Labeling My View of God
I often reach Cory Tucholski’s blog, The Josiah Concept. He writes about theology, apologetics, and vigorously defends the faith. He’s written on Geocreationism in the past, and we’ve sparred a few times. We don’t agree on everything, but he loves God and searches out the truth. I respect him and consider him a brother in Christ, and look forward to seeing him in Heaven where any differences we have will no longer matter. I recommend reading his blog if you can.
Cory recently posted Jewish Approach to God where he raised the question on God’s knowledge and how it impacts Christian Theology. His posts have historically been sympathetic toward Calvinism, though in this post his background is Arminianism. Well, in this post, he wrote of his discovery that Jews see God in a less sovereign light than do Christians; not that God isn’t all-powerful. He is, but He limits Himself. One of those things He limits Himself on is His knowledge of the future.  Cory’s response is as follows:Â
So, what to make of all of this? If I am to stay true to early Christian philosophy, it means that I must renounce Reformed theology and look more seriously at Molinism or open theism. It also means that I may have to finally admit that Beowulf2k8 is right–original sin simply doesn’t exist.
Am I ready to admit that I am wrong about Reformed theology? Well, I have been slowly swayed toward the dark side of Arminianism for some time now, since all of my friends and family are proud Arminians, and my church actually preaches against Calvinism. Let’s just say that, for now, I’m ready to admit the possibility exists that I’ve been dead wrong this whole time, and that much more serious study is required to find out what God has revealed about himself.
Several reactions. The first is immense respect, because most people stake out a position and do not sway regardless of other people’s arguments. This shows Cory to be intellectually honest about his faith… a rarity. Another reaction I have is concern. I have seen Christians take these differences quite seriously, and be shaken by it. I hope Cory won’t be shaken. But as long as Christ remains the cornerstone of Cory’s faith, his faith will only grow stronger… and his readers will get to follow that, a testimony to God and His promise of not forsaking His children.
The reason I am interested in this is because I was wondering what label I fall under. I have never labelled myself and my views of God, and so never really read up on them. So, I have been reading about the philosophies that Cory’s been pondering in his Blog: Calvenism, Open Theism, Molonism, Conditional/Unconditional Election, Arminianism, so I can assess where I fall in the mix.
I don’t like Open Theism. It has God existing in time with us as we travel in through the physical world. It allows God to know a lot about the future, but not know everything, and to be swayed by prayer. On the other hand, it overlooks the fact that time itself is physical, and hence part of the creation. Therefore, Jesus can exist in time as God incarnate, but our Father who art in Heaven does not live within His creation, therefore does not live within time. I still believe God is swayed by prayer, but not because He exists with us temporally.
Calvenism has a lot to offer, and I think it’s existence has benefited the church over the last few centuries, but I do not agree all of its tenets. Its tenets of unconditional election (that God chose us unconditionally) is meant to exclude our choice to repent of our sins. It would seem that we repent because God chose us to repent. Had He chosen someone else then, I would not have repented and would be going to Hell instead of Heaven. On other hand, Paul tells us to repent and be baptized… seems like I am supposed to make a choice of my own. So, while I do agree that God chooses all who choose Him, and some who otherwise would not, Calvenists believe that no one would choose Him apart from Him choosing them. For me, throws the notion of faith into all confusion. Is faith a choice? An act of will? Or just a reaction to God’s irresistable choice? Calvenism would seem say just the latter. But that doesn’t jive with scripture for me. I am to choose, and if my choice isn’t free, then it is no choice. Yet God chose me, and I believe that… but this seeming juxtaposition of wills is not Calvenism.
Arminianism has a lot of appeal, but it takes the other extreme of Calvenism for me: God only chooses those who choose Him. Well, God chose Paul before Paul chose Christ. So, I believe that while God chooses all who choose Him, He also chose a few (or even a lot) who otherwise would never have. So, I don’t believe in Arminianism.
The last one Molinism. It’s basic premise is that God has contingent knowledge. In addition to everything else, God knows what would happen, not just what will happen. Given that, He knew all the possible universes, and actualized the one we are now in. Our choices are our choices, but He knew we’d make them. But still, we made them. His creation of the universe is therefore a response to our choices, and our choices a response to His creation. That makes our choices reciprocal in some respect, given us free will and God all soveriegnty.
I like Molinism. It completely jives with my views of God and universe. Being outside the physical universe, God is therefore outside time, because time is itself physical. This puts God in the unique position of seeing the entire universe all at once, much like we see the entirety of a cup or a chair sitting in front of us. From God’s vantage point, He would necessarily be able to look at any part of the universe He wishes and even interact with it as He will. From the vantage point of the Father, it’s all at once, not across time, but across eternity. As for us, we’re stuck viewing the universe in a temporal manner, making God’s actions appear like a sequence when in fact the logical sequence of God’s actions could be much different than we perceive.
Another thing about Molinism, is that God knows the “ifs” of His own actions, and therefore chose the universe that contained His particular actions that He chose. Therefore, there are those who chose God because He chose them first temporally, and those who chose God because God created the universe in which they’d choose Him, but He created the universe because this is the one in which they’d choose Him. This makes some election conditional from one perspective, and unconditional from another. I have no problem with that, because it explains how scripture can say both without contradicting… because the universe’s own nature suggests both without contradicting.
Molinism also explains my views on Evolution. Physically, things occurred in the manner God chose, because He chose to actualize this universe. This makes God intimately involved, yet leaves us scientific evidence that appear devoid of Him. It’s the position I hold already.
Now, there are some subtleties of Molonism that I believe I would need to explore further before I use it as a descriptive label for myself. But so far, it’s the closest I’ve found.