I see at the Holy Huddle that you're having your discussion on possible worlds tomorrow, and I realize that time is running out for me to state my opinion! Heaven forbid that I should not state my opinion! Well, heaven may actually be fairly neutral on the subject, to be honest. Some time ago I promised you a paper called God's Sovereignty and Doctor Who's Big Ball of Time. I still intend to write that some day, when my weekends clear up enough that I can, but for now I'll give you the bare bones of the beginning so you can take it with you tomorrow night and say "Here's the view of some crazy woman down in Ohio". Unfortunately I haven't spent a great deal of time thinking about it lately, so this may or may not be coherent in any way. We'll see!
Traditional 5-point Calvinism and current Reformed theology seem to hinge on one major point regarding the election of Christians--What did God know, and when did He know it? Doctor Who, strangely enough (I don't generally recommend him for theological input, but every once in a while he gets something right), made a statement that I think summed it up nicely. It was in an episode from last year, possibly Blink (which was the Best. Episode. Ever.) and he was talking about time. Now, this is not an exact quote, but it's pretty close:
"People always think that time moves in a straight line, because that's how they see it, but in reality it's a great big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey STUFF".
Time is a fairly fluid concept when you're talking about God, because there's evidence that He functions outside of time as we know it. As the good doctor rightly points out, we do see time in a linear fashion, because that's how we live it. We have no choice in the matter--time proceeds on from beginning to end in our lives, and what's past is past and what's future is anybody's guess. Much as we might like to, we can't see the future, only make educated guesses about it, and that's a good thing. But God is not limited in this way. He certainly sees the future as well as the past, and arranges the present to meet His purposes. A good study of fulfilled prophecy will demonstrate this pretty well. So if time really is a big ball to God, and that's as good a way of looking at it as anything since we don't have words for what we can't fathom, then the whole issue of election becomes a non-issue.
The Bible states that God does choose us--based on His foreknowledge. Don't neglect that last part--it's absolutely crucial. God sees all of time at once, and knows, because He can see that future with clarity, what we will have decided in regards to Him. Open theism is the theory, basically, that we change the future based on our decisions, and God then changes what He knows about the future accordingly. What rot. Is God in charge, or not? Certainly I do believe that we have free will to choose God or not (Ha! Now you know! Not dealing with a Calvinist!) but that He knew from eternity past what we will have decided--not because He determines that decision for us (although I do agree that there are some people He hunts down with extreme fervor) but because He can see all of time at once, and knows what decisions we will have made.
This is really hard to wrap our linear little brains around, because it breaks all the rules as we know them. But the bottom line is--is God sovereign, or not? Do we change the future, to which then HE must adapt, or does He know without error what the future IS? If He can see all of time at once without error (and if He can't then we are in big trouble as regards prophecies still to be fulfilled) then we can trust Him with our futures. If He can't, then the implications are staggeringly awful. Only a God who is truly sovereign can give us free will choices, because His hand is firmly on the helm regardless of how stupidly we mess things up, and His will is going to be done.
When I write this up in its complete form, it will have all sorts of Biblical backing, including a verse from Esther and a nice quote from Spurgeon, but that will have to do for now. Douglas Adams, of Hitchhiker's Guide fame, another unlikely and accidental theologian, actually had a pretty good handle on this, with his convoluted future tenses, and I may drag him into it too! Have fun with your discussion, and give me the low-down when it's over. Should be interesting!
Love, Spud.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi Spud,
Thanks for your thoughts! I can't wait for your article--sounds like it will be a lot of fun. I agree completely with your perspective. Five-point Calvinism fails in two ways: First, it takes our decision to follow Jesus as a "work", and since works can't influence our salvation, neither can we decide for Christ (though Calvinism *does* put us on the hook for deciding *against* Christ--Calvinism doesn't, contrary to popular opinion, remove choice). Second, it tries to apply causal language to God, which as you point out is dangerous.
I like Bob Hann's article because it provides a possible, if not testable, way to preserve God's and man's free will. And I like the way it looks at Jesus as a test case.
Essentially, Bob's article makes palatable to Calvinists the statement of Pelagius, "God foreknew those who would be reborn in response to the offer of grace." (I know, Pelagius--boo, hiss.)
Where does the article fail? I would say: It still leaves open the question: If God loves everyone, why not choose a world in which everyone chooses him? [Leibniz answers: None exists.] Other than that, I am having a hard time coming up with criticisms of Bob's article.
Actually, my biggest criticism of Hann is that he does not allow for the possibility that God actually does know the one single existing future with a certainty of done-dealness because He can see it. Right now, as always. It borders on Open Theism, and smells bad. I agree with Leibnitz. As to *why* God would want a situation in which people choose against Him, well, we'll just have to ask Him. Later, face to face, if we find it still matters then.
Post a Comment