Molinism advocate and apologist Wes Widner quoted Open Theist Gregory Boyd earlier today, concerning non-violence. The quote was as follows:

Any peace achieved by violence is a peace forever threatened by violence, thus ensuring that the bloody game will be perpetuated.

This is cited (but not in the tweet, for obvious reasons) from Boyd’s The Myth of a Christian Nation, pg 27. (Excerpt of the book linked here) As no context was provided by Wes, I asked him, via Twitter, the same format I saw the quote in.

In the meantime, while waiting his reply, I performed a cursory search of his site. In November, he mentioned that self-defense was, in fact, justified.

Unfortunately, many people completely miss this point and, instead, tend to believe that where the Bible commands us to love our enemies1 and turn the other cheek2 it also forbids us from self-defense or the exercise of justice insofar as we, imperfect though we may be, can exact here on earth.

If so, we have an issue. First, why is he quoting an open heretic? Second, why is he quoting someone who is clearly opposed to his views not only on the issue of Open Theism (or so I’ve gathered, given his adherence to Molinism), but on the subject of the proper role of violence?

I received his reply: “Yes, it was from Boyd’s ‘Myth of a Christian Nation’”.

So: Wes is, indeed doing what I suspected. Citing from an Open Theist, in the context of pacifism, approvingly. However: Wes may have been unaware that Gregory Boyd is an Open Theist, or a pacifist. This goes to show, however, that theology truly does matter. If you’re going to cite an author approvingly, should it not be understood that the author is writing from a certain context? If the context in which the author is quoting is different from your own, should that not be noted?

I understand that he was merely tweeting this comment. What this doesn’t explain is why he would be tweeting this approvingly. Gregory Boyd is a heretic, quite simply. Denying the nature of God is no trivial matter. I won’t belabor that point, as Boyd is very famously the chief proponent of the Open Theology movement. Pacifism is no trivial matter either, however.

Take this article from Gregory Boyd’s blog: Jesus’ Repudiation of Old Testament Violence

A small excerpt, but you can read the rest for yourself.

Is it possible that some divinely inspired material is not supposed to reveal to us what God is like but what he is not like? Is it possible that some material is inspired precisely because God wants us to follow Jesus’ example and repudiate it?

Really? Check the context out, here:

What’s interesting is that Jesus himself repudiated the violence of the Old Testament — despite his belief that this collection of writings was inspired.

Catch that?

Now, how does that resolve itself with the quote from Wes above? Or this, from the same article:

Small wonder, therefore, that when Peter drew his sword in self-defense — acting in accordance with Old Testament norms — Jesus rebuked him.

Now, quite frankly, is this the God that Christians worship? Does this bear any resemblance to Christian theology? I highly suggest, yet with great trepidation on my own part, that we examine those whom we quote with approval.

While I’m not positive as to the nature of what he is approving of in this quote, a read through the section in question leaves me scratching my head. On the next page, there is a discussion of Peter’s debut with the sword, and it states that

“Jesus rebuked the disciple and demonstrated the nature of his unique heavenly kingdom by healing the soldier’s ear (Luke 22:50 – 51), showing that his kingdom would advance not by destroying the enemy who seeks to destroy you, but by loving, serving, and hopefully transforming the enemy who seeks to destroy you.”

On his website, he gives the explanation I posted above - that Peter was acting in self-defense. Now folks, I don’t know about you, but Peter isn’t always the sharpest tack in the drawer. He attacks - (the word used is “strikes”) and cuts the ear off of a servant. First, Peter obviously isn’t all that awesome. Second, he’s obviously not really interested in attacking soldiers or guards. He attacks a slave! (Or, re: 1, he just stinks.) Third, self-defense? What? He attacked.

Boyd’s handling of this passage is poor, in any case. Additionally, I invite you to examine the book and see WHY Boyd says what he says in the approved quote. According to Boyd, Christians are not to involve themselves in politics because that is power “over”, not power “under”. I invite you to examine his exegesis of the texts he handles there, and compare them to The Shack’s discussions of power and the nature of God. (Incidentally, Boyd is very complimentary to the author of The Shack, Paul Young. I recently addressed The Shack, and it’s manifold theological deformities, in the apologetics class I recently taught for my church.)

Wes recently addressed the theological issues with The Shack himself.

One sentence in that article struck me, as it pertains to this issue.

…it is really just another example of how many Christians in America are more willing to embrace the existential, heterodoxical, and (often) heretical views of our present day15 rather than spend the time to study and listen to the orthodox views or fathers, grand fathers, and great grandfathers in the faith handed down throughout the ages.

Is Wes arriving at the conclusion he approves of above in the same context as Boyd is doing so? If so, there is a serious theological problem to be addressed. Was he quoting this author without checking into his background, or the context of the quote? If so, this may be something we all can learn from - the believers in Berea searched the Scriptures to see if these things were so. In the same manner, it behooves us to know those whom we are quoting, to see what context we are quoting. If we fail to do so, we may lead others astray. Most importantly, we must realize that inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument - or a failed worldview. If we can affirm a statement from a context we disagree with, from a viewpoint we cannot affirm as Christians, we are being irresponsible as Christians. We represent our Savior, and as such, we cannot afford to give God’s enemies a reason to mock. In my experience, and in the testimony of Scripture, the greatest slurs to God’s name come from the inconsistencies of His followers. May we show ourselves workmen that do not have to be ashamed!

My humble suggestion to Wes is that he re-examine his own statement above in the light of Dr. Boyd’s open, repeated commitment to various heresies - and to recall that in all parts of life, theology matters.

What really strikes me about atheists in general is their amazing double standards.

They can mock you, ridicule you, write thousands of words for the sole purpose of painting you as an absolute ignoramus - yet, when you tell them you’re no longer interested in dialogue, as there is no further gain to the discussion, point out their constant harangues, you’re being “childish”. It’s just utterly amazing to me.

It’s like they don’t even see it at all. I could go through dozens of places in their posts where Christianity is derided, denigrated, or ad hominems are scattered like fallen leaves - but point that fact out, and you’re some sort of anti-social troglodyte.

All I have to say is this: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind?” I’m SO sorry that calling a spade a spade is so offensive to your sensibilities - that you cannot account for. If you don’t like being told that your endless meanderings are a waste of everyone’s time, then I suggest you stop wasting it - “not to wrangle about words, which is useless {and leads} to the ruin of the hearers.”

I’m going to include the transcript of a discussion I had (along with several others) with a Middle Knowledge proponent that frequents AOMin’s chat channel. The reason I do so is in order to give an example of how the argument I advanced recently functions in an actual discussion.

The discussion was fairly wide-ranging, but I think demonstrates the ability of a consistent return to the nature of God as the foundation of a reply to the assertions advanced by proponents of MK and other similar philosophical systems, over against the Biblical conception of God’s nature and the modal collapse I feel this outlook necessitates.

Discussion linked below.
(Read on >>>)

Week 10, here is a video playlist:

Week 11, you can find the audio here.
Week 12, we used Dr. White’s first debate with Dan Barker, which is under copyright. You may purchase it here. Preview below:

Week 13 can be found here.
Week 14 can be found here.

If the Lord intended that he should, and [he] by his death did, procure pardon of sin and reconciliation with God for all and every one, to be actually enjoyed upon condition that they do believe, then ought this good-will and intention of God, with this purchase in their behalf by Jesus Christ, to be made known to them by the word, that they might believe; “for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” Rom. x. 17: for if these things be not made known and revealed to all and every one that is concerned in them, namely, to whom the Lord intends, and for whom he hath procured so great a good, then one of these things will follow; — either, first, That they may be saved without faith in, and the knowledge of, Christ (which they cannot have unless he be revealed to them), which is false, and proved so; or else, secondly, That this good-will of God, and this purchase made by Jesus Christ, is plainly in vain, and frustrate in respect of them, yea, a plain mocking of them, that will neither do them any good to help them out of misery, nor serve the justice of God to leave them inexcusable, for what blame can redound to them for not embracing and well using a benefit which they never heard of in their lives? Doth it become the wisdom of God to send Christ to die for men that they might be saved, and never cause these men to hear of any such thing; and yet to purpose and declare that unless they do hear of it and believe it, they shall never be saved? What wise man would pay a ransom for the delivery of those captives which he is sure shall never come to the knowledge of any such payment made, and so never be the better for it? Is it answerable to the goodness of God, to deal thus with his poor creatures? to hold out towards them all in pretence the most intense love imaginable, beyond all compare and illustration, — as his love in sending his Son is set forth to be, — and yet never let them know of any such thing, but in the end to damn them for not believing it? Is it answerable to the love and kindness of Christ to us, to assign unto him at his death 239such a resolution as this:— “I will now, by the oblation of myself, obtain for all and every one peace and reconciliation with God, redemption and everlasting salvation, eternal glory in the high heavens, even for all those poor, miserable, wretched worms, condemned caitiffs, that every hour ought to expect the sentence of condemnation; and all these shall truly and really be communicated to them if they will believe. But yet, withal, I will so order things that innumerable souls shall never hear one word of all this that I have done for them, never be persuaded to believe, nor have the object of faith that is to be believed proposed to them, whereby they might indeed possibly partake of these things?” Was this the mind and will, this the design and purpose, of our merciful high priest? God forbid. It is all one as if a prince should say and proclaim, that whereas there be a number of captives held in sore bondage in such a place, and he hath a full treasure, he is resolved to redeem them every one, so that every one of them shall come out of prison that will thank him for his good-will, and in the meantime never take care to let these poor captives know his mind and pleasure; and yet be fully assured that unless he effect it himself it will never be done. Would not this be conceived a vain and ostentatious flourish, without any good intent indeed towards the poor captives? Or as if a physician should say that he hath a medicine that will cure all diseases, and he intends to cure the diseases of all, but lets but very few know his mind, or any thing of his medicine; and yet is assured that without his relation and particular information it will be known to very few. And shall he be supposed to desire, intend, or aim at the recovery of all?

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ - Book III, Chapter 1 - John Owen

It is sad to find so many professing Christians who appear to regard the wrath of God as something for which they need to make an apology, or at least they wish there were no such thing. While some would not go so far as to openly admit that they consider it a blemish on the Divine character, yet they are far from regarding it with delight, they like not to think about it, and they rarely hear it mentioned without a secret resentment rising up in their hearts against it. Even with those who are more sober in their judgment, not a few seem to imagine that there is a severity about the Divine wrath which is too terrifying to form a theme for profitable contemplation. Others harbor the delusion that God’s wrath is not consistent with His goodness, and so seek to banish it from their thoughts.

Yes, many there are who turn away from a vision of God’s wrath as though they were called to look upon some blotch in the Divine character, or some blot upon the Divine government. But what saith the Scriptures? As we turn to them we find that God has made no attempt to conceal the fact of His wrath. He is not ashamed to make it known that vengeance and fury belong unto Him. His own challenge is, “See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god with Me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand. For I lift up My hand to heaven, and say, I live forever, If I whet My glittering sword, and Mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to Mine enemies, and will reward them that hate Me” (Deut. 32:39-41). A study of the concordance will show that there are more references in Scripture to the anger, fury, and wrath of God, than there are to His love and tenderness. Because God is holy, He hates all sin; And because He hates all sin, His anger burns against the sinner: Psalm 7:11.

Now the wrath of God is as much a Divine perfection as is His faithfulness, power, or mercy. It must be so, for there is no blemish whatever, not the slightest defect in the character of God; yet there would be if “wrath” were absent from Him! Indifference to sin is a moral blemish, and he who hates it not is a moral leper. How could He who is the Sum of all excellency look with equal satisfaction upon virtue and vice, wisdom and folly? How could He who is infinitely holy disregard sin and refuse to manifest His “severity” (Rom. 9:12) toward it? How could He who delights only in that which is pure and lovely, loathe and hate not that which is impure and vile? The very nature of God makes Hell as real a necessity, as imperatively and eternally requisite as Heaven is. Not only is there no imperfection in God, but there is no perfection in Him that is less perfect than another.

The wrath of God is His eternal detestation of all unrighteousness. It is the displeasure and indignation of Divine equity against evil. It is the holiness of God stirred into activity against sin. It is the moving cause of that just sentence which He passes upon evil-doers. God is angry against sin because it is a rebelling against His authority, a wrong done to His inviolable sovereignty. Insurrectionists against God’s government shall be made to know that God is the Lord. They shall be made to feel how great that Majesty is which they despise, and how dreadful is that threatened wrath which they so little regarded. Not that God’s anger is a malignant and malicious retaliation, inflicting injury for the sake of it, or in return for injury received. No; while God will vindicate His dominion as the Governor of the universe, He will not be vindictive.

That Divine wrath is one of the perfections of God is not only evident from the considerations presented above, but is also clearly established by the express declarations of His own Word. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven” (Rom. 1:18).

Again; that the wrath of God is a Divine perfection is plainly demonstrated by what we read of in Psalm 95:11, “Unto whom I sware in My wrath.” There are two occasions of God “swearing”: in making promises (Gen. 22:16), and in denouncing threatening (Deut. 1:34). In the former, He swares in mercy to His children; in the latter, He swares to terrify the wicked. An oath is for solemn confirmation: Hebrews 6:16. In Genesis 22:16 God said, “By Myself have I sworn.” In Psalm 89:35 He declares, “Once have I sworn by My holiness.” While in Psalm 95:11 He affirmed, “I swear in My wrath.” Thus the great Jehovah Himself appeals to His “wrath” as a perfection equal to His “holiness”: He swares by the one as much as by the other! Again; as in Christ “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9), and as all the Divine perfections are illustriously displayed by Him (John 1:18), therefore do we read of “the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev. 6:16).

The wrath of God is a perfection of the Divine character upon which we need to frequently meditate. First, that our hearts may be duly impressed by God’s detestation of sin. We are ever prone to regard sin lightly, to gloss over its hideousness, to make excuses for it. But the more we study and ponder God’s abhorrence of sin and His frightful vengeance upon it, the more likely are we to realize its heinousness. Second, to beget a true fear in our souls for God: “Let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:28,29). We cannot serve Him “acceptably” unless there is due “reverence” for His awful Majesty and “godly fear” of His righteous anger, and these are best promoted by frequently calling to mind that “our God is a consuming fire.” Third, to draw out our souls in fervent praise for having delivered us from “the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10).

~ A.W. Pink - The Attributes of God - 16 - The Wrath of God.

My comment: “God is not “driven by” wrath – wrath is an attribute of God’s nature.”

CMP: No, wrath is a response of another attribute, namely righteousness. But that is not really the point of this post.

Jugulum: I actually agree w/him on “wrath”. Wrath isn’t an attr. because God’s wouldn’t be wrathful if he hadn’t created. God was/is/will-be eternally holy/righteous, which includes the trait, “I will be wrathful toward sin”. You might call that a “attr. of wrath”, but I think that was the distinction CMP was making. Similarly, God wasn’t eternally merciful, apart from a sinful creation. Mercy & wrath are expressions of his eternal attributes.

Recall this post: Divine Simplicity and Malformed Arguments.

This is another good example of why we must keep ALL of God’s attributes in mind, when formulating our theology - even on the internet. What does this point of view entail? First, that God changed. That He is not immutable. In this view, God began to be wrathful (or merciful). In this view, God’s wrath is not eternal, toward sin, nor is His mercy towards sinners eternal. Did God enter the temporal realm at a certain point in time, and thereby become successive, changeable, and non-eternal? If not, this view does not, and cannot, hold water. Similarly to when we say, as Athanasius said contra the Arians, that “there was never a time when the Son was not” - we must say that there was a never a time God’s wrath was not. God is not temporal, folks. God is not changeable, and God “is not a man, that He should change His mind”.

Hear me - I understand the distinction being made by CMP and Jugulum. However - the consequences of this view are utterly unacceptable. What God does, He eternally purposed to do. God’s righteousness is eternal, yes - but His wrath, since He is Eternal, is necessarily eternal wrath. Jer 10:10 - “But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His indignation.” Or take this - Deu 32:40-41 - “Indeed, I lift up My hand to heaven, And say, as I live forever, If I sharpen My flashing sword, And My hand takes hold on justice, I will render vengeance on My adversaries, And I will repay those who hate Me.”

As Charnock says, and as I used in my class for our 1st-6th graders recently - “Though God be least in their thoughts, and is made light of in the world, yet the thoughts of God’s eternity, when he comes to judge the world, shall make the slighters of him tremble. That the Judge and punisher lives forever, is the greatest grievance to a soul in misery, and adds an inconceivable weight to it, above what the infiniteness of God’s executive power could do without that duration. His eternity makes the punishment more dreadful than his power; his power makes it sharp, but his eternity renders it perpetual; ever to endure, is the sting at the end of every lash. And how sad is it to think that God lays his eternity as a security for the punishment of obstinate sinners… a reward proportioned to the greatness of their offences, and the glory of an eternal God!”

As to mercy, think on this - “And {He did so} to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,” - Rom 9:23. We’re all Calvinists here, right? Are not God’s decrees eternal? This is an eternal decree of mercy, folks. Not to mention Rom 9:22 - “What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?” Now, I’m aware of CMP’s comments in this vein - but I’m not convinced there is anything different in the “timing” of the preparation, there. God’s decrees are eternal. You do notice, I hope, that it undermines Jugulum’s idea that mercy is also a reaction to man’s actions. As Calvinists, we must be careful not to think that God’s eternal decrees are subject to the actions of men - or consequent to them. If God is Sovereign, He is utterly Sovereign.

I’m not really concerned with commenting on CMP’s main article - TurretinFan already did so, much more ably than I could have. I was concerned with the explanation offered by CMP, and then Jugulum for the wrath of God; and Jugulum’s further extrapolation to mercy. If God is eternal, than His attributes are necessarily eternal. To say otherwise brings about serious exegetical and apologetic issues.

“The design of every false scheme and system of religion is to depict the character of God in such a way that it is agreeable to the tastes of the carnal heart, acceptable to depraved human nature. And that can only be done by a species of misrepresentation: the ignoring of those of His prerogatives and perfections which are objectionable, and the disproportionate emphasizing of those of His attributes which appeal to their selfishness—such as His love, mercy, and long-sufferance. But let the character of God be faithfully presented as it is actually portrayed in the Scriptures—in the Old Testament as well as the New—and nine out of every ten of church-goers will frankly state that they find it impossible to love Him.” The plain fact is, dear reader, that to the present generation the Most High of Holy Writ is “the unknown God.”

—A. W. Pink (1886–1952)

That quote brings Paul’s Areopagus sermon to mind. “What you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.”

“Do you imagine that the Gospel is magnified or God glorified by going to worldlings and telling them that they “may be saved at this moment by simply accepting Christ as their personal Savior” while they are wedded to their idols and their hearts are still in love with sin? If I do so, I tell them a lie, pervert the Gospel, insult Christ, and turn the grace of God into lasciviousness.” —A. W. Pink (1886–1952)

When we examine the “all possible worlds” idea, we find that this conception fails to properly address God’s meticulous, exhaustive sovereignty over all of His creation. It also fails to properly address God’s timelessness in His exercise of exhaustive sovereignty.

It seems to me that this desire to hold to *true* counterfactuals is grounded in an assumption of the *ability* for autonomy. In reality, we find no such grounds in Scripture. “The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.” Or, “The king’s heart is {like} channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes. “. We have a desire to further our illusory goal of autonomy, and thereby project our finitude on God’s ordination – and from that ordination, on His thoughts concerning it. Yet, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. This is not a matter of *degree*, but of *category*. God is not “less finite” in His thoughts and actions, but *infinite*. Thus, God’s thoughts concerning His creation are not *less finite*, but *infinite*. Since they are timeless thoughts, there is no linearity, and there is no “progression” to them. To say that this is so, is to misunderstand the nature of the thoughts possessed by an eternal, immutable, infinite God.

To say that, for instance, it is *possible* that one of our Lord’s bones would be broken, is to overthrow the purposes of God’s sovereign ordination. The very idea of counter-factuals necessitates that they be *counter-possible*. That is the contention I’m trying to convey, despite my inferiority of language.

If: God has decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass.
Then: Nothing that God has NOT decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, CAN come to pass.

In other word, God’s decree fixes, without one possible iota of deviation, that which CAN come to pass. Alternate possibilities are thereby utterly, definitionally, *impossible*.

Take this argument:
God is necessary in all possible worlds. God is necessarily immutable in all possible worlds. God’s decree is immutable in all possible worlds. All possible worlds are identical. Modal collapse results – there is one possible world.

Does that make it plainer, what I’m saying? Unless you want to strip out the *rest* of God’s attributes, “all possible worlds” is incoherent. There are no “counter-factuals” if you really hold to God’s absolute sovereignty. Only those who wish to posit a will in man independent from the ordination of God can seek to preserve this idea.

While we can *conceive* of a world in which counter-factuals are “true” – this does not mean such a world is possible. It only means that we are finite, and think in finite terms. For “…the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.” “Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’; Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned [it, surely] I will do it.”

To say it is *possible* that God NOT do as He has eternally decreed – or that it is *possible* that God decreed things otherwise, is to so badly maul the doctrine of God as to leave it an unrecognisably mangled heap! God in his immutable perfection (wanting nothing to complete Him, lacking nothing, without fault) timelessly ordained all that He pleased to bring about.

The wonder and majesty of this conception, I fear, has been badly impugned by this idea of “all possible worlds”. While I am a rather weak vessel to attempt to do so, I feel that it must be answered.