We all know that God is eternal, we know that God and time work very differently together than time and us work together. Yet, in theological debates this fundamental difference between us and God seems to get forgotten. I will look at two areas of debate, and see the relevance of this:
Now what I am going to say is just designed to make us think a little more, I do not pretend it is a complete answer to everything!
Calvinism v Arminianism v Molinism
This is really a debate about the sovereignty of God and human free will, or libertarian free will. To put things in very simple terms: Calvinism says that God is absolutely sovereign, He knows all things, and is in control of all things. Moreover, our salvation is completely and utterly dependent upon Him in every aspect. The only reason we are saved is because God has determined to save us. Arminianism, on the other hand, puts more emphasis on human free will and sees the gospel more in terms of God giving us a chance to be saved. This is sometimes referred to as “prevenient” grace. In simple terms, God shows grace to a person by making it possible for them to believe, but the person still needs to make the decision, and is completely free to do or not to do so.
Why is there this debate and why do we find good Christians on both sides? Because two of the things the Bible teaches very clearly are:
So in to the mix comes Molinism. The attraction of Molinism is that instead of favouring one or other of these two fundamental facts, it seeks to give equal importance to both. The weakness of Molinism is that it then seeks to reconcile the apparent contradiction by the concepts of “middle knowledge” and “counterfactuals”.
So where does time come in to all this? Well, we are time bound creatures. We go marching through time with no control over the speed we go forward, and, most important of all, there is no way we can go back in time. We view things from a time bound perspective, and see the two truths as being in opposition to each other and needing some sort of explanation. But while are do not say we should not think about how the two truths interact with each other, we should recognise our limitations, and that seeking to explain them from a time bound perspective (which is what Calvinism, Arminianism and Molinism seem to seek to do) is ultimately futile. We are far better to accept the two truths and live our lives in the light of these truths.
Eternal conscious torment v annihilationism
These are two views of hell. The first, and the more classical view, is that the unsaved are condemned to eternal conscious torment, and various Bible verse are cited in favour of this view. Annihilationism says that the unsaved are destroyed. Again,various Bible verses are quoted, but the idea also seems to come out of a revulsion against the idea of the damned burning forever in fires of hell. But we seem to forget one thing. We haven’t got a clue what eternity means, we have no concept of eternity, or at best only the dimmest idea what it means. As Paul says “we see through a glass darkly” (1 Cor 13:12). So what is the point in arguing about something of which we know virtually nothing? This is a very foolish thing to do. We have no idea what “eternal conscious torment” really means, nor do we have any idea what it means to be completely destroyed. Our understanding of these ideas is confined to this time bound world we haven’t got a clue what it means in eternity. We are far better focusing on the aspect of hell that Jesus focused on in His teaching, and that was the utter reality of judgement and the urgency of the need for all to repent, and to do so quickly.
Anyway, these are just a few things for you to think about.
- Calvinism v Arminianism v Molinism
- Eternal conscious torment v annihilationism (or conditional immortality)
Now what I am going to say is just designed to make us think a little more, I do not pretend it is a complete answer to everything!
Calvinism v Arminianism v Molinism
This is really a debate about the sovereignty of God and human free will, or libertarian free will. To put things in very simple terms: Calvinism says that God is absolutely sovereign, He knows all things, and is in control of all things. Moreover, our salvation is completely and utterly dependent upon Him in every aspect. The only reason we are saved is because God has determined to save us. Arminianism, on the other hand, puts more emphasis on human free will and sees the gospel more in terms of God giving us a chance to be saved. This is sometimes referred to as “prevenient” grace. In simple terms, God shows grace to a person by making it possible for them to believe, but the person still needs to make the decision, and is completely free to do or not to do so.
Why is there this debate and why do we find good Christians on both sides? Because two of the things the Bible teaches very clearly are:
- The absolute sovereignty of God and our complete dependence upon God for our salvation.
- Our actions, decisions and attitudes really matter. They affect me, they affect you, and they matter to God. Almost every page in the Bible teaches human responsibility (I believe “human responsibility” is a far more Biblical way of looking at things than “human autonomy”).
So in to the mix comes Molinism. The attraction of Molinism is that instead of favouring one or other of these two fundamental facts, it seeks to give equal importance to both. The weakness of Molinism is that it then seeks to reconcile the apparent contradiction by the concepts of “middle knowledge” and “counterfactuals”.
So where does time come in to all this? Well, we are time bound creatures. We go marching through time with no control over the speed we go forward, and, most important of all, there is no way we can go back in time. We view things from a time bound perspective, and see the two truths as being in opposition to each other and needing some sort of explanation. But while are do not say we should not think about how the two truths interact with each other, we should recognise our limitations, and that seeking to explain them from a time bound perspective (which is what Calvinism, Arminianism and Molinism seem to seek to do) is ultimately futile. We are far better to accept the two truths and live our lives in the light of these truths.
Eternal conscious torment v annihilationism
These are two views of hell. The first, and the more classical view, is that the unsaved are condemned to eternal conscious torment, and various Bible verse are cited in favour of this view. Annihilationism says that the unsaved are destroyed. Again,various Bible verses are quoted, but the idea also seems to come out of a revulsion against the idea of the damned burning forever in fires of hell. But we seem to forget one thing. We haven’t got a clue what eternity means, we have no concept of eternity, or at best only the dimmest idea what it means. As Paul says “we see through a glass darkly” (1 Cor 13:12). So what is the point in arguing about something of which we know virtually nothing? This is a very foolish thing to do. We have no idea what “eternal conscious torment” really means, nor do we have any idea what it means to be completely destroyed. Our understanding of these ideas is confined to this time bound world we haven’t got a clue what it means in eternity. We are far better focusing on the aspect of hell that Jesus focused on in His teaching, and that was the utter reality of judgement and the urgency of the need for all to repent, and to do so quickly.
Anyway, these are just a few things for you to think about.
No comments:
Post a Comment