Truth Amid 7 Billion Protagonists: The Reality of Pluralism and the Impossibility of Certainty

I don't remember how old I was, but I know I was really young when I had the realization that I am not the only protagonist in this world. It was mind-boggling for me to realize that people experience life in the same subjective way that I do, except with different thoughts and feelings. I am the protagonist of my story, and other people are supporting characters and extras in that story. Likewise, you, reader, are the protagonist of your story, and I am a character in that story. It's like in 30 Rock when Tracy Jordan says, "When I go to sleep, nothing happens in the world." I realized the utter falsity of this statement. This realization was quite daunting for me. I found out, quite literally, that the world does not revolve around me (the picture to the left captures my reaction to this realization)

This would, much later, lead me to discovering the realty of pluralism. At a young age, perhaps younger than I was when I realized I am not the only protagonist in the world, I had a thought that made me feel quite cool: "I am smarter than Albert Einstein, because I know that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior." It was a hard day for my faith when I realized that this isn't true either. Mormons think they have the universal truth, and that I need to be converted to their way of thinking. Atheists think they know the truth, and I need to come to their conclusions. There are 7 billion protagonists in this world, and they all, in one way or another, have a claim to truth, and all our claims differ in a multitude of ways. I could be wrong, and someone else could be right.

I'm not smarter than Einstein simply because I believe Jesus is my savior. Einstein was a pretty smart dude. Richard Dawkins is a smart guy. He's not dumb. He believes he's right, and I believe I'm right; and, as is said in Fiddler on the Roof, "He's right, and he's right? They can't both be right."

I don't know how many people have had both of these realizations. I have just assumed that everyone has, but I have found that to be mistaken. One guy I know didn't have the first realization until he was in college! For me, it was a part of growing up; I just woke up to it one day. I don't know if it's the same way with everyone, but I'm beginning to think it just isn't.

My point in saying all this is to introduce a discussion on faith and certainty. Sometimes, a conversation arises in which I share with people the fact that I fear death. Most of the Christians I say this to get confused: "But you're going to Heaven. Why are you afraid to die?" To which I say, "Well, yah, I believe I am going to Heaven. But I don't know 100% that I am going to Heaven. We Christians could be wrong." This almost always confuses them even more. They often take it as a weakness in my faith, because faith is so often held as synonymous with certainty. The International Standard Version of the Bible translates Hebrews 11:1 as saying, "faith is the assurance that what we hope for will come about and the certainty that what we cannot see exists." This is a poor translation, and most translations rightfully do not translate elenchos as 'certainty'.

Certainty is a feeling and cannot actually exist. When it comes to what is objectively true, we can't be 100% certain, which is why faith is necessary. This is very postmodern of me, but it's true. I believe Christianity is true, but I could be wrong. Atheists could be right. Because there are those possibilities, neither of us can claim to be certain about what the truth is. We can feel certain, and often do, but that doesn't make what we believe objectively true.

In science, theories, laws, and facts are all considered subject to the possibility of falsification. We simply cannot be certain of even the most basic facts. We can't even prove that reality exists beyond our minds. The simple fact that there are other creatures that see more colors than we do should tell us that we can't be 100% certain about what we perceive to be true. Thus, faith is absolutely essential, it is the starting point of every ideology. To quote Einstein (who was much smarter than I), "There is no logical path leading to [universal] laws [from which a picture of the world can be obtained]. They are only to be reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love."(1) Lesslie Newbigin equates this 'intellectual love' with faith.(2)

I should clarify that I am not advocating strict pluralism or relativism, which maintains that truth is completely relative and whatever we believe is true determines what actually is true ("He's right and he's right? They can't both be right"). There is no true-for-you vs. true-for-me; objective truth exists, but, as 1 Cor. 13:12 says, we see things as in a mirror dimly, only knowing in part, but some day we shall know fully, seeing face to face. This verse should cause us to abandon all claims to certainty, but rather, humbly claim the truth of Christianity through faith.

I think it is about time the church recognizes the reality of pluralism, and instead of demanding that Christians adhere to certainty, and frowning upon all forms of doubt, we should humbly acknowledge our inability to know anything, and instead display with reason that the Gospel is preferable within the limited framework that we have for understanding our world.(3) All good thinkers will acknowledge that we can’t be certain of anything but simply have to do the best with what we have; Christians should do the same. As Paul Tillich said, we should "act as if it [is] possibly the case that [our] beliefs [are] false."(4)

The Christian approach to the pluralistic world before us should acknowledge the subjective nature of truth claims; not just the claims of our own, but also those of others. So if we say subjective truth claim vs. subjective truth claim, that ought to put us and the rest of the world on a level playing field. We can then ask, "Which narrative is more worthy of your faith?" and can make a case for embracing the Christian narrative.

Notes:
(1) Albert Einstein, quoted in Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989), 31.
(2) Ibid.
(3) On the subject of faith vs. certainty and doubt as a tool for Christian thinking, see Gregory A. Boyd, The Benefit of the Doubt: Breaking the Idol of Certainty (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013).
(4) Paul Tillich, quoted in Newbigin, 42.

Limited Atonement for the Whole World: Calvinist Interpretations of 1 John 2:2

"[Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2

The Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement states that Jesus did not die for the salvation of the whole world, but only for a chosen few, the elect. Thus, this verse presents a significant problem for them. I have asked several Calvinist friends of mine to send me their interpretations of this verse and how they reconcile it with their belief in limited atonement. These are their contributions:

Argument 1. The English-speaking reader may be tempted to use 1 John 2:2 as a proof-text against Reformed theology. The original Greek confutes this interpretation. In Greek, the word for "world" is κοσμος (kosmos); and its meaning is narrower in Greek than in English. My Greek dictionary notes that the word κοσμος is often used "[h]yperbolically," to mean "the multitude," or "metaphorically, that is openly." Let's consider another context in which the Apostle John uses this word. In John 7:4, Jesus' brothers tell him to go to the Feast of Booths in Jerusalem and "show thyself to the world [κοσμος]." Or consider John 12:19: "So the Pharisees said to one another, '. . . Look, the world [κοσμος] has gone after him [Jesus]" (John 12:19). So if we know a little bit of Greek, it will show that 1 John 2:2 can't be used as a proof text for either side of the predestination debate. When John says that Christ's blood is the propitiation for the sins of the κοσμος, he could mean "all mankind"; or he could mean "many others," or "even the Gentiles," or "even Christians outside our church," or "the multitudes for many generations to come."

There are two giant problems with his assessment of this verse. First, he is correct in saying that κοσμος does not necessarily have to refer to the universe or world as it does for the English word 'cosmos'. However, the word often does refer to the universe (Matt. 13:35).(1) Just because it doesn't have to refer to the universe does not mean that we shouldn't interpret it that way. The word must be defined by its context. In this case, there is another word that Eric completely ignores that helps define for us what κοσμος is supposed to mean here, which leads me to my second point:

He pays no attention to the Greek word ὅλου (holos), which means 'whole', 'all', or 'entire'. This serves to strengthen κοσμο, making it holos kosmos, the entire world, all of creation, the whole cosmos. Thus, we can't just say that this could be referring to "many others" or "even the Gentiles" (which John most certainly would have said if that is what he meant) or "even Christians outside the church" or "the multitudes for many generations to come." We have to take it to mean what it is clearly telling us: Jesus was the atoning sacrifice for the whole world.

Argument 2. I see any attempt to interpret "the whole world" as "every human being that ever lived" as endorsing universalism; how could those whose sins are paid for (including the sin of unbelief) and have Christ praying for them still perish? And what of those biblical groups of people that certainly seem damned (the many "ites" God had Israel slaughter in the OT, the Pharaohs, etc.); has Christ propitiated God’s wrath towards them and does He now pray for them?

That aside, I will say the text does not explicitly refer to the elect, as many Calvinists say. However, it also does not explicitly refer to a conditional group of people who accept God’s free gift of salvation through faith either, which many Arminians would offer. The term must be more generic then, "referring not to every single individual, but to mankind in general."(2)

I respect that he is honest about what this verse appears to be saying. However, his reason for interpreting it to be referring to "mankind in general" is quite weak. If it is referring to the whole world, he says, this implies universalism; thus, John is probably speaking generically. This is the problem with approaching the text with a preconceived theology: the text can no longer speak for itself, but has to fit in with the doctrinal framework through which it is being read.

That being said, he is mistaken in saying that the verse implies universalism. We just need to recognize the objective vs. subjective nature that characterizes salvation in the New Testament. That is, salvation is described as something that has already been accomplished objectively, but must be received subjectively in order for it to be manifested in one's life. Unfortunately, I do not have the space to make a comprehensive case for this. I have made a case for this in an article I am currently trying to get published, and in a research paper that I plan to post here. For a brief treatment of it, see my blog "Concerning the Nature of Faith and Works" (here). Suffice it to say, this verse does not have to imply universalism. Rather than dismiss this verse because it seems to, one has to re-work their doctrinal framework to include the claim of this verse. Limited atonement simply does not fit. There is nothing limited about an atonement that is for the holos kosmos.

Argument 3. 1 John 2:2 is a beautiful and comforting passage dedicated to the assurance we have in Christ Jesus. While some have attempted to twist this passage in favor of an Arminian soteriology, it is crucial to note that John is not explaining the process of the atonement, but rather he is reaffirming basic Christian truths for the comfort of the doubting believer. Anticipating the slant of this blog post, however, it would seem less appropriate to expound upon the unwavering promises of God, and more fitting to address the heretical view that leads some to believe in unlimited atonement. The cold, hard truth is that the verse never says that every individual can or will be saved by their own will. Instead, we are told that Christ's death transcends the Israelites, God's former people. It also deserves to be said that a generally sound rule of hermaneutics is not to build a doctrine upon one verse. Sole use of 1 John 2:2 to establish unlimited atonement flies in the face of myriad other passages such as John 10:11, Mathew 25:31-46, Ephesians 5:25, and Acts 20:28 - all of which plainly depict Christ as dying for the elect or His church. My hope is that we will be able to reclaim this beautiful promise of our Lord for the assurance that it will have in our lives - that God's people are not restricted to one nationality, but are literally of the whole world.

There are a number of things to be said about this approach. 1) Whether John is "explaining the process of the atonement" or "reaffirming basic Christian truths," the message of the verse remains the same: salvation is not just for us, but the entire world. 2) I find it baffling that he calls it a "cold, hard truth" that the verse does not point to unlimited atonement, yet he can't justify this exegetically at all. This leads me to 3) his conclusion is a very weak interpretation of the verse. He reduces the all-inclusiveness of this verse to saying that "Christ's death transcends the Israelites." Israelite-Gentile inclusion in the gospel is not the issue here. Nor is John talking solely to jews. He is addressing a church. Furthermore, John is not thinking in limited terms at all. If there is a cold hard truth here, it is that Jesus died for the whole world. This overrules any notion of limited atonement.

[Side note: I am not, as he accuses, forming a doctrine off of this one verse. I have made a case for inclusivism here and universal reconciliation here and here. The point of focusing on this verse now is because I think it makes belief in limited atonement impossible. There are others, but this is the strongest one, the one I still think cannot be reconciled with the L in TULIP.]

Finally, 4) The verses he cites as supporting the doctrine of limited atonement/election don't even come close to doing so:

John 10:11: Talk about not explaining the process of the atonement, this verse doesn't deal with it at all! Jesus says that he lays down his life for his sheep. Does that mean he was the atoning sacrifice for only his sheep? No, it means he sacrifices himself for his sheep, whether that is on the cross, or in their daily lives (like he did for his disciples). Are his sheep a select group of people chosen before the foundations of the world to be saved? Nowhere is that implied, and it cannot be deduced from this verse.

Matt. 25:31-46: Separating the sheep from the goats does not even begin to imply that Christ only died for a few people that he chose from eternity. This simply implies that there will come a day when he will separate those that chose to follow him, and those who rejected him.

Ephesians 5:25: So Christ gave himself up for the church...and? The verse doesn't imply that it was solely for the church, nor does it imply that the church is made up of people that were elected for salvation before time began. And again, for someone who criticizes use of a verse that doesn't explain the atonement to form atonement doctrine, he doesn't seem too concerned about not doing so himself. This verse has very little to do with the atonement.

Acts 20:28: Again, why does Christ dying for the church imply that he only died for a select group of people and not for the whole world? This verse does not rule out unlimited atonement at all. If I save 10 people from a burning house, and 2 of them go back to their families and say "John Daniel saved us from the burning fire," it would be ridiculous to conclude from that that they were the only ones I saved. What makes this more ridiculous is that 1 John 2:2 explicitly says that it wasn't just for the church, but for the whole world!

Think you can do better than these guys? Send me your approach to this verse at johndanielwashere@gmail.com

Notes:
(1) See Hermann Sasse's contribution on kosmos to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3, 867-898.
(2) John MacArthur, The Macarthur Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 1952. 

Petitionary Prayer: What is it Good for?

Prayer is often thought to be something that doesn't affect what will actually turn out. Because God already knows what he is going to do, so it is said, prayer is for our benefit, our own change, rather than changing what will occur.

Prayer is also often treated like a vending machine; insert a prayer, out comes a blessing. God is a genie in a bottle, to whom we can go to with any request for him to fill.

With these construals of prayer, it is widely taken for granted or trivialized. I often get the feeling in prayer groups that we're all praying for stuff to happen but we don't actually think anything is going to come from it.

Prayer has become a ritual to which we ascribe power on a surface level, but we don't use it in such a way that we take seriously the power it has.

A problem I think we have is that we pray without acknowledging any limits to our prayers, resulting in unrealistic prayers. Treating God like a genie in a bottle who can do anything for us trivializes prayer, because it doesn't ring true. We don't experience prayer that way. I do not experience the effectiveness of my prayers the same way I experience the effectiveness of a dollar when I use it to buy a Coke from a vending machine. Because of the dissonance between idea and experience--between what is thought about prayer and what the reality is--the power of prayer is demeaned, and prayer becomes just something that we do. Ask for it in prayer because that's what Christians do, but don't expect anything.

I think this trivialization could be changed if we thought about prayer more realistically. In an attempt to do so, I would like to highlight a couple of major limitations on prayer that we seldom acknowledge.

Disclaimer: Talk of what God can or cannot do must not be taken to mean I am questioning God's actual ability. I assume God's omnipotence. However, there are certain things God cannot do within the framework which he himself has set--that is, within the boundaries he set on himself and the natural order. There's a difference between the power God possesses and the power he exercises.

1. God cannot violate the free will of human beings

By saying 'Yes' to free will for humans, God inevitably said 'No' to absolute control; he chose to give humans quite a bit of control over what occurs. Thus, when we pray, we must take into account that God cannot just do anything we ask of him. Consider David Basinger's words:

God so values the inherent integrity of significant human freedom . . . that he will not as a general rule force his created moral agents to perform actions that they do not freely desire to perform. . . . [I] doubt that he would override the freedom of one individual primarily because he was freely asked to do so by another.(1)

For example, if a friend of mine is going into a job interview, I cannot realistically pray that God will simply have the employer hire him/her, as if God is going to overrule the employer's free will and give my friend a job. Put yourself in the employer's position; would God override your freedom and control your actions to accomplish a certain end?

We do not see God doing this in Scripture. Consider these examples:

All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations. Isaiah 65:2

I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?' Ezekiel 33:11

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Matthew 23:37

The Pharisees and the experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves. Luke 7:30

You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Acts 7:51

These verses point to the reality of human freedom, and how often that freedom can oppose the will of God; and if God wants people to have freedom, there's only so much he can do in a particular situation.

2. God cannot violate the free will of spiritual beings

This one is often overlooked by Christians, but it's a big one. Walter Wink says,

Prayer involves not just God and people, but God and people and the Powers. What God is able to do in the world is hindered, to a considerable extent, by the rebelliousness, resistance, and self-interest of the Powers exercising their freedom under God.(2)

A striking example of this is found in Daniel 10, in which an angel comes to Daniel in a vision and says:

Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. vv.12-13

This passage tells us that, when Daniel prayed, an angel was dispatched to meet his need, but was held up by an evil being! And it was so bad that had to call in for back-up. This, he says, is why it took so long for Daniel's prayer to be addressed.

Have you ever heard that passage talked about in a sermon on prayer? It gives us an incredibly different picture of the power of prayer than the one we so often engage. Prayer is not simply asking God for things. Prayer is spiritual warfare! Our prayers are spiritual contributions to the victory of the kingdom of God over evil. With prayer, we add oil to the Kingdom fire.

An Alternative View of Prayer

God is always doing everything he can to bring good out of every situation (Rom. 8:28). Terence Fretheim notes that to say God intervenes is a mistake, because it implies, "that God is not normally present but intervenes now and then with a goody or a baddy."(3) Subjectively, it may seem like God intervenes, but in such cases, our eyes are being opened to what God is always doing, or trying to do. As Greg Boyd says, "God sovereignly influences the whole process, working to bring about as much good and to prevent as much evil as possible."(4) William Hasker describes several ways God does this:

There are circumstances which God is able to arrange. There are the influences coming from other persons who are in tune with God's purposes in a situation. And above all, there is the 'internal operation of the Holy Spirit,' working within a person's mind and will in ways we only dimly understand. God respects us, but he does not 'leave us alone' to make our decision in isolation from his loving concern for us.(5)

Given this framework, our prayers create opportunity through which God can work; they create possibilities that were not possible before we prayed. As Boyd says,

By God's own design, [prayer] functions as a crucial constituent in the 'givens' of any particular situation that makes it possible for God more intensely to steer a situation to his desired end.(6)

Or, in Fretheim's words, "prayers make available to God some new ingredients . . . with which to work the divine will into a situation."(7) Put another way, Clark Pinnock says that prayer "expands God's effective presence in the world."(8) This is what we provide as vessels of the Holy Spirit.

Challenge

When you pray, think about how you are praying. Consider the fact that your prayer actually has power to affect what happens, and let that acknowledgement inspire you to pray realistically, taking the free wills of others into account.

This may sound like it limits prayer, but I think if we begin to pray realistically, we will start to pray more fervently and effectively, because it will teach us to pray for things in such a way that we acknowledge our prayer can affect what happens, instead of merely praying ritualistically.

Acknowledging parameters on how we pray will keep us from taking prayer for granted or trivializing it, and will expand our understanding of the power of prayer.

For further reading:
Gregory A. Boyd, "Praying in the Whirlwind," in Satan and the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 209-241.
Terence Fretheim, "Divine Dependence on the Human: An Old Testament Perspective." Ex Auditu 13 (1997): 1-13.
Vincent Brümmer, "Praying for Things to Happen," in What Are We Doing When We Pray? rev. ed. (Burlington, Ashgate, 2008), 33-81.

Notes:
(1) David Basinger, "Practical Implications," in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 160-161.
(2) Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 311.
(3) This was said in a presentation Terence Fretheim gave called "Divine-Human Relationship," which can be found on Itunes U. 
(4) Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 237.
(5) William Hasker, Providence, Evil and the Openness of God (New York: Routledge, 2004), 224.
(6) Boyd, 231.
(7) Terence Fretheim, "Divine Dependence on the Human: An Old Testament Perspective." Ex Auditu 13 (1997), 2.
(8) Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 173.