I was unprepared for such a thought-provoking post.

I’ve been writing for quite a while… but am just getting a site up and getting my material online… otherwise I would link you to some of my (as yet unpublished) works of genius in defense of the Calvinistic way of thinking. For the meantime though, I wrote a paper on The Divine Obsession God has with His own glory that I’d like for you to check out and let me know your thoughts on.

And I’d love to engage with you more in the future. Iron sharpens iron, after all!

Christ for Life,
Michael

As for the so-called ‘emotionally charged narrative’: I was not trying to construct an emotional appeal, but rather a narrative theology. Are Jesus’ parables emotional appeals, or are they just a different way of doing theology that moves beyond the more Johanine/Pauline argumentative discourse? I think both are great ways to do theology; narrative is more difficult but also more egalitarian. Narratives tend to be more accessible than drawn out arguments (even well-constructed ones); they also tend to use less academic (and therefore exclusory) language. Anyway, this is my first attempt, so it’s pretty rough. But I would like to say that I did my best to paint the first father as nicely as possible. I didn’t want it to be polemical.

I think that this is the real weakness to theology as narrative. It runs a very high risk of coming across as polemical and an appeal to emotion. I appreciate the effort and think that more can and should be done. You should continue to develop theology as narrative.

In terms of the glory of God being an insufficient explanation for what you perceive as the shortcomings of TULIP the glory of God is the highest a Calvinist (who follows in the footsteps of one like Piper) can go. That is the highest form of argument the Calvinist will rise to: God’s honor and majesty and name. Jeremy might go somewhere else. To me, this just shows how different in thinking a Calvinist is from an Arminian/Open Theist (I thought I remember you saying you held to a lot of Open Theistic tenets).

Your final line really grabbed my attention–as you intended it to by underlining it. You said, “the God we get when we follow Calvinism to its logical ends is not a God we’d want as a dad, let alone as a God.” I would respond with, “the God we get when we follow Arminianism/Open Theism to its logical ends is not a God that can be trusted to save us because we don’t know if we have done/believed enough to get in and stay in.”

As a funny side note for Mark’s gospel, in my more recent readings of Mark one theme that has truly stood out to me is the issue of holiness. Much of Jesus miracles of healing involve people sharing in his holiness. He is acting in a loving fashion, no doubt. But the issue that is really being driven to is our lack of holiness and Christ coming to give it to us. We’ve discussed that before but I just find it funny that love and holiness can’t really be separated. Also, I don’t know who you hold to writing Revelation but if it is the same author as 1 John, Revelation has an extremely high view of God’s sovereignty (Revelation 4:8 comes to mind).

Jeremy,
I don’t know if you heard Sproul speak of Piper as this generation’s Jonathan Edwards a year or two ago. In terms of Piper’s theology and preaching, R.C. Sproul said Piper would make his “mentor” proud. As for the names you’ve listed, I’ve heard Sproul, Packer, Carson, David Wells make similar claims about the centrality of the glory of God. I’ve seen Calvin speak of the centrality of the glory of God in his exchange with Cardinal Sadolet in 1538-39. However with Calvin I wouldn’t say that it is as controlling for him as it is Edwards and Piper, sovereignty is more of Calvin’s thing.

TULIP – to reply to Jeremy – makes no sense within this system.  How can God give Godself to God’s creation when God has ordained that any of those creatures are separated from God for all eternity (despite verses that claim God does not desire this damnation/separation)?  The only way contemporary pop Calvinists (like Piper) have been able to make sense of this classic Calvinist problem is to say that God’s chief motivation is his glory, and that somehow the damnation of these humans brings greater glory to God.  I have encountered no more compelling explanation either in the Scriptures or from self-procalimed Calvinists of the failings of TULIP than this, and I have expressed above why I feel this explanation to be entirely insufficient.

As for the so-called ‘emotionally charged narrative’: I was not trying to construct an emotional appeal, but rather a narrative theology. Are Jesus’ parables emotional appeals, or are they just a different way of doing theology that moves beyond the more Johanine/Pauline argumentative discourse?  I think both are great ways to do theology; narrative is more difficult but also more egalitarian.  Narratives tend to be more accessible than drawn out arguments (even well-constructed ones); they also tend to use less academic (and therefore exclusory) language.  Anyway, this is my first attempt, so it’s pretty rough.  But I would like to say that I did my best to paint the first father as nicely as possible.  I didn’t want it to be polemical.

Finally, let me say at no point does the child compare her work to her Fathers.  Rather, she offers her imitation up to her Father and is glorified by her father because of her work.  I recognize that we have to hold this idea in tension with the fact that all of our works glorify God (Matt 5:16, but I think everyone’s positive reaction to the second father illustrates that point admirably, if I do say so myself ).  But I see this as the ultimate failing of Calvinism… the God we get when we follow Calvinism to its logical ends is not a God we’d want as a dad, let alone as a God.

“First, JR has already argued his position endlessly in other posts. This is not his first attempt.”

I happened upon this blog searching for reviews of the NRSV. For some reason one of the results took me to a post on JR’s blog and I saw on the side “Why I am not a Calvinist”. I read the post then made my reply. I’ve since found his 5 part series as well as another post. I think it would have been helpful for JR to have referred back to previous posts he had made on Calvinism. Maybe he doesn’t because it is kind of tedious, but I think it would be a good help for newcomers to his blog.

“Second, that you don’t understand what JR’s doing certainly means you should not criticize his work as a piece of “emotionally charged” writing done by one of those Arminians who don’t base their views on the Bible. “

Just because I may not fully understand the argument JR is making doesn’t mean I can’t tell that it is emotionally charged. If someone comes up to me and starts talking to me in a loud voice and with an ecstatic expression on their face, even if they are speaking Swahili, I’ll be able to tell that what they are saying is emotionally charged. It is similar with JR’s post. It is meant to evoke emotions. However, the purposes of why he wanted to evoke those emotions were not entirely clear to me. But knowing the purpose behind the emotion is not necessary to recognize that the emotion is there.

“JR’s not appealling to emotion  – though emotion is involved. All you’re doing in such a statement, then, is revealing your own bias…that, and demonstrating that you simply don’t understand what this is all about.”

He is appealing to emotion and that is the primary purpose, whether he consciously thinks so or not. If emotion wasn’t involved then the post would lose most if not all its power. What makes narratives so powerful in the first place is the emotion they create. That’s why people use (and like!) them instead of logical syllogisms. They just resonate more with our souls.

“The comparisson to Richard Dawkins is assinine. Dawkins is a complete jerk who criticizes Christianity on a 5th grade level. JR is respectful in this post, first of all. Second, his criticism come from actual knowledge of the subject matter. Though is post won’t speak to all Calvinists (as I noted earlier), it will to many.”

My comparison to Dawkins was used as an example of someone who mainly speaks to the choir. Maybe it wasn’t the best example but at the time when the only argument I had read from JR was this emotional narrative the comparison seemed fitting.

“And, again, he’s not “beginning with this.” I’d suggest you 1. understand his post a little better before you come jumping in with your accusations, and 2. Be a little more gentle, even if you did understand his argument and thought he was wrong.”

Touche.

“Maybe I’m being a little to straightfoward here, but I just think this needed to be said. You can disagree with JR’s conent, but for goodness sake, don’t be mean about it from the other side of your computer screen.”

Maybe you should take your own advice from the previous paragraph (:

Second, that you don’t understand what JR’s doing certainly means you should not criticize his work as a piece of “emotionally charged” writing done by one of those Arminians who don’t base their views on the Bible. JR’s not appealling to emotion  – though emotion is involved. All you’re doing in such a statement, then, is revealing your own bias…that, and demonstrating that you simply don’t understand what this is all about.

The comparisson to Richard Dawkins is assinine. Dawkins is a complete jerk who criticizes Christianity on a 5th grade level. JR is respectful in this post, first of all. Second, his criticism come from actual knowledge of the subject matter. Though is post won’t speak to all Calvinists (as I noted earlier), it will to many.

And, again, he’s not “beginning with this.” I’d suggest you 1. understand his post a little better before you come jumping in with your accusations, and 2. Be a little more gentle, even if you did understand his argument and thought he was wrong.

Maybe I’m being a little to straightfoward here, but I just think this needed to be said. You can disagree with JR’s conent, but for goodness sake, don’t be mean about it from the other side of your computer screen.

Also, Calvinists aren’t Calvinists because of emotionally charged narrative stories. They are Calvinists because they believe the Bible teaches that paradigm of thought (the question then is do they actually have biblically sound arguments). All your emotionally charged narrative is going to prove is that the Calvinist is right: Arminians or whatever don’t base their views on the Bible but on emotion.

So really, you’re just speaking to the choir. Reminds me of Richard Dawkins.

Now if you wanted to use this as an analogy for a previously established biblical argument, then I think using narrative theology is awesome. But beginning and ending with this? I’m not so sure.

Second, Edwards does think God created for the sake of his glory. That’s not the issue, though. Of course God’s glory is one of his motivations. I can’t figure out how to read the Bible carefully and yet deny that. The issue is whether that’s the basic motivation that explains all the others. Edwards may well think that, and as far as I know so may Lewis. I’m not going to accept it of either of them unless I see it in them the way I’ve seen it explicitly in Piper. Piper thinks he sees it in them, but he also thinks he sees it in Augustine, and I’ve read enough Augustine to think it’s definitely not true of him. So I’m withholding judgment on Edwards and Lewis until I see an explicit statement of it in their writings.

By the way, the names you named are all Baptists and all relatively recent. I don’t take that as a representative list by any means. I also wouldn’t think of any of them as among the most careful thinkers in Calvinism. I’m apparently a lot less of a fan of James White than you are. If you can see statements of this sort in John Calvin, John Knox, Robert Dabney, Charles Hodge, Louis Berkhof, John Gerstner, Meredith Kline, Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, Richard Mouw, John Frame, J.I. Packer, Ligon Duncan, Roger Nicole, Michael Horton, David Wells, Doug Moo, and others from a wider range of the Calvinist tradition, then I’d be a bit more willing to think you’d read widely in Calvinism as a basis for your claim. I’m not sure you’d even find it in Baptist Calvinist D.A. Carson.