Does God transcend time?
Developing a Biblical understanding of reality based on the temporal transcendence of God and the surprising theological consequences of this doctrine.
First of all, let me throw some 64 dollar words at you for fun.😀
God's Omnitemporality, Temporal Transcendence, Immutability, and Aseity all directly impact our understanding of the nature of the universe and God's sovereign control over it.
We will explain all those terms in the course of this document.
I wasn't sure what tone to use here, I was thinking of something a bit chattier, but it ended up being a bit more scholarly in tone. Apologies, I guess. Although it is more concise, except brevity isn't really my strong suit either.
The main theme of this paper is to explore the nature of created reality and how God interacts with it from a Biblical perspective, a subject that is of particular fascination to me. I was raised in science as an atheist, and loved cosmology - origins of the universe stuff - and this is Biblical cosmology to me. I try to weave all the related doctrines into a cohesive whole that puts the beauty and majesty of God's design on display.
The main thesis of this paper is that from God's perspective in eternity outside of time, He necessarily created the entire timeline in a single act from His point of view. Events unfold in time from our perspective as time-bound creatures, but this is not God's perspective as He is not time-bound. I name this concept omnitemporal creation (try not to laugh too hard ok. 😀
I maintain this is an inescapable conclusion from a proper understanding of the classic doctrines of an unchanging God who dwells outside of space and time and who is also omnipresent throughout space and time.
While I've never heard anyone else say it quite like this, it's not actually a new doctrine. I am simply recasting the doctrine of foreordainment - that God foreordains all things, which scripture clearly declares - in the modern language of space-time. I believe this is a clarifying idea for the modern reader and is worth exploring in the context of Biblical cosmology, which is the purpose of this paper.
And when using modern terms to describe classic doctrines, I will connect the dots to the classic theological language as needed.
I also like to learn (and to teach) theology as Calvin did, explore the true, and juxtapose it against the false, to vaccinate people against those false doctrines. So, we will take a little tour through some bad doctrines that interact with our theme.
Orthodox theologians refer to "eternity past", and the Bible itself uses those types of phrases repeatedly as if there is a time before time when God determined what He would do before creating space-time. While that is adequate for much understanding, the terminology is a good example of one that could use some clarification. There isn't technically such a thing as a time before time, although from the perspective of beings bound in time it is an effective way to look at God doing things before time was created.
We will also explore aseity (self-existence), which also interacts with our theme. I will refute the common misconception of limited self-existence given to created things, focusing on the ramifications of what level of control God has over His creation.
While this paper began as a study of the various temporal aspects of God and how He interacts with creation, it necessarily ended up as a defense of and a slightly modernized presentation of God's sovereignty over His creation throughout time.
No such exploration would be complete without a discussion of the nature of free-will. A vast topic of which I will only touch on briefly, although I failed to keep it as brief as I would have liked. 😀
Our opening topic is the classic idea that God exists throughout time as the same unchanging being, that He is temporally omnipresent. I coin a new word for this and call it omnitemporality (I know, more laughs are appropriate). You could also describe this idea as temporal omnipresence.
He is also temporally transcendent, in that He is not confined to time like us, meaning He is not time-bound although He is present and interacts with us here in time. This is also a classic doctrine and is not in dispute.
And by definition, our unchanging God sees all of time at once, because He is there, present throughout all of time.
Immutability simply means unchanging. I believe immutability and time-boundedness are interdependent. I affirm this is self-evident, that change requires time, that any being bound in time cannot be immutable, and that God's temporal transcendence and immutability are consistent with and require the other. And the reverse is also true, a being confined to time is necessarily mutable as they think new thoughts and learn, and thus experience change.
Similarly, any being that learns new things is also necessarily not omniscient.
Do you see how these three attributes of God work together, that if you lose one of these three, you necessarily lose all three of them?
Later we will examine some popular theologies that compromise one or more of them.
Immutability is a classic doctrine that is not in dispute, the most common scriptures are:
heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
mal 3:6 " For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.
While these are also classic doctrines that are not in dispute in orthodox circles, let's explore some scriptural support for the ideas.
This verse accurately conveys the idea of temporal transcendence:
ISA 57:15 "God dwells in eternity"
This clearly expresses the idea of God dwelling outside of time.
And here we have temporal omnipresence called out:
PSA 41:3 "...From everlasting to everlasting..."
An AI query from google on the psalms passage above returns the following and perfectly describes the concept I am presenting here:
""From everlasting to everlasting" refers to the eternal nature of God, indicating that He exists beyond time and has no beginning or end. This phrase emphasizes God's unchanging and eternal presence throughout all generations."
Note immutability (unchangeability), eternality, and temporal omnipresence are all interrelated here, consistent with what I am saying, and note the open acknowledgement that God is Omnitemporal (my word for temporal omnipresence).
It can be said that God dwells in eternity past and eternity future, but this is not a strong enough understanding if we wish to be precise. The correct understanding - again - is God dwells outside of time but is able to interact with us in time without experiencing time or change as we do.
To repeat my main thesis and develop it some more, if God is truly outside of time, He necessarily created all of space-time in one go from His perspective. He didn't imprison Himself in time as part of the creation act (except for the human part of the incarnation), and scripture is clear on this. If He joins us as a time-bound being it necessarily means He surrenders His immutability, an impossibility with God. We experience time linearly, with cause and effect, and change as we learn and experience events. But God does not.
Aseity is simply a word meaning self-existence.
God declares Himself to be self-existent here:
exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Notice He uses it as a divine title, you may recall that Christ used the divine title "I AM" referring to Himself multiple times in the New Testament.
In contrast, atheists necessarily believe the universe is self-existent and self-creating.
Christian theologians generally accept that only God is self-existent and ascribe aseity as one of God's attributes. Aseity is also said to be an incommunicable attribute, meaning God does not endow his creations with aseity or self-existence. Put another way, it's a divine attribute (like Immutability) and God does not grant partial divinity to His creations.
In further contrast to atheism, the Bible clearly says God created the universe and sustains it at all times. Partial or created aseity (which I am refuting here) includes the idea the universe is a wind-up clock that God creates, i.e. He endows it with some form of aseity as part of the creation act, and allows it to run on its own after that. He then only interferes as He sees fit via miraculous or providential means. I feel like this is a common misconception even among the more orthodox as well.
By contrast the biblical view is every atom and molecule exists and moves because God's power created, sustains, and enables it. And again, this relegates full control to Him at all times which is so clearly stated here:
Heb 1:3 "He... upholds all things by the word of His power..."
There are many deficient theologies that assign partial aseity to us and to creation, which conveniently relegate God to no longer being in full control of His creation and necessarily elevates others' influence by varying degrees. A severe example is Word of Faith theology where God has been legally expelled from His creation by Satan (who now reigns but cannot change the wind-up clock as much as God could) and God has to be invited back into His creation by authoritative prayer in order to change anything at all.
The opposite is true of course, If God were removed from creation, creation would cease to exist. His power makes everything move. Again (broken record here): God is therefore in absolute control of everything at all times.
Act 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, ...
Technically, we literally exist inside of God (as explicitly stated). We (and the universe) are not infinite either temporally or spatially. God is omnipresent (both spatially and temporally), and also transcends both space and time (meaning also exists outside of it). It is an inescapable conclusion that all of creation is contained within the unchanging God, both spatially and temporally. And Scripture states this explicitly as we have seen.
While God did not give creation aseity, he did create a set of natural laws. We function within these laws and would therefore appear to have some autonomy within time, but that is not the same thing as aseity, and those are easily confused, leading to the rise of false doctrines.
The idea of natural laws is necessary for us to have any accountability for what we do. We are truly created beings, with mind, will, and emotions, and have a certain level of time-bound autonomy within the structure of God's natural laws.
Natural laws are also necessary for God to avoid being the author of evil. When someone chooses evil (as we all do), God is said to simply let them go their own way. I would argue that God can only be excused as the author of evil in time. If you try to eliminate evil from His creative intent outside of time you end up with something that isn't Biblical as we shall see a little later.
Natural laws are also a form of consistency and of truth, and consistency is an act of love. A world where chaos reigns would be contrary to God's nature, both of truth, and of love.
So God's power sustains us, and He sustains the natural order. He also necessarily is in full control of it at all times.
Omnitemporal Creation is fully compatible with the seven creation days. I affirm that the universe, heavens, earth, and all it contains were created gradually within time exactly as scripture describes in the first seven days. The natural laws were established then as well. Genesis describes God's creative acts from our perspective as beings in time. But from His perspective again, it is all at once. Remember, both perspectives are equally valid, depending on the point-of-view.
Yes we do.
Let's recap so far. We have learned that it is an impossibility for God to create a universe where He did not predetermine everything in advance. He didn't just foreknow everything, He foreordained everything, which is standard theological language if you haven't heard that before. And as I affirm, He effectively created all of it from beginning to end from His perspective.
And furthermore He is in full control of it at all times.
Now once you get into full sovereignty, hard predestination, and hard predetermination, a lot of people's heads explode, as these are difficult concepts to grapple with. And that's the main point of this document, to walk you through it step-by-step.
So now we will explore where free-will fits in, as this is where many people struggle. Fortunately, the Bible gives us very clear answers to these questions.
We can all agree we have some free-will within space-time. Scripture holds us accountable for our actions, thus necessitating some level of free-will, despite God predetermining everything in the act of omnitemporal creation.
I assert that omnitemporal creation doesn't directly impact what level of free-will we have in time, as God could have granted any level of free-will He desired within the time-bound perspective.
So the best answer is to simply let scripture be our guide and explore how it addresses this question.
I admit I subscribe to the classic reformed view of Luther, Calvin and Edwards. I will use the term limited free-will, but they did not and referred to our wills as in bondage. As long as we define our terms I hope this is acceptable.
I don't want to develop this too much here as others have done a much better job, but a not so brief summary is necessary for completeness. Our wills are bound to our natures. And the unregenerate are clearly described as unable and unwilling to come to God on their own, they will choose evil in that sense 100% of the time because their natures are evil.
Similarly, when our natures are changed by regeneration (grace), we naturally come to Christ and He similarly promises to not reject anyone who does so. And regardless of Calvinistic or Arminian understanding of grace, all admit that grace is necessary, much more on this coming up.
By contrast only God is truly free, in the sense He can do what He wants, and He is not limited by being unable to do something He wants to do as we are.
The question is are there limits to how God tampers with our wills that we can identify from scripture?
God has no constraints other than self-imposed ones. Fortunately, God clearly describes His chosen limits on how much He tampers with our free-will, and we will explore each of them:
No view of God interacting with us can ignore grace. Grace has a twofold meaning in scripture, and they are stated here:
The second one is what I want to focus on, as initial evidence that God does indeed interfere with our free-wills on a regular basis. Common grace which is outright stated in the Bible, is that God restrains evil in the general population. Saving grace (which is not accepted by everyone) is that God gives special grace to those who are regenerated. But the other main view (Arminianism) is that God gives us enough grace to make up our own minds.
In both views, it is admitted that without some kind of grace none of us would ever choose God (which scripture states outright, there is none that seeketh after God). So I think the argument there is moot, everyone needs grace to repent and come to God.
In other examples, Paul so clearly said He worked harder than anyone, but not him rather the grace of God.
It is clear that God freely uses grace to tamper with everyone's so-called free-will. So, we are neither fully autonomous, nor are we unaccountable automatons.
I have partially answered this question already, but I wanted to take a brief aside and give a full discussion of it here.
A necessary consequence of omnitemporal creation is that God predetermined everything that would happen (scripture says this outright so this is not in dispute). So by definition, God is in full control of everything that happens, at all times.
The problem is, if God is in full control, doesn't that necessarily reduce us to automatons, and invite fatalism - where our actions don't matter as everything is predetermined? The thought is that God cannot be in full control and also allow us some autonomy. Scripture, however, clearly asserts both are true, which is seen as a paradox by many, meaning both cannot be true.
I will define a paradox in a way that should clarify things immensely and is relevant to our thesis:
A paradox is two things that cannot both be true in our limited four dimensions (3 spatial and 1 temporal) - I have to credit Hugh Ross for this definition and solution, I don't subscribe to much of his theology, but he got this one right IMHO.
Theologians have long asserted that since the Bible holds us accountable for our actions and it also asserts that God is in full sovereign control that both are simply true, even if it is an apparent paradox and we don't fully understand it. I agree completely.
However, the paradox can be resolved by simply removing the limitations of 4 dimensions. The clarifying idea is that God, being outside of time would see things as fully deterministic as all of time is visible to Him at once. But from our perspective as time-bound beings our choices matter, and cause and effect are in full force because of the natural laws God created. And furthermore, He has deliberately chosen to involve us in events in the passage of time, and deliberately granted us a level of autonomy in time. So, our actions do matter, and we are held accountable for them, and this is by design. That's my one paragraph refutation of fatalism. Others have done a better job if you want to investigate more.
This is another potential paradox IMHO, if God predetermined everything doesn't that necessarily make Him the author of evil? As stated earlier, I believe the intent is to say that God is not the author of evil in time, in the sense He does not reach into time and coerce people to do evil, even though He did deliberately create a universe that would have evil in it. A lot of theologies have been developed to try to rescue God from the charge of creating evil because people simply aren't happy with the obvious truths of scripture. But you cannot divorce the existence of evil from His omnitemporal creative intentions without violating scripture in some way.
What we are saying is there is no negative form of grace that makes people do evil, grace only restrains evil and makes people choose good when they would not normally, and God does not ask our permission to do this. All God has to do in time is to remove grace, and people will do evil all on their own.
Once people have chosen evil like Pharaoh did however, God can and does use evil for His own purposes. I am referring to the judicial hardening of Pharaoh's heart after Pharaoh hardened his own heart several times. This does not remove accountability from Pharaoh because he had already chosen to do evil, God focused it where He wanted it to go.
So God is never the author of evil in space-time but that does not refer to His creative intent, and people get those confused. He also freely tampers with our wills within His self-imposed limits.
It needs to be said that God not only uses evil for good purposes, but He also necessarily deliberately created evil to do exactly that, and in fact all evil necessarily fits under this rubric, all evil ultimately has a purpose for good, otherwise a good God would never have made it.
Without evil we would never have full knowledge of God's attributes: His Holiness, His love, mercy, and grace.
When we face evil, united with Christ, sharing in His sufferings, we are rewarded in Heaven, and there would be no be such rewards if we did not face evil in our lives as Christ did. And we can only do that by His grace. And as such we are a testimony to His grace, and are rewarded for it by our loving God.
We are all part of the story and Jesus Christ is the central figure in the whole thing. Theologically we are talking about the centrality and preeminence of Christ. We all have our assigned parts to play in the grand plan of redemptive history, which will culminate in the glorious return of Jesus Christ for His own.
Once we understand that all this has a purpose, that our lives have a purpose, it adds meaning to life in a way that nothing else can.
God clearly created a world filled with temptations, by design. So where does this verse fit in? I am amazed that some people focus so much on God not authoring evil, but ignore the problem of temptation, which seems worth just as much attention to me. I could use the same temporal argument I used for God not being the author of evil in time, and while I think that is necessary, I don't think that fully addresses the problem.
Consider that God admits He sends us persecution, and suffering. And this helps develop godliness in us, and it glorifies God that we endure such things by His grace (consider Job who is the archetype of this).
I believe God is talking about direct personal temptation here, not temptation from sovereign events. Meaning when someone directly tempts somebody else. Recall Jesus' words in the NT (woe unto him by whom temptation comes) where He warns that such an act carries such a large punishment in Hell that you are better off dying early than having that sin on your record? I think the two scriptures refer to the same thing and clarify each other.
Thus God does not tempt people, but evil people do. And when faced with distressing events people are tempted to become angry, bitter, and unforgiving. The point is, that's on us, on our evil natures, not on God.
It's like a cash-strapped person blaming the bank for being a temptation by simply being there in the first place, it doesn't wash, neither do such accusations against God. But coming to someone and saying," if you rob that bank your financial troubles will be over", that is what God never does.
What if we let the Bible define free will for us, in the sense of the ability to choose between good and evil. Theologians call this libertarian free-will by the way. When we look at freedom of the will (for humans) in the Bible, choosing evil is always described as slavery to sin. And freedom is the ability to choose for God.
Yet we can find an example of where "freedom" is defined as the ability to choose good or evil in the Bible. That view was presented by the serpent in the garden, who promoted knowledge of good and evil as a desirable thing to Eve. We all know of course that he lied, the only thing that knowledge brought was slavery to sin.
So, I submit to you that libertarian free-will is the last thing you want. You want a will that is enslaved to righteousness by God's grace. Because you cannot generate that on your own. Scripture is so clear on this.
It is not clear that God tampers with our wills constantly? I affirm that for the Christian this is a comforting thing. God loves us and makes all things work together for good for us. His invisible hand is at work in our lives at all times.
It also isn't something you should worry about, God doesn't inform you what He is doing, He takes care of business, all you have to do is trust Him.
Related to the question of evil, is how we deal with sovereign events that cause us pain, I didn't want to leave y'all without addressing this question in some depth.
It needs to be said that we need suffering. The Bible clearly states we are sent persecution and suffering. Jesus said take up your cross and follow me.
Martin Luther wrote on this subject in his work "That A Christian Should Bear His Cross with Patience". He maintained (from scripture) that every Christian will endure affliction, persecution, and discipline, and the result is godliness (mortification of sin) and endurance. Which is a direct quote from scripture.
Luther pointed out we are united with Christ, as a result we share in His sufferings, and will eventually be glorified like Him (His human part). So to Luther (and to scripture) suffering is central to the Christian life.
Luther also pointed out that self-imposed crosses are meaningless (comes from self-righteousness), only God imposed crosses count.
In summary, Luther demonstrates the correct approach is to endure suffering with patience.
It also needs to be stated that suffering is part of the Lord's love for us. Heb 12 6 The Lord disciplines whom He loves, the passage goes on to say that only illegitimate children are spared discipline. We all need it, as it builds holiness in our lives. And we need the proper understanding of how to deal with it when we are going through it.
In some sense we all deserve the fiery trials of life, but they are not punishment in the sense of judgement but are rather the loving discipline of our Lord who raises us up as His children.
In fact we are to rejoice in our suffering as Romans 5:3-4 points out, because of how it builds our character:
rom 5:3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance;
rom 5:4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope;
So again, it may seem paradoxical, but suffering builds our character, increases our faith, our endurance, and our hope. It's a loving gift from our Lord to us.
I can testify that suffering had these effects on me. I suspect any Christian that's been around for a while can give similar testimony.
As I mentioned earlier, how we endure suffering glorifies God, it puts His grace on display, and we are rewarded both now and in Heaven for it.
Every true Christian's life will ultimately be a victory over sin and suffering. Just as we will share in Christ's sufferings we will share in His victory. We will see some victories and rewards in this life, but the final mighty victory that Christ won for us is eternal life in Heaven.
You may know that some variations (or aberrations) of Christianity make much of God's manifest power today.
The reality is our God - who is a loving God - is always manifesting His power, simply by keeping us alive and the universe running. He is a consistent God, so he does not often violate His own "natural laws". But it takes no more of God's power to make a set of atoms and molecules move one way than another, regardless of whether it is consistent with the way He usually does things. Assuming otherwise seems to assign some form of aseity to us and to the creation. Meaning God has to use His power to change things, and none of His power to leave things alone. This is a common misconception that is the gateway to many bad theologies.
Yet within time, God does put his power on display in unique ways too, showing that He can do what He wants, when He wants, thus opening our eyes to the reality that He actually is always in full control.
Think of all those great miracles in the Old Testament, like the pillar of fire, and the parting of the Red Sea. All those things remind us God is in full control and can do whatever He wants. Unfortunately, we tend to take things for granted when God does not do something out of the ordinary and can fail to realize He is always in full control. The most severe form of this error is probably atheism.
It is also true, that God's providential reign - the ability to arrange things from the beginning to be exactly what He wants at all times - means He does not have to violate said natural laws to accomplish something unless He has a specific reason to want to do it that way. The Biblical examples of miracles are for specific reasons, including edifying us as to who God is, which glorifies Him.
The same is true for when God lets someone "go their own way". He can let natural laws (meaning our own natures) take effect, or he can tamper with (save) a person by intervening on their behalf - changing a heart as it is commonly called. Or if you are an Aminian, then God tampers with us in advance by grace, allowing us to make the choice for Him. In either system, we are not tamper-free.
It cannot be said enough that everything God does is permeated by love. God puts on display His love, His holiness, His power, in His own way and in the way He chooses. This is why the universe is the way it is, because as scripture tells us, God does what He wants, and glorifies Himself by doing so.
In my observation there is a direct correlation between the level of man-centerdness of a doctrine, and how much it limits God in various ways. The doctrine of omnitemporality is no exception. Note that when they constrain God to time, they also necessarily deny His immutability. Because a being confined to time necessarily experiences change.
The motive for these theologies are because people simply don't like the way God does things, sad but true for so many professing Christians.
Let's take a tour through a set of progressively more deficient and man-centered doctrines and explore where the line is crossed that confines God to time. The motivation of these particular doctrines is to excuse God from the accusation of being unfair, in that He predestines who is saved rather than our free will being the determining factor. The accusation comes by importing man's temporal and sinful sensibilities onto scripture's description of an eternal being who they essentially refuse to admit is outside of time.
The first is Calvinism, named after reformation theologian John Calvin who taught this theology in the early 1500's. Calvin began teaching only a decade after Martin Luther did so they were contemporaries, and taught similar things WRT free-will. Both claimed it was not a new theology but echoed Augustine, Paul, and Jesus Himself.
I admit I am a Calvinist now, but I was once a died-in-the-wool Arminian. I made the mistake of studying theology a few decades back, and I was dragged kicking and screaming into Calvinism. 😀 Once there I realized it is one of the most comforting doctrines in the Bible.
Calvinism is the closest to the truth and simply says that God predetermines everything through eternal decrees in eternity past. As things are worked out in time, we are clearly involved and are accountable for our actions. And Calvinists assert that regardless of the apparent paradox, it's true because scripture says so, and also acknowledge God is outside of time. I fully agree.
The idea that both predetermination and limited free-will are in full effect is called compatibilism by theologians, who say the apparent paradox is not really a paradox by affirming the two things are compatible with each other. In this paper we are showing how God's transcendence from time is the enabling factor that makes these two things compatible.
Calvinism also enters into the free-will argument fray and asserts the limited free-will view, namely that our wills are in bondage to our natures, and that nobody chooses God outside of an intervention of saving grace.
Next, is Arminianism, named after Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius. One year after his death in 1609, his students posted five objections to Calvinism in 1610. The responses to those objections were written in the Canons of Dort in 1619 after a three-year heresy trial of Arminianism. They were later named TULIP and are acronyms for what today we call the doctrines of Grace, or Calvinism by another name. I include a brief treatment of the five solas in appendix 1, and the five points in Appendix 2.
The Calvinists of the day considered Arminianism to be heretical, but most modern Calvinists (including me) accept Arminianism as within the bounds of orthodoxy. If you want to see those early thoughts, the Canons of Dort are a fairly quick read, and they clearly define the doctrines at that time and refute them from the Calvinist perspective.
Arminianism seeks to preserve man's free-will in the sense of the ability to choose good and evil. They see a different use of grace, in that God gives grace to everyone to bring them up to the ability choose for themselves. Besides the obvious contradiction of our wills needing tampering in order to be free (which also seems to concede the Calvinistic category of all wills being in bondage to sin by default), there is unfortunately no such notion to be found in Scripture.
Only a will in bondage to sin would choose evil, that is the essence of Biblical categories, so admitting our wills are in bondage and need to be set free concedes the point IMHO. To be set truly free (using biblical categories instead of non-biblical ones) is to choose Christ.
The main Arminian argument is that God commands us to obey the Gospel, and He would never command us to do anything we aren't able to do, except they restrict that solely to the choice between Christ or not, failing to deal with scripture that is filled with commands that we cannot obey, such as the law. Consider Jesus words "be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect", nobody is perfectly sanctified, the list goes on and on, so why stick on this one point. The answer is simply human pride, an accusation that God is unfair otherwise, and refusal to accept what Scripture says.
I maintain that even in their view God clearly gave some enough grace to choose Him and others not enough, knowing full well what they would do in advance, so it is an argument about nothing IMHO. If someone receives a hypothetical 97 units of grace fails to choose God, why didn't God simply give him 98 units of grace. So he would "willingly" choose God. Can you prove that everyone receives the same level of grace, or are those who are more evil receiving of more just to get them up to par? And in all cases He is trampling on their free-will because without grace of some sort they would never choose Him. Hopefully you can see the futility and nonsensical nature of this argument, in that it affirms irresistible grace while denying it at the same time.
Sadly, Arminians frequently say that the Calvinist god is morally deficient (evil) because He denies us that choice by predetermining who goes to heaven and who goes to hell by regenerating some and passing over others. This is called unfair if we do not have the ability to fully choose on our own. The cries of "unfair" necessarily ignore Romans 9 completely. And since - by their sensibilities of what good is - a good god cannot deliberately send anyone to hell in their view, therefore man's free will must reign supreme over who is saved and is the sole determinator of who goes to Hell.
Calvinism counters that God is not doing evil by not regenerating certain people as they are fully accountable for their actions and fully deserve Hell all on their own. Just because they cannot or will not be saved without a miraculous change of heart does not make God guilty of evil by only saving some. And as I pointed out, nobody chooses God without grace, and God owes grace to nobody (that's why it's called unmerited favor), so it's a silly argument at best IMHO.
I shudder to think that if Calvinists are correct, some Arminians are openly calling the true God evil. If any of our Arminian friends read this hopefully you will come around as I did or at least refrain from those accusations.
Note also the attempt to divorce God's creative intent from deliberately sending anyone to Hell. Arminianism is inconsistent (self-contradictory) at this point, which is lucky for them as they affirm God has complete foreknowledge of who would choose Him and who wouldn't after the received boost of grace to let them choose.
A simple question exposes the weakness of this position:
Why didn't God simply make a different universe where all people got saved?
The Biblical answer is that this universe is exactly what God intended, period. And He necessarily chose (outside of time) who would be saved and who wouldn't be regardless of Arminianism or not.
So Arminianism fails to rescue God from the charge of being unfair, even though that's what it's trying to do.
In what I consider to be highly ironic, I have routinely heard Arminians pray and ask God to change people's hearts to respond to the Gospel. Something their theology says He will never do. I maintain that very few are true Arminians, they just don't realize it. 😀
I maintain that the reason people hold onto these views is pride, a refusal to truly acknowledge the depravity of man, a refusal to accept that all of us well and truly deserve hell. Calls of "unfair" stem directly from that mindset IMHO.
It is also worth pointing out there are degrees of punishment in Hell. Those who are ignorant of God's commands receive few lashes, and those who knew them and knowingly disobeyed will receive many. So God's justice is on full display and accusations of unfair are unfounded.
The next doctrine as we continue the parade is Molinism (originally a catholic doctrine). Developed by Luis de Molina around 1580, is another theology that defends man's free-will in who gets saved. This would be when the reformation was in full swing, and the free-will discussion was front and center, and this is the Catholic response, as they entered the fray.
Molinism still acknowledges God has complete foreknowledge and is in complete control, but He achieves that control by simply knowing what we would do in any given situation and has pre-arranged things to achieve His desired outcomes. They call this middle knowledge.
Note that this is still (barely) compatible with Omnitemporal creation, but denies the clear teaching of scripture that God has to change a heart for a conversion to occur; Salvation isn't simply an act of providential manipulation of external events by God to accomplish the desired outcomes in people's lives. Ironically this isn't freedom at all, we are just little deterministic machines that given the right inputs will do what God wants, which really makes it much ado about nothing IMHO. It also seems to ignore grace entirely. Note that God here is self-limiting, they aren't accusing God of lacking the power to change hearts, simply that He doesn't do it. Thus, avoiding the charge of heresy so far.
Another weakness of Molinism (pointed out by James White) is that Molinism seems to assume a fixed pool of people God had to choose from and places each of us where He wants to get the desired results. Or rather, getting the best He can by manipulating those people within a feasible set of universes He could create - they use that kind of language a lot. This is a far cry from the God who created exactly the people and universe He desired. It was not a compromise on His part as the Molinists would have us believe. This limiting of God's omniscience and omnipotence does seem to dance on the lines of heresy IMHO.
The reality is everything you are and will do is deliberately chosen by God. Why is that so offensive? It means God intended for you to be what you are, you are not a mistake, or a compromise on His part, it's His loving gift to you. Sounds like a comforting doctrine to me.
Next is open theism, which experienced a resurgence as it was re-popularized in the late 1990's by a book called "The Openness of God", but it dates back a long way as a heresy, and I have not researched it's full history.
Open Theism - Which James White says is heresy, and I agree, and I hope this clarifies why - because it constrains God firmly to time. In open theism God does not know the future as anything other than a set of possibilities, the possible choices we might make. He therefore moves in time as we do. He is just so good (sarcasm intended) at preparing for and reacting to what we humans might do that He can guarantee the general prophetic future but each of our own salvation is pretty much up to us. It also seems to position the cross as a contingency plan as God could not know with perfect certainty that Adam and Eve would fall. The lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world becomes the lamb that was prepared to be slain just in case. Note that Immutability has been completely jettisoned in this view as God is now constrained to time and "learns" which choices we actually make as time progresses. Omniscience and omnipotence are also effectively denied by this doctrine. Once you start knocking off God's attributes you no longer have the God of the Bible, hence the charge of heresy.
Sadly, several denominations (who would be considered apostate as a result) accept open theism in their ranks, there are websites devoted to tracking this.
As mentioned earlier, the biblical answer is that God has no constraints other than self-imposed ones such as He does not lie, does not tempt anyone, is not the author of evil, etc. And God cannot confine Himself to time without surrendering His divinity.
Similar to Open Theism's theology that constrains God to time, but the name was derived in the late 1800's from process philosophy, and most recently popularized by Eugene Peters in the late 1900's. It has some New Age-like metaphysical vocabulary, like "becoming over substance". While developed in "Christian" circles, some Jewish rabbis have picked up process theology as well.
The main difference in process theology over Open Theism is that God voluntarily confines Himself to time in Open Theism but is actually limited in process theology. There are other differences as process theologians deny miracles, God is both limited and finite in their view.
We would declare this one heresy just like Open Theism and for similar reasons while noting it deviates considerably more from orthodoxy than Open Theism does.
No large denomination that I know of is officially process theology-based, but it is tolerated in some of the mainline liberal denominations such as the UCC.
FYI, Walter Martin in his book "Kingdom of the Cults" mid last century declared mainline liberalism (not to be confused with political liberalism) to be a false (apostate) form of Christianity and I agree. Liberal theology does however tend to embrace political liberal ideals as well. Liberal theology liberates one from the authority of scripture, and political liberalism similarly seeks to avoid submitting to God.
As a group mainline liberal denominations pretty much deny every cardinal doctrine of the faith while still giving some lip service to the Bible as a collection of semi-inspired writings that have some benefit (but no real authority or historicity) for us today. Once you give up the authority and inerrancy of Scripture all bets are off. And again, it's because people simply don't like what the Scripture says.
Now let's go way back in history to Pelagianism. To the early 400's. Note, the best writeups I have seen on Pelagianism come from R.C. Sproul, if you want to research it further.
Pelagius was a bishop who responded to a letter that Augustine wrote that had this closing prayer (paraphrased):
"God, command what you would, and give us grace that we might obey".
Pelagius responded that we needed no grace, as we already had free-will to choose on our own. This began one of the great controversies in Church history, with Augustine devoting much of his life to refuting this doctrine. He is remembered as a great hero of the faith.
In short, Pelagius claimed that we are all conceived innocent (like Adam and Eve), and had the ability to choose good and evil, so much so that a perfectly sinless life was theoretically possible, although in practice everybody sinned and so the fall occurs individually in each of our lives. This denies original sin, as Paul (in Hebrews) uses the fact that everyone dies as proof that we all died in Adam.
It also denies grace, in that Pelagius said we have the ability to choose Christ, no grace needed, and that our own good works earned us Heaven. It is perhaps the most pure salvation-by-works theology in the history of the Church. And it denied scripture after scripture to do it.
I do wish to give Pelagius a shout-out for having a self-consistent theology (unlike the Arminians), even if it was completely heretical. As Paul said so clearly, if you seek to be justified by works, you have been severed from Christ.
Pelagianism is the default ideology for humans outside of Christianity. Hollywood, and the false religions of the world are generally works based, good people earn their way to Heaven. The reality is the opposite of course, we are saved by grace apart from works.
There aren't any large Pelagian groups around today in Christianity, but it's theological descendant semi-pelagianism is alive and well in the Catholic church...
Semi-pelagianism simply blends grace and works for justification and is standard Catholic doctrine today. Since it includes works, it is just as heretical as full Pelagianism.
You can read the full description of it from the Council of Trent (held from 1545-1563), which occurred in response to Martin Luther (in 1545), where the Catholic council explicitly denied that justification was by faith alone, thus declaring the Catholic church to be a false church, as it officially denied the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I've known people who left the Catholic church over other issues (bowing down to idols), while not even realizing that the Gospel issue was the core issue. While those side issues are important, it's the Gospel that is the main thing, and was the heart of the reformation started by Martin Luther.
Like the mainline liberals, Catholicism abandoned the authority of scripture, but in a different way, by replacing it with the authority of the Church or Magisterium as they call it, by vesting it with the sole authority to interpret scripture. So, church tradition becomes the authoritative definition of truth. We all know what Jesus said about traditions of men making the word of God of no effect, and that accurately applies to them.
In conclusion, this parade of man-centered doctrines all stem from a refusal to simply accept what scripture says, because it is offensive to our sensibilities. Paul so ably refutes the charge of God being unfair in Romans 9, "can a man judge god...". Uhmm, no, definitely not.
This is something I wrestled way back when with when I began thinking about these things. I even came up with my own solution when I was in a cult.
While the free-willers argue about one small part of the picture, others have tried to solve this "problem" in a larger way as I did, again not so subtly accusing God of being unfair if He doesn't give every sinner a "chance" at heaven. All that fretting about free-will means nothing if they never have a chance to use it right? And again, it exposes the futility of those arguments.
Billy Graham famously became a universalist in his later years, believing that anyone who was "sincere" in the desire to do good would be saved by Christ, even if they did not know Christ.
Charles M Schulz ably mocked this kind of religion with the Great Pumpkin, showing the futility of sincerity devoid of truth.
Billy Graham is not the only one to develop similar types of theologies. Others have suggested that any religion can have some shadow of truth and all of them can save, using the same sleight of hand that Jesus is behind them all.
All that ignores the Bible's condemnation of false religion declaring it to be idolatrous evil rather than an alternate path to good.
My own solution (when I was in a cult and firmly Arminian) follows. The varying degrees of punishment weren't enough for me, I too believed that everyone deserved a chance, and I was concerned about angels too, why limit the discussion to humans alone?:
So voila! Every created being gets a chance at heaven, problem solved! God can be declared innocent at last! (sarcasm intended).
The truth is God designed everything as intended and has done nobody any injustice since we all deserve Hell. Jesus was clear that only a minority of all humans will be saved (straight and narrow is the path, and few are those who find it). It is sad, yes, but remains true regardless of whatever wishful thinking people want to engage in.
Of note, those earlier evangelists had a great heart for the lost and set wonderful examples for us today.
No discussion would be complete without covering this topic.
I believe scripture implies (but never fully states) that unborn children and young children automatically go to heaven when they die, based on Jesus' words about children. I do not see a guarantee though so I cannot be dogmatic about it.
I want to start with debunking the idea that children are innocent. Anyone who has had children knows they aren't. Once you've seen a child young enough to not have language skills throw a full-blown temper tantrum, you know they all have a sinful nature since you've directly experienced it. This is an outworking of original sin and the fall, that we all have sinful natures.
Many attempts to solve the child problem exist in historical Christianity. Some believe in an "age of accountability", and even pegged it to to age 13, basically asserting biological children are innocent. Others pegged it to an invisible event where the Holy Spirit knows when each child reaches an accountable state. Others have suggested that God is sovereign and chooses some children to be saved and passes over others. Still others have tied it to the child's ability to understand the Gospel and bring the mentally challenged into the picture as well on this basis. I suspect the list goes on, but those are the ones I know about.
You can see that a lot of thought has gone into this topic by many.
Personally, I opt for an individually predetermined accountability approach, and am sympathetic to the idea it is tied to when a child can understand the Gospel. God assigns the moment of accountability to each in eternity past.
The same argument applies to the mentally challenged as well.
I want to point out that age 13 is way too old, children that age have committed horrific crimes in history (usually at the urging of adults, but not always), so it's hard to give a blanket free pass to them. Imagine telling a 9 year old child they can do any bad thing they want, and God is ok with it until they turn 13. That just doesn't wash for me. Since it is likely tied to the ability to understand the Gospel that pushes the age well below 13 as well.
While it's hard to be completely dogmatic on this subject, I affirm that all young children go to Heaven, but we cannot know exactly where the cutoff is for each them. This allows us to offer comfort to those who have lost young children.
John MacArthur comes to a similar conclusion (and flushes this out a lot more) in his book "Safe in the Arms of God".
The free-willers make much of this, defending your right to lose your salvation, but frankly I wonder why anyone would ever want to defend this one. Anyone who is honest about their own sinfulness knows that if we have a chance to mess something up, we almost certainly will.
Still, this is a big one for many, and I will give a lengthier development of the doctrines grace later, which includes the perseverance of the saints, which directly addresses this question. But here, I'll just give the short Calvinist answer.
The truly regenerate cannot lose their salvation as they have a new heart, and a new spirit, and above all saving grace. As we have already established, grace does indeed override our free-wills. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith, He will lose none of us that the Father has given Him. A shepherd's main job is to keep sheep from running away and getting lost, it can't be much clearer than that.
The corollary is very few in professing Christendom are really saved (I am including all the false Christian cults in this and they represent by far the largest population of professing Christians, and all those who are in self-righteousness or have never truly bowed the knee to Christ). Many profess Christ, but don't live for Him, or deny key doctrines in Scripture. They have no more claim on Him than an atheist.
A truly born-again person will have fruit in their life, and a changed heart. In the end, only time can truly tell us who is truly saved. It isn't how you start that matters, but how you finish. You can't just pray a prayer and then live for the Devil and expect to be ok. But people can fake it for a long time. I've known people who attended church for years that fell away who admitted they knew they were faking, and I've known people who didn't. But Paul was clear, those who fell away were never truly saved at all (they went out from us, but they were not of us).
When I first grappled with this topic I went to my goto scripture that I was sure proved you could lose your salvation outright, for those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit:
Heb 6:6 (If) ... and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
So there it was in black and white, proof you could lose it, and a dire warning too.
But then I noticed a few verses down that Paul clarifies what he meant:
Heb 6:9 But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, ...
So Paul explicitly declares you cannot lose your salvation right there, which kinda boggled my mind, and started my journey. Hopefully this will start yours too. See Appendix 2 where the five points go into much more depth on this issue.
This one comes up too. Hopefully by now you can answer this one already. If you believe in Jesus Christ, and have the evidence of fruit in your life, then you are predestined to Heaven. The issue you are actually struggling with is assurance. The idea that God would overrule your faith and send you to Hell (which is the accusation being made) is hogwash. If you are struggling with assurance then read any decent book on assurance or maybe start with 1 John which is about exactly that.
The Bible also answers this question directly. The things of God are foolishness to those who are perishing - this includes embracing heresy as well. That's what someone predestined to Hell looks like. If that describes you then it's bad, otherwise you are ok. Although you can't know with complete certainty until they die, deathbed conversions are always a possibility.
Are angels time-bound? And are we set free from time in Heaven? These are questions that have been asked, so I'll give my answer.
I had a shorter version of this, but one of my pastors reviewed this document and suggested I expand on this subject a bit more.
First consider Lucifer in Heaven. He was the worship leader, but his heart was lifted up in pride, and he led 1/3 of the angels in rebellion against God. All of this occurred in time, meaning cause and effect and change are in operation.
And at some point later in the Garden of Eden, possibly long after the 6 creation days, Lucifer deceives Adam and Eve. We aren't told how long any of this took.
Then consider Job, and the angel who was delayed answering Daniel's prayer. Both interacted with us in space-time. And more importantly, cause and effect are consistent from earth to the 3rd heaven where God interacts with angels, meaning it is in the same time-line as us.
So we necessarily conclude that the creation event (genesis 1:1) includes all non-divine beings in the 3rd heaven, as well as us, and more importantly we are all in time together.
I will avoid any empty speculations on the space part, except I do not believe the 3rd heaven is part of our three dimensions of space (like planet Kolob as the Mormons believe), and same for Hell. But I am not going to get dogmatic about it.
Just as God can manifest Himself to us in time, He does the same in the heavenly city to the angels, and presumably to the people who are there now.
Scriptures on what we will do in Heaven universally include the idea of action, with us living productive fulfilling lives as part of His Kingdom. All of this requires time. I have heard some Christians speculate that we will be outside of time in Heaven. I do not believe there is any warrant to believe this in scripture.
Consider what being outside of time would mean:
John MacArthur in his Heaven exposition speculates that God is so infinite that we can be kept busy for eternity just learning about Him. That got me to thinking (ok I admit, I did a little speculating).
Consider the bema judgement seat of Christ. If He is to judge each of us separately in normal time, this will take a long time.
Consider the great white throne judgement. People's individual crimes will be shouted from the rooftops. If there is a separate session for each individual, and several billion people are involved, this will take a wee bit.
And we are told we will judge angels. The euphemism of 10k times 10k angels means more than they had a numeric system to count back then, but we can assume that's at least 100 million angels and could be a lot more. Having us share the load will speed the judgement up a bit, and maybe a lot, but all of this will still take place in time.
So, I come to the same conclusion MacArthur did, that we will live eternally in time, but not outside of time in eternity itself as God does.
Calvinists (like me) claim that God's sovereignty (in salvation along with everything else) is a comforting doctrine, you aren't on the hook to produce or maintain your salvation. God is in full control, and more importantly He takes care of you. It also is humbling, you can't take credit for making the decision for Him.
He allows suffering and uses it for His glory and promises us rewards both in this life and the life to come in return. Stated more broadly, all suffering and evil have a purpose, and God's purposes are good. It brings all of your life under the same umbrella, you have a purpose too, a purpose for good.
Our actions matter, and we are accountable for them, we do have a limited form of free-will in time.
Despite predestining everything, God has lovingly chosen to involve us in a lot of what goes on, He uses means to reach people: evangelism, preaching, teaching, all acts of love, family, and relationships.
God has answered all your prayers before you make them, but He chooses to involve us in the unfolding of events in time by requiring prayer. This is another act of love and relationship and glorifies Him.
And for those who think that God is unfair, consider that if mankind had not fallen, we would never have known God's sacrificial love and His infinite holiness both of which are put on full display on the cross. Heaven and Hell illustrate who God is in ways we would never have known without the fall. That's what God's glory is, putting Himself on display so we who love Him and are loved by Him can know who He truly is.
God did it all this way because He wanted to do it this way.
I want to close with a final illustration. Remember that old song "Footsteps in the Sand"? It described an allegorical journey of someone walking with Christ their entire lives. At the end of his life, he looked back, and saw that through all of the most difficult times in his life there was only one pair of footsteps, whereas everywhere else there were two. Turning to Jesus he asked: "Why did You abandon me during those times when I needed you most", (allegorical) Jesus responds "you misunderstand, those were the times when I carried you".
I suggest that a proper view of God and His sovereignty give us the wonderful understanding that God is always carrying us like that.
Have faith. Trust God. He loves you. Pray unceasingly. Stand firm. God Bless. The end. 😀
The Five Solas and Reformation Thought.
Why I became a Calvinist, a brief scriptural defense of Calvinism.
Omnitemporality - Our unchanging God is present throughout time. Also can be called temporal omnipresence.
Temporal transcendence - Our unchanging God is outside of time. From his perspective He interacts with all of time at once, there is no time for Him. Temporal transcendence necessarily includes the creation act:
Omnitemporal creation - From God's perspective all of space-time was created by a single act. It is not progressively managed by a God who is confined to time as we are.