This post follows the last (and in temporal order at that!).

“God and Time: Four Views” is very helpful in working out this subject by reading back-and-forth essays by professional Christian philosophers. What made this book exceptional – and why I gave it four stars – was the discussion that followed each essay. Not only were each other allowed to respond and critique each essay, but the essayist was allowed an opportunity to respond to their critique and clarify themselves. This back-and-forth made the book indispensable.

My own view falls somewhere between Alan and Nick. Both of these philosophers believe that God is temporal in relation to creation. Where they disagree is on the nature of God in relation to pre-creation (notice the temporal designation there). Alan believes that God is temporal before creation, but he believes that God’s temporality was something he called “pure duration”. Nick claims to be agnostic on the question of God’s pre-creation existence, but it seems that he sees scripture as promoting God’s temporality pre-creation, and thus he sees a distinction between God experiencing duration and the creation of cyclical time itself.

But what’s the problem? It seems that one of the dilemmas each writer faces is the question of measured duration in an infinite universe. This is why Alan advocates “immeasurable pure-duration“, why Craig advocates God’s “timelessness without creation”, and why Nick remains agnostic on the idea. The dilemma is thus: how can you measure, say, c to d to e, or c to e and so on in an infinite universe? Such measurements presupposes an “alpha“. That is, if we are talking about the sequential moments from b to c to d to e and so on, then that presupposes an “a“, a beginning, which is incompatible with infinity.

But I reject this philosophical dilemma on the grounds that the same argument can be used against the existence of God himself. It boils down to our inability to comprehend the existence of an infinite God. But this philosophical dilemma does not prevent any of the authors of this book from affirming an infinite God. On those same grounds I argue that our inability to comprehend infinite measurable time (or we could call it “infinite sequential duration”) should not prevent us from affirming it. I would then argue that we have good reason for affirming ISD (infinite sequential duration) rooted in our affirmation of the existence of God himself.

P1: If we believe in the existence of God as an infinite Trinitarian Being

P2: If we accept that although we cannot comprehend it, it must be true

P3: If we believe that to “live” and to “exist” requires sequential moments (temporality)

C: Temporality must be infinite as well

To put it another way. Since God is infinite and Trinitarian (that is, in communion within the Godhead) he must experience sequential moments for as long as he exists – infinity. Thus I have no problem affirming infinite sequential moments on the same grounds for affirming the existence of an infinite Trinitarian Being.

God is beyond our finite comprehension. Just the other day I engaged in a discussion with a friend where we tried to conceive of what God’s existence must be like. In the end we could do nothing but affirm the words of G.K. Chesterton:

“The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits”. (Orthodoxy)

That is certain truth. Still the fact remains that God created humans as dialogical beings as he is dialogical himself. Than God took the next step to engage in dialogue with us. Conversation can only be conversation if both partners understand one another. We are finite and so we can never fully grasp God. And so God sometimes uses analogical language to help us get a sense of who he is and how he operates. He is said to be our “King” and to have “eagles wings”. We are in a sense in a husband/wife relationship with him. Not in reality. But that is the closest relationship on earth that mirrors God’s relationship with us. The professional term here is “anthropomorphic”. A word that means to attribute to God certain human characteristics.

But how do we determine what language is anthropomorphic and which language is to be taken as literal truth? Some scholars figure that since God is infinite that all language used to talk about God in the scriptures must be anthropomorphic – especially language suggesting that God is not timeless or wholly impassible. But to me this assumption is unnecessary and incoherent. The reason is because God has engage in dialogue with humans and he has revealed himself in the scriptures and ultimately through Jesus and in every way that he has revealed himself to us, he has always revealed truth about himself. If God has shown in our conversation that he has emotions, then what truth is revealed about God if that fact where not true?

Greg Boyd offers some much ado hermeneutical principles about anthropomorphic language:

1. You  can recognize anthropomorphic language if something is said about God that is ridiculous if taken literally (e.g. God is our “husband” – Hosea 2:2)

2. You can recognize anthropomorphic language if the genre of the passage is poetic (e.g. God has protecting wings – Psalms 17:8).

3. Whenever anthropomorphic language is used about God, it is always speaking something truthfully about him (e.g. God’s “arms” speaks of his strength and “wings” speaks of his protection).

The point is that if these principles are applied it will safeguard against an unnecessary overuse or abuse of a literary technique (anthropomorphicism) and will foster more careful attention to Biblical passages that may or may not challenge our understanding of the nature of God. For example, it is clear if these principles are applied that there is actually nothing ridiculous when the Bible talks about God changing his mind, regretting decisions, thinking et cetera. And if the Bible tells us that God is surprised or disappointed (e.g. Jeremiah 3) when it is not truth, we learn nothing about God and the Scriptures would simply be misleading.

Boyd, God of the Possible, p.118.

I feel like a boy in the Kings army who one day receives a message from a teacher in the royal court telling me there is no real King.

But I’ll get to that in a moment.

The theory of “divine accommodation” (that God “accommodates” himself to humans) needs to be approached with caution. It seems clear from a straightforward reading of Scripture that some language about God is figurative (i.e. God is not my husband nor should I suppose that he is flying about with eagles wings somewhere). But it seems just as clear from a straightforward reading of Scripture that other language used to describe God is not figurative. That God learns things, that he changes his mind, that he regrets and is sometimes surprised.

But we’re told that this way of speaking of our divine being is not appropriate. We’re told to believe what the historic Christian faith imagines God to be like. That this other language used to describe God is figurative as well. We’re told that God is “timeless” and that he is “emotionless”. That he doesn’t change and that he really doesn’t “feel” anything at all. That he doesn’t move or make decisions. He doesn’t really perform actions because actions require duration which a timeless being is incapable of doing – or else he wouldn’t be timeless. We are told that this is the image of the Christian God. He is not as he has revealed himself in the Bible. That “revelation”, we are told, is “not literally true”. The revelation of God’s word is a lie. We are not to trust the Word of God; we are to rather place our trust in theological and philosophical constructs. Paul Helm says as much:

“If a timelessly eternal God is to communicate to embodied intelligent creatures, who exist in space and time and to bring about his purposes through them, and particularly to gain certain kinds of responses from them, then he must do so by representing himself to them in ways that are not literally true.”[1]

If God is to communicate with us, he is to represent himself in a false manner? I don’t get it, what kind of communication is based on misrepresentation? What’s going on here – we are told – is a case of God not wanting to reveal himself as he really is, so he’s left that responsibility in the hands of the theologians.

When I became a Christian I did so because I believed in the God of the Bible. It was that plain and simple. He loved me. He died for me. He cares for me. He reached out to me. He feels my pain. And what’s more? He’s holy and yes, sometimes angry. He deals with sin one way or another. “He acted then, and he’ll do it again” was one slogan I knew well. I watched the Jesus film as God incarnate, Emmanuel, was illustrated before my very eyes through the medium of modern technology. I fell to my knees in belief. I prayed. I hold Jesus that I wanted to follow him. “I will serve you” I said.

But now we’re told to stop suckling on milk and chomp on some real meat. God is not really all of those things you just said. He only made you think he was like that because you were only a baby and he had to talk to you like a baby. He needed to accommodate himself to you.

But now, here’s the meat: God is static. He is timeless. He is emotionless.

So why then, I want to know, did God reveal himself as having emotions if he has none?

The answer:

“If dialogue between God and humankind is to be real and not make-believe, then God cannot represent himself (in his role as dialogue partner) as wholly immutable.”[2]

Have you ever felt like you’ve been duped? Like the mission you’ve set your mind to has been based on a false pretense? Because that’s what theologians are telling me: I’ve been duped. It’s like the day my mom sat me on her knee and explained to me that Santa Clause doesn’t really exist. I wondered how she could lie to me all of those years. I was devastated.

Christianity had lied to me. It had promised one thing and delivered another. It told me what God is like, and then told me that God is not really like that at all.

I feel like a boy in the Kings army who one day receives a message from a teacher in the royal court telling me there is no real King. There is a throne, of course. And that throne is emblematic of a once for all declared cause. But at the end of the day it is just a throne. Just a chair in a really large room. It does not give out any more commands. It does not comfort, nor protect. It does not care, love, get angry or act in any way.

One thing it does, it does not go away. It is there, as it always will be.

A timeless

Wooden

Throne.

I may only be a boy in the Kings army. I may not be a distinguished teach with accolades behind my name and church leaders like Aquinas and Calvin tucked away in my back pocket.

But I’m nobody’s fool.

I flip the letter over and write on the back these words before I send it with the messenger to return it from whence it came:

“I’ve met the King, and trust His word”

 I cannot accept systems of theology that try and go behind God’s self-revelation in Jesus and the scriptures and try and convince me that God is actually something else altogether. I cannot accept a system of theology that asks me to trust in it rather than the Word of God.

From reading books criticizing Open Theism to many casual conversations online and in person, I have formed a list of the top 6 misnomers about Open Theism:

Misnomer 6: Open Theism is regurgitated Arminianism.

This is an unfair criticism which almost always comes from Calvinist. It is unfair because it fails to pay proper due to vital distinctions between these views. Granted people usually travel through Arminianism on their way to Open Theism, but the difference is significant enough that the two cannot be equated as the same. The vital difference, of course, is that Arminianism is largely based on the concept of Simple Foreknowledge. For Open Theism, there is nothing “simple” about God’s foreknowledge.

Misnomer 5: Open Theism teaches that God does not know the Future.

It might shock some people to discover that Open Theism is quite indebted to Calvinism in at least two crucial ways: 1) Open Theism believes that God foreknows that which he foreordains. Like Calvinism (and unlike Arminianism) God’s foreknowledge is based on what he has predetermined to sovereignly cause and to sovereignly make happen. 2) God sovereignly over-rules man’s free will in order to sovereignly cause or sovereignly make what he has predetermined to happen, happen. So it is not accurate to say that God does not know the future. He knows it in so far as he determines it.

Misnomer 4: Open Theism undermines God’s Divine Sovereignty.

Again, and not surprisingly, this criticism comes largely from the Calvinist camp and is based on the commandeering of the term “sovereignty”. Open Theist understand the term sovereignty to be a reference to God’s ability and authority, and does not see sovereignty as a term which preconditions God to control all things. Open Theists (like Arminians) teach that God has the sovereign right and ability to limit himself if he so sovereignly chooses too, and for the sake of the covenant which God established with humanity, he chose to limit his foreknowledge. This allows for a genuine relationship between God and his children.

Misnomer 3: Open Theism undermines biblical prophecy.

Many Christians find their faithful security blanket in biblical prophecy. Wherever Open Theism is introduced the first kneejerk reaction is to ask: What about prophecy? Doesn’t Open Theism cast doubt on biblical prophecy? Open Theism believes that there are two types of prophecy in the scriptures, contingent prophecy and determination prophecy. 1) Contingent prophecy is evident throughout the scriptures everywhere terms like “if” or “maybe” or “perhaps” comes from God’s lips; they are contingent upon the actions of individuals (e.g. Jeremiah 26:3). 2) Determined prophecies are prophecies which God himself has determined will happen and sovereignly makes or causes that thing to happen (e.g. Ezekiel 24:14).

Misnomer 2: Open Theism undermines future prophecy.

In close relation to Misnomer 3 is the fear that somehow our future in Christ may not be secure. Is it possible that in the end the Devil might just pull a quick on one God and win the day? First it is important to note that the end has been determined by God, the fact that God wins in contingent upon nothing but God’s sovereignty. Second, the question about the enemy maybe pulling a quick one on God may reveal something of the questioner’s idea of God; as if God, if he were not in control of every detail, can’t control anything. From the Open Theist perspective, the concept of god this question is based on is simply too small. Open Theism believes that God is omnicapable, omniresourceful and infinitely intelligent as well as omnipotent. Like a master chess player – only infinitely more so because God is infinite – God sees every possible move the enemy could ever possibly do and God has prepared an action for everyone one of those moves. The enemy cannot win, because God said so.

Misnomer 1: Open Theism denies God’s omniscience.

Since many people take for granted the belief that the future is already determined completely (something Calvinists and Arminians agree on), it seems obvious to them that if God were to not know the future fully, this must mean that God must not be omniscient. This amounts to a denial of an orthodox attribute of God. But Open Theism has a different view of time. The Open Theist understanding of time is that the future simply does not exist yet, and there is nothing in reality or science to suggest that it does. So, beginning on that premise (and not on the Calvinist/Arminian premise) God can still be omniscient, he can still know everything, without knowing the future exhaustively. There are two reasons for this: 1) theologians and Christian philosophers have long acknowledged that God cannot do what is logically impossible. For example, God cannot hear silence because silence is the absence of sound, there is nothing to hear, and therefore it is logically impossible for God to hear silence. Because the future simply does not exist, it is unknowable and it is logically impossible to know the unknowable. 2) Because omniscience is defined as knowing all there is to know, and because the future is not knowable the way the past and present are, God can be omniscient and yet not know the future.