We’re Drowning in Entertainment, and it Must Stop

We’re drowning in entertainment, and it must stop.

Entertainment is fine, good even. It can amuse, refresh and inspire us. On the other hand, entertainment in excess kills true amusement, true refreshment and true inspiration. Humor no longer packs a punch if one views life as a game or always funny. The mental vacation that entertainment provides feels exhausting or stressful if used to avoid responsibilities and the inspiration that flows from a good book or movie comes out dull.

There’s a sad disconnect if someone wants to see change but decides to binge-watch a series rather than work on making that desired change. Grand or small, change doesn’t occur without action, and action can’t occur if we are constantly connected to screens or other fountains of entertainment. It’s tragic to complain of injustice or a societal weakness only to dive straight into the lullaby of endless noise and entertainment.

Much good can happen if people would only choose to make changes in the real world. Yes, escape is good, but the ills of the world don’t disappear or improve without the will to act or be an ambassador for good. We’re drowning in entertainment, and it must stop.

We’re over-entertained and underactive. Aside from the health issues linked to inactivity, look at the external impact. What would the world look like if everyone made their own hunger for comfort and entertainment their primary goal?

It’s not hard to imagine that. One could argue the world isn’t far from that. Still, in a self-focused world, positive change stands as the desire of many people.

Elevate Branson is a nonprofit in Branson, Mo. Elevate Branson focuses on serving the community in various ways.

Elevate Branson Founder and CEO Bryan Stallings made a statement for this article regarding leaving a positive impact. “Get out and serve,” Stallings said. It’s that easy.

That’s not to say service isn’t sacrificial. The truth is, it’s not service without sacrifice.

Whether it’s time, money or other resources, service always comes with sacrifice. At the same time, one doesn’t need to do something dramatic to serve.

So, what is the point?

We are drowning in entertainment. Entertainment isn’t all bad, but it’s poisonous if it blocks or hinders good change or the service of others.

None of what I’ve said means that one can’t enjoy entertainment. We can and should enjoy it, especially if it’s refreshing, amusing or inspiring. On the other hand, there’s one thing that we should avoid as best as we can.

We must avoid serving or entertaining ourselves only to later complain about or feel broken about a problem we have no intention or will to try to remedy. With that said, there’s something to remember.

What Does Ridding Ourselves of Excess Entertainment for the Sake of Helping Look Like Realistically?

Ridding ourselves of excess entertainment to focus more on helping better the lives of others won’t solve every issue. It’s easy to feel overwhelmed by great needs and thus feel helpless and remain inactive.

We can’t save the world, but that isn’t the goal. The goal is to help in the ways we can; the goal is to glow with hope and compassion in a hopeless and selfish world. We can’t help everyone or address every problem.

However, everyone can help someone somehow. We can all address an issue, whether it feels big or small. We don’t have to give up entertainment all of the time, but we should give up entertainment some of the time to help someone with our time.

It’s about using our time and money to help those we can when we can. Buying less could mean more money used to help a cause for positive change or help someone in real need.

Less time spent on entertainment could mean more time spent engaging with problems or people in need and doing what we can, large or small to advance positive change. We’re drowning in entertainment, and it must stop for the sake of ourselves and those around us.

We can’t settle for overindulgence in entertainment, or we will not see the real problems that hurt real people. Entertainment consumed in excess isn’t entertainment. It’s selfishness. We need something better.

We don’t need to stop enjoying entertainment, but we need to consume it less.

What is Theology?

Years ago, one of my pastors said that we are all theologians and that some of us are just better theologians than others. I agree with that. I believe that in order to be a good apologist, one must first be a good theologian.

While I’m passionate about teaching believers to defend the faith, I am equally passionate about teaching theology. If Christians want to defend the faith, then Christians ought to know what the truth is.

We must know what we are defending and what we are guarding against. In order to be a good apologist one must know good theology; one must know what is true.

In addition, we must know bad theology or false theology. We must know what is not true.

There are Christians that say something like the following. “I don’t need theology. I just need the Bible.” I understand where that statement is coming from, and I think most Christians have probably said or thought that at some point in their journey with Jesus.

However, I would venture to say that the early Church would disagree with that statement or thought deeply. Why? It’s because studying theology can be a form of worship, and Christians throughout history knew it.

There a Christians who avoid theology or see it as a mostly academic pursuit. How do I know? I once was one of those believers.

I once thought that theology was for those who wanted a lot of head knowledge but possessed weak faith. I can admit to that, and that’s when I was very young. I’ve grown in my faith. Since then, I’ve grown in my knowledge and understanding of why we study theology.

The Lord has been so kind to me. The Lord has been so good to me. The Lord has allowed me to come into contact with people who are brilliant and have helped me understand why we study theology.

In my growth, even before starting seminary, I started to gain a real deep interest in philosophy, and I came to see that I was already primed and ready to go into theology. I was ready to go into that because my skills and my analytical thinking and my hobbies all lined up with this path to go into theology, philosophy and apologetics. I just didn’t know it at the time.

I was using my skills for something that was good, but it wasn’t best, it wasn’t what it needed to be. So why do we study theology?

We study theology because it’s a form of worship unto the Lord. Now in saying that, please understand this, when we study theology, we do not know everything about God that there is to know. We don’t.

God has revealed Himself to us, yes, by way of creation and His written Word. Jesus is Emmanuel, God with us. So, please understand that when I talk about studying theology, I’m not saying that we’re going to know everything about God that there is to know.

We’re not going to know everything about God that there is to know. We’re not, but we can know what God has revealed about himself, even if we don’t understand it fully. We’ll get into that in a moment, but it’s important to understand that we do need theology.

In fact, you would not look at a loved one that you have in your life, be it a spouse or otherwise, and say, “Oh, you know, I love you. I don’t need to know anything else about you.”

I would challenge you with this, if you believe that that’s the approach we need to take, that we don’t need to study God, I would challenge you with this: intimacy brings knowledge. It brings greater understanding. So, yes, I agree that we don’t simply want to know things about God, we want to know God deeply. Absolutely, I agree with that.

While I agree with that, I also would challenge us to know that a deep love of somebody, brings knowledge. If you love your spouse, you don’t stop learning about them. There’s always something new to learn about everyone. Always. There are new ideas, new experiences that come up.

I’ve heard said that you could be married to somebody for years and years and years and still learn new things about that person. How much more so with God.

I invite you to think on that. Yes, we cannot know everything about God that there is to know, but we can know what God has revealed about Himself, even if it’s not a perfect understanding of what He has revealed. We’ll get into specifics of that in just a little bit, but I want to get into some assumptions we have when discussing Christian theology.

I’m borrowing these assumptions from my Systematic Theology one course. I think these are evidently true to anyone. I don’t think you need to be in a textbook or a course to see it. I think they’re evident to Christians.

This is assumption number one. When talking about Christian theology, we are talking about the God of the Bible, the one true and living God. So when I talk about God, when I talk about who the Lord is, I’m talking about the one true and living God of the Bible.

When I refer to other theologies, it will be for the purpose of becoming familiar with what those beliefs are. It will not be for the purpose of defending those beliefs. I’m defending the one true and living God, the theology that He has revealed about Himself and the truth of the Bible.

That’s what’s being defended here, the faith that’s been handed down to us. I’m giving a reason, a defense for the hope that is within me. That’s what we’re called to do.

So for those of us out there who on the flip side, we like theology, but we don’t get into apologetics, we’re called to give a defense. We’re called to give a reason. That’s why I’m here.

I feel very deeply called to be a guardian and defender of the Christian faith. It is my personal belief that there’s no better defender of the faith than God himself. I’ve heard said that God doesn’t need anyone to defend Him.

He can take care of Himself, but God has also called us to give a reason for the hope that is within us. So yes, God can take care of Himself, but He uses people to accomplish his goals.

So, why did we study Christian theology? Again, it’s because it’s important. We need to know what we’re defending, and we need to know what we’re guarding against.

So again, I am talking about the one true and living God of the Bible. In addition to that, I am talking about the God who has revealed Himself in the fact that He is triune.

Christians believe in one God, and that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He’s three in one. God is three in one: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We also believe that God exists eternally as three distinct persons. God has existed from the beginning as three distinct persons. I want to be very, very clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. They are not three separate gods. Nor do we want to confuse the persons. We want to leave distinction because that is true doctrine.

I’ll get into the language of confusion and that kind of thing down the road when I discuss Christological heresies, and I’ll make a brief statement about that.

When it comes to Christological heresies, it’s very important that we understand the history behind them. That is another reason why we must study Christian theology. We must know what the truth is.

There were those during the early church period who were called Arians. I did a paper for my Christian apologetics course on Arianism and refuted Arianism. In short, Arianism says that Jesus, the Son of God, is a created being. This is not something Christians believe.

Christians believe that the Son is fully God. Which brings me to my final assumption that I’ll discuss. The Son is fully God, but became man, He is the only Savior.

So in order for the Son, for Jesus, to be fully God, He couldn’t have been created. An Arian would say there was a time when He was not, or there was when He was not.

That’s not true. Christians don’t believe that. John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. We know that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He is Emmanuel God with us.

So, God has revealed Himself in the flesh. Imagine being in that moment in history. We have the privilege of looking back on the other side of the cross and awaiting His second coming. Until then, I firmly believe we’re called not only to spread the Gospel, yes, but attached to evangelism is this call, this beautiful privilege, this beautiful mission, to give a reason for the hope that is within us.

There are several different types of theology. One of my favorite theology types is systematic theology. We’ll get into that deeper down the road.

I want to provide a brief overview. One of these theologies is biblical theology. Many people know biblical theology as the big picture of the Bible.

While it is the big picture of the Bible, I want to say this. It’s not limited to the big picture of the Bible. So it doesn’t have to be Genesis through Revelation. Here’s the story. It doesn’t have to be that, but it is that as well. So, we have that.

We also have historical theology. Historical theology is interesting, especially if you like history, because you’re looking back at how theology was understood in the early church.

So again, biblical theology, we’re looking at genres, we’re looking at topical themes. We’re looking at a whole biblical meta narrative. When it comes to the Bible, again, it does not have to be big picture. It could be doctrine, you name it.

Philosophical theology is another kind of theology. It comes from the perspective that theology is not without reason, the Christian faith is not unreasonable. There are many different sources for that to have those discussions about the reasons or the reasonableness of the Christian faith.

Another type of theology is applied theology or practical theology. It includes things like evangelism, preaching, and counseling.

I’ve got one more theology I want to discuss here right now. This is one of my favorites. I’m referring to systematic theology.

I cannot recommend enough to take a systematic theology course. When you take a systematic theology course, you’ll be met with a few different things that might surprise you.

I think people have in their minds this notion that, “Well, I don’t want to study theology because it gets me into Eschatology.” Eschatology is the study of the last things. It’s about the last days, and while that’s a type of theology it is not all of theology.

Theology is, simply put, the study of God. That’s what it is. That’s why I’m saying we can study God. God is not a topic to be grasped fully, like two plus two is four. That’s not who God is.

God is knowable. He is near, but He is also transcendent. I don’t want the tone of this article to convey anything different. I’m not saying that we can know everything about God that there is to know. I want to be very, very clear.

God is the Creator of all things, who has revealed Himself very clearly in the Bible, in the written word of God. He revealed Himself in creation. Really the crux of our faith, what it’s all centered around is the life, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

God revealed Himself in the flesh. Emmanuel, God with us. That should tell you something about our God.

He is powerful. He is mighty. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is the God that speaks things into existence. He’s the one true and living God. At the same time, He’s near. He loves you. He’s near to the brokenhearted. He is Emmanuel, God with us.

He is the great I AM. At the same time, He loves you.

So again, why do we study theology? We study theology because it’s a great privilege to study theology. We study theology because God has revealed Himself to us, and He wants us and invites us to know Him.

So even if at the end of this article, you still have the mindset that we don’t need theology, I invite you to consider this, and I’ll wrap up with this: Every statement that you and I make about God is a theological statement.

God is good. That’s a theological statement.

God is near to the brokenhearted. That is a theological statement, in my humble opinion.

God is powerful. That is a theological statement.

God is all-knowing. God is ever-present. Those are theological statements.

For the atheist out there who says there is no God, in my humble opinion, that is a theological statement. It is a statement about God.

For the agnostic who says, I don’t know if there’s a God, that is a theological statement. So, try as one might, you can’t get away from theology. We can’t.

In fact, in history, there was a point where theology was known as the queen of the sciences. There was a time when theology was seen as a subject of great beauty.

Theology: the study of God.

You know, the Bible is where we get our theology. I’m speaking to Christians when I say this, and specifically, Christians who don’t believe we should study theology.

Brothers and sisters, maybe you’re scared that it will kill your faith, maybe you believe it’ll kill your faith. Maybe you believe that it’ll just lead to division. Maybe that’s what you’re afraid of.

If that’s you, I want to say that I see you, and I understand where you’re coming from. I really do. At the same time, I want to invite you to broaden your understanding of theology.

God’s omnipotence (His power), God’s omniscience (His knowledge), those things should make you want to dig deeper into who the God of this great universe truly is. It’s not to say that if you study those things that it somehow unlocks a faith that you’ve never had before.

For some, it does, and for others, maybe not. I want to still offer you the opportunity to study the Lord. Be still and know that He is God,

Theology is not a dead pursuit. It is empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Yes, an atheist could look at a Christian theology book, study it, and come to know things about God. But here’s what they can’t do.

They can’t be changed by the truth apart from the power of God. It is the power of God that brings change, not doctrinal statements.

God uses those, yes, but it is not in the arguments or statements. It is not in the theological frameworks that we develop, or any of those things that people are changed.

It’s in and through God, in and through the written and revealed word that can be read, preached, and taught. It is only by the blood of Jesus that guilty sinners are made clean.

When it comes to studying theology, the danger is to think it’s all book work. The danger is to think it’s all academic. I’m speaking specifically to Christians. When I say this, don’t make that mistake. It is easy when talking about theology and God’s foreknowledge and all the different topics we could discuss. We could talk about the communicable attributes of God. Those are the attributes that He shares with us.

God is loving, God is gracious, God is kind, God is merciful. There are many attributes that God shares with us.

There are also many attributes that God does not share with us, and those are His incommunicable attributes, the attributes that He does not share with us. God is all-powerful. He is all-knowing. We could go down a list.

I want to be very clear, theology is not a dead pursuit. It is the pursuit of the one true and living God.

God invites us to know Him. What a shame it would be to miss out on knowing God. It’s terrible to only know things about God and to not know God. I would say at the same time, it’s terrible to know God, to have a relationship with the Lord and not want to know more about Him.

It would be like having a relationship with a boyfriend or girlfriend or with your spouse and saying, “Well, you know I love you. I don’t need to know any more about you. I’m just going to stop learning about you. I’m going to stop wanting to know you, because I know enough.”

We would never do that. We would never dream of doing that. I don’t know of any human that would be okay with that.

If it’s a healthy, God-honoring relationship, there won’t be that breakdown in communication, where one only talks to people for 15 to 20 minutes a week.

Unfortunately, that’s what many of us give God every week, 15 to 20 minutes. Please understand me. I don’t say that to condemn you and I. I say it to bring change, to inspire us, to challenge us for greater things.

God deserves our all, truly. He deserves our everything.

So, what I want to invite us to do is to know God deeply. If you already know the Lord, if you’re a Christian, if you’ve been saved, and if He is the Lord and Savior of your life, if He is your King, I invite you to not stop learning.

I invite you to know the one, true and living God and to learn more about him each and every day, because he’s inviting you to it’s a journey. Walking with Jesus is a journey.

Knowledge is not evil. It’s not evil. I never believed it was evil, but here’s what I believed at one point in my life. I believed that if I studied theology, my faith would be dead, that I wouldn’t have a great faith. I thought I wouldn’t have a faith that could believe for God to change lives, because I was so stuck in a textbook.

That’s what I was afraid of. I really believe deep down, looking back on my life, I was afraid that if I studied theology maybe somehow my faith would die out.

I was afraid it would just die, and that I would talk about the Lord as if He were an old book or as if He were an old book on a shelf that needed to be dusted off. However, theology, properly understood and appreciated leads to greater love and intimacy with God himself.

Forget TikTok. Where’s the Real Talk?

Wednesday, January 29, 2025 at 4:18 PM

By JonChristopher Collins

As humanity propels forward technologically, it sinks into disconnection.

The modern world boasts of connection but fails to see the disconnection. That observation isn’t new. Many times, before this piece was written, people have noted that the very technology that claims to connect us and bring us together often times leaves us isolated and out of touch. The modern world has plummeted so deep into technological advancement that it has regressed into immature and weak communication.

Technology isn’t inherently evil. However, like any tool, it is used for both good and evil. How do some people miss the irony of going out on a date or sitting down for a family meal only to have cell phones out like some kind of lifeline?

People laugh at a funny TikTok video but can miss the funny story a loved one is sharing. They scroll Instagram and simultaneously miss out on the instance before them. A psychologytoday.com article by Gregory L. Jantz highlights the unsociability of social media.

“We’ve all seen groups of friends or whole families dining together in restaurants, forgoing in-person conversation to stare silently at their cell phones. Indeed, a growing body of research makes it clearer every year that social media use has a dark side—including the elevated risk of withdrawal, isolation, and depression,” Jantz said. Of course, social media doesn’t exist as a purely dangerous space, and Jantz acknowledged that.

The point is that reliance on social media for connection doesn’t result in connection. Facebook can serve as a good tool for updates or funny posts, but without genuine relationships in the real world, that’s all it provides. Instagram and TikTok provide a platform for a variety of content, but once again, leaning on such platforms for real relationships will prove pointless.

Sure, one can meet new friends online. On the other hand, social media will more often than not lead people into other issues. Jantz pointed to some of the problems in his earlier cited piece.

Some of those dangers include: fake intimacy with people, comparison, anxiety and weakened communication skills. It seems fair to say that most people see the irony of having a friends or followers list packed with people they aren’t friends with outside of the digital world.

The concern of content creators losing a revenue source is real. The other side of the issue is more critical to me.

It’s far more concerning that people lack communication skills. In addition, it’s more troublesome that social media can lead to anxiety. I’m not unaware of the fact that there are free speech concerns surrounding the TikTok developments.

As a member of the media, I grasp and comprehend that reality. At the same time, lack of entertainment or one source of income isn’t nearly as threatening as issues of communication and mental health.

Undoubtedly, one can read the above and miss the point entirely. Again, social media isn’t entirely bad, but it exists for people rather than people existing for it.

One of my former communication professors taught a vital communication key. The talk is the relationship. In other words, no relationships exist without talking and listening.

It’s time to stop staring at screens, and instead, look at, listen to and talk with the people in front of us.

NEHEMIAH: A PASTORAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY

A Book Review

Presented to

Dr. T.J. Betts

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for 20200AWW

__________________

by

JonChristopher Alan Collins

August 15, 2024

Betts, T.J. Nehemiah: A Pastoral and Exegetical Commentary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020.

In Nehemiah: A Pastoral and Exegetical Commentary, T.J. Betts asserts the usefulness of the book of Nehemiah for the Christian. In addition, he builds the case that the book is relevant. Acknowledging that the Hebrew Bible poses difficulties not only to teaching and preaching but also for comprehension, he sets out to help all Christians, those in the classroom, pulpit, and congregation, grasp Nehemiah. The work, whether intentional or not, reads like a straightforward character analysis as much as a commentary. Ultimately, Betts takes readers on a journey that is sure to change them. It’s one that will help transform comprehension and appreciation of the ancient book, the book of Nehemiah.

Betts’ passion shines through and is present from page one to the conclusion. From a desire to share his passion for the Old Testament, the Southern Seminary professor invites believers to discover the richness of God’s revelation in the Hebrew Bible. Christian readers will find that Nehemiah is profitable for their lives.

Summary

The book kicks off with a preface. In it, Betts wastes no time getting to the thesis; the book of Nehemiah is not useless, and the contents of it are valuable and timely for present day Christians (1). Though the book is penned by a scholar, it is not just for his fellow scholars. Instead, it is for a wider audience. “Landing somewhere in the middle, this work is intended to help those who preach and teach the Bible along with laypeople who wish to better understand the message of Nehemiah and who would benefit from a work that bridges the gap between the two” (2).

The purpose is tied to the quote above. Betts wrote the book to help all Christians better understand and appreciate the role Nehemiah plays in their lives and walk with Christ. Betts argues his thesis by focusing on practical points in the Old Testament book.

He brings out relatable dimensions of the text. Readers are taken through attributes of Nehemiah that are within reach. Additionally, readers are shown how God’s people should behave. Attention now turns to analyzing Betts’ book.

Critical Evaluation

As someone who admittedly did not give much study time to Nehemiah before reading the commentary, Betts provides an accessible and inviting look into the book. One of the strengths of his work is how practical it is. While history is brought into it, the teacher does not offer endless history lectures but something more captivating. First, readers are directed to consider a Christlike quality Nehemiah exhibits.

 Service is exemplified perfectly in Christ. It is also seen, albeit in not close to the same way, in Nehemiah. Betts brilliantly unpacks this point. First, he spends some time diving into the historical context as he does at different points throughout the book. He does not get stuck in the history though. Betts paints a relatable picture that all believers should aspire to in life. Nehemiah is a man of prayer.

Nehemiah has a strong prayer life. Betts states that, “in dire situations people will say, “I guess all we can do is pray.” It is as if prayer were a last resort, but it is no last resort for Nehemiah.” The professor argues that this characteristic reveals how humble and dependent one is on God (14). While the historical context of the Bible is critical to understand, Betts does not use that truth as an excuse to weave a lifeless documentary but a gripping tale about a relatable person.

Betts blends the scholarly with the popular. He seems to understand that many people think in terms of stories with interesting plots and characters. This comes out in other points in his book. Nehemiah’s service-oriented heart is also evident in how he prays, and how he prays is something that ought to draw believers to study.

Betts rightly notes that Nehemiah’s prayers are God-centered. “All prayer must begin with being God-centered and not self-centered. Only when we have a proper perspective of God can we begin to gain a proper perspective of ourselves and the world around us. For some of us, it may be that a lack of prayer and a lack of answered prayers occurs because we fail in truly knowing the One to whom we pray” (17).

Servant-hearted prayer is God-centered. Self-serving prayer is self-centered. More explanation of how Betts highlights Nehemiah as a character is deserved, but focus must shift now. An issue many Christians grapple with is the thought that the Old Testament is boring and useless at times.

Another strength is that Betts appears to anticipate that. It is easy to look at passages like those of Leviticus and question their usefulness for Christians. Such passages can feel pointless to Christian living. For example, what are Jesus followers to do with texts like those laying out the instruction for building the Tabernacle?

He takes on a similar challenge found in work on the gates in Nehemiah 3:1–32. In the art of persuasion, it is helpful to concede points or admit to seeing that another’s perspective has at least a degree of validity. Betts does just that. “Given that the passage appears to be a mundane listing of the groups of workers and their locations, it can pose a problem for expositors to know how to approach the text or even to decide whether it is really meaningful to do so in the context of preaching. Some commentators give little to no ink toward this passage” (51).

Even with that admission, Betts stays on task to prove his point. In a nutshell, all of the Bible, even Nehemiah, came from God; it’s God’s revelation. It has a point or purpose. Pulling the purpose out of Nehemiah 3:1-32 is not a small accomplishment. Betts accomplishes that.

The chapter is about work near nine gates. That does not sound thrilling or spiritual. It does not elicit thoughts of spiritual growth or anything life altering or world changing. However, it is precisely in the boring, tedious, and routine that God does some of the most impactful work believers have seen.

Masterfully, Betts underlines ways in which God’s people respond to the work waiting completion. There are over ten points, too many to detail here. However, mentioning one will suffice. Betts shows how the people act quickly to do the work on the gates. This is instructive because, he admits, people procrastinate. Even God’s people procrastinate at times, but this example can encourage action (60). The Southern Seminary professor has a pastoral heart that oozes out onto the pages, and the chapter of the section on the gates is no exception.

Clearly, the book of Nehemiah does not come to modern readers without power and benefit. Betts’ chapter on Nehemiah 3 takes a seemingly drab read and helps readers see it for the power punch that it is; he does not give it meaning that it was void of before but helps readers see what is already there. Truly, God’s Word is powerful.

Nehemiah 3 is God’s Word as much as words detailing mighty displays of God’s power are. With Betts’ help, readers come to see Nehemiah as an account of Spirit-empowered teamwork to carry a task to completion (64). This is a solid example of what makes the author’s work so impactful.

Though Betts is an Old Testament scholar, his approach is winsome and does not walk away in frustration from those who find the text challenging or time-consuming at times. Rather, he acknowledges from the start that some portions of Scripture certainly feel that way. From there, he lovingly and optimistically proceeds to call readers to see the riches in the mundane, in the instructions and lists of names.

An additional strength of the commentary is how Betts’ crafted it to spark contemplation and discussion after reading. Each chapter ends with questions for consideration. That is yet another way Betts includes popular audiences. His work on Nehemiah is not overly technical and beyond the realm of comprehension for general readers.

The scholar’s work is strong and effective. Like any human work, it is not free from weakness. The weakness does not detract from the thesis. Nonetheless, it is present. At the same time, the weakness is likely a product of preference instead of a real weakness. The next section will render brief attention to the weak point.

Unless it was overlooked in my reading, Betts does not note that God and Nehemiah are not recorded to have had direct communication of any kind. Humbly, that is a weakness. Yes, it can be seen. However, it appears worth it and even of exceptional importance to state it, no matter how obvious. It is a point from which believers can draw even more comfort and relate to what could be a distant reality.

A fast, surface level reading of the Bible may leave a reader feeling a level of inadequacy. One may read of Moses or others talking with God or hearing God’s voice and feel like that is the normal method by which God and humans communicate. However, further study reveals a reliance on God in the day to day, closer to what is documented in the books of Ruth and Esther.

Nehemiah is in the same category, and Betts could have leveraged that. It would have been a great opportunity to connect readers to the ancient book. However, it still comes through. God always works in all circumstances, even if He seems silent.

Conclusion

Overall, Betts accomplishes his goal. He proves the usefulness of Nehemiah for all Christians. It is an accessible book with much fruit. It is ancient, but it is not irrelevant. As a scholar, Betts brings out storytelling elements in Nehemiah that make it relatable. Study is still required to pull out what he seamlessly highlights, but it is not impossible.

On a personal note, I discovered a new favorite biblical hero thanks to the work God did through the professor’s commentary. Evidently, it is a work God continues doing. The book has strengthened my already strong resolve to pray and exhorted me to trust God. Trusting God is admittedly not always easy. I am someone who enjoys character studies, and I will use Betts’ commentary in such study and teaching. I would recommend this book to any Christian who finds some portions of the Bible inaccessible or tedious to understand. Anyone with a desire to learn and willingness to take time to do so will glean much from the work that has been reviewed here.

*Honor Code: I have written this paper exclusively for 20200AWW. If I received any editing or proofreading advice, I have made all such corrections myself. I have also documented each paraphrase, direct quotation, and borrowed idea in compliance with the Turabian and SBTS style manuals.

HIS MAJESTY JESUS CHRIST: A DEFENSE AGAINST ARIANISM   

__________________

A Research Paper

Presented to

Dr. Timothy Paul Jones

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for 28700WW – CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

__________________

by

JonChristopher Alan Collins

jcollins580.students.sbts.edu

July 17, 2023

*I affirm the honor code.

INTRODUCTION     

The deity of Jesus Christ is an essential doctrine of the faith. Christ’s deity has faced attacks throughout history. While it is still opposed today, one of the earliest attacks on the divinity of Jesus rose in the form of Arianism. This paper will examine Arianism and provide a robust defense against it. Christianity stands or falls on the deity of Jesus. Arianism is an invalid doctrine of the past and present.

This paper’s methodology consists of a look at historical Arianism, modern day Arianism, and a rebuttal of both. This will all come from scholarly books and journals as well as primary sources.

Historical Arianism

The preface to the Orations of S. Athanasius Against The Arians provides an excellent starting point for grasping Arianism. It cites words tacked onto the Nicene Council symbol. “The Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when the Son was not; and that He did not exist before He was born; and that He was made of what did not exist; or that the Son of God is of a different substance or essence from the Father, or that He was created, or is variable and changeable.”[1] Athanasius provides most of the original dialogue surrounding historical Arianism.

Athanasius cites Thalia, a work by Arius. He explains that Arius holds views which do not align with orthodoxy; basically, according to Arius, there was a time when God was not known as father. The ancient heretic asserts that Jesus, the Son of God, “had not always a being, for, as all other creatures were made out of nothing, so likewise was the Word of God; and there was a time when He was not; nor had He any being till He was created.”[2]

Historical Arianism: How Well Does the Son Know His Father?

Where Christians would understand John 1 to teach that Jesus was and is the Word and that he is God, Arius holds a far different view. Athanasius states that Arius understands God to have an additional Word. “In like manner, he makes out that there is another Word in the Godhead besides the Son, by partaking of which, the Son, through grace and favour, becomes the Word of God and the Son.”[3]

The ancient Christian apologist goes on to explain one of the clear implications Arius’ beliefs promotes is “that the Father is invisible to the Son, and that the Son is incapable of a true and perfect knowledge of the Father. When the Son is said to know and behold Him, it is only meant that He does so as far as He has the capacity to do so, just as we imperfectly apprehend Him.”[4]

This assertion appears to hold serious problems for Christians. If Jesus truly is incapable of a complete and genuine knowledge of God the Father, then it seems Jesus can not truly have even a special relationship with the Father. Even if one wanted to argue that Jesus has a special relationship with the Father that humanity does not have, this line of thinking appears to have a glaring issue.

The issue is that even if it is maintained that Jesus has such a relationship that humans do not enjoy, he is still like humans in one critical way. Even if he knows more about the creator than humans, it still would not be impressive. Arianism paints a Jesus who knows more about the creator than humans do but not everything. Focus will turn to Arius himself.

What Arius Said:

What we Know Despite a Lack of Surviving Sources

According to The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, Arius does not have many surviving works apart from a few fragments of his own writing in the form of letters, and aside from this, what’s known of the doctrine of Arius comes from Athanasius and letters penned by others who stood in support of Arius.[5] So, granted, combating Arianism might be a suspicious effort to some, but there’s plenty of material to engage with. Maurice Wiles starts his In Defence of Arius article by stating that abuse of an opponent is indicative of a weak argument.[6] While this is not the whole of Wiles’ work, refuting Arianism does not require bashing Arius.

In a letter he wrote to Eusebius, Arius complains of Arianism not receiving a warm welcome but instead falling victim to resistance. After this, he states the following:

But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning.[7]

Arius admits to having a view outside that of orthodox Christianity. Another ancient letter renders readers with a glimpse of Arian theology. It’s a letter by another Arian, Auxentius of Durostorum.

The letter is in regard to a missionary named Ulfilas, yet another adherent to Arianism. Speaking of the missionary, the letter says that he did not hide that, “according to the authority and tradition of the Holy scriptures,” Jesus existed by the Father, after the Father, for the Father, and for the glory of the Father.” The letter actual refers to Jesus as a “second God” and labels God the Father as “a greater God.”[8]

Biblically, there are serious issues with this theology. Again, John 1 is crucial here. In his commentary The Gospel according to John, D.A. Carson states that John begins his Gospel account further back than the life and ministry of Jesus, than his birth, and even creation itself. “The account must reach back to the eternal, divine Word, God’s agent in creation and the fount of life and light.”[9] To anyone who would argue that this does not denote the very beginning, Carson has a different view.

“Both in Genesis and here, the context shows that the beginning is absolute: the beginning of all things, the beginning of the universe.” He goes on to dive into the Greek. According to D.A. Carson, beginning has a meaning of origin. Since, the maker of all things must exist before creation, he concludes “that the Word enjoyed this role, it was inevitable that at the origin of everything he already was.” He refers to Arius directly, stating, “Stretch our imagination backward as we will, we can find no point in time where we may agree with Arius, who, speaking of the Word, said, ‘There was once when he was not.’”[10]

This is yet another strike against Arianism. The doctrine is incompatible with orthodox beliefs. It seems as though the only way to make it compatible is to play semantic games, games which have no place in this arena. If what Carson asserts is true, the word beginning is indeed absolute, not allowing for a later point in time to define it. Arianism plays with the meaning of “beginning” to allow the word to mean something it does not.

It is like saying a child is with their parents in the beginning; in this case, assume that beginning refers to the beginning of the child’s life. This is simply unbiblical. The notion that the Son of God can be created, still be called God, still be said to be in the beginning, but not truly exist from eternity into eternity appears to ignore exegetical work. Another Bible reference must come under examination.

Colossians

Colossians 1:15 states that “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (ESV). Zeroing in on the word “firstborn” may seem to reveal an endorsement of Arianism. Careful study is needed.

Douglas Moo acknowledges the issue of the word and the possibility of aligning with Arius because of the translation. However, Moo does not end there. He explains that although the word is “often used in the literal sense of the first to come from the womb,” the word can, in fact, have “a metaphorical significance based on the ancient attribution of preeminence to the first to be born.”[11]

In this sense, it seems better to understand the text as saying that the Son is over creation, not that the Son was born or created. This reading also fits more naturally with the rest of the passage in Colossians 1:16-17. “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (ESV). From this, it should not be a stretch to see the connection between that section and verse 15. The verses proceeding verse 15 speak of Jesus Christ creating all things. He cannot truly be said to have created everything if he was created.

Furthermore, not only is Christ the creator, but Christ also truly created everything whether it is in the physical realm or the spiritual one. Again, this statement would be false if Jesus were created. Time will now be taken to interact more with Athanasius; more must be said about historical Arianism before considering the modern iteration of such theology.

More From Athanasius

Athanasius suggests that holding to false doctrine about Jesus Christ taints one’s clarity on other critical topics. The apologist said of Arius, “For how can he discourse about the Father who denies the Son, since it is from the Son we derive knowledge of the Father? How can he have right opinions about the Holy Spirit who thus impiously speaks against the Son, by whom the Holy Spirit is given to us?”[12] In other words, a false Christ is a false faith.

This is yet another reason Arianism ought to be rejected. A created Christ is no Christ at all; a created Christ cannot be an object of real faith. Thus, a Christ that is created is one that cannot save. 

Athanasius contrasts this with the Christ of true Christianity. “We assert that the Son is naturally and essentially the Son of the Father, of the same substance with Him, His Only-begotten Wisdom, the true and only Word of God; that He was not made nor created, but begotten of one substance with the Father. Therefore, we say that He is true God, being of one substance with God the Father.”[13]

This is the difference between the doctrine of Christianity and the doctrine of Arius. The Son is truly the son of the Father, but Jesus was not created. He is equal with God the Father. This is not an argument for two deities. It is an affirmation of one. Athanasius dives into just how different this is from Orthodoxy, and it demonstrates the implications this thinking has for God the Father.

More From Athanasius: The Identity of God the Father

Athanasius explains that Arianism means “God was not always a Father, but afterwards became so. The Son did not always exist, nor had He any being until He was begotten. He does not owe His being to the Father, but He was produced out of nothing.”[14] This is crucial.

It would appear that attached to Arianism is a belief in a mutable deity. This does not necessarily mean God changes in power, but God’s identity certainly seems unstable. It is unreasonable to believe that the unchanging God of the Bible changes. It is unreasonable to hold that the unchanging God that believers love changed in terms of relation because the Son came into existence at a later point. It would seem as though the Father’s identity shifts.

More From Athanasius: Appeal to Ancient Deity Worship

Athanasius proceeds to make an appeal to the worship of ancient deities. He briefly explores the question of how the ancient people would react if told that their deities were less than they believed. “For would anyone, Greek or Barbarian, who worshipped any god, venture to say He was one of His own creatures, and had no being till He was made? Would anyone who believes his own existence disbelieve God Himself when He asserts that such a one is His Beloved Son (S. Matt. 17:5), and say instead that He is not His Son, but only one of His creatures?”[15]

This is a good argument in the sense that like the apostle Paul in the book of Acts, Athanasius appeals to culture to support his point. In summary, the apologist is pointing out that even people of the faiths he is referring to would not worship a deity who claimed to be a creation and a god simultaneously. As he states in the above quote, would believers look to God who calls Jesus the Son only to claim the Son was created?

His citation of Matthew brings into focus an interesting issue. At the transfiguration in Matthew 17, God the Father proclaims that Jesus is his “beloved son” (Matt 17: 5 CSB). Only two responses to this seem possible. Hearers can either take God at his word or modify what he meant. Modifying God’s words would seem equal to rejecting his words.

Athanasius’ response to claiming Christ is a creature gives no quarter to Arian theology. “It cannot but follow that all mankind are indignant with this ridiculous nonsense, which is so extremely unintelligible. Besides, there is no foundation for such doctrines in Holy Scripture. As has been shown before, and as shall be shown again, Holy Scripture gives them no warrant at all.”[16]

Athanasius: Jesus Christ the Son of God in the Book of Revelation

The ancient apologist bolsters his argument against Arianism by gazing at the triumphant return of Christ. “And in the Book of the Revelation he says of Him, “Which is, and which was, and which is to come” (Rev 1:4). And who is there who dares to deny that these words refer to His eternity.”[17] In the mind of Athanasius, this is a clear example of the eternality of the carpenter God-man.

Taking a step further into Revelation, Jesus declares the following Revelation 22:12-13. “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (ESV).

Earlier in Revelation, Father God uses this title of himself. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev 1:8 ESV). If Jesus is not truly God, it seems suspicious that he would apply a title to himself used of God the Father. One more aspect of Jesus in Revelation must be examined.

Jesus Christ receives worship in the book of Revelation. This too would be problematic if Jesus was not God in the flesh. In Revelation 5, the Lamb, who is Jesus, takes the scroll when no one is found worthy to break the seals. In verse 6, John describes the Lamb had the appearance of one who was killed. In verses 8 and following, readers are presented with a picture of this Lamb receiving worship. Verse 8 begins by saying that once he took the sealed scroll, “the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying” (ESV).

If that was not evidence enough, the chapter moves forward with descriptions of the Lamb being worthy to do as he did with the scroll. The last two songs sang of Jesus are even more explicit; even angels sing his praise. John describes “the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands” declaring praise. He writes that they said, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing” (Rev 5:9-12 ESV).

Yet another example is further support that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, receives worship. He silences nobody and neither does God the Father. Picking up in verse 13 and following, the text states that John heard “every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them” openly worship the Lamb. He records that they said, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” Verse 14 ends by saying that “the elders fell down and worshiped” (ESV).

It cannot be overstated. The text describes the Lamb as unapologetically receiving worship. Not only that, but this is occurring in a cosmic situation. Now, attention must focus on Jesus as God in a monotheistic Jewish context.

Jesus Identifies Himself as God to a Monotheistic People

Additionally, if the Son is created, as Arianism suggests, it ought to trouble readers that a created being would align himself with the Father in this way. The Jews of Jesus’ day sought to stone him for something similar. In John 8, the Jews asked to Jesus, how he saw Abraham despite his age. Jesus said, “I say to you, before Abraham was, I am,” and the text goes on stating that they were going to stone Jesus Christ (Jn 8:57-59 ESV).

Again, if Jesus were not the true God, a statement like the above is a serious problem. The reaction the Jews had was not passive or accepting. The statement Jesus uttered was a real offense to the Jews. It does not look like there is any possible way for Arianism to address this.

The reason this seems so is simple. Deuteronomy 6:4-5 puts Arianism in a seemingly unsolvable puzzle. It states, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” (ESV). So, there is one God. Jews worship one God.

Earlier in the Bible, God himself makes it clear that there is only one God, and he is the only one to worship. It’s written in Exodus that, “(for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God) (Ex 34:14 ESV). The prophet Isaiah records an assertion of monotheism too.

Isaiah 42:8 quotes God the Father saying, “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols” (ESV). David Payne and John Goldingay comment on the significance of the verse. “People are inclined to give honour and praise to other gods and images. In combination, ‘another’ recalls the command in Exod 34:14 regarding the worship of ‘another god’, and the plural ‘images’ recalls the command in Exod 20:3 regarding ‘other gods’ (†Kim, pp. 186–89, 201–3).”[18]

At this point, the apostle Thomas has not been considered. In the Gospel of John chapter 20 and verse 28, Thomas is recorded calling Jesus his Lord and God. This verse alone raises a serious question. Knowing Thomas knows that there is only one God, one may ask why he calls Jesus his God.

J. H. Bernard states that when Thomas actually saw Jesus, he did not go through with investigating whether or not Jesus was actually there. Bernard makes note of the confession of the apostle made. The scholar notes that Thomas went above calling Jesus his Lord because he understood Jesus Christ was “his Lord in a deeper sense than he had understood before; he may henceforth be called ὁ θεός μου. This, indeed (as the Jewish ecclesiastics had vaguely suspected, 5:18), was involved in the claims that Jesus had made for Himself, but He had not expressed them so explicitly.”[19]

The above examples present a conundrum for Arianism because, as shown earlier, it supposes Jesus to be a second deity. Logically, affirming the existence of and worshipping another God would be an inconsistency for Christians and Jews.

The Trinity as an Apologetic Against Arianism

The solution, it would appear, is the doctrine of the Trinity whereby Christians hold to one God who exists in three persons. Keeping in mind the commitment to the Trinity, historical quotations support the Trinity and thus refute Arianism eloquently. Writing about heresies, Gregory of Nazianzus said, “We would keep equally far from the confusion of Sabellius and from the division of Arius, which are evils diametrically opposed, yet equal in their wickedness.”[20] Gregory also maintained the Trinity.

He declares that “For to us there is but One God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and One Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things; and One Holy Ghost” and continues by saying that these different names are not indicative of different or separate natures but that “they characterize the personalities of a nature which is one and unconfused.”[21]

Gregory later asserts that Father God is “Unoriginate” in that there’s no source that brought him into being. While he says the same of the Son, he adds that “He is of the Father.” The apologist clarifies his position by saying that “if you take the word Origin in a temporal sense, He too is Unoriginate, for He is the Maker of Time, and is not subject to Time.”[22] Gregory affirms that the Son is outside of time by nature of being the maker. It is reasonable to assert that if Jesus made all things, then time has no hold on the Son. If God the Son made all that’s seen and unseen, time must fall under the created category. Therefore, Jesus Christ cannot correctly be viewed as a creation because creations exist in time. As Gregory argues, the Son exists outside of the constraints of time.

Cyril of Jerusalem also provides words by which Arianism is exposed. Cyril confronted the same false teachings that Gregory did. Writing of Cyril, Edwin Hamilton Gifford said, the loudest heresies of Cyril’s day were that of “Sabellianism and Arianism,” and that one of them tried muddling the persons of the Triune God while the other heresy was aimed at “dividing the substance” of the divine Trinity.[23]

Cyril argues that the Christian faith “is indivisible; the worship inseparable. We neither separate the Holy Trinity, like some (that is the Arians); nor do we, as Sabellius, work confusion.” Referring to the words of Jesus, he tethers his argument to the Son of God’s words. ““He says not, I am the Father, but the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father. And again He said not, I and the Father am one, but, I and the Father are One, that we should neither separate them, nor make a confusion of Son-Father.”[24] The message is clear. Arianism is heresy.

The Bible and early Christianity stands in solid disagreement with the claims of Arianism. Prior to moving on to address modern Arianism, one more point ought to be considered in contending against the heresy.

God’s Sovereignty as an Apologetic Against Arianism

It seems well within reason to view God’s sovereignty as a built-in apologetic defense against Arianism. The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of God’s eternal decree by asserting that “GOD from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”[25]

The confession, and the above portion especially, backs up a strong understanding of the God’s sovereignty. Proverbs 16:9 speaks to God’s sovereignty. “The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps” (ESV).

Proverbs 19:21 also proclaims God’s sovereign will. “Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand” (ESV). Crawford H. Toy comments on this.

Toy states that there’s a contrast at work. “The absolutely wise and sure divine purpose in the government of the affairs of men is contrasted with the diversity and uncertainty of human plans; cf. 16:1, 9, 33; 20:24; 3:6.”[26] Psalm 115:3 illustrates just how much control God has.

It says that “Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases” (ESV). This is a powerful acknowledgement of where God is and who God is. He does all that pleases him and does not ask for permission because he is the one true and living God. Charles A. Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs observe God’s sovereignty as depicted in this verse.

Writing about Psalm 115:3 they said, “His divine sovereign will knows no restrictions or restraints.”[27]Granted, these verses are not discussing Arianism or any heresy, but that is not the point. In the context of this research, the Westminster Confession and these verses could be a lens through which disciples of Jesus Christ, Christians all over the planet, view history. If God truly is more sovereign than humans can totally comprehend, it is not outside the realm of possibility and reason to suggest that part of God’s sovereign will was and is that Arianism and other heresies are exposed and rejected. Presumably, if Arianism were true, God’s decree would have it remain. Arianism was rejected and has remained heretical. Therefore, it was God’s will that it was revealed and rejected as such.

Excursus: On Modern Day Arianism

While Arianism has and continues to be recognized as heresy, it persists among cults. Cults seem to still draw people in, so it is necessary to address the heretical sources of today. For the purpose of this paper, the Jehovah’s Witness belief about Jesus is contemplated.

Bruce Metzger does not attack any heresy first; instead, he recognizes some of the good in the Jehovah’s Witness organization while pointing out what seems like the central problem in their hermeneutics. He points out that “their diligence in searching the Scriptures (albeit to seek support for a prearranged system) puts to shame the indifferent ignorance of the Bible which characterizes a large number of professed Christians.”[28]

This diligent effort is honorable, but this does not validate their theological conclusion. “According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Metzger explains, “Christ before his earthly life was a spirit-creature named Michael, the first of God’s creation, through whom God made the other created things.”[29] So, it is Arian theology with a twist, a new flavor.

Metzger tells readers that this modern version of an old heresy imagines a Jesus born on Earth minus the belief that he is God incarnate. Jehovah’s Witness doctrine promotes a Jesus who, Metzger writes, “became a perfect human being, the equal of Adam prior to the Fall. In his death Jesus’ human nature, being sacrificed, was annihilated. As a reward for his sacrificial obedience God gave him a divine, spirit nature.”[30]

So, in this theology, Jesus has been demoted from the true God to a perfected creature. He simply became perfect. In a sense, this does not sound different from the perfection believers will enjoy after death. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation gives readers an account of John 1 that makes Jesus sound less than what he is as the Word of God. This translation renders John 1:1 to say, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”[31]

Of course, this does not match historical Christianity, but it does echo Arianism. Rather than correctly recognize Jesus as God, the New World Translation labels Jesus as just another God; in reality the theology of Jehovah’s Witnesses makes Jesus a creature. One implication from this that is obvious is that if Jesus is a creature, his sacrifice seems void of power.

Metzger sees this issue and writes of Jesus from this theological perspective. “While he was on earth he was nothing more than a man, and therefore the atoning effect of his death can have no more significance than that of a perfect human being.”[32] Put another way, the sacrifice on the cross is ineffective and powerless if Jesus is who Jehovah’s Witnesses say he is.

Of interest is how Metzger also cites the confession of Thomas. He states that, “If Jesus were not truly divine as God is divine, Thomas erred seriously in thus adoring him as God. Furthermore, if his Apostle had been in error, it is passing strange that Jesus made no effort to correct him.”[33] Metzger agrees that if Jesus is not divine, the statement from the apostle is a massive error. It cannot be emphasized enough that Jesus did not correct his disciple.

Finally, reference will be made to another point Metzger makes. He points to a passage that Arians of old and Jehovah’s Witnesses use. They often translate Proverbs 8:22 to say, “Jehovah made me [that is, Wisdom, interpreted as the Son] in the beginning of his way, before his works of old,” but Metzger said that according to another scholar, it needs to be translated “The LORD begat me as the beginning of his way.”[34]

Ultimately, the choice that arises as a result of investigating this matter is whether or not readers will take Jesus at his word. Metzger sums it up poignantly by asserting that the claims of being one with God the Father is but “the epitome of the constant claim of Jesus,” and that if this claim from Jesus is true, he is indeed the true God. If it is a false claim, the scholar states that it leaves only the options of Jesus being a deceiver or delusional.[35]

Conclusion

The research shows that Arianism, in its historical and modern iterations, is inconsistent and incompatible with Christianity. The divinity of Jesus Christ is essential and necessary. It must be a true divinity, not a lesser version bestowed upon Jesus. For historical Christianity to be true, Jesus must be true God. For Christianity to be true and acceptable to the ancient Jewish Christians, Christ cannot be a lesser, second God but must be the one true and living God. For the cosmic return and triumph of Jesus to make sense, he must be just as divine as the Father and the Holy Spirit. If Arianism is or ever was true, God would have sovereignly decreed it so. In actuality, it was rejected as heresy, and God has continued to direct Christians to reject heresies in favor of embracing the truth.

I have written this paper exclusively for 28700WW. If I received any editing or proofreading advice, I have made all such corrections myself. I have also documented each paraphrase, direct quotation, and borrowed idea in compliance with the Turabian and SBTS style manuals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abogado, Jannel N. “The Anti-Arian Theology of the Council of Nicea of 325.” Angelicum 94, no. 2 (2017): 255–86. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26506514.      

Athanasius. The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians. The Ancient and Modern Library of Theological Literature. London: G. Farran 1893.

Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and its Legacy: An approach to fourth-century trinitarian theology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, ed. Alan Hugh McNeile. International Critical Commentary. New York: C. Scribner’ Sons, 1929.

Bird, Michael F. How God Became Jesus : The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature–A Response to Bart Ehrman. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

Brennecke, Hanns Christof, “Arianism”, in: Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, General Editor David G. Hunter, Paul J.J. van Geest, Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte. Consulted online on 19 June 2023 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000280>First published online: 2018.

Brennecke, Hanns Christof (1999). “Arianism”. In Fahlbusch, Erwin (ed.). Encyclopedia of Christianity. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans. pp. 121–122. ISBN 0-8028-2413-7.

 Briggs, Charles A. and Emilie Grace Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, International Critical Commentary. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1906–1907.

  Carson, D. A. The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.

Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press 2003.  ISBN 978-0-19-972712-4.

Ehrman, Bart D. How Jesus Became God : The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee First ed. New York, NY: HarperOne 2014.

Geffert, Bryn, and Theofanis G Stavrou. Eastern Orthodox Christianity : The Essential Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2016. https://sbts.on.worldcat.org/search?queryString=2.++3.+Geffert%2C+Bryn%2C+and+Theofanis+G+Stavrou.+2016.+Eastern+Orthodox+Christianity+%3A+The+Essential+Texts.+&scope=wz%3A430&sortKey=BEST_MATCH&clusterResults=false&stickyFacetsChecked=true.

  Gifford, Edward Hamilton. “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril: Introduction,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894.

Gilliam, Paul R. “Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae: Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language,” Volume 140. Leiden: Brill. 2017. https://sbts.on.worldcat.org/search?queryString=au%3D%22Gilliam%2C%20Paul%20R%22%20AND%20au%3D%22III%22&scope=wz%3A430&sortKey=BEST_MATCH&clusterResults=false&stickyFacetsChecked=true&subformat=Book%3A%3Abook_digital&changedFacet=format&groupVariantRecords=false.

 Goldingay, John, and David Payne. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, ed. G. I. Davies and G. N. Stanton, vol. 1. International Critical Commentary. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006.

Gruss, Edmond C., and Jay Hess. “Is It Proper to Worship Jesus? : Examining a Jehovah’s Witness Doctrine.” Christian Research Journal 23 (4): 22–25. 2001.  https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=33h&AN=413132.

 jw.org. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition). Accessed July 13, 2023. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/1/#v4300100.

Hanson, R P C (Richard Patrick Crosland) Bp. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 318-381.  https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001644761.

Haas, Christopher. “The Arians of Alexandria.” Vigiliae Christianae 47, no. 3 (1993): 234–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/1583805.

Metzger, Bruce Manning. “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal.” Theology Today 10, (1) (1953): 65–85. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000654784.

  Moo J., Douglas. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2008.

Nazianzen, Gregory. “Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894.

Pollard, T. E. “THE ORIGINS OF ARIANISM.” The Journal of Theological Studies 9, no. 1 (1958): 103–11. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23953621.

  Toy, Crawford Howell. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs. International Critical Commentary. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1899.

Westminster Assembly. The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition. Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851.

Wiles, Maurice. Archetypal Heresy : Arianism through the Centuries. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. https://sbts.on.worldcat.org/search?queryString=5.+Wiles%2C+Maurice.+1996.+Archetypal+Heresy+%3A+Arianism+through+the+Centuries.+Oxford%3A+Clarendon+Press&scope=wz%3A430&sortKey=BEST_MATCH&clusterResults=false&stickyFacetsChecked=true.

[1] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians (London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden, & Welsh, 1893), 8.

[2] Athanasius of Alexandria. The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 15.

[3] Athanasius of Alexandria. The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 15.

[4] Athanasius of Alexandria. The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 16.

[5] R P C, Hanson (Richard Patrick Crosland), The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy. (Bp. 2005), 318-381. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001644761.

[6] Maurice Wiles, “IN DEFENCE OF ARIUS.” The Journal of Theological Studies 13, no. 2 (1962): 339–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23961211.

[7] EDWARD PETERS, ed. “Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe,” University of Pennsylvania Press. 1980. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fh8qt. 41.

[8] Web server. Accessed June 27, 2023. https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html.

[9] D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 113.

[10] Carson, John, 114.

[11] Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2008), 119.

[12] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 17.

[13] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 18.

[14] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 19.

[15] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 20.

[16] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 20.

[17] Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians, 21.

[18] John Goldingay and David Payne, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, ed. G. I. Davies and G. N. Stanton, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 230–231.

[19] J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, ed. Alan Hugh McNeile, International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’ Sons, 1929), 683.

[20] Gregory Nazianzen, Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 356.

[21] Nazianzen, Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, 356.

[22] Nazianzen, Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, 356.

[23] Edward Hamilton Gifford, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril: Introduction, in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), xlviii.

[24] Gifford, The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril: Introduction, in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second, xlviii.

[25] Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith: Edinburgh Edition (Philadelphia: William S. Young, 1851), 26.

[26] Crawford Howell Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1899), 378.

[27] Charles A. Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, International Critical Commentary (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1906–1907), 394.

[28] Bruce Manning Metzger, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal.” Theology Today 10 (1): (1953): 65–85. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.sbts.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000654784.

[29] Metzger, “The Jehovah’s,” 65-85.

[30] Metzger, “The Jehovah’s,” 65-85.

[31] jw.org, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition). Accessed July 13, 2023, https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/1/#v43001001

[32] Metzger, “The Jehovah’s,” 65-85.

[33] Metzger, “The Jehovah’s,” 65-85.

[34] Metzger, “The Jehovah’s,” 65-85.

[35] Metzger, “The Jehovah’s,” 65-85.

 [KD1]Use the full name the first time you mention someone in the paper. After that, use only the last name.

GOD’S FOREKNOWLEDGE:                                                   DEFENDING THE REFORMED POSITION

__________________

A Position Paper

Presented to

Dr. Kyle Claunch

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for 27060 WW

__________________

by

JonChristopher Alan Collins

May 29, 2022

Part 1: Introduction to the Issue (1-2pp)

     This paper will be engaging the doctrine of God’s foreknowledge. The main positions within the topic of divine foreknowledge include Reformed (Calvinism), Simple Foreknowledge (Arminianism), and Open Theism. The paper will argue against Open Theism and Simple Foreknowledge in favor of the Reformed understanding.

     The methodology of my paper utilizes sources from authorities on each position. I will present each theological viewpoint pertinent to the paper. Once that is complete, I will examine the strengths of the Reformed position and why the other positions are not Biblically consistent. The Bible will be used in addition to other sources. Later, I will focus on objections to the Reformed view purported by the other positions.

Part 2: Positions on the Issue (3-4pp)

     In Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views Gregory Boyd defends Open Theism. Boyd states that Open Theism “agrees unequivocally with the classical view that God is omniscient, but it embraces a different understanding of creation.” Boyd is a prominent Open Theist; he states that the view “holds that the reality that God perfectly knows not only excludes some possibilities as what might have been, but also includes other possibilities as what might be.” Because of this, reality consists of “settled and open aspects” (14). Open of course means that something is undetermined and not fixed. Boyd does not deny God knowing all of reality but seems to redefine reality.

     He asserts that “this view holds that he knows the possible aspects as possible and knows the settled aspects as settled. In this view, the sovereign Creator settles whatever he wants to settle about the future, and hence he perfectly foreknows the future as settled to this extent” (14). From this, it appears God does not know anything as definite simply because he’s God, but because he chooses what to know as definite and otherwise.

     Hence, Boyd states that God “leaves open whatever he wants to leave open, and hence he perfectly foreknows the future as possible to this extent.”[1] In his book “What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?” Millard J. Erickson provides an assessment of Open Theism.

     Erickson states that theologians holding this position “agreed that God has complete and perfect knowledge of the past and that he also has exhaustive and accurate knowledge of all present truth.” Erickson notes that God, according to this view, also knows some of the future. However, he said that in most cases, according to Open Theism, “God does not know what a given human is going to do until that person actually decides and acts.”[2] Boyd agrees with this.

     Boyd acknowledges that the classical view argues that God knows the future entirely while also maintaining the freedom human creatures have. On the other hand, Boyd states that “Openness theists argue that God is not able to do this because it constitutes a logical contradiction.”[3]

Simple Foreknowledge (Arminianism)

     Simple Foreknowledge (Arminianism) is another view that must be discussed. David Hunt articulates the view in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. He defines Divine Foreknowledge as God having “complete and infallible knowledge of the future.”[4] Before defining his position further, Hunt discusses what he is not advocating.

     “The expression simple foreknowledge is sometimes used to designate a particular means by which God knows the future, namely, via a direct apprehension of the future itself.” Hunt makes clear that he isn’t arguing by what mechanism or means God knows the future; he simply argues that God knows it. According to Hunt, affirming Simple Foreknowledge “is by itself wholly compatible with human freedom, divine agency and enhanced providential control.”[5] In this way, Simple Foreknowledge seeks to affirm Divine Foreknowledge while at the same time allowing for robust human freedom.

Returning to Hunt’s discussion of mechanism, he states that a “useful way of thinking about such knowledge is to imagine that God is equipped with a “time telescope” that allows him to observe temporally distant events.” He admits that he finds this explanation “a very natural and attractive way of thinking” about the attribute of Divine Foreknowledge. Again though, Hunt isn’t arguing as to how God sees the future, and regarding the matter, he states his official “position on the mechanism of divine foreknowledge will be agnostic” (67).

Reformed Foreknowledge (Calvinism)

The final view to be considered in this paper and the one I will defend is the Reformed viewpoint (Calvinism). Briefly, and at its most basic level, the position I am defending is this: God knows all because God sovereignly ordains all that transpires. This position will be strongly cemented moving forward throughout the paper. Due to the fact that this view is the one I will argue for, the final portion of this part of the paper is devoted to providing clarity about what is to come. With that said, I am compelled to make one additional statement about my methodology.

                                          Part 3: Support for My Position (3-5pp)
     The Westminster Confession provides excellent articulation of the Reformed view of Divine Foreknowledge, and it deals with God’s decree. In chapter three, the confession states, “From all eternity and by the completely wise and holy purpose of his own will, God has freely and unchangeably ordained whatever happens.” It plainly states that the God of the Bible ordains whatever comes to pass; however, it does offer one clarifying point.

     The clarifier is that God’s ordination of whatever happens “does not mean, however, that God is the author of sin (he is not), that he represses the will of his created beings, or that he takes away the freedom or contingency of secondary causes.” Furthermore, it notes that the will of his created beings and “the freedom and contingency of secondary causes are established by him.”[6] It later discusses election as it pertains to Christians, but again, the focus of this paper is on the divine attribute of God’s Foreknowledge. Biblical support for this stance on the issue will be offered later.

     So, this articulation is clear that God ordains whatsoever happens; at the same time, it highlights that God is not the author of sin nor responsible for sin. Augustine of Hippo is yet another source one can find in support of the Reformed position. William Rowe interacts with Augustine on this topic in his article “Augustine on Foreknowledge and Free Will.” Rowe states that the problem Augustine is grappling with is how free creatures decide to perform “certain actions and that God foreknows that we shall will to perform these actions.”[7] In other words, how is it possible that humans are free and responsible for their sinful actions if God knows all future actions and events? Is God not the author of sin?

     Rowe argues that Augustine addresses this dilemma by denying that “if a man must necessarily sin, there is no voluntary choice in his sinning.”[8] More can be said regarding this article, but out of respect for the Bible and also the length of this paper, I will turn to Biblical support for the Reformed position of God’s Foreknowledge. First, consider Proverbs when it states that man’s heart “plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps” (Prov. 16:9).[9] It is clear here that while humans can make plans the outcome of those plans is ultimately in God’s hands, and God will have his way and accomplish his will. Perhaps another verse is clearer.

     The same Biblical book also asserts that the lot “is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Prov. 16:33).[10] Proverbs also tells readers that God has made everything, even the wicked, for its purpose (Proverbs 16:4).[11] If every decision is from the Lord, then it follows that it is so because he ordained it to be; this stands in opposition to Simple Foreknowledge’s model where God knows the future because he sees it. Additionally, if everything has been created for a certain purpose, including the wicked, then it also follows that this is so because God ordained it as such. Every action, good or evil is ordained in line with his will, but he remains just and good. The sinner alone is responsible for their sin. Aside from God’s ordaining of all happenings, the Bible affirms God’s perfect and exhaustive knowledge of the future, something Open Theism rejects.

     Bruce Ware asserts in his book “God’s Lesser Glory” that this is seen in Isaiah. Ware juxtaposes false gods with the one true and living God. Anchoring his reasoning in selected texts from Isaiah, Ware displays God asserting his supreme knowledge saying through the prophet “Tell us, you idols, what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods” (Isaiah 41:22-23).[12] Ware explains the significance of this.

      He states that it is significant given the claim of Open Theists that God has knowledge of and foresees “just selective future events.” He points out that the test God is putting forth is not about the foretelling of certain events. While God does foretell of certain events, Ware states that the real test is “whether the future can be declared and announced generally before it occurs.”[13]

     Paul Helm articulates the Reformed position in the earlier referred to work offering four views on God’s knowledge of the future. Helm states that the weakest view “is a sense of divine foreknowledge that is logically prior to God’s decree; it is in the light of what he foreknows that God decrees this or that; what he decrees is conditioned by what he foreknows.” This description fits Simple Foreknowledge.

          According to Helm, the Biblical understanding of the world is one in which God being creator of all rules over all. Importantly, Helm states that God “numbers the hairs of our head, directs the fall of a sparrow and the flight of an arrow; he turns the hearts of humans as he wishes; like a potter, he has power over human clay.” He solidifies the Reformed viewpoint further, and what he states about God’s so-called forgetting or reacting goes against Open Theism especially:

It is true that God is said to forget, to be surprised and to act and react toward his people in blessing and chastisement. These may appear to be the actions of someone with limited knowledge and power, but the scriptural language in such cases is usually recognized as metaphorical or symbolic, language “accommodated” to some human situation or need.[14]

In line with the Reformed argument, Helm underlines God’s governance over his entire creation; meanwhile, he also affirms human responsibility by stating that “although God ordains everything which comes to pass— even the evil actions and omissions of human beings— men and women are nevertheless accountable to God” for all they do and neglect to do. While bringing the truths of human responsibility and God’s sovereignty to the forefront, he stresses that they must remain in tension alongside each other.

When we are faced with problems about the consistency of these concepts, it is tempting to modify one or both of them. But we must make every effort to avoid such a course of action. Scripture holds them together, it even speaks of them in the same breath, and so must we. For if Scripture teaches them in this way, they must each be true and so together be consistent, even though it may be difficult for us to grasp this now.[15]

Returning to the Bible, Helm notes the instance in Acts in which the Apostle Peter declares to listeners that they are responsible for the death of Jesus and that it was according to God’s foreknowledge and plan. Using this example, Helm reasons that there are cases where an evil person’s actions are “the result of the set purpose and foreknowledge of God, for one such occasion was the crucifixion of Christ, the focal event of the Christian faith.”[16] The book of Revelation supports this.

Readers are told that Jesus, the Lamb, was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). During a prayer in the book of Acts, speaking of Jesus it states “to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined” to happen (Acts 4:28). Ware points out that not only does Open Theism assert that God changes his mind and reacts emotionally, but some Open Theists don’t even believe Christ’s crucifixion was a fixed reality, claiming he merely decided on the path of the cross in the garden of Gethsemane.[17] Aside from that, Ware also deals with Open Theism promoting a straightforward reading.

Open Theism asserts that readers should take a Biblical text at face value and not read another meaning into the Scriptures. For instance, in cases where God appears surprised or to change his mind, the meaning of those passages should be understood as literal. Ware points to Boyd’s comment that Open Theism is anchored in the belief that passages “constitute the motif of future openness” should be understood just like passages that speak of determinism.

While Ware states that he generally believes it’s wise to accept a “straightforward meaning of the text as the intended meaning,” he said to do so unless there are compelling reasons not to believe the straightforward reading renders the intended meaning.[18] In his response to Open Theism, Helm discusses what he states is a “profoundly different appreciation of the plight of humankind and the saving grace of God.”

Helm, speaking on differences of this grace states “it is that action of God which is causally necessary for human salvation but never causally sufficient. The human will can always frustrate the grace of God.”[19] Now, the focus of this paper must briefly turn to Simple Foreknowledge.

Helm rebuts accusations of fatalism from a Simple Foreknowledge proponent:

It is obvious that not every doctrine that denies indeterministic free will is a case of fatalism, since determinism denies it and determinism is distinct from fatalism. Fatalism is the doctrine that whatever will be will be, holding (in one prominent version) that the denial of free will follows from the laws of logic alone. It holds that some future event X will occur no matter what. But determinism denies this.[KC5] 

One final Bible passage displaying God’s sovereign power is in Genesis. Joseph tells his brothers “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20).[20] It can be said from this text that God actually meant the hardship that befell Joseph to occur for God’s own purpose and glory. Finally, I will consider two objections to the Reformed position.

Part 4: Objections to My Position (1-2pp)

Open Theism’s strongest objection sits in Boyd’s assertion that “if Helm is correct that God is the necessary and sufficient ground of salvation, then the ultimate reason why some are saved and some are not is because God himself chose to save some and not others.” Respectfully, that is precisely the point. He also rightly states that Helm’s “conclusion stands in tension” with the teaching of God’s love.[21] Again, this is the point.

First, God states in Exodus that he will show grace and mercy to whom he pleases to (Exodus 33:19).[22] From this verse it seems clear that he chooses to show grace and mercy. Also, in the book of John, Jesus himself states that no one can come to him unless God the Father draws them (John 6:44).[23] Romans is clearer when it states that those God predestined, he also called (Rom. 8:30).[24] So, yes, Boyd is correct about Helm’s assertion, but his disapproval of it does not make it untrue; I would conclude his disagreement to be a non-argument. Boyd’s comment about the tension of Helm’s conclusion is weak.

Teachings being held in tension doesn’t make them untrue. For instance, God is gracious and loving, but he is also just; his wrath is against evil. The Simple Foreknowledge objection comes from David Hunt.

Hunt argues that “if we were subject to universal causal determinism, why wouldn’t God then be the ultimate cause of all our actions (and not just of our good actions)?” Hunt reasons that God created everything and knows how creation operates. Hunt states that “he created the initial state of the universe and the causal rules by which one state is succeeded by another state, and he foreknew just what would result from his setting things up this way.” Thus, Hunt concludes that unless God “created something with the power to make an undetermined contribution to reality, God is the sufficient cause of absolutely everything— including our sins.”[25]

Again, Scripture teaches truths that can be held in tension. God can determine something without being the cause. As previously shown, the Bible does teach that God determines outcomes. Alongside that, it teaches that humans are responsible for their actions. With all due respect, Hunt’s statement that God is the sufficient cause of everything including sin unless he created something that’s able to act apart from determination comes off like an attempt at grasping that which can’t fully be grasped. Hunt’s claim that God would be responsible for sin under the stated conditions is true to Simple Foreknowledge, but it nonetheless ignores the Biblical reality of God’s act of determining; Simple Foreknowledge like Open Theism remains inconsistent with the Bible.

In conclusion, the Reformed position on God’s Divine Foreknowledge is most consistent with God’s revelation of himself. Simple Foreknowledge and Open Theism do not withstand scrutiny; the foundation on which they stand is unsteady. Thus, Simple Foreknowledge and Open Theism are unreliable explanations of God’s knowledge of the future.

*Honor Code: I have written this paper exclusively for 27060 WW. If I received any editing or proofreading advice, I have made all such corrections myself. I have also documented each paraphrase, direct quotation, and borrowed idea in compliance with the Turabian and SBTS style manuals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views. InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Robert White, Banner of Truth Trust, 2014.

Erickson, Millard J. What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge. Zondervan, 2006.

Evangelical Presbyterian Church, “The Westminster Confession of Faith” https://epc.org/wp-content/uploads/Files/1-Who-We-Are/B-About-The-EPC/WCF-ModernEnglish.pdf, 2010.

Robinson, Michael. “Why Divine Foreknowledge?” Religious Studies, vol. 36, no. 3, 2000, pp. 251–75, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20008295. Accessed 26 Apr. 2022.

Rowe, William L. “Augustine on Foreknowledge and Free Will.” The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 18, no. 2, 1964, pp. 356–63, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20124060. Accessed 26 Apr. 2022.

Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory : The Diminished God of Open Theism. Crossway Books, 2000.

[1] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 14. InterVarsity Press, 2001.

[2] Erickson, Millard J. What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge, 13. Zondervan, 2006.

[3] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 42-43. InterVarsity Press, 2001.

[4] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 65. InterVarsity Press, 2001.

[5] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 67. InterVarsity Press, 2001.

[6] Evangelical Presbyterian Church, The Westminster Confession of Faith, 8. https://epc.org/wp-content/uploads/Files/1-Who-We-Are/B-About-The-EPC/WCF-ModernEnglish.pdf, 2010.

[7] Rowe, William L. “Augustine on Foreknowledge and Free Will.” The Review of Metaphysics 18, no. 2 (1964): 356–63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20124060.

[8] Rowe, William L. “Augustine on Foreknowledge and Free Will.” The Review of Metaphysics 18, no. 2 (1964): 356–63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20124060.

[9] Proverbs 16:9 – ESV

[10] Proverbs 16:33 – ESV

[11] Proverbs 16:4 – ESV

[12] Isaiah 41:22-23 – ESV

[13] Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory : The Diminished God of Open Theism, 102-103. Crossway Books, 2000.

[14]   Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 163-164. InterVarsity Press, 2001.

[15] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 167. InterVarsity Press, 2001.

[16] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 164-167. InterVarsity Press, 2001.

[17] Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory : The Diminished God of Open Theism, 47. Crossway Books, 2000.

[18] Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory : The Diminished God of Open Theism, 65-66. Crossway Books, 2000.

[19] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 63-64. InterVarsity Press, 2001.

[20] Genesis 50:20 – ESV

[21] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 193. InterVarsity Press, 2001.

[22] Exodus 33:19 – ESV

[23] John 6:44 – ESV

[24] Romans 8:30 – ESV

[25] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 198. InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Childhood Obesity Grew in Pandemic but Can be Countered

Sunday, October 6, 2024 at 12:00 AM

By JonChristopher Collins

Childhood obesity has shot up, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, and two health professionals are taking aim at several culprits. Today both experts are also urging Missourians to take proactive steps to combat the problem and prevent future dire health consequences.

Pediatric hospitalist Jennifer Serwan worked at Mercy Hospital in Springfield, Missouri, but now she works at Oklahoma Children’s Hospital OU Health. Serwan said it is accurate that 3 in 10 children in the U.S. are obese or overweight, and she confirmed that the pandemic inflamed the challenges. She said the “Show-Me State” is not exempt from this unhealthy trend.

Missouri, according to State of Childhood Obesity, ranks 21st among the rest of the nation. Furthermore, 15.5% of Missouri’s youth from age 10 to 17 are obese, which is defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of 30.0 or higher. However, Serwan said high rates are not a new phenomenon.

“In the past several decades we’ve seen a steady rise in childhood obesity, and it can be attributed to a lot of factors,” Serwan said. She explained that food availability contributes to the situation, adding that “kids are not getting necessarily the most nutritious meals prepared for them at home” when both parents are working.

The article was originally published on and can be read in full on Ozarks DynaCom’s websites.

Arise Collective Theatre: Discipleship via the spotlight

Posted September 25, 2024
by Heidi Mosher and JonChristopher Collins

The word “discipleship” can conjure up images of accountability meetings, conversations over coffee and living life together by enjoying different activities. Perhaps one lesser-known avenue of discipleship is live theater.

Arise Collective Theatre does discipleship under the spotlight, on and offstage. Joshua Regan, an actor and staff member for Arise, has been with the company for three years and wants to share the opportunity of storytelling, something Jesus employed in His ministry, and what it presents for discipleship.

Redeeming the arts

Disenchanted, one family started the ministry and theater company. Regan, who has a people-focused heart, explained that the Garnaat family felt disenchantment with the entertainment opportunities they had–so they founded Arise.

The article was originally published and can be read in full on the KOINESÚNĒ website.

United Cerebral Palsy of Arkansas Turns Into Achieve Community Alliance

Friday, September 13, 2024 at 11:11 AM

By JonChristopher Collins

United Cerebral Palsy of Arkansas underwent a name change, and the celebration of the transformation is on Sept. 13, according to Amy Deere from the Harrison Regional Chamber of Commerce.

The chamber will celebrate the name change with a ribbon cutting. Deere appeared on KHOZ’s “Around The Table” to discuss that and more. That ceremony kicked off at 11 a.m.

Deere said the location of the newly named Achieve Community Alliance is Signature Tower’s suite 206. The organization already has a new website up.

Their mission, according to the website, “is to advance the independence, productivity, and full citizenship of people with disabilities.” They have programs that help people with cerebral palsy as well as other disabilities. Their vision champions equality and independence from limits.

The article was originally published and can be read in full on Ozarks DynaCom’s websites.

Harrison’s Hospice of the Hills Gearing up for Much Needed Fundraiser

Thursday, August 29, 2024 at 10:13 PM

By JonChristopher Collins

Twenty is Plenty is the main fundraiser for North Arkansas Regional Medical Center’s (NARMC) partner Hospice of the Hills, according to Sandra Johnson, president of the Hospice Board of Directors at NARMC.

Johnson appeared on KHOZ’s “Around The Table” on Wednesday. A drive scheduled for October will propel the fundraiser forward. The board president made clear that donations are accepted at all times.

That money is especially important this year “Our costs are going up,” she said. Of course, that means fundraising needs to increase. Johnson said a spring drive might happen.

NARMC’s Hospice of the Hills is a nonprofit. Johnson explained that it’s the only nonprofit in the county empowered to help patients via a hospice house.

The article was originally published and can be read in full on Ozarks DynaCom’s websites.