We have been talking about theology lately…how much God knows, how little, whether it is important that we know how much he knows, and so on and so forth. It’s all very interesting, time consuming and, to an extent, tiresome. Fact is, the Bible is silent on some issues, speaks loudly on others, and is rather ambiguous about still others (such as whether or not Jesus had long hair). All jesting aside, I don’t think it is unreasonable to believe that there are some things that simply cannot be known by us about God.
But that doesn’t mean it is unhealthy to talk about such things and debate them.
Many years ago I read this book by John Sanders called The God Who Risks. I was too young at the time to fully grasp what I was reading, but in light of recent conversations (among others), I have been thinking about the book’s contents and arguments (it seems even back then, more than 10 years ago, John Piper was on the radar in these conversations). One interesting thing I noted about the book is that I didn’t mark it up like I normally do a book I am reading. Seriously, not one ink mark on any page. Strange. Although I do vaguely recall disagreeing with quite a lot of it (what I understood at the time).
So, here’s Sanders on salvation, what he calls the Relational Model of Salvation:
God takes risks with enabling grace in that people are not forced to believe. God does not believe in himself through us. The love of Christ and the prompting of the Spirit create the context in which we may respond in penitence and faith to God’s gracious gift. God is the initiator and provider of salvation, yet he does not want a relationship without our consent. (246)
I believe this conversation is meaningful enough that I will post some more of Sanders’ thoughts later this week and next. For now, though, I am curious. Do you think God takes risks? I remember one time, when I was but a young preacher, preaching a sermon that expounded a point that went something like this: God is courageous. I remember one of the elders questioning me closely after the sermon and then informing me, in no uncertain terms, that God doesn’t need to be courageous.
Years later, I wonder…
33 Comments(+Add)
For God to be courageous, that would mean that sometimes He is not. Courageous is a human trait. God requires no such moniker since everything He does is perfect.
I read that book a few years ago. I actually found it a more convincing explanation of the open position than other stuff I have read. I like Sanders because he tends to use less philosophical language when explaining things.
It’s funny you should bring this up now. I just started this book, The Suffering of God by Thomas Fretheim, and he comes to the same conclusion about God being relational. Basically God cannot truly be relational if He cannot be changed in some way by being in relationship with us. By choosing to be in time with us, and to be in the created universe with us, God genuinely risks and genuinely experiences things.
I find this type of stuff very freeing on one hand and very challenging on the other. I think it’s so ingrained in our minds that there is one set path for the things should turn out, and we are so worried about “missing God” or not finding His will in situations. I wonder sometimes if our obsessing about this actually prevents us from just enjoying our life with God.
Rick, I wonder if you’re limiting your definition too much. (And by “you”, I mean “us”, because some of this is new to me, too.)
If we look at God’s instruction to Joshua (perhaps the most famous “courage” passage), most of the times that God tells Joshua to be courageous or have courage are not in relation to something, or at least are not in relation to something human (”Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law…”)
Too often we think of courage as something that we need to have in the face of adversity. So when I’m facing a crisis of some sort, I need to display and have courage. But when I’m eating a slice of pizza, I don’t really need to display and have courage (unless it’s Tombstone Pizza). But is that what God is really calling me to? Or is He calling me to be incessantly courageous? And if it’s the latter, then being courageous doesn’t necessarily mean that “sometimes [one] is not”.
I’d agree with you, if courage was an on/off thing (i.e. not something we ought to do/have 100% of the time). But I’m not so sure of that “if”.
Alternatively, let’s say it is an on/off thing for us. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s an on/off thing for God. Just as there are things that God is 100% of the time, but we aren’t because of our fallen nature, might there also be some things that God is 100% of the time, but we aren’t because of our finite nature?
Wow.
To risk is to embark on an adventure without sure knowledge of the outcome. How can an omnicient, omnipotent God take a risk?
Similiarly, how could an omnicient and omnipotent fear so why would He need to have courage?
The god of open theism is too small. I for one am not about to trust in a god who takes risks.
That’s the mystery of the Cross, is it not?
It takes no great power, no great insight, no great wisdom, etc. to be the creator of something which you absolutely know will do what you want it to do. In fact, this is almost the opposite of those traits. By creating a universe with beings that can genuinely interact with God, and genuinely affect Him, God displays a type of omnipotence that goes far beyond the classical idea of an unmoved mover.
I think it take courage to risk being rejected…and God takes the risk that we can reject him and his offer.
So instead of God simply decreeing that we will be saved or not be saved (as so much Reformed theology declares), God opens himself up to rejection and acceptance.
I think that takes courage.
I have no idea what these words mean in relation to a God who is invisible. You will have to define omnipotent.
Bingo! And that takes courage–the sort of courage less defined as a fella runs into an enemy phalanx and kills 30 people and more like a great God who limits himself in order to have a relationship with people like us.
Courage seems to indicate a fear or uncertainty, which of course does not apply to God. And with complete and infinite foreknowledge, I think the word courae is nonapplicable.
The correct word is love.
Perfect love casts out all fear.
But God does not always come off as completely certain in His dealing with people. Just look at how Abraham bargained with God about judging Sodom. God at first said He was going to, but then when asked by Abraham if was really sure He wanted to, He promised to back off if Abraham could find even a few righteous people. Was God not telling the truth here?
Or what about Moses’ interactions with God? Moses was able to “talk God down” a few times when it came to smiting the Israelites. Was God not telling Moses His true intentions?
Without getting into a fight with you over semantics, I disagree Rick.
This has nothing to do with fear because that’s not what I’m talking about. Of course God has no fear. That’s not the point. Re-read my comments in 6 & 7 and you will see that I am not talking about the sort of fear, defined by mere human experience, you are referring to.
The entire thing is just semantics. God is who he is and does what he does. To attempt to dissect his him anthropomorphically is impossible, especially when accurate and vital research is unavailable until a later date.
God regenerates us, it is His act in which we are born again, and even able to respond to His love and kindness.
It is not a risk for Him, but it is one for us if we refuse His love and kindness unto salvation.
Regarding the question of whether God takes risks, Fretheim brought a good point in the book I mentioned earlier. When God makes promises to people, He is in essence limiting His options as to what tools He might use in His relations with them. In doing so, He is taking risks. Specifically, He’s risking His reputation. For example, by promising to be faithful to Israel, He is promising to stick by an unfaithful people. This, in essence, could make Him look like He being “too soft” in the eyes who demand justice. It’s risk that God is willing to take, though, in order to have real relationship with people.
Phil – That does not risk His reputation, it only illuminates His grace and love which is His reputation. You are correct, God is willing to appear unfaithful in order to accomplish His divine purposes.
I do not like the word “risk”.
I think this is what happens when we leave the reservation and go too far afield. Honestly, this is a debate of semantics; empty speculation. Like ants trying to understand the complexities of derivatives and stock trades.
Does God have courage?
Does God take risks?
Really? As if we have exhausted the word of God that has been revealed, we go off on these wild-goose chases that have no answer. Welcome to Athens.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with a new Christian on Monday. He’s wracking his brain and losing sleep trying to figure out who the beast is in Revelation 13, what about the galaxies (are the inhabited by angels?), how the war in heaven between Lucifer and God played out…
But what about focusing on Christ, who he is and what he commands, what he meant in the sermon on the mount, etc.
Honestly – to the writing (and reading) of books there is no end…
Seriously, I don’t understand what the issue is. We’re not talking about pure philosophical speculation. We’re talking about how God is portrayed in Scripture. What in the world is wrong with that? If the Biblical record portrays God in ways that go against the model that modern evangelicalism has created of Him, doesn’t it make sense to re-evaluate the model? I have never understood the resistance to such efforts – especially from people who claim to put Biblical revelation ahead of all other revelation.
Well, yeah, but that does not mean that writing and reading books is somehow wrong. Honestly, the amount of time the average spends reading is minuscule compared to the amount of time they spend plopped in front of a tv or other screen.
What exactly is the right way to handle Biblical commentary and discussion? Should we just all accept some sort of canonical interpretation handed down from some leader?
Here’s where ‘risk’ comes into the picture: God could save all people, with no interaction whatsoever. Rather than that, He has given us free will, by which we are free to reject His grace. This is the risk- God risks the rejection of His great work of salvation with every individual. The great Love that He has for us can be spurned. And here’s where risk really comes into play. It’s clear that if even one person was in need of Salvation, God would’ve made the same sacrifice-and that one person would still be free to reject Him. There’s your risk.
The word “risk” is better interpreted “sacrifice”. God takes no risks.
Perhaps some read two many “books” and not THE Book. We will not give an account for the musings of others, which are often quoted in OPs, but we will be required to give an account of what we believe.
Not liking a word is not justification for rejecting the concept the word represents. Nor, for that matter, does it make the concept untrue.
The concept is untrue if the English word misrepresents what the Bible teaches.
Now, Rick, untrue is a loaded word. And I don’t think the Bible is misrepresented here when the Bible also claims there are times when God repents.
You said it yourself above, “I do not like the word ‘risk’.”
So this is more about your personal feelings of animosity towards a word than it is about whether or not the idea is true or untrue.
And I still think you are missing the point that free-will means we can reject God’s advances towards us. He risks that we might end up in eternity without him; he risks that all his sacrifices for us might be rejected; and so on.
He could have zapped us all into eternity. Instead, he chose the path of becoming flesh and opened himself up to all the frustrations that go along with the flesh–including rejection. He chose to give us choice. He chose limit himself.
So in creating people with genuine free will, the question is does God actually run the chance of some of these people rejecting Him? To me, it’s pretty obvious that the answer is yes. After all how can we actually claim we are valuable to God if He does not suffer some sort of loss without us?
I believe God knew those who would reject Him before He created them, so risk to me is inaccurate. God’s glory can never be at risk, however He is willing to offer redemption to those who reject it.
I call that perfect and sacrificial love.
I do not likie the word since I believe it is misrepresentative.
Well, that’s the conundrum then. If God knew that certain individuals would reject Him before he created them, why did He even create them in the first place? It seems to me that would be much more merciful to not even create those people.
This is basically why I’ve been leaning toward the “open” position for a while now. Honestly, I probably was even before I even knew what it was called. But, I just have seen no good explanation to convince that the open position is wrong. There’s no good way to harmonize foreknowledge without determinism. A lot of people seem to be content with the logical inconsistencies that creates, but I simply can’t pretend to be.
I agree Phil. I have never been able to figure that out as well, but we must trust in the invisible God our Savior.
Or, why did God allow my parents to create me?
Or, why did God allow any of us to be created in the first place–those who are saved or those who are lost?
And that church? Do we really bring glory to God? That’s another risk he takes.
Entrusting the mission to us? Another risk.
It goes on and on and on…
I am writing the definitive answers to all those questions in my coming book.
I like game “Risk”. Make Australia you staging point!
I always liked having Kamchatka. Just so I could say it over and over.
Kamchatka. Kamchatka. Kamchatka.