I’m not suggesting that time is non-linear and re-entrant for anyone except the creator of time, so unless you propose that God would choose to change his mind on the atonement your point is mute.
Sorry Martin, I evidently misunderstood your initial post. I have no problem accepting that God is outside the constraints of time.
It reminds me of when i was a boarder at Moore College during my first year at university 30 yrs ago. I asked Broughton Knox whether we could legitimately pray for something that had already happened (eg for the salvation of someone who’d already died) on the assumption that God wasn’t constrained by time. At the time I didn’t really understand his reasoning for rejecting this but of course now I can see the theological immaturity in such a question.
Sadly some of the posts in this thread were lost due to a database problem.
However Martin Shields asked me in a now missing post ...
So what you’re saying appears to be this: DBK rejected the notion and you didn’t understand why. Yet anyone who ponders the question is theologically less mature than you, but you’re not going to divulge the reasons why?
I replied:
I don’t remember DBK’s explanation, it was a long time ago, but I do remember not properly grasping it. However, it seems clear to me now that even accepting that God can transcend time, praying for the salvation of someone who’s already died would be asking God to change history (ie the events that have left that person in presumed unbelief). As discussed above, multiple histories then challenges our very existence - and to which history would we belong?
Martin then proposed:
Ah, but given that I think that predestination precludes God altering history in such a way that someone is saved who was not saved, I’m excluding that from the possible actions God might take in the past in response to prayer in the present. But that still leaves a lot of possible room for other things, does it not? My original example was about illness, not salvation.
To which I’m finally replying ...
I’m uncomfortable* with the possibility of multiple threads of history, no matter how small, since each version would have ripple effects forever after, much like dropping pebbles in a still pond. What I can very happily accept is God knowing that I’ll be praying for something in the future anticipates that in the present.
*Having said that I will confess to enjoying Dr Who and the Sarah Connor Chronicles :)
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]I’m uncomfortable with the possibility of multiple threads of history, no matter how small, since each version would have ripple effects forever after, much like dropping pebbles in a still pond. What I can very happily accept is God knowing that I’ll be praying for something in the future anticipates that in the present.
OK, but logically your position means that you cannot believe in the efficacy of prayer at all, because assuming that God has some sort of plan for the universe which works towards one particular conclusion, then you must be uncertain about any variations along the way (whether in our past or future) because the repercussions may impact on the future outcome of events!
OTOH, if prayer does work: if God’s actions are at some point contingent on our petitions (as the Bible suggests) then perhaps there are multiple routes to the one destination, and those routes converge at critical junctures in salvation history. Thus, in spite of the obvious complexity of the outcome, it may be possible for God to heal or not to heal someone without jeopardising his plan for the universe. In fact, if we were to allow God to dabble in past history rather than only in the future it may offer more options for keeping his ultimate goal on track.
This thread is reminding me of my psychology classes at Moore, when we were asked how did we know that there were no invisible, noiseless, odorless mice running around the room (answer: the invisible, odorless, noiseless cats have eaten them), & when given one sheet of paper, then asked how many pieces of paper did I have… Michael Hill exclaimed to me “You have a concrete brain”. I thought he was swearing at me. Oh they were the best 4000 years of my life!
Why does God need to dip into the past to fix up something, so that his will is done? Why didn’t he fix it up then? This thread has gone crazy.
Why do we think God can only dabble in the future, why not the present? He is the god of the living not the dead.
OK, but logically your position means that you cannot believe in the efficacy of prayer at all, because assuming that God has some sort of plan for the universe which works towards one particular conclusion, then you must be uncertain about any variations along the way (whether in our past or future) because the repercussions may impact on the future outcome of events!
Martin, I’ll confess to being a very concrete thinker, not an abstract thinker, so it’s quite likely I’m missing your point. It’s also likely my brevity above made my point unclear. I’m sure God envisaged many many possibilities for a single course of human history. However, through his intimate foreknowledge of his own interventions in sustaining his creation (our history) and our responses (including prayer), he was assured that his divine purposes would not be thwarted and that ultimately all his creation would marvel at his plan. I don’t see how this precludes the efficacy of prayer, it simply keeps our prayers (and his responses) within the bounds of God’s plan and foreknowledge.
OTOH, if prayer does work: if God’s actions are at some point contingent on our petitions (as the Bible suggests) then perhaps there are multiple routes to the one destination, and those routes converge at critical junctures in salvation history.
Given that we can only interact with one history, I can see no reason for God to introduce this complexity into his creation, especially where you concede it precludes changes to those entering his kingdom.
In fact, if we were to allow God to dabble in past history rather than only in the future it may offer more options for keeping his ultimate goal on track.
I don’t see why God might need to dabble in past history in order to keep his ultimate goal on track.
Just wanted to say thanks everyone for your contributions thus far, Robert for the encouragement, Angus for the comments & link to the other thread (will check it out thanks), Mark for the comments & alternate readings, Enkers for making my brain explode.. thanks :)
To be very brief, I still think if it (God’s intervention in the physical world) did happen with any regularity in an observable way, we could study it, because studying something is simply observing it in a formal way. But we can’t/don’t, and most examples people give are just correlations, there’s no apparent causal relationship. So I have some (well, a lot!) of sympathy for the Lost-ish outside of linear time/universe theories.. thanks Enkers, will ponder :)
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]I’m sure God envisaged many many possibilities for a single course of human history. However, through his intimate foreknowledge of his own interventions in sustaining his creation (our history) and our responses (including prayer), he was assured that his divine purposes would not be thwarted and that ultimately all his creation would marvel at his plan.
But why does this have to be founded on the assumption that there can only be one path from the beginning to the end? My theory (and it is no more than that) allows us to treat those passages where God changes his mind without having to jump through elaborate hermeneutical hoops: at certain points there were two (or more) ways things could go, and either way would still allow God’s ultimate purposes to be fulfilled. Indeed, such thinking could even be applied to the fall in which case God’s purposes do not ultimately require sin to be fulfilled!
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]I don’t see how this precludes the efficacy of prayer, it simply keeps our prayers (and his responses) within the bounds of God’s plan and foreknowledge.
Well, it does mean that God does not change his mind in response to our prayers. It lends itself to the old chestnut that prayer changes us, not God.
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]
OTOH, if prayer does work: if God’s actions are at some point contingent on our petitions (as the Bible suggests) then perhaps there are multiple routes to the one destination, and those routes converge at critical junctures in salvation history.
Given that we can only interact with one history, I can see no reason for God to introduce this complexity into his creation, especially where you concede it precludes changes to those entering his kingdom.
See above regarding the Fall as to why I think there may be good reasons why such complexity may be useful in resolving certain long-standing theological problems.
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]I don’t see why God might need to dabble in past history in order to keep his ultimate goal on track.
Well he wouldn’t if he doesn’t ever change his mind on which course of action to take. But if God is “outside of time,” then how is dabbling in the past any different to dabbling in the present or future?
My theory (and it is no more than that) allows us to treat those passages where God changes his mind without having to jump through elaborate hermeneutical hoops: at certain points there were two (or more) ways things could go, and either way would still allow God’s ultimate purposes to be fulfilled.
I agree, there are hermeneutical hoops to jump through but I’m very happy to persist in the hope of reaching a common understanding/agreement on this.
I think you’re suggesting that God’s divine plan may not be so rigid or detailed as to preclude some extemporaneous improvisation on his part (especially as a consequence of our prayers) or, in other words, that God may change his mind over smaller things (eg our healths) but not his bigger plan (eg those preordained for salvation or destruction)? The danger I see in adopting this position is that it would then make sense to pray for health but not for the salvation of others. I’m sure you’ll agree that that is unbiblical (eg Rom 10:1). Also, I don’t see God’s foreknowledge (Is 46:9-11) as precluding him from responding in a relational sense to our prayers, nor that our prayers are simply to align our wills to his, but I believe our prayers and God’s responses can and do remain within his divine preordained plan.
So how do we jump the hermeneutical hoop where God appears to change his mind (eg Ex 32:9-14, 2 Ki 20:1-6)? These passages need to be balanced with other passages which indicate that God doesn’t change his mind (eg Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29). It seems to me that these passages where God appears to ‘change his mind’ in response to prayer are simply using anthropomorphism and are intended to highlight the relational nature of prayer - that God cares, listens and responds. They don’t necessitate some unexpected deviation or improvisation on God’s part.
Indeed, such thinking could even be applied to the fall in which case God’s purposes do not ultimately require sin to be fulfilled! ...
See above regarding the Fall as to why I think there may be good reasons why such complexity may be useful in resolving certain long-standing theological problems.
I’m afraid you’ll need to elaborate as you’ve completely lost me here.
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]I think you’re suggesting that God’s divine plan may not be so rigid or detailed as to preclude some extemporaneous improvisation on his part (especially as a consequence of our prayers) or, in other words, that God may change his mind over smaller things (eg our healths) but not his bigger plan (eg those preordained for salvation or destruction)? The danger I see in adopting this position is that it would then make sense to pray for health but not for the salvation of others.
No, the danger is that this becomes an outcome when my position is adopted reductionistically. The Bible seems to treat election as a special case: it is something which is achieved through a combination of divine and human work (cf. Acts 18:9-10). Does that mean that all God’s actions must operate according to precisely the same rules?
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]I’m sure you’ll agree that that is unbiblical (eg Rom 10:1). Also, I don’t see God’s foreknowledge (Is 46:9-11) as precluding him from responding in a relational sense to our prayers, nor that our prayers are simply to align our wills to his, but I believe our prayers and God’s responses can and do remain within his divine preordained plan.
So do I, I’m just not sure that God’s plan necessarily is restricted to only one possible set of events, only that there is only one destination.
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]So how do we jump the hermeneutical hoop where God appears to change his mind (eg Ex 32:9-14, 2 Ki 20:1-6)? These passages need to be balanced with other passages which indicate that God doesn’t change his mind (eg Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29). It seems to me that these passages where God appears to ‘change his mind’ in response to prayer are simply using anthropomorphism and are intended to highlight the relational nature of prayer - that God cares, listens and responds. They don’t necessitate some unexpected deviation or improvisation on God’s part.
The problem with this explanation is that it ignores the context of Num 23:19 and 1Sam 15:29 and makes far more of them than the context warrants. As the NET Bible notes on 1Sam 15:29 (emphasis mine):
[quote author="NET Bible"]This observation marks the preceding statement (v. 28) as an unconditional, unalterable decree. When God makes such a decree he will not alter it or change his mind. This does not mean that God never deviates from his stated intentions or changes his mind. On the contrary, several passages describe him as changing his mind. In fact, his willingness to do so is one of his fundamental divine attributes (see Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2). For a fuller discussion see R. B. Chisholm, Jr., “Does God Change His Mind?” BSac 152 (1995): 387-99.
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]
Indeed, such thinking could even be applied to the fall in which case God’s purposes do not ultimately require sin to be fulfilled! ...
See above regarding the Fall as to why I think there may be good reasons why such complexity may be useful in resolving certain long-standing theological problems.
I’m afraid you’ll need to elaborate as you’ve completely lost me here.
If God has decreed a single course of history down to the most minute details then that must include the Fall as a means to the end. This has caused problems for many: that God’s purposes ultimately depend on evil to be fulfilled. But if the Fall was only one of two or more possible means by which God’s purposes could be fulfilled, then his purposes do not ultimately depend on evil to be fulfilled.
No, the danger is that this becomes an outcome when my position is adopted reductionistically.
OK, that’s a fair point. Treating just about any doctrine reductionistically leads to unbiblical positons.
I’m just not sure that God’s plan necessarily is restricted to only one possible set of events, only that there is only one destination.
I’m happy to concede that while God’s foreknowledge is undisputed, the degree of detail of his foreknowledge is unclear (though passages such as Matt 10:30 could be argued to imply that it’s very detailed). Anyhow, if you’re meaning here that within God’s plan for creation, there are points where a number of possible routes could be taken, and he chooses one of several, then I’m happy to concede that that’s possible.
However from your earlier post I thought you were suggesting that God might in effect choose multiple concurrent routes given that he’s unconstrained by time ...
Here’s a thought experiment. My friend is sick and I pray for healing. God answers my prayer not by healing my friend, but by preventing him from ever having become sick in the first place.
This raises the question, was your friend sick or not? In your scenario the answer is surely both yes and no. So you seem to be suggesting that this might be possible as long as it has no impact on salvation. Whilst I can’t disprove your hypothesis it does beg the question as to why God might bother? I can’t see how this would enhance his plan or benefit his creation. You really are taxing my concrete linear ISTJ brain! :).
If God has decreed a single course of history down to the most minute details then that must include the Fall as a means to the end. This has caused problems for many: that God’s purposes ultimately depend on evil to be fulfilled.
Yes, why does God allow evil? Can a greater good arise from God allowing evil into his creation? I would argue that the answer is implicitly yes. Did God plan for us to rebel? I think he gave us autonomy knowing that we all would use our autonomy to do so, and knowing he would need to redeem us through Jesus’ sacrifice. What is the greater good? Perhaps it’s that for those entering new creation, they’ll continue to have autonomy, but exercise it with constraint in the full knowledge of the consequences of evil (and a much richer understanding of God’s love, grace and mercy).
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]I’m happy to concede that while God’s foreknowledge is undisputed, the degree of detail of his foreknowledge is unclear (though passages such as Matt 10:30 could be argued to imply that it’s very detailed).
Actually, I’d argue that it is much more detailed than you imply, because it includes knowledge of possibly outcomes and repercussions from choices that don’t actually take place (e.g. Matt 11:21). God knows what choices are permissible within his purposes.
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]Anyhow, if you’re meaning here that within God’s plan for creation, there are points where a number of possible routes could be taken, and he chooses one of several, then I’m happy to concede that that’s possible.
However from your earlier post I thought you were suggesting that God might in effect choose multiple concurrent routes given that he’s unconstrained by time ...
Not concurrent in the “Sliders” multiple universe way of thinking, but allowing for the reshaping of the one stream of history under God’s sovereignty in response to human petition.
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]
Here’s a thought experiment. My friend is sick and I pray for healing. God answers my prayer not by healing my friend, but by preventing him from ever having become sick in the first place.
This raises the question, was your friend sick or not? In your scenario the answer is surely both yes and no. So you seem to be suggesting that this might be possible as long as it has no impact on salvation. Whilst I can’t disprove your hypothesis it does beg the question as to why God might bother? I can’t see how this would enhance his plan or benefit his creation. You really are taxing my concrete linear ISTJ brain! :).
In part my point has been to argue that the government of the universe can be far more complex than we generally imagine, and that even here that may be true because we cannot understand the significance of consequences of allowing the universe to operate in this way. ISTM that the Bible may allow God to operate the universe in the way I’ve suggested, and there may be reasons why he would do this.
[quote author="Angus Johnson"]
If God has decreed a single course of history down to the most minute details then that must include the Fall as a means to the end. This has caused problems for many: that God’s purposes ultimately depend on evil to be fulfilled.
Yes, why does God allow evil? Can a greater good arise from God allowing evil into his creation? I would argue that the answer is implicitly yes. Did God plan for us to rebel? I think he gave us autonomy knowing that we all would use our autonomy to do so, and knowing he would need to redeem us through Jesus’ sacrifice. What is the greater good? Perhaps it’s that for those entering new creation, they’ll continue to have autonomy, but exercise it with constraint in the full knowledge of the consequences of evil (and a much richer understanding of God’s love, grace and mercy).
This still has the problem manifest in any appeal to “the greater good,” i.e., it assumes a “not good” (i.e. evil). I’m suggesting that God’s purposes may not have required any evil at all and the fact that we’ve gone via the Fall need not be something we can “blame” God for without compromising his sovereignty.
[quote author="Martin Shields"]In part my point has been to argue that the government of the universe can be far more complex than we generally imagine, and that even here that may be true because we cannot understand the significance of consequences of allowing the universe to operate in this way.
I’m sure you’re right especially since our current paradigms leave us with a biblical conundrum - human responsibility within God’s sovereignty and predestination. Anyhow, it would be incredibly naive to presume we’re even close to understanding the mind of God.
[quote author="Martin Shields"][quote author="Angus Johnson"]Yes, why does God allow evil? Can a greater good arise from God allowing evil into his creation? I would argue that the answer is implicitly yes. Did God plan for us to rebel? I think he gave us autonomy knowing that we all would use our autonomy to do so, and knowing he would need to redeem us through Jesus’ sacrifice. What is the greater good? Perhaps it’s that for those entering new creation, they’ll continue to have autonomy, but exercise it with constraint in the full knowledge of the consequences of evil (and a much richer understanding of God’s love, grace and mercy).
This still has the problem manifest in any appeal to “the greater good,” i.e., it assumes a “not good” (i.e. evil). I’m suggesting that God’s purposes may not have required any evil at all and the fact that we’ve gone via the Fall need not be something we can “blame” God for without compromising his sovereignty.
I can see we must go beyond our current models of thought to better understand God’s governance, and you’re evidently attempting to do that. However, I’m afraid I’m still not close to understanding the nuances of your proposition, nor how it resolves the problem of evil. I’m certainly still interested if you’re happy to persist, but it may require unrealistic patience from you if I’m to grasp where you’re heading.
ps: I also want to apologise for the tone of my first reply. I misunderstood the earnestness of your proposal, hence my rather flippant response.
To be very brief, I still think if it (God’s intervention in the physical world) did happen with any regularity in an observable way, we could study it, because studying something is simply observing it in a formal way. But we can’t/don’t, and most examples people give are just correlations, there’s no apparent causal relationship. So I have some (well, a lot!) of sympathy for the Lost-ish outside of linear time/universe theories.. thanks Enkers, will ponder :)
Hi Luke,
2 comments:
1. Even in the Bible there were those who saw marvellous things happen & didn’t want to give God the glory. The Egyptians tried to mimic them with their magic. The Jewish leaders said it was Beelzebub’s work etc. For our modern humanists I’ve heard spectacular things explained away as being made up, or just a coincidence, or just luck, or sometimes the unexpected just happens. To a hostile crowd even seeing a man raised from the dead won’t change them, (they have Moses… as Jesus said in his parable).
2. Hebrews 11 & faith. Faith is important not only in asking, but also in interpreting the answers that God has given. I remember having this rammed home to me at Sydney Uni by a Chemistry Professor while I was still in High School. He pointed out the amazing finds that have been made that came about by accidents, which would have easily been overlooked, except for the prepared minds of the investigators. Since they were prepared to investigate & were ready to latch on to the results, they advanced so much even through accidents. God’s handiwork is so richly abundant for those who are looking with faith. The heavens declare his glory. His answers are forthcoming, maybe not in the way we expect, but he does answer. When they were younger I kept a family prayer diary with my children. Prayers at the dinner table were recorded, as were the answers (Yes, No, Not yet, Surprise). It helped them see that God does answer. I have done the same with our cafe church on Sunday nights. They have seen answers, which by faith we attribute to God. Some may appear trivial, but their faith has grown enormously as they have seen God’s hand at work even in the mundane of life.
Hang in there Luke. Seek and you will find.
My immediate prayer is that you will see an answer to a prayer very soon, even if it is a small thing that could easily be interpreted as coincidence.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Mark Driscoll burns his plastic Jesus at the Sydney Entertainment Centre. For full video see jesus.kcc.org.au.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
