The hard question
And so, you see, I’m not exactly an Open Theist or Closed Theist. And most of the arguments simply don’t address what, to me, is the hard question. The hard question to me isn’t whether God can see the future or be surprised. It’s why God chose this past/present/future? Why Abraham? Why First Century Rome? Why Jerusalem?
God has free will, and he makes choices that affect the future. Those choices determine who gets to hear the gospel and what the world will look like. God could have changed the world any way he wished. That’s the nature of omnipotence. God has power without limit. Why aren’t we already in Paradise? Why is the world so ugly?
Neither Open Theism nor Closed Theism truly answer those questions. Under any theory, God knows the present and God could change the present. And yet he doesn’t. At least, he doesn’t change the present as much as we’d like.
And here’s the best answer I can come up with —
First, we don’t know how bad things would be if God were to truly abandon us. God makes it rain on the just and the unjust. This is called “common grace” — God’s blessings enjoyed by the saved and the damned. Imagine how horrible things would be without God!
Second, we judge good and bad in human terms that are often not even a little Christian. If a loved one dies, we become angry with God — even though, if our loved one is a Christian, he’s gone to a much, much better place. It’s a good thing — at least it is to the one going to be with Jesus!
Just so, as bad as our suffering here can be, and it can be truly horrible, it’s nothing compared to the ecstasy we’ll enjoy in the arms of Jesus. It’s hard to be philosophical while going through persecution, of course. It’s hard to rejoice in our sufferings. But that’s what the Bible teaches — because as Christians, we should have a very different perspective on these things.
Third, God has a plan to redeem the present and the future: Christians, the church, the in-breaking Kingdom. His plan is us. And we can philosophize and theologize all we want, and that answer isn’t going to change. We’re the solution. And as David Platt writes, there is no plan B. It’s just us.
I’d far, far rather blame God. But God decided that Jesus would be the cure — dying on a cross so that the nations could enter his Kingdom and be empowered by his Spirit to redeem a fallen world. The fullness of Deity is involved in trying to redeem everything — but it still boils down to God’s people continuing the work of Jesus in the present.
Live like Jesus, enter into a community built on the model of the Trinity, equipped by the power of the Trinity to do the work of the Trinity — and the world will change.
We ask why God allows pain and suffering, and a large part of the answer is because we squander the gifts of God, given to us so we’d prevent pain and suffering and replace them with peace, joy, and righteousness in the Spirit. And when we don’t do it, people suffer. People die without hope. And we blame God.
Playing for keeps
God treats us as adults. We are called to play for keeps. The consequences of our decisions and inactions are eternal. And yet God empowers us with his Spirit to do what needs to be done. And more often than not, we don’t even try. And so there’s pain and suffering, war and starvation.
Imagine a world where the lands that are presently Islamic are all Christian because Islam never pushed Christianity out of North Africa and the Middle East. Imagine a world where Russian Christianity before 1917 was vibrant and powerful, a voice for justice and compassion. There’d have been no Russian Revolution and no Iron Curtain. Imagine a Germany where the church lived the life of Christ. There’d have been no Holocaust. No World War I or II. Imagine an America where faithfulness to God prevailed over profits. There’d have been no slavery and no Civil War.
Would the world be perfect and pain free? No. But it would be very much better. There’d be no wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya. There’d be no Islamic terrorism.
To me, you see, the key is stop blaming God, recognize that his plan is a very good and entirely sufficient one — and start working the plan.
(Mat 16:18 ESV) And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(Rom 8:31 ESV) If God is for us, who can be against us?
(Psa 118:6 ESV) The LORD is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do to me?
But …
But, you might object, some suffering isn’t caused by our failure to be Christ-like. That’s not why there’s AIDS. That’s not why there’s poverty.
Really? Really? AIDS came from monkeys, but it spread almost entirely by sexual contact and would have nearly zero impact on human population if we all lived in heterosexual, monogamous relationships. Is it God’s punishment on homosexuals? No, it’s Satan running free because the church has failed to persuade Christians to obey the Bible.
Poverty comes from many sources, but the largest cause of poverty in the world is corrupt government — governments that are run by nominal Christians. End government corruption in nominally Christian Latin America and Subsaharan Africa and poverty rates will plummet. Bad government is a direct result of a failure of the church to be the church.
Yes, even if we converted everyone on the planet and everyone truly lived like Jesus, there’d still be hurricanes and tsunamis — but there’d also be incredible generosity and volunteerism to help communities that suffer loss overcome the loss. And the mourning would be mingled with celebrations of those who’ve been taken to a better place.
However …
I want to add one major limitation on what I’ve just said. We must always approach our understanding of God with the greatest of humility. The fact is that we view God much as a kitten views a human. We can observe behaviors and understand a few words, but we have no hope of truly comprehending the fullness of God. Therefore, to render judgment against God would be an act of unspeakable folly. It’s not our place.
And just exactly how God sees the world and interacts with time and space is, well, not knowable. It’s just not. I’ve put forward what is, at best, a hypothesis. The main purpose of the hypothesis is to demonstrate that many theologians are arguing without all the evidence before them. God reveals himself through science as well as scripture.
(Rom 1:19-20 ESV) 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
(Act 14:16-17 ESV) 16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”
(Job 12:7-10 ESV) 7 “But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you; 8 or the bushes of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. 9 Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? 10 In his hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind.
(Psa 19:1 ESV) The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Any theory of God’s future knowledge that overlooks the fact that he exists outside of time is flawed to its core. But that doesn’t mean that I’m right. It only means that I’m building my case on better evidence. But I recognize that my theorizing may well overlook the vastness of God’s nature.
But I think the outcome of anyone’s pet theory has got to be that if Christians were to act like Christians and the church were to be the church, the world would be a much better place and we’d have far fewer tragedies to blame on God.
“God reveals himself through science as well as scripture.”
Some of our brothers and sisters in Christ would consider this heresy (I’m not one of them) in spite of the verses you cite. To them, scripture is the one and ONLY way God reveals himself. And He certainly does not do so by His Spirit, whom they believe to be retired from all active service.
I am having to re-examine the doctrine of “no Plan B.” While I concur that there may be only Plan A — us — in transmitting the gospel with its hope and promise of reconciliation with God through His Son Jesus Christ, my respect for their sovereignty as the judges of all requires me to let Them decide who have lived luves of faith based on what they have deduced from creation and the Holy Spirit given at their discretion. It’s not up to me to draw a conclusion that all who have not believed because they have not heard the gospel are automatically lost and damned. All of us will be judged by what we say and do (and fail to say and do).
But a God who destroys people who have tried to live loving, generous, selfless lives having never heard His name does not fit the description of a God who loves the world and gave His Son and is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance — to me, and in my pathetically inadequate way of thinking.
“But, you might object, some suffering isn’t caused by our failure to be Christ-like. That’s not why there’s AIDS. That’s not why there’s poverty.
Really? Really? AIDS came from monkeys, but it spread almost entirely by sexual contact and would have nearly zero impact on human population if we all lived in heterosexual, monogamous relationships”
Jay, the transfer of aids probably was not by a human having sex with a monkey, and the first to contract this disease could have very well been a Christian obeying God’s commands, “spread the gospel” if a diseased monkey “bites” you you can pretty much expect to have that disease.
So yes I object to your conclusion here. A lot of disease is carried in the food source , the air , the water, and as far as I know Christians are not exempt.
Scripture is inspired and infallible. Can we say the same about science? Or isn’t science the attempt of fallible and limited humans trying to understandthe mysteries of God’s creation? Does not God laugh at the wisdom of the world?
So: No. Absolutely NO! God reveals Himself in creation, but NOT in the human interpretations thereof.
Oh, and all this theology! Creating new ternms an categories to write dissertations about and gain another PhD about a God who is so infinitely higher than our understanding! Let’s praise Him He revealed Himself so much that we can enter into a relationship with Him – but please: Who profits from such theological speculations that raise more questions than they provide answers?
And BTW God INDEED IS fair.
Alexander
If God said that His Creation was “good,” what does that mean? If everything came about by the logos of God, if through Christ everything was made, visible and invisible (Col. 1:16), what does that mean? If Scripture is the logos of God, are not both Scripture and Creation from the same Source, and could not both be called “inspired?”
Alexander: “Scripture is inspired and infallible. Can we say the same about science?” Apples and oranges. Restatement needed.
Creation is inspired, can we say the same about science? No.
Scripture is inspired, can we say the same about theologians? No.
“Or isn’t science the attempt of fallible and limited humans trying to understand the mysteries of God’s creation?” Yes.
Or isn’t interpretations of scripture by theologians and preachers an attempt of fallible and limited humans trying to understand the mysteries of God’s revelation?” (You fill in the blank ____)
“God reveals Himself in creation, but not in the human interpretations thereof.”
God reveals Himself in Scripture, but not in the human interpretations thereof.”
(And that is why we keep searching in both disciplines) Scripture and creation came from the same Source, and they are both inspired and “good.” The problem comes from theologians (professional or amateur) and scientists who extrapolate their finite knowledge into an assumption that they know all about their subject. The Source everything is perfect; the investigators are flawed. We do not well serve the Creator of our noses when we use them to look down on one another. We would all be better served if everyone would place themselves in a proper humble perspective before the Creator of both Scripture and the universe. Then they might work together toward understanding the Creator in all of His revelation and accomplish much more than when tossing darts at one another.
Obviously, this is an opinion expressed by someone who is both a scientist and an amateur theologian and who is not conflicted over it.
I totally agree with you, Theophilus.
Yet in this specific topic (Open Theism, Closed Theism – I never heard of such categories in my 24 years as a Christian) I am really “surprized” at what question some people come up with:
Does God really foresee the future? Or is He surprized by our decisions? Is future not the result of our free-will-decisions and therefore completely open?
And of course we all know the scriptures! How could God send prophets and even give us the way to test them by seeing whether what they predicted in His name does really happen – if He does not know the future? Read Isaiah again, how He stresses this as a mark of His uniqueness being the First and the Last.
And of yourse we all know these texts where God repents of predicted judgments (or blessings) and seemingly changes His mind. But these “anthropmorphic” descriptions of His “remorse” must not be taken too far, since He also “has” ears or arms although He as a Spirit has no body that would limit the Ominpresent One to a limited place in the universe.
The reason I object to such discussions is that obviously this is not the way the Apostles dealt with scripture, nor does our Lord Jesus give us a pattern for such a kind of questions. Yes, we should diligntly read and study the scriptures – but not in order to define God beyond what He has revealed of Himself. History shows that this is not good for the church: Remember the Arian-Trinitarian controversy! The church does not need such theology. The trinity is a human concept that is – in the end – too vague. Theology ended up defining God and Christ in a way that aliented Christians from one another and by using terminology that is alien to scripture (e.g. “being of one substance”). So although I firmly believe in the deity of Christ, I’d hesitate to peak about it in a way that goes beyond what is written. “Open Theism” and “Closed Theism” may as well develop in such definitions that may deliver similar results as the Trinity: The fewest really understand it, yet it became a test of the “orthodox faith”.
This has BTW its parallel in science: Not all questions scientists deal with are healthy and profitable. Not because the questions themselves must be forbidden, but because we cannot handle them (e.g. the unsolved questions and incalculable risks of nuclear energy – or even the Atomic bomb).
Alexander
I agree with Jay that we can’t answer the question: “why does God act sometimes and chose not to act other times?” This is the nature of the otherness of God, which will always be beyond us.
However, a useful idea for me, is the idea of mystery. I mean this in a specific way. Mystery is the foundation of love. Love cannot exist without mystery (the inherent “unknowability” of the other, the requirement of true “other” for love).
I think we have to assume that we exist – that the cosmos exists, because of God’s nature of love. I think we could all agree that the actions that God does or does not take are dependent, again, on God’s nature of love, that is, he doesn’t take or not take actions that go against the grain of love.
And once we understand that love necessitates “otherness”, we can begin to grasp the mystery at work. Part of what it means to be in God’s image is to be “mysterious”, as God is mysterious. To be God’s other, as he is our “other”, and yet to still be fully dependent on him (at least at an ontological level).
That is why it is so interesting to me that the “nature of nature” reflects this same mystery, as it must since it comes from God.
Alexander, I am in agreement with your comments. Both theology and science should be searching for the Truth, and both should search by the power of the Holy Spirit that reveals the mind of the Creator of both spiritual and natural. Those people in the disciplines of theology and science must keep their focus on the Source of Truth and not on themselves, what they have discovered, why their discovery is better than someone else’s, and why they don’t need God to explain anything. The Scripture and science are not adversaries, but people can become adversarial when they exhibit the basic human instinct of pride. Both theologians and scientists can be equally competitive, adversarial, territorial, prideful, and just plain wrong. That doesn’t invalidate the search of either discipline.
This analogy may be a little dreadful sounding, but it reminds me of stories of people climbing Mt. Everest and passing by frozen remains of some who had “fallen by the wayside” in previous attempts. The deadly failure of others cannot deter those who must keep the focus on their goal of making it to the top, or else they might fall as well. The climbers would not be helped if they fight with one another over who has the most oxygen or who has the thickest coat or who has a bad technique and will probably break their leg. Some of our prideful conflicts in the church, in science, or both are like two groups of climbers fighting with one another and expending their energy and oxygen rolling in the snow while they punch each other out and while they throw their limited food supplies at one another. How smart would that be?
A better scenario. Two groups of climbers contact one another. One group has an excess of food and the other has an excess of cans of oxygen. Each group has a shortage in the inventory in which the other group has an excess. Each group could choose to shout at the other group how stupid and wrong they were, or they could share and help one another so they could all make it to the top. “Pride goes before a fall.” Ooooff. That sounds bad.
We could share more of our knowledge and strengths if our pride didn’t keep us from admitting we might actually be mistaken about something. I think this is one of the messages in Leroy Garrett’s book, under discussion in a different thread.
Alexander, I agree with you, and I do not consider that I am informing you of anything. I am just laterally pontificating.
I liked it, Theophilus 🙂