Life in the Kingdom

Omniscience is the doctrine that God is all-knowing.  That nothing happens in his creation that he is not aware of.  Omniscience could apply only to the current time as well as to the past.  But the Christian doctrine of the omniscience of God also includes the future.  And that that future was know before God kicked off the universe and the laws that shape it.  An implication of this is that God is responsible for all that happens in the universe because he knew ahead of time what the results would be based on the initial starting conditions.  And that he could have changed the future simply by choosing a different set of starting conditions.

Free will is another teaching that is common among Christians as well as those of some other religions and some atheists.  At its simplest form it says that the universe is not deterministic; that people have the ability to make real choices and that the future for me is not fixed.  I can, within limits, change the future based on my choices.  Other people and circumstances outside of my control can also change my future.  In contrast to this is determinism, that our futures are fixed (or pre determined for us), that the apparent choices I make are based entirely upon factors beyond my control such as genetics and environment.  Determinism goes so far as to say that if the universe rewound and started all over again, it would end up just exactly like it is now.  There is no way to really know for sure if we have free will or not, but at the very least, it does appear that we do.

At first (and second and third) glance, this would seem to be a paradox.  How can God know the future if it is not deterministic or fixed?  Would not the ability to know the future imply that the future is fixed and unchangeable?  I will be the first to admit that for me to know the future with certainty, it would have to be.  But is this the case for God?  This is a question that believers have wrestled with for a long time and atheists have now joined us in the discussion.   This conflict is seen as an argument against the possibility of God as defined by the Bible and believed in by Christians.  While I am under no illusion of being able to provide a perfect solution to this riddle, I would like to present a potential answer to the mystery.  This argument, if successful, does not prove the existence of God.  All that it can do is to remove an argument against the possibility of an omniscient God who grants free will to his creation.

Let me start with a much briefer discussion of time than that provided by Stephen Hawking in his book, ‘A Brief History of Time’.  Time is a part of this universe and is believed to have started with it.  There may be some kind of time dimension(s) outside of this universe but they are unknowable to us.  Time is a very linear dimension that progresses along in a single direction at a generally uniform pace.  I realize that light speed travel and math tests (among other things) can potentially affect the speed of time.  But they do not affect this discussion.  I am constrained by this dimension and can only see the specific moment that I am in.  I can read about the past and I can project into the future with varying levels of clarity.  But all I can really know is now.

But what if time travel were possible?  What if I could move to another point in the future and observe events there without any interaction that would affect that time.  That point in time, from my position, would no longer be in the future but would be now.  Rather than looking into the future I would be in the future and seeing things as they were then.  The question arises then; does that glimpse of the future cause the future to become fixed.  I would argue that it does not.  What I saw was the result of the choices and events that were made between now and that future point.  If those choices had been different I would have seen a different future.  I am not seeing that ‘future’ time from the perspective of my normal time.  Instead I am seeing it as a part of the time that I am observing.  I am not looking ahead; I am looking at my current ‘now’.  If my watching someone make choices today does not force them into those choices, why would it if I watched them in a future time.

So how does this address the paradox of omniscience and free will? Another of the doctrines of most theistic religions is the transcendence of God.  This says that God is distinct from the universe and is not bound by it.  In other words God is outside of time and space.  The implication of this is that God’s knowledge of the future is not based on his being able to look into a crystal ball and see a fixed future.  Instead he is actually in the future as well as in the present and past.  God is able to see my future because it is his now.  You might think of God as an endless string of time travelers who are in instant communication with each other and his knowledge of our future is based on his being able to see the results of the choices as we make them rather than looking ahead to the choices we will make.

For one who is limited by time, like myself, to be omniscient with regards to the future, it is indeed necessary that we live in a deterministic universe.  If the universe is deterministic, and I had a big enough computer, and understood the workings of the universe well enough, I would indeed be able to forecast the future.  And in that case there is no place for free will.  But for the observer who is not constrained by time, and able to be at any desired time, or all time at once, there is no requirement for determinism and free will is not a problem.

But assume that our transient observer is not simply an observer, but one who actually meddles in the workings of the universe and of humanity.  Now we have one who is at least helping to shape the coming future, if not making it unfold entirely according to a specific plan.  And furthermore, assume that this one is also omnipotent, able to do anything that he desired at any point in time.  Note that we are actually talking about the Christian concept of a transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent God now.  Would not this eliminate the possibility of free will?  What chance would we have of doing something that was contrary to his plan or purpose?

The only difference we have between this scenario, with the addition of omnipotent, and the previous one, is the ability to set the future.  But having that ability is not the same as actually using it.  There is nothing that would prevent an omniscient omnipotent God from granting a certain amount of autonomy to his creation, allowing humanity to make choices that are indeed free of his interference.

So the answer to the question here really comes down to the relationship of God with the time of this universe.  If he is bound by it, then omniscience and human free will are not compatible.  But if God transcends time, is not bound by it, then there is no reason he could not see the future unfolding long before we do; and see it without compromising our free will.

Central to Christianity is the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth.  Most religions can trace their origin back to a person.  But generally that person is not significant except for their teachings.  Who and what they were, or even if they existed, is really not all that important.  Jesus is different though.  He is more significant for what he did than for what he taught.  And as a result, who he was is of vital importance to us. Read the rest of this entry »

One of the most powerful arguments that unbelievers present to discredit the concept of God is that of the presence of evil.  The argument basically goes that if: God is all powerful, and God is good, then there should be no evil.  But since there is evil, then either God is not all-powerful, or God is not good, or God does not exist.  Related to this is the argument that if God created everything, then God must be responsible for evil, since it so clearly does exist.  In which case God cannot be all-good and thus, at the very least, the Christian concept of God is not viable.   Read the rest of this entry »

I have already briefly discussed the authorship of the New Testament and the transmission of individual texts from their writing until now.  The final topic in this discussion of the reliability of the New Testament is concerned with how we got the New Testament into the form that it is in today.  There is a lot of discussion, and much confusion, concerning the selection of the books that make up the New Testament.  What process and criteria were used for the selection, and rejection, of books for inclusion into what we today call the New Testament?  Read the rest of this entry »

Transmission of the New Testament deals with the path it took from the original writings to what we have today.  I want to look at three topics in this discussion:  copyist errors, the number of copies, and textual criticism.  My goal through this discussion will be to demonstrate that the New Testament documents that we have today are substantially the same as the originals.  I am much indebted to Bruce Metzer’s book “The Text of the New Testament:  It’s Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration”.  This is, as far as I have been able to determine, a classic in the area of textual criticism of the New Testament. Read the rest of this entry »

Most of Christian doctrine (teaching) is based on the Bible, primarily the New Testament. As a result, the opinion a person has about the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is going to dramatically affect their opinion concerning the validity of Christian doctrine. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove that the New Testament is true. Read the rest of this entry »

While there is no foolproof physical or logical proof that can be given for the existence of a supernatural deity, there are sufficient grounds for a rational acceptance of a creator.  But that is still a big step away from accepting the God of Christianity, of Islam, of Hinduism, or of any of the other thousands of religions that have existed throughout history.  How, as a Christian, can I rationally claim that only Christianity can lead to a knowledge of God, and that all other religions are dead ends? Read the rest of this entry »

I think the most important question in the debate concerning religious life is about the existence of God.  Why should a person believe that there even is a God?  Obviously, if there is not a God, then worshipping him is a pretty limited exercise, at most providing some social stability.  I have engaged a number of people in the debate concerning the existence of God over the past few years, although I have yet to find the magic approach that will be convincing to most people; nor am I at all certain that such an argument even exists. Read the rest of this entry »

Apologetics seems to be a popular topic among many Christians in todays world.  But it seems to mean different things to different folks.  I believe that apologetics, providing a defense for your faith, is an appropriate exercise for believers.  1 Peter 3:15-16 provides what I believe is the most clear cut instruction to be an apologist: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience”.   Read the rest of this entry »

I have been working for the US Navy as a Computer Engineer for 28 years, with 6 years of active duty Navy time before that.  It has been a very good and interesting job.  But this week, that part of my life comes to an end.  Tomorrow, I will retire, at least briefly.  I have been looking forward to this for some time now.  But now that it is upon me, I am finding some unexpected emotions.  I have had this job for over half of my life, getting up every day and making the same commute, knowing what was ahead of me and who I would be interacting with.  But next week that will not be happening.  I have a number of short term projects planned at home, and look forward to more opportunity to backpack or be involved in missions and relief efforts.  But none of those will completely occupy me.   So, after a two week vacation, I will be returning to the work force, contracting back to the same organization I am leaving tomorrow.  But this time it will be as a Computer Programmer, rather than a Project Manager.  I am a bit apprehensive about it, but also looking forward to the opportunity to see if I can still compete with the younger crowd.   And looking forward to life as a contractor who will not be expected to be a jack of all trades, but can focus on a single task.  I’ll let you know how it goes.