Calvinism and Open Theism, Part I

“The God who determines everything is the God who determines nothing.”

These were the words I posted in response to a Reformed member of a discussion board to which I belong. The statement was in response to one of the infinite number of similar threads devoted to discussing issues of predestination, foreknowledge, freedom of human will, etc.

Almost instantly, I was bombarded with the predictable host of “flames,” some saying I was obtuse, others saying I was a “troll” seeking to undermine Calvinism at any cost, and even the obligatory accusation of Pelagianism. One thoughtful individual (a Calvinist, no less!), actually asked me what I meant. I went on to explain that I believed that open theism (a theology particularly despised by the Reformed club) was the natural by-product of a rabid Calvinism. Flabbergasted by my assertion, this individual challenged me to explain.

In the following, I will seek to outline what I believe to be direct connections between Calvinism and the rise of Open Theism theology. It is my contention that instead of conceiving of the two in opposition to one another, it is more appropriate to conclude that open theism is actually the legitimate heir of Calvinistic theology, the logical conclusion of the theological and philosophical tenants established in the Reformed method.

Laying a Foundation

I. Calvinism

Calvinism is built upon the dual foundation of foreknowledge and foreordination. The Westminster Confession of faith clearly expresses the relationship:

“3/I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass...” 1

The words “whatsoever comes to pass” definitely and exhaustively communicates that absolutely nothing occurs apart from the divin e will. However, the divine will is not simply permissive, in that it allows things to come to pass; rather, the divine will, according to the Confession, actively ordains that which occurs in accordance with the divine will.

Moreover, the efficacy of that which God ordains is rooted in the infallibility of the foreknowledge of God. Again, the Confession:

“5/I. God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least,by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.” 2

Therefore, God does not merely foreordain that which occurs, but rather does so upon the basis of the eternal foreknowledge that that which God foreordains will necessarily and infallibly come to pass. In other words, God can ordain history with complete confidence, for God has already experienced the fulfilment of that which God purposes from eternity to ordain.

II. Open Theism

Unlike Calvinism, open theism denies that all which occurs is definitively actuated on account of the application of the foreordaining and foreknowing will of God. Rather, the future is very much an open reality, coming into existence based upon the choice of free moral agents. Gregory Boyd, a well-known open theist theologian, describes this as follows:

"Much of it [the future], open theists will concede, is settled ahead of time, either by God's predestining will or by existing earthly causes, but it is not exhaustively settled ahead of time. To whatever degree the future is yet open to be decided by free agents, it is unsettled." 3

Here, Boyd agrees that some things may, perhaps, be predestined on the basis of the natural constitution of the world through divine, creative activity (i.e., it is predestined that humans will have lungs because of the environment in which they live). However, that which will occur if, say, one eats chocolate ice cream as opposed to vanilla, buys a house in Queens as opposed to one in the Bronx, or kills Hitler in 1932 is understood by open theists to be very much “open” and indeterminate.

This does not mean that God lacks omniscience. Rather, as the future does not exist 4 (for humans or God), it cannot be known and can not, therefore, accurately be a part of divine (or human, for that matter) knowledge.

III. Conclusion

The above has been an admittedly brief and incomplete description of the various and infinite nuances which are inherent to each particular theological programme. However, as I believe I have sufficiently illustrated above, there is a definite tension which exists between the two paradigms. While many will claim that the difference exists in relation to the valuation of nature of the human will, such misses the larger incongruity between the two theologies. Rather than anthropocentric, the greater issue of disagreement is that of the nature of God in relationship to the created order.

Calvinism begins from the supposition that because God is sovereign, God as creator must also infallibly ordain that which occurs in creation. To imagine that a single event could occur apart from the ordering of the divine will, within Reformed theology, is tantamount to denying the sovereignty of God. In the Calvinist’s mind, the precise ordering of all that occurs per the preordaining will of God is not only necessary because of God’s nature, but actually serves to maximally glorify God.

Unlike Calvinism, instead of proceeding from the point of God’s sovereignty, open theism rather emphasizes the creative work of God in the universe, painting a picture of a God who creates in order that creation can itself “create.” To the open theist, “risk” and “freedom” within the created order do not deny the sovereignty of God; rather, the fact that creation is free to be creation is a part of the divine will, regardless of the consequences of the precise course that is pursued.

The Problem of Sin and Evil

Among the range of critiques leveled at the Calvinistic view of God’s sovereign determination of all that occurs, chief among these has been the question of the origin and existence of evil. That is, if God not only creates all that exists, but moreover determines all that exists in its multifarious movements, it is difficult to conceive of how God cannot be understood to be the author and, more shockingly, the sustainer and director of evil.

To resolve this glaring incongruity, many Reformed thinkers appeal to Augustine, the fourth century “doctor” of the Church. Consider his words in the following:

“…God does well even in the permission of what is evil…Although, therefore, evil, in so far as it is evil, is not a good, yet the fact that evil as well as good exists, is a good. For if it were not a good that evil exists, its existence would not be permitted by the omnipotent God…” 5

Clearly, Augustine argues that the very existence of evil 6 is good, not because evil in itself is good, but rather because of the simple fact that God permits it to exist, for God, surely, would not allow the existence of that which is not good. 7

However, Augustine takes his logic only so far. Rather than following through to locating the precise mechanism of origin in the work and will of God, Augustine hesitates, refusing to locate the causal nexus beyond the pride of the will. But how can a will, created good, become perverted if not enticed to become so by the direction of the sovereign God? Augustine, at this point, declines to inquire further, noting:
“Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being – this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections – causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient – is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence . . .” 8

As seen, Augustine is ambivalent about the causal mechanism of the existence of evil, and dissolves the conversation before its logical conclusion in order to maintain the goodness of God. Reformed theology, on the other hand, goes well beyond Augustine, pressing the existence of evil to its logical conclusion. Consider the words of the Confession, again:

“The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends...” 9

Consistent with what has already been quoted from the Confession, this article clearly expresses the Calvinistic belief that all things that occur–even ordination of sin and evil–come to pass by the express will of God. Moreover, it is not as if these occur simply by permission of the divine will; rather, they are necessarily directed by the will of God toward “holy ends.” Therefore, if God does truly “ordain whatsoever comes to pass” and that this extends “even to the first fall, and all other sins,” there is no other conclusion that one can reach but that God is originator of sin. In this way, Reformed thinking logically moves beyond Augustine’s hesitancy and locates the origin and direction of sin in the divine will itself.

To be sure, most Reformed thinkers deny such a conclusion. The Confession, for example, anticipates the accusation and notes,

“...yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” 10

In this sense, the Confession wishes to maintain a tension between the origination of sin and the effectual ordering of creation by God. However, the Confession does not go on to explicate exactly how this tension can be honestly maintained. After all, if it is by God’s decree that all things–good and evil–come to pass, from where comes the “sinfulness of creature” except from the predestining will of God? What evil principle can there which exists within the human person that is not there by God’s design?

Coming to terms with the relentlessness of this logical deduction, many Reformed thinkers attempt to circumvent the prickly issue of God as originator or sin by distracting from the conclusion by raising other questions. For example, A.W. Pink, one of the most prolific Reformed writers of the last century, answers the question of whether God is the author of sin in the following:

“Then is God the Author of Sin? We would have to ask, in turn, What is meant by "Author"? Plainly it was God's will that sin should enter this world otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed.” 11

Instead of engaging the question directly, Pink simply raises another question. Knowing that the inevitable answer must be that God is the author of sin, Pink backs down from the question entirely, retreating into a propositional affirmation of the sovereignty of God. Although he attempts to find respite in the Augustinian affirmation of the place of evil within the goodness of God’s eternal purpose, Pink runs aground on the rock of his presupposition of the absoluteness of the predetermining will of God.

In a similar way, Piper circumvents the natural conclusion of the Reformed position, claiming, simply, that

“...we are told nothing [in Scripture] about how the first actual sin of the universe occurred. And to me it is a great Mystery why any angelic being in the presence of God should ever cease to delight in God and instead seek joy in his own self-esteem. The ultimate origin of sin is shrouded in the darkness of eternity past.” 12

By employing the language of “eternity past,” it is clear that Piper is alluding to the primordial, eternal decrees of God by which Calvinists believe all events to be ordered. However, recognizing the inevitable and logical conclusion of the Reformed position, Piper, like Pink, retreats into the sovereignty of God (“eternity past”), rectifying the origin of sin in the “darkness” (or mystery) of God’s sovereign relationship to that which God has created.

The Logical Move to Open Theism

The 17th, 18th and 19th centuries of human history were the breeding ground for the development of the Calvinistic approach to reconciling the problem of theodicy. Consequently, these were also centuries of great optimism and advancement in the human race in terms of technology, nation-building, human knowledge, etc. The Renaissance and Enlightenment opened up the human mind from its lethargy during the Dark Ages. Suddenly, an entire universe of knowledge was available to be explored. Concomitantly, the rise of scientific methodology provided a framework through which human knowledge could be categorized, examined, critiqued, and systematically built upon. This context of progress and advancement created a great spirit of pride and expectation in the human spirit and markedly characterized the thought and life of Continental Europe. Within this period of great growth and excitement in the future of human progress, the Calvinistic conception of determinism and theodicy must have been fairly easy to maintain. After all, was not the “greater good” of which Augustine had spoken being accomplished in history? Sure, there were setbacks and here and there, and wars and tragedies still continued to occur. However, on the whole, the eschatological future of the human race seemed quite bright, and the existence of sinfulness and evil were characterized as “growing pains,” the necessary gauntlet through which humanity would have to pass before realizing its ultimate deification.

Nonetheless, the turn of the new century brought about a swift disillusionment. Within the first half of the century, all the major nations of the world had been engulfed in two world wars that redefined the very nature and horror of war. The gas chambers of Aushwitz revealed the utter hatred that “improved” scientific humanity was still capable of toward itself, and the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki quickly redrew the lines for the potential of humanity to destroy itself instantly.

Not surprisingly, in the fallout of these disasters, the perennial question of theodicy was again raised. However, this time it was magnified to a degree never before imagined possible. Classical theodicy’s fell apart instantly: How could a good God eternally ordain the horrors of the German prison camps, the Soviet gulags, and the incineration of hundreds of thousands in the fires of the A-bomb? The suggestion that this could somehow be part of a “grander” plan for good was utterly and vitriolically rejected, for what good could possibly come from the brutal and violent deaths of the millions across dozens of nations through two world-engulfing wars? The answer, affirmatively and without hesitation, was “none.”

Many contemporary writers have seized upon the conceptual difficulties of classical theodicies and have severely critiqued them, showing them to be entirely inadequate to address the existential problem of human suffering.

For example, Charles Hartshorne, in his book, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes, attacks the classical Calvinistic conception of God’s predetermining relationship to creation. In Hartshorne’s thinking, the traditional discussion of God’s eternal, determining will has led to nothing but a picture of God as cosmic despot, 13 sovereignly determining every possible thing that occurs, eliminating the potential for human freedom. However, if this is truly how God is related to the world, there is no way, in Hartshorne’s thinking, to avoid the implication that God, alone, is the source of evil in the world. Nelson Pike notes similar conceptual problems with the concept of God’s all-determining will, but pushes the rhetoric farther, noting that,

“If God alone has power, then he alone is responsible [for evil]. Given that someone in the world is to be blamed, [God] is really the only one it could be.” 14

In light of critiques listed above, theologians who wrestled with this problem and were themselves proponents of the “classical” theodicies of Calvinistic flavor needed a way out of the conceptual absurdity of their position in light of the disillusionment of the post-Enlightenment optimism. The answer, to many, came in the form of open theism.

In open theism theodicy, the goodness of God is more easily preserved for the phenomological discussion of “event” in reality is no longer based upon the eternal, determining decrees of God. Rather, God is understood to have infused the Creation with a creativity and freedom that is real, and not merely the façade of an underlying predestined will. In this sense, human creatures are truly free to choose moral actions that are within their ability to actuate. However, God’s sovereignty is concomitantly preserved, for the very freedom of human choice is based upon the divine will coming to pass within the created order.

Sanders, in describing this dynamic, offers the following description of the open theism conception of human freedom and theodicy:

"God, in grace, grants humans significant freedom to cooperate with or work against God's will for their lives, and he enters into dynamic, give and take relationships with us....God takes risks in this give-and-take relationship…” 15

As mentioned, such a perspective provided a “way out” for classical theodicies. While the horrors exacted by Hitler upon the Jews, within the constructs of classical theodicies, was itself directed by the will of God for the fulfillment of a greater good, the open theism argument rejects such determinism. Rather, the horrors perpetuated by Hitler are very much Hitler’s own decisions; therefore, the moral responsibility is also squarely laid upon his shoulders. Moreover, to those that would criticize the God of open theism for neglecting to prevent Hitler from acting in such a way, the response is that such horror and evil is the potential price of God’s good will in creation to allow for the freedom of human will and decision.

----------------------------

1. Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter III, Article I. http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

2. Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter V, Article I. http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

3. Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001), p. 15.

4. It should be noted that not all open theists believe that God does not know the future. Rather, some envision that God fully knows the future, yet limits divine knowledge concerning the future, so as to allow human freedom.

5. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.ii.xcviii.html?bcb=0.

6. It must be noted that Augustine does not necessarily view evil as a “thing” which has ontological existence unto itself. Rather, evil, to Augustine, is the perversion of good. Therefore, it cannot be a thing “created” by God, and therefore, God’s goodness is preserved even in the face of the existence of the perversion of good.

7. For Augustine, the “goodness” of creation was entirely reflective of God’s perfection. To deny that a part of creation was good would, for Augustine, be tantamount to denying the perfection of God.

8. Augustine, City of God, Book 7, Chapter 7 http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ124.HTM#IV.%20WHAT%20CAUSED%20THE%20FALLEN%20ANGELS%20AND%20THE%20FIRST

9. Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter V, Article IV.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

10. Ibid.

11. A. W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God. http://www.reformed.org/books/pink/pink_sov_08.html

12. John Piper, “The Emergence of Sin and Misery,” http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper81/101181m.htm

13. Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and other Theological Mistakes (Albany: State
University of New York, 1984), 12.

14. Nelson Pike, “Over-Power and God’s Responsibility for Sin.” In The Existence & Nature of God. Studies in the Philosophy of Religion. No. 3. Ed. Alfred J. Freddoso. Norte Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983. 11-35, 12.

15. From John Sanders, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Intervarsity Press, 1994).

T-REX Under Siege Day 1

The battle is on to rewrite history and deprive us of our cherished beliefs regarding the infamous T-Rex. Don't let the liberal media deceive our children any more. Arm yourself with the sword of knowledge and the sheild of rhetoric.

Read all about thi s scandal of Jurasic proportions here: http://www.xanga.com/forestfroggr/473990764/taking-it-back.html

Creation and Eschatology

A fundamental tenant of Christian faith is that the universe, humanity and history are dynamic. Rather than simply existing as the static expression of some primordial causation, the universe, humanity and history are all moving in a direction. Christians believe that God is working within the cosmos, shaping and contouring it toward a goal, toward a final consummation. Leaving aside the debates about the interpretations of the potential chronology of the events recorded in the book of Revelations, Christians are united, at least, in the firm belief that cosmological history is going somewhere and that this movement is being actualized in the dynamism of the reality which we all experience.

It is precisely this conviction which rejects certain forms of deism. At the height of modernism, cosmological history was reduced to a series of predictable, unavoidable consequences which were merely the logical expression of causal forces. In this schema, God became reduced to a principle causation, to Aristotles’ “Unmoved Mover.” Being “unmoved,” however, God was also the extreme disconnected deity, merely watching as the universe followed the impetus of the divine causality. This conception of God’s creative relationship to the universe, however, is explicitly rejected by the Scriptures which clearly reveal God’s intimate and intentional involvement, not only in regards to the mechanisms of creation, but even more importantly to the realization and progress of history. As noted above, Christian faith believes not only that history is “going somewhere,” but moreover that God is precisely involved in where it is going and what it is becoming.

In reflecting upon this idea, I see dangers with “literalistic” interpretations of Genesis. While such interpretations may be intended to be faithful to the texts, I believe they also introduce dangerous theological implications which must be avoided. For example, the literalistic interpretation advocates that the universe was created in 6 literal days (24 hour periods) and that on the 7th day, God rested from the work. Scientific evidence aside, I see severe problems with this view. By locating God’s creative activity to a specific time period (the first 6 days of space/time), this form of interpretation seems capable of leading to the deist’s conclusions. After all, if God’s creative activity is limited to this specific time period (for God “rested” after creating, thus seeming to bring the account of creative activity to a close), is not the movement of time/space that follows merely the causal outcome of this creative activity? Is God not merely the “Mover” that has set things in motion?

Moreover, how does this perspective make God’s continued involvement in creation intelligible? I see that this view does not allow for the dynamic relationship which the Scriptures portray to exist between God and history. Rather, God is simply the authoritarian force actualizing the will present in creation. In this sense, however, eschatology really becomes an irrelevant topic. If the creative activity of God has ceased in the first moments of the universe, there is no real “movement” anywhere. Rather, history is simply the unthinking, casual product of the act of God at the beginning of all things. In this way, then, the consummation of history is really only a phenomenological oddity, rather than the dynamic actualization of the divine will within history that the Scriptures present.

Because of these issues, I believe any theology of origins and eschatology must allow for the dynamic and continuing creative involvement of God in the history of the universe. This is necessary, for the very nature of eschatology impinges upon creation theology. As noted above, eschatology is the belief of the people of God that history is moving towards a goal and that God is dynamically involved in actualizing this goal. However, and precisely because of this impetus, creation theology must be reflective of one’s eschatology. After all, if one believes that God is dynamically involved in bringing history to consummation, one must also provide an intelligible way of speaking about how God has created and continues to create the universe in such a way as to be consonant with these eschatological designs. As I have already pointed out, some forms of creation theology present a picture of God as Creator which locate God’s creative activity exclusively within the first moments of creation. If this is true, however, in what way can one concomitantly assert that God is also dynamically bringing history to consummation? Truly enough, one could speak of God simply “realizing” the causal end of that which God has created. However, as I already noted, this tends to turn eschatology into merely a phenomenological concept, rather than as a reality in which God is actively participating. Because of this, I believe another way must be pursued.

I will explore this "way" in my next post.

Shocking New LOTR Footage Discovered

If you like this, you might remember this one from a few months ago...

Extreme Makeover

As you have surely noticed by now, I have completely renovated my blog. And I did it all without Ty Pennington's obnoxious help...

First of all, about the style change. I (as well as many others, I have come to find out...) was getting quite tired of the black. Considering all the content which I posted in the sidebars, my blog was becoming overly busy and, if I'm being completely self-disclosing, quite obnoxious. Therefore, I have donned the "Blue Mood" theme. I am excited about this theme, for it is entirely my own creation. From the color scheme, to the graphical design, the entire layout is original. While this obviously opens me up to the prospect of severe design criticism, I can at least take credit for whatever form a critique of the design might assume.

Secondly, the regular blog visitor will note that I have reduced the main page content quite significantly. I have jettisoned the quotes, reading list, cd list, and movie list. In their place, I have created link buttons at the top of the page to direct visitors to specific sub-pages that contain the information that I have removed from the main page. Hopefully, this change will allow for faster loading of the main page, as well as limit the amount of information that presents to the reader who may simply be trying to follow the most recent post.

Finally, because of some of the graphical elements of my design, I have been forced to part ways with compatibility with Internet Explorer. Although the site will still be functional in IE, it will not present the same aesthetic elements as with Firefox. Moreover, I have added a link for the user to download the Opera browser. I have found that it is, in many ways, even faster than Firefox. Moreover, it adds some interesting and appealing stylistic elements to more mundane elements (for example, see the "buttons" on the weekly poll in the left sidebar). Although the benefits of Opera are not signficant over those of Firefox, Opera is quickly rising in popularity and it would be in the Internet user's best interests to begin to familiarize themselves with all that Opera has to offer.

'Gospel of Judas' Surfaces After 1,700 Years

New York times

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Published: April 6, 2006

An early Christian manuscript, including the only known text of what is known as the Gospel of Judas, has surfaced after 1,700 years. The text gives new insights into the relationship of Jesus and the disciple who betrayed him, scholars reported today. In this version, Jesus asked Judas, as a close friend, to sell him out to the authorities, telling Judas he will "exceed" the other disciples by doing so.

Skip to next paragraph Though some theologians have hypothesized this, scholars who have studied the new-found text said, this is the first time an ancient document defends the idea.

The discovery in the desert of Egypt of the leather-bound papyrus manuscript, and now its translation, was announced by the National Geographic Society at a news conference in Washington. The 26-page Judas text is said to be a copy in Coptic, made around A. D. 300, of the original Gospel of Judas, written in Greek the century before.

Terry Garcia, an executive vice president of the geographic society, said the manuscript, or codex, is considered by scholars and scientists to be the most significant ancient, nonbiblical text to be found in the past 60 years.

"The codex has been authenticated as a genuine work of ancient Christian apocryphal literature," Mr. Garcia said, citing extensive tests of radiocarbon dating, ink analysis and multispectral imaging and studies of the script and linguistic style. The ink, for example, was consistent with ink of that era, and there was no evidence of multiple rewriting.

"This is absolutely typical of ancient Coptic manuscripts," said Stephen Emmel, professor of Coptic studies at the University of Munster in Germany. "I am completely convinced."

The most revealing passages in the Judas manuscript begins, "The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover."

The account goes on to relate that Jesus refers to the other disciples, telling Judas "you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." By that, scholars familiar with Gnostic thinking said, Jesus meant that by helping him get rid of his physical flesh, Judas will act to liberate the true spiritual self or divine being within Jesus.

Unlike the accounts in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the anonymous author of the Gospel of Judas believed that Judas Iscariot alone among the 12 disciples understood the meaning of Jesus' teachings and acceded to his will. In the diversity of early Christian thought, a group known as Gnostics believed in a secret knowledge of how people could escape the prisons of their material bodies and return to the spiritual realm from which they came.

Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton who specializes in studies of the Gnostics, said in a statement, "These discoveries are exploding the myth of a monolithic religion, and demonstrating how diverse — and fascinating — the early Christian movement really was."

The Gospel of Judas is only one of many texts discovered in the last 65 years, including the gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene and Philip, believed to be written by Gnostics.

The Gnostics' beliefs were often viewed by bishops and early church leaders as unorthodox, and they were frequently denounced as heretics. The discoveries of Gnostic texts have shaken up Biblical scholarship by revealing the diversity of beliefs and practices among early followers of Jesus.

As the findings have trickled down to churches and universities, they have produced a new generation of Christians who now regard the Bible not as the literal word of God, but as a product of historical and political forces that determined which texts should be included in the canon, and which edited out.

For that reason, the discoveries have proved deeply troubling for many believers. The Gospel of Judas portrays Judas Iscariot not as a betrayer of Jesus, but as his most favored disciple and willing collaborator.

Scholars say that they have long been on the lookout for the Gospel of Judas because of a reference to what was probably an early version of it in a text called Against Heresies, written by Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, about the year 180.

Irenaeus was a hunter of heretics, and no friend of the Gnostics. He wrote, "They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."

The Sinlessness of Christ - Part Second

In my previous post, I argued that locating the sinlessness of Christ within the circumstances of Christ's biological origin is a major and glaring theological mistake. To this effect, I forcefully suggested that such an approach is effectively a denial of the reality of the Incarnation. As such a perspective ultimately makes Christ "other than" humanity in that Christ needs a special means of biological genesis in order to evade human sinfulness, it is difficult to see how 1.) one can affirm the orthodox belief that Christ is truly, fully and completely human and 2.) that Christ, as fully human, is the savior of humanity. In this sense, if sinfulness is a biologically heritable entity, Christ cannot be savior for Christ cannot assume that which Christ is thought to redeem (the full ontology of the human person) while remaining sinless.

If the biological nature of the transmission of sin is to be rejected, how is one to positively speak of Christ's sinlessness?

The first step is to properly define sin. In the previous discussion, I pointed out a few (not all, by any means!) of the conceptual problems which accompany understanding sin to be a biological entity that can be--and is--transmitted from human to human genetically. Let us explore this a bit more.

One classic consequence of viewing sin as a biologically heritable entity is that of equating biological death with sinfulness. As the thinking goes, humanity (regardless of whether or not one conceives of the literal existence of the individuals, Adam and Eve) was created in some state of biological existence that was transcendent of biological death (in previous discussions, I have pointed out the biological and theological unlikehood of this assertion). However, upon the advent of sin (whatever the circumstances of this might have been), the biology of humanity became subject to decay and death. While this is an attractive perspective (especially within the context of the discussion of theodicy), its logic breaks down when applied within Atonement theology. For example, if biological death is the direct consequence of sinfulness, it is inconceivable why death still reigns after the Atonement. If one seriously believes that Christ has dealt with sin on the cross, one must further question why those who are united to Christ and rescued from the power of sin still die. More directly, if the "power" of sin really is biological death, those who are free from its power should not continue to die. And yet all humans die. Therefore, there are only two possible conclusions: 1.) Christ has not actually conquered death, for even believers are still subject to its power (biological death) or 2.) Sin is not located in the biology of the human person (i.e., the cessation of biological processes being the inherent consequence thereof).

I would strongly suggest that the second option is the correct one. However, if this is assumed and sin is not a biologically heritable entity, how are we to make sense of the sinfulness of humanity which stretches across generations and is no respector of persons?

First, and as mentioned above, one must conceive of sin in a proper light. We have already explored one example of what sin is not. Let us now speak of what it is. Human sinfulness, in the simplest expression, is a relational dysfunction between humanity and God, others, and itself. In the human/God interaction, sinfulness is expressed in that humanity persistently desires that which is antithetical to the will of God. Although God is the source of being and sustainer of all things, human sinfulness asserts that this is, in fact, fallacious and that humanity itself is its own originator/sustainer. On the human/human level, sinfulness in demonstrated in humanity's antipathy for others. Where love, peace and equality are to be the hallmarks of human interrelatedness, sinfulness atomizes the individaul and places one over and against all others. And in relation to the self, sinfulness distorts one's perspective of the self, perverting it to contradict the purposes of God for human life.

This "relational" nature of sinfulness, then, gives a hint into how one can speak intelligibly of Christ's sinlessness. Instead of sinfulness being a biologically heritable quality to which all are prone simply by virtue of their genetic origin, this perspective locates sinfulness in the existential dynamic of relational dysfunction with God, others and self. In this way, Christ's sinlessness can be spoken in terms of the his relationship to the Father. Christ is sinless, not because of the means of his birth, but rather because in all things, Christ submitted himself to the will of God. Where sinful humanity distorts the purpose and intentions of God in its quest for self-actualization and autonomy, Christ, conversely, stands diametrically opposed to the destructiveness of this relational dysfunction. Even in death, instead of seeking self-justisification against the injustice of his murder at the hands of sinful humanity, Christ refuses to confront the power of sinfulness on its own terms (destruction, violence, etc.). Rather, and paradoxically, he submits to its judgement, revealing the powers of sinfulness to be entirely perveted. In his resurrection, the Father vindicates Christ's faithfulness, showing that the power of sinfulness is not only entirely depraved, but now also entirely impotent, as they cannot even hold the one fully abandoned to their powers.

It is my contention that this envisioning of the nature of Christ's sinlessness not only properly conceives of the salient issues involved, but moreover provides a helpful paradigm through which to understand the lives to which followers of Christ are called to conform. If Christ's sinlessness were conceived of as a biological anomaly in which Christ bears little or no resemblence to the sinful humanity he intends to save, atonement and sanctification quickly lose any meaningful content. After all, no matter how "holy" one becomes, one cannot change one's biology. If sinfulness is actually a biologically heritable quality, there is no way in which one can become "like Christ" for an infinitely insurmountable obstacle will forever separate humanity from its savior. However, if the issue of "sinlessness" is understood as a reality relating to the way in which one is related to God, self, and others, the call to become "like Christ" becomes possible, for as believers are led by the Spirit of God, like Christ they can learn submission to the will of God and in all things exist within proper relationship to God, self and others.

Random - Just for the World Champ

The Sinlessness of Christ - Part I

Recently, I have been participating in a debate with a hard-core Calvinist at http://www.christianforums.com. However it happened, we got onto the issue of Christ's sinlessness. As the discussion progressed, we delved into an exploration of the nature of Christ's sinlessness. Indefatigably, my detractor maintained that Christ was sinless because of the nature of his birth. In other words, this individual claimed that because Christ is born "from above" and not of the seed of "Adam," Christ avoids inheriting the sinfulness which demarcates the whole of humanity. In no soft words, I blasted this view, noting that it leads to the following consequences:

1. It denies the Incarnation. If Christ's sinlessness is based upon his genetic makeup, Christ is not actually human. Another way, if Christ has to somehow avoid inheriting certain portions of human biology, how can Christ be considered truly human? Obviously, he cannot. The major implication of this, of course, is that such a "Messiah" cannot really save anyone, for as the Fathers maintained, "That which is not assumed [by Christ] is not redeemed."

2. Not only does it associate sinfulness with human biology, but more specifically it locates it within the male biology. This is a necessary conclusion, for if Christ has come from Mary, who is human and sinful (as all humans are), and yet Christ is sinless, it must be concluded that sin is passed through the sperm of the male. Obviously, this creates additional problems for speaking about human biology, not the least of which is speculations about the potential sinlessness of persons that reproductive technologies (which do not require sperm) are currently creating. In other words, if Christ is sinless precisely because "sin" was not passed to him from a human father through male biological reproductive material, then one must naturally assume that all persons currently being created in similar ways (without sperm) are equally sinless because of the nature of their biological origin.

3. Obviously, the only way out of this predicament while still maintaining a conception of sinfulness as being biologically heritable is to do precisely that which the Roman Catholic Church has done with the Immaculate Conception. While such a doctrine does not overcome many other objections to such a conception of sin, it is at least a consistent account of how sin is inherited biologically while concomitantly affirming the sinlessness and fully Incarnate nature of Christ. Of course, given that Calvinists are catechetically infused with a near-jerk revulsion to anything papist, my friend would hear nothing of such an option, nor would he concede that this was the only possible out.

4. However, even if one goes the Immaculate Conception route (or similar routes that attain to the same end), one is faced with another problem: The Virgin Birth of Christ becomes necessary. While I do not wish to discuss the actuality of the Virgin Birth here, it is relevant to speak about the concept, in general, for a moment. As I pressed my debater further, he--and rightly so, given his position--insisted that the Virgin Birth is necessary for Christ to be sinless. After all, as sinfulness is, he insisted, inherited biologically, Mary must have been a virgin in order to avoid passing on her biological sinfulness to Christ (here, since he will not acquiesce to the logic of the Immaculate Conception, his argument is reduced to locating sinfulness--at least the kind that is heritable--in the copulation of two human persons--quite a curious idea, IMO). Again, though, such a conception fails on the basis of No. 1 above. If Christ "must" come through a certain biological process that is entirely different than the way in which all other humans enter the world, Christ is not truly human. While he may have the form, his genesis is entirely "other than." Sure, one might suggest this genesis makes Christ sinless. However, if Christ wishes to accomplish anything on the merits of such, it cannot be for humans, but rather must be expended upon whatever race shares a similar origin.

New Poll

Just for the World Champ, I have updated my "weekly" poll.

This week's poll:

WHO IS YOUR FAVORITE 90'S ALTERNATIVE ROCK BAND?

Oh, and just so all are aware, one will note that there are several bands that are not present (such as R.E.M., U2, etc.). There is a reason for that. One will also note that there are some bands that might not normally be included in such a list (i.e., Blur, Silver Chair, etc.). There is a reason for that also.

He who makes the polls determines the results.

(Yes, I did say "he," not "she." We'll leave it at that)