In his book
defending “relational theology,” Wm. Curtis Holtzen wrote the following about
determinism and compatibilism:
Most theological determinists emphasise that
in the human-divine “relationship” God is the determining power but also that
humans are free to act upon their desires. Such theologians, called “soft-determinists”
or “compatibilists,” maintain that determinism and human freedom are logically
compatible . . . According to theological determinists, God causes everything
that takes place for God’s own purposes; nothing, including our free actions,
happens outside the will of God. The limits of freedom are linked to one’s
desires for one is free if one can do what is desired, but no one is free to
choose his or her desires. If either theological
determinism or compatibilism is true, then there is no need for divine faith.
(Wm. Curtis Holtzen, The God Who Trusts:
A Relational Theology of Divine Faith, Hope, and Love [Downers Grove,
Ill.: IVP, 2019], 11-12, emphasis in bold added)
In his book,
Holtzen provides many instances of God divine faith and even expressing divine doubt about people and groups. As one
example, he wrote the following about Israel and God during the time of the
prophet Jeremiah:
Jeremiah. The prophet Jeremiah also uses imagery of
marriage, and even divorce, in communicating divine doubt regarding Judah. The
question is asked, “How can I pardon you? Your children have forsaken me, and
have sworn by those who are no gods . . . Shall I not punish for these things?”
(Jer 5:7a, 9a; see also Jer 9:9). God had once believed Judah would return
after following other gods: “And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she
will return to me’; but she did not return” (Jer 3:7). Again,
And I thought you would call me, My Father,
and would not turn from following me.
Instead, as a faithless wife leaves her husband,
so you have been faithless to me, O house of Israel (Jer 3:19b-20)
and would not turn from following me.
Instead, as a faithless wife leaves her husband,
so you have been faithless to me, O house of Israel (Jer 3:19b-20)
These passages show a God who “suffers the
effects of the broken relationship at multiple levels of intimacy” (Fretheim, The Suffering of God, 116). Can we
expect anything less than God having reservations, concerns, and doubts about
continuing the relationship?
While such statements and questions reveal
God’s hurt, frustration, and other doubt, they do not constitute God’s being
unfaithful. In the end, God never forsakes those who have betrayed God but is
ever hopeful of their return. As Fretheim states, while passages such as these
indicate that, “God is indeed a vulnerable God, touched and affected in the
deepest possible way by what people have done to the relationship, God’s grief
does not entail being emotionally overwhelmed or embittered by the barrage of
rejection” (Fretheim, The Suffering of
God, 111). It could also be said that God is not overwhelmed by doubt and questions.
This is the faith God made real—God overcomes doubt that comes with being in
relationship with fallible beings. God remains faithful—trustworthy and
trusting. Summing up Jewish history, Gerald Shapiro says, “Jews doubt God, and
God doubts the Jews—it’s been part of our relationship since the golden calf” (Gerald
Shapiro, Bad Jews and Other Stories [Cambridge:
Zoland Books, 1999], 185). While Shapiro is being a bit tongue in cheek, he
nonetheless has captured the logical effects when humans mistrust: divine doubt.
(Ibid., 124-25)
This is all
the more significant as Calvinists tend to abuse some of the metaphors used in
Jeremiah, such as God being portrayed as a potter, notwithstanding texts such
as Jer 18:7-10 which explicitly teach the contingent nature of prophecies and promises which should caution against those who would try to make a systematic
theology out of such a metaphor! For a fuller discussion, see:
