Comments on William W. Birch: The Wrath of God

Hello Doubting Thomas, “A good book I've read...

2012-01-31T15:07:51.039-05:00

Hello Doubting Thomas,

“A good book I've read on the subject of God's attributes, particularly related to questions raised by His aseity, simplicity, and immutability is THE UNTAMED GOD by Jay Wesley Richards.”

Agreed it is a very good book.

“He argues that God has both neccessary attributes, which are essential to who He is, and contingent attributes, which would vary according to 'possible worlds' and are based on the fact that God is free to choose different courses of action--including creating worlds.”

This is a useful distinction.

“It would seem in this framework that God's wrath is a contingent expression of His holiness, with the latter always true about God, but the former being true in only when there is actual sin. In other words, Holiness is essential to who God is, and would be true of God whether He chose to create or not, but His wrath is how God's holiness and justice are experienced by sinful creatures who exist contingently.”

That is a good point. Consider if God has created a world of merely physical beings, a world where there were no sentient beings and no sentient beings would ever be present there. In such a world upon whom will he have wrath? The answer is that he would not have wrath in such a world.

On the other hand, because he is holy and if he creates a world where there are mindful beings that sin, then in that world he would have wrath towards sin.

It would seem then that wrath would be contingent upon there being existing beings that sin. Since such beings would not be a part of every creatable world, neither would God’s wrath be a part of every creatable world.

“So contrary to popular opinion, God doesn’t NEED to reprobate people so that His wrath may be exercised, since wrath is not essential to who He is as God. ;-)”

Slight error on the play! :-) According to the calvinist it is not the case that God **needs** to reprobate people so that His wrath is manifested. No, He WANTS to reprobate people to demonstrate his wrath. In calvinism God takes pleasure in reprobating people for his own glory (i.e. in order to manifest his wrath upon them). Now my real problem is not with the idea that God wants to demonstrate his wrath towards sin (that is a biblical concept). NO, my problem is the claim that he does so by reprobating most of the human race. Seems to me that God displays his wrath against sin quite sufficiently on the cross when Jesus is crucified. That simultaneously demonstrates both God’s love for sinners and hatred of sin.

Robert

"Practically, open theism makes the case for ...

2012-01-31T14:48:40.508-05:00

"Practically, open theism makes the case for a personal God who is open to influence through the prayers, decisions, and actions of people."

Perhaps I am an open theist? But in reality, all of it trashes the mystery of the God head.

DrW, One doesn't have to embrace Open Theism t...

2012-01-31T12:05:56.188-05:00

DrW,
One doesn't have to embrace Open Theism to reject Greek philosophical notions about the attributes of God. We have to separate what God says of himself (the Bible) from what intellectuals have posited about God.

Thanks WWB, Bob & SLW - I truly believe that G...

2012-01-31T12:00:18.840-05:00

Thanks WWB, Bob & SLW - I truly believe that God, who is timeless and omniscient, desires to have an intimate relationship with us. A two-way relationship where I express my love and dependence on Him and He expresses his love and care for me.

I think of it this way and I would appreciate feedback. I see God painting the picture of creation or writing the novel of the world and He doesn't just script the characters like Calvinism teaches. To me, it seems more like God puts me in the painting and then I can talk to Him about where He put me, telling Him my struggles and successes for where He put me. I then petition Him to place me somewhere else or give me another script, and He listens. Sometimes, He agrees with me and does what I ask, other times, He denies my petitions, all at the same time being omniscient, knowing what I will do and say.

I also know, at times, God says, "have you thought about this?" And He comes up with something much greater than I could ever hope or imagine. Then I can choose to reject His plan and come up with own. Sometimes my plans are OK, sometimes they cause me to embarrass myself. Sometimes, God works it out so that my plan is successful.

But I have three problems with my thoughts here: 1) It appears like open theism, which I reject, and 2) it appears like God is just someone who is there to grant/deny requests, in other words, I become God by telling Him what to do, and 3) It appears that my theology is all about me but it is not. I know that God interacts with His entire creation not just me. I'm just speaking from my perspective because that is the one I know the best.

Dr W & WWB, I think it is impossible to truly ...

2012-01-31T11:43:45.477-05:00

Dr W & WWB,
I think it is impossible to truly understand God's timeless omniscience. We just do not have the experiential context in which to do so. Suffice it to say, that when God outside of time sees us doing a thing it is because he sees us doing it, even if we haven't done it yet in time. So can God react to us? Yes, because he is reacting to what he sees, even though, because he sees all time at once, he doesn't have to "wait" in order to do so. I think a good way to test this is to imagine eternity--will God interact (which entails reaction) with us there? For me it is hard to envision an eternity where he would not. If there, then everywhere.

Hello Dale, part 2 Third, let’s use a few example...

2012-01-31T11:36:58.007-05:00

Hello Dale, part 2

Third, let’s use a few examples to show how this might work, how omniscience and genuinely responding might be compatible with one another.

First example, salvation. God promises that those who trust him alone for salvation will be saved. The promise is conditioned upon a faith response from us. If we choose to respond with faith to God’s promise, then does God respond to our faith? Yes, the bible tells us that His response includes forgiving our sins, giving us the Holy Spirit, adopting us into the family of God, etc. What if we choose not to trust God for salvation? Is God’s response the same? No. Now does God foreknow whether or not a particular individual will respond in faith? Yes as he foreknows everything.

Arminius himself made a distinction between the antecedent will of God and the consequent will of God. By this he meant that God comes up with a plan of salvation (that is done antecedently, as the bible describes it “from the foundation of the world”). This plan of salvation also includes the fact that faith is a condition of salvation (that those who trust the Lord will be justified). So God comes up with the plan first, he then responds accordingly (the consequent will of God) depending upon how people respond to his plan of salvation. He came up with the plan; he operates according to his own plan, but our response is involved in that plan. And depending upon how we respond to his plan he responds to us. [and note this does not make God dependent upon man as He himself set up the plan and sovereignly decided that this is how the plan of salvation would operate]

Example two, biblical covenants. Throughout the bible God sets up covenants and then his response to people depends upon their actions in relation to these covenants. Israel is an especially good example of this as God tells them (in the blessings and cursings section) that if they obey Him they will be blessed and if they disobey they will be cursed. One can then see his various responses to Israel throughout the OT depending upon their obedience or disobedience. In all of these situations God both foreknew how they would actually respond and yet they were acting freely in each instance when they did what they did.

Example three, prayer. God makes some absolutely incredible promises about prayer in scripture. Some are conditioned upon faith others are even conditioned upon a person’s moral character (the prayer of the righteous man availeth much . . .). We are also told in scripture that sin has a part in our prayers not being answered. Seems to me that this area displays the fact that God responds to what we do in a very personal and genuine way. Does God foreknow whether or not we will pray, how we will pray and also if he will answer or how he will answer? I would say definitely.

I would conclude then that there is no incompatibility between God foreknowing all future events and God simultaneously genuinely responding to people and what they do.

Robert

Hello Dale, part 1 “I have a question, though: Y...

2012-01-31T11:35:20.301-05:00

Hello Dale, part 1

“I have a question, though:

You wrote, "He could react in wrath and anger at sin..." Since the doctrine of aseity is true, then God never reacts, true? Reacting, to me, seems like God learns something. Since He is omniscient, how could He react? Did you mean something else there beside react? Or am I misunderstanding your point?”

First, aseity refers to the fact of God’s self-existence and his unchanging nature. However this is not the same as God responding or not responding to things happening in the world. It is Greek philosophy not scripture that paints a picture of an unchanging deity who experiences no emotions whatsoever and neither reacts nor responds to things. The bible does not present this picture at all.

Instead, the bible presents God as personal, as experiencing emotion (though he does not experience emotions in exactly the same way that we do) and as personally involving himself with his creatures (i.e. intervening, responding and reacting to what occurs in the world).

Second, you bring up omniscience as a possible problem for the idea that God genuinely responds to things in the world. Omniscience simply means that God knows what all future outcomes will be. So he knows what choice you will have in the future as well as what choice you will end up making with the choice that you will have. There is no incompatibility between free will and omniscience (despite the protestations and attempted arguments of calvinists and open theists). So let’s put that one aside for now. So where might the incompatibility be then? You bring up omniscience so let’s look at the compatibility between God genuinely responding and omniscience. Omniscience means God knows all future outcomes but again how does that conflict with God genuinely responding?

Robert

DT, Agreed! And thank you for the recommendation....

2012-01-31T11:35:07.999-05:00

DT,

Agreed! And thank you for the recommendation. I'll have to check out Richards.

A good book I've read on the subject of God...

2012-01-31T11:27:47.778-05:00

A good book I've read on the subject of God's attributes, particularly related to questions raised by His aseity, simplicity, and immutability is THE UNTAMED GOD by Jay Wesley Richards. He argues that God has both neccessary attributes, which are essential to who He is, and contingent attributes, which would vary according to 'possible worlds' and are based on the fact that God is free to choose different courses of action--including creating worlds. It would seem in this framework that God's wrath is a contingent expression of His holiness, with the latter always true about God, but the former being true in only when there is actual sin. In other words, Holiness is essential to who God is, and would be true of God whether He chose to create or not, but His wrath is how God's holiness and justice are experienced by sinful creatures who exist contingently. So contrary to popular opinion, God doesn't NEED to reprobate people so that His wrath may be expressed, since wrath is not essential to who He is as God. ;-)

Doubting Thomas

Steve, Thank you!

2012-01-31T11:11:15.363-05:00

Steve,

Thank you!

Dr. W., No, I meant react, hahaha. I'm kinda ...

2012-01-31T11:10:47.085-05:00

Dr. W.,

No, I meant react, hahaha. I'm kinda being cute (well, at least to me I am). I do mean react, but not in any sense that God learned something and then reacted to it. Rather, I mean that when so and so did such and such, then God reacted to it -- having always foreknown it, of course. I suppose I could just as well say that God acted when so and so did such and such, but I used the word react because that's our normal usage. I have no doubt we're saying the same thing.

SLW, I agree with your response, and I very much ...

2012-01-31T11:08:39.775-05:00

SLW,

I agree with your response, and I very much look forward to reading your thoughts from your own postings.

Excellent post. Steve

2012-01-31T10:42:31.082-05:00

Excellent post.
Steve

SLW - You are always welcome to "butt in.&quo...

2012-01-31T10:15:26.380-05:00

SLW - You are always welcome to "butt in." I've come to admire and respect your input on this blog. (I've even taken the time to read your blog on occasion.)

What you say is undoubtedly true. I don't want to oversimplify a multifaceted God. There are plenty of "if...then" clauses in the Bible where God does seem to be responding. The reacting and discovering language is where I have a problem understanding how a timeless, omniscient God could react or discover.

I see, in my own life, that which appears to be God responding to my prayers. For a shameless plug, see my blog entry on this: http://www.ironstrikes.com/2/post/2012/01/prayer-and-komboli.html

Now, a Calvinist could say, "it just seems like God is responding. He determined the situation where you would ask God for help and then had already determined the outcome since eternity past."

I believe more than that. I see the Bible replete with examples of "if..then" statements which shows a God responding to the prayers of His people. God desires an intimate relationship with us, not a faux relationship like we see in Calvinism.

Where I have trouble (and Calvinists explain this away as anthropomorphism) in my understanding are those occasions in the Bible where God does seem to react and discover.

For example, God becomes very angry with the Israelites when they worship the golden calf and Moses intercedes asking God to not be angry.

Another example is when God says, "I've come down to find out for myself..." in Genesis 18:20 & 21. That sounds like God is discovering to me.

So, SLW, please feel free to expound. Obviously, I don't have everything figured out :-)

William will respond I'm sure, so forgive me f...

2012-01-31T09:33:19.677-05:00

William will respond I'm sure, so forgive me for butting in, but one must be cautious when applying the concept of aseity, and derivatively simplicity, to God. When God tells us things about himself such as "whatever you ask in my name, that will I do" (John 14:13), or "now I know" (Genesis 22:12), they fly flat in the face of some conceptions of what God "must" be in view of his omniscience. Throughout the scripture God shows the flexibility of response, reaction, and discovery. Our view of his omniscience must be able to embrace this self-revelation without doing violence to it.

Rick - I pray that we all learn such an attitude

2012-01-31T09:09:12.664-05:00

Rick - I pray that we all learn such an attitude

WWB - Thanks for writing this. I think you helped...

2012-01-31T09:08:38.781-05:00

WWB - Thanks for writing this. I think you helped to show that Arminians do have a plenary understanding of God. Calvinists often accuse Arminians of just looking at God's love, that we don't understand about God's justice and wrath.

I really like this statement, "wrath as an attribute cannot be expressed intrapersonally among the members of the Godhead (Trinity)." That seems to be a good way of understanding God's attributes. Since we know the doctrine of aseity to be true, then an attribute has to be expressed within Himself to be properly understood.
An attribute cannot be dependent upon anything outside of the Triune God.

I have a question, though:

You wrote, "He could react in wrath and anger at sin..." Since the doctrine of aseity is true, then God never reacts, true? Reacting, to me, seems like God learns something. Since He is omniscient, how could He react? Did you mean something else there beside react? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

WWB, A very interesting article. I'm working o...

2012-01-31T08:50:24.713-05:00

WWB,
A very interesting article. I'm working on one myself in a similar vein dealing with justice and retribution, hopefully I'll have it up in the next couple of days.

Romans 13:4 at least implies that wrath is a response or reaction to evil, and wrath is often described in very finite terms throughout, in particular, the NT. I do not believe evil (or opposition to God) is an eternal verity, and that the Lake of Fire will entirely squelch all such opposition (not reactively but proactively). It makes sense to me therefore that wrath is not an attribute of God's nature, but a "momentary" reaction to a possibility that won't be possible in the ages to come. A wrathful God in the new heavens and earth doesn't really seem to fit.

Here is our glory and joy: God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ

Amen.

2012-01-31T08:31:58.280-05:00

Amen.

We have no idea. Thank you, Lord Jesus, for interc...

2012-01-31T06:04:17.834-05:00

We have no idea. Thank you, Lord Jesus, for intercepting that which I deserved. I am so unworthy yet so, so grateful. I will never fully grasp the sufferings You absorbed on that cruel cross.

Please use my earthly life to shine on You alone.