Thursday
Sep062007
In Response
Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 01:39AM
The following is an editorial I've written in response to this one, which used the song "There Is A Reason" as a reference. I'm honored by the reference, and by his calling my band "popular". I'm also honored to be slighted alongside John Piper. Here is my response:
Dr. Olson,
I am responding to your editorial in The Baylor Lariat from August 28th of this year. You referenced a song called “There is a Reason� by Caedmon's Call. I'm in that band and I wrote that song.
I thank you, first of all, for taking the time to read this, and to inform you that this is an open letter, and will be published online at my website (andrewosenga.com).
I wish to respond to your article with three (hopefully) quick issues.
1. You refer to me, my band and John Piper (I’m assuming) as Calvinists.
I don’t know about Piper, but the band and I consider ourselves Christians, with a Presbyterean/Reformed viewpoint. We do not consider ourselves Calvinists.
I don’t subscribe to John Calvin. I tried to read him one time and couldn’t do it. I DO believe in the Bible, as I understand it, and as I understand it to have been believed by a great portion of the Church for the past 2000 years.
The way you discuss our beliefs is almost like a sect or cult. That is not the case, and I’m sure you’re aware of that. Too many great thinkers, writers and believers adhere to this theology to treat it as such. As a Professor of Theology, I would expect you would respect the tradition and the believers, if not the belief.
What I’m trying to say is this:
I believe God ordains everything AND I believe in free will. And, no, I am not an extremist or an eccentric, and neither are my beliefs. This has long been the majority view of the Church. But more on that in a second.
2. It seems your view of God is very, very small.
I assume that you think of God as being outside of time, space and gravity, and recognize those laws to be His creations. The laws He creates answer to Him, He does not have to answer to them. The same ought to be said of logic. This is where your article bothered me.
You say that it is only logical that if God ordains things, He must be the cause of evil, and since you reject that idea, you reject God’s complete power. This IS logical, you are correct. I also believe it is wrong.
G. K. Chesterton is my favorite author. His book “Orthodoxy� pulled me back into the Church when I had given up on it. (It also mercilessly mocks Calvinists, but that’s an aside.)
The thing about his book that thrilled me was his discussion of God and extremes. He says that most religions, and a number of Christians, reconcile God’s love and his anger by compounding the two and watering them both down. The same with His mercy and His justice. Thus religion, and it follows, God, is boring and dull. He is basically powerless, being basically only good intentions and compromise.
This is the God you describe.
Chesterton argues that God hates compromise. The “lukewarm� being “spit out of His mouth.� God IS love, and He HATES sin. Jesus is the Prince of Peace who brought the flood and commanded the annihilation of whole cities. He is purity and sensuality. He is the God of James and of Romans. You get the picture…
You can do one of three things with these apparent contradictions. You can
A) choose one instead of the other, you can
B) attempt to compromise them, or
C) decide to believe in both at the same time, thus defying logic but agreeing with who God claims Himself to be throughout the Bible.
Given the vastness of the character of God described in Scripture, the option C is the only one that makes sense. Yes, it sets aside some sense of “if A then B� but if we believe God created “A�, “then� and “B�, then it’s really His decision to do that.
Which leads to my third point, and it’s based on the conversation between God and Job, at the end of his book.
3. God has answered these questions… Sort of...
After the suffering and death of his family, the loss of all his possessions and the complete failing of his health, Job finally hears from God in response to the question “why?�. God’s answer, as you are no doubt aware, is anything but expected.
He talks about His creation, the marvelous things He’s done. He almost taunts Job about it. “Can you do this?� He ends by pretty much saying to Job, “who are you to question Me or My ways?� And Job responds by bowing in worship.
I don’t understand it. Frankly, it makes me angry. I don’t know why God allows the evil He does. I know He says He’s good, and I believe Him. I know He says He is all powerful, and that He makes “all things good for those He loves.� I believe Him there, too.
The chorus of the song you referenced contains that Scripture “He makes all things good.� Either we believe that’s true, because He said it, or we believe it’s not. If it’s not, not only is God not powerful, but He’s a liar, and He’s not that good.
It’s just like believing that God became a man, woke up after death and somehow freed me from the consequences of my sin. The Church is built on believing in things that don’t always make a lot of sense.
I don’t understand it, and as much as that bugs me, it’s not my place to. Or yours. For me, I choose to believe He is who He says He is. And that’s a great comfort.
Thanks for your time.
Andrew Osenga
I'd love to get some discussion going on this one, but only if it's honoring and civil. I lost a few good years of myself to theological bickering, and I won't allow it here. Discussion is wonderful, name-calling and fight-picking will get you deleted.
That said... your thoughts?
Dr. Olson,
I am responding to your editorial in The Baylor Lariat from August 28th of this year. You referenced a song called “There is a Reason� by Caedmon's Call. I'm in that band and I wrote that song.
I thank you, first of all, for taking the time to read this, and to inform you that this is an open letter, and will be published online at my website (andrewosenga.com).
I wish to respond to your article with three (hopefully) quick issues.
1. You refer to me, my band and John Piper (I’m assuming) as Calvinists.
I don’t know about Piper, but the band and I consider ourselves Christians, with a Presbyterean/Reformed viewpoint. We do not consider ourselves Calvinists.
I don’t subscribe to John Calvin. I tried to read him one time and couldn’t do it. I DO believe in the Bible, as I understand it, and as I understand it to have been believed by a great portion of the Church for the past 2000 years.
The way you discuss our beliefs is almost like a sect or cult. That is not the case, and I’m sure you’re aware of that. Too many great thinkers, writers and believers adhere to this theology to treat it as such. As a Professor of Theology, I would expect you would respect the tradition and the believers, if not the belief.
What I’m trying to say is this:
I believe God ordains everything AND I believe in free will. And, no, I am not an extremist or an eccentric, and neither are my beliefs. This has long been the majority view of the Church. But more on that in a second.
2. It seems your view of God is very, very small.
I assume that you think of God as being outside of time, space and gravity, and recognize those laws to be His creations. The laws He creates answer to Him, He does not have to answer to them. The same ought to be said of logic. This is where your article bothered me.
You say that it is only logical that if God ordains things, He must be the cause of evil, and since you reject that idea, you reject God’s complete power. This IS logical, you are correct. I also believe it is wrong.
G. K. Chesterton is my favorite author. His book “Orthodoxy� pulled me back into the Church when I had given up on it. (It also mercilessly mocks Calvinists, but that’s an aside.)
The thing about his book that thrilled me was his discussion of God and extremes. He says that most religions, and a number of Christians, reconcile God’s love and his anger by compounding the two and watering them both down. The same with His mercy and His justice. Thus religion, and it follows, God, is boring and dull. He is basically powerless, being basically only good intentions and compromise.
This is the God you describe.
Chesterton argues that God hates compromise. The “lukewarm� being “spit out of His mouth.� God IS love, and He HATES sin. Jesus is the Prince of Peace who brought the flood and commanded the annihilation of whole cities. He is purity and sensuality. He is the God of James and of Romans. You get the picture…
You can do one of three things with these apparent contradictions. You can
A) choose one instead of the other, you can
B) attempt to compromise them, or
C) decide to believe in both at the same time, thus defying logic but agreeing with who God claims Himself to be throughout the Bible.
Given the vastness of the character of God described in Scripture, the option C is the only one that makes sense. Yes, it sets aside some sense of “if A then B� but if we believe God created “A�, “then� and “B�, then it’s really His decision to do that.
Which leads to my third point, and it’s based on the conversation between God and Job, at the end of his book.
3. God has answered these questions… Sort of...
After the suffering and death of his family, the loss of all his possessions and the complete failing of his health, Job finally hears from God in response to the question “why?�. God’s answer, as you are no doubt aware, is anything but expected.
He talks about His creation, the marvelous things He’s done. He almost taunts Job about it. “Can you do this?� He ends by pretty much saying to Job, “who are you to question Me or My ways?� And Job responds by bowing in worship.
I don’t understand it. Frankly, it makes me angry. I don’t know why God allows the evil He does. I know He says He’s good, and I believe Him. I know He says He is all powerful, and that He makes “all things good for those He loves.� I believe Him there, too.
The chorus of the song you referenced contains that Scripture “He makes all things good.� Either we believe that’s true, because He said it, or we believe it’s not. If it’s not, not only is God not powerful, but He’s a liar, and He’s not that good.
It’s just like believing that God became a man, woke up after death and somehow freed me from the consequences of my sin. The Church is built on believing in things that don’t always make a lot of sense.
I don’t understand it, and as much as that bugs me, it’s not my place to. Or yours. For me, I choose to believe He is who He says He is. And that’s a great comfort.
Thanks for your time.
Andrew Osenga
I'd love to get some discussion going on this one, but only if it's honoring and civil. I lost a few good years of myself to theological bickering, and I won't allow it here. Discussion is wonderful, name-calling and fight-picking will get you deleted.
That said... your thoughts?
Reader Comments (74)
I like what you wrote alot. I actually attend Piper's church, and I know that the article that he wrote about the bridge collapse was somewhat controversial....but I agree with you....God does do things and allow things for a reason, and that does not change just because we can't understand those reasons. I do think people tend to misunderstand the reformed position; but I also think that sometimes I tend to be a little too defensive about it with people who are against it. And yeah, i know that Piper would call himself a Calvinist....but I think that the term calvinist isn't the best term really. It's just that people need a one or two word thing to call what you believe and that sorta seems to be the easiest one. I know that I sometimes refer to myself as "reformed" and people within the evangelical tradition have no clue as to what that means at all. but they sorta know what a Calvinist is....
well, thanks AO...I just wanted to say that I love the knew CC. I am excited it seems to be doing decently and that it's gotten some great reviews. It definetly deserves it. I've been a pretty big fan of your solo stuff too for about oh, 8 months maybe...when I read something with your name in it and was like "I've totally heard that name before" so I googled you and read a good review of your music and so I downloaded "the morning" ...
have a great night!
andy, this is my favorite line:
'...respect the tradition and the believers, if not the belief.'
it's too often that this kind of graciousness is missing. people sometimes think that if someone is 'wrong,' that person is excluded from the love of Christ.
that's not what i see in Jesus.
thanks for your loving, humble response to this man, and thanks for seeing the bigger picture of unity in Christ.
keep cranking those records out, as well!
I'm not a Calvinist or an Arminian. I'm both and neither, as is my husband. I believe God has a perfect will and anything that happens outside of the perfect will is still, somehow, in His will.
Olson says the God of Calvinism scares him. God should be scary, shouldn't He? That's the God the Bible describes, as much as the merciful Abba.
As for a God of intentional destruction (even when there is no "greater good" to come from it), well, that's the God the Bible describes. A passage that illustrates this beautifully and concisely is 2 Peter 3, specifically verses 7-10:
"But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up."
Also, I think Western culture has a very skewed idea of what "good" and "evil" are. There are worse fates than death, no matter how tragic and painful those deaths are to the ones left behind. As a mom, this is both comforting and challenging to me. I can imagine the intense grief I'd feel if something "bad" happened to my daughter, but I should be just as determined as I am fearful not to let her fall away from Christ.
PS, I'd have discussed what you wrote, but I agree, so that would be boring.
-Elizabeth, from the rainy Ohio show last month
andy, good job with your response. i completely agree that if we are to believe the God of the Bible we are going to have to stop clinging so hard to human logic at some point. Case in point, most christians believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man. if He was 100% God and 100% man, then that's 200% and really doesnt make any sense. just like free will coexisting with the soveriegnty of God in ordaining everything.
i think someone smarter than me once said that these things appear to be parallel lines from our viewpoint here on earth as humans. it seems they will never intersect and couldnt both possibly be true. but if God says both are true (God's soveriegnty and man's resposibility, or Jesus being fully God and fully man) then they must intersect at some point beyond what our human comprehension can fathom.
I really enjoyed reading your response and I think it's right on.
Not that it really matters but I think the song he was actually referring to was a song by the same name by Alison Krauss.
oh and one other thing...any time we start caring more about the arguments we are making than about the people we are arguing with, i think we are missing the point. i think it's more important to Jesus that we are loving than that we are right. especially when many of these issues are not seemingly black and white in the Bible. but thats just my opinion.
Andy says, "You say that it is only logical that if God ordains things, He must be the cause of evil, and since you reject that idea, you reject God’s complete power. This IS logical, you are correct. I also believe it is wrong."
But his statement would only be logical if Logic is our ultimate epistmelogical standard, rather than the Holy Scriptures. It being the case that the Bible is our ultimate standard of knowledge and reasoning, (as the brilliant Dr. Van Til wrote) "we cannot subject the authoritative pronouncements of Scripture about reality to the scrutiny of reason because it is reason itself that learns of its proper function from Scripture."
When one rejects the plain teaching of Scripture simply because it does not square with one's personal judgments of rationality... it is illogical. Dr. Olson's statement is, therefore, not logical.
We can only maintain true rationality when we submit our reason to God. Thus, answer C. under your section 2 is not "defying logic", but rather applying pure reason.
I thought your response was good and gracious, Andy. However, I would say that if you and Caedmon's are coming from a Presbyterian/Reformed perspective, then to say that you do not subscribe to Calvin or Calvinism is kind of misleading. Calvin is difficult to read (I have tried and failed myself), but he is the father of Reformed theology. Through his theological descendants such as Theodore Beza, the Puritans (who were themselves not 'Presbyterian' but 'Anglican' for the most part) and John Knox, all the major tenets that modern conservative Presbyterians affirm were developed and defended. In fact, the Puritans penned the Westminster Confession of Faith, which was very foundational in modern Reformed thinking. Therefore, to tell someone who is from an Arminian background that you are Reformed but not Calvinist is an oxymoron to them if they know their church history.
So in indirect ways, you do subscribe to Calvin, but I also agree with you that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice, not John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon or any other great Christian leader of the past.
God has brought me to the place where I can find comfort in the confusion that comes with believing in Him. It's confusing that the Bible describes a sovereign God who allows man to make his own choices. It's even more confusing when people take the position that the Bible only describes one of those to be true. I think this is where faith comes in. It takes faith to believe that what is impossible in our brains is not only possible with God, but it IS with God.
I come from a "Reformed" tradition (sort of: I've at least had the teachings and know the "arguments" from this side).
I've always wrestled (and probably will continue to) with the "issue" of the sovereignty of God as it pertains to free will. I refuse to get into the debate, because it seems rather fruitless, and I usually like to know who I'm debating before I begin.
Let me just say that I agree with what Andy and Caedmon's have said about the sovereignty of God. Songs like "Table For Two" and "There is a Reason" (at least I imagine, because my copy of "Overdressed" hasn't arrived yet) show a God who has reasons that we cannot fathom and has planned the ends as well as the means to meet those ends for his followers.
However, I am starting to believe in a God who allows his people to make choices that matter, and choices that don't matter. I am starting to wonder if, for instance, choosing decaf over regular coffee in the morning is actually a part of God's "plan" for my life. I've recently read a book by Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart (who also writes for the Wall Street Journal) called: 'The Doors of The Sea: Where Was God In The Tsunami?'.
[Please don't be fooled by the goofy "Where Was God..." bit, I almost didn't read this incredible book because I have come to loathe much of Christian pop-culture and this had that ring to it].
In essence, Hart argues for a God who allows (but does not cause) evil - he argues for a God that does not necessarily have some "greater reason" for terrible things happening to the innocent (and I use that term loosely) of the world. Hart argues for a God who hates evil, yet will allow it because he loves his creation so much. Yet this same God of love will also, at the end of days, judge much of human history and find it wanting. The book ends (sorry, but I'm going to ruin it a bit) with this:
"God will not unite all of history's many strands in one great synthesis, but will judge much of history as false and damnable; that he will not simply reveal the sublime logic of fallen nature, but will strike off the fetters in which creation languishes; and that, rather than showing us how the tears of a small girl suffering in the dark were necessary for the building of the Kingdom, he will instead raise her up and wipe away all tears from her eyes--and there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor any more pain, for the former things will have passed away, and he that sits upon the throne will say, 'Behold I make all things new'."
I realize that my last post seemed a bit as though I were supporting Arminianism (sp?) and suggesting that God is in some way not sovereign. What I intended to propose was simply an agreement with what others have said about the dual nature of the character of God: that he allows his creatures to make choices that matter and to heal the world. And THAT is his plan. His plan is to use us (who are broken vessels in need of grace) to minister to the world. He uses US to confound the wise.
I have trouble with supporting the idea that God is above logic and reason because he created it. I think there are legitimate logical arguments that you could make, and turning the discussion around and claiming that, "Well, since God created it, he can break it" just doesn't seem like God to me.
Instead, I think the argument should come from the Scriptures where we SEE that God (especially in the person of Christ) continually confounds the "wise" things of this world and tells us to follow him.
I don't think you can reason out faith - it ISN'T reasonable, and for those who haven't seen Jesus, it is ridiculous. Faith and reason must be separated because they are somewhat mutually exclusive. Reason would tell us that we shouldn't sell our possessions and give them to the poor (and, for those who live in America, we probably should listen to this verse to the RICH young ruler a whole lot more). Reason would remind us of our families and our "responsibilities" and how we should keep saving money in case of accidents or "rainy days". But faith would remind us, in the face of reason, that the birds and the lilies are clothed and fed and that we are called to be with the poor of this world - to live and die with them and for them.
Faith calls us to action, while reason tries to tell us why we should "think" or "pray" more about acting.
I think Kierkegaard (who is credited with first separating faith and reason in philosophical circles and ushering in the age of Existentialism) puts it well:
"The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible becoming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament."
Eric, that quote in your first post is amazing. I wish I would have read it before I wrote my piece. Thanks for sharing, that is a great way of looking at it. Thanks.
When the "rich, young ruler" came to Jesus, it says Jesus "loved him"... Jesus then proceeded to rip him a new one and tell him he could not enter the kingdom of Heaven. Logically, that's not a very loving thing to say, and there are interactions like this with God throughout the Bible.
This professor may like his framework, but it won't get him very far if he looks to the Scriptures to get to know this God he's discussing. We have a God who hardened pharoah's heart and yet connected intimately with King David, whose scandals would put any of our presidents to shame.
I think one of the biggest parts of our step of faith is believing God when he says he is good and that's he's working all things together.
AO, you wrote a great response. I think you were gracious but firm - I have a feeling I would have been much more reactive in the same situation.
Well, as a seminary student in the Lutheran tradition I find this whole conversation rather interesting. Andy, I have to say that what thing I have appreciated about Caedmon’s music has been a theological depth beyond ‘praise Jesus, accept Jesus as Savior’ music. I think this comes out of you all’s whole Presbyterian/Reformed background. I have a few comments on both the article and Andy’s response, I hope they are civil enough and contribute to healthy and meaningful conversation among fellow persons of faith. As we all know, any comments we make are a work in progress.
So Andy’s response first, cause heck, I read it first! Andy, you seem to be offended at being called a Calvinist rather than a Christian, especially in light of the negative value Dr.Olson places on it. You then go on to admit your own Presbyterian/Reformed viewpoint. Well, many of your comments, do reflect that viewpoint and do reflect a Calvinist viewpoint. I am not sure we can so easily say, “ I am not a Calvinist,� but I am a Presbyterian or whatever. Whatever tradition we are a part of so utterly shapes our thinking and being that at the very least we can say ‘I am sort of a Calvinist on these specific things.’ Even if you are not a big fan of Calvin and do not subscribe to him, you cant totally shake him out! Perhaps this all is obvious and it was dumb to say. I just thought that if I, as part of the Lutheran church, which does accept and deny various things Luther taught, where to say a similar statement that perhaps I’d be missing some of the various ways in which Luther does influence my thinking. I don’t know. Sorry for silly, obvious comments. In any case, I really appreciated your embracing of paradox. That most of the time, ‘both, and’ is a valid answer even though it defies logic. We are saints and sinners, free but servant, and the like. You cite the vastness of the Scriptures characterization of God as a call to embrace such paradoxes. God is judge and merciful. Jesus Christ is human and divine. The bible is Law and Gospel. Thank you for not being rigid enough to overlook one aspect for another. Lastly, you mentioned as part of the whole paradox thing that Jesus brought the flood and commanded annhilation of cities. This stirs a few thoughts in my mind. First of all, one cannot say Jesus did those things, because Jesus wasn’t around yet. If you mean the second person of the Trinity, or the Word or whatever you like then I am with you. It’s the whole seminary, be careful with theological language crap that’s coming out. Sorry. The other thought I had, is an extension of the idea of paradox to include scripture as human word and divine word. If this is the case, then we must seriously consider that the portions of scripture, which describe God as being the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem or an army, might really be human bias. I mean, every near eastern culture gave military and destructive events divine authority. It could be that this is a word of human beings and so it is difficult to say that God annihilated a city, unless of course you hold the view that Dr.Olson is trying to discredit. How such a passage functions in scripture, however, is God’s doing. Is it good news? Does it reveal the brokenness of humanity? Okay, now to Dr.Olson. Now I must say the article does come off as a little rash. Calvinism is a cult-like, brain washing our children type thing. Wow. In any case, I think he brings up valid questions. If one follows a rigidly Calvinist viewpoint, than heck, questions about suffering and evil will come up! ‘Is God the author of evil?’ We might balk at the question, but who knows? If God pre-ordains, or has fore-knowledge of a tragedy, than questions of God’s character will come up. Does the Calvinist position offer simple answers to these questions as the author asserts? I am not a Calvinist and know a very few, but I would think not! It seems that Olson misses the fact that the same questions he asks are bound to come up for any Calvinist. It is a struggle I am sure. One that involves both faith and doubt, but is beautiful. I am sure Calvin and Knox and all those guys really truly struggled with the sovereignty of God and the problem of evil, and based in faith, scripture, reason, and tradition came up with the best possible answer for themselves. It is not a simple thing to be challenged by and wrestle with these questions. God may very well be responsible for our suffering. For a good purpose? Who knows? All I know is that in Jesus Christ, all my suffering and sin was taken into the being of God, so that my suffering happens within God. Also, the question of whether God limits Gods-self is an interesting one. In all of our answers though, there seems to be a degree of trying to protect God from something. I think it would serve us well to reflect on why we think we must do that.
Anyway, I hope these thoughts were both civil and helpful. If anything they got me thinking and reflecting. I think its important for all of us to remember that persons of other traditions than our own are just trying to figure things out and live within the paradoxes. Thanks.
Luther's "Bondage of the Will" is still to this day one of the single best workings on this subject for me...to hear him speak so clearly on the matter was very touching and enlightening. And Luther's trashing of Erasmus is hilarious.
bryan said "Case in point, most christians believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man. if He was 100% God and 100% man, then that’s 200% and really doesnt make any sense."
to that I would say, why does 100% man and 100% God = 200%? The best way I ever heard this duel nature explained is by the 'ole tried and true example of apples and oranges. If you have one apple...and then add another apple...then you've doubled your percentage of apples...that much we understand. But Why is it that we apply the same formula to Christ, who we know to be more than man? I think it would be better to say that just like I can be fully husband and fully brother....and not view them as in contest or in competition for 100%...or as a paradox...that Christ can be fully man (certainly one type of type of thing) and fully God (certainly an entirely different type of thing) at the same time existing in one person. I see no reason for paradox discussion or any rather odd nonsensical talk of 200%. Man and God are very different things...who is to say that both cannot fully exist within one being without there being discussion of imposable percentages or paradox talk. Apples and Oranges...if I have one apple and i add an orange...I do not have twice as man apples as before...but I do have something entirely different than just one apple and I have to change the way I talk about/view my situation. And that is what Christ is: an entirely different situation.
I do not have the "will" ;) or inclination to take up any more of andy's bandwidth here...if I have failed to be clear, then I apologize and simply state...that in my mind (its a wonderful place with marshmallow clouds and coco puff rivers) , it all makes wonderful sense..and encourage you to visit it sometime. ;)
Richard: Thanks for mentioning Van Til for me.
Matt: I agree with you. Though I've never even tried to read Calvin =P, church-history wise it seems a little disingenuous to proclaim myself "not a Calvinist" when that term has come to be synonymous with belief in the complete sovereignty of God. Andy, I definitely agree that I wouldn't call myself a "Calvinist" if given the choice of actually explaining what I believe and why (if anything, I'm a Paul-ist ;-) ), and I think your response makes it reasonably clear what you actually believe concerning God's sovereignty, but Dr. Olsen is attacking "Calvinism", which is, in its pure sense as I understand it, what you're defending anyway. It might as well be defended by that name.
Andy, thanks so much for posting about stuff like this. This blog is rapidly becoming one of my absolute favorite destinations on teh intarwebs.
Good stuff, everyone. It's awesome to see believer's sharing their thoughts with civility!
I once heard Piper say that he calls himself a Calvinist because that identifies what he believes, yet he is not Calvinist because of John Calvin, but because of what he sees revealed in Scripture.
I grew up in Arminianism, and have now swung over to a more "reformed/calvinist" stance. But I don't think I have it all figured out. I don't think Piper does, nor did Calvin. I think we're all trying to make sense of the One Who is above all this. I think God, as revealed in Scripture, is, in the end, beyond our feeble attempts to categorize Him. I think these definitions are helpful for us to try and glimpse His glory, but somewhere in Scripture we will run across Him doing something that blows our notions out of the water. And I love that! I love that He will not stay in the boxes we build for Him! I don't want a god who would.
The quote that Eric posted was amazing, indeed. It's so awesome to remember that all these evils, all these sorrows, all these things we go through shall be made right in the end by Him.
All who dwell on the earth will worship him (the Enemy), everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
Revalation 13:8
Psalm 22, describes the crucifixion of Christ. Here is a portion.
For dogs have surrounded me;
A band of evildoers has encompassed me;
They pierced my hands and my feet.
I can count all my bones.
They look, they stare at me;
They divide my garments among them,
And for my clothing they cast lots.
So Jesus said to Peter, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?"
John 18:11
The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.
John 10:17-18
I think I heard it argued somewhere that he most evil act ever performed was the crucifixion of Christ. God, in flesh, perfect and sinless, murdered for living a life of truth and love. And that, most heinous act, was ordained from before creation and was the will of God the Father. (see verses above) This thought and the verses above lead me to two points.
The first is that I have seldom, if ever, heard a Christian complain that God would allow this evil to affect his Son. Our protests tend to come when we see evil that threatens, frightens, and/or confuses us. It is eye-opening to think that maybe I don’t hate evil or the fact that evil exists in and of itself, so much as I fear the thought of me being threatened and from that fear blame God. I am sometimes outraged that God would allow evil to hold sway in my live. These are the times when I don’t see the purpose of that evil. But when it comes to the crucifixion of Christ and I know the good that God is producing through it, I am humbled, and I embrace it, call it salvation, and build my life upon it.
My second point grows out of the first. According to the verses above, Jesus subjected himself to the evil of His crucifixion because it was the Father’s will. But this evil had no hold on him. Nothing was taken from Him, and He overcame all that it threatened. And through His obedience to the Father He is seeing the eternal salvation of His people. In the example of the cross, the sovereignty of God overcomes the problem of evil. His purposes and His goodness have truly turned the worst thing to happen in human existence into the best thing that has ever happened to mankind; the rebellion of mankind against God has been turned into the means of our adoption, obedience and guarantee of our inheritance. We don’t know what God will do with the evils of our day. They are still horrible, but the peace of God that comes with trusting Him, is greater and upholds us.
4 things:
1. I wish Jeff had posted early so I could have felt the liberty to be more "free flowing" in my own response ;) (good stuff Jeff)
2. I am naming my first born son Knox...so to all of you who love the Biblical truth of reformed theology....feel free to bite me in ravenous jealousy. :)
3. Andy, don't let the culture of the day sway you...Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Puritans, Spurgeon, Edwards, Clark, Pink, Sproul, Piper is good company...and to say "Reformed" and to understand what you are saying...IS siding with these the Greatest of our Biblical minds...Calvin (as do most old style writers) does suffer from "diarrhea mouth", and at times he is a freakin' hard read. But if you are Reformed, you stand proudly in a tradition of men who have all held Scripture to be our highest source for knowing God and His truth...men who died defending the authority of the word. There was a time where the term Calvinist was a badge I wore on the collar and sleeve of all theological conversations...but people have been so prejudiced against those simple terms, that now I have the same discussions without using the titles and I find people are much more open to coming to right biblical theological understand when they learn it not so much from an old dead man...but rather from God's perfect word. It is nice to see that my favorite singer/song writer/blogger also has enough sense to know where to place his trust: God's Word/word.
4. I really don't like the way Cliff sings the first 30 seconds of "There is a Reason"...and would have so liked to hear you get this one on the record. You would have sung it with a better sensibility of the truth that is being conveyed. All in all, I would say it is a good song...but it could have been great. I love the little solo you get in it though. If that's not an Osenga solo, I've never heard one.
In a way I am glad for Olson. What is faith if we cannot wrestle with it, cannot try to grasp it, cannot work and fight to understand it? It is a limp, formless, meaningless thing. God has given us a beautiful thing to have a faith that is difficult and nonsensical at times. So, in a way, it is good for Olson to bring up something that both highlights the album (which is fantastic by the way) and, hopefully, gets people to talk and think and wrestle with their faith.
Which, oddly enough, is a metaphor (with the caveat that metaphors are, of course, imperfect) for God's work in the world. It is NOT simply a boring float along a peaceful stream, covered by a canopy of trees. It is a wild river rafting trip, bumping us one way and another, the sun blazing on us one moment, the cooling shade reviving us the next. And it is much more exiting that way. To have something to fight against. To have evil to make us see and love the good. To even have evil to make us question and think and LIVE our faith, and to even live our faith against that evil is a wondrous thing. In all the fantast stories I've ever read (which, granted, aren't reality) it is the guys who have something to fight for that win. God has given us a faith we must fight for.
Anyway, that's randomly off topic to what I was actually going to write, which was simply an extension off of several thoughts in your open letter.
The first is thinking back to 1 Corinthians 1:27-29 "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise: God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him." Maybe God doesn't make sense. But he chose things that seem foolish (note SEEM) to confound us and to make it so that we couldn't just pinpoint him down and say "THIS IS GOD! I know it and I'm the only one who knows it and I know all of God and this is all that God can do." Here is where we cannot boast: in understanding God. This is not to say that we cannot understand God in a way, but that we cannot understand God fully. And this is a challenge and a comfort. I'm writing too much so I'll stop with that thought right there.
Secondly, a quote from Mark Lowry (yes, the guy that traveled with the Gaithers, but this quote from one of his comedy shows is one of my favorite of all times) "He came to give us life...More ABUNDANT." As Lowry goes on to comedically say, the Christian life is not simple. Rather, God gives us the chance to live and experience life more fully that everyone else. Which means that some things may hurt more and some things may be even more wonderful. Some people may be able to ignore tragedies in the world, but Christians should hurt badly for the people, should care with the compassion of God. It would be so much easier if we couldn't. But we should. And this is painful. To reflect this on God. God is big. God is huge! And so God's love is huge. But so is his JUSTICE and his Anger against injustice (not saying that all tragedies are God judging the world.) Nevertheless, God is big and his actions are big. But they are also small. He is the little voice on the wind. And he is there in the small moments. People in the media and in the world think of God on the big scale, when disasters happen, usually. But God is there in the small things. God is there when a little girl's dog dies, to comfort. And God works through all of the people, the little people, like those with Presbyterian Disaster Assistance (a group I've worked with) who have gone down and continue to go down to help those affected by Katrina for the past couple of years. We are God's hands and feet. But we are small. And we work in small ways which may amount to big ways. It disturbs me sometimes when we (theologians, lay people, media alike) look at God only in the big ways..GOOD and EVIL...the epic battle (hear star wars theme music here). What about God in the small ways? God working and weaving through every personal and private and horrible and wonderful situation? God is both! God is both epic and private (another one of those divine mysteries).
Finally (wow I'm a gab, but I wanted to get it all down while I was thinking about it), I'm not sure of the intent in "There is a Reason," but the Line "He makes all things Good" is such a wonderful line for me because it is double, even quadruple edged. Yes, God makes everything, and everything that God makes is good. And Yes, all things that are good have been made by God. But, God also MAKES all things good. It drives me to think of Joseph and his brothers at the end of Genesis "what you intended for Evil God intended for Good." Something that was evil, God MADE good. So it works in all ways. Not only does God make good things, but God makes things good. Beautiful. And this brings me back to Olson. What Olson intended to challenge the words of the song somehow highlighted its meaning for me. It made me think through the mediocre meaning of the words to something deeper. By reacting against, Olson made me push for. Beautiful.
Anyway, that's all I have to say. I'm sorry it's so long. I love this theological chatting stuff. I love wrestling and thinking about and experiencing my faith instead of sitting it on the shelf.
I also agree that your response was very good man. I lead a campus bible study and we are going through "practical questions" about God, and there are so many questions that I cannot answer, but just rest and know that He is God, and that He is good and He is sufficent. It is His grace that wakes me up every morning, and lays me down each night. Thank you for posting this, man.
JD
Re: Believing in God's sovereignty and "free will", if by "free will" you mean the ability for someone to choose chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla, or to type a blog comment instead of work, then yes, people have free will in that limited sense. But when Reformed and Protestant theologians have addressed the issue, it is usually with a view toward understanding whether unregenerate sinners, of their own volition, can choose to do good and to obey God, rather than sin. When that is the question in view, Reformed theology has consistently answered, "No, people who don't have God's Spirit in them, sanctifying them to produce the fruit of righteousness, do not have the free will to obey God and love him".
This biblical view is summed up in these well known words:
"And I'm so thankful that I'm incapable of doing any good on my own."
So, given the above, I would say it is important to clarify what you mean when you say yes to both God's sovereignty and human free will.
Andy and friends:
It's not "illogical" to hold biblical truths in tension with one another. It's just an index of our finitude and our creatureliness.
All the both/and examples above are well-put. Here's probably the most concrete and shocking one. We have to say "Amen!" to both of these statements at the same time, or we're not Christians:
(Some KJV just since AO was an English major)
"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born." Matt 26:24
The point is that God ordained the most evil thing that could ever happen (the slaughter of the second person of the Trinity) AND at the same time holds his killers dreadfully accountable.
I'm just reading my above post and I realize the part where I was talking about how we can't fully understand God is a little too understated to make sense like I wanted it to. It's a challenge to not fully understand God because we always seem to want to understand everything and it is difficult to believe in something you can't understand (but hey, if we didn't ever do anything difficult we wouldn't be doing much). It's a comfort because that means that a) I have a lifetime where every day I learn more and more about God and b) God can do things that we couldn't even dream or ask for or even think to know about to ask for. That's pretty sweet. Anyway, that's just to make the above part of my last post clearer.
Kat said, "When the “rich, young ruler� came to Jesus, it says Jesus “loved him�… Jesus then proceeded to rip him a new one and tell him he could not enter the kingdom of Heaven. Logically, that’s not a very loving thing to say"
I think maybe you need to reread the story, Jesus told him to "come follow me" the exact same word he gave to the disciples...the only difference is that the RYR walked away from Christ instead of following Him. The truth is always the most loving thing to say...and Christ, knowing the RYR's preoccupation with the things of this world, reached into his heart and drew a line in the sand. If you truly desire salvation, it will require your willingness to lose the idols you posses....and come follow me.
I hope this isn't too argumentative, but Christ NEVER told him he couldn't enter the Kingdom...he did the exact opposite...he told him how to!