The God Who Risks (1998) (edit title/settings)

Ridiculously Simplified Synopsis edit

Write a ridiculously simplified synopsis.

Characters/People edit see section history

• Paul Helm: Add a description of this character.
• Abraham
• Peter
• Saul
• Joseph
• John Calvin
• Moses
• Augustine
• Jacob
• David
• Pharaoh
• Aquinas
• James
• Yahweh
• Amos
• Adam
• Isaac
• Hosea
• Susan
• Mary
• Matthew
• Hezekiah
• Erickson
• Jeremiah
• Billy Bob
• Samuel
• Karl Barth
• John Wesley
• Luther
• Ishmael
• Habakkuk
• Isaiah
• Sarah
• Joel
• Justin
• Brümmer
• Ware
• Marcion
• Nebuchadnezzar
• Paul Fiddes
• Lindstrom
• Kaufman
• Ralph

Quotes edit see section history

• “Different key models embody different theologies. Many of our theological disputes arise because we look at the "evidence" through different lenses. When we read the Scriptures through the lenses of certain models, return to interpret scripture from that perspective. Thus it is not surprising that someone affirming God has the immutable king would view the biblical texts on the divine repentance as anthropomorphisms so that God never actually changes his mind. Moreover, our models shape the practices of the Christian life (for example, petitionary prayer) we develop. Do our prayers ever affect what God decides to do? The way we view such practices discloses the model we affirm. Because models make a difference in how we read the biblical text, as well as in how we live out our faith, it is important to ponder these relationships.”

• “But Isaiah is not establishing axioms about transcendence. He is informing his people that they may feel safe in returning to Yahweh, despite their previous idolatry, because Yahweh is a God who pardons and shows mercy to sinners. He implores the Israelites to return to Yahweh because Yahweh is not like us humans—he forgives! (See also Hos 11:8-9.) It is because God's character is different from human sinfulness that God seeks genuine reconciliation and healing for the wounded relationship. This and similar texts refer to character differences between God and humans, not ontological and epistemological differences. For Isaiah, God as incomparable to humans in that he loves those we would not. Thus the real paradox is not between God is an absolute and God as anthropomorphic but between God's grace and human sin.”

• “Though God grants the creatures room to be genuine others, God desires that this freedom be used within limits. God establishes boundaries for humanity outside of which it is not good for them to be. God provides the garden for Adam's aesthetic enjoyment and physical nourishment (2:9). In this garden are located the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A command is given that he may eat from all the trees except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Humans are not to decide on their own, apart from God, what is good–what is in their own best interest. God establishes the boundaries for creatureliness. If we break through these limits, we reject the divine wisdom, implying that God does not have our best interests at heart. We are not created to live our lives separate from God but in trusting confidence that God loves us and gives his commandments for our good.”

• “Significantly, God does not grant the humans permission to trust God or not to trust him as though trust in God were optional. Levenson remarks that "for all the language of choice that characterizes covenant texts, the Hebrew Bible never regards the choice to decline covenant as legitimate." God says, "Trust me, do not eat of this particular tree." A negative consequence is stipulated if they do: death (definitely not a "live option").”

• “God desires to bless humanity through a life of loving trust, which is manifested in obediently caring for the creation and abstaining from an attempt to get outside our limits. At this point God expects humans to trust God and believe that he has their best interests in mind. God, in freedom, establishes the context in which a loving and trusting relationship between himself and the humans can develop. God expects that it will, and there is no reason to suspect, at this point in the narrative, that any other possibility will come about. A break in the relationship does not seem plausible considering all the good that God has done. Yet a possibility has been introduced by God's commandment. Got now places an unavoidable decision before the humans (the earliest reference to the biblical theme of testing): Will they be faithful to live within the boundaries of their creatureliness? Here we have the sovereign risk!”

• “God sovereignly places humans in an environment for their good and expect them to respond appropriately. In this sovereignt God grants human space to be a significant other in relation to God. God provides some relational distance, as he does not smother them with his presence. By commanding them to trust and obey, God also acknowledges the possibility of mistrust and sin. Up to this point Genesis has been silent regarding any opposition to God. But in making creatures who should love him but may oppose him, God places the risk out in the open. Yet there is no reason to expect anything except love in return to the loving providence of God, for God has (so to speak) stacked the deck in his favor.”

• “Rather, God works with his creatures in flexible ways seeking to obtain the goals he has for them. God genuinel enters into dynamic give-and-take relationships with humans, loving them and providing for them but not forcing his will on them through overwhelming power. Instead, God works through the power of love, seeking to bring us into fellowship with himself and into collaboration with him in the divine project.”

• “A trusting relationship with God involves questions. God does not consider these questions impertinent or doubting.”

• “God will work in the world but typically not apart from people of faith. Human faith and action make a difference to God in the fulfillment of his plans. In choosing to depend on human beings for some things, God takes the risk of being either delighted or disappointed in what transpires.”

• “God created in freedom. God elected to work with Abraham in freedom. In freedom God chose Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau and Israel over the other nations. In these cases divine election comes first, but election must be understood as resulting from the divine love for the sake of relationship. Consequently, a conditional element arises: Well the people accept divine election and be faithful to it? In election God freely takes the initiative and then freely binds himself by promise and covenant with the people. After Sinai 'the entire history of Israel, as protrayed in the Bible, is governed by this outstanding reality. Coveneant consciousness suffuses all subsequent developments.'”

• “While Yahweh's initial rescue is unconditional and without reservation, a sustained relation with Yahweh is one of rigorous demand for covenant.”

  Walter Brueggemann

• “Blessings are promised to the people as they faithfully trust the covenant God: they will be a 'priestly kingdom and a holy nation.' The text does not explain what this means. I suggest that it involves a ministry on the part of the Israelites to the rest of the world. Through them, all the nations of the world would be blessed (Gen 12:3). As God's 'treasured possession,' they would serve to direct people to God. The question is whether Israel will fulfill this calling. God places his project for the future of the world into their hands. God will work with them, but God sovereignly decides to make his project dependent on this people. They cannot do it without God; God will not do it without them. Risk is involved, for God makes his redemptive work vulnerable: Will anyone faithfully keep the covenant?”

• “Will the people become a holy nation? Will they love God with all their strength (Deut 6:5), show love to their neighbors (Lev 19:18), care for the aliens among them (Lev 19:34) and care for widows and orphans (Deut 10:17-19)? A reading of the Bible reveals that, overall, God was very disappointed with Israel in this regard. The cultus failed to produce godly people. God sent prophets to them, but their messages went largely unheeded. After centuries of struggling with the people, God expresses his exasperation with them: 'I was ready to be sought out by those who did not ask, to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, "Here I am, here I am," to a nation that did not call on my name. I held out my hands all day long to a rebellious people' (Is 65:1-2). One can almost picture God jumping up and down, waving his arms shouting, 'Here I am!' so desirous is he of covenant relations.”

• “Moreover, God is indeed a potter and a king but one whose clay and subjects sometimes cooperate with and sometimes rebel against divine initiatives. At times the rebellious subjects even kill the king's messengers. The clay refuses to be shaped in the direction the potter desires. In response, God sometimes brings events to a determined head and at other times allows events to go their way. This results in a messy view of providence. Deism and pancausality offer more straightforward perspectives in which God uniformly does nothing or uniformly does everything. But God has sovereignly decided to providentially operate in a dynamic give-and-take relationship with his creatures.”

• “Presence has to do with relationship. The distance between those in the relationship decreases as a freely share themselves. Becoming close means being available and vulnerable. The relationship may backfire. One maybe taken advantage of and hurt. In this regard it is not surprising that the divine presence is affected by human action. Although God is never considered entirely absent in the Old Testament—those who ask where God is expect God to hear their question—God may withdraw his special presence from individuals or from the temple (Ezek 8:6).”

• “Even when the divine judge pours out his wrath, there is love behind it. This idea is aptly summed up by Heschel: "The secret of anger is God's care." Divine wrath bespeaks divine concern. God cares deeply about his beloved—the creatures he made. He is not indifferent towards them. God cannot stand to see the beloved ruin herself so he actively seeks renewal. When those efforts are rejected, God becomes angry. The divine wrath is a response to being dismissed by the one he loves. The break in relationship brings grief to the heart of God. God is personally involved. He has made himself vulnerable, and that vulnerability has been betrayed. The breaking of the relationship is like a divorce, and its impact on God is real; it changes him.”

• “God loves his creation. Out of this love, God takes steps to redeem creation when it goes astray. God sovereignly makes himself vulnerable because he cares for his creatures and gets involved with them. Even wrathful judgment expresses this divine love. God does not stand idly by and watch his beloved ruin herself. The love God has for his people is neither indifferent nor soft. It is a powerful love that acts in the best interest of the beloved.”

• “Yahweh is 'merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.' He forgives iniquity yet will not neglect needed judgment on sin (34:6-7). These attributes characterize God in relation to his people. This is what humanity needs to know in order to live in relation to God. Informed of these divine characteristics, we may make our way in the world with God, his steadfast love renewing us, his justice challenging us and his mercy comforting us.”

• “The picture of God presented to us throughout the Old Testament is that of a God who has chosen to work with, rather than just upon human beings, so that humans (in this case Moses) are given the chance, if they will accept the responsibility, to contribute to a future that will be different from what it would have been, had they remained passive.”

  Donald E. Gowan

• “Prayer encourages dialogue, not monologue. By speaking up, Moses made an impact on God. God chooses not to leave the future solely in our hands, but neither does he decide that we should simply leave it in God's hands. God sovereignly decides that the route into the future will involve a genuine divine-human partnership.”

• “According to the Gospel of John, Jesus is the divine word who became human and tabernacled among us, displaying the glory (1:14). Moses requested to see the divine glory, but God denied his request and instead allowed Moses to experience the proclamation of the divine name (Ex 33:18-34:7). In Jesus, however, we have the divine glory and the divine name itself in human form; one who has seen Jesus has seen God (Jn14:9). Jesus Christ in his humanity is constitutive of the very nature of God, for he is the definitive self-revelation and self-communication of God to us. Taking a closer look at the life of Jesus can show us how providence is exercised. We can learn to appreciated the power of faithful love when we understand that everything is not unfolding to some eternal movie God produced. In Jesus we see the genuine character of God, who is neither an omnipotent tyrant nor and impotent wimp.”

• “The task of a Christian doctrine of providence is to understand the "foolishness of God" in the life of Jesus.”

• “Jesus chooses the path of faithful trust in God the Father in the midst of life's uncertainties. "What does it mean to worship and serve the Abba God?" asks Tupper. "It includes the renunciation of dominating power and overwhelming force as the way to accomplish the will of God." The way of God in the world is not a display of raw omnipotence–a love of power–but the power of love. It is in this that Jesus trusts.”

• “Thus Jesus' miraculous feeding of the four thousand does not occur out of thin air. The people involved in the miracle have entered into relationship with Jesus, and Jesus works to enlarge the resources available. Divine providence occurs within historically contextualized settings. Miracles such as this do not just happen anytime, anywhere for any reason. The messiahship of Jesus is being demonstrated, and the people are open to this message. God works through this setting and the available resources to bless them.”

• “Isaac asked Abraham where the lamb was for the offering. Jesus is wondering whether his Father will supply a lamb. God stopped Abraham offering Isaac, God will not stop himself from offering Son. Jesus is the Lamb supplied. Providence has taken many a strange and interesting turn on its road to Calvary. In Gethsemane Jesus wonders whether there is another way. But Father and Son, in seeking to accomplish the project, both come to understand that there is no other way.”

• “What impact does the cross have on humans? Early on, it dashed the disciples' hopes against the rocks. They had thought that Jesus was the Messiah (Lk 24:21), but a crucified Messiah was an oxymoron for them. A crucified person was accursed of God (Deut 21:22-23), whereas the Messiah was the anointed of God. How could the Messiah be godforsaken? It made no sense to them, given their interpretive framework of what messiahship meant. A crucified God was an oxymoron for Greeks as well. A real king, a genuine messiah, a true Son of God would have come down from the cross, demonstrating his omnipotence (Mt 27:42-43). The cross struck everyone looking on as utter folly.”

• “However, I am certain of one thing: God loves sinners and desires to destroy the evil that enslaves them. The cross expresses how God seeks to accomplish this. The cross did not transform the Father's attitude towards sinners from hatred to love. The father has always loved his creatures—in spite of sin— and makes himself vulnerable to them, as the Old Testament demonstrates.”

• “Jesus becomes the victim but is not rendered impotent, for he demonstrates the way to victory: "Father, forgive them" (Lk 23:34). The victim refuses to be vindictive. It is through the seeming weakness of forgiveness that Jesus overcomes the sin of the world.”

• “As Moltmann writes, 'The suffering proves to be stronger than hate. Its might is powerful in weakness and gains power over its enemies in grief, because it gives life even to its enemies and opens up the future to change.'”

  Jurgen Moltmann

• “The teaching of Jesus also brings out the way of God's love toward a world of sinners. God does not overlook our sin; it must be dealt with in order to bring about reconciliation.”

• “God's project is to develop people who love and trust him in response to his love and manifest their love of God in effective action to others. God is gracious toward sinners, and this gracious love enables us to turn from our sin and begin to live out the values of Jesus. God's goal is to conform us to the image of Jesus (Rom 8:29).”

• “The hope that we have does not mean that our lives will be comfortable or that nothing bad will happen to us. In Hebews 11:32-39 the author explains that although some people in the Old Testament were successful (by human standards), others were not. Whereas some were victorious in battle, others wre killed; some were miraculously delivered, but others were martyred. Nevertheless, all these people gained God's approval, since they trusted God whether good or bad happened to them (Heb 11:39). God was as pleased with those who conquered kingdoms as he was with those who went hungry or were tortured. Providence does not allow us to predict what people of faith will experience in llife.”

• “Third, Gregersen says, 'the fundamental risks of God are connected to the risk involved in giving gifts.' God gifts us with creation, existence and himself. Giving gifts to others means they are no longer yours to control and the recievers may not use them for the good. God not only exposes us to risks in the creation but he experiences them firsthand in Jesus.”

• “Two peple are not obliged to share themselves with one another. But if they want to form a friendship, then it is incumbent on them to take the risk of vulnerability toward one another. Risk taking must be seen as an element in the broader structure of goals and relationships. Risk taking involves vulnerability, an openness to loss or gain, suffering or delight.”

• “God was confident that in gifting us with existence and his love he would succeed with an overall positive outcome. When sin entered the picture, God neither gave up on his project nor withdrew the original rules of the game. God's overarching purpose for the project, as well as his character, keeps him in the game despite the risk.”

• “In the Christian tradition God has been described as loving, patient and enduring, but the fact that love does not selfishly insist on its own way has certainly been a neglected theme in discussions of providence and omnipotence. Instead, it has been common to insist, with Augustine, that 'the will of the omnipotent is always undefeated.' Consequently, Paul's conception of love, which entails vulnerability, has been subjugated to absolute power.”

• “For Paul 'God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom' (1 Cor 1:25). God's wisdom is manifested in the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Son of God. To us, death vulnerability and risk seem utter folly, inappropriate ways of acting for a deity. Yet the way of Jesus is the way of powerful love, a love that calls us to be reconciled with God, a love that raises us in resurrection life to share in the divine love. God has not chosen immunity from the suffering involved in a relationship with sinners. Nor has God chosen to override by raw power the personhood of the creatures he made to love. Rather, it is the way of love that works to accomplish the divine project. And though in many respects history reflects a terrible mess, I believe and hope, on the basis of Jesus' resurrection, that God has made, is making and will continue to make progress toward satisfactory achievement of his goal.”

• “'God's being is indestructible, his plan and purpose are unalterable. His love is unfailing and inexorable. His grace is irreversible and persevering. This is the biblical picture of God's unchangeableness.'”

  Donald Bloesch

• “Some, however, prefer to base their confidence in divine impassability (strongly defined) or timelessness as metaphysical guarantees that God will not let us down. This is wrongheaded, however, since it substitutes certainty in an unchanging concept for confidence in a faithful God. The reason to trust a personal God is that God has proven to be faithful. The Christian faith is not trust in an immutable timeless principle; it is trust in the everlasting personal and faithful God known as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God swears by himself that he will remain faithful to his promises (Heb 6:13). God has proven himself faithful in the past, so we have confidence that God will be faithful in the future.”

• “In the Gospel the lordship of God is expressed in a most unexpected and (for many in Paul's day) unsatisfactory fashion. A crucified messiah was a stumbling block for many of his fellow Jews. And incarnate and dying Son of God was foolishness to his Greek contemporaries. The gospel story made God sound weak and foolish to those who had preconceived notions of what is fitting for God to do. Paul, however, is convinced that Jesus is "the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength (1 Cor 1:24-25). Elsewhere Paul says that the gospel is "the power of God for salvation" (Rom 1:16).”

• “Paul's opponents (Jews and Greeks) held views of divine power drawn from general notions of what is fitting for God to be and do. Such views are "according to the flesh" (truly anthropomorphic) and represent a worldly way of interpreting the Jesus story. For Paul, all notions of divine power and weakness must be filteeds through the cross and resurrection of Jesus, since these events display the wisdom and power of God.”

• “When God created he did not have a blueprint for everything in creation. Instead, he had a destination in mind and desired to take a journey with us. Both the ultimate goal and the boundaries of the journey are set by the creator, but many of the specifics of the course are set by both God and humans as we travel together in history.”

• “Regarding the divine-human relation it maybe said that God has been the initiator in both creation and redemption and does much more than we do in establishing and maintaining the relationship. God, however, does not want to dance alone, dance with a mannequin or hire someone who is obliged to dance with him. God wants to dance with us as persons in fellowship, not with puppets or contracted performers, and thus needs our consent. Mutual fellowship requires reciprocity between two parties.”

• “'The man who is wooing a woman can neither manipulate her into loving him, nor claim that she is, or would be if he performed certain feats, under an obligation to love him: but there are many things he can still do; things which are pleasing to her, things which will show her his ardent devotion.'”

  J. R. Lucas

• “In stark constrast, J. R. Lucas suggests that God be seen as a Persian rug-maker who lets his children help in production. 'The children fail to carry out their father's instructions exactly, but so great is their father's skill, that he adapts his design at his end to take in each error at his children's end, and work it into a new, constantly adapted, pattern. So too, God. He does not, cannot, have one single plan for the world, from which we, by our errors, ignorances, and sins, are even further departing.'”

• “'Though Adam is fallen and disgraced, he is not too low for God to make Himself his Brother, and to be for him a God who must strangely contend for his status, honour and right'”

  Karl Barth

• “Some people would rather have an impersonal principle, manageable by human ideals, than a personal God who gets involved with us.”

• “Nevertheless, in my opinion, God is much more active than we can ever identify. But most of his work—like most of an iceberg—goes largely unseen. Theists simply do not know all the reasons behind God's actions, such as why God may act in one situation for one person but not, insofar as we know, in another situation for someone else.”

• “'Of course it is possible that if I knew all the relevant facts I would create a world very different to this one. But it is also possible that I would create a world as much like this one that I could I just don't know enough to say, and neither does anyone else, in my opinion.'”

  Steven T. Davis

• “Within general providence it makes sense to say that God intends an overall purpose for the creation and that God does not specifically intend each and every action within the creation. Thus God does not have a specific divine plan for each and every occurrence of evil. Some evil is simply pointless because it does not serve to achieve any greater good. The 'greater good' of establishing the conditions of fellowship between God and creatures does not mean that gratuitous evil has a point. Rather, the possibility of gratuitous evil has a point but its actuality does not. That is, God has a reason for not preventing gratuitous evil—the nature of the divine project—but there is no point for the specific occurrence of gratuitous evil.”

• “Abraham, Moses, Elijah and Jesus reasoned with God and did not always acquiesce in God's presence. They dialogued with God in order to determine together what the future would be. God wants this sort of conversation not because we have anything stupendous about which to advise him but simply because God decides to make our concerns his concerns. God wants us to be his partners not because he needs our wisdom but because he wants our fellowship. The request is important because God is interested in us.”

• “We may prevail with God because God genuinely takes our desires into account. Yet God may prevail on us, getting us to change our minds and pursue a course of action that we did not initially think best. In this regard prayer provides a dialogical resource for God to work in the world. When we turn to God in prayer, we open a window of opportunity for the Spirit's work in our lives, creating new possibilities for God to carry out his project. Dialogical prayer affects both parties and changes the situation, making it different from what it was prior to the prayer.”

• “The way of Jesus is a way of life not concerned about blueprints but about being the kind of person God desires. God's major goal is to renew us in the likeness of Jesus (with all the attending individual and social implications). In the sense it could be said that God has a specific will for each and every situation: to live as Jesus would.”

• Popular Highlights from Kindle Customers

• If the incarnation is true and the divine Son experienced full human life, then God is not particularly concerned about having human characteristics attributed to him.

  Highlighted by 9 Kindle customers

• God, together with creatures, creates the future as history goes along.

  Highlighted by 8 Kindle customers

• The only answer I have for these troubling questions is that God works with what is available in the situation.

  Highlighted by 6 Kindle customers

• Heschel says that God’s concern for justice and love is not anthropomorphism, rather our concern for justice and love is a theomorphism.

  Highlighted by 6 Kindle customers

• Some important things are left in the hands of humanity as God’s co-creators such that we are to collaborate with God in the achievement of the divine project.

  Highlighted by 6 Kindle customers

• Our understanding of God is grounded in our basic-level relations with the world around us.

  Highlighted by 6 Kindle customers

• Providence refers to the way God has chosen to relate to us and provide for our well-being.

  Highlighted by 5 Kindle customers

• Though God responds to creatures, it must be stressed that the divine nature does not change.5

  Highlighted by 5 Kindle customers

• Hence, the real paradox is not between God as the absolute and God as anthropomorphic but between God’s grace and human sin.

  Highlighted by 5 Kindle customers

• The purpose of the next two chapters is to show that the Bible may legitimately be read as portraying that God takes some risks, is faithful (soft immutability), is affected by what we do (passibility), enters into temporal relations with us and possesses dynamic omniscience.

  Highlighted by 5 Kindle customers

Setting & Locations edit see section history

• Israel
• Egypt
• Jerusalem

First Sentence edit see section history

Table of Contents edit see section history

Glossary edit see section history

• heuristic: Serving to indicate or point out; stimulating interest as a means of furthering investigation.
• actus purus: (Lat. "pure act.") A term employed in scholastic philosophy to express the absolute perfection of God.
• univocal: A word or term that has only one meaning.
• anitnomy: A contradiction between two statements, both apparently obtained by correct reasoning.
• cultus: The external religious practice and observance of a group.
• aseity: Existence originating from and having no source other than itself.
• monophysitism: A Christian belief which holds that the human nature of Jesus Christ was essentially absorbed by the divine, and thus that he essentially had but one nature, contrary to the orthodox view that Christ has two natures, both fully human and fully divine.
• impassible: Not susceptible to pain or injury.
• kenosis: The doctrine that Christ relinquished His divine attributes so as to experience human suffering.
• de dicto: (Latin, "of the word.") Logical understanding of a statement in terms of the actual words used.
• de re: (Latin, "of the thing.") Logical understanding of a statement in terms of the thing itself.
• quoad nos: (Latin, "in relation to us.") The understanding of a truth as it appears to us.
• in se: (Latin, "in itself.") The understanding of a truth as it actually is.
• de facto: (Latin, "of the fact.") In practice or actuality, but not officially established.
• de jure: (Latin, "of the law.") By right, in accordance with the law, legally.
• potentia ordinata: (Latin, "ordained power.") The power in virtue of which God has created, among all possible worlds and orders of being, precisely the present one.
• potentia absoluta: (Latin, "absolute power.") The power through which God can do everything that is not in itself contradictory.
• eo ipso: (Latin) "By that very fact."
• qua: (Latin) As; in the capacity or character of.
• apophatic: Of or relating to the belief that God can be known to humans only in terms of what He is not (such as 'God is unknowable').
• panentheism: A doctrine that the universe is part of God, but that God nevertheless transcends or has some existence separate from the universe.

Authors & Contributors edit see section history

1. John Sanders (Author)

First Edition edit see section history

Classification edit see section history

• Library of Congress: BT135.S26 1998
• Dewey: 231.5

Subjects edit see section history

• Books › Religion & Spirituality › Religious Studies › Theology
• Books › Religion & Spirituality › Christianity › Theology

Books Cited by This Book edit see section history