Theology course: Week 10 reflection

Following on from last week’s class about the heresies surrounding the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation of Jesus, this week’s class was about the orthodoxy of the creeds (like the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed). This one was sort of a history lesson and explained how the early church settled on the fundamental doctrines that are deemed correct, which believers all around the world agree on today.

It was interesting to me to find out that Christians only experienced sporadic persecution in the first 300 years AD. During this time, Diocletian was the emperor of Rome. He decided that Rome was too vast to be ruled by a sole ruler, and separated it into four sections, two in the east and two in the west. The east would have one emperor, and the west another. He appointed Maximian as emperor of the West with the title of “Augustus”; Constantius was appointed “Caesar” (a.k.a. deputy emperor). Maximian was to watch over Italy, Sicily, and Africa, while Constantius was to watch over Gaul, Spain, and Britain. Diocletian himself also took the title of “Augustus” as emperor of the East, aided by Constantius who was appointed “Caesar”. Diocletian watched over Thrace, Asia, and Egypt, while Constantius watched over Gaul, Spain, and Britain. (All this info from Encyclopaedia Britannica; the lecturer didn’t really explain this. I didn’t understand how the titles “Augustus” and “Caesar” were connected until I read the Britannica entry. Also, until this lesson, I never knew “Caesar” was a title and not part of Julius Caesar’s actual name ::facepalm::)

Although Diocletian ordered Christians to be persecuted in four edicts from 303-304, this was mainly carried out in the eastern parts of the empire where he was emperor. It is said that Constantius chose not to enforce Diocletian’s edicts against the Christians and “demolished some churches but did not execute believers”; and some members of Constantius’ family might even have been Christians. Constantius became Augustus of the West in 305 when Maximian abdicated.

Constantine the Great was Constantius’ son and took over from his father when his father died in battle in 306. But there was civil war as Diocletian’s successor had named someone else emperor of the West and a third person, Maxentius the son of Maximian, wanted the throne, too.

This is how Constantine purportedly became a Christian: on the eve of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge against Maxentius in 312, he reportedly saw a cross of light in the sky with the words “In this sign, conquer,” and that same night, he dreamt that Christ instructed him to mark his soldiers’ shields with a symbol representing the first two Greek letters of the word “Christos”. He did so, and won the battle decisively to become the emperor of the West.

Thereafter, he attributed his victory to the Christian God and became a convert; in 313 he drew up the Edict of Milan to legalise Christianity, thus ending the persecution of the Christians and returning any property which had been confiscated from Christians during the earlier persecutions. Eventually Constantine took over the East from the reigning emperor too and then reunited the whole empire in 324, establishing Constatinopole as its capital.

According to the lecturer, Constantine was interested in ensuring that the church was united and orderly, not divided. He felt that discord among Christians regarding doctrine and theological teachings did not just threaten the community of believers, but the peace of the kingdom. So he took action by calling bishops together to discuss the main issue of Arianism (which was one of the heresies mentioned in last week’s lesson: that the Son of God, Jesus, was the first created being, created with a semi-divinity to become the instrument through which the rest of creation was called forth).

Bishops came from Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, but also some from North Africa and even from outside the Empire. It is said there were around 200-300 bishops altogether. They were welcomed as the emperor’s guests, their travel, lodging, and other expenses covered by Constantine. This gathering of the bishops became the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicaea in 325 and it set a precedent for all the other Councils that came later. In total there were four Councils:

1. Council of Nicaea (AD 325), convoked by Emperor Constantine
2. Council of Constantinopole (AD 381), convoked by Emperor Theodosius I
3. Council of Ephesus (AD 431), convoked by Emperor Theodosius II
4. Council of Calcedon (AD 451), convoked by Emperor Marcian & Empress Pulcheria

Each of these councils discussed specific doctrinal issues and came up with authoritative decisions on what was right. This is how we got the Nicene Creed – it was formulated by the Council of Nicaea as a statement of belief to encompass all the fundamental points of doctrine. The Council of Constantinopole expanded the Nicene Creed, adding a section about the Holy Spirit, making it the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The lesson did go into each of the four councils and the heresies or controversies discussed in each one, but I don’t feel like getting into that here. I was surprised that the councils came about due to the intervention of imperial power; and once the controversies had been decided, the person who had been the main proponent of that particular heresy was often exiled. I suppose, as far as the former is concerned, there had to be someone to put things in motion and you needed someone with authority who could gather people together – I daresay not many bishops would want to say no to the emperor when invited to participate in a council like this; it was probably an honour to be invited.

I was also surprised that even though the councils were decisive, this didn’t always solve the problem. Like, after the Council of Nicaea rejected Arianism as a heresy, this teaching persisted and had to be discussed again at the Council of Constantinopole. I was also a bit shocked that the decision made at the Council of Calcedon caused a schism between the Oriental Orthodox church (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian) and the Roman Catholic church. The issue discussed at that council was of the dual nature of Jesus (fully man and fully God), and it didn’t seem to me that any proper church could dispute this.

So I looked it up. The lecturer had mentioned the split but didn’t say why it had occurred. Apparently it was because of the way the document was worded. The bishops had composed a Definition of Faith, which became known as the Definition of Chalcedon. Part of it stated that Jesus is

…to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisively, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and on Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son…

Apparently, the Oriental Orthodox bishops did not like the “in two natures” wording because they felt it was too close to the Nestorian heresy – which says that the divine Son of God lived in the man Jesus of Nazareth, inhabiting Jesus’ body like a temple (remember, I said in last week’s reflection that it sounded like demon possession lol). This heresy claimed that Jesus the man and Logos the Son of God were two separate persons joined in a union. So, as far as I can tell, the Oriental Orthodox bishops accused the Chalcedonian council of heresy themselves and the whole thing caused a huge misunderstanding and falling out. Ah, humans. When you’re actually both on the same side but cannot even see it because you’re too busy arguing over minutiae.

Theology course: Week 9 reflection

The theology course ended last week with our last class. I was buried in work (sooooooo much marking to do) so here I am catching up with my reflections. Just need to finish things up so that I have a proper record of what I learnt and process what was taught.

In week 9, the topic was “Trinity in the early church”. The main focus of this lesson seemed to be the various heresies surrounding the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. The lecturer explained that these heresies arose because the Jewish believers were trying to find ways to explain the concept of Jesus being both fully God and fully man in a way that would be acceptable to other Jews.

Why? Because the Jews believe that there is only one God: This is embodied in the ‘shema’, a prayer that practicing Jews recite twice daily. The opening of the ‘shema’ is based on Deut 6:4 – “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Therefore, the early church needed to find a way to reconcile this concept of having one God with the concept of Jesus’ divinity and the experience of the Holy Spirit.

The lecturer said that in trying to reason things out, sometimes certain aspects became oversimplified and therefore ended up overemphasizing certain concepts at the expense of others, leading to heresies (otherwise known as “ajaran sesat”). I was surprised to find that heresies would arise from people earnestly trying to make sense of the trinity – that is, people who were not intending to lead others astray. Then again, I suppose every cult founder starts their cult in earnest, believing that they are right and that their teachings are the “true truth”. But I find myself a bit uncomfortable knowing that you can be so earnestly wanting to please God and yet going in utterly the wrong direction until become heresy summore.

Obviously, in the days of the early church, there was no recognised Scripture (or uniform canon). They had the OT, of course, but the NT didn’t exist yet. Giving us some background, the lecturer said that letters were floating around from various apostles and would be copied by hand to be used in churches other than the ones they had been sent to. Different churches would refer to different letters and documents.

And since the Church was a loose network of communities with no centralised authority, there was no institution or body to refer to, no authority who could pronounce whether a particular doctrine was correct or incorrect. You could have a very charismatic teacher who was able to persuade many to believe his unique interpretation, and there would be no one to challenge him. (Actually, isn’t it the same today? e.g. with the Prosperity Gospel and the ‘Name it and claim it’ crowd? I don’t see anyone challenging them or calling them out for wrong teachings, either...)

So the various church leaders were sort of left to figure out things on their own. I guess this explains the tone of many of Paul’s letters, where he admonishes the church leaders for doing the wrong things or allowing the wrong things among their congregation, and tells them what they should be doing instead.

Since Christianity was spreading primarily in the Greco-Roman world at that time, people naturally tried to interpret Christian doctrines and concepts through the lens of the culture of the day, i.e. using Greek philosophy from the three major schools: Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno (Stoicism).

There were two main paradoxes that caused various heresies to sprout up throughout the Roman Empire:

1. The Trinity: How can God be both one and three?
2. The Incarnation: How can Jesus be both fully God and fully man?

It was interesting learning about the heresies, but I wasn’t sure why it was necessary to know. Like, one of the heresies of the Trinity was “Modalism/Sabellianism” which posited that God is not three distinct persons, but one person who reveals himself in three different modes. That is, he can “take on” and “put off” the role like an actor on a stage. Thus, in the OT, he acted/appeared as the Father, then in the Gospels, He acted/appeared as the Son, and after Pentecost, He acted/appeared as the Holy Spirit.

Although this teaching successfully avoided the concept of having three gods and was able to show that the Christians only worshipped one God, it was rejected as a heresy because it contradicted the Gospels, such as when Jesus prays to the Father – obviously they are separate beings then – and the incident where the Spirit descended upon Jesus at His baptism. Plus, if this teaching were true, that would mean the Father also suffered on the cross, since the Father and Son are the same, and then the idea of God sending His only begotten Son as a sacrifice for sin would be negated.

One very interesting thing the lecturer said was that this is similar to the ‘water’ analogy often used to explain the Trinity, and therefore that analogy is actually inaccurate. You know the one; that water has three forms, namely water vapour, ice, and liquid, so God likewise takes on three forms. But water can’t be two or three forms at the same time, which means we’re saying that God morphs or moves from role to role within the Trinity, which is… heresy. I was flabbergasted cos this is the most common analogy used for the Trinity that I know of!

Someone in my class suggested using an analogy of an egg: You need the shell, the egg white, and the egg yolk to be an egg. You can’t have an egg without having all of them together. I think that was kinda smart but I also find it funny because… well, an egg haha. Eggs get eaten lolol.

Anyway, there were other heresies involving Jesus being “an ordinary man of extraordinary virtue” who was ‘adopted’ by God into divine sonship, or Jesus being the first and greatest created being, a sort of semi-divine creature, by which the universe and other beings were created. And outlandish ones like Jesus only appeared to be human; His body was an illusion and his suffering on the cross was a “divine charade” (based on the belief that God, who is holy, could not have a human body, because the material body is corrupt and weak and could not house a divine being). These were all most obviously false, so they were not interesting to me at all.

I suppose it is good to explore the known heresies and to understand why they were rejected as heresies, so as to know what is the actual correct doctrine. Like, the heresy of Nestorianism, which says that the divine Person dwelt in the man Jesus of Nazareth, “like a temple”. (Actually, it sounds more to me like a demon possession…) The suggestion was that there were two separate persons – the Son of God and the son of Mary – joined in a union, and this is how Jesus remained fully man but at the same time fully God. But the problem with this concept was that if the human Jesus was the temple, then the human Jesus was the one who suffered and died on the cross, and the Son of God did not die, thus it negated the sacrifice of God’s only begotten Son to save the world from sin. So we can understand the complexity of trying to explain the two paradoxes mentioned earlier, and yet at the same time ensure that the foundational truth was not lost or watered down.

Christmas doodles: Gnomes

Practicing drawing some gnomes. I promised Emmy I would send her a watercolour Christmas card, so now I have to follow through 😂 

Learned how to draw them from Emma Jane Lefebvre's watercolour tutorial on Youtube, but made them fatter cos I think they're cuter when they're round 😆 I might experiment with a watercolour of a gnome with the black outline, and one without (the way Emma did hers) and see which one I prefer. Stay tuned. 

Thoughts on shopping

I was thinking about the lure of shopping and I think it is that shopping makes life exciting. Life can be very mundane, like "same shit, different day" and shopping brings something new into your life. You're excited to try out the product or go out in the new dress. For a brief moment, there's something to look forward to. It brings that little bit of excitement into a kind of boring and plodding life. I daresay most of us do have times when life feels exactly like that -- boring and plodding, and set to go on that way for eternity. I sometimes wonder if I can take 30-40 more years of the same (assuming average life expectancy). 

We always look at shopping from the perspective of "retail therapy", and having used it as a coping mechanism myself, I do agree that this is valid too -- but I think that's too much of a generalisation. There are definitely people who are spending in unhealthy ways to soothe themselves or to build a sense of security surrounded by things they possess. But if you don't have an unhealthy relationship with shopping, then maybe it isn't "retail therapy" (my definition: doing it to make you feel better) but maybe it's just... needing a small burst of excitement to remind yourself that you're alive and that there's something to look forward to. 

Theology course: Week 8 reflection

This week’s lesson was sort of a continuation of the last one. It was about “perspectives on the problem of evil”. This was just more philosophy, rooted around the age-old question of: If there is a God and He is a good God, why does He still allow evil and suffering to exist? or, If evil exists, God cannot be good, because a good God would eliminate evil and suffering.

Personally, I have never spent much time wondering about this. We know that the Fall corrupted our world and introduced sin & death to mankind. Suffering is part of that; and as to why God would allow it, I think that’s just part of free will. Adam & Eve had free will to choose in the Garden of Eden, but they made the wrong choice, and therefore the perfection of the Garden was marred and mankind was doomed to suffer in one way or another (the man having to do painful toil to get the land to yield fruit, and the woman to suffer great pains in childbearing – which apparently includes PMS, monthly period cramps, wild peri-menopausal symptoms and crazy menopausal symptoms as well. I have a bone to pick with God: He never said anything about all this other stuff! But I digress).

So it’s not that God doesn’t want to stop suffering, but it’s part of the ‘curse’ that came with the Fall, so it couldn’t be removed because once Pandora’s Box has been opened, you can’t stuff all those things back inside it once again. You can’t go back to the way things once were. That’s why we have the Redemption story and the sacrifice of Jesus.

Anyway, to get back to the lesson, apparently there are two ways of dealing with the problem of evil, one of which is ‘theodicy’ – trying to explain why an all-powerful, good God would permit evil to exist, or in other words, trying to vindicate God from accusations that He hasn’t eradicated suffering because He doesn’t care that people are suffering; the second is a ‘defense’ which argues that there’s no problem with a scenario where God and evil co-exist, that it’s logical for them to do so – therefore, the presence of evil doesn’t automatically negate the presence of a powerful and good God.

But, if we ask, How can evil exist if God is all-good and all-powerful?, first we need to know what ‘evil’ means. So then the class got a few interpretations of ‘evil’, from Augustine, Irenaeus, Reformed movement, and Heiser.

Augustine’s view is that evil is a defect or lack. Thus, everything that God creates is good (because He’s a good God) but then evil came in and caused a ‘defect’ – thus we have ‘natural evils’ where because we live in a “defective” world, there are natural disasters, diseases, and other things not directly caused by human actions; but we also have ‘moral evils’ which result from human choices and misuse of free will, such as when a person commits a crime. So the idea here is that God isn’t behind evil, it’s humans making wrong choices that lead to evil.

Irenaeus’ view is that evil and suffering are permitted because they aid in moral and spiritual development; after all, “suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope” (Rom 5:2-4). To Irenaeus, suffering contributes to sanctification.

The Reformed view comes from Calvin’s theology (::sigh::) whereby, if God is absolutely sovereign and has determined all that will happen, then evil exists within His plan and is ordained for divine purposes – but moral evil still arises from human choices and is not God’s fault. Compatibilism and all that (see week 6’s reflection).

Finally, Heiser’s view opposes Calvin’s in the sense that Heiser believed God does foreknow all things, but that doesn’t mean that those things are predestined; God can know all possible outcomes without ordaining them. The lecturer used the example of 1 Sam 23:9-13 where David asked God whether Saul would come to the city where David was, and God said yes. And then David asked whether the citizens would surrender David to Saul, and God said yes again. So David, being smart, left the city, and those incidents did not occur. The argument is that God has foreknowledge of what could occur, like, “If A happens, B will happen” but it is not predestined that either A or B will happen. Humans still have free will to decide, so one can decide not to do A after all, and then B will also not take place. In this way, free will (leading to possible evil) and divine omniscience can coexist, so God again allows humans to make the choices that may lead to evil.

I like Heiser’s explanation and Augustine’s view; I think that Irenaeus’ idea about God allowing suffering in order to help us to mature and grow spiritually was probably a ‘by the way’ thing, like in Rom 8:28-29 – in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and have been called according to His purpose, because He wants us to be conformed to the likeness of His Son. Sin and suffering have entered the world, so He had to redeem this somehow as He is the Redeemer, and I guess He therefore decided, why not make use of it? lol

After that, we got into “the logical problem of evil” based on J. L. Mackie’s philosophical thought experiment, and Plantinga’s response. I don’t want to get into this too much, because it is too convoluted. It involves propositions which are challenged and then re-formulated. Like, it takes a statement such as, “There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do” (thus God would have the power to do anything), then proceeds to challenge the statement: Can God do the logically impossible? Like create a square circle? If He can’t, is this a limitation on God’s part? Then maybe the statement should be amended with a qualification: “There are no non-logical limits to what an omnipotent being can do.”

So, like, since we say that God is good and therefore, we think that He should eliminate evil or suffering because He is good, that means we believe that a good being would always eliminate evil as far as it can. But let’s say that eliminating this evil would bring about a greater evil, or it would somehow end up eliminating a good as a side effect – a good that outweighs that evil. Then would eliminating the original evil still be the right thing for a good being to do? So maybe we shouldn’t assume that a good God ought to remove all evil for the sake of removing it. Maybe some evils can’t be removed without removing certain goods because life is rarely black and white, and people aren’t all bad either. Like a thief and swindler who is a caring father to his children.

Likewise, maybe God, being good, values free will – because He is good and therefore doesn’t want to force every being to toe His line. So in His eyes, freedom is of “greater value” than ensuring zero evil by forcing people to follow Him like robots, therefore it’s worth the risk of the possible evil that may arise if/when humans misuse this freedom. And that’s how we conclude that the existence of evil is logically compatible with a good, omnipotent God.

The thought process is really logical and relies heavily on reasoning, so it was easy to follow, and didn’t feel like one was trying to turn one’s brains into a pretzel to defend the indefensible (like Calvin’s determinisim and compatibilism). But still, it’s … so much in your head. It’s very intellectual. Like you’re living in your own head, you know?

I get that all of this is important for apologetics because the problem of evil and suffering is a big one that trips up a lot of non-Christians… but eh. I can do this kind of thinking & reasoning, but I don’t like it because I feel that it’s unhealthy to be too much in my own head. You get too removed from the real world, I think.

The average person who is upset about the problem of suffering is usually upset because either they themselves or someone they care about has experienced great suffering. These kinds of thought experiments aren’t going to help them, neither will they convince them. You cannot argue a person into the Kingdom of God. People who want to argue are people who are already entrenched and firm in their belief; their mind is made up, they are not seeking to be convinced otherwise. They just want to prove they are right.

Which means that, in the end, this kind of philosophical thinking & reasoning is mostly just for your own intellectual satisfaction. You want to understand, so you go reason it out. But in understanding, I don’t know if anything really changes. Sure, now I understand – in my head – how God and evil can co-exist and why it is perhaps not logical to expect a good God to remove all evil & suffering from the world purely due to the fact that He is good and should not be able to tolerate evil. But if I were wounded in this area (like, if I or a loved one had suffered greatly and I was upset with God as a result), I don’t think that understanding this intellectually would change how I felt. Feelings are rarely affected by logic.

So, I don’t really know what to do with this information. Yay, we reconciled the issue of trusting a good God who allows evil to be present in this world, because we now know (or think we know) that He values human freedom… even though He was aware that humans would misuse this freedom. Uh… ok, that’s great, but so what? I am reassured that I’m not a robot being manipulated like a pawn on a chessboard, but apart from that, I don’t see much practical value in this information…

Theology course: Week 7 reflection

This week’s lesson was on faith & science. I admit I rolled my eyes at the topic. Because, if God is Creator, then obviously He’s also the creator of science, right? He created the earth and everything in/on it, and science is a “careful study of the structure and behaviour of the natural world” (as per the Cambridge Dictionary) so obviously science must be compatible with Scripture. WHAT ACTUALLY IS THERE TO DEBATE?!?!?

By now you can probably tell that theological studies are not agreeing with me. I think I’m lucky I took this subject as an “experiment” instead of signing up for a Masters in Christian Studies or some other similar thing. We’re only halfway through (lesson 7 of 12) and I already want to quit. But… I also shouldn’t stick my head in the sand and maybe, just MAYBE I need to know some of this stuff – it might be good to know – so I’m gonna make myself stick it out. Urgh. Adulting does suck.

Anyway, there are apparently four models used to interpret the relationship between faith & science (or the lecturer chose to highlight four, maybe there are more – he did say that sometimes there are too many things to cover, so he has had to choose the most common or prominent theories/concepts). The four are: the conflict model, the independence model, the dialogue model, and the integration model.

The conflict model puts faith and science in conflict due to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Like, you believe that God really made the world in seven 24-hour days but it conflicts with what we know of evolution. The independence model sees faith & science as independent – separate fields of enquiry – and therefore the two don’t overlap; science focuses on the “how” of things (how things work), while theology focuses on the ”why” of things (meaning, purpose, and value). The dialogue model sees science & theology as informing each other due to shared concepts like the origin of the world and acknowledges the differences between the two. The integration model sees theology & science as integrated, i.e. “belonging to one truth” (quoting from the lecturer’s slides) – both form a single coherent picture. No prizes for guessing which model I’m in favour of.

Then we moved on to views of creation, namely how the “7 days of creation” are interpreted. ::sigh::

For me, if you start with the position that Scripture and science cannot be in conflict because God created science, then there must be a way to understand and interpret Scripture which allows us to see that it does not contradict what we know to be true. Therefore, the seven days of creation can’t be literal 24-hour days.

So, apart from the literal (or traditional) view, which I have just thrown out of the window, we have the “day-age” view, which is still somewhat literal as it takes 2 Pet 3:8 (“With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day”) and says maybe the “day” in Genesis is representative of a longer period of time; but the other two views see “day” as metaphorical – the symbolic view says maybe the “days” aren’t actual days; based on the literary structure used in Genesis, maybe the author was just using “days” to give us an idea of the various stages of creation, since we humans only understand chorological & linear time; the analogy view says the “worked for six days and rested on the seventh” thing is supposed to help us understand God’s pattern of work & rest (by using an analogy) and it isn’t even meant to really focus on creation at all. I’m really much more inclined to the symbolic view; I think it’s the most logical. I don’t think the analogy view makes sense because there is too much detail in each of the six “days”, which would be unnecessary if all the author wanted was to emphasise the need for rest after working for six “days”.

Next, the lesson went into creation vs. creationism and various views of creationism – attempts to interpret when the creation of our known universe actually occurred. This is also an attempt by theologians to reconcile the age of the universe and the earth (as have so far been proven by science) to what is written in the Bible. So, I was also meh about it because again, I’m convinced that science and Scripture cannot contradict each other. I’m quite happy to admit that I don’t understand how it all works but I do know that God’s Word is Truth, but we also know that not all of the Bible is literal (hello, Song of Solomon and Revelation) so WHY would we insist on reading the account of creation literally? Some people are just hard-headed… like the Israelites ::cough::

(I should not say that. Mana tau got plank in my own eye but pointing out the speck in others’ eyes. Aiyoyo. Repent, repent)

Anyway, I am starting to wonder if I’m deficient in some way, because CLEARLY, my classmates are extremely interested in all these theological theories and debates and have read up about the various viewpoints and had questions about them. Do I accept things too easily? Am I too credulous? Have I been sticking my head in the sand? Bleargh.

Together with views on creationism, we have views on Adam & Eve: Were they real people? Does all of humanity really only descend from a single couple? But science and genetics apparently have suggested that humanity descended from a population of several thousand, not a single pair – this I learnt from my lecturer, I didn’t know it prior. Ish, all these are pointless thought experiments to me. I understand why it is important to some people to resolve these so-called “discrepancies” or figure out how to harmonise scientific knowledge & what Scripture has written. But it just isn’t important to me.

We talked about ancient and modern cosmology – the understanding of the universe and how it works – because, the lecturer said, we need to understand the view of the time in order to read the OT in context and understand the imagery/descriptions used. He showed us this video, which was very interesting:

Then we covered biblical inerrancy: “hard inerrancy” which means that all the content of the Bible is inerrant – all historical and scientific information included in it is also considered to be inerrant; vs. “limited inerrancy” which holds that Scripture is inerrant in matters of faith and salvation, but it was not intended as a science textbook so it may not be accurate in matters of science and history.

I think the latter makes more sense. Yes, Scripture is inspired by God, but I think God’s purpose in giving us His Word would have been to help us understand how He relates to us and how He wants us to relate to Him – the story of salvation and redemption. I think He wouldn’t be that concerned with correcting the authors’ understanding about how various aspects of nature work. It doesn’t matter if they didn’t know how rain is formed and what causes heavy rains leading to flooding, as long as they knew that God has ultimate control over the elements and that He can decree rain or drought. So it makes sense that they would have wrote about these things based on their understanding at that time.

Theology course: Week 6 reflection

This week I think there was too much jargon and I was disgruntled as a result. I think I was more annoyed by the pre-class reading materials, which caused me to approach the lesson in a less conducive frame of mind. Why was I so annoyed? I complained to my brother that the chapter on “meticulous providence” by Oliver Crisp was worse than the law textbooks which I had to read for my undergraduate degree! It’s like the theologian was not writing English, even though he was!

I needed more background knowledge in order to be able to understand Crisp’s writing. He started off by mentioning the Heidelberg Catechism and its definition of ‘meticulous providence’ in the first sentence as if he already expected readers to be familiar with both the catechism and the concept of ‘meticulous providence’. I had never heard of either in my life. Obviously, I was off to a bad start.

In fact, when I attended the lecture, I realised I didn’t even understand the topic: divine providence. Because one of the first things the lecturer pointed out was that providence is different from provision… which I didn’t know (oops). And that ‘providence’ refers to “God’s foresight and governance”. So ‘meticulous providence’ is about how God’s sovereignty plays out in the way He governs the world: that nothing can happen outside of His will, therefore everything that happens must be within His specific plan or decree.

This only led to more jargon, namely ‘determinism’, which I understood to mean more or less the same thing. I think it is called “determinism” from the root word ‘determine’, as in, “Everything that happens has already been determined beforehand, as it has been decreed by God.” If God is all-powerful and sovereign, then nothing can happen outside His purview, right?

Then we go to the thorny issue of free will. Because, if everything is already decreed by God, then do we have free will? The lecturer said that there are two types of free will: a) Free from coercion, and b) Free to have options (if only option is available, then arguably you don’t get free will to choose since there is nothing to choose from).

After that we went to primary and secondary causality. I did feel like we were bouncing around a bit cos this didn’t seem connected to the issue of free will. But anyway, God is “the uncaused first cause” (i.e. the primary cause) and any other factor or agent that causes something to happen in this world would be considered a secondary cause. The power that we humans have to cause things to happen is derived from God. The lecturer gave the example of a craftsman’s tools such as a hammer, saw, or chisel, which are secondary causes that enable a chair to be built. They derive their ability to “cause” a chair to form & come together from the craftsman himself. As an arts & crafts kind of person myself, I liked that illustration.

I just have to say here that I don’t care about all the arguments about how is it that God is sovereign and in control of all things, yet humans are still able to have free will.

Calvin’s view, as presented by the lecturer, makes him (Calvin) look silly cos he wanted so much to defend God’s complete sovereignty (God ordains all events, and nothing happens outside God’s will) that he then he had to twist himself into knots trying to explain that humankind could still retain free will even if they are doing things that were ordained by God before the beginning of time.

Somehow, in Calvin’s viewpoint, we have the freedom to voluntarily decide what we want to do, and our decisions end up magically compatible with God’s sovereign will even though God did not manipulate or ‘determine’ our actions. This is the concept of ‘compatibilism’ (more jargon!). It was invented to explain that determinism does not cancel out free will. In my notes, I wrote:

Soft determinism = people can still make decisions because of compatibilism. But although they make decisions, they did not really have a possibility of making a different choice because God had decreed from the beginning of time that they would do what they did. They think they have a choice and it feels like they have a choice, but the choice they actually make always aligns with God’s decree.

If reading that gave you a headache, imagine me sitting in this lecture.

We were also presented with viewpoints from Arminius and Molina, but I don’t care enough to go into them and they didn’t take as hard a stance as Calvin.

The next part of the lesson focused on our understanding of ‘foreknowledge’. We understand time in a linear way but God isn’t bound by the boundaries of time as we know it. So, for God, omniscience means that He sees everything at once instead of seeing events sequentially: that’s how He was able to see it all and know it all even before the dawn of creation. That’s timeless knowledge.

For us humans, because we think in terms of a chronological sequence of events, the fact that God knows the future is ‘foreknowledge’; but actually to God it is just… knowledge. It’s not that He knows what is going to happen – it’s that He knows everything, all at once. Being omniscient and omnipresent, He’s outside time & space so for Him there is no yesterday, today, or tomorrow.

This was very interesting to me and a new way of thinking. It helped me to understand what we mean when we say, “God has a plan” and “God is in control”. It’s not that God is in control so things will work out in the end or God is in control so He’s capable of turning things around at any time. It’s more like He is in control because He already knows it all, therefore events and situations will unfurl as they should. I am very tired so my thoughts may not be 100% clear.

The last part of the lesson was on predestination, again from Calvin, Arminius, and Molina’s view. I don’t care about that either, and I apparently didn’t take notes on this part although it is included in the lecturer’s slides. I think I am supposed to care because, just like with determinism, if one could be predestined as stated in Rom 8:30 then it might mean that our choices aren’t real choices and don’t really matter, because (especially in Calvin’s view) it was always going to happen anyway.

Then it would mean that, perhaps, there is no need to evangelise because the people who are going to be saved will be saved anyway. But it would also mean that God decides not to select certain people, which the lecturer said is called “double predestination” because some are chosen to be sons of God, while others are chosen not to be sons of God. Which sounds rather cruel, really.

But then that also reminds me of that parable where the labourers were recruited at different times of the day but promised the same wage, so at the end of the day it seemed unfair that the labourer who had worked since the morning received the same amount as another labourer who had only worked for two hours or something. I never really understood that parable. Like, is it meant to tell us that God's concept of fair is different from our concept of fair? Or, that God is always fair because He adhered to the terms of the contract, and gave the labourers strictly what they were owed, not comparing the contributions from each of them? But if He knew He was going to offer all workers the same amount -- and He should know, since He is ominiscient -- then He would also know that some workers would be getting the same amount of money for less amount of work. To refuse to give the earlier labourers more was kinda callous and cruel, in my opinion.

Anyway, going back to the lesson: So if one can be “not chosen” and God allows that person to follow his/her own sinful inclinations and eventually become subjects of His judgement & justice, it seems unfair and cruel. Then again, in the OT, God also chose Israel and didn’t choose other nations. Hmmm.

The lecturer posited that perhaps, predestination is not to be saved but to be conformed to the image of Jesus, as stated in Rom 8:29 – sort of like to restore the natural order. We were made in God’s image but the Fall marred that image, so in the context of this Bible passage, I think predestination is about being selected to partner with God in restoring the world to what it was originally meant to be.

We were reminded in class that Israel was also chosen (as I said earlier) – but they turned to idolatry many times and eventually got exiled from the promised land. So, the theory is that being chosen or “predestined” does not mean that one is saved. If Israel had been saved, they wouldn’t have continued to worship other gods.

The suggestion was: What if to be “the elect” means you were chosen to have access to the truth, to have access to God and His teachings and warnings and exhortations? Israel was supposed to be a testament to God’s power and goodness to the nations around them – the elect is supposed to teach others about God because they know Him and love Him. But having access to the truth does not mean you will put your trust in Him and commit yourself to Him – as seen with the Israelites. They still had a choice whether to do that or not (or so it seems. Calvin would have disagreed).

I like this “being predestined doesn’t mean one will automatically be saved” interpretation of the Scripture. It seems less harsh and unyielding compared to the idea that to be predestined means you were chosen to be saved, while others were chosen to be ultimately cast into hell. But 1 Tim 2:4 says God desires all men to be saved, so that interpretation doesn’t work for me.

John Piper explains 1 Tim 2:4 by saying that what God desires, He doesn’t always do; for example, He hates murder of the innocent (Prov 6:16-19), yet He decreed Jesus’ murder at the hands of Pontius Pilate (and all those who clamoured for Jesus to be put to death), in order to put into place the means of salvation. So, Piper says that God doesn’t choose to give the gift of sovereign grace to everyone, which means they don't get His help to open their eyes to the truth which would have brought them to belief and repentance. I don’t know why sovereign grace couldn’t be given to everyone; Piper wasn’t real clear about it. He wrote, “God is more committed to glorifying His own free and sovereign grace than He is to saving all.” That statement makes zero sense to me.

Anyway, Piper is Reformed and the Reformed “comes down from Calvin”, as my lecturer said. Calvin again… forever giving people headaches.