Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • A Note on Types and Antitypes

    If you aren’t acquainted with the concept of types and antitypes, you will find it much more difficult to see a connection between the lectionary passages and to build sermons that connect the overall story of the gospel.  I’m just providing a brief note here, because I saw a good working definition in the Orthodox Study Bible, p. 190:

    …In each case, the type–the first event–is linked to its corresponding future event, called the “antitype.”  It is a relationship that begins with a promise and ends with a fulfillment in Christ.

    The OrthSB then quotes St. John Chrysostom, but I prefer quoting a bit more, even though the source I’m using is in archaic language:

    Seest thou how grace comes by Him? look also to truth. His grace the instance just mentioned, and what happened in the case of the thief, and the gift of Baptism, and the grace of the Spirit given by Him declare, and many other things. But His truth we shall more clearly know, if we understand the types. For the types like patterns anticipated and sketched beforehand the dispensations which should be accomplished under the new covenant, and Christ came and fulfilled them. Let us now consider the types in few words, for we cannot at the present time go through all that relates to them; but when you have learned some points from those (instances) which I shall set before you, you will know the others also.  (Homilies on the Gospel of John #14)

    Especially in the case of Numbers 21:4-9 and its connection to John 3, this concept can be very helpful.  See my note today on the Participatory Bible Study blog.

     

  • Doxologies in Psalms

    On my Participatory Bible Study blog I asked a question and linked to Bob McDonald (Bob’s Log) in the hope he would answer. He did, in the comments. Read the post for the question, the comments for the answer and supporting data.

  • St. Gregory the Theologian on Ransom and the Bronze Serpent

    I was delighted to find this quote via the Orthodox Study Bible, though I must add to my complaints about that edition the fact that they cite church fathers by name, but without providing a reference to the particular work.  A visit to the St. Pachomius Library and then ewtn.com resolved the latter question.

    The quote is from St. Gregory the Theologian’s Second Paschal Oration, XXII:

    TWENTY-TWO

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most
people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into.  To Whom was
that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed?  I mean
the precious and famous Blood of our God and Highpriest and Sacrifice.
We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and
receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness.  Now, since a ransom
belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this
offered, and for what cause?

If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage!  If the robber receives
ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself,
and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for
whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone
altogether.

But if to the Father, I ask first, how?  For it was not by Him that we
were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His
Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even
Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the
sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim?  Is it not
evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor
demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity
must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us
Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the
mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the
Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things?

So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say
shall be reverenced with silence.  But that brazen serpent [Num. 21:9]
was hung up as a remedy for the biting serpents, not as a type of Him
that suffered for us, but as a contrast; and it saved those that
looked upon it, not because they believed it to live, but because it
was killed, and killed with it the powers that were subject to it,
being destroyed as it deserved.  And what is the fitting epitaph for
it from us?  "O death, where is thy sting?  O grave, where is thy
victory?"  Thou art overthrown by the Cross; thou art slain by Him who
is the Giver of life; thou art without breath, dead, without motion,
even though thou keepest the form of a serpent lifted up on high on a
pole.

    There are two elements that particularly attracted me to this quote.  The OrthSB quotes the final section about the serpent, which goes well with this week’s lectionary texts.  I like the idea that it was precisely the fact that the serpent on the pole is dead that provides the healing.  He is a defeated serpent.  It would also provide some interesting context to the worship of the serpent up to Hezekiah’s time, that is until Hezekiah broke it up (2 Kings 18:4).  This differs from part of the interpretation I provided yesterday in my lectionary notes.

    If you’re missing out on the eastern church fathers regarding the atonement, you are missing out on a lot.

  • Brothers at War

    Irrespective of one’s view on war, I think we should strongly support our troops and those they leave behind.

    While I was in the military I was single, but I had close friends who were married and left children behind. One of my best friends was away for the first gulf war for about three months longer than I was. I used to go over and play some with his kids. (Their main conclusion about me was that, unlike their dad, I couldn’t build any kind of sewer using building blocks–the teenage mutant ninja turtles was all the rage.)

    His wife told me that when their son saw a parade welcoming troops coming home he started crying and asked, “Why isn’t my daddy coming home?” Eventually his daddy did come home, and that was a happy ending.

    Today I saw Gary Sinise interviewed about Brothers at War. I haven’t had an opportunity to see more than the trailers, but this looks like a movie that is worth watching. I plan to see it as soon as I can.

  • When a Sign Goes Bad (Lent 4B/Numbers 21:4-9)

    Yesterday I wrote about the equivocal nature of the sign of the serpent lifted up in the wilderness, and how it was both a symbol of death, and a symbol of fertility and life in the ancient near east.

    Today in my reading I checked the notes in the The Jewish Study Bible and found an interesting note.  It seems the Rabbis were uncomfortable with this use of the serpent, which seems to be an apotropaic symbol (symbol that turns something away).  In magic, such a symbol might be an object that is particularly resistant or harmful to what is to be turned away (garlic with vampires, for example), or, as in this case, something that looks like the danger itself.  The Rabbis preferred to think that it was turning to God that provided heal.  While doubtless theologically correct, we are left with the fact that God’s command was to look at the symbol.

    Now what’s more interesting is the later history of this serpent in Israel.

    He [Hezekiah] removed the high places, shattered the standing stones, cut down the Asherah poles, and broke up the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until that time the Israelites were burning incense to it.  It was named Nehushtan. He [Hezekiah] trusted in YHWH his God, and there was no one like him among the kings of Judah who came after him, nor among those who were before him. — 2 Kings 18:4-5

    As you see, Hezekiah is commended for his actions.  Moses was commanded to make the serpent and did.  Hezekiah destroyed it, and was commended for it.  What made the difference?

    “Well,” you may say, “that’s obvious.”  And it is.  But have you considered the implications?  The people’s use of a divinely mandated symbol results in the need for it to be removed.  A thing that was once good becomes a source of temptation because of the way people react to it.

    Now let’s think about prayer for a moment, just as an example.  How can prayer turn into idolatry?  When we act according to God’s will and then we decide that it’s our method that brings healing.  We take a particular set of actions that result in someone being healed, and then we assume that if we repeat those actions, healing will result every time.  When it doesn’t we will often simply pursue it more diligently as if we are trying to cast a spell but haven’t got the wording just right.

    But God isn’t a magic object that we can control.  He may command a particular action, as with the serpent, but if the symbol is turned into an idol, as it was in Hezekiah’s time, it’s time for it to be broken up to release some perfectly good metal for a proper purpose.

  • Psalm 107 and Artificial Divisions

    I did the Old Testament/Psalms portion of my lectionary reading today from the Jewish Study Bible.  The notes draw attention to the difficulty in separating Psalm 107 into the next book.  The division between books 4 and 5 of the Psalms occurs between Psalm 106 and 107.  But these divisions are later than the text itself.

    One should be aware that the Psalms are a collection, and that they are individually composed.  This makes their context within the book somewhat different in nature than the context of a particular chapter in another book.  For example, when I look at a chapter in Samuel-Kings, I look for it’s place in the overall scheme of the history presented.  In Isaiah or Jeremiah, while I realize that individual oracles were written at different times, I look for some sort of thematic arrangement.  The Pslams are a bit looser than that, or at least we are less certain of just why the collection was arranged.  Certainly, it is a collection of material by more than one author.

    The Jewish Study Bible points out that Psalm 107 fits into the theme of Psalms 103-106, and indeed resembles them more than it does Psalm 108.  They also suggest moving the word “Hallelujah” from the end of Psalm 106 to the beginning of Psalm 107.  I would need to look at this further, but I am less impressed with that suggestion, even though I suggested that the Hallelujah at the end of Psalm 104 be moved to the beginning of Psalm 105 when I wrote on it in graduate school.

    That change would result in an envelope of Hallelujah around Psalm 105 and again around Psalm 106, while Psalm 103 and Psalm 104 have an envelope of “Bless the LORD, O my soul.”  I think that single move I suggested back then works very well.

    The thematic difference is more impressive, but I do see some thematic ties that point in both directions.  I’m not certain this division should actually be changed, though we should realize it’s later than the original collection, if “original collection” is even valid in reference to the Psalms.

    I’m going to link to Bob McDonald at Bob’s Log,who has done much more work on the Psalms than I have (and that’s an understatement!), in the hopes that he will comment.

  • On Publishing a Conservative Book

    First, let me alert all my readers that this is about my business even though this is a personal blog. Second, for those who read my business blog, it will be, to a certain extent, repetitively redundant.

    Several months ago I decided that I would expand my publication efforts into the area of politics, though I continue to look for a faith overlap in what I publish. This is simply a new category; nothing so dramatic as a new imprint. In doing so, of course, the new political book would be from some perspective or another. If it had been a liberal book, I would want to write a post on publishing a liberal book, and even if it were a moderate book, this might be titled on publishing a moderate book.

    What I have found before, and has inevitably come up again, is that people assume that I started publishing in order to publish books with which I agree. I have probably helped nurture this idea by publishing my own books through my company. That is something I will just have to live with, because the sales of those books have been an essential part of growing this business in a very competitive market. None of my books are massively popular, but all of them have helped the bottom line.

    Thus I was led to write a post on publishing books with which I disagree a couple of months ago, and now I’m writing this one. The first instance of this problem came up when I responded to a post suggesting that Christian publishers needed to publish “the truth”. This goes way back to 2006, but I find that the posts are still there so one can examine the discussion at the time.

    I do, in fact, regard my business as a ministry, or to put it in secular terms, a service. I have specific goals and a specific audience I hope to reach. My interest is in broadening Christian education for what I call the “broad Christian center” and especially in mainline protestant churches. Education doesn’t involve hearing just one set of ideas, and neither does my publishing effort.

    In order to accomplish that, I’m seeking to publish books that are both challenging and dialogue-seeking. What I mean by that is that they express their viewpoint well from within their particular perspective and also reach out to communicate with those from other perspectives. I’m not seeking the literature of compromise, i.e. people who water down what they actually believe in order to build dialogue. I posted a view on this, which can be found here.

    In connection with this new book on politics, this issue has come up in two ways, first by people who assume that since I’m publishing and marketing it, I must agree on all points. While I don’t feel the call to fight with my own authors, I have no need to agree with everything they say. Second, I hear it from people who question why I would publish a book with which I don’t agree fully.

    That leads back to the question of publishing “truth.” Should I limit my publications to those that express precisely the view that I hold on each and every topic? If I did, I would have to remove books of my own from the market each and every time I change my mind on a detail. What about a broader level of truth? No, not so much. What I look for in manuscripts–and trust me, getting good manuscripts that fit my goals isn’t easy–is a point of view that is worth hearing expressed in a way that it can be heard.

    If my company were not individually owned I would have less trouble with this. Large companies are expected to produce a variety of ideas. But as it is, many people are surprised each time I publish a book that doesn’t entirely agree with what I have said or written.

    So what is this conservative book that I’m publishing? It’s Preserving Democracy, and it’s by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. I’ve published two books and two study guides by Elgin dealing with Christian apologetics (Evidence for the Bible and Christianity and Secularism. I like Preserving Democracy, because Elgin has done thorough research, referenced the book extensively, and has argued his points well, in my view.

    No, I don’t agree with everything in this book, but that is really not the relevant point. I think this is a book that expresses ideas that should be considered. If you don’t agree, you should know why, and be able to support your position.

    It’s possible this sounds like damning the book with faint praise. Not true! I’m extremely delighted to have it as the first Energion Publications title in the Politics category. I hope it will challenge people, start debate, and create action. One course of action might be proposals or manuscripts. (Are you interested in the approach I’m taking? Do you have a manuscript or an idea for one? Contact me.)

    But I’m also using it to establish my brand identity, so you may hear me talk a bit about my ideas here from time to time. Conversation between people expressing clear, uncompromised ideas can be a powerful force.

    Elgin expressed this in his book:

    A good healthy democracy depends on a healthy debate that includes both pros, cons, and ramifications of each side and their proposals. But when debate exists primarily in slogans, bumper stickers, and thirty second TV spots, true honest discussion and debate is impossible.

    Furthermore, with so many outlets for information, groups are increasingly becoming more insular. Democrats talk primarily to Democrats, Republicans to Republicans, and Libertarians to Libertarians. Each group looks to its sources and insulates itself from others, effectively becoming self-reinforcing, feeding on their own rhetoric rather than on reality. (pages 165-166 in advance copies)

    I think he is absolutely right. I believe his book is a step in the right direction. Many more are needed, but you can’t take a second step until you have taken the first. It’s my first step toward strengthening the political debate as a publisher.

    Note: If you are interested in reading an advance copy, and you are a blogger, involved with other social media including Twitter, or a political leader, please e-mail me at pubs@energion.com. There are still a few advance copies available, and I’d be delighted to send you one while they last.

  • Grace in Action (Lent 4B)

    The passages are Numbers 21:4-9, Psalm 107:1-3, 17-22; Ephesians 2:1-10 and John 3:14-21.  These passages center around the story of the serpent that Moses put on a pole in the wilderness.  The omission of verses 4-16 maintains that emphasis even in Psalm 107, though I would recommend reading the entire passage.  I am not always happy with the omissions in the lectionary readings, and this is no exception.

    There are three points that I think may be gleaned from these passages:

    1. Grace is grace.  It is something freely given even in circumstances under which the recipients might be said to have made their own bed.
    2. The offer of grace often appears in strange or unexpected ways.
    3. Grace rescues, but it also puts us at risk.

    One of the problems we have with grace, I believe, is that it takes us out of control of the situation.  Let’s suppose I am out of work, and someone offers me a job.  Let’s also assume that I really have no hope of getting a job doing something I like or think I would be good at.  This offer of a job comes to me as grace.  I do not have the qualifications.  I couldn’t claim the job in a process of submitting resumes and doing interviews.  The job will be difficult and I’m not certain I can do it, but my potential employer says he’ll provide the training necessary.

    Taking this job is a risk.  I risk:

    1. My control. I can’t go to my employer, remind him of my great value, and persuade him to keep me.  At least in the short term I’m not a positive asset.  He claims he will make me into an asset, but that hasn’t happened yet.  It would be hard for me to threaten to quit.  He knows I have no other job available and would be going back onto the street.
    2. My pride. I must go to work every day knowing that I didn’t earn this job.
    3. Failure.  While my employer believes he can make me into a good worker in this new job, I don’t know that myself.  It looks like a long hard road.  Will I be successful?
    4. My past. I have great experiences in other fields.  When I go into this new job I’m putting aside everything I’ve done in my past.  Must I feel like a failure because I am now in a different field?
    5. My future. If I was down and out before, what would happen if I lost this new job, my one and only opportunity?  Who would employ me then?
    6. My relationship with the giver. If I fail or quit, it is not just a job that’s at stake, it’s a relationship.

    The principles involved are best illustrated from Numbers 21:4-9.  The Israelites complain about food and water, even though their need has been supplied time after time.  Why do they complain first, rather than ask first?  After they complain and are in trouble, they are not asking for their wages or something they have earned.  They are asking for special relief.  Grace is grace.  It isn’t payday.

    When God offers grace he often does so in ways we don’t expect.  I wrote a devotional for my wife’s list titled Rescued to the Wilderness.  My point there was that if we had our choice, grace would come in the form of rescue from Egypt directly into the promised land.  What happened to Israel is more like the case of a climber who gets stuck at the bottom of a canyon.  He’s discouraged and just wants to get out of there.  Someone drops him new ropes and the tools needed to climb out.  He’s rescued, but he has to climb out.  He might prefer to have a backet dangling from a helicopter that would pull him out instantly.

    In the wilderness case, however, the action was simple.  It just wasn’t fully logical, at least to our modern minds.  Why put a snake up on a pole and look at it in order to be healed?  The NISB reminded me in a note that the snake was an equivocal symbol in the ancient near east (p. 221 on Numbers 21:4-9).  On the one hand it represented death, but on the other it represented life and fertility.  Imagine the conflict of a person asked to gaze on an image of the thing that had threatened one’s life.  But “God made him who knew no sin to be sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21) and put him up on a cross for us to gaze upon.

    We often don’t see how that symbol is filled with conflict from our human point of view.  That’s why, as we read last week in 1 Corinthians 1:18-25, it is foolishness to those who are perishing.  Why look at some dead guy to save me from dying?  It doesn’t make sense!  This isn’t grace, it’s silly!  But it is precisely the way in which grace is presented.  Jesus is lifted up as the serpent was in the wilderness.  I don’t think it is an accident that while John 3:14-15 gives the same message as John 3:16, we memorize the latter much more frequently than the former.

    Finally, accepting grace is risky, as I showed in my illustration.  I think God’s grace is much more like the person who offers a job or the one who drops ropes and other equipment to the climber than it is like the parent who presents a child with a new, fully-paid car on his or her 16th birthday.  The 16 year old can get in and drive.  The recipient of God’s grace has begun a journey, one which will be difficult at times, but which will also be thoroughly soaked in God’s grace, again and again.

     

  • Relating Ritual, Symbol, and Reality – A Question

    I was looking at this week’s lectionary passages, and a relationship with my current study of Leviticus struck me.  How precisely do our actions and rituals symbolize what we’re trying to represent?  Is it possible that all they do is open up the questions for us?  I wrote about some of the oddness of God’s offering of grace, if viewed from the human perspective, in my lectionary notes.

    Now here’s what strikes me in reading Leviticus, or even better in reading from about Exodus 21-Numbers:  The symbols illustrate to a greater or lesser degree a vast array of the elements of the way in which we relate to God.  We can look at this historically, as in a historical separation from God, with Jesus tearing open the veil and allowing all of us access to the throne of grace.

    We can also see it as an illustration of our own lives and progress.  We each start with a certain distance to traverse toward God.  There are those who help lead us to God.  Those who object to the notion of “priest” with reference to the pastoral role neglect this aspect, I think.  Some try to push pastor or priest aside because we all have access, but for each person, and even for the community as a whole, there is still a need for the priestly role until we all actually attain that direct access to God.

    Those who quibble about sacrificial rules when discussing the sacrifice of Jesus miss the point as well.  The animal sacrifices pointed to elements of our relationship to God and the way in which God related to us.  I’m not arguing here for a directly type-antitype, i.e. singular relationship between these sacrifices and Jesus.  The sacrifices themselves continually pointed Israel to God’s grace, the way it was offered, and the duty it placed on the recipients.

    The tabernacle system of worship also included elements of community, of individual responsibility for the group and group responsibility for the individual, of praise, simple worship, and even of the need for certain routines and certainties in our lives.

    As I noted regarding the lectionary texts, the serpent was an equivocal symbol.  We are called to look on a symbol that is equivocal when we look at the cross.  Our human eyes will see death.  The Holy Spirit can enlighten us to see life.  The cross looks distinctively different depending on which side you’re on when you look.  Looking back it’s a symbol of life.  Looking forward, it’s a fearful, dangerous thing looking a great deal like death.

    The rituals of the tabernacle emphasize life and its importance, but they did so with a great deal of death.  They too had that kind of double look.  We live in a world that is filled with such symbols.  Perhaps we should not be too anxious to reconcile them too thoroughly.

    I’m just thinking out loud and rambling.  What do you think?

  • In Which a Calvinist Annoys and Delights Me

    Or you can call him “Reformed.” I personally dislike that particular term because to many people it implies that other protestants never passed through the reformation, that only the Calvinists “reformed.” All of which can also ignore the adjustments in Catholic theology since the time of the reformation. But that’s all a side issue, and I’m going to use the term anyhow, as those who keep up with theology at all are aware of the current meaning.

    I think that Adrian Warnock has an exceptional ability to pick out annoying portions of quotes, as he does in his post Piper on Leading People Towards Reformed Theology. Now I don’t mean annoying in the sense that it is somehow convicting. I mean it in the sense that it frames the opposition inappropriately, in my view, and in this case it looks a bit arrogant.

    Now having read Adrian’s extract, I clicked on through to Piper’s original words, and while they still contain that which annoys me, to which I’ll respond in a moment, they come in a much better context. Piper, who is an exceptional preacher in my opinion, even or especially when I’m busy disagreeing with him, is providing advice for a Reformed pastor who finds himself pastoring an Arminian congregation. His advice is excellent. I’d advise any pastor who has a congregation that disagrees with him in theology to follow it.

    I think it would work just as well for an Arminian pastor who ends up pastoring a predominantly Reformed congregation, or any pastor who ends up pastoring a congregation that is not in tune with his theology. I’d like to recommend his advice to those United Methodist pastors who end up in a congregation that wants to be entertained, while the pastor wants to become more God-centered. Be who you believe you’re supposed to be. If certain aspects of theology are too difficult or controversial, focusing on God and who God is will be an excellent place to start.

    Similarly, if you’re a liberal pastoring a conservative congregation, you too can focus on God. I assume that if you’re a pastor, you believe that the social imperatives you accept result from who God is and what God desires. So preach about who God is.

    Of course, as Piper notes as well, there may be a time to move on, and I personally would add that one shouldn’t seek out such a mismatch. But I know of a number of United Methodist ministers who feel very challenged by the beliefs (or lack of same) in their congregations, yet believe strongly they are called by God to be where they are.

    All those parts of Piper’s post are a delight. I’m not going to try to quote from it. You need to read the whole thing. In a few paragraphs, Piper gives all of us good advice–provided we ignore the slanted Reformed and Arminian bias, to which I now turn my attention.

    Piper says:

    In other words, a Reformed position mainly means, God is really big, really strong, really powerful, really knowledgeable, really wise, really great, really weighty, and he is going to be big in this service, and we’re going to make a big deal out of God here. There are a lot of born-again Arminian people who like that. It’s because they don’t see the implications of their theology.

    The bottom line here is that this is not really the main Reformed position, at least not in distinction to other positions. I normally like to let people define themselves, but if that definition includes “unlike me” I am quite prepared to object. I too believe God is strong, knowledgeable, wise, and weighty, and you can put however many “really’s” in front of each word, because “infinite” licenses you to do so. I think the worship service should center around divine things as well.

    Arminian theology doesn’t imply anything else either. You see, “God is sovereign” means that God gets to do what God wants, and that includes anything whatsoever that God wants to do, including ordaining free will. Somehow some Calvinists think that predestination gives greater glory to God because it takes human beings out of the equation. But you don’t give greater glory by saying something false about a person or thing. If I praise my hammer as a saw, I’m just being silly. It won’t make it a saw, and it won’t make anyone regard my hammer more highly because of its saw-like attributes.

    I would note the condescension in the final sentence of the quote about us illogical Arminians. It may seem nice to give us the excuse of ignorance or blindness, but it seems to replace a certain spiritual arrogance with an intellectual variety.

    That doesn’t answer the question of who is correct, however, because my argument cuts both ways. If I’m wrong about free will, I do not increase God’s glory by proclaiming it either. That’s beyond the scope of this particular post.

    This ties in with my current series on Interpreting the Bible, and particular my last post in which I said:

    Now how does this apply to my test passages? I want to make clear here that the problem with the passages I cited is not that I don’t like what they say. My feelings about what a passage says do not impact what it’s now dead author meant to say. The ancients said many things that I don’t like. God is represented as saying things that I don’t like in scripture. My dislike of the statement doesn’t alter the intent of that statement.

    When we phrase the problem in that way we open things up for non-Christians to point out that we are simply taking what we like from scripture, for more conservative Christians to suggest that we are discarding passages at will, and for those more liberal to suggest that we haven’t moved far enough.

    The inverse is also possible–when one presents a problem of interpretation which involves an apparent contention of two views in scripture, it is quite easy for one’s opponent to represent this as a problem of trying to discard something one doesn’t like.

    But my major problem with predestination is not that I don’t like it. I admit I don’t, but I also don’t like the command to “take up my cross” and I think that one is absolutely valid and binding! My problem is that I think the doctrine of predestination, as stated in the Westminster Confessions, misrepresents God, who God claims God is.

    So please do go on proclaiming the sovereignty of God. Make God-centered worship services. If you’re an Arminian who has somehow become pastor to a church of Calvinists, do the same. Make your worship services God-centered.

    I am reminded of a friend who was discussing creation and evolution with me who proposed the same type of question. “How can this be reconciled with the Biblical picture of a loving God?” he asked me. Well, that is a difficulty, but it is not a difficulty that will alter the facts on the ground. When you get right down to it, things like the flood and hell fire provide at least as much reason to question one’s picture of God. And evolution occurred (or not) whether I believe it, like it, ignore it, or abhor it.

    Even the Wesleyan-Arminian view of choice leaves many wondering. How can a choice, even by a prevenient-grace-enabled, yet finite human, settle an eternal destiny? Is it fair for God to allow such an uninformed choice to result in eternal consequences? Under this view, were the sinner permitted to look into the pits of hell when making the decision, would it be the same? Of course the word “fair” here begs for definition, but I’m using it because I’m intentionally framing this in a form based on human feeling. The Bible proclaims that God is just, which may not seem fair!

    No, it’s not a question of just how sovereign God is. It’s a question of what we believe God actually has done. I think the evidence, both scriptural and historical, indicates God has, in his sovereign will, left a great deal more to humanity than we would like. But whether we like it or not, God, by definition, gets to make the ultimate choices.