Hello all:
(PS - my actual question is down near the bottom!)
Had an interesting experience last weekend visiting my mom at my campus where I trained in Southern California. (LLU) There was an afternoon program called “Conversations with the Authors and the author interviewed was Richard Rice. You might know this name from the “Openness of God” discussion as he was one of the early men to expound this theology of God’s “limited” foreknowledge. He’s also written a book called “Believing, Behaving, Belonging”
amazon.com/Believing-Behaving-Belonging-Finding-Church/dp/096736941X
in which he seeks to sustain the truth that our belonging (to the community of faith) necessarily comes before our behaving and our believing. (Often how we behave and what we believe have served as predicate for our belonging…) He suggest we have it entirely backwards and that behaving and believing come more easily and naturally if in the context of belonging.
After the presentation (all very interesting!) I got a chance to speak with Rice. I told him I admired his writing and thought and that they’d had an influence in helping me reach my convictions on Universal Reconciliation. (I guarantee you he did not expect his writings to have THIS effect on his readers!) I said that the truth that we all belong is crucial to the Christian faith given that we see all as created in the image of God. And given that Christ came and died to save all, this simply confirms that all belong. So this fit with my UR leanings big time. Then, given that God does not comprehensively see the future (as He sees the past) and yet seems so certain of the completeness of His Victory at the Cross and also in Revelation, this speaks to God’s intent – and yes promise! – to act unilaterally to save us until His purposes are realized. Which of course ALSO fits very well with the truth of Universal Reconciliation.
Well, he didn’t see this at all and preferred to go the “risk of human freedom” route. God respects our freedom to choose our own destruction kind of thing… And I blurted out that there are places in scripture where it seems God is not quite as concerned with what we view as “freedom” as we might imagine; for example Paul’s brief discourse on the unthinkability of the clay telling the potter what to do with him… Here’s the salient section of Romans 9 (longer context passage included below)
20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
Doesn’t this hint (I asked) a bit at the diminishment of what we commonly see as our “freedom”?? God doing as He pleases to effect our destiny and formation?
“Oh no!” Rice said (and this is what I’d like to ask the group about here) “This parable is about us being the right kind of clay.”
Here’s the rest of the relevant (well, the entire chapter and book are relevant here!!) passage…
So what do you think?? Is this passage about us “being the right kind of clay?”
I’m still skeptical: it seems to be about the fact that God does what He wants. Specifically v16 says it does NOT depend on our desire or effort or will – which presumably would be necessary for us to “be the right kind of clay”. And He does this to make His wrath and power and ultimately His Glory known! No hint here of “being the right kind of clay.”
Any thoughts??
Bobx3