WHO IS JOHNATHAN PRITCHETT, anyway?
OKAY...if you follow along with Johnathan's reasoning below, we come to where I am, the lowly person in the pew who does not see things in Scripture as others see things. I just take it as it comes and accept what God says as what He says. The reason I do this, is because I do not "get" all the positions from all the theological minds in the universe. To me, it is like a prism and everyone is seeing their own color play out on the billboard of life. I have tried. And I still try. But, it seems, my brain just ain't that big--it can't hold all those colors. And I am getting old, folks. What in the world am I going to do? The day of my "completion" is closing in fast. I wonder if there is any need for all of the stuff folks tell me I am in need of knowing, understanding and "embracing". I don't think so.
Therefore, if you will, I particularly like this little paragraph that Johnathan writes and I do not want it to get lost in the entirety of his exegesis (I think that is the right usage here), explanation below. So before you read what he has to say at SBC Today, about the passages that are constantly thrown out at non-Calvinists in theological debate, note what he writes here:
"One of these days, all believers on all sides of the spectrum will have to hang it up and recognize that the Bible says LESS than what people think it says. When we make it say more than it does, we add to it our conjecture." Johnathan Pritchett
Johnathan, today is "one of these days" for me. In fact, I suppose it has always been "one-of-these-days". I truly concede that I do not know all the suppositions, presuppositions, conjectures and other words that mean a word means what it says or doesn't mean what it says. I just don't know what everyone else means. I do know what I mean when I say, I believe in Jesus. And I trust in Jesus. And I am assured that if others believe in Jesus and trust in Jesus that He will save them and forgive them of their sins, because He said so. I just hope someone else out there in the world-wide-web understands that when they "encounter" Jesus, He has done what He said He will do, and He is going to do what He says He is going to do.
Now, for Johnathan Pritchett:
-
Johnathan Pritchett says:
Acts 4:27-28 “for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” ESV (used on purpose when talking to Calvinists)
Okay, so what does this verses actually say? Aside from other concerns that “predestined” is a horrible translation of ????????? (Predetermined is better, so long as one doesn’t fill it up with some idea of “philosophical determinism” foreign to the actual meaning of the word determine), this verse only lays the charge of what the people did TO THEM, and that the “do whatever” (??????? ???, lit. “to carry out as great as”) of the plan by God’s hand revolved around one thing. The anointed one: Christ. The “Your hand” and “Your plan” are references to Christ, not to puppeteer…just as in verse 4:30 “Your hand” is worked through the name of Jesus Christ, His Holy Servant. I think the other reading of this, which completely lacks exegetical support of Lukan theology, makes it LESS Christ-centered, and more “determinism” centered, and that, to me, is ERROR.
It says nothing about God “deterministically controlling” everyone, or that the “plan” required God to meticulously control them even. That is brought into the text, not gained from it.
It merely says that they were there to DO what God had predetermined to occur, which is specifically the crucifixion. This is a Christ-centered, God-centered exgesis, and the proper Biblical one.
Now, having said ALL that, even though I am not a Calvinist, and I have no problem asserting that from eternity it was God’s plan, NOT only for Christ to be crucified, but for it to occur when it did with those involved to do it, specifically.
However, this verse doesn’t demand it be read in a deterministic way. It ONLY says those people were gathered to DO what God had predetermined (the crucifixion), but God’s plan was the crucifixion, and God need not “puppeteer” (I know, I know) those people in order to carry it out. So, unlike Eric, I see no need to posit God contravened their “will”, so to speak.
God KNEW their will, from eternity, and planned accordingly.
God is not ignorant, and Calvinism is basically another form of Open Theism (in eternity) prior to the decree. The idea that God doesn’t “know” anything of the future unless He “decrees” it is pure rubbish, God knows EVERYTHING whether He ever decreed anything or not, or otherwise, God is not omniscient, and thus not God. Knowledge is an attribute, and God possesses it regardless of taking any action in eternity (to decree is an action).
The question before us on this passage is NOT an exegetical one (Calvinists lose that fight), but rather a philosophical one. The question is, how much ignorance or knowledge was involved in God’s predetermined plan.
The Calvinist position maintains it was all of God’s initial ignorance, hence, until the decree (from a “blank sheet of paper”, so to speak), it is all without deference (or even knowledge of characteristics and actions) to those named in the passage…Herod, Pilate, Jews and Gentiles… and what they would do in that situation.
According to the Calvinist, God can’t know unless he decrees they do all that they do. I.e. Calvinism’s eternity paradigm: Natural knowledge –> decree —> free knowledge. That construct is both un-Biblical and philosophically bankrupt.
The Biblical understanding is one of knowledge (Acts 2:23, and NOTE that Acts 2:23 is a reference to the plan and knowledge specifically…and that foreknowledge is a NOUN in 2:23, and not a verb like foreknew in the “intimate knowing” sense…which I agree with the Calvinists on that understanding of the word in the verb usage, as in Paul Rom. 8:29).
————————————————————————————–
Genesis 50: 20 “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” – ESV (again, for obvious reasons…mainly that it is the only correct translation for Calvinists these days…I kid…)If the above verse said “God meant for good what He meant you to mean for evil”, I would be a Calvinist. However, this is not what the verse says. A few things of note (unpopular to both Calvinists and Arminians).
It NEVER once states “when” or at “what point” God meant it for good.
We all agree (except Open Theists) that God knew from eternity (however one hashes that out) what was going on. But since that philosophical perspective is not directly addressed in the passage, it is eisegetical to even talk about it in those terms anyway, but of course we will anyway, and I will below.
Note first that what THEY meant was evil.
If it said that “God meant you to mean evil because God meant it for good”, again, I would be a Calvinist. However, again, it doesn’t say that at all.
It says that they meant something for evil, and as a feature of narrative, their intentions are stated FIRST, and that their intentions are directly attributed to THEM. But secondly, and BUT in the MAIN sense (agreeable to Calvinists I think) is that God intentions are BEYOND and BEHIND (but not “underneath”, or the cause of) and with A VIEW TO do good EVEN THOUGH THEY intended evil.
Nowhere in the text does it say God intended them to intend the evil at all, so that God could do good. They independently had their intentions, and so did God, the bringer of good from evil, lest we think God allows any evil with no purpose (I think Calvinists would agree with that statement at least).
To think that God had to intend them to intend evil so God could intend the good is a complete eisegetical rewrite and explanation of the verse (and of the story on the whole as it plays out as a fact of history recorded in the narrative).
Now, to bring the philosophical concerns (the esiegetical concerns not even in view of the text that was mentioned earlier), again, the question becomes whether or not God played out His intentions from an initial place of ignorance in eternity prior to the decree, or in view of His knowledge of what would be the case should He ordain such a world to come to pass that included these events and intentions of the brothers in those circumstances?
Calvinists affirm the former (natural knowledge —>decree —> free knowledge = including future contingents), and others affirm the latter (God knows everything prior to His decree and is wise in His own council of what He will do before, in, around, and in response to His all-knowledge prior to His FREE decree to bring about whichever world He so desires to actualize).
Exegetically, there is nothing in either passage above that helps the Calvinist position. I can argue the same for Romans 8:28 – 9:33, Ephesians 1-2, and John 6…No sweat.
One of these days, all believers on all sides of the spectrum will have to hang it up and recognize that the Bible says LESS than what people think it says. When we make it say more than it does, we add to it our conjecture.
All I have done here is present exegesis that doesn’t ADD to what’s there, and takes away what certain theology insists is there due to prior philosophical (but not necessarily Biblical) presuppositions, but isn’t actually there in the text at all." Johnathan Pritchett
I don't have a clue who Johnathan Pritchett is. I did ask him at SBC Today. I will return to find out if he answers me. I get so worn out trying to figure all this stuff out that seeing the quote by Johnathan I emphasized above gives me a pleasant respite from it all. Where is the SBC going with all the doctrinal issues on the front burner regarding predestination and such? I don't know...but I do know that for me, the King is still the King and man may conjecture and speculate and interpret and translate and expound upon a million ways that "whosoever" means something other than me and everyone else in the world, but I'm gonna keep on keeping on till the trumpet sounds and the Eastern sky parts. Jesus is the Answer. The Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father but through Him. Its all I know. selahV
My question - why do you have to figure all this out? This is why I stay off the Baptists blogs. The definition of Calvinists mentioned here is not right - and to lump them in with Open Theists? That's not right, either. Open Theists have been said not to believe in the Sovereignty of God. Reading this whole post just made me dizzy.
Posted by: Caryn | May 03, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Caryn, thanks for droppin' in even though you "stay off Baptist blogs". We are a diverse lot, that is for sure.
You ask why I "have to figure all this out"..
I don't; I think I made it clear what I know and in Whom I trust. I bring it up here, because it is one of the many things I "encountered" in my surfing excursions in the blogosphere that pertain to my faith...which is Southern Baptist. Up until 2006, I had no idea folks had themselves in knots over this Calvinistic view or that a group of Calvinists believed all Southern Baptists needed to be reformed like them because they (we) had lost the gospel. I haven't lost the Gospel. So, along with the many other blogs I write, this one is just one in a portion to who I am as a person. That's why I try to figure out why my brothers and sisters are all squabbling over all these theologies.
Could you help me out and tell me the "definition of Calvinists mentioned here that is not right"? And rather than me going to google and looking up Open Theists, I think I'll skip that on for my vocabulary lesson today. It's been a long day.
So, if you happen to pop back, tell me what your definition of a Calvinist is as you understand it. I can understand how reading something like this could make one dizzy. I've been dizzy for about 6 years now since I've been trying to figure out why what I believe doesn't pass muster in the theology department with the reformed community. Praying God's blessings on you...selahV
Posted by: selahV-hariette | May 03, 2012 at 11:07 PM