God's "Trial-and-Error" Attempts to Create a People of Faith for His Kingdom

Why did God create man? Although this blog is entitled "God's Trial-and-Error Attempts to Create a People of Faith for His Kingdom", God forbid that I would claim that God makes mistakes. Most probably, He does NOT. Why most probably? Isn't God perfect? Well, if we believe in revelation and revelation alone and not our personal "dignum Deo" opinions, take a look at this passage from Hebrews 10:7-13:

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

8 For he finds fault with them when he says:[c]

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
    when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
    and with the house of Judah,
9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
    on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
    and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
    after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
    and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
    and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
    and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
    and I will remember their sins no more.”

13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Now, note the words translated as "faultless", "find fault" (derived from the Greek, memphomai, meaning "censure, blame, reproach"), and "obsolete" (Greek, palaioo, meaning "worn out and old"). Nothing can be more explicit, and if that does not, at least, hint of trial-and-error, then I don't know English nor Greek at all!

It is important to point out that even the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel, ignores the language and states:

" In the NT we find memphómenos in Heb. 8:8, where God finds fault with Israel (Italics mine) for breaking the covenant, and for this reason gives promise of a new covenant."

[NT New Testament

Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995, c1985). Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament. (580). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.]

God DID NOT find fault with Israel as the TDNT states. He finds fault with the COVENANT. This is Scripture twisting at its worst as the intent is obvious!

Regardless, it seems that God makes calculated risks and we already have proven that in another blog on Implications of Biblical Theomorphism.

God is All-Sufficient in Himself and among the Persons of the Holy Trinity, there is intense and fulfilling fellowship and love. However, God seemed desirous of embarking on a divine experiment with the end in view of expanding the coverage or scope of His love and relationships.

The following narrative highlights, among others, the Omni-Competence of God (see OmniCompetence- the Divine Attribute that distinguishes the Judeo-Christian God from the Pagan gods).

God's ultimate goal IS to create a people of faith who would be kingdom-minded and would willingly and deliberately love Him the same way He would love His creatures. Remember this goal (and NOT "To glorify God and enjoy Him forever" as the classicists claim. That "chief end of man" is NOT biblical at all. It has no foundation in Scripture. See my blog).

It seems that His very first experiment was the creation of the angels. He even had a favorite whom He made commander of the heavenly host and his name was Lucifer, the day-star. In this particular experiment, He took one of His first risks to His Divine Sovereignty: He was going to create servants who would be endowed with free will (with the intrinsic ability both to love Him or reject Him). However, it seemed that because He created a race of servants, His main criteria for relationship was loyalty and obedience, qualities that were a bit devoid of emotional elements. This must be why we seldom hear about happy or angry angels in scripture. Even when Satan was doing any of his activities, although intelligence was exercised, emotions seemed to be suppressed or non-existent. Same is true of Michael and Gabriel during their message errands.

With the fall of a third of the angels led by Lucifer, God decided to modify His creation significantly and even take a greater risk: God created MAN.

1. They would be created in God's image, and therefore have free will, the ability to love, hate, accept God, reject God, exercise faith, exercise doubt or skepticism, demonstrate intrinsic intelligence, etc.
2. They would NOT be created as servants but independent and autonomous individuals
3. They would be limited by physical bodies.
4. They would be given a choice for eternal life (The Tree of Life was in the middle of the garden of Eden).
5. They would be given a choice, and it would be the acid test to this experiment, to either remain innocent and live with God forever in the garden of Eden in a wonderful relationship between Creator and creature or become "like God" being able to distinguish between good and evil, becoming guilty due to disobedience and now being accountable for sin and hence be condemned to eternal separation from God.

Nonetheless, His objective of creating a people of faith who would love Him was not diminished. Only His method changed by modifying the type of creature He desired to have relationship with.

Of course, we now know what happened with Satan's intervention, Satan knowing fully well that these were creatures that were autonomous and capable of exercising intelligence and self-will.

But God does not give up and continues to exercise His omni-competence, sometimes actually intervening in His creative work to change the course of events to redirect towards His will but never forcing His will upon the hearts of men but continually courting them as a demonstration of His lovingkindness and tender mercies.

He had a few successes with Abel, Enoch and finally Noah when He realizes that man was generally evil when left to run his life and He even relented in creating man. This is when He finally decides to annihilate the world with a great flood by literally breaking open the windows of heaven for 40 days and nights. He exempts faithful Noah and attempts to re-create the human race through him.

After God promises never to destroy the earth with a flood again with a rainbow to remind Him, He even intervenes at Babel to create multiple languages to prevent man from being too powerful. Because He finds delight in the childlike faithfulness of Abram, He now proceeds to alter His method toward meeting His objective of creating a people of faith, to actually choose a segment of humanity through Abraham promising that this would be His chosen people. He even went through great lengths to isolate Israel especially in Egypt, to enable His chosen people to be a pure race whom He would set apart to be the people He would build a loving relationship with. It is quite important to note here that God said that the "nations" would be blessed through Abraham. Hence, God still had the whole of humanity in mind in His love and redemptive plan. However, He had to start from scratch again.

We now know that this experiment essentially failed, at least temporarily. God called the Hebrew nation, His own people harlots because they always forsook Him for other gods and other priorities. God placed them in exile to show how jealous and full of wrath He was at this demonstration of faithlessness and defiance. Although He would Himself be pained by the punishment He would mete, He also had to show that He stood for justice. Nevertheless, this experiment yielded gems like Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Gideon, Samuel, David, Asaph, the prophets, etc.

Finally, God creates His Church, a project that He prophesied about in Isaiah when He said, "...a people who have not known me..." In this final project, God would create a people of faith whom He no longer forces to be called His people in the same manner he chose the Jews. God's over-arching criterion for this people is that they willingly surrender back their independence and return God's love from their heart. His invitation to His people is no longer forced like the Jews were forced to be THE chosen people, and His invitation is open to all ("whosoever will"). This would be a people who, although He created to be independent and automous beings with free-will and the capacity to rebel or reject His love, would instead surrender back this independence to God and love Him with all their heart, mind, soul and strength.

For such is the essence of the relationship He desires. The realization that the risks He originally took in creating theomorphic man would redound to His expectations of willing submission and love.

Conclusion: I have presented a perspective on why God created man and finally the Church. Whether it seemed like a trial-and-error process or simply stages in God's unfolding revelation of His final plan to build His Church and for us to appreciate its unique attributes compared to the other stages or dispensations (this is NOT dispensationalism please), it is up to the readers to draw their own conclusions. I believe that God NEVER makes mistakes, theoretically. However, practically speaking, it is hard to declare that the millions of people going to hell without Christ is NOT some kind of mistake. However, the trial-and-error view demonstrates overwhelmingly the Omni-Competence of God while the concept of unfolding plan simply highlights His sovereignty.

This is why relational theology proposes a happy logical view where mistakes and risks are based on God's goal of demonstrating His love. From the viewpoint of classicism and Calvinism which emphasizes the sovereignty of God at the expense of His other attributes, it is quite difficult to logically justify that God did not make a mistake since millions of His beloved creatures are hell-bound. If one says that man goes to hell by his own sin, then we can go back and say that the creation of man is either a mistake or has mistakes involved from the viewpoint of absolute sovereignty at the expense of other attributes.

However, since relational theology emphasizes God's Love and that the over-arching motive for God's design and will is to demonstrate and consummate His love, we begin to see that millions going to hell is not a mistake but a risk He had to take, in the same way that He took the risk of sending His Son to not only suffer and die on the cross for our sin but to actually experience separation from God at the cross, so that we who would be redeemed would be exempted from such a tormenting experience. It costs God a LOT to build His Kingdom Project

Natural Law is God's ordinance

Reference: Jeremiah 31:35, 36; 33:25 NKJV

What is Natural Law? What is its role in God's participation in His relationship with His people?

Natural Laws are what the New King James Bible calls "ordinances". These are physical or metaphysical routines or behavior that have been ordained and established by God. Gravity is one example. The orbit of planets in the solar system and the exact distances between celestial bodies so that there is very little, if ever, possibility of collision between the planets are another example.

Other examples are consequences of events. For example, heavy rain clouds mean the high probability of rain. If the temperatures were at freezing point or below, we would have falling snow or hail instead. Two cars driving directly into each others way will collide head-on.

Less obvious examples are consequences of behavior. Too much refined sugar or high-fructose corn syrup in one's regular diet would lead to diabetes or other metabolic syndrome diseases like hypertension or even arthritis. An overdose of aspirin, sleeping pills and alcohol could lead to death.

Now, you may ask, what is the point of discussing the above and others like them?

The answer is a key to understanding the biblical perspective on answered prayers and rejected prayers.

Prayer is a petition to the God who ordains these natural laws or these divine ordinances, to intervene into the natural course of events as he originally ordained and, by such intervention, to change the course of events into something that is favorable to the petitioner. It is obvious that petitional prayers or prayers of supplication seek to change the mind of God either by altering His natural law or by simply changing the natural course of events had He left things alone as He originally ordained them.

This is such an important concept to bear in mind of a Christian who claims to have a real relationship with God. The petitioner needs to know if he is requesting something that would please God and honor Him, or is the petition tantamount to tempting or testing God in a negative sense.

Let me explain. Does God give us privilege to seek healing for a man born blind? or for a leper? or for a demon-possessed person? or for a child bitten by a venomous snake either due to the child's carelessness or adult negligence? In most cases, I would tend to think so, and I believe that the petitioner is in a strong position with the loving God to expect a favorable response.

On the other hand, similar to the Israelites continually tempting God in the wilderness during the Exodus years, does a Christian have the right to ask God for strong lungs if he is a habitual smoker? Can he petition for a healthy liver and kidney if he is a drunkard? Can a Christian who overdoses on alcohol and sleeping pills ask for a long life? More subtly, can a Christian who habitually stuffs herself with refined sugar diets and high fructose corn syrup juices have the right to ask God to heal her from diabetes?

In such cases, I think that these are patterns for prayers that will be rejected by God. In the same way that God wants us to reckon ourselves dead to sin in order to be alive to God, the above scenarios require a drastic lifestyle change before God can even begin to deliberate on the petitioner's case!

It is important for a Christian in relationship with God to realize the strength of his petitions based on what he has been doing with or against the natural laws of God before he even begins to make request for divine intervention. Christians who continually and stubbornly defy these ordinances, e.g., the cult where they play with poisonous snakes in their rituals should not expect any response from God at all. These are all part of "turn from their wicked ways" before God can "hear from heaven and heal their land" (2 Chronicles 7:14). This could be another angle in understanding what it is to pray "according to His will".

On the other hand, we must realize that natural law is something we NEVER have to pray for. Gravity will be gravity without our prayers. A man jumping from the top of the empire state building does not need to pray to God in order to land somewhere down below. We never need to pray that the planets in our solar system will not collide. They just won't until God decides to end everything. We don't need to pray that the ground gets wet when it rains.

Hence, petitional prayer is essentially a request for divine intervention for God to change the natural course of events in our favor.

...to be continued...

Other related topics:

• God's "Trial-and-Error" Attempts to Create a People of Faith for His Kingdom
• Covenant-Relationship Theology in a Nutshell
• Relational Theology Makes Prayer Meaningful
• Relational Prayer that gets Answers vs. the Vending Machine God
• Prayer that God does NOT answer, NORMALLY
• The concept of Faith from a Relational/Biblical Perspective
• Relational Theology Makes Evangelism Meaningful and Critical
• Relational Theology Makes Finding God's Will a Meaningful and Useful Experience

Who is God? - from the viewpoint of Relational Theology

No systematic theology is considered complete until it declares its concept of the character and attributes of God.

To be more specific, "Who is the God of the Bible?".  We don't care about other gods which are created by the best guesses of men. We need to know the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible, the God who revealed Himself through the Bible.  On this one single point, we NEED to be Barthian in our basic approach to addressing this question.  We need to declare that NO ONE CAN know God WITHOUT the benefit of revelation.

What this means is that no man can know God even through the best of human research if the Bible is not part of the study.  Yes, the Bible does claim in Romans 1:18ff that the evidence about God is manifest (obvious) if man does not "suppress the truth in unrighteousness". However, the ultimate end of good theology is that of knowing the mind and heart of God Himself, and not just evidence of His activities and existence.

Jeremiah 9:23-24,

"23 Thus says the LORD: 

      “ Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,
      Let not the mighty man glory in his might,
      Nor let the rich man glory in his riches;
       24 But let him who glories glory in this,
      That he understands and knows Me,
      That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth.

      For in these I delight,” says the LORD."

If theology ended merely with the classical conclusions of God as Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, First Being, Unmoved Mover, Perfect Being, Timeless, Impassable, ad inifinitum, ad nauseaum, then they have tragically missed the boat completely on who God is.  The bible does NOT even bother with such terminologies nor their long-winded definitions.  In fact, the truth about God is revealed "to babes".  Christ Himself said, that we must have the faith (and perspective) of a child, if we are to know and experience the best of God.

Here are some of what the Bible SIMPLY and EXPLICITLY declare are:

God is Love, Truth, Righteousness, Lovingkindness, Faithfulness.

God is Love, Light and Life

God is Jealous (this one God Himself declared in ALL instances!).  In His jealousy He visits judgment on man and to his children's children to the fourth generation!

It is obvious the the Judeo-Christian God desires for man to search and know His Heart and not just the evidences of His abilities or His activities in the cosmos.

Furthermore, classicism (especially through the scholastics like Thomas Aquinas) is a thoroughly misled approach to knowing the God of the Bible.  Hellenistic academics popularized by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle was the intelligentsia status symbol of that day and Thomas Aquinas and company got sucked into its aberrant thinking, albeit well-meaning since it attempted to offer to an unbelieving world, a logical concept of the existence of God.  Unfortunately, it falls short of who God really is.

Indeed, the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God.  The Greek concepts of God are futile attempts since they are man-made and originally almost totally devoid of divine revelation.  In simpler words, Greek concepts of God have ABSOLUTELY NO BENEFIT of revelation. They are purely man made, and hence border on idolatry. Hence, at its very best, it simply erects another idol and declares that "here is God", consistent with the conclusions of Paul in Romans 1:22-23:

"22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—..."

Classicism has subtly gone around this but effectively came out with a still "different" God from that of the Bible.  Christian classical thought is really a descendant of Gnosticism which in essence attempts to amplify the infinite difference between God and man (another unbiblical concept, since man is theomorphic) instead of demonstrating how God is like man simply because man was created to be like God (man was created in God's image!).

Because of classicism, there is a huge number of Christians, like the Hyper-Calvinists, who claim that they believe that God is a personal God but related to Him as if He were a force!  Theologies like theirs show God primarily as wholly-other (which is correct in the sense that God can exist without the rest of creation), but in so doing portray Him as impassable or having no emotions (which is not biblical, e.g.,  Jeremiah 32:29-31).  Their concept of God is one who is unaffected by what man does (correct only in the sense that it does not change the character of God) but make the unbiblical claim that nothing man does can affect God.  They forget that God was affected intellectually during the construction of the Tower of Babel.  They forget that God was always affected emotionally when His people turned to idolatry and unfaithfulness.

They portray God as timeless (which is correct since He is not dependent on it) but in so doing proposes non-sequitur behavior like micro-predestination (every small detail in history and future events have been pre-determined (and this is definitely non-sequitur and non-biblical).

Classicism further portrays God as Perfect (which is correct in concept) but is misapplied to mean that God does not change His mind (not biblical, since God relented so many times as EXPLICITLY described in Scripture); that God does not have emotions of anger (grossly unbiblical since He exiled Israel in anger because of His jealousy against idolatry).  

This discussion will not go into attributes of God that have been countlessly discussed in many great references on systematic theology.  However, we will attempt to discuss what we believe are biblically erroneous concepts of God (perhaps from these same references) and attributes of God that these systematic theologies have overlooked simply because they have placed God in a box with their dignum deo concepts based on classical beliefs.

One of the first things we have to clarify, if this has not been clear yet, is that as far as the concept of God is concerned, we EXCLUSIVELY deal with Biblical Theology.  Every other concept to us which is extra-Biblical is simply an idol dressed up with the elaboration of philosophical jargon.  Hence, this is not the place to inquire about these misguided (lack of Divine revelation) concepts.

The next thing we have to be clear about is, if we are to deal with Biblical theology effectively, then we have to employ conservative hermeneutics in the interpretation of the text.  This means among other things that we have to look at immediate context of Bible references in terms of language grammar and common usage (discussed by scholarship) , time in history, before we look at the greater context.  It also requires that we look at passages from Jewish eyes and not Gentile eyes for BOTH the Old Testament Hebrew and the New Testament Greek (Both have their own relative contexts).  This also requires that we never generalize a derived theological concept (like predestination) when it was meant to be specific only to what was declared, and it is still logical to confine it ONLY to that instance.  Generalization is one of the greatest errors of Classical Greek thought.  They tend to paint every miniscule concept they find with a broad brush and hence, paint "God" into a corner.  (Pls see my blog on Axiomatic Foundations for a deeper discussion on hermeneutics.)

Having settled our hermeutic principles, the next thing we need to accept and digest is...

God is the Best and Greatest Communicator and has chosen the Hebrew and Greek languages at the correct timing (context) in history to reveal Himself in writing to man.  Being The Great Communicator, He speaks in simple terms understandable to the common man (by common man, we mean a man who has the capability of social communication and a basic understanding and articulation of human behavior and emotions as well as events in his world).  God means what He declares in Scripture and declares what He means in Scripture and there is no need for any man to presume arrogance and re-interpret anything that God has declared.  All man has to do is understand what God says like a human communicating intelligibly with another human.

...under construction...to be discussed

God is Omnicompetent, a greater level than Omnipotent because it is the kind of Omnipotence that takes risks and competently and perfectly addresses the consequences of those risks that He took.

God is Love and He sought and He seeks man's love.  This divine pursuit has developed into a need. God desires relationship with man and wrote Scripture to describe its source, origin and foundation.

There is nothing in the behavior, emotions, and mind of the Incarnate Christ that would be any different from God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit. If Jesus wept (John 11:35), God can weep and He does.  Jesus is further proof of the concept of theomorphism.

The One God is a plural God. This is definitional and is the God of the Jews and Christians. Hence, He is not Allah and never was.  Nor is He the god of the Mormons nor the god of Jehovah's Witness.

The Trinity and the 2nd Failure of Classical Theology

I have heard this before said to a classicist, " For someone who claims to love logic and sound reasoning, you surely don't make sense!" Whoever quoted this is a genius. He stumbled on the defining character of classical thought.

An earlier blog noted that one failure of Classical thought is that of definition. They cannot accept a "definition" like the Trinity without sacrificing their intelligence. So you commonly see them raise their hands in surrender and declare, "It is a mystery". What they really mean is that they do not understand the concept based on their foundational thinking. So Biblical "common sense" does not make sense to them. They have to re-interpret things according to their world ( which is many times out-of-this-world) and they end up being ridiculous to the simple thinker who has a lot of common sense.

The second failure of classical theology is the unrestrained generalization of a theological principle that may have only a limited application in Scripture the way God really intended it.

Predestination for example, is very specific in scripture and only applies to that which was explicitly declared as predestined. Classicists would readily grab that concept (which is good) but use it to apply to everything (which is a hermeneutical failure) almost unconditionally. Furthermore, a context analysis of the words predestined and fore-ordained in Scripture means a current state of being and really very simply means that God has made something (whatever is the subject) a "natural law". This immediately excludes a lot of things including how many spoons of sugar I will put in my coffee three days from now. It becomes ridiculous if you include that in God's natural law OR God's fore-ordination or God's predestination.

Prayer "according to God's will" is mentioned ONLY ONCE in scripture but the classicist tends to interpret its meaning quite incorrectly and then apply it to all his prayers and pretty soon discovers prayers that do not have answers. The hermeneutic meaning has been discussed elsewhere in this blog but suffice it to say that "according to God's will" simply meant by John was prayer that does not violate the character of God. This means that we can pray for our wishes and desires and not just our needs. In fact, Jesus himself says not to pray for our needs in Matthew 6. Hence, we should only pray for our aspirations, wishes and desires. Now these may not be in line with the perfect will of God but if it does not violate the character of God, God COULD definitely answer such prayer positively! A biblical example is when Israel asked Samuel for a king in the book of 1 Samuel. This was NOT in line with God's will at all since God himself said it, BUT HE GRANTED THEIR WISH ANYWAY!!! Classical theologians have a difficult time interpreting these events because this is quite an exception to their theology.

God does not relent, God has no shadow of turning does NOT imply that God does not change His mind about specific events. God's character and attributes never change, but He definitely changes his mind time and again depending on the prayers of his people. There are three great examples in Scripture at least: Moses convincing God to change his mind in destroying his people in Exodus 32 ending in verse 14; Hezekiah convincing God to extend his life which God did 15 more years even after God declared his will to Hezekiah that he should die that night; and, to make things even controversial, the Assyrians in Nineveh convincing God to change his mind on destroying their city in the book of Jonah! Many classical preachers are able to exegete these passages with satisfaction but they are quite helpless in trying to relate their theology to the evidences against it... very paradoxical and ironic, and they claim to be logical and intelligent? I believe they are, but they have the wrong foundation on Scripture.

...above is a draft which we will expand, expound and develop further....

God NEVER changes, BUT...He can change His mind!

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). But so is God the Father since they are co-equal. God's character and attributes NEVER change. Only the exercise of His rights change as in the Baby Jesus not having omnipotence, omnipresence nor omniscience while He was lying in the manger or when Herod was after His life.

But since His character never changes, this means that the Loving God will deal with His people today (the church) in almost exactly the same way as He dealt with His people (the Jews).

[work in progress...I have a very important point to share here....more soon]

Theology and "...according to your Faith..."

"According to your faith be it unto you." - Matthew 9:29

Matthew 9:27-29 (NIV) is a lesson packed story on the application of faith in a believer's life.

" 27As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"
28When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?"
"Yes, Lord," they replied.
29 Then he touched their eyes and said, "According to your faith will it be done to you"; 30 and their sight was restored. Jesus warned them sternly, "See that no one knows about this." 31But they went out and spread the news about him all over that region."
Note that we have been very passionate about teaching the rudiments, essentials and tenets of Relational Theology. We have gone through great lengths to refute and "almost" condemn classical theology as mostly irrelevant to living a vital relationship with God, and which is the road that Calvinism has taken with great names like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas in the list even preceeding John Calvin himself.
However, it is important to note that in the ultimate analysis, because our "complete" understanding of the infinite God will always be incomplete in this life, we have to make the warning that peripheral issues like these are things we can passionately disagree on and whether or not one is right and the other is wrong does not mostly affect one's road to salvation (although it may affect how one end's up finally saved or not!???).
Nevertheless, in this life, the words of Christ ring true. Although it matters little cardinally what a believer believes peripherally, it matters much how his beliefs are applied to reality and his life's journey on earth.
It will be done to us exactly ACCORDING TO OUR FAITH. If we believe that God never changes His mind in response to our prayers, so will it be done to you. If you believe that you can never persuade God in your prayes, so will it be done to you precisely "according to your faith". Your prayers will NEVER be answered since God will not change His mind for you anyway. If you believe that all God wants is to get glory for Himself from us, so will it be done to you. Since God's getting glory has really nothing to do with you, you will have to live a life that is satisfied with everything God dispenses your way, good and bad and just accept it.
For those of us who are relational, however, when we find ourselves in a bind, we plead with God because we believe God has a heart and will change His mind according to our requests WHEN WE ARE IN Covenant RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM CONSTANTLY ABIDING, then so will it be done to us according to our faith. God WILL respond. If we believe that we can persuade God the same as David's belief (and theology) when he pled for the life of his first son by Bathsheba, or better yet like the importunate widow and the unjust judge in Luke 18:1-8. I emphasize verse 8:
"I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"
I have personally been a witness several times of divine intervention even up to the point of death. My father-in-law underwent triple bypass heart surgery with a valve replacement at the young age of 90. What was supposed to be a 4 day confinement ended up to be 5 weeks. Just when he was going to be released on the 4th day, he had a heart attack of some sort which the doctors never finally determined (perhaps because they may have been so embarrassed at the way things turned out). Embarrassed because, they declared him fit to leave the hospital on the 4th day and that did not go right. Embarrased because he was flat line for 23 minutes and the attending physicians told us to give him up for dead but we refused because we said that God answers prayer and even if it was supposed to be his time to go, we could still move the hands of God through prayer (remember Hezekiah in Isaiah 38?). Embarrased because they said that if he survived the flat line he would be a vegetable anyway and at 96 he is still laughing with us as of this writing. Embarrassed because he was 8 hours in a coma at the Intensive Care Unit and they were still waiting for him to die. Embarrassed because when he awoke after my wife said good-bye to him for the night, he was fully conversant as if he just woke from a normal sleep.
A month later my own father had congestive heart failure. We met as a family because the only solution the doctors would give is a triple-bypass and valve replacement surgery. He was 83 and we encouraged him with the results of my father-in-laws own ordeal at age 90. What was supposed to be a 5 hour operation turned into 8 hours. For 5 hours, he was bleeding to death. The heart membranes would tear as soon as the doctors tried to suture a new valve into place. One after the other, the surgeon told us there was nothing they could do to save him. The heart surgeon himself went down to us at the waiting area to tell us that he was just going to die on the operating table and asked us if we wanted to view him there to say our last farewells. I thanked the good doctor, but specifically told him that we were a praying family who believed that God answers prayer and that if he could do his best to keep him alive, we would do our best to move God's hands through prayer. He seemed an unbeliever but doctors normally humor their clients request especially if they believe it would be the last request made.
I phoned my wife and kids, my mother, my brother in Canada to inform them to prepare for the worst. But I told them it was not over yet and there was room for us to knock on the doors of heaven to get to God's heart and tell him what we really desire to happen.
After telling us to wait for 20 minutes so the heart surgeon could prepare my dad's sedated body with the chest still open (they could not close it because the swelling from blood substitute products to replace the blood he was losing), 20 minutes turned into 30 minutes and 30 minutes turned into 45 minutes and then 1 hours and then after 15 more minutes, the surgeon popped his bewildered head into our waiting room. We looked each other in the eye for what he was about to say, but all he could utter was that the bleeding had stopped while he was preparing my dad's body for viewing. So he shifted gears and actually prepared my Dad to go to the ICU.
My sister who was with me is a graduate of Medicine and all of us in the room knew what the doctor meant. We were so elated, we didn't know what to say but we did not forget to thank God and the doctor for doing his best to save my dad (instead of giving up completely). At 89, my dad still drives for errands to the groceries and he and my mom are living alone but close to my sisters' homes. We are still enjoying his fellowship and his company.
God dealt with us ACCORDING TO OUR FAITH. What if we just surrendered to the natural consequences of failed operations or surgeries? Yes, we could do that. We could just accept what God has dispensed to us and "surrendered to His will" and there is absolutely nothing theologically and Biblically wrong with that position. However, both my Dad and Father-in-law would have long passed away if that were our position because God would deal with us ACCORDING TO OUR FAITH, most of the time, nothing more and nothing less.
Why do I say this? Because God is a relational God. He framed two covenants to illustrate that - the Old Testament (covenant) and the New Testament. He desires to interact with us on a real and personal level and the only way that can happen is if He releases absolute control over many things (which means He takes quite a few risks for our sakes). That means we can pray and plead. That means, like in the case of Hezekiah and Jonah with the people of Ninevah, He can relent (Hebrew, literally, change His mind about a previous decision) if it were His will and then change it in our favor.
What a wonderful God! He doesn't have to do it. He could refuse to take any risks. BUT...He loves! and true love entails risk. Glory, Hallelujah!!! Amen! God is Love. His lovingkindness is without limit,
"Your mercy, O LORD, is in the heavens;
Your faithfulness reaches to the clouds." - Psalm 36:5.
Were these isolated incidents? Was I just lucky? God forbid! Only an infidel could say such a thing! I have prayed for a friend about to undergo angioplasty only to have her appointments cancelled because the blockage could not be found after our prayer! Note that the initial diagnosis had to be confirmed with 2nd opinions and it was verified.
I have prayed for a couple who had a miscarriage and had difficulty having a baby. Their own church prayed for them without success. What was the difference? We believed that it would be done according to our faith! We assured the couple that God was a relational God despite everything they may have been taught (or mistaught!). That God was the same yesterday, today and forever. That God desires to be in relationship with His people and that His people need to be in the same mode needing God, wanting God, desiring His presence, hungry to seek His face constantly. In relationship with God as the branch abides in the vine, the promise of Christ holds true, "Ask anything and it shall be done".
It took only 9 months to prove that God responds in relationship and they are now enjoying their baby boy. There were absolutely no issues with the pregnancy despite all those doctors warnings because of the prior miscarriages. They are enjoying as of this writing, their healthy baby.
Today we are still experiencing God's responses to our prayers according to our faith. Oh, believer, please DO NOT lose out on the goodness of God. Whatever your previous beliefs, launch out on this new adventure with the God which perhaps you have never known this way...God is truly relational. He is a real person.
I've had an old classmate who was at the hospital preparing for surgery for a brain tumor half-way around the globe. I pled with God for her. Her surgery didn't go through because the tumor disappeared! Perhaps it was not just my prayer. Perhaps others were praying for her the RIGHT way too. But this is too much of a coincidence. She was already in the hospital room getting prepared for the surgery, which means that there were already 2nd, 3rd opinions on her tumor. Then there is the final scan before the actual surgery...and there was no tumor!
I have another friend, a medical doctor who is dealing with His own lung cancer. I tried to admonish him to refuse both chemotheraphy and radiation not because I was like those Christian Scientists who do not believe in medicine, but because I have read medical research and journals that prove that there is no statistical difference between those who get these treatments and those who don't (I am a mathematician, by the way, and statistics do NOT lie!). In fact, it will only weaken his immune system and lessen his capacity to fight any disease and even the cancer itself if it recurs, not to mention all the side-effects that make even most oncologists unwilling to undergo the procedure themselves were they or their loved ones to be stricken with cancer).
All I wanted was to spare him the agony. I wanted to suggest that he get treatments in Mexico or Germany which have better success with cancer treatments in a less invasive and toxic way, but I did not want to confuse him at his time of need so I kept quiet. Right now, I have a hard time praying for him, not because I have unbelief, but because he is further subjecting himself to worsen his case. It is like tempting God. "Lord, heal me. I am going to make it worse for me so you can heal me". Well, if he ever gets healed, guess who will get the glory? Will it be God or the toxic theraphies that he is going through. I believe people will glorify these cancer treatments instead of God and hence it is hard to pray to God for something where His work will be completely overshadowed by human effort.
In such cases, if he is granted deliverance from God, it will be despite everything bad he has allowed to be done to himself. However, it is doubtful that God will get the glory here and that is what makes me struggle to pray for him. When God does not get glory, He rarely answers or responds to prayer.
My only assurance is that it will be done to him --- ACCORDING TO HIS FAITH. If he believes that God will heal him through his cancer treatments, then perhaps God will. Unfortunately, I just do not see any concrete Biblical assurance for this where I can hang my faith on.
In the case of those Christian Scientists who "killed" their son suffering from diabetic attacks, note that they were a cult and have the wrong belief and hence the wrong God - an idol that they themselves created. Hence, the child died. This is both Bibilical and natural. They had a god with no ears or heart or life.
But we believe in the God of the Bible. The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Samuel, David - - - the RELATIONAL and loving God!!! The God who is the same yesterday, today and forever! The God who has "no shadow of turning" according to James.
He loves you and will NOT impose His will upon you under normal circumstances, so...IT SHALL BE DONE TO YOU ACCORDING TO YOUR FAITH!

Other related topics:

• God's "Trial-and-Error" Attempts to Create a People of Faith for His Kingdom
• Covenant-Relationship Theology in a Nutshell
• Relational Theology Makes Prayer Meaningful
• Relational Prayer that gets Answers vs. the Vending Machine God
• Prayer that God does NOT answer, NORMALLY
• The concept of Faith from a Relational/Biblical Perspective
• Relational Theology Makes Evangelism Meaningful and Critical
• Relational Theology Makes Finding God's Will a Meaningful and Useful Experience

The Book of Life and Predestination

A common anchor for those who defend specific predestination especially the so-called "salvation of the elect" is the Book of Life which is mentioned in various ways from the Old Testament to the New (although more specific name-wise in the NT). However, it becomes pretty obvious as one goes through the details with an honest hermeneutical approach that there is a stronger implication about loss of salvation (names blotted out from the Book of Life. Revelations 3:5) than there is about security of being elect.

It is almost the same argument on the word "apostasy" or falling from grace. How can one fall from grace if he was never there in the first place? So, how can one's name be blotted out from the book of life if his name was never written, as some admittedly won't be?

We shall deal with and respond to the following passages on the Book of Life. The literal English translation and at least 2 problematic passages seem to lean toward specific predetermination and we will discuss why it does not.

Philippians 4:3
And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life.

Revelation 3:5
He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

Revelation 13:8
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 17:8
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

Revelation 20:15
And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:27
But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

Revelation 22:19
and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Let's summarize at this point. Although this "book" is almost purely idiomatic (would there be a literal book? how big would this be and how many pages?), let us assume for the sake of argument that this is literal, that there is such a book that one could hold in his "physical" hands to literally open and flip the pages, and write with a giant pen.

It is quite certain in most reference passages except for Revelations 13:8; 17:8 and perhaps Acts 13:48 that one of 2 things are true:

1. Names are added to the book of life, or
2. All names are in the book of life, but some would be blotted out.

There are really ONLY three verses out of all these references that tend towards the second. The preponderance of passages definitely imply the first. It MUST be noted when interpreting these three problematic verses, that the acceptance of these as a norm or rule for the Divine Plan of salvation virtually THROWS AWAY everything else taught about salvation in the Scriptures. Hence, at its very strongest, we have to take these three verses as special cases or exceptions instead of doctrinal and prescriptive.

So let us deal with these three problematic passages and see if we can resolve synthesize them successfully into the backdrop of the rest of the Scriptures.

Here are a few notes from Kittel.

"The familiar thought of later Judaism and the NT that the names of the righteous are written in the book of life has an OT basis in Ex. 32:32 f.; Ps. 69:28; cf. Is. 4:3; Ez. 13:9."

Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (5:253). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

"d. τὸ βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς (Rev. 13:8; 17:8; 20:12; 21:27), also called ἡ βίβλος τῆς ζωῆς—like Phil. 4:3 except that there it has no article—at 3:5; 13:8 א*; 20:15, is based on OT sayings which speak of all the saints and faithful, and of all who fear God or await salvation, being inscribed in God’s book. In the OT this is to be differentiated from the book in which God has laid down in advance all human destinies, sorrows and joys (Ps. 56:8; 139:16).

The same image of the writing of names in heaven is found at Lk. 10:20 (the disciples of Jesus); Phil. 4:3 (those who stand in the service of the Gospel); Hb. 12:23 (the community of the first-born, i.e., of the NT). The idea may have been fostered by the establishment of genealogies, family lists and national registers in Israel (Neh. 7:5 f., 64; 12:22 f.; Ez. 13:9; this is also the reference in Ps. 87:6), but also by the royal “note-book” (cf. → e.). Yet the belief in heavenly tables of destiny on which the fates of the living are inscribed, to which they are added, and from which they are erased, is an ancient oriental heritage. In the NT the image is freed from fatalism and becomes an expression of the assurance of salvation of the Christian community, which knows that it is elected on the impregnable basis of the divine counsel of grace (2 Tm. 2:19). When Rev. 13:8 calls this βιβλίον the book of life of the crucified Lamb, it again makes the act of redemption on the cross the foundation, as in the case of the sealed book. The reference, however, is not now to the consummation; it is to the salvation of individuals. The opposite is eternal perdition (20:14). This ordination to eternal life goes back behind the crucifixion to the καταβολὴ κόσμου (13:8; 17:8), but only the names of those who overcome are not erased (3:5). The divine foreordination is thus linked with the human readiness to carry the conflict to victory. The thought of predestination is not unaccompanied by an emphasis on the cohortative motive for ready obedience; 13:8; 17:8 (not worshipping the beast) and 21:27 (shunning abomination and falsehood) are also to be seen in this light."

Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (1:619-620). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

"We do not find the expression “book of destiny” because the eternal basis of the sovereign and historically determinative counsel of God is fundamentally different from εἱμαρμένη."

Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (1:619). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Having quoted the above, here are the three problematic verses:

Acts 13:48
Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Revelation 13:8
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 17:8
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in theBook of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Let us deal with Acts 13:48 first. Luke the physician and historian wrote the book of Acts. We are almost sure that he was educated on doctrine from the "School of St. Paul" as he spent much time with him during his missionary journeys.

Aside from its most common meaning, Strong's Lexicon has alternative renderings for the word as follows (note those in red):

5021 τάσσω [tasso /tas·so/] v. A prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); TDNT 8:27; TDNTA 1156; GK 5435; Eight occurrences; AV translates as “appoint” three times, “ordain” twice, “set” once, “determine” once, and “addict” once. 1 to put in order, to station. 1a to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint. 1a1 to assign (appoint) a thing to one. 1b to appoint, ordain, order. 1b1 to appoint on one’s own responsibility or authority. 1b2 to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon. Additional Information: For synonyms see entries 1781, entellomai; 2753, keleuo; and 3853, paragello.See entry 5844 for comparison of synonyms.

Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G5021). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.

An appointment is strictly one of intent but it is RARELY if ever A DONE DEAL. One has to be clear about this. The word is rarely used in the context of an ordained completion (or completed ordination, whatever, but one has to see this point clearly). Hence, in any language, it is fortunate that its most common usage is more like an assignment to a post or an appointment like a date. Appointments can ALWAYS be stood up. Assignments can ALWAYS be rejected. Hence, "to appoint mutually, i.e. agree upon" is the most sensible interpretation of this passage without contradiction to the bigger picture of salvation.

Note Acts 2:47, "And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." obviously does NOT mean that this was ENTIRELY the Lord's doing although the Holy Spirit did have a MAJOR ACTIVE role in the start of the building of the Church. Luke's expression here seems to simply glorify God for His role in salvation of the first believers.

Note also that there are different Greek words specifically meant for "foreknow" (proginosko) and "foreordained" or "predestined" (proorizo) (DONE DEAL!).

Note that we are NOT at all denying here that there are those who will never be appointed. But that can be explained by Romans 9 and I have a separate blog on this issue (Relational Theology's response to the exercise of God's sovereignty in Romans 9)

But the best proof of alternative interpretation comes from the Bible itself. Psalm 102:19-20 declares that God "viewed the earth, to hear the groaning of the prisoner, To release those appointed to death..." which means that regardless of the "appointment to death", God CAN reverse it without harm to His integrity and perfection! Classicists should never put more meaning to words than they actually carry, or they miss out on much of God's wisdom and beauty!

This makes Acts 13:48 non-problematic at all.

Let us now deal with the two Revelations verses. The first major thing to note is the phrase "from the foundation of the world" were constructed two different ways. While 17:8 clearly refers to "written", 13:8 follows from "slain" although some translators like the ESV would position the phrase right after "written" as well. Although it is most probable that both refer to "written", it is curious why John changed the construction of his phrasing to describe, let's say, the same thing. What it hints to me is that the phrase is another idiom with implied meanings rather than explicit declarations, and I believe that this is most probably so.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let us assume that traditional classical meaning of the verse that there is indeed predestination declared here. We still refuse to subscribe to the classical implication that this is the general rule instead of the exception. An strict analysis of each passage in the light of the immediate contexts where John uses them can show a limited application only to those whose names were not written and NOT NECESSARILY mean that everyone else's name is written.

It may come as a surprise to many that when Jesus uttered the words in Luke 10:20,..."Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.”... that Judas Iscariot was among those spoken to! It is possible but inconceivable to think that Jesus would send out the seventy at the exclusion of the twelve "inner circle" disciples, and when they came back to report, it is even more inconceivable that when He spoke to them, that He was not speaking to the twelve as well.

To introduce a dichotomy here is to court a logical inconsistency. In the Word of God, there should mostly, if not purely, be synthesis since God is a God of order and is the Great Communicator. Note how we defined God as the Trinity and the Trinity as God in the article, "The Major Failure of Classical Thought".

Observe how Luke records what Peter said in Acts 2:22-24:

"22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it."

The phrase "being delivered" is actually an ADJECTIVE in the Greek! Also, the word foreknowledge is the same Greek word as the English "prognosis". The strength of this word is much the same as the word "appointment" which we already explained and dealt with above. This puts the phrase in a passive sense if it were ever a verb. In contrast, the words following for "taken by lawless hands", "crucified", and "put to death" are all in the ACTIVE verb mood. This implies a completely independent volitional "active" action by the subject(s) of these verbs. Synthesize that one! It is difficult if you haven't read the foundational tenets of Relational Love Theology. It is even, quite unfortunately, more difficult and close to impossible to conceptualize with logical sufficiency if one has been drowned for years with the teachings and "scholastic" assumptions of classical theology.

Note also the threat in the last chapter of Revelations about adding and subtracting from the declared Word of God. Revelation 22:19 reads, "...God shall take away his part from the Book of Life..." This is the same argument as apostasy or falling from grace. There is nothing to "take away" or blot out from the Book of Life if the name was NEVER there. Furthermore, God the Great Communicator, becomes ridiculous in communicating His point, if He makes an EMPTY threat. An empty threat is one where the one who threatens is really powerless either by ability or by law to carry out his threat.

Before we conclude, let us refer back to Moses in Exodus 32:32-33. This conversation between Moses and God occurred right the Hebrews built and worshipped the golden calf. Note that both Moses in verse 32 suggests to God that his name be blotted out from the book which God has written (what else could it be but the Book of Life?); and God in verse 33, actually confirms that there is such an act as blotting out names from "My book".

To synthesize all these passages and their meanings, the most logical conclusion comes by accepting the declared givens:

• That there could be such an act of writing names from the foundation of the world, and
• In the case of Jesus declaration in Luke 10:20, that names already written, like Judas Iscariot, Revelation 3:5 and 22:19, can also be blotted out.

Incidentally, the fifth point of Calvinism just got another huge dent in their theological armor on these very Biblical and Biblically clear passages.