The Epistomological Impact of an Omnitemporal Eternity on Theological Paradigms. Posted on 08/07/2002 9:26:57 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
The Epistomological Impact of an Omnitemporal Eternity on Theological Paradigms.
© 2000, J.W. Carter. All rights reserved
"From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." (Psalm 90:2)
Abstract. There have been long-held views concerning the eternity of God that have played a major part in understanding who God is, creating paradigms that lay the groundwork for Christian (and non-Christian) doctrines. The following is an argument that God, who exhibits the attribute of eternity, exists outside of created time and space as we experience it, and yet interacts with it (an attribute herein described as, omnitemporality). God created time when he created the universal Euclidean space that is measured by it. God’s omniscience and omnipresence enables Him to observe and interact with all of His creation for all time from the point of its origin to the prophesied end of the age. In such an existence man’s free will is not abrogated by God’s knowledge, leaving man responsible for his decisions. Yet, God knows the results of our decisions, not through absolute prediction but rather because He can already observe those results. This apologetic begins with an observation of eternity as demonstrated in His creation (Romans 1:19-20). We will then look at the theological, Christological, soteriological and escatological impact of such a thesis.
"How completely satisfying to turn from our limitations to a God who has none. Eternal years lie in his heart. For him time does not pass, it remains; and those who are in Christ share with him all the riches of limitless time and endless years." A. W. Tozer (1897–1963)
The date was July 16, 1969. America was engaged in an international race for dominance in space exploration. Physicists and theologians alike were stimulated by the potential discoveries and opportunities that the experiences of the age would provide to their respective theological, sociological, and ideological assumptions. Following the tides of debate that preceded their historic mission, Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Mike Collins departed for the moon.
The mid twentieth century saw an awakening among physicists who were uncovering some of the basic physical properties of the materials that make up the universe. The most prominent among these physicists was Albert Einstein. The most provocative of his many theories, and the one for which he will always be best known is his Theory of Relativity. Many of the components of this set of theoretical physical paradigms has since been successfully disproved, such as the existence of photons. (My condolences to all of you Star Trek fans.) However, one important component of his theory has been successfully defended and demonstrated, and can have a profound societal, philosophical, and theological impact when considered in the context of the creation of the universe by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal God. Einstein’s principle herein presented is profound in its implication, yet simple to explain: the rate at which one experiences the passing of time is a function of the rate of acceleration at which one is travelling. The relative differences in the rate of the passing of time by those who experience acceleration at different rates can be derived from the now famous equation:
E = MC2
This expression describes a functional relationship between a change in physical mass as it relates to expended energy and time. If this component of Einstein’s theory can be proven, some long-held philosophical and theological positions would be seriously challenged. To those who have held to a long-believed paradigm that separates time as we experience it from eternity, their thesis would be vindicated.
Four days after the Apollo 11 astronauts departed terra firma they arrived at and landed on the moon where Neil Armstrong would make history as the first man ever to set foot on it. He did so, stating from script, "This is one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." He was unaware of one of some of those leaps in understanding that were about to be made. While traveling, the scientists had difficulty synchronizing the earth-based computers with those on the space ship. Upon the arrival of the astronauts back on earth, it was verified that the computer clocks and the chronometers that they carried were running a few milliseconds "slow." Actually, their computer and watches were not running slow. Their timing devices were quite accurate, and were responding to one of the defensible principles of the theory of relativity: the astronauts, their space ship, and everything on it experienced a longer period of passing time than those of us who remained on the earth. They aged a few milliseconds more than we because they had experienced periods of acceleration that were at different rates than we had during the same period of time.
This report was little more than a sidebar in news coverage, but caught my attention as an inquisitive teenager who was trying to resolve conflicts between my understanding of the truths of God’s word, and the physical laws presented in my chosen interest fields of physics and astronomy. This empirical proof of the relative experience of the passing of time had already been demonstrated in many other experiments, but it was this event that put the proof in prime-time media coverage, and through what can only be described as a theophany, answered for me in the passing of a single moment what had been a large set of heavily-debated theological questions. There is undeniable evidence of a clear and simple relationship between changes in physical mass, physical energy and the passing of time. For the physicist this concept is now a non-issue, long-proven and well-understood. It has led to explanations of many of the astronomical phenomena we discovered in the last several years as we have witnessed, for example, the warping of time by the extreme gravitation of immense stars that referred to as black holes. For the theologian, this concept is equally profound and can shake the very foundations of many time-held presuppositions: time as we know it, understand it, and experience it is a created physical property.
The Omnitemporality of God
"For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night" (Ps. 90:4.) "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (1 Peter 3:8.)
What are the implications of this thesis for the Christian theologian? If time is a physical property, then God created time when he created the rest of the physical universe. God is not limited by the physical properties of this creation and is as a logical consequence, neither subject to or limited by created time as we experience and know it. Having created it, He can "stand" outside of it, and interact within it whenever and wherever He chooses. "He is before time (pretemporal), He is above time (supertemporal), and He is after time (postemporal).1 Let us also add that God works in and through created time. Because of this latter argument God is not "timeless" as some argue, and He is not dead as some "theothanatologists" would argue.2 "It is difficult to attain any conception of the mode of existence which is thus ascribed to Him. It is so different from our own. Yet, a brief consideration of what is involved in the nature of God must convince us that the idea which we express by these statements is just and true." In order to identify this quality of eternity as "just and true,"3 let us continue to develop and refer to this resulting, eternal, attribute of God as His omnitemporality. God is omnitemporal. Just as our omniscient God sees and knows all things that take place in the universe He has created, He also sees and knows all things that transpire in that creation from its revealed beginning to its prophesied end. It is as if all of the events of all time simply lay in the palm of his hand. "God has no beginning, end, or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly, yet God sees events in time and acts in time."4 This argument impacts our very understanding of who God is, and how he relates to us in many areas of the Christian life.
"God is an invisible, personal, and living Spirit, distinguished from all other spirits by several kinds of attributes: metaphysically God is self-existent, eternal, and unchanging."5 What does it mean for God to exhibit the attribute of eternity, and what impact does his transcendence of physical time have on our understanding of God’s knowledge?
First, it should be noted that a distinction between a linear created physical time and a separate property of eternity is not a new or radical concept. Charles Hodge ascribed to an omnitemporal God when he stated, "With Him there is no distinction between the present, past, and future; but all things are equally and always present to Him."6 Paul Enns states, "The eternity of God is usually understood as related to time. By definition it means that God is not limited or bound by time; with God there is no succession of events; He is above all temporal limitations.7 Charles Ryrie: "He recognizes successiveness of events, but all past, present, and future events are equally vivid to Him."8 These theologians base their theses, not by scientific observation of the properties of the universe as I did in my early years, but by a far more reliable resource: God’s word as revealed in scriptures.
When one looks at the positions of respected theologians, we find that this theme of the eternity of God as separate and "outside the rhelm" of created time is quite common. Even Saint Augustine understood this concept when he stated,
"Thou precedest all things past, by the sublimity of an ever-present eternity; and surpassest all future because they are future, and when they come, they shall be past; but Thou art the Same, and Thy years fail not. Thy years neither come nor go; whereas ours both come and go, that they all may come. Thy years stand together, because they do stand; nor are departing thrust out by coming years, for they pass not away; but ours shall all be, when they shall no more be." 9
God is above the limitations of created time just as he is above the limitations of created matter and space. However, this does not mean that God is separate from it. "With the beginning of time, God did not retire from the scene and become simply an on-looker, God watching history unfold like a spectator at a theater. God is in the play as the main character."10 This omnipresent God also has the ability to interact in our time to affect His purposes for us. "The unconditioned eternity of God brings into harmony with itself the limitations and conditions of the temporal. For time is purely relative, which eternity is not."11 Certainly, when we try to compare time to this omnitemporal eternity we look through a glass darkly. We have no substantially defined paradigm or model with which to describe the properties of eternity. Though several people have been given a glimpse of that eternal state, (e.g. Daniel, Ezekial, John,) even they were limited by the vocabulary of their day and had no succinct way to describe what it was that they were seeing. Consequently, no effort to create a definition of the properties of eternity will be attempted here.
The properties of created time and the omnitemporal eternity of God are disparate and distinct entities. However, there is a form of connection made between them; a bridge that God has been able to cross in order to interact with His creation. "No distinctions of before and after are admissible in the eternity conception, hence, we have no right to speak of time as a portion of eternity. Thus, while we maintain the essential difference between eternity and time, we at the same time affirm what may perhaps be called the affinity between them."12 As that affinity includes the ability of God to step into our time and interact over periods of our time, there appears to be a similar construct in eternity itself, though one that must be radically different from anything we can imagine. The entities that can pass over this "bridge" include the persons of the Trinity and God’s messengers: those angels (or demons) that also interact with God’s creation. One consistent characteristic of those that pass across this bridge is that all of these entities are supernatural, and lack temporal substance that we can clearly identify with our physical senses, leaving us a difficult task in identifying them. On many occasions God has made his angels visible by presenting them in physical form.
Christology
If we can remove the limitation of created time from God’s attributes, we can understand how God can enter into any point in time He chooses. Furthermore, there are several Old Testament references to the Lord appearing bodily to the patriarchs, (Gideon, Jacob), and many theologians interpret these encounters as taking place between those patriarchs and Christ. If we see all of eternity as a line from infinity past to infinity future, with God walking this line along with us, such a doctrine seems preposterous. However, the scriptures describe Christ as eternal, and the agent of creation (John 1:1ff), not a product of it. As an eternal person of the Godhead, it is certainly reasonable for the Messiah to have entered into our time in His resurrected body at a point that is actually prior to the incarnation.
Still, God’s purpose included a relationship with mankind that included his stepping into our time. "The Incarnation means that God took upon himself, in Christ, a human nature, which included time, space and matter. This presupposes that the divine nature is different from human nature. Part of that difference has traditionally been seen as God’s not being limited by time, space and matter. Only if a bird doesn’t swim in the ocean but flies in the air can it enter the ocean from above; only because God is not temporal, can he become temporal." 13
As a human, how could Jesus predict his death? For some who place God on a time-line with us, this is a perplexing question. One theologian who ascribes to this limitation of God, Benjamin Warfield was so concerned with this argument that he places the subject of predestination and the foresight of Jesus first in his text on biblical doctrines, and in his conclusion renders the resolution of the question as hopeless.14 However, if we believe that Jesus is the eternal Christ, he shares God’s omnitemporal knowledge. Just as He is able to step into history, Jesus is cognizant of the future that, as the Christ, He also has already seen. This, of course leaves us with the paradox of Jesus testimony of ignorance concerning the day and hour of his returning (Matt. 24:35.) Somehow, only God the Father knows the moment of the end of the age.
Predestination and Free-Will
Another set of doctrines that is dramatically effected by interpretation of time, space, and eternity is that of predestination. Although the term, "predestination" is usually tied to the issue of salvation, it can refer to the broader issue of God’s plan for all of history.15 If we limit God to our time experience, God’s knowledge of the future can only be seen as omniscient prediction or total sovereign control. This issue divided the church early in the reformation when John Calvin taught a theology that all events that take place in creation are providentially planned. God’s forordination of the events of history is so absolute that those whom He has planned for election cannot resist the gospel. Shortly after Calvin’s death, Jacobus Arminius countered Calvin’s deterministic position with the teaching that every person is free to accept or reject God’s grace. This position created so much conflict in the early church that it is thought to have contributed to his declined health. 16
When taken to the extreme, Calvin’s position has been used to argue against the responsibility of Christians to share the gospel. Their belief is that if God has preordained a soul’s salvation, there is no need for a missionary effort. This also implies that if a person is ordained to be lost, no amount of evangelism can make a difference. It is interesting that people could place their doctrine under such a veil when the documented New Testament experience is almost entirely missionary-based. Such a position is inspired by a misunderstanding of God’s eternity, and is damaging to the propagation of the gospel by discouraging evangelism, the very essence and commission of God’s purpose for the temporal Christian experience.
When taken to a greater extreme, a fatalistic viewpoint arises that absolves mankind of all responsibility for their actions. "If all that transpires in this world is God’s will, and I kill you, then Praise God, it was His will that you die. I am only God’s obedient hand." This argument has been used to justify tyranny, terrorism, and violence.
Soteriology
"That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day" (2 Timothy 1:12.)
Arminius’ alternate position was not without its theological side effects. He taught that, since we have a free will to accept God’s grace, we also have the opportunity to reject that grace once it has been received. He overlooked the assurance of salvation that is taught by Jesus (e.g. John, chapter 10), the apostle Paul, and many modern theologians such as C.S. Lewis, E.Y. Mullins and Hershel Hobbs. The soteriological positions of these latter theologians are largely based upon Calvinism, though they differ in the area of deterministic predestination because of their understanding of an omnitemporal God. C.S. Lewis wrote, "My free act contributes to the cosmic shape. That contribution is made in eternity or ‘before all worlds’; but my consciousness of contributing reaches me at a particular point in the time series."17 The decisions we make are "made in eternity" by virtue of God’s habitation there. It is simply that "Man is free to choose … but is responsible for his choices. God knows these choices beforehand but does not predetermine them."18 Under this system of belief, we are (1) responsible for our choices, and (2) demonstrate our faithfulness to the gospel by our testimony and witness as we, like Christ, spread the good news to seek and to save the lost. The receipt of salvation by God’s grace is a free choice. Because of God’s eternity we are not puppets who respond to the puppeteer’s strings of irresistible grace, but rather free agents who can accept or reject the gospel.
God’s Immutability
When we see God’s eternity as wholly outside of created time, the doctrine of his immutability, or unchanging nature, also takes on a more distinct meaning. It is not possible for God to change during the period from the beginning of creation to the end of the age, because unlike our linear experience of day-to-day change, God resides outside of that linear limitation. God’s residence outside of the space-time continuum means that He will be the same God today as He is tomorrow, because He did not experience that change in the way we did (1 Peter 3:8.) "What we are dealing with here is the dependability of God. He will be the same tomorrow as He is today. He will act as He has promised. He will fulfill His commitments. The believer can rely upon that."19 Consequently, since God does not change, His plan does not change. God has dealt with mankind in the same manner through the temporal ages, and will continue to do so to the end. What has been changing has been the way that man has interpreted that plan. God has revealed himself through temporal time in a gradual and effectual manner. He introduced himself to Moses as "I AM," a name that has gone a long way in helping us understand his eternity. He did not say, "I was the beginning and will be the end." He said, "I AM" in a manner that transcends both the beginning and the end. Three times in the book of Revelation, God describes himself again using "I AM," and this time with a consistent description: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End" (Rev. 1:8, 21:6, 22:12.)
Eschatology
"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life" (2 Corinthians 5:1-4.)
"What will happen to me when I die?" This question has plagued mankind since creation, and answers have served to form the basis for religions in every culture. The scripture teaches that upon death, the faithful will receive a resurrection body, one which is suited to eternity (Acts 2:31; 1 Cor. 15:42). The presence of a body implies motion, and motion implies time. We can take this speculative venture a step further if we sacrifice a little scholarship. C.S. Lewis illustrated his position on this omnitemporal, independent time structure in his series of children’s stories entitled "The Chronicles of Narnia." In this series four children were given a supernatural opportunity to travel between this present and common world and the wonders of another world named "Narnia." A portal was discovered that allowed the children to literally step between the different worlds. Each visit to the wonderland of Narnia would find them arriving there in a different time context, and the time of their return to earth was not related to the time spent on Narnia. As one reads the text, several entities in the Land of Narnia seem to be allegories of heaven. Lewis hints at this earth/heaven allegory throughout the text until the end of the series when the children die in a tragic accident and are taken quickly, and quite permanently, to Narnia. Lewis saw the passing of time in both environs, with the two being independent of one another.
The scripture also teaches that all of the dead will rise at the final judgment (Rev. 20.) However, Jesus told the thief on the cross, "today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43.) There are variant descriptions of the amount of "time" spent between death and resurrection. Models have been devised that include a waiting place, a purgatory or sheol. The necessity of such models is created by a misunderstanding of eternity. Because of the omnitemporality of eternity, though we may all die at different points along this linear, physical time line, we will all experience the resurrection immediately upon our death and "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:17.)
Conclusion.
"He who has no vision of eternity will never get a true hold of time." (Thomas Carlyle 1795 - 1881).
If we remove the restrictions of temporal time from our view of God, a profound series of theological models are affected. For many, some of the nagging questions concerning predestination, free-will, eschatology and other subjects can be presented with rational and sensible answers that are consistent with what God’s word describes and with what God also reveals through Creation. God is truth, and the truth of his word, and the truth concerning the creation of the cosmos are not two separate truths, but one profound expression of God’s grace. Whether the time-line of this creation has already transpired for billions of years as scientists contend, or for only a few thousand as some theologians content, God created that time-line for His purpose and pleasure. He resides in eternity, outside the limitations of created time and space, yet has ordained a bridge between them across which He and his angels can pass so that his purposes in that creation can be revealed. "Perhaps the greatest illusion of all is time, and our foolish notion that what really counts is what happens to us today or tomorrow. Soon time itself will be set aside. We will step into eternity, and then at last we will grasp what is truly real." 20
"To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen" (Jude 1:24-25.)
Bibliography
1
Roark, Dallas M. (1983). The Christian Faith. Waco, TX: Word Books. p. 29.2
Montgomery, John W. (1996). The Suicide of Christian Theology. Newburgh, IN: Trinity Press. p. 76.3
Boyce, James P. (1887). Abstract of Systematic Theology. Hanford, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation. p. 69.4
Grudem, E. (1994) Systematic Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press., p. 1685
Lewis, Gordon R. (1984) God, Attributes of, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A. Elwell, ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, p. 451.6
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, 3 Vols. London: Clark, 1960. Vol. 1:385)7
Enns, Paul P. (1989) Relative Attributes, The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press. Ch. 19.8
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell (1995) The Ryrie Study Bible. Chicago: Moody Press.9
Augustine of Hippo (0401) The Confessions of Saint Augustine. Chapter 13.10
Guthrie, Shirley C. Jr. (1968). Christian Doctrine. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press. p. 122.11
Lindsay, James, (1998) Eternity, International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Cedar Rapids, IA (CD-ROM): Parsons Technology, Inc.12
Ibid.13
Kreeft, Peter and Tacelli, Ronald K.(1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Ch. 4.14
Warfield, Benjamin B. (1929). Biblical Doctrines. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 97.15
Erickson, Millard J. (1985). Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. p. 346.16
McWilliams, Warren (Summer 1991) Predestination: Time and Space. Biblical Illustrator. 17(4). p. 64.17
Lewis, C.S. (1960). Miracles: A Preliminary Study. New York, NY: McMillan and Company. p. 180.18
Hobbs, Herschel H. (1988). The Baptist Faith and Message. Nashville, TN: Convention Press. p. 36.19
Ibid, Erickson. p. 279.20
Richards, Lawrence O. (1994) The Victor Bible Background Commentary, Wheaton IL: Victor Books. Exposition on Luke 16.
John W. (Jack) Carter (BSET, MS, Oklahoma State University) is a Doctoral Student in Biblical Studies at the Trinity Theological Seminary in Newburgh, IN.
Like that's really heavy man.
Actually being one in three and three in one and then ONE all at the same time is pretty heavy too.
Maybe like uh God like really doesn't want any of us to like understand all this stuff at all. Ya know man? Maybe he like uh just wants us to like uh believe it or something, huh?
Anyone who says you can't love something and hate it at the same time has never played golf -- P-Marlowe
Out to the woodshed, with you. Have you been so long with us and yet have such a surprise as you describe? It cannot be. Methinks thou are jesting.
Notwithstanding, you do get us back to the above.
I'm from the simple foreknowledge group. Yet I fully recognize that we do some violence to the texts which talk about God being surprised, God changing His Mind, about God being grieved, etc. (Both we and the calvinists must de-literalize the texts to avoid a disengenuous God....which is the result of our normal literal style of reading.)
Personally, I don't think anyone's explained it to my satisfaction yet. Some form of allowing the tension to exist for the time being is a very honest position.
I wonder if they come together in some way similar to a parent sending a child off to summer camp with full intention of allowing that child independence? What will cause the parent to intervene? I just don't know how to elevate this idea to the divine realm.
The normal way of reading anything is to view it as literal unless the context demands the figurative.
Can not 'figures of speech' be allowed in scripture as in any other form of writing?
The Bible is not a theological text book and cannot be approached as such.
Context will explain the figures of speech and the only way one can know if the figure must be viewed as a figure is constant comparing and searching scriptures.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth (2Tim.2:15)
What do you mean, 'He knew He was going to change'
History is running as God is controlling it,(factoring in the free will decisions of mankind and Angels) with no 'shocks' or 'suprises' to God.
You make four statements and I agree with them all. But the problem is the 'disconnect' between statement 1 and statements 2 and 4. Of course, there are 'figures of speech' in the Bible and, yes, context can explain them, BUT, as you aptly put it in statement 1, we can't leave 'plain meaning' unless there is some clue that the writer intended a figure of speech.
For example, a common clue might be where mountains are said to call out. Since we know that, in human experience, mountains are not heard to speak or call out, we take that as a clue to figurative interpretation.
But it is hard to say that God pondering or considering a course of action or changing His intended course of action in response to the importuning of His people is beyond His capability.
Consider, for example, God's reaction to the Israelites' worship of the golden calf in Exodus 32:9-14. One of the reasons the passage is so problematical is precisely because there is no indication whatever in the text that anything is intended in any figurative sense. There seems little room for 'reconstructing' this passage.
Many have argued that God doesn't change, but the creature changes. But this passage doesn't really allow for that. It is quite clear that God changed His announced (and presumably intended) course of action in direct response to Moses' plea.
As to your question in #308, "What do you mean, 'He knew He was going to change'?" I mean simply this. Under either the determinist view or the simple foreknowledge view, God knew, at all times (for example) that He would come out at the Ex. 32:14 position, and He similarly knew that He would initially take the Ex. 32:9-10 position in response to their apostacy.
Thus, my point: under either view, He had to know He was going to change His position. Under such a view, it seems to me that one has to argue that He purposefully took variant positions (and that the first one was insincere) in order to encourage or validate certain behavior by Moses that would appear to cause Him to change His position. That is a troubling interpretation to me, because there is not an ounce of a clue in the text to that effect and therefore it clearly violates your statement 1 (with which I agree). Your thoughts?
Don't have one. Obviously, I am not a determinist (not because of any foreknowledge problems, but because I don't think the determinist view can be reconciled with the nature of God as revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ).
Neither am I a Molinist (the second category) because I am not sure how it could work. Molina's concept was that man could be a be a free agent with libertarian free will (merely a term to contradistinguish compatibilist free will) and God could still control the outcomes because He can foreknow all possible outcomes and influence them. [My metaphor here is the police setting up road blocks on all the roads leaving town, so the perp has complete free will on which road he takes, but God still handles the outcome. That's my own homely example. The Molinists in the crowd (if there are any) would probably have a cat.] The Scholastics were convinced that one could have both free will and determinism everywhere else, but I'm just don't understand how. [Guess you have to be a Jesuit to understand it. :-)]
The next step down the determinist ladder is 'simple foreknowledge' which is the view I have always held and defended. This view posits God knowing all outcomes without causing them. As usual, Mr. Wesley displayed the concept well,
"... it should be well observed, that when we speak of God's foreknowledge, we do not speak according to the nature of things, but after the manner of men. For, if we speak properly, there is no such thing as either foreknowledge or afterknowledge in God. All time, or rather all eternity, (for the children of men,) being present to him at once, he does not know one thing in one point of view from everlasting to everlasting. As all time, with everything that exists therein, is present with him at once, so he sees at once, whatever was is, or will be, to the end of time. But observe: We must not think they are because he knows them. No: he knows them because they are."
This is the 'outside history' solution to the foreknowledge issue.
But this view has the problems we have been discussing. They may not be quite as fatal to the view (as they would be to determinism or Molinism) but they are very troubling for they require us to abandon our usual hermeneutical principles to preserve our construct. And, as all here well know, I think defending a priori constructs at the expense of inductive interpretation of Scripture is a bad, bad puppy.
So, I not only don't have a one-liner, I don't have a good answer to the dilemma.
Amen.
But it is hard to say that God pondering or considering a course of action or changing His intended course of action in response to the importuning of His people is beyond His capability. Consider, for example, God's reaction to the Israelites' worship of the golden calf in Exodus 32:9-14. One of the reasons the passage is so problematical is precisely because there is no indication whatever in the text that anything is intended in any figurative sense. There seems little room for 'reconstructing' this passage. Many have argued that God doesn't change, but the creature changes. But this passage doesn't really allow for that. It is quite clear that God changed His announced (and presumably intended) course of action in direct response to Moses' plea.
Yes, but God always knew that Moses would pray that prayer and thus God's 'intention' and Moses prayer were always known, with God's wrath giving way to mercy. What God 'saw' outside of time, really occured in time. The decisions that were made by both God and Moses were real ones.
As to your question in #308, "What do you mean, 'He knew He was going to change'?" I mean simply this. Under either the determinist view or the simple foreknowledge view, God knew, at all times (for example) that He would come out at the Ex. 32:14 position, and He similarly knew that He would initially take the Ex. 32:9-10 position in response to their apostacy. Thus, my point: under either view, He had to know He was going to change His position. Under such a view, it seems to me that one has to argue that He purposefully took variant positions (and that the first one was insincere) in order to encourage or validate certain behavior by Moses that would appear to cause Him to change His position. That is a troubling interpretation to me, because there is not an ounce of a clue in the text to that effect and therefore it clearly violates your statement 1 (with which I agree). Your thoughts?
I do not see it that way. The problem we have is realizing that what happens in time (although known by God) is nevertheless real.
Thus, God saw the incident happen in time,with His wrath about to destroy the Jews and Moses's prayer. That was a 'real' time event. That God always knew about it doesn't effect the ral nature of it! God sees after the incident how it would turn out and thus, knows that Moses reacted correctly and He in turn responds to that prayer.
In real time,it could have turned out differently. A case in point is Saul and his rejection by God. God states that had Saul not disobeyed Saul's family would have ruled (1Sam.13:13).
God is speaking truthfully, yet, God always knew that the rule would come from the line of Judah and predicted that back in Gen.49.
Another example is Christ. Christ had to suffer and go to the Cross.
Failure was a possiblity since the temptations were real. Thus, what God sees in time really happens and God just knows them before hand.
Did God always knew that Moses would pray that prayer-yes.
However, God knew that Moses would do so on the basis of a real situation that God was in fact on the verge of doing.
The same case can be made for Ninevah.
That city was going to be destroyed but repented.
God always knew that they would repent, but He knew on the basis of a real threat!
Thus, God sees actions in time as real because they are.
In time, the action is dynamic with a real tension since real decisions must be made.
Outside of time, the end is a given since God has seen every real decision, and knows the consquences of every decision and action.
In other words, could we look at like this?
God desires to create rational beings to share His love with. He runs 'history' like a 'tape' or 'computer program'. He sees what will happen if He creates Lucifier, what will happen when He creates Adam, He sees every free will decision as actually occuring. Thus, that 'tape' contains every decision made, including His own interventions. After running the 'tape' and seeing how free will operate, the entrance of sin and death, and His own handling of it, God says, 'this one will do' and that is the 'tape' or 'program' that we call 'history' which includes all the free will decisions of man and Angels.
The 'tape' that we know as 'history' and 'time' is being run for real now but God always forsaw what the actions would be when they occured in real time.
I have always contended that that is the best answer. We know in part. Isn't that enough? I agree that when you read the bible inductively you don't have to solve these problems, because they don't exist as problems. It is only when you dance around the scripture looking for "proofs" that you end up with these doctrinal difficulties.
You can prove Calvinism by "proof" texts and you can prove Arminianism by "proof" tests. So what does that prove. It proves they are both right and they are both wrong -- at the same time. (kinda like God existing in all places and all times at the same "time.")
"Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you, God?"
"Yes, you're ugly." -- Steven Wright
OK, let's take this a step at a time. God didn't just vent His wrath, He promised two distinctly different approaches in 32:9-10 and 14:
[1]"I have seen this people, that they are a stiff-necked people. So now, leave me alone so that my anger can burn against them and that I may consume them; and I will make from you a great nation." and[2]Then the Lord relented over the evil that he had said he was going to do to his people.
So, when He promised to annihilate the Israelites and build a new nation from Moses, did He really mean it? When He said that was that His true intention and purpose?
If so, then He genuinely changed His mind after He heard Moses' plea. And so, under the simple foreknowledge view, we have God, knowing He is going to change His mind. He knows He is going to take position A, that Moses is going to importune Him about it, and that He is then going to take position B as a result of Moses' plea. What sense does that make?
The determinists are even worse off. Because they would have everything set from the foundation of the world, they would have a schizophrenic god 'decreeing' B, then A, then B. So, they have to reinterpret the Scripture (without a whit of justification in the text to do so) in order to preserve the construct.
I agree with everything you say about 'inside history' being dynamic, etc. That would be fine if only we changed in that 'dynamic' process. But the problem is not that God knows the outcome, but how do we handle clear, unconditional statements of Scripture that God took different positions at different times within that 'dynamic' history?
Outside of time God knew the sequence: 1, 4, 7, 9, 12, 72 would transpire. At the time of God's knowing, 1,4,7,9,12,72 are not real YET. However, my writing of the sequence in time just a few minutes ago (1,4,7,9,12,72) made it finally real.
I truly felt like I was choosing those numbers off the cuff; totally uncoerced. They became real FOR ME for the very first time. They became real FOR GOD for the very first time.
Let's start over. Let's say that in addition to knowing 1,4,7,9,12,72 that God also predicted 1,4,7,9,12,72. A few minutes before the numbers were to be published, let's say God directly says to me, "I am grieved. Write 1,4,7,12,72, 99." I say, "Please don't follow through on that." God says, "OK. Make it 1,4,7,9,12,72." And I do.
1. God's prediction is upheld.
2. God gives the impression that he IS ABLE AND ALLOWED to change the "becoming real" of a predicted event.
It seems to me that you are saying that, when God told you personally to write "1 ... 99", He was being disingenuous, i.e. He 'gives the impression ...." I agree that this is where one must go with 'simple foreknowledge.'
That was what I meant in #309 above to FTD:
"Under such a view, it seems to me that one has to argue that He purposefully took variant positions (and that the first one was insincere) in order to encourage or validate certain behavior by Moses that would appear to cause Him to change His position. That is a troubling interpretation to me, because there is not an ounce of a clue in the text to that effect and therefore it clearly violates your [hermeneutical principle of literalism absent textual clues for figurative treatment] (with which I agree)."
Doesn't that trouble you? It seems to me that we are then doing exactly what we continually criticize the Calvinists for doing, allowing their construct to dictate the interpretation of Scripture. Your thoughts?
[BTW, it sounds like someone in your congregation has had some experience in praying for Powerball numbers. :-)]
They were 'real' as God saw them are they not? God saw you in time thinking that. They became 'real' for you but God always saw them as real.
I truly felt like I was choosing those numbers off the cuff; totally uncoerced. They became real FOR ME for the very first time. They became real FOR GOD for the very first time.
They were always 'real' for God because God saw what you would do in time.
For example, barring the Rapture, we are going to die.
That time and day and moment is fixed.
It is real to God even though it hasn't yet happened.
When it happens to us, it will be real only to us, not to God since God always saw the event as being real.
Let's start over. Let's say that in addition to knowing 1,4,7,9,12,72 that God also predicted 1,4,7,9,12,72. A few minutes before the numbers were to be published, let's say God directly says to me, "I am grieved. Write 1,4,7,12,72, 99." I say, "Please don't follow through on that." God says, "OK. Make it 1,4,7,9,12,72." And I do. 1. God's prediction is upheld. 2. God gives the impression that he IS ABLE AND ALLOWED to change the "becoming real" of a predicted event.
Yes, but it is not an 'impression' but is real since it predicated on your response to God's grieving and that He always knew how you would really respond.
If you had not responded but reacted then the predication would have come about.
I don't know about you, but I am getting a headache!:>)
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, it is high, I cannot attain unto it (Psa.139:6)
Rotflol!!!
Exactly. God gives the impression He is able and allowed to change the "becoming real" of a predicted event. If He is NOT able or allowed to change the becoming real, then He has gone through a disengenuous exercise, going out of His way to give a false impression.
The fact that this event has just become "real" doesn't change the implications of it for God.
Marlowe says to hold it in tension until a better answer shows up. I'll go with simple foreknowledge until that time, but I'm uncomfortable with the charge of disengenuousness on the part of God BECAUSE such a charge would have legitimacy.
The anthropomorphic (pathic) answer doesn't satisfy either. There's not a hint of such a thing in the text at all. The only reason one would propose such an answer is because they'd been stymied by the apparent disengenuousness if changing direction for God were not possible.
Yes, God really meant it.
If so, then He genuinely changed His mind after He heard Moses' plea. And so, under the simple foreknowledge view, we have God, knowing He is going to change His mind.
Correct, that is the 'dynamic nature' of time.
He knows He is going to take position A, that Moses is going to importune Him about it, and that He is then going to take position B as a result of Moses' plea. What sense does that make?
God sees (on this tape) Himself in time interacting with mankind.
The reactions of man are part of the dynamic quality of free will that God himself adjusts to!
God wants to save Jerusalem but 'ye would not', so the city is destroyed!
We are dealing with a 'directive' and 'permissive' will that God is allowing.
Now, you say what 'sense' does that make regarding Moses.
God has decided to give his rational creatures and active role in His Plan.
Abraham almost saves Sodom and Gomorah! He does save Lot (which was his intention), but had he continued to ask God to spare the city down to 1 (Lot) the city might have been spared.
Only in eternity will be know what God would have done differently had we prayed!
God knows the end from the beginning, but He has allowed His own actions to be moved by the responses of His own creatures.
The determinists are even worse off. Because they would have everything set from the foundation of the world, they would have a schizophrenic god 'decreeing' B, then A, then B. So, they have to reinterpret the Scripture (without a whit of justification in the text to do so) in order to preserve the construct.
They remove 'freedom' which is the 'problem' that God faced!
Chafer noted that the creation of rational creatures created a 'crises in the essence of God', in other words, once it was decided that rational creatures were going to be able to say 'no' to God, God had to deal with the resultant problems of sin and death, which cost Him His own life!
The desire for God to share His own love with rational creatures who could respond freely to that love meant a dynamic system, one in which God interacted with those creatures and giving them real choices and options.
God knew what those decisions would be and what His decisions would be.
I agree with everything you say about 'inside history' being dynamic, etc. That would be fine if only we changed in that 'dynamic' process. But the problem is not that God knows the outcome, but how do we handle clear, unconditional statements of Scripture that God took different positions at different times within that 'dynamic' history?
I see God responding to man's decisions, a response that God always knew He would make, yet which was nevertheless a real decision in time.
It is as if God could detach Himself and put Himself in time while remaining outside of it.
He notes Himself about to destroy Ninevah and then He sees the repentance and so He decides not to do so (since He is merciful).
Outside of time, God is 'noting' all of this and when history is completed all of His own actions in time with the actions of mankind have been 'set' as history.
He could have seen Ninevah not repent and then seen history differently, destroying it.
That 'history' did not happen in real time, thus, God sees both His intent for destroying Ninevah as real and the 'change' in his mind, due to repentance as real.
Outside of time, God always knew it but only because He saw it in time as really happening, including His own reactions and responses to prayer,repentence and rejection.
I do not understand how a charge like that could be held to be legitimate.
You are playing chess with God.
He knows every move you are going to make.
Some moves that He chooses to make are in response to yours, some are not.
Your moves are completely free as are His.
He knows your moves and yet allows them.
He may even tell you, don't move your pawn or I will take your rook. You do not move and so He doesn't take the rook.
If you had moved the pawn you would have lost the rook.
Did God always know what you would do to his warning? Yes, but the warning was real as was your reaction to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.