the singularity of being and nothingness
Archive for April, 2006
Calvinism and Open Theism
Apr 25th
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, More >
Creation and Eschatology
Apr 14th
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 More >
The Sinlessness of Christ – Part Second
Apr 7th
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 More >
The Sinlessness of Christ – Part I
Apr 4th
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 More >
