Okay, here's a subject near and dear to my heart, the influence of Greek Philosophy on the development of Christian doctrine.
It has seemed to me for years that much of traditional Christian doctrine was the result of trying to force the Bible to fit into Greek philosophical categories. This was, to me, particularly evident with respect to the idea of the Sovereignty of God; which seemed to be a complete import from Greek philosophy. It's very hard to square the idea of conditional covenants and conditional promises which abound throughout the Bible, with the idea that God is causing everything that happens. If God is causing everything that happens then what is the point of telling you to not commit adultery? If God is controlling all that happens then what is the point of Jesus saying, "…believe that you receive them and ye shall have them."
The argument for the sovereignty of God must go something like this (I'm saying, 'must go' because as many times as I have heard Christians invoke the sovereignty of God I've never heard anyone set out the argument for it much less any real scriptural defense of it.):
Since God knows the future the future is fixed,
Since God has always known the future the future has always been fixed,
Since God knows the future he, by definition, stands outside of the future,
Since God stands outside of the future, he is the only person who's actions are not fixed.
Since he is the only person whose actions are not fixed then he is the only person free to act
Since he is the only person free to act then everything that happens is the result of his action.
Well that sounds perfectly logical to me, particularly if you accept the premise that if God knows the future then the future is set in stone, but this is not a scriptural argument it is a logical argument. To try to limit God to the logic of man is the mistake of this type of argument.
Anyhoo, here's a nice quote from Jaroslav Pelikan on the subject, from Vol. 1 of the Christian Tradition Series, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, pg.22. He starts off talking about the de-Judaization of Christian doctrine.
"… among these, the doctrine of God and the doctrine of man bear marks of de-Judaization. In Judaism it was possible simultaneously to ascribe change of purpose to God and to declare that God did not change, without resolving the paradox; for the immutability of God was seen as the trustworthiness of his covenanted relation to his people in the concrete history of his judgment and mercy, rather that as a primarily ontological category. But in the development of the Christian doctrine of God, immutability assumed the status of an axiomatic presupposition for the discussion of other doctrines…
By immutability of God he means that God does not change. Now to the average Christian that is a weird concept but it is one of the basic Greek Philosophical assumptions about the nature of God. The argument goes like this:
God is perfect.
If God were to change it would be a change away from perfection, i.e. he would become less than perfect.
Therefore, God cannot change.
It's a nice argument but the problem, I think, is one of assumptions. The argument seems to be circular, i.e. it assumes that perfection is unchanging-ness but hides this assumption. My response to this argument is: Perfection does not define God, God defines perfection. What ever God is that is perfection. If God changes every second then to always be changing is perfection. If we can find out what God is like then we can begin to discuss a definition of perfection not the other way around. A Christian's assumptions should be arrived at from scripture not from reason. This argument in favor of God's immutability betrays the Greek assumptions about the nature of good and evil, underlying it, i.e. good is that which never changes, the material world is not good because it is subject to change.
But Pelikan continues to the subject under discussion:
"Similarly, the course taken by the development of the Augustinian tradition has been affected by the loss of contact with Jewish thought, whose refusal to polarize the free sovereignty of God and the free will of man has frequently been labeled Pelagian."
Anyway, I love these two quotes. If there is one doctrine in the Christian world which I would definitely label heretical it is the doctrine of the sovereignty of God.
I agree with what you are saying. I have known this for years, I was first turned on to it by James Armenian. His writings are online. He was a Reformer teacher who opposed Calvinism about 86 years after the Reformation. A few denominations are Armenian. Unfortunately they have not developed too much intellectually. The most respected would be the Methodist. However, I never see them enter in to the debate and most Methodist ministers are oblivious to these roots. Middleman in his book the Innocence of God goes into this. However like James Armenian he is gentle towards the Calvinist. After years of calling Armenians heretics and today Pelagianist it is time to fire back. That is enough patience. However the one thing that I disagree with is saying that the Sovereignty of God is heretical. It is not in the definition of the word sovereignty. Also to apply that definition to God is true. It is also unnecessary. There is already a term to fit this – Lord. Early reformers and Calvinist use the term sovereignty to trump anyone that opposes them. Any stupid thing they say about it is met by “Oh you are going against the sovereignty of God”. Then you demand sense and they say “it is a mystery his ways are higher than our ways”. "Who are you to question the Sovereignty of God”. You will get yourself in trouble saying that the Sovereignty of God is heresy. Rather it is the doctrines that have developed that use this title are heresy. I understand perfectly what you are saying, but don’t give a camp that has had over 400 years on you dismiss you. Fear not the Catholic Church was wrong for over a millennium and still remain that way. As Polycarp said “Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from Jude 3 the beginning; watching unto prayer, 1 Peter 4:7 and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God not to lead us into temptation, Matthew 6:13; Matthew 26:41 as the Lord has said: The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak”. Matthew 26:41; Mark 14:38
Leonard
Posted by: Leonard | May 25, 2009 at 11:23 AM