To the highly esteemed Rev. Ray Hollenbach,

            I've been thinking about this post for quite some time now. I often have a hard time articulating my thoughts, so I passed the majority of the response off to one of my best friends and pastor, Kyle Claunch. Anything that makes sense or that is thought provoking is probably his; anything that is confusing or just silly is probably mine.

            The first thought is about your argumentative style.  Being a "Christian Fatalist," I could have become offended by the title of the blog alone: "Christian Fatalism: Missing His Glory". However, I feel I know you fairly well and know that offense is not what you are after in your blog (I think we would both agree that the Gospel is offensive in its own right to a dying and lost world). Because of our past relationship and your graciousness in previous conversations, it was no stretch for me to simply see the title of your blog as a way to express your passion for your beliefs (and with no tongue-in-cheek, I believe you are very sincere in your passion for the Gospel). Getting to the point, I think framing your opponent's position in the weakest possible light is a bit dangerous.  To present an opposing view as weak and easy to defeat may only serve to demonstrate the weakness of your own position.  A good theological argument deals with the opposing view in the strongest possible light.  For example, it would be a touch unfair to write a blog titled "The Impotent God of the Arminian/Open Theist: Stealing God's Glory" or something to that effect. This would be unfair as the position you hold is not designed to rob God of his glory, even if I think that is the end result.

            Thought number two is spurred on by this quote, "Part of the glory of God is his ability to accomplish his will in the midst of the complexity of a billion human choices. He does not over-rule our lives." In order for this to be true, I see two options: (1) You can argue that God does not have exhaustive knowledge of the future free choices that men make.  Rather, he is so wise as to be able to respond to any given choice and still maintain control.  This is the position of open theists.  Or... (2) You can argue that God knows the future free choices of men exhaustively and by his foresight, he is able to formulate a plan for the universe in which all of the free choices of men are taken into account.  This is the classic Arminian position. I would think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you would hold to the Arminian view over the open theist view.

            If one holds to the former position, that God does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge of all possible future free choices (openness), then one could respond by pointing out a number of very problematic biblical texts to demonstrate that this position is not easily defended with the Scriptures (Isaiah 46:9-11, Psalm 139:16, Ephesians 1:4-11, Romans 8:29-30, 1 Peter 1:1-2). I'm quite sure the open theist has a list of verses of their own that would start an interesting discussion.  

            If one holds to the latter position (Arminianism), then one has no problem with the passages about God's foreknowledge.  Rather, the greatest problem (in this discussion) is a philosophical-theological one.  First, if God knows the future exhaustively, including the future choices of men, then those choices are not free in the sense that you mean them to be.  For, if God knows the choices, they are certain choices and man would not be “free” to choose otherwise. 

Second, not only does the Arminian view of God's foreknowledge render human choices certain, it renders God powerless to intervene in the affairs of the world.  If God knows the future exhaustively, then he has to know the outcome of all human decisions as well as the outcome of all of his own decisions.  His knowledge of it renders it certain.  To change it based on his foreknowledge means that his foreknowledge was wrong (and therefore not foreknowledge at all).  For his foreknowledge to be based on a prior goal means that he foreordained it.  So, his knowledge of the future is owing to the fact that he ordained the future to be what it will be.  Here is the dilemma.  If God has foreknowledge of future choices but he does not foreordain them, then he has no control whatsoever over any of the future.  If God's foreknowledge is based on foreordination, then you have a God who controls everything exhaustively, including the choices of men.  The only other alternative is to deny God's foreknowledge, which the open theists have done.  Incidentally, this is precisely why they have become open theists.  They see the problem with Arminianism.

The third point I want to respond to is your first "danger" of Christian fatalism. To be honest, it dodges the issue.  You are assuming that my logic, as a “fatalist”, only produces one possible path to follow when you say that this view of God "strips away responsibility for our choices and undermines the call of God to repentance as a way of life."  Is it not a possibility that one can hold to the view of “Christian fatalism” and still believe that repentance is a way of life (me being an example)?  It is true that you have properly articulated one possible logical extension of the position. However, you should not assume that people are bound to reason in that direction.  I think that a student of the bible finds that many biblical teachings would contradict other biblical teachings if one were compelled to embrace all possible logical extensions. For example, the same thing could be done with the deity of Christ:  If Jesus is fully God then his temptations must not have truly been temptations.  God cannot sin, or he would not be God.  Furthermore, James says "God cannot be tempted by evil" (James 1:13).  If Jesus is fully God, then the writer of Hebrews would not be able to say, "He was tempted in all things even as we are, and yet without sin" or "He was tempted in the things that he suffered so that he might come to the aid of those who are tempted" (Heb 4:15, 2:18).  Therefore, anyone who believes that Jesus is fully God clearly denies that he is able to be tempted and sympathize with those who are tempted.  You see the problem? This is a logically plausible argument, but it is not logically necessary.  There are other possible ways of explaining the situation.  In fact, any Christian wishing to embrace Christ as Lord must find other (biblical) ways of explaining the situation.  This is also practically true for all my “fatalistic” friends. I do not know any one of them who deny the ongoing need for repentance, and I would be surprised if you knew one yourself.

Next, as though I have not been long winded enough, is to address the second danger you mention:  "The second danger of Christian fatalism is that believers accept each event in life as part of God’s foreordained plan."  I do not see this as a danger at all, but as the very basis of my confidence that good can come out of suffering and evil in the world.  I would agree with the argument that God gives good gifts (James 1:17), but that he is not ultimately responsible for the bad ones is where I (and I think, the Bible) would deviate from your argument.  To say, “he helps you weather the storm, but he is in no way behind the coming of the storm” is biblically dubious.  My response:  Who took Job's children, livestock, and property from him?  You might say, "Satan," and I would agree. However, that is not the end of the answer. Did God do it?  To be consistent, you would have to say, “No,” and I would argue that Job would differ. Job said, "The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away."  Maybe Job was mistaken and the writer of Job just recorded Job’s improper theology. However, the Spirit-inspired author, in the very next verse, says, "In all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God" (Job 1:21-22).  Who gave Job his terrible boils?  Satan?  Yes.  God?  Job's wife tells him to curse God and die.  Job says, "Shall we accept good from the hand of the LORD and not accept adversity?"  Once again, the Spirit-inspired writer gives a comment about Job ascribing responsibility to God:  "In all this Job did not sin with his lips" (Job 2:10).  What about Joseph?  Who was behind the beating up of Joseph, selling him as a slave, etc?  His brothers?  Yes.  God?  I think you, if you are going to be consistent, have to say, "No!  God did not do that to Joseph, but God worked through it for good.”  That's not what Joseph thinks:  "God sent me before you to preserve life... God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant in the earth... It was not you who sent me here but God" (Gen. 45:5-8).  Later Joseph says to his brothers, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive" (Gen. 50:20).  The same word is used of God's involvement as of Joseph's brothers' involvement:  "You meant.... God meant."  Both parties were active in the process but with very different purposes in mind.  Theirs was an evil purpose; God's was a good purpose.  God's involvement was not merely a wise response to a bad situation, but God was behind the works of the brothers with a good purpose.  What about Isaiah's view of God's involvement in adversity, hardship, and evil in the world?  Does God, the "Father of Lights" (James 1:17) only claim responsibility and power over the light but not over the darkness in the world?  Isaiah says, "I am the LORD and there is no other, the one forming the light and creating the darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these" (Isaiah 45:6-7).  What if a city comes under pestilence and disease?  Did God play any part in sending such things?  Once again, I think for you to be consistent, you have to say, "No."  But the prophet Amos says, "If a calamity occurs in a city, has not the LORD done it?" (Amos 3:6). What about the evil deed of the crucifixion of Christ?  Who did it?  Evil men?  Yes.  Did God do it?  Once again, for consistency’s sake at this point you would have to say that God did not do it.  Rather, God caused it to work for good in the end.  But probably, you would make an exception at this point and say that God caused the crucifixion of Christ.  And God certainly did (Acts 2:23).

 I completely agree that evil and suffering in the world are the result of the Fall and the sinful choices of men, and the ruling hand of the "god of this world," (2 Cor 4:4), the devil.  Nevertheless, this does not mean that God is not sovereignly orchestrating the details of history toward a perfect purpose to display his glory in Christ Jesus.  The biblical teaching on suffering, evil, and the sovereignty of God is too complex to reduce to a simple either/or formula:  Either free choices of evil men did it, OR God did it.  The biblical teaching is that both are true.  Therefore, man is responsible, and God is sovereign.  My confidence that "God causes all things to work together for good" (Rom 8:28) is a confidence in his control from the beginning to the end, not just a confidence in his ability to clean up the mess at the end.

So to answer your question, “What earthly parent would infect a child with disease in order to teach character lessons?” My God is one that is eternal and is willing to use temporal sickness and disease if it affects the change in character that is necessary to save one eternally. Even you as a parent do this. Sticking with the disease illustration, have your children not been immunized? Isaac, my son who is eight months, has had three sets of shots so far. It was dreadfully painful to have to help hold my son down as the nurse placed a hepatitis shot in his leg. I felt a great sense of responsibility for his pain as I was the one causing it. I was the one who helped bring him into the world. I was the one who brought him to the doctor. I was the one holding him down and causing his pain. However, I subjected him to this pain in hopes that he would avoid a possible future death caused by hepatitis. For a biblical example of this very thing, I look to Romans 8:20 “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope.” God is the one in control of all creation being subjected to “futility.” He does it for one reason: “hope”.

With this foundation in place, let me return to your original life illustration of the young Christian lady who came into the pregnancy center; what hope is provided her if her God did not cause this to happen? Why did God not intervene sooner? What happens if her free will messes up God’s working to change the bad into good?  After all, was it not her free will that got her into this in the first place? Worse yet, what if another person’s free will interferes with what God is trying to do? To me this brings less hope, but rather the opposite, despair. Would I flippantly tell a girl who walks into a pregnancy center, “God did this!” No. However, I would also never say that God was not working through all of the choices involved with a good purpose and wise design to bring about a good result in her life if she will repent of her sin and cling to Christ. There is no assurance that God can do what he says he will do (work all things for our good) unless he was not only aware but working to cause the circumstances. What I would try to express to the young lady in the right time is that she intended her actions for selfish pleasure much like the Jewish leaders intended their actions against Jesus for selfish gain (Joseph’s brothers as well). Personal responsibility needs to be accepted and repentance is necessary.  However, in all of this, God was planning an opportunity to show his glory. With a repentant heart, watch God reveal consequences such as unexpected pregnancy or the death of Christ, as blessings such as a baby or forgiveness for sins.

I just posted this BENADRYL® Pollen Alert widget for 500 credits. You can earn free credits too!

First read Dan's post...

This is me...

"You are correct in that which you affirm and yet wrong in that which you deny"

I do not wash the republican hands of this problem. I do believe the republicans have mishandled the conservative principals of free market. I do believe our republican congressmen yelled about this, but not loud enough for us to hear. I do believe, however, that the democrats (or liberals) have bitten off a large chunk of blame in this mess as well.

I have a three way blame for the problem: The greedy politicians who started this mess and were pushing the lenders to give money to people who couldn’t afford it; The greedy banks who had no morals and perpetuated the plan; And finally the greedy borrowers who wanted to obtain things well out of their means. For a rabbit trail example, Bank of America offered my wife and me a 170k+ loan for our house. We sat down with a budget and decided we could afford, at most, 120k loan. After deciding that we like to eat out more than once a year and rent a movie or two, we went with what we could honestly afford, 80k. If we had taken the 170k loan, the house would have been the banks in a matter of a few months. If we had taken the loan as it was, we would be rooting for the bailout, but as it is, we are resentful that we planned ahead and now we will have to, as you noted, pay 18,000 each for this mess.

I have a three way blame for not alerting us sooner: The greedy bankers like Fred and Fan who were, up to at least a month ago, telling their investors that they were completely sound and had a surplus of money. Greedy politicians like Christopher Cox of the Feds and Barny Frank (A Democrat who has a financial over sight committee) who said in 2003 that, “Fred and Fan were not facing any financial crisis”; And finally, an inept media that is playing a Monday-morning-quarterback-blame game. The media thinks they are so smart, why didn’t they see this coming?  They are supposed to be the experts.

So Dan… no need to apologize for your thoughts. Your thoughts are why I love you:) weather I agree or not. I just think you have oversimplified the problem and have not shared enough of the blame.  

P.S. you should read more than just TIME