Chapter 2 in Of God and Gods, Vol. 3 (2008) by Blake Ostler

Chapter 2 – “Monotheism and the Council of God(s)”

I have been sick but not very sleepy – perfect timing to finish reading last night chapter 2 of the third volume in Blake’s series.   But the chapter did not make me feel any better.  I read the chapter and all the end notes.

From the ill spud in Idaho, here are some quick, initial highlights and questions: (more…)

Know your LDS boundaries, friends: open theism minus creatio ex nihilo

Am I practicing boundary maintainence?  Or is Blake Ostler?

“It may appear that open theism emerges as the only viable alternative for a theology that seek to maintain that: (1) we are free to choose whether to return God’s love with our own love; and (2) God is not directly culpable for evil events and choices.  Both of these features seem to me to be essential to any sound religious worldview.  Because open theists affirm that God has a general plan but not complete foreknowledge or sovereign control, they can apparently escape the implications of Calvinism and Thomism regarding divin causality and Molinism regarding middle knowledge.  It appears that open theism alone can affirm that God’s plan does not entail that persons are not free and that God is responsible for our evil acts” (emphasis mine, in Blake’s Vol. 2, pp. 409-410).

Clark Pinnock would maintain that Calvinists defy logic:  “It should be clear to the reader why the number of strict Calvinists is relatively small.  It involves one in agonizing difficulties of the first order.  It makes God some kind of terrorist who goes around handing out torture and disaster and even willing people to do things the Bible says that God hates.”

Blake Ostler would maintain that open theists defy logic if they believe in creatio ex nihilo.

Logic . . . it is a handy tool, isn’t it?

What is your soteriology (as explained by Blake Ostler)?

Any of these?

“Calvinism.  We can do absolutely nothing;  God does everything for some as a matter of grace to save them from their culpability for original and actual sins and either leaves others to damnation (single predestination) or specifically decrees the damnation of others (double predestination).

Arminianism.  On our own, we can make no move whatsoever toward God.  God must turn us and draw us; however, God gives us prevenient grace that regenerates the fallen will so that we can say “yes” or “no.”  We cannot reach for the gift of salvation or grasp it on our own after regeneration; but we can either accept it or reject it.”

Semi-Pelagianism.  We can take only the first step in God’s direction, but we must be aided by God in this step and then God carries us to salvation.

Pelagianism.  We have all of the resources necessary to have faith and earn salvation.  We can perfect ourselves and no special grace is needed to do so.”

– Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought (Vol. 2): The Problems of Theism and the Love of God, p. 367

Three-person’d God

I like Anglicans.  Here are the rich words of one in “Holy Sonnet XIV: Batter My Heart”:

Batter my heart, three-person’d God; for you

As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;

That I may rise, and stand, o’erthrow me and bend

Your force, to break, blow, burn and make me new.

I, like an usurpt town, to another due,

Labour to admit you, but Oh, to no end,

Reason your viceroy in me, me should defend,

But is captiv’d, and proves weak or untrue.

Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,

But am betroth’d unto your enemy:

Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,

Take me to you, imprison me, for I

Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,

Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

LDS friends, consider this view of God

I am in Jeremiah 26 – halfway through the biggest book in the Bible.

Focus for a minute on verse 13:

Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced on you.

A preacher from England, years ago, once noted as he pondered the fact of God “repenting”:

The suggestion is that of a people listening for God, and so amending ways and doings, turning back to God; and God–do not be afraid of this, it is human speech, but that is the only way in which we can express truth concerning Him,–God sighing with relief, and releasing His sorrow in order to console and deal with a people that turn back to Him.  “Jehovah will repent Him.”  It is not merely that He will change His mind; it is not that He will change His mind at all.  It is that He will change His activity, because He cannot change His mind.  His mind is the mind of compassion, of love, of tenderness.  The supreme desire of the heart of God is never to smite, but always to heal; never to afflict, but always to bless.  If men have turned from Him, they have made their own whips and sufferings.  When they turn back, He will repent Him.  That is an unveiling by reverent suggestion, of the sorrow of the heart of God, of the breathing sigh of relief when the penitent man or nation turns back to Him; and of the activity out of sorrow which is for the healing, and the consolation of the people that turn.  There is no greater word in all the Bible, Old nor New, than this.  Amend your ways and your doings; listen to the voice of God, and God will repent Him of the calamity that He appointed; and out of that sorrow in activity, will turn back the forces that are marching against you, and deliver and heal and take you to Himself!

Does God enjoy punishing?  The preacher goes on to write:

But that act of God in punishment, is ever the “strange act” of God.  Now that is not a phrase of my own.  I would not dare to use it.  Isaiah used it.  When the drunkards were mocking at him, and saying Who is this that talks to us, who speaks to us line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; the prophet answered them, and finally told them God must visit them in judgment, and he called it “His strange act.”  It is the act that is foreign to the nature of God, that which is not within His deepest purpose for man or nation.  “He doth not willingly afflict . . . the children of men.”  That is Jeremiah’s word; we find it in the Lamentations; but hear it even more literally translated: “He doth not afflict from the heart the children of men.”  His heart is against it.  When men turn back to Him, He sighs and repents.  How are we to escape the calamity which God appoints?  Directly there is true and thorough return to Him, He repents.  Apart from such return on our part, there can be no Divine repentance.

The Tension in I Timothy 2:4 (from a Calvinistic perspective)

The ESV Study Bible (2008) discusses I Timothy 2:4:

Evangelistic prayer for all people is noted in the fact that God desires all people to be saved.  It appears that Paul is countering an exclusivist tendency in the false teachers or at least their downplaying of the importance of evangelizing the Gentiles (along with their emphasis on the Jewish law).  This statement figures prominently in theological disagreements over the extent of the atonement.  It cannot be read as suggesting that everyone will be saved (universalism) because the rest of the letter makes it clear that some will not be saved (4:1; 5:24; 6:10; cf. Matt. 25:30, 41, 46; Rev. 14:9-11).  Does that mean God desires something (all people being saved) that he cannot fulfill?  Both Arminian and Calvinist theologians respond that God “desires” something more than universal salvation.  Arminians hold that God’s greater desire is to preserve genuine human freedom (which is necessary for genuine love) and therefore he must allow that some may choose to reject his offer of salvation.  Calvinists hold that God’s greater desire is to display the full range of his glory (Rom. 9:22-23), which results in election depending upon the freedom of his mercy and not upon human choice (Rom. 9:15-18).  However one understands the extent of the atonement, this passage clearly teaches the free and universal offer of the gospel to every single human being; “desires” shows that this offer is a bona fide expression of God’s good will.  Come to the knowledge of the truth highlights the cognitive aspect of conversion, i.e., individuals must come to understand key truths in order to be converted.  “The truth” occurs often in the Pastorals as a synonym for the gospel (cf. I Tim. 3:15; 4:3; 2 Tim. 2:15, 18, 25; 3:7, 8; 4:4; Titus 1:1, 14).