over the years. However, there are certain common features found in these various formulations. Probably the most popular among students of theology is the acronym TULIP. Simply stated TULIP stands for: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance. While there are varying interpretations of each of these parts, the focus of this study will be on the area of predestination, or more specifically, that of election.
Generally speaking, Calvinists think of the whole human race as lost in sin. Nowhere else is this more epitomized than in the concept of total depravity, which highlights the principle that no human being is able to respond to any offer of grace from God through their own volition. Total inability is yet another way of describing the human condition. This terminology seems to illustrate that individuals have lost the ability to do good and to convert themselves. Key passages that support this idea are those like Ephesians 2:1-3, John 6:44, and Romans 3:1-23.
Calvinism’s second major concept is the sovereignty of God. He is Lord and Creator of all things and subsequently is free to do whatever He wills. He is therefore not subject to anyone and is thereby not answerable to anyone for decisions made. Passages in favor of this view are Matthew 20:13-25 and Romans 9:20-21, the latter highlighting Paul’s metaphor of the potter and the clay. Furthermore,
As God sovereignly sustains all his creation, so in his providence he rules over and guides it to the accomplishment of his ultimate purposes . . . this rule included even the free actions of man, so that history might achieve the end which God has determined from all eternity 3] According to Calvinism, election is God’s choice of certain persons to experience his salvation through Jesus Christ. It can refer to those chosen in the Old Testament, such as
There are variations within Calvinism with respect to this doctrine. Some hold to the idea of double predestination, the belief that God chooses some to be saved and others to be lost.[6] Others, such as Augustus Strong, believe that God actively chooses who are to be saved and receive eternal life, and simply passes by all others.[7] However, in the final analysis, the effect is the same in both cases. God determines those who are to be saved, and leaves others to be lost, either by divine decree alone (double predestination), or through the act of the sinner to remain in their sinful condition.
Arminianism
The other side of the theological spectrum as it relates to the doctrine of election is that of Arminianism. This theological stance is distinct from Calvinism in a number of ways. For purposes of this study, its teaching on predestination or election is of foremost importance. “It teaches predestination, since the Scripture writers do, but it understands that this predecision on God’s part is to save the ones who repent and believe. The predetermination of the destiny of individuals is based on God’s foreknowledge of the way in which they will either freely reject Christ or freely accept him.”[8] In essence, God “chose those whom He foreknew would believe.”[9]
While statements from the Arminian perspective vary in degree, there seems to be a starting point: God desires all people to be saved.[10] They point to a number of biblical passages which they claim provide the basis for such a claim. Not the least of which is 1 Timothy 2:3-4, “God our savior desires all men to be saved, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,” and 2 Peter 3:9. In these and other passages, the occurrences of “all” are used to point to the universal character of God’s call to salvation.
This leads to the second major component of Arminianism: that all persons are able to believe or to meet the conditions of salvation. They argue if this were not the case, the universal invitations to salvation would make little sense. Such a concept is supported by the idea of prevenient grace, defined as the “belief that although all persons begin life with a sinful nature, God restores each individual to the point where there is sufficient ability to believe.”[11] Henry Thiessen put it this way:
Since mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing to obtain salvation, God graciously restores to all men sufficient ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to Him. This is the salvation-bringing grace of God that has appeared to all men.[12]
With these major highlights in view between Calvinism and Arminianism as it relates to the doctrine of election, it is now time to introduce Barth’s view on the subject. From the historical positions outlined beforehand, and in the face of a strong, well-argued Reformed tradition, Barth began re-thinking and in essence re-formulating the doctrine of election.
Karl Barth
Due to the difficulty in understanding the doctrine of election, and because of the problems associated with the two classic views already mentioned, there have been a number of attempts since then to formulate a better option. Of the many constructions which have been developed to provide a viable and thought provoking alternative was that posed in the 20th century by Karl Barth. As had been previously mentioned, Barth felt a sense of mission in regards to the reformulating of this doctrine. As a Reformed theologian, he regarded this specific idea as basic and in many ways central to all of theology. As Webster highlighted in his work on Barth, he felt that his tradition had misunderstood the biblical witness on this front. Fully realizing that he was consciously and intentionally departing from the conventional Reformed position, he nevertheless began his treatment of this topic with the principle that became the foundation and focal point for his entire theological enterprise, the centrality of Jesus Christ. He would go so far as to state that the “whole body of material which is called the doctrine of predestination is to be explained through Christology and conversely Christology to be explained through the doctrine of predestination.”[13]
Barth’s doctrine of election begins with a critique of the traditional Calvinist position that God in eternity determined who is to be saved and who is to be lost. He regarded this position as a misreading of the Bible, a reading that believed that God’s relationship to the universe is static, making individuals either chosen or rejected from all eternity. “Moreover, in writing this section of the Church Dogmatics Barth felt largely alone, lacking in intellectual precedents and at odds even with the Reformed tradition.”[14]
To remedy this predicament, what must be done is to read the Bible Christologically, making Jesus Christ the starting point for the doctrine.[15]
In formulating a doctrine of election, one must do so in the light of God’s work of revelation and atonement.[16] At this juncture, the fact is seen with explicit clarity that Jesus Christ came to save human beings. Here Barth maintains that there is a direct and most important connection between the fact that Christ is at the center of God’s work within time and the eternal foreordaining of that work in the divine election.[17] If this was the case, God’s will was to elect, not reject people.
When Barth comes to ask the question of who has been chosen by God, he continues upon this Christological basis. In place of the static view in Calvin’s thought, Barth substitutes the person of Christ. The major point in his construction of predestination is that the eternal will of God is the election of Jesus Christ.
“Barth could not allow that our eternal salvation lies with some mysterious and unfathomable decretum absolutum, some absolute decree about the eternal destiny of individuals. Barth shifts our attention from the idea that God has elected or chosen us, to the idea that God has chosen Christ, and that ‘in Christ’ – the crucial biblical phrase, as in Eph. 1:4 – he has chosen us.”[18]
As Barth saw it, the traditional view regarded God’s will as an unchangeable decree formed from eternity. He modified this idea by presenting a more dynamic view: God, like a king, is free to correct, suspend, or replace his decree.[19] The immutable aspect of God is not the eternal choice of some and the rejection of others. It is the constancy of God in chosen love through Christ. Barth notes that here lies the danger that one may start from a “concept of God as omnipotent Will, governing and irresistibly directing each and every creature according to His own law.”[20] As Webster has pointed out, what is being objected to at this juncture is not the notion of divine sovereignty, but the indeterminateness of such a concept of deity.[21] The error Barth feels is important to criticize is that of “supposing that God is irresistibly efficacious in abstracto, naked freedom and sovereignty.”[22] Within the error lies that which the Church Dogmatics is directed: “God in general” (II/2, p. 49), “uncorrected and undisciplined by the name of Jesus.”[23]
Of Jesus Christ we know nothing more surely and definitely than this – that in free obedience to His Father He elected to be man, and as man, to do the will of God. If God elects us too, then it is in and with this election of Jesus Christ, in and with this free act of obedience, on the part of His Son . . . It is in him that the eternal election becomes immediately and directly the promise of our own election as it is enacted in time, or calling, or summoning to faith, our assent to intervention on our behalf, the revelation of ourselves as the sons of God.[24]
Christ is not just the elected man, but also the electing God. It is at this point where Barth revolutionizes the concept of double predestination, for wherever he utilizes this term he means that Jesus Christ is both the electing God and the elected man. The term takes on a whole new meaning where the human race is no longer divided into the categories of elect and reprobate, but to God’s self-election and God’s election of humanity, both actual in Jesus Christ.[25] “Primarily, God elected or predestined Himself,” and on this foundation, “elected man, this man.”[26] Furthermore, Jesus Christ was not chosen as an isolated individual, for “in him the entire human race has been chosen.”[27]
Miller and Grenz draw attention to the possibility of elected humanity through Christ in Barth’s theology of election as portraying a “radically substitutionary theory of the atonement.”[28] This is a very important aspect to consider as it relates to the election of humanity, for to be “in Christ” is only possible because Christ in His substitutionary death has borne the penalty for human sin and at the same time transfers His own perfections to sinful humans. “Thus we are in Christ and by virtue of his perfection are acceptable to God.”[29]
In relation to this idea, when Barth speaks about the election of humanity, he no longer makes reference to double predestination. Rather, he speaks of a universal election. All human beings have been elected in Jesus Christ. This is not to say, of course, that Barth holds to the idea of universal salvation, which some have claimed, but that in Christ, all of humanity has been elected. Yet, although all are elect, not all live as the elect. By one’s own volition, some live as if they were rejected. So just how does this universal election work in those who do not believe?
Other Voices
In light of the biblical witness regarding God’s will and salvation, “who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), Shirley Guthrie postulates that “God is for them too.”[30] He provides such a thesis “in light of God’s plan for all in Christ” (cf. Eph. 1:10; Rom. 11:32). This plan is to “enable them to be genuinely free human beings.”(Ibid) This is made possible by being made aware of the truth about Jesus Christ, the truth that makes us free (John 8:36). “It may be true that they do not yet believe, or no longer believe, or only partially believe. Perhaps they will never believe. Such people do not live as those whom God chooses, loves, helps, and saves. But that does not mean that we may decide that God is against them.” (Ibid). This is the attitude of God towards all people, and in the final analysis, “judgment belongs to God and not to us.” (Ibid)
It is at this juncture where freedom plays a very important role as it relates to election. Because all of humanity is essentially not free, by virtue of the fact that all are enslaved by sin, the obvious response is that “we desperately need to become free.”[31] However, no human being has the ability to choose to become free on their own accord, neither will they desire such to be the case (cf. Rom. 3:10-18). Barth agrees that “to be permitted to live with God and to escape perishing without Him is something which no man has chosen for himself. When man chooses he chooses the opposite.”[32] Yet, as Guthrie has pointed out, “this is just what predestination is all about.”(133) Jesus statement says it best, “You did not chose me, but I chose you.”(John 15:16). Election, therefore, is not essentially about us choosing God, but about God choosing us, “in Christ.” Yet, wound not this be considered a threat to human freedom? Not at all.
“The sovereign plan of God is not an alternative or threat to human freedom, it is the source of human freedom.”[33] As Barth declared, “grace is not arbitrariness or the whim of some dark fate.”[34] This is a message of good news for all. “It is the sovereignty of God’s love, God’s plan to free us from slavery . . . in order that we might be genuinely free people – people who discover and fulfill their own true humanity as they freely love God and their fellow human beings.”[35] Precisely because of predestination, freedom becomes a possibility for all. Due to Christ’s radical substitution on the cross as the elected man and the electing man, election has become extended to all of God’s creation. To be certain, “he has become the one on whom the curse rests.”[36] And,
Because that has happened, it is clear, that it is not merely the opportunity for our election which has been given. Because that has happened we are already those whose place has been taken by Jesus Christ, who has made our rejection His own, and therefore we are already the elect of God. We are the chosen of God and such we are by mercy.[37] To be certain, God has in Christ chosen rejection for Himself, but election for man.
Elected for Community
Between the election of Christ and of the individual, moreover, there is an intermediate election of the community, which exists to proclaim Jesus Christ and to call the world to Him.[38] At this juncture, Paul’s letter to the Ephesians will shed some much needed light on the subject, in particular, chapter 1:3:23. Many scholars throughout the history of theological exploration have considered this passage to be fundamental in the formulation of any doctrine of election. Of significance to this portion of the study, however, is the fact that Paul was not addressing an individual in this letter, but a community of believers. As a result, any doctrine of election must also be understood in the context of ecclesiology as well. Guthrie agrees:
When Paul speaks in Eph. 1:15-23 and Rom. 8:28-39 about God’s predestinating grace in Jesus Christ, he addresses what he has to say to Christian churches. According to scripture, individuals are indeed loved and chosen by God, but only as they participate in the whole community of God’s people.” (138)
Therefore, any doctrine of election must be rooted in Christ first and foremost, but also understood and fully realized in the context of the community of faith, the partakers of the grace and message of election. Yet it is likewise important to note that this election to community is never actualized through one’s own volition, for “this is something which man has not deserved, of which he is not capable and to which he can contribute nothing.”[39]
Upon the heels of the notion of community and its essential purpose and importance to the doctrine of election, Webster also states that the theme of election is not simply God but also humanity.[40] To speak of the reality of election without any sense of its direction, focusing primarily on the divine will or rule to the exclusion of any other reality, would be to fall short of the intention of election. As a result, this leads to the inter-related them of election, that of covenant, referring specifically to “the primal history which is played out between God and this one man [Jesus] and His people.”[41] Therefore, “election is election to participate in covenant which is secured in Jesus Christ.”[42] Webster continues by stating that the graces with which God establishes the covenant is free, mysterious, and righteous. And because of this, election is “the sum of the gospel.”[43] This is possible because as the One whose freedom is freedom to love, God is “God for us.”[44] “That God wills neither to be without the world nor against it can never be stated more clearly than when we speak of His election.”[45]
Tasks of the Elect Community
The task of the elected community is to witness. They have been chosen, as the elect, to proclaim to those who are not living like they are the elect, but rather the rejected, that they belong,
Eternally to Jesus Christ and is therefore not rejected, but elected by God in Jesus Christ and is therefore he deserves on account of his perverse choice is borne and cancelled by Jesus Christ; and that he is appointed to eternal life with God on the basis of the righteous, divine decision. [46]
Included in the calling as community is also the command to a proper way of life, dictated by the belief that in Christ, ethics and election are inseparable. The witness of the community of faith is two-fold and includes not only proclamation, but also practice. “Election is purposive determination, determination to blessedness, gratitude and service as witness.”[47] In this way the indicative becomes an imperative.
There is no absolute difference between the elect and rejected, the believers and the unbelievers, according to Barth, for all have been elected. The former have realized their identity in Christ and the fact of their election, while the latter are still living as if they were not elect.[48] In the definitive sense, there is no rejection of man by God. God has in Christ chosen rejection for Himself, but election for man.
Response
Barth’s work of reconstructing his personal account of the Christian faith was a mammoth task to say the least. He sensed there was a rift between the theological emphases of his Reformed tradition and that of the biblical witness itself. Nowhere is this more the case than in his treatment on the doctrine of election. He seemed to believe that the older theologians went to the Bible indeed, but that they did not read the Bible the right way, and even more importantly, did not choose the right starting point – Jesus Christ.
As far as Barth was concerned, any and all theological work should center in the person and work of Jesus Christ. He and He alone ought to be the foundation for theological enquiry. In formulating a doctrine of predestination generally, and that of election specifically, one must read the Bible Christologically, making Jesus Christ the starting point for the doctrine. If anything other than this takes place for whatever the reason, one will most certainly misrepresent the doctrine being investigated.
It is from this belief structure where Barth began his work on the doctrine of election. The first order of business was a critique of the traditional Calvinist position where God in eternity determined absolutely those who are to be saved and those who will not. Barth found this to be a horrendous miscalculation on Calvin’s part. There seems to be two criticisms of Calvin in Barth’s work.
The first is that it misrepresents who God is. Calvin isolates the eternal decree of God for the elect of humanity on a static foundation. His doctrinal work in election is an obvious singularity, where the Trinity is somehow left out. The eternal salvation or damnation of human beings extends, not from a Trinitarian perspective, taking into serious consideration the work of each mode of the Trinity, but solely through some metaphysical reading of the Bible where God is deemed static and immovable. Such a concept of deity disturbed Barth immensely and rightly so. Barth wanted the biblical witness about God, that is God’s self-revelation through His works in scripture, to be the foundation of a theology of God, and hence for all other theological treatments. Where one begins is integral, not only as it relates to the importance of a proper foundation, but also how it inevitably affects where one travels afterwards as a result. Calvin’s work on election seemed to flow out of an inadequate and misinformed platform, where presuppositional ideas about God were permitted to shape his doctrinal stance. Barth found this to be most troubling.
Another criticism Barth had against Calvinism was that he did not provide a basis for human freedom. This flowed directly out of Calvin’s obvious lack of centering his doctrine of election in Jesus Christ. Calvinism focused too much on determinism, while seemingly ignoring purpose. Barth, however, highlighted election with a purpose – community. And community naturally extends to even another purpose – proclamation. Christ substitutionary death provided the capacity for all human beings to receive salvation and find purpose in the community of faith and subsequently in relationships with one another. To find out what it means to be truly human and to learn that purpose is found in acknowledging the foundation of election in Christ, that is the ultimate definition of freedom. As important as Calvin is to the history of the church and theological enquiry, his work on election was fraught with difficulties from the very beginning. Barth recognized that reality, and took it upon himself to confront that idea head on, even if it meant tackling the Reformed tradition of which he was apart, and risking the isolation that would surely come about as a result.
Over time, some have criticized Barth because of his high view of Christology and the central role it played in all of his doctrinal endeavors. Perhaps the essence of these charges have stemmed from the insistence that such a position will naturally lead to universalism. While there are grounds for such a concern, ideas that should be taken seriously and given appropriate attention, the final analysis of Barth’s concepts leaves no such need for explicit concern. His was a focus on Christ that, instead of leading to a universalistic stance, where everyone and everybody would surely be saved, laid the emphasis on the idea that in and through Christ’s work on the cross, humanity are now freed to acknowledge their collective status as the elect, and move into the community of faith and work for the purpose of witnessing that same freeing grace to their fellow human beings. It seems that the only universalism in Barth’s work is that which frees people to acknowledge their elective status in Christ and find hope and grace in the love of Trinity and in the community of the redeemed.
Barth knew that what he was about to embark upon would meet with contention and difficulty from the larger Christian community. The Reformed tradition was entrenched in the ethos of his day, making it almost certain that any teaching remotely different would foster a sense of suspicion and maybe even demise. That is understandable, but only to a degree. For Barth, faithfulness to what he deemed as the biblical witness for election must always come before faithfulness to a tradition. In some sense, Barth was something like a theological pilgrim, always looking for areas upon which to improve theological work by orienting it towards that which ought to be supremely foundational, the Christ of scripture. While such a stance lead Barth down a path of intense and extensive theological revision, causing the toppling of many long held traditions, he felt it more important to pursue conviction and calling, than simple resonance for the sake of peace. For that, he ought to be held in highest esteem and appreciation.
Barth’s work on the doctrine of election, while making God the wholly-other, still seamed to allow that self-same God to be portrayed not as a totalitarian dictator, a cosmic stare so to speak, but One who is intimately involved in the affairs of His creation. The possibility for all of humanity, through the work of Christ, to be given equal opportunity to find grace and salvation was communicated clearly in his work. While maintaining the sense of awe and wonder of God, he wrote with a desire to make this God known more fully and more accessible than had been previously articulated in the earlier traditions. By re-orienting the doctrine of election to focus on Christ’s substitutionary work on the cross, he succeeded in his attempt. The task was indeed of mammoth proportions, but he arose to the task, with Bible in hand, and made a very profound and long-lasting impact on the theological scene, and for the better.
Back to Links to Papers
[1] John Webster, Karl Barth.
[2] Quoting from Article 1 of the Barmen Theological Declaration in A.C. Cochrane, The Church’s Confession Under Hitler.
[3] W.S Reid “Calvinism” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
[4] Ibid. p. 187.
[5] See Ephesians 1:4-5, John 15:16.
[6] Millard Erickson. Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology.
[7] Augustus H. Strong. Systematic Theology. Westwood: Revell, 1907. p. 789.
[8] J.K. Grider. “Arminianism” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
[9] Charles M. Horne. The Doctrine of Salvation.
[10] Ibid. p. 80.
[11] Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology. P. 69.
[12] Henry C. Thiessen. Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology.
[13] Lecture VII – God’s Decision and Man’s Election. Art. 7-8. pg. 69-70.
[14] Webster, Barth. P. 88.
[15] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics.
[16] Ibid., p. 174.
[17] Ibid., p. 149.
[18] Ed Millar and
[19] Barth. Church Dogmatics. 2:2. p. 181.
[20] Ibid., p. 44.
[21] Webster, Barth. P. 89.
[22] Barth, 2:2, p. 44.
[23] Webster, Barth, p. 89.
[24] Barth. II/2, p. 105-6.
[25] Webster, p. 91.
[26] Barth II/2, p. 162.
[27] Ibid. p. 229.
[28] P. 13.
[29] Miller and Grenz, p. 13.
[30] Shirley Guthrie. Christian Doctrine.
[31] Guthrie. P. 134.
[32] Barth. Lecture VII – God’s Decision and Man’s Election. Art. 7-8. pg. 75.
[33] Guthrie. p. 133.
[34] Barth. Lecture VII. P. 76.
[35] Guthrie. p. 133.
[36] Barth. Lecture VII. P. 76.
[37] Barth. P. 77.
[38] Barth. Church Dogmatics. II/2. p. 195.
[39] Barth. Lecture VII. P. 72.
[40] Webster. Barth. P. 90.
[41] Barth. II/2. p. 8.
[42] Webster. Barth. P. 92.
[43] Barth. II/2. p. 24.
[44] Ibid. p. 25.
[45] Ibid. p. 26.
[46] Barth. Church Dogmatics. II/2, p. 306.
[47] Webster. Barth. P. 92.
[48] Barth. Church Dogmatics. P. 350.
The Holy Spirit in Karl Barth & Thomas Aquinas
Karl Barth
In his Dogmatics, Barth was obviously concerned with clarity in his treatment of the Trinity, and particularly that of the Holy Spirit. There seemed to be an identifiable progression of thought from the first chapter, The Eternal Spirit, through to the concluding chapter. The first section focused on laying a theological and historical foundation for the Holy Spirit. It was rooted not only in the writings of prominent individuals such as Augustine and Aquinas, but a strong biblical/revelational orientation was also quite evident. The core of his explanation centred on an exposition of the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed. The second and final chapter, building on the first, had a strong soteriological orientation, especially in relation to the work of the Holy Spirit in revelation and witness.
Barth’s emphasis throughout the second and third chapters is that of the Holy Spirit as the subjective reality of revelation. However, the inherent problem of the subjective, the question how humanity becomes a recipient of salvation, must and can only be answered in the doctrine of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In fact, God’s revelation in its subjective reality is the person and work of the Holy Spirit.
On the other hand, the objective reality of revelation, which Barth declares to be Jesus Christ, is the incarnate Word of God. The work of the Spirit in relation to the Word is that of witnessing to its objective reality as God Himself. In this event, the objective revelation, God has spoken to the Church on behalf of Himself. As a result, God has interceded for the Church on His own behalf. Therefore, revelation exists because God exists (34). This taking up of man into the event of revelation is the work of the Holy Spirit or the subjective reality of revelation.
“Subjective revelation can consist only in the fact that objective revelation . . . comes to man and is recognized and acknowledged by man.” This is the work of the Spirit. Specifically, the work is that blind eyes will be opened to the reality of the objective revelation, Jesus Christ, and such will be acknowledged with thankfulness of heart and mind, exemplified in voluntary surrender. “He is the Spirit of the Word itself who brings to our ears the Word and nothing but the Word. Subjective revelation can be only the repetition, the impress, the sealing of the objective revelation upon us” (35). The human response to such revelation is the affirmation of it. In the end, it is in Jesus Christ as the objective reality of revelation that humanity can become and remain the children of God, and nowhere else except in Him is such personal recognition possible and available.
In light of this, Barth stated that this subjective reality could never be made an independent theme. Rather, it is enclosed in its objective reality. And, if anything other than Christ is spoken of as the means whereby His people are helped, then what is said is in fact not God’s revelation at all. For the Holy Spirit says nothing except to reveal the Word. He divinely enables humanity to do what is otherwise impossible for them to do, open their eyes and ears to see and hear the objective reality of revelation, Jesus Christ, for who He is and what He has done. “It is men convinced by God in this sense who constitute the subjective aspect of the reality of the Church” (36).
Another question posed by Barth has to do with the freedom of human kind, in how in humanities freedom is it possible for God’s revelation to reach them? His answer is that man is free for God by the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son. It is real that in the Spirit humanity is in fact free for God. The inference is that humanity is therefore not free except in the Holy Spirit. And, “the work of the Holy Spirit itself cuts away from us the thought of any other possibility of our freedom for God. It encloses this possibility within itself” (37).
The Holy Spirit though unique, is not an independent divinity side by side with the Word of God. Rather, He is the ‘Teacher of the Word,’ and that Word is never without its Teacher. “When it is a matter of instructing and instruction by the Word, that instructing and instruction are the work of the Holy Spirit. Without that work there is no instruction, for the Word is never apart from the Holy Spirit” (38). This idea supports the previous paragraph in relation to the freedom to understand the objective revelation. For it is the Spirit who opens the ears and eyes of humanity to enable them to be recipients of His grace, Jesus Christ. And, in the actual subjective reality of revelation it is finally decided that apart from it there is no other possibility of being free for God.
When the Holy Spirit teaches individuals concerning the objective reality of revelation, He informs them not only about God, but also about themselves. This personal revelation entails that humanity are in fact rebels against God, unthankful for His grace, and resisters of His call. He is Creator, while they are His creation. The Spirit places God on one side, and humanity on the other. Yet, “in the Holy Spirit we are confronted by what we cannot deny even if we willed to do so. We know, therefore, that we cannot ascribe to man any freedom of his own for God, any possibility of his own to become the recipient of salvation” (39). In the end, only one answer can be provided to the basic question of how in the freedom of humanity is it possible for God’s revelation to reach them. It is only possible in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Barth then attempts to develop this statement through a number of qualifiers. First, “by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit it is possible for God’s revelation to reach man in his freedom, because in it the Word of God is brought to his hearing” (39). In this, the works of the Holy Spirit provide the only basis for the hearing of the Word, since He brings nothing to the forefront of humankind’s understanding except that of the Word alone. The Holy Spirit, therefore, is the Spirit of God, because He is the Spirit of the Word. And, this is the only reason why “we acquire eyes and ears for God in the Holy Spirit.” As a result, the Holy Spirit is the subjective possibility of revelation “because it is the process by which its objective reality is made subjective.” “It is Christ, the Word of God, brought to the hearing of man by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, who is man’s possibility of being the recipient of divine revelation. Therefore this receiving, this revealedness of God for us, is really itself revelation” (40).
Second, by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit it is possible in the freedom of humanity for God’s revelation to meet them, because in it they are explicitly told by God’s Word that they posses one possibility of their own for such a meeting. Yet, even though humanity is free, they are also not free. They are free in many areas that are common to many creatures, but they are not free to possess the possibility of communion with God. In this respect, humanity is not free. “When the Word of God is acknowledged, it is also acknowledged that man is not free for God. But to acknowledge the Word of God means that he is actually free for God. Therefore it is part of the acknowledgement that his actual freedom to acknowledge is a miracle” (45). This freedom is not one that has been taken, but one that has been freely provided by the grace and mercy of God, in light of His power and love.
Finally, by the outpouring of the Spirit, it becomes possible for humanity in their freedom to be met by God’s revelation, because in it the Word of God becomes unavoidably their master. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit exalts the Word of God to be the master over humanity, and places humanity under His mastery.
Barth’s final chapter deals with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The fundamental question in relation of such is how a person becomes a Christian, and how it comes about that a person becomes faithful to God. To begin, Barth states that it is impossible for an individual to begin the Christian life by their own judgment, yet is nevertheless divinely enabled, on the basis of a divine possibility, wills to partake of such. It is God’s power to draw people unto Himself, so that persons will voluntarily choose that which God in His grace has already chosen for them. Such a transformation in will and passion can only be attributed to a divine change in the character of the person involved. “The Christian life has its true source in this change which God brings about in man” (61). And, the decisive point has its origin in the divine nature of the change that is the start and beginning of the new life.
This change has been made possible and has occurred at a specific point in time and person, the history of Jesus Christ. For the change that took place in His history took place for all. A Christian, therefore, is a person “from whom it is not hidden that his own history took place along with the history of Jesus Christ. As a word spoken to him and received by him in the living power of the Holy Spirit, this has been disclosed to him as the decisive event which establishes his existence as a Christian” (64-5). Jesus Christ has given to such an individual not just a potential, but also an actual share in that history of His. “This Jesus Christ, His history, became and is the foundation of Christian experience; this and this alone.” This divine change is the work of the Holy Spirit.
The work of the Holy Spirit is that the history manifested to all people in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is manifest and presented to them as their own salvation history. The work of the Holy Spirit is such that the person, who was once blind and deaf in relation to the Word of truth, becomes a person who is open, seeing, hearing, and comprehending. In the work of the Holy Spirit, that which is truth for all becomes truth that is finally affirmed. The power of divine change in which the event of the foundation of the Christian life becomes specific, comes from the power of the baptism with the Holy Spirit. For “baptism with the Spirit is effective, causative, even creative action on man and in man. It is, indeed, divinely effective, divinely causative, and divinely creative. It cleanses, renews and changes man truly and totally” (75).
In conclusion, the person and work of the Holy Spirit for Barth focused on the subjective reality of revelation that such entails. This Holy Spirit thus makes the objective reality of revelation, Jesus Christ, real for all to behold. However, humanity in themselves are unable to respond to the call of the Spirit. Therefore, the Spirit enables them to hear and understand the Word spoken and presented to them, and thus to respond to Jesus with thankfulness and gratitude. This divine change in individuals is attributed to the work of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit provides the basis for and the ability to believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus once-for-all event. Without the work of the Spirit, witnessing to the Word, humanity would never desire such a change, for they would not even recognize that such a change was necessary. Yet, the power of the Spirit is such that makes the reality of the objective revelation, Jesus Christ, to become real for us, one by one.
Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas has articulated a theology of the Trinity that, while complex in its argumentation and linguistics, has proven to be a very rewarding venture. This is especially true regarding his treatment of the Holy Spirit. Yet, in all that can and has been stated in his Summa concerning the Holy Spirit, one thing remains central in his thought, the idea of love.[1] In fact, he gives preference to the word ‘love’ to express the meaning of the Holy Spirit.
Though references concerning the Holy Spirit can be found throughout Thomas’ writings, it is certainly most concentrated and highlighted through sections Ia. 36 through to Ia. 38, where section Ia. 37 addresses the question of Holy Spirit as Love, the focal point of his thought.
Thomas sets out in Ia.27, 3, based on his earlier argument that procession in God can only be classified as internal and not external, that the acts of procession in God (spiritual world) are those only of the intellect and the will. The Son’s or Word’s procession corresponds to the action of the intellect, whereas the procession of Love corresponds to the action of the will. Furthermore, though in God, will and intellect are the same, “because the very meaning of love implies an issuing forth from what the mind conceives, the procession of Love in him is distinct by its connection with the procession of the Word” (Ia. 27, 4). For Thomas, maintaining such a distinction is very important.[2]
In Ia. 27, 4, Thomas stated that the procession in relation to the intellect carries with it the idea of likeness. However, the procession that corresponds to the will should not be seen in terms of likeness, but rather in terms of “urge and motion towards something.”[3] As a result, what proceeds in God, as love is a “breathing of spirit.” This is the first occasion where Thomas connected Spirit with Love, which in fact is a name given to the third person of the Trinity by the Scriptures themselves (cf. Jh 14, 26).[4]
Another important idea in Thomas that relates to the Spirit as Love is how it is inextricably bound to both the Father and Son, in that the one named Holy Spirit is common to them both, in that both are spirit and holy. In addition, spirit denotes movement, much like that of breath and wind. In relation to love, it is distinctive in “that it move and urge the will of the lover towards the beloved.” As a result, Holy Spirit proceeds by way of love from both Father and Son, in that “the power of Father and Son is one and so whatever is from the Father is necessarily from the Son” (Ia. 36, 3). To be even more accurate, “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.” However, because the power of spiration is numerically one and the same in Father and Son, “the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from both.”[5] “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son inasmuch as they are one in that power” (Ia. 36, 4).
Yet, the unity of the Father and Son does not in any way overshadow their distinctiveness.[6] As Thomas wrote, “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as they are two, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from them as the Love uniting the two” (Ia. 36, 4). Therefore, “the one principle of the Holy Spirit is Father and Son … principle stands not for one person only but for two at once” (Ia. 36, 4).[7]
“The Holy Spirit is called the bond between the Father and the Son in that he is Love” (Ia. 37, 2). This is so because the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father by one single love, and the name of the Holy Spirit as Love “implies the co-relationship between Father and Son as between lover and beloved.” And, due to fact that the Father and Son love each other mutually, this mutual Love, the Holy Spirit, proceeds from both (Ia. 37, 2). Therefore, while on the grounds of origin the Holy Spirit is a third person in the Trinity, on the grounds of the relationship indicated “he is a medium conjoining the two and proceeding from both” (Ia. 37, 2). Yet, not only is the Holy Spirit the Love that joins Father and Son, but they in fact love each other by the Holy Spirit as well. “The Summa itself is decisive: ‘Love’ is a name proper to the Holy Spirit, not as meaning the act of loving, but the term immanent in the mutual love of Father and Son” (Appendix 2, 254).
However, “although the Holy Spirit loves, love being an essential act, it does not belong to him to spirate love, i.e. as ‘to love’ is a characteristic act, since his love in the essential sense is as Love proceeding and not as one from whom love proceeds” (Ia. 37, I).
“By the Holy Spirit the Father loves not only the Son but himself and us as well” (Ia. 37, 2). This is true in that the Holy Spirit proceeds as love for the primal goodness, which is the “motive of the Father’s loving himself and every creature.”
This is closely related to the idea of the Holy Spirit as Gift. For the Scriptures state explicitly that the Holy Spirit is the gift of God (Acts 2:37; 1 Cor. 12:11; Eph. 4:7-8). Thomas argues that Gift, as it relates to the Holy Spirit, is an appropriate name indeed. So as the Spirit comes forth as love, he proceeds as being the first Gift, and though before being given it belongs to the giver alone, once given, the Spirit then becomes “the Spirit of someone or the One Given to someone” (Ia. 38, 2).
As existing in his natural being, existing in his knowing, existing in his loving, God is all one, yet in each way he is subsisting reality. . . Father and Son in their love experience the divine being in its goodness, their own inexhaustible completeness and beauty. The expression or ‘term’ of that experience is the Love proceeding, who is the Holy Spirit; the Father and Son’s love breathes with what, or rather whom, they love. They love each other by the Holy Spirit as Love proceeding within their act or ‘spiration’; he is their Love as the impress and seal of their love for each other. (Appendix 2, 258)
In conclusion, the idea of the Holy Spirit as Love is certainly central to Thomas in his articulation of the Trinity. Love as union of divine will and good is common to the persons. That love as it breathes forth the Holy Spirit, is the act of Father and Son as they are the one principle of the Holy Spirit. Not as act, but as Love proceeding from Father and Son. As the expression of divine love between Father and Son, the Holy Spirit is the bond between them, and they in fact love by him.
[1] “Love remains central in
[2] “Therefore there must be real distinction in God, not indeed when we consider the absolute reality of his nature, where there is sheer unity and simplicity, but when we think of him in terms of relation” (Ia. 28, 4).
[3] “Love, however, as such does not come forth as a likeness to its source – though God’s Love as divine shares his nature” (Ia. 30, 2).
[4] “The usage of holy Scripture has set apart this name ‘Holy Spirit’ to signify a divine person” (Ia. 36, I).
[5] “Therefore just as Father and Son are the one God because of the unity of the form signified by the name ‘God’, so also they are the one principle of the Holy Spirit because of the unity of the property signified in the term ‘principle.’” (
[6] Distinction is appropriate for Thomas when speaking of the Trinity. He defines this distinction in God as “according to persons and not to nature,” as is therefore more accurate than words such as ‘difference’ and ‘diversity.’ (
[7] “The statement, then, that the Holy Spirit is the Love of the Father towards the Son or towards anything else, does not mean that something passes into another, but means simply a relationship of the Love to the reality loved” (Ia. 37, I).
Back to Links to Papers
The Diagnosis of Demon Possession and its Distinctiveness from Various Mental Disorders
"Belief in demons and demonic possession has been a worldwide phenomenon from earliest recorded history" (Virkler 293). In fact, interest in demonism and other occult related activities are on the rise in present day society (Erickson 450). In spite of this, there are those who would deny the existence of such phenomenon on the basis that 'demon possession' is an antiquated term for the more modern expression 'mental disorder' (Isaacs 263). In light of this collective understanding, this brief paper has a three-fold purpose. First, to prove the validity of demon possession as a definitive reality. Second, to demonstrate the distinctiveness of demon possession as a separate phenomenon in spite of its symtomalogical similarities with various mental disorders. Third, to isolate exorcism as the exclusive, normative means of treatment for this condition.
To begin, a working definition of demon possession will be given. To offer a summary: It is a condition in which one or more evil spirits or demons inhabit the body of a human being and take control of their victim at will. By temporarily blotting out their consciousness, they can speak and act through them as their complete slave and tool. (Unger 102). Unger continues to describe this condition by asserting that the "victim passes from his normal state, in which he acts like other people, to the abnormal state of possession" (102). This possessed state can be marked by extreme rage and violence or depression and severe anxiety (102). It can last for hours or days, depending on the volition of the demon(s) (102).
The authenticity of demon possession as a definitive reality can be established on the authority of the Scriptures. This can be seen with clarity in both the Old and New Testament alike. Though it appears to be more prevalent in the New Testament, it is not entirely uncommon to encounter this happening in the Old Testament as well.
Old Testament Witness
In 1 Samuel 16:14-16, 23, the story is told of Saul and his personal encounter with demon possession. In response to the Children of Israel's request for a King, God appointed Saul for the task. During this time, Saul received a command from God to "attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them" (1 Sam. 15:3). In spite of this, Saul disobeyed the Lord and as a result, "the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him" (1 Sam. 16:14). "Saul became possessed by a powerful evil spirit as a direct result of his own sinful actions" (Bufford 37). It is quite clear that demon possession was evident in the Old Testament. The Gospels also address the issue of demon possession with considerably more quantity and clarity.
New Testament Witness
The first instance can be found in Mark 1:21-28. This is the account of a demoniac in the Synagogue at
Two conclusions can be gathered here with reference to demons. First of all, they have supernatural knowledge (Bufford 39). This was evidenced by the fact that though no other person knew the divine identity of Jesus at this point in time, the demons knew who Jesus was without question. Secondly, the demon exerted ultimate power over the man (Bufford 39). This can be seen when the demon took control of the man physically and threw him to the ground at Christ's command.
The second instance of demon possession can be found in Matthew 8:28-34 (cf. Mk. 5:1-20). This is the account of the Gadarene demoniac. Jesus met two demon possessed men coming from the tombs. They were extremely violent, so much so that they often broke the chains that attempted to subdue them (Matt. 8:28b; Mk. 5:4). The Mark passage also states that the men would run around all night, crying aloud, cutting themselves with stones (5:5). "What do you want with us Son of God?" (Matt. 8:29). Here we find another declaration of Christ's Messianic identity.
The passage also makes a number of assertions with regards to demon possession. As with the previous verse, this account deals with the demon's ability in having supernatural knowledge. This was evidenced by the demon's declaration of Jesus' deity. In addition, the demoniac was remarkably violent and strong. He also cut himself and cried aloud all night. These illustrations exhibit a corresponding characteristic with the other passage concerning demons; they have absolute control over the person whom they possess (Bufford 39).
The third and final instance is recorded in Matt. 17:14-21. This account describes a young boy who had a demon. He is described as having seizures and often time’s falls into the fire and the water. Verse 18 states that Jesus then rebuked the demon and it came out of the boy.
Again, this passage makes a number of assertions regarding demonic possession. First, the "epileptic-like seizures may occur under demonic influence" (Bufford 41). Also, it is observed that self-injury is attributed to the demon (Bufford 41). From the perspective of Scripture, it is quite clear that demon possession is a valid, definitive reality. This truth was also expressed "in the early church and persisted through the Middle Ages" (Meigs 234).
Church History
"Throughout most of its history the church has accepted the reality of possession and has endorsed the ministry of exorcism" (Page 123). In the early church period, Paul and Silas were faced with a young girl who was possessed by an evil spirit (Acts 16:9-21). Through this spirit, the girl predicted the future. She also shouted on numerous occasions concerning Paul and his companion, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved" (Acts 16:17). This troubled Paul immensely, so he turned to the girl and said to the spirit, "in the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!" (16:18). The Bible declares that it was then that the spirit left her (16:18). This passage states that through the authority and power of Jesus, those whom He called and commissioned to become apart of His Church have power to cast out demons. In fact, Jesus declared this truth in His great commission: "In my name they will drive out demons" (Mk. 16:17). The Acts passage also validates the reality of demon possession and the Church's belief in the same.
This passage, like the ones before, reveals that demons have supernatural knowledge. In this case, it was revealed through the predictions of the young girl regarding the identity of Paul and his explicit mission in preaching salvation to the lost (Bufford 42). However, the actuality of demon possession also "lurked in the background of the Middle Ages" (Meigs 236).
Augustine believed demons to have an "all-penetrating power of perception, speed of movement, and, above all, a very long experience" (Meigs 237). He also believed that demons use the bodies of people according to their own will (Meigs 238). Thomas Aquinas also believed in the reality of demon possession (Meigs 239). Finally, Martin Luther "firmly believed in the reality and power of diabolical attacks" (Meigs 241). Luther was a firm supporter of the power of prayer in order to exorcise the demons that inhabited the bodies of people (Meigs 242).
So as one can tell, the vivid authenticity of demon possession was a prominent theme throughout both the
Diagnosis
Proper diagnosis of demon possession is extremely important. Many Christians have observed the damaging effects that occur when a person in the midst of a brief reactive psychosis or who has suffered from severe depression, has been informed that they are demon-possessed. In addition to the stress produced by the psychological disorder, the person now has the added guilt and anxiety that demons have taken up residence in their body. (Virkler 296). Accurate diagnosis is also important so that the truly demon possessed can receive the appropriate treatment (Virkler 296).
In assessing the individual who is suspected of demon possession, there are a number of general areas that should be examined. These include the person's history, symptoms and personality characteristics (Isaacs 266). With the help of the Holy Spirit and the Bible, one can use discernment to better enable them to diagnose possession as well (McClung 293). An investigation into each of these areas will better enable a person to make a more accurate diagnosis.
The imperative feature of demon possession is "an experience of being controlled by someone, or something, alien to oneself, with a subsequent loss of control" in thinking, anger, profanity, impulsive behaviours, and physical reactions (Isaacs 267). With this as a definitive starting point, there are also a number of other indicators of demon possession which have been observed and analyzed over the years. They can be classified in four specific areas. These include change of personality, physical, mental, and spiritual changes as well (Lewis 347).
First, changes in personality occur. These include "intelligence, moral character, demeanour, and appearance" (Lewis 347). Secondly, there are also numerous physical changes which take place. These include preternatural strength, epileptic convulsions (foaming), catatonic symptoms (falling), clouding of consciousness, anaesthesia to pain, and a changed voice (347). Thirdly, mental changes take place. These include glossolalia, preternatural knowledge, psychic and occult powers (clairvoyance, telepathy and prediction) (347). Finally, spiritual changes occur. These include a "reaction to and fear of Christ; blasphemy with regret as in depression." The person is also affected by prayer (Christian) (347). Though many of these symptoms can be seen in various mental disorders, it has been maintained that these symptoms in and of themselves describe a distinct problem (Virkler 298; Bufford 132; Isaacs 270). For example, in multiple personalities and demon possession there are voice changes, abrupt personality changes, and frequently amnesia for some of the other personalities and their behaviour. However, in multiple personalities there are usually not epileptic-like convulsions, anaesthesia to pain, clairvoyance, telepathy, ability to predict the future, ability to speak in languages not learned by at least one of the personalities, or the spiritual changes that usually occur with demon possession. (Virkler 297). Bearing in mind the distinctiveness of this disorder, the treatment must also be distinct.
Treatment
Exorcism has been the biblical model for the expulsion of demons as well as the experience of the Church to this day (Matt. 8:16; Mk. 16:17; Lk. 10:17) (McClung 291). In particular, it is "the act of expelling evil spirits or demons by adjuration in the name of Jesus Christ and through His power" (McClung 290). "Not only did Jesus practice exorcism himself, he also specifically commissioned his disciples to do so" (Matt. 10:1,8; Mk. 3:15; 6:7; Lk. 10:17-20) (Page 122). "If the ministry of the modern church is to be an extension of theirs, it would appear that exorcism ought to have a place in it" (Page 122). Once the demon(s) have been expelled, the person should be led to the Lord and should accept Him as their Saviour. Another recommendation is that a support group of two or more people should meet regularly for prayer and fellowship with the delivered person to help them along (Virkler 298).
Conclusion
In conclusion, demon possession is a definitive reality in both the historical and contemporary cultures of the world. The Scriptural accounts, as well as the history of the Christian Church, reveal this truth with clarity. Though many of its symptoms may have similarities with various mental disorders, it's distinctiveness as a separate problem is obvious. Due to this, the treatment for this disorder must follow the guidelines of Scripture from where the Christian Church draws its truth. Therefore, exorcism is the exclusive and normative means for a demon possessed person to experience complete deliverance.
Works Consulted
Beck, James R., and Gordon R. Lewis. "Counselling and the Demonic." Journal of Psychology and Theology 17 (1989): 132-134.
Bufford, Rodger K. "Counselling and the Demonic." Resources for Christian Counselling. Gen. Ed. Gary R. Collins. Vol. 17.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology.
Holy Bible. New International Version.
Isaacs, T. Craig. "The Possessive States Disorder: The Diagnosis of Demonic Possession." Pastoral Psychology 35 (1987): 263-273.
Kelsey, Morton. Discernment.
Koch, Kurt E. Christian Counselling and Occultism.
Lewis, Gordon R. "Criteria for the Discerning of Spirits." Demon Possession. Gen. Ed. John Warwick
McMclung Jr., L.G. "Exorcism." Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Gen. eds.
Meigs, J. Thomas. "Pastoral Care Methods and Demonology in Selected Writings." Journal of Psychology and Theology 5 (1977): 234-246.
Nevius, John L. Demon Possession.
Oates, Wayne E. The Religious Care of the Psychiatric Patient.
Page, Sydney H.T. 'The Role of Exorcism in Clinical Practice and Pastoral Care." Journal of Psychology and Theology 17 (1989): 121-131.
Pearlman, Myer. Knowing the Doctrines of the Bible.
Unger, Merrill F. Demons in the World Today.
Virkler, H.A. "Demonic Influence and Psychopathology." Baker Encyclopaedia of Psychology. Gen. Ed. David G. Benner.
Wimberly, Edward P. Prayer in Pastoral Counselling.
Create a free website at Webs.com