Predestinarian apocalypticism
To understand this, you have to enter into the “logic” of ancient theological thought, and especially “apocalyptic” thought. I’ll sketch it briefly. God doesn’t make up his game-plan as the game goes along, but has the plan (of world history, redemption, judgement, etc.) all laid out even before creation. So, as God acts in revelation, each action is also an unveiling of his prior purpose and plan. So, “eschatological” events were actually in God’s purpose from the beginning: “final things = first things” (to paraphrase a scholarly formula).
http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/jesus-pre-existence-etc-responding-to-questions/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo understand this, you have to enter into the “logic” of ancient theological though...
ReplyDeleteIn the Roman and Hellenistic world of the 1st century the concept of "fate" (and it's variations) was commonly known, alluded to or directly addressed in all aspects of culture (e.g. in philosophy, theology, religion, mythology, plays etc.). This concept of fate was sometimes impersonal, and bound both God/gods and mortal men. Other times, it was personal and was the expression of the supreme deity. Sometimes it was a consequence of a pantheistic conception of reality.
It's interesting that many of the pre-Augustine church fathers wrote their theology and apologetical works in conscious contrast and opposition to such concepts of fate and determinism that was prevalent at the time in order to affirm human freedom and our responsibility to respond to God's offer of salvation as well as our moral accountability to God.
In light of that, and assuming that a theology closer to something like Arminianism is true, why would the New Testament authors often write emphasizing God's sovereignty and predestination? As if correcting the seeds of truth found in pagan sources. Shouldn't the New Testament authors have written in a way similar to the Nicene and ante-Nicene fathers often did by reacting against notions of determinism, and predestination? Yet we don't see that.
The concept of predestination and/or God's sovereignty is everywhere in the New Testament. In every book.
True, many of these passages can comfortably fit in with an (historical) Arminian view of providence and predestination. But not all of them can do so easily. Many Calvinists argue that some of them can't at all. In my opinion, the number of direct and indirect references to predestination and/or God's sovereignty is so abundant in the New Testament that THAT mere fact should cause many Arminians to stop and think that maybe it's because unconditional election is actually true.
BTW, both Calvinist and non-Calvinists acknowledge the concept of "fate" being pervasive in the ancient world. See for example, Jerome Zanchius' Appendix to his book Absolute Predestination. Anti-Calvinist author Alexander C. Rutherford cited Zanchius' appendix in his own appendix as evidence to argue for "the identity of Calvinism with the FATALISM of the ancients." As a Calvinist I deny that charge. Nevertheless, A.C. Rutherford goes on to concede that the concept of fate WAS ubiquitous in the ancient world. And so, the questions I posed above should give anti-Calvinists reason to pause, think and reconsider.
I wrote:
Delete...the number of direct and indirect references to predestination and/or God's sovereignty is so abundant in the New Testament that THAT mere fact should cause many Arminians to stop and think that maybe it's because unconditional election is actually true.
Why emphasize God's predestinating sovereignty so much if the human choice is the ultimate determining factor in one's salvation? Also, why didn't the New Testament authors make it clear by stating outright that human choice is the determining factor? Didn't the Holy Spirit, who inspired the NT authors, know in advance that the concept of UNCONDITIONAL election (including some view of reprobation) would lead many people away from believing in God or the Christian God? For example, Anthony Flew was willing to believe in theism or deism but rejected Christianity because he couldn't help but interpret the NT teaching some form of predestination and reprobation. EVEN ASSUMING an Arminian understanding of election and reprobation were the proper interpretation of the New Testament, why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire the authors to make it clear to prevent people from rejecting Christianity? Doesn't God have exhaustive foreknowledge?
Moreover, it's not like there weren't people in the ancient world who resented the seeming unfairness of fate or the unconditional decrees of the gods (or at least their theoretical reality). Many of the Greek plays revolved around this (e.g. Sophocles' Oedipus the King). Paul being versed in pagan poetry (at times quoting Menander, Aratus, Cleanthes, and Epimenides) should have known that the concept of "fate" could be a stumbling block to conversions and so either shouldn't have discussed the similar concept of God's election or made sure to teaching in such a way as to affirm conditional election (were it true). But he didn't.
Interesting observations AP.
ReplyDeleteOne might also point out that much of Hinduism also revolves around the concept of "fate" (e.g. the caste system), and Buddhism is heavily philosophically dependent upon "fate" in the form of karma.
In fact insofar as I know every form and variant of merely human religion is built upon the shifting sands of human will and works ("decisionism").
The more things change, the more they stay the same.