“How could we not be storytellers? We worship God the writer, God the written, and God the reader. How could we not create? We are created in God’s image, and he creates. He created us so that we would do this. He came down into our world to show us how it is done; his name is Immanuel. God loves cliffhangers. He loves nailbiters. On the mount of the Lord it will be provided. Exile and return stories are everywhere. So are death and resurrection stories. So are the elder-shall-serve-the-younger stories. And the whole thing will come together at the last day, as promised in Romans 8:28, with trillions of plot points all resolved and no remainder. And the great throng gathered before the throne will cry out, with a voice like many waters, saying, ‘That was the best story we ever heard'” (From The Romantic Rationalist, pp. 75-76).
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
So are the elder-shall-serve-the-younger stories.
Can one say then that the first Adam serves the The Last Adam? or is this taking it to far?
Mark, that’s a good connection.
Doug,
I see problems reconciling your story theme with your Calvinism. And it gives rise to other questions.
But perhaps I don’t really understand it.
“He loves nailbiters.” I’d have to agree with John on this one. It’s not even specifically Calvinist to suggest God knows the ending of this particular story. Of course, Calvinism goes further and asserts that God not only knows the ending, He wrote it. Perhaps I’d be inclined to agree on the usefulness of evil as a plot device if it weren’t for the fact that those Left Behind books and movies are just so darned awful. ;-) Truth be told, it did cross my mind as a youngster that life might be boring with a total absence of conflict.… Read more »
Somebody should send this paragraph to all the minimalist Bible academies where this kind of observation is disallowed. No wonder the Church has largely lost the plot.
This is why I firmly maintain that reality is the language of God.
Nice quote, Ben. I’ll be borrowing that one.
John and James, I read it as God loves nailbiters as the author, not as the reader. Therefore, those who would imitate the Author of the great nailbiters would also love to write that kind of story.
Such a good quote.
John,
We already know the ending-Rom. 8:28- but aren’t we all on the edge of our seats in the meantime?
Jane,
In a Calvinistic universe, there is no such thing as a nail-biter. Rather than writing nail-biters, would we not better imitate God (“the Author”) by acknowledging that God’s “story” is not a nail-biter at all, and living consistently with this knowledge?
Would you have me delude myself, pretending that life is a “nail-biter” when it isn’t?
John C.,
“We already know the ending-Rom. 8:28- but aren’t we all on the edge of our seats in the meantime?”
My election is to God’s greater glory. My damnation is to God’s greater glory. It’s all about God’s glory. I am nothing.
And besides, the “Playwright” has not scripted me to be on the edge of my seat in the meantime.
You’re defining nail biter as a story whose general outcome is uncertain, I guess. I don’t think that’s the way it’s intended here — I think it refers more to a story full of suspense as to how it will play out. The Christian life — and the story of biblical revelation — are certainly that and nothing in Calvinism militates against that.
John, you’re equating Calvinism with fatalism, which is simply incorrect. If God is an author, a storyteller, like Wilson here states, with which I agree, then the story told can absolutely be a “nail-biter” in the same way as books written by human authors. That seems to be the rather obvious conclusion given how Wilson speaks. To your credit, I think something like that comports well with how I have understood you in your comments regarding sovereignty in other Calvinism-related posts. When Tolkien wrote on Sauron, Sauron certainly had agency within that story even though Tolkien had “ordained” the type… Read more »
When we say that a person “loves nail-biters” we mean he loves reading stories that keep him guessing. With God, I venture to suggest Pastor Wilson means He loves being the author of them. God is not surprised by His own glory. But he gets kick out of feeble creatures discovering aspects of it, watching its rays reach critical mass upon reacting with the creatureliness in our sensibilities. John B. the fact that God knows everything does not mean we know everything. When doesn’t come as a surprise to God certainly can come as a surprise to us. As long… Read more »
Wesley — agreed, and it sounds kind of, I don’t know, Buddhist, maybe? Suffering isn’t real because we’re actually already experiencing glory, it’s only in our “finite minds” that we think we’re really suffering, but if we really thought like God does, we’d know that isn’t so. I, too, dislike the language of “God is outside” time for this reason. It’s absolutely true that His knowledge transcends time, and that He is not limited by time as creatures are, so bye-bye open theism. But the things He has brought to pass and will bring to pass didn’t happen before they… Read more »
Wesley, Calvinism’s (and I speak generally here) understanding of God’s sovereignty is fatalistic. Can you do anything today other than what God has exhaustively and unalterably decreed from before the foundation of the world for you to do? Feel free to show me how Calvinism in this respect is notfatalistic. The “Story” theme I find problematic. A story is “an account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious”. The Tolkien characters you refer to in your post are fictitious. Are God’s characters also fictitious, or are they real? To whom is God telling… Read more »
John Barry wrote: The “Story” theme I find problematic. John Barry probably finds the theme of God, as Author, problematic for the same reason. Barry finds a lot of things problematic, but his objections are not actually with Wilson so much as they are objections to Scripture itself. Barry apparently prefers a god that is not like the one we read about in Scripture. Barry may think he is just objecting to Wilson, but he should realize that most folks here don’t see it that way. We see a number of Scriptures that are logically excluded by Barry’s objections. John… Read more »
katecho, Thank you for your comments. “Barry finds a lot of things problematic, but his objections are not actually with Wilson so much as they are objections to Scripture itself.” I’m not sure you understood my objections to the “Story” theme. Did you take the trouble to answer satisfactorily the questions I posed? The Bible is full of stories. And all Scripture is inspired by God. Can you specify to what scriptures I am objecting?” “If God declares anything man does, before it has happened, then, according to Barry’s view, God is violating our freedom which results in fatalism.” You… Read more »
Katecho writes: “Barry supposes that if God decrees something about me that comes to pass, then it somehow negates my personal agency” What determines whether someone will perform a certain action or not? Does there not need to be a desire …. a want … to do that thing in the first place? Where does that desire come from? What aspect of your being has the capacity to change your very nature, even if you wanted to? There is none. If God decreed that desire (as well as the will to be able to act on it), how does that… Read more »
John, the Westminster Confession goes a bit further than the quote you shared when dealing with God’s providence. For example: “Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.” Westminster Confession of Faith V.2 Let’s break this down: “Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly,” Do the things that God foreknows… Read more »
Rick, “Freely: Some events occur because men freely choose certain actions. Unlike materialistic fatalists, we don’t believe that the thoughts and choices we make are governed wholly by cause and effect, just atoms and chemicals bouncing around in our brains. We have the freedom to make decisions that influence the future and change our lives.” Calvinism is not materialistic fatalism. It is theistic fatalism. (One could argue that the two boil down to the same thing). I have heard more than one Calvinist say that God has ordained the movement of every atom in the universe. So every movement of… Read more »
John Barry wrote: “I’m not sure you understood my objections to the “Story” theme.” Barry objected to the story theme because it makes us God’s characters, and it makes God an Author in a way that shapes us as His characters. It’s plain why Barry would object in this way. Unfortunately, Scripture still refers to God as Author (Psalm 139:16). This is why Barry’s objections are fundamentally against Scripture rather than Wilson. It’s unfortunate that Barry didn’t attempt to reconcile his objections with such Scripture. Barry asks: Can one who is not elect become elect? John Barry may not have… Read more »
John Barry wrote: If God decrees something about you that comes to pass, it being absolutely impossible for you to do other than the something God decrees, then that decree is your fate. Since Calvinism holds that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass in this fashion, Calvinism is fatalistic. Again, Barry is supposing, without logical argument, that the decree itself is causal. Of course God is free to intervene, causally, to bring about His decrees and knowledge. Scripture is largely a record of such interventions. God can know that something will come about because He intends to directly bring it… Read more »
John, Did Edmund influence the future (of Narnia) when he chose to eat the turkish delight? Did Frodo influence the future (of Middle Earth) when he chose to take the Ring? Did Joseph’s brothers influence the future (of our world) when they sold their brother into slavery? Absolutely. All of them chose freely in their world and context. This does not negate the author’s control. (Gen. 50:20 explicitly teaches that Joseph’s brothers were doing just what the author had planned.) The thing is, the author is outside of the story altogether. He’s not just a bigger character in the same… Read more »
So to define our freedom, I would say that we have all the freedom that Frodo, Boromir, Aragorn, et al. had in Middle Earth. We do not have the freedom that Tolkien had in Middle Earth. We have all the freedom of any well-written character, and more so because we have the writer than which no greater can be conceived.
katecho, You say, “Unfortunately, Scripture still refers to God as Author (Psalm 139:16).” You cite one reference to a poetic description of the nine month gestation period. Do you have other scriptural support for the “Story” theme? And, “Once again we see that Barry’s question puts him at odds with Scripture, which refers to a specific number ordained/designated/assigned/appointed/determined to eternal life (see Acts 13:48). How does Barry answer his own question in light of this Scripture? The Scripture nowhere asserts that the NOEL is fixed. In its context, the verse you cite contrasts the Gentiles with the Jews in v.… Read more »
Rick,
You use fictional characters in a novel as an analogy to explain our freedom. Can you spell out for me the reality underlying your analogy? Or do you believe we actually are fictional characters in God’s story?
John Barry wrote: You say, “Unfortunately, Scripture still refers to God as Author (Psalm 139:16).” You cite one reference to a poetic description of the nine month gestation period. Do you have other scriptural support for the “Story” theme? Certainly there are other passages that teach this principle, but this one does nicely enough. Barry’s dismissiveness is very telling. He tries to brush aside the passage as if it is mere poetry about gestation. Certainly there is a poetic genre used in Psalms, but this poetry still refers to something which is true and specific. It isn’t empty or throwaway… Read more »
John Barry wrote: The Scripture nowhere asserts that the NOEL is fixed. In its context, the verse you cite contrasts the Gentiles with the Jews in v. 46. The Jews judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. The Gentiles who believed, on the other hand, were all ears. They were set up (gr. tasso) for eternal life. Indeed, the Gentiles responded very differently from the Jews, but that doesn’t bring us to the topic at hand. I’m disappointed at the shallowness of Barry’s handling of this passage. Acts 13:48 says: And when the Gentiles heard this, they {began} rejoicing and glorifying… Read more »
God is a story-loving winner. Therefore postmillennialism is true.
John Barry wrote: katecho, you seem to soften your language in your last remarks. Do you not believe that God has infallibly and unalterably ordained each sin you will commit tomorrow, and the next day, and the next–and that it is impossible for you to do otherwise? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. At this point it seems that Barry has gone beyond misunderstanding, and crossed into misrepresentation. This is likely because Barry sees “no substantive difference between deterministic foreknowledge and causation”. So Barry simply imports his identification of foreknowledge with causation, and repeatedly ascribes it to us. What Barry needs… Read more »
Earlier in the thread, John Barry wrote: And: “Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.” So God has unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass. His decree is not based on foreknowledge. And it is unconditional. On this topic, Barry will need to make his authoritative case using Scripture, not Westminster. It may surprise Barry to learn that I find Westminster to overstate things in certain areas, particularly with its tendency… Read more »
When I said, “within the boundaries of God’s restraining decrees”, I didn’t mean to imply that God’s decrees and oversight aren’t exhaustive. God ordains whatever comes to pass. I meant that one aspect of what God decrees is that we exercise a considerable range of freedom in acting or not acting. We possess genuine freedoms, but not unbounded or autonomous freedom.
katecho, I believe my rendering of Acts 13:48, in its context is plausible. I suggest you look at the tenses of the verbs in the Greek. Here is an excerpt from Jesse Morel’s Greek exposition of Acts 13:48: “Notice the third person plural imperfect form of “εἰμί” in this passage – “ἦσαν,” translated as “were” in this passage. The tense for this verb is “imperfect” and the mood is “indicative.” The imperfect, as students of the Greek know, refers to a continual or repeated action. In other words, they were not pre-ordained by one eternal decree, but they were continually… Read more »
John, (I feel like I’m participating in a very small conversation in the midst of a much bigger one going on here.) You asked what underlying reality I see behind the analogy of author and characters. The reality I see is that of Creator and creation. God is a potter and we are his pots. That’s the image used in the Bible. The Creator is fundamentally different from His creation. We do not have existence in and of ourselves. We have our existence only in God (for in Him we live and move and have our being); He exists through… Read more »
John Barry, what does it mean that people “[allow] themselves to be properly influenced by the word…” What does this concept look like, practically? Is “they were continually being disposed to eternal life through the preparatory work of the word” meant to be taken as equivalent to “allowing themselves to be properly influenced by the word”? This would seem to result in something like, “And as many as were warming up to eternal life, finally believed.” It’s certainly acceptable to the calvinist that a person appears as though he’s saved gradually. If this is an acceptable reading to you, is… Read more »
A good story is one that’s worth re-reading. It gets better once you know how it ends. You start to understand what the author is up to and how he doesn’t waste a word. How much more with God? I mean, reality is his story. Eventually we’ll see how every atom and moment fits together and contributes to the glory. It’s all meaningful, though the meaning is too big for us to see now.
Matthias,
I don’t say that this passage contradicts Calvinism. Rather, I don’t believe it supports the claim that God has fixed the number of elect from eternity.
I understand. Thank you for your answer.
John Barry, it doesn’t seem to me that any of the English translations render the passage in such an unambiguous way which favors a self-ordaining (-disposing, etc) – not even the NIV. What would you say is the reason for that?