A Classical Response to Relational Theism

A Classical Response to Relational Theism (Kindle version). My doctoral dissertation was published a few weeks ago, by Pickwick (the monograph series imprint of Wipf&Stock). The writing of this book was not an academic exercise, but a personal quest to offer an account of the classical doctrine of God that robustly counters an open/relational model of God. I see the open/relational model of God as the by-product of modern theology shifting away from the Great Tradition of the Christian faith. That might sound overly direct, arrogant, or dogmatic. So be it. Ivory tower discourse isn't my forte. There is a clarion call to retrieve the classic doctrine of God because the God being promoted in various strands of Evangelicalism is too small, unlike the glorious God revealed in the pages Scripture. With the problems and godless ideologies that we contend with in our current milieu, the God we need is the big God of the Bible, who declares himself as the One, True, and Transcendent Sovereign Lord of heaven and earth.

For those interested in this project, below is the preface to the book, which lays out its structure and content. I hope it is a helpful contribution in the recovery of the classical doctrines of the Great Tradition.

Preface

The classical doctrine of God expresses that the God of the Bible is triune, a se, simple, immutable, impassible, eternal, and the sovereign Lord over his creation, which he created from himself. Modern streams of theology continue to promote a doctrine of God that sharply contrasts the classical view—the traditional view of God in Christian theism. Contemporary strands of Evangelical theology, guided by a socially oriented philosophy, no longer see the God who is; rather, it sees God as the one who is becoming. Therefore, a critical response to such a theology is needed. And that is the intention of this study: to critically evaluate a current contemporary theological model representative of a view of God as becoming, with attention to shared key Christian doctrines and commitments to scriptural teachings, formulated from a view of God who is.

This study explores the method and content in the Evangelical process model of relational theism as advanced in the writings of Thomas Jay Oord. Oord identifies as an open/relational Evangelical theologian from the Wesleyan tradition. Oord’s theology is the focus of this study because I think he offers the most consistent model of open/relational theology that advocates the primacy of divine-human relationality in the nature of God. And while Oord offers the most consistent form of open/relational theism, Oord’s theology further opposes the classical view of God than articulated in the general stream of open theism. Oord’s move is not a short step out of the bounds of the classical view of the Christian tradition; rather it is a giant leap, in that open theism affirms the classical doctrines of God’s unilateral sovereignty (though modified to account for libertarian human freewill) and creatio ex nihilo. Oord rejects both in his relational model. However, Oord affirms key teachings of the Christian tradition that classical theists affirm as well, which were formulated from a classical view (i.e., classical metaphysics). The Christian doctrines affirmed between Oord’s brand of relational/open theology and classical theism, while both are metaphysically opposed to each other, presents a need for an evaluative study.

The specific aim of this study is to evaluate and critique Oord’s relational model of divine providence, identifying the internal inconsistencies within Oord’s philosophical and theological framework, problems in his methodology, and clearing up misconceptions he and the process tradition have of classical theism, while constructively showing that the general sense of Scripture agrees more with classical theism than process theism, as it pertains to divine power. The flow of the study is as follows.

Chapter 1 introduces the reader to the historical landscape, the relational turn in modern Evangelicalism, in which open theism developed, observing the foundation of process theology, which undergirded its development. Then the doctrinal commonalities and distinctions shared between open theology and process theology are identified, thus forming the backdrop in which Oord emerges. And then Oord’s theological and philosophical upbringings are outlined, observing the notable differences between Oord’s theology and prevailing views of open and process theologies. And lastly, the aim, scope, and methodology of the study are outlined.

Chapter 2 evaluates the coherency of Oord’s process philosophy/ metaphysic and his claims based on this construct with other doctrines of the Christian tradition. I argue that Oord’s assumption of God’s necessary relatedness to his creation conflicts with the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and divine simplicity, which he affirms. I also identify inconsistencies in his doctrine of creation that disqualify it as a biblical doctrine because it collapses the Creator-creature distinction. While Oord claims his process metaphysic situates love in a more centralized manner than classical theism, it disrupts the coherency and framework of the traditional model of Christian theism (e.g., Creator–creature distinction, essence and attributes of God, and the Trinity) he seeks to retain. And then I will touch on Oord’s process notion of divine power, with a brief critique, which I will elaborate on further in chapter 5 in my evaluation of Oord’s doctrine of providence.

Chapter 3 evaluates and critiques Oord’s divine-love theology. And from my evaluation of Oord’s doctrine of love, I conclude that his attempt to formulate a uniform definition of love from Scripture was unsuccessful, in that his methods failed to account for the diverse contexts of love found in the Bible. He admitted on the out-set of his endeavor that the Bible does not articulate a monolithic definition of love, but he claimed that one general meaning of love dominates the biblical witness. While he argued for a scriptural definition of love, his methods were flawed because he limited his scope to the biblical texts that supported a philosophically contrived definition of love, rendering his model of love inadequate.

Chapter 4 compares and contrasts the process and classical approach to interpreting metaphysical statements in Scripture. The intention of the chapter purposed to establish an interpretive foundation, in substantiating that the interpretation of the biblical text generally agrees more with a classical metaphysic than that of process theology.

Chapter 5 examines the apex of Oord’s Evangelical process theology: Essential Kenosis, which functions as a relational model of divine providence but also an ontological expression of God. Essential Kenosis affirms involuntary divine self-limitation, which means that God is necessarily self-giving. And Essential Kenosis is Oord’s solution to the problem of evil. My evaluation sought to determine the adequacy of Oord’s model of divine providence based on questions pertaining to its biblical comprehensiveness as a doctrine of providence. Oord states that God exclusively uses compelling power to persuade local, physical bodies to exert direct, physical influence, which I refute through scriptural examples that demonstrate God’s power is not restricted to persuasion only, while constructively demonstrating that the general sense of Scripture agrees more with classical theism than process theism, as it pertains to divine power. In conclusion, my findings demonstrated that Oord’s relational model was unsuccessful in constructing a robust and supportive account for the complexities and nuances of the doctrinal themes presented in Scripture.

Chapter 6 briefly reflects on the importance of classical theology in the Christian tradition, followed by a restating of the intention of my study, summarizing the key distinctions between Oord’s theology and a classical view, delineating an enumerated account of the results determined by this study, and a conclusion statement.

Happy reading!

~ Romans 11:36

Comments

Gregory of Nyssa: Trinity–Not Tri-deity

Gregory, a bishop of Nyssa in 371, was part of the Cappadocian trio, and was instrumental in the development of Trinitarian orthodoxy. His theological prowess proved vital in response to the Arian and Sabellian heresies. Key to Gregory’s theology we find “an emergence of a pro-Nicene ‘grammar’ of divinity through his developed account of divine power,” [1] conceived through a nature-power-activity formulation revealed in the created order and articulated in Scripture. Understanding the Triune God in this manner afforded a conception of the Trinity that was logical and thoroughly biblical. And this letter is paradigmatic on Gregory’s account of the divine nature. (* This article was later published with Credo Magazine, titled, “ The Grammar of Divinity (On Theology). ” See link below) To Ablabius, though short, is a polemical address whereby Gregory lays out a complex argument in response to the claim that three Divine Persons equal three gods. Basically put, Ablabius (his opponent,

St. John Chrysostom — for God is simple

Below is part of the introductory section to my exposition of John Chrysostom’s doctrine of God. I posted it because I thought it was fascinating to find such an important theologian known for avoiding (even having a disdain of) speculative theology refer to the classical doctrine of divine simplicity as common place in his thoroughly biblical doctrine of God. Toward the end I include a link to my full exposition. John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) was the archbishop of Constantinople. Being the most prolific of all the Eastern fathers, he fought against the ecclesiastical and political leaders for their abuse of authority. He was called Chrysostom (meaning “golden-mouthed”) for his eloquent sermons. [1] This most distinguished of Greek patristic preachers excelled in spiritual and moral application in the Antiochene tradition of literal exegesis, largely disinterested, even untutored in speculative and controversial theology. [2] On the Incomprehensible Nature of G

John 17:3 – Eternal Life is Knowing God and Christ–the One, True God

John 17:1–5. “ Jesus spoke these things, looked up to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you gave him authority over all people, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent—Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on the earth by completing the work you gave me to do. Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with that glory I had with you before the world existed .”

A Brief Exposition of Augustine's Doctrine of Divine Immutability

To much of the Western world, Augustine has no rival. He is the preeminent—uninspired—theologian of the Christian faith. When reading the titans of the church—i.e., Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin—Augustine’s theology and ideas are voluminously parroted all throughout their writings. His influence is unparalleled. Even the secular world sees Augustine as a mammoth figure in the shaping of human history. And its Augustine’s doctrine of God we will divert our attention to, looking specifically at his articulation of divine immutability Augustine’s doctrine of God is classical, through and through. He writes, “There is One invisible, from whom, as the Creator and First Cause, all things seen by us derive their being: He is supreme, eternal, unchangeable, and comprehensible by none save Himself alone” ( Ep . 232.5).[1] When reading his works, the doctrine of immutability is paramount, coming forth repeatedly. For Augustine, immutability, or God’s unchangeableness, is consequential

Gregory of Nazianzus: The Trinity - Not a Collection of Elements

Gregory of Nazianzus One of the Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus (c.330–389), given the title, “The Theologian,” was instrumental in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically the distinct terms to describe the Persons of the Godhead (Unbegotten, eternally begotten, and procession). Gregory’s main contribution to the development of Christology was in his opposition to Apollinarius. He argued that when Adam fell, all of humanity fell in him; therefore, that fallen nature must be fully united to the Son—body, soul, and mind; ‘for the unassumed is the unhealed’. Gregory’s Doctrine of the Trinity His clearest statement on the Trinity is found in his Oration 25.15–18. Oration 25 is part of a series of sermons delivered in 380. As a gesture of gratitude, Gregory dedicates Oration 25 to Christian philosopher Maximus the Cynic, as a sort of ‘charge’ for him to push forward and remain strong in the orthodox teachings of the faith. And these sections are that or

First Timothy 2:12 - On Women in the Pastorate - A Critical Response to Nijay Gupta

Does 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibit women from leading and preaching over men in the church? I recently posted an article examining an approach to this question, specifically evaluating interpretive consistency. In the article, I looked at two passages that appealed to the Old Testament to support the claim being made in the text. The point of the blog post was to shed light on an inconsistency of interpretation by looking at one common argument from the Bible in favor of women in the pastorate and another biblical argument supporting the view of monogamous marriage, between one man and one woman. My general observation is that many Christians who advance this particular argument, allowing for women in the pastorate, also affirm the particular argument for the biblical view of marriage. They both have the same methodological starting point; however, both arrive at their conclusions in completely different ways, demonstrating interpretive inconsistency, which I conclude ste

Ambrose: A Nicene Defense of Jesus Not Knowing the Day or the Hour ~ Mark 13:32

Ambrose (c. 339–397), was Bishop of Milan (northern Italy). His name is familiar to many because of Augustine, in that it was through Ambrose’s preaching that Augustine was saved by the gospel. Ambrose was a rigorous exponent of Nicene orthodoxy, and as with his other contemporaries, he was an ardent opponent against Arianism. His works, therefore, were aimed at refuting Arian heresy, paying special attention to the exposition and defense of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. In his most prominent work, The Exposition of the Christian Faith (abbr. De fide ), Ambrose makes a lucid, scripturally saturated articulation of the Christian faith couched in Nicene orthodoxy. De fide is devoted to proving the full divinity of Christ, co-equal in substance, wisdom, power, and glory as God the Father, derived through elucidating the plain sense of the text. Ambrose’s aim is polemical and apologetic, addressing and refuting objections from the Arians. This post will ex

Isaiah 45:7 - “ . . . I make peace, and create evil.” — Does God create evil?

My daughter watched a video this morning where a deconstructionist, an ex vangelical, was attempting to profane the goodness of God, by pointing out that Isaiah 45:7 says God creates evil. She was referring to the KJV version of this passage which says, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” So, what do we do with that? Below is a brief response. Proper biblical interpretation considers context when seeking the meaning of a passage. Furthermore, when it comes to difficult or obscure passages, a helpful rule of interpretation is to look to the plainer passages of the Bible and draw examples from them to shed light on the more obscure passages ( thanks Augustine ). We let Scripture interpret Scripture. The point is to remove all hesitation on doubtful passages. So, in this passage, on the face it seems to imply that God creates evil, thus making God evil. But is that what the Bible teaches about God? The plainer passages te

Boethius: The Logic of Unity and Plurality in One God

In the “Introduction” to a standard English translation of Boethius’ Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy , it is stated that “Boethius was the last of the Roman philosophers, and the first of the scholastic theologians” (X). Philosophy is aimed at explaining the nature of the world ( the natural ). Theology’s aim is to understand and explain doctrines delivered by divine revelation ( the supernatural ). Boethius was the seminal figure in preparing the way for the synthesis of these two disciplines, with philosophy serving the task of theology (i.e., the handmaiden to the King of sciences) .

Piper vs. Calvin: The Role of Good Works in Salvation

In his book Future Grace , John Piper writes, “Faith alone is the instrument that unites us to Christ who is our righteousness and the ground of our justification. But the purity of life that confirms faith’s reality is also essential for final salvation , not as the ground of our right standing, but as the fruit and evidence that we are vitally united by faith to Christ who alone is the ground of our acceptance with God.” [1] His purpose in writing that statement is to “explode the great error that says . . . [y]ou get your justification by faith, and you get your sanctification by works. You start the Christian life in the power of the Spirit, you press on in the efforts of the flesh.” [2] The emphasized portion above (and other such statements) has raised critical concerns over Piper’s Reformed theology in that his words seem to veer away from orthodox Reformed teaching. These critics contend Piper teaches a two-stage justification where one is “ initially justified by grace alon

Read. Reflect. Write.

Search This Blog