Das war das erste Buch Carsons was ich bisher gelesen habe und es hat mich in mehrfacher Hinsicht von der Qualität Carsons als Bibellehrer überzeugt. In vier Kapiteln zeigt er eine hohe Qualität als Ausleger auf, erhält den Lesefluss durch eine klare Argumentation aufrecht, verknüpft auch (heute) kompliziert gewordene Doktrin mit einer Lebensnähe und argumentiert dabei immer mit einem großen Verständnis für alternative Verständnisse. Nicht umsonst führt zeltmacher aus: Carson ist unstreitig einer der führenden Theologen unserer Zeit, seine Reputation herausragend. Seine Bücher lohnen sich, sein Leben ist mehr als nur ein Vorbild.
Zunächst unterscheidet Carson zwischen fünf Arten über die Liebe Gottes zu reden:
- die innertrinitäre Liebe in Gott
- die Liebe in der Vorsehung zur Schöpfung
- Gottes Erlöserliebe zu seiner gefallenen Welt
- Gottes bestimmte und effektive Liebe zu seinen Erwählten
- Gottes Liebe, die an Bedingungen geknüpft ist
Carson führt aus, dass die ausschließliche Fixierung auf eine dieser Komponenten schädlich ist:
If the love of God is exclusively portrayed as an inviting, yearning, sinner-seeking, rather lovesick passion, we may strengthen the hands of Arminians, semi-Pelagians, Pelagians, and those more interested in God’s inner emotional life than in his justice and glory, but the cost will be massive. There is some truth in this picture of God, as we shall see, some glorious truth. (…) If the love of God refers exclusively to his love for the elect, it is easy to drift toward a simple and absolute bifurcation: God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. Rightly positioned, there is truth in this assertion; stripped of complementary biblical truths, that same assertion has engendered hyper-Calvinism. I use the term advisedly, referring to groups within the Reformed tradition that have forbidden the free offer of the Gospel. (…) If the love of God is construed entirely within the kind of dis-course that ties God’s love to our obedience (e.g., “Keep yourselves in the love of God”), the dangers threatening us change once again. True, in a church characterized rather more by personal preference and antinomianism than godly fear of the Lord, such passages surely have something to say to us. But divorced from complementary biblical utterances about the love of God, such texts may drive us backward toward merit theology, endless fretting about whether or not we have been good enough today to enjoy the love of God—to be free from all the paroxysms of guilt from which the cross alone may free us. (S.21 f). In short, we need all of what Scripture says on this subject, or the doctrinal and pastoral ramifications will prove disastrous.
Später räumt Carson mit dem Vorurteil auf, man könne einem besseren Verständnis der Liebe Gottes durch eine Simple Wortstudie näher kommen. Wer hat das schon nicht mal gehört, die übliche dreiteilung: Eros, Agape und Phileo. Dabei überbaut man Agape mit der Bedeutung einer “übermenschlichen göttlichen Liebe”, obwohl agape auch verwendet wird, um die schändliche Liebe Amnons zu Thamar zu beschreiben ( LXX 2 Sa 13,14) , die Liebe des Vaters zum Sohne aber auch mit phileo (Joh 5,20). Wiederum wird agape verwendet, als Paulus schreibt, dass Demas die Welt lieb gewonnen hat. Carson geht sogar der historischen Entwicklung dieser Haltung nach und entdeckt, dass diese Fixierung auf den Rationalismus zurückführt, der keinerlei Emotionen in Gott dulden wollte. Dabei haben Christen immer wieder auch betont, dass Gott “leidenschaftslos” ist, eine gute und weiße Differenzierung ist nötig, um hier Waage zu halten:
Thus I am not surreptitiously retreating to a notion of love that is merely willed altruism; I am not suggesting that God’s love be dissolved in God’s will. Rather, I am suggesting that we will suc-cessfully guard against the evils that impassibility combats if we recognize that God’s “passions,” unlike ours, do not flare up out of control. Our passions change our direction and priorities, domesticating our will, controlling our misery and our happi-ness, surprising and destroying or establishing our commit-ments. But God’s “passions,” like everything else in God, are God’s Love and God’s Sovereignty displayed in conjunction with the fullness of all his other perfections. In that framework, God’s love is not so much a function of his will, as something that displays itself in perfect harmony with his will—and with his holiness, his purposes in redemption, his infinitely wise plans, and so forth.
Eine hilfreiche Ausführung zum Kompatibilismus rundet die Betrachtung des Buches ab am Beispiel von Apg. 4,23-29. Klar wird, dass Pilatus und die Juden eine klare und echte schuld trifft, und doch gerade das Opfer Christi durch den Willen Gottes geschah.
Perhaps the most striking instance of compatibilism occurs in Acts 4:23-29. The church has suffered its first whiff of persecu-tion. Peter and John report what has happened. The church prays to God in the language of Psalm 2. Their prayer continues (4:27-28): “Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” Note carefully: On the one hand, there was a terrible conspiracy that swept along Herod, Pilate, Gentile authorities, and Jewish leaders. It was a conspiracy, and they should be held accountable. On the other hand, they did what God’s power and will had decided beforehand should happen. A moment’s reflection discloses that any other account of what happened would destroy biblical Christianity. If we picture the crucifixion of Jesus Christ solely in terms of the conspiracy of the local political authorities at the time, and not in terms of God’s plan (save perhaps that he came in at the last moment and decided to use the death in a way he himself had not foreseen), then the entailment is that the cross was an accident of history. Perhaps it was an accident cleverly manipulated by God in his own interests, but it was not part of the divine plan. In that case, the entire pattern of antecedent predictive revelation is destroyed: Yom Kippur, the Passover lamb, the sacrificial system, and so forth. Rip Hebrews out of your Bible, for a start.On the other hand, if someone were to stress God’s sovereignty in Jesus’ death, exulting that all the participants “did what [God’s] power and will had decided beforehand should happen” (4:28), while forgetting that it was a wicked conspiracy, then Herod and Pilate and Judas Iscariot and the rest are exonerated of evil. If God’s sovereignty means that all under it are immune from charges of transgression, then all are immune. In that case there is no sin for which atonement is necessary. So why the cross? Either way, the cross is destroyed. In short, compatibilism is a necessary component to any mature and orthodox view of God and the world. Inevitably it raises important and difficult questions regarding secondary causality, how human accountability should be grounded, and much more. I cannot probe those matters here. (S. 53)
Für 10,49 EUR erhältlich bei buecher.de
An dieser Stelle möchte ich auch auf die zahlreichen Artikel von Hanniel Strebel zu Beiträgen Carsons verweisen, unter anderem auch eine Rezension zum selben Werk.