The Meaninglessness of Christian Inclusivism Without Repentance

This paragraph ponders the meaninglessness of Christian inclusivism that says Christ has saved all people regardless of their faith and lifestyle. If such inclusivism were true, then haters of God have always been saved and will always be saved regardless if they never repent of hating God. Likewise, what is the value of proposing that a departed hater of God went to heaven and continued to hate God? Or what is the value of proposing that populations in heaven will continue to disbelieve Christ as Lord? However, perhaps Christian inclusivists believe that departed unbelievers go to heaven and eventually embrace Christ as Lord. That would mean that everybody eventually converts to Christian faith, so that inclusivism would no longer include unbelievers.

The Atemporal Immutability of the Trinity and Conditional Providence

ATTN: CONDENSED PHILOSOPHY ALERT

1. INTRODUCTION
Thomas Aquinas declared the following: God always exists in atemporal eternity;1 God is altogether immutable;2 God created the temporal world;3 God is omnipresent in the temporal word;4 the Incarnation involved God joining human flesh in the temporal world.5 However, the doctrines of absolute immutability and atemporality of God apparently conflict with the central Christian doctrine of God joining human flesh in the temporal world. The doctrines of divine immutability and atemporality also challenge the doctrine of creation because creation resulted from a decree of the originally atemporal and immutable God. Perhaps Aquinas actually indicated the following: God's original nature is altogether immutable; God originally existed in atemporal eternity: God created the temporal world; the Incarnation involved God joining human flesh in the temporal world.

Aquinas also declared that God's providence absolutely determines all activity in the temporal world including the appearance of chance events.6 However, the Bible teaches about conditions in divine covenants and predictive prophecies. The divine covenants and prophecies never alter while the outcome varies according to the divine parameters and the responses of the addressees.7 These biblical conditions in covenants and prophecies suggest the possibility of conditions in divine providence. This brief introductory article presents a model of Trinitarian open theism that includes original atemporality, the immutability of God's original nature, and conditional providence.
__________
1. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica, 1:9:1.
2. Aquinas. 1:10.
3. Aquinas. 1:44—46.
4. Aquinas. 1:8:1–2.
5. Aquinas. 3:2:1.
6. Aquinas. 1:22:1–4.
7. Goetz, James. Conditional Futurism: New Perspective of End-Time Prophecy, (Eugene, Oregon: Resource Publications, 2012).

2. ATEMPORALITY AND TEMPORALITY
2.1. Definitions
In this article, the term atemporality means "without succession of time or activity that could include the existence of infinite time dimensions with no distinction between the past, present, and future." Also, the term temporal means "within a succession of time or activity."

2.2. Atemporality
Classical theists such as Aquinas teach that God is atemporal. For example, Aquinas said that God alone exists in eternity while eternity is a simultaneous whole with no succession. This compares to the atemporality in the materialistic models of Zeno and eternalism. Zeno proposed that the observable universe is motionless and an undivided whole. Eternalism similarly proposes that the observable universe is absolutely simultaneous with no distinction between the past, present, and future.

Eternalism developed from Einstein's theory of special relativity that predicts relative simultaneity. Relative simultaneity means there is no absolute simultaneity of distant events, which indicates that there is no absolute time frame. This lack of absolute time frame from relative simultaneity ironically supports the radical simultaneity of all events in an infinite time dimension with no distinction between the past, present, and future. The absolute simultaneity of all events also indicates that the set of all events in the universe is uncaused and likewise self-existent while all apparent evidence of causation and time's arrow in scientific observations and human experience is merely an illusion.

Incidentally, McTaggart proposed two models of eternalism. First, McTaggart proposed the B-theory of time that says the time dimension has no distinction between the past, present, and future while all appearance of temporality is an illusion. Second, McTaggart ultimately rejected both his A-theory and B-theory while proposing that all appearance of a time dimension (A-theory or B-theory) is an illusion and there is no distinction between the, past, present and future.

In the case of atemporality in classical theism, God Almighty is uncaused, self-existent, and immutable. Similarly, in the case of eternalism, the observable universe is uncaused, self-existent, and immutable.

2.3. Temporality
Aquinas clearly distinguished between eternity and temporality. He said that eternity exists with no beginning, no succession, and no end while temporality has a beginning, succession, and an end. However, Aquinas's view of temporality faces conflict with contemporary evidence of a flat universe that has a beginning and a succession that will never end. For example, the observable universe presumably has a beginning while space-time and respective vacuum energy will continuously expand without an end and always approach zero degrees Kelvin. Also, despite the lack of an end in the continuous expansion of a flat universe, any possible measurement of temporality would always equal a finite age.

Temporality in the observable universe always involves entropy, which is the inevitable increase of disorder. However, perhaps there are created regions non-subjected to entropy. Such regions might be thought of as atemporal because nothing is subject age, but such a region is temporal if there could be succession of activity, regardless of possible reversibility. Also, some created regions might involve no succession of activity apart from their origin. These regions might appear atemporal except that they had a beginning, which makes them a hybrid of temporality and atemporality.

2.4. Proof of Atemporality
The existence of atemporality as defined above Section 2.1 involves an easy formal proof. First, a completed infinite succession is impossible, which indicates that there was no past-infinite temporality. The impossibility of no past-infinite temporality indicates one of three possible categorical options: (C1) temporality never existed such as a version of eternalism; (C2) temporality originated without cause from atemporal nothingness; (C3) temporality originated from an atemporal nature. Likewise, all possible options for the impossibility of past-infinite temporality indicate some type of atemporality.

I reject C1, but cannot yet formally disprove C1. However, the claim that all the evidence of time's arrow and causation in the observable universe is a mere illusion appears absurd. Also, relative simultaneity predicts a time's arrow in each light cone, which apparently conflicts with absolute simultaneity. In any case, I suppose that relative simultaneity suggests the possibility of an uncaused simultaneous nature, but that nature is not the observed universe.

2.5. Conjecture of Atemporal God
John Philoponus and the Kalam philosophers developed the limits of temporality into a cosmological argument for the proof of God. As far as I know, they never considered C1. However, they deliberated between C2 and C3 while the two categories assume the existence of temporality and deduct that temporality requires a finite origin, which philosophers call temporal finitism. In short, Philoponus and the Kalam concluded that C2 is impossible and C3 is God according to classical theism.

This paper supposes no proofs of God while various points from so-called proofs of God actually support reasonable conjectures of God. In this case, temporal finitism supports a reasonable conjecture for the existence of God,8 which this paper calls the atemporal cosmological conjecture.

Assuming the atemporal cosmological conjecture, then mystery surrounds original atemporal love within the Trinity and the dynamics of the first divine decree that began creation. My article "Love and Special Relativity in the Atemporal and Temporal Trinity" briefly addresses the mystery of atemporal love within the Trinity,9 and this article briefly addresses the first divine decree. For example, how could atemporally immutable God create anything while creation is a category of change? And how did God make providential plans?
__________
8. Goetz. 2012. "First Quasi-Cause: Uncaused Timeless Nature." http://theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/12/first-quasi-cause-uncaused-timeless.html.
9. Goetz. 2012. "Love and Special Relativity in the Atemporal and Temporal Trinity." http://theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2012/09/love-and-special-relativity-in.html.

3. SELECTED SCRIPTURES
3.1. God's Self-Existence (Aseity) and Transcendence

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. (Psalm 90:2)

The Psalmist declares God existed from everlasting to everlasting before the formation of the observable world. God always existed and God caused the formation of the world.

Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (Isaiah 44:6)

God declares his preeminent existence and monotheism.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (Revelation 21:13)

Jesus Christ identifies himself as the preeminent God in Isaiah 44:6.

3.2. God's Unchangeability (Immutability)

Moreover, the Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind; for he is not a mortal, that he should change his mind. (1 Samuel 15:29)

For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, have not perished. (Malachi 3:6)

In the same way, when God desired to show even more clearly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it by an oath, so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God would prove false, we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to seize the hope set before us. (Hebrews 6:17–18)

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8)

Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. (James 1:17)

These verses declare God's unchangeable nature.

3.3. God's Omnipotence

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. (John 1:1–3)

God and the Word who is God always existed and made all things that came into existence.

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible. (Hebrews 11:3)

God formed the observable world by divine decree without anything visible such a self-existent matter surrounded by literal primordial waters.

3.4. God's Providence

Now the Lord said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Genesis 12:1–3)

God made a conditional covenant with Abram and planned to bless all the families in the world.

Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed. (Psalm 139:16)

God planned for all days that formed and will form into existence.

Nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. (Isaiah 60:3)

God has planned to convert the nations.

Then the word of the Lord came to me: "Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done?" says the Lord. "Just like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it." (Jeremiah 18:5–10)

God declares that his providence of the nations is conditional. Repentance and prosperity could fulfill a divine prophecy of doom while disobedience and destruction could fulfill a divine prophecy of blessing.

I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. (Romans 8:18)

The great suffering of believers in this age is little in comparison to their glory in the future.

We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)

God eventually makes all good or evil circumstances work for the good of those who love him.

But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. (1 Corinthians 2:7)

Before the ages, God decreed wisdom for the church.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will. (Ephesians 1:3–5)

God chose his children and planned their adoption and salvation since before the foundation of the world.

The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. (Revelation 21:24)

God has planned to convert the nations.

3.5. God's Immanence

Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. (Psalm 139:7–8)

God manifests everywhere in creation from the heavenly realms to the realm of the dead.

I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lofty; and the hem of his robe filled the temple. Seraphs were in attendance above him; each had six wings: with two they covered their faces, and with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory." (Isaiah 6:1–3)

Isaiah saw a theophany of the Lord with seraph angels.

Then afterwards I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. (Joel 2:28)

God promised to pour out his Spirit on all people.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.... And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-3, 1:14)

As Aquinas said, God joined to human flesh.

Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." (Luke 3:21–22)

These verses show manifestations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time and location.

You have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, "Abba! Father!" it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God. (Romans 8:15–16)

The Holy Spirit specially manifests within believers.

4. THE ESSENCE AND NON-ESSENCE OF GOD
The above scriptures on one hand teach that God transcends temporality while on the other hand God is also immanent within temporality. This indicates a doctrine of divine atemporality and divine temporality while implying that God has an essential atemporal experience and nonessential temporal experiences. The term nonessential in this context in no way implies unimportant or inadvertent, but God's nonessential experiences resulted from discretionary decrees.

The central nonessential experience of God in Christian doctrine is the Incarnation. Christ, the second person of God, remained one hundred percent God and also became one hundred percent human, the divine-human hypostatic union of the Incarnation. The hypostatic union was a manifestation of Christ who originally existed in essential mode, developed a nonessential mode at the beginning of temporality, and eventually developed into the Incarnation. Likewise, Christ had at least two nonessential modes while each mode was one hundred percent the second person of God.

Another divine nonessential mode in basic Christian doctrine is the outpouring and manifestation of the Holy Spirit, the third person of God. The essential mode and the nonessential mode of the Holy Spirit are completely God in the same way the essential mode and nonessential modes of Christ are completely God.

An example of a manifest nonessential mode of the Father is quoted above at the baptism of Christ when the Father audibly said: "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." (Luke 3:22)

Likewise, the three divine persons relate to each other both essentially and non-essentially. Additionally, no created person can possibly perceive the atemporal essence of God, but God reveals himself in the divine manifestations to angels and humans.

5. GOD'S FIRST DECREE AND PROVIDENCE
Aquinas and many church fathers taught that God's providence determines all activity in the universe, but that was not the unanimous view of the church fathers. For examples, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Jerome said that God never determined everything that God foreknew,10 11 12 13 which compares the Arminian doctrine of simple foreknowledge. Also, there appears no dissent among the ancient church fathers that God always foreknew the definite outcome of the future, which means that God has static omniscience. However, some contemporary Trinitarian theologians and philosophers hold that God has dynamic omniscience because the Bible teaches that some of the future is unsettled. God exhaustively foreknows the parameters of what could happen while God always works the world toward his overall purposes. This is called open theism.14

Open theism holds that God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and dynamically omniscient. A primary concern with open theism is the belief that God made a lovingly free and contingent decision to create the observable world that includes creaturely free-will agents such as humans. God was non-subjected to uncaused determinism when he created this world, but he lovingly made a free and contingent choice to create this world. In all cases of monotheism, God always possesses exhaustive knowledge of all possibilities, which is called natural knowledge. In the case of open theism, God deliberated with natural knowledge and decreed this world and any other created world.

A typical view among open theists is that God always self-existed in temporality, which supposedly helps to explain how God eternally relates within the Trinity and how God made free and contingent choices apart from uncaused atemporality. But as discussed in Section 2, a past-infinite succession could never have elapsed regardless if in the case of God alone. That view proposes the existence of temporality without origin. However, no supernatural mystery could possibly cause a completed infinite succession. But a simultaneous infinite set of divine dimensions could exist, which apparently describes the essential self-existence of the triune God.

But how did God transition from sole immutable essentiality to essentiality and non-essentiality? Perhaps there is no possible completely positive model for this transition that evidently involves mystery. Despite the mystery, this paper proposes in short that the atemporal capacity for divine activity necessitated that God would make a first decree that incidentally included the origin of temporality and non-essential divine activity. God's necessitation to make the first decree was uncaused and completely compatible with God's desires while the content of the decree was one of an infinite number of possible free and contingent divine decrees. For example, God's necessity to make a decree never necessitated that the decree would make a habitat for creaturely free-will agents. Instead, God freely chose to create a habitat for free-will agents so God could cultivate loving relationships with them.

This paper also proposes a short model of divine providence. For example, God made the first divine decree in the context of (1) omnibenevolence, (2) omnipotence, (3) natural knowledge, and (4) the biblical model for the conditional nature of divine covenants and future prophecy. In this context, God's first decree also providentially planned all possible intervention in all possible circumstances that could occur in the created world that by his choice allows genuine contingencies. This providence is called conditional providence or conditional foreordination. For example, God's first decree foreordained his best possible responses to all possible circumstances that humans could face.
__________
10. Martyr, Justin. First Apology 42—45.
11. Tertullian. Against Marcion 2:7.
12. Irenaeus. Against Heresies 4:39.
13. Jerome. Against the Pelagians 3:6.
14. Clark, Pinnock. et al. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1994)

6. PROVIDENCE AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Proposals of divine providence inevitably raise questions about the problem of evil and theodicy. The philosophical problem of evil rejects that God with his omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence would permit horrific evil such as the moral evil of Hitler's Holocaust and the natural evil of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. However, proponents of theodicy offer resolutions to the problem of evil. For example, many philosophers conclude that the existence of horrific evil eliminates the possibility for the existence of omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient deity called God. They reason that God would immediately stop evil people like Hitler and any devastating natural disaster. This leads to the conclusion that God never existed. Alternatively, proponents of theodicy such as Christian philosophers conclude that God has an overall perhaps mysterious purpose for temporarily permitting horrific evil in a fallen world. My summary follows below.

The first step in understanding why God temporarily permits horrific evil begins with understanding why God permits any evil. Why would omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God permit evil? The first major part of the answer is that God permits evil because the creation of free-will agents necessitated the possibility of moral evil responses from finite agents. God wanted loving relationships with finite agents, which logically required the risk of moral evil. Also, the second major part of understanding why God permits evil is that finite agents can develop character and abilities while they face evil and God has a long-term plan for the development of human agents.

As indicated above, God's risk of creation with free-will agents and the development of the agents are excellent reasons for the divine permission of evil. For example, many heroes developed in the face of evil. However, the question of why God permits extensively horrific evil challenges the most devout believers. For instance, Christianity teaches that God delineates the parameters of evil. In that case, why does God temporarily permit extensively horrific evil when he foreordains his best response to every possible circumstance? God could say "Peace! Be still!" to every potentially devastating storm and tsunami. Also, God could disable all evil people who plan horrific evil. God could prevent all horrific evil at its roots so that heroic deeds are unnecessary, but he does not do that. This section deserves its own lengthy article, but here I offer a brief outline with the qualification that humans can only dimly comprehend the divine permission for horrifically extensive evil while God works a long-term plan for glorious results. Moreover, the little within comprehension requires faith in God and his long-term plan for human development.

I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. (Romans 8:18)

7. FINAL NOTE
This article briefly introduces my theology proper paradigms of divine atemporality and conditional providence that fit with my eschatological paradigm of conditional futurism. I hope to develop these models into an academic book and eventually break down these concepts for the general public.


Copyright © 2012 James Edward Goetz

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Love and Special Relativity in the Atemporal and Temporal Trinity

ATTN: CONDENSED PHILOSOPHY ALERT

1. INTRODUCTION
Monotheists agree that God has always existed and will always exist. But what does that mean? Does God always exist atemporally (timelessly, apart from the succession of time)? Or has God always existed temporally (within the succession of time)? Or does God exist both atemporally and temporally? [1] My 2011 blog article "First Quasi-Cause: Uncaused Timeless Nature" argues against the possibility of past-infinite temporality while supporting original divine atemporality. [2] Also, original divine atemporailty could include God experiencing temporality since creation. [3] In any case, Trinitarian views of divine atemporality face challenges such as explaining the paradox of atemporal love between the three divine persons. This article briefly introduces how Einstein's theory for the special relativity of time helps to explain original atemporal love in the Trinity.

2. WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY ABOUT GOD AND TIME?
Classical monotheists such as Augustine and Aquinas say that God exists atemporally and never temporally. However, Scripture never addresses God's relationship to time in a philosophical discourse. This section briefly considers Psalm 90:2, John 17:5, 1 Corinthians 2:7, Psalm 90:4, and 2 Peter 3:9.

Psalm 90:2 says that before the creation of the world God is "from everlasting to everlasting." The Hebrew psalmist made a powerful statement about God's existence before the creation of the world. The phrase "from everlasting to everlasting" at first glance appears to suggest from past-infinite temporality to future-infinite temporality. But the verse says this existence from everlasting to everlasting occurred before the creation of the world, so this verse might describe an infinite atemporal existence. Also, John 17:5 describes the glorious relationship of the Father and Son before creation of the world and 1 Corinthians 2:7 says that God made a decree "before ages/aionon." Opponents of divine atemporality might appeal to formal logic and say that the concepts of "before" and "after" require temporality so these verses indicate that temporality has always existed in the past, which is past-infinite temporality. This appeal to logical deductions pushes this debate to merge biblical studies and philosophy.

Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 also say that God has extraordinary experiences of temporality. Psalm 90:4 says that God sees a thousand years as one night while 2 Peter 3:9 says that God sees a thousand years as a day and a day as a thousand years.

3. THE NECESSARY ATEMPORAL NATURE
Disproving the possibility of past-infinite temporality is easy. For example, proposing past-infinite temporality for God or a mutliverse is as logical as proposing that never-ending temporality ends. God could never possibly complete an infinite succession of events while God can complete a finite succession of infinitely large events. Something occurred other than past-infinite temporality. This indicates that temporality requires a finite origin, which is called "temporal finitism." Likewise, temporal finitism indicates an uncaused atemporal nature while monotheists agree that the uncaused nature is God.

4. ATEMPORAL LOVE IN THE TRINITY AND SPECIAL RELATIVITY
How could atemporal love exist within the Trinity? Humans typically develop loving relationships over time. I although experienced love at first sight on four occasions when I felt complete adoration and made a lifelong commitment of sacrificial love at the respective first sights of my children. But loving relationships typically develop with reciprocation over time. For example, when I met my now wife, I felt adoration at first sight but wisely proceeded with caution and developed a mutual friendship over time before making a lifelong commitment of sacrificial love. In the case of the love between the three divine persons, some Trinitarians doubt or reject that the divine persons could genuinely love each other in atemporal existence that by definition includes no succession of events.

The concept of Trinitarian atemporality possibly conjures frozen pictures of Zeno's motionless universe. However, the impossibility of past-infinite temporality for the three divine persons indicates that something else occurred between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But how could three motionless divine persons enjoy genuine mutual love? A resolution to this paradox involves Einstein's theory of special relativity that predicts relative simultaneity. Relative simultaneity means there is no absolute simultaneity of distant events, which indicates that there is no absolute time frame. This lack of absolute time frame from relative simultaneity ironically supports the radical simultaneity of all events in an infinite time dimension with no distinction between the past, present, and future. This means that all events in the past, present, and future have always existed without cause, which philosophers call "B-theory of time" or "eternalism." [4] This paper rejects unqualified eternalism in the physical universe and sees eternalism as an analogy for atemporality.

The prediction of relative simultaneity in special relativity has instigated many philosophers to imply that observations of causation and time's arrow in science and human experience are an illusion while the radical simultaneity of eternalism is the best paradigm for the observed universe. But such a position requires the rejection of all empirical causation that is the foundation of science, which eternalists typically ignore. I currently lack a resolution for the paradox of relative simultaneity and observations of causation and time's arrow, but in any case relative simultaneity indicates the possibility of a world with no causation and no time's arrow despite the existence of causation and time's arrow in this world.

The first world was God with no creation, which is the divine essence. God always self-existed with omnibenevolence, inexhaustible creative powers, exhaustive self-consciousness, knowledge of all possibilities (natural knowledge), and an infinite number of dimensions of infinite size without physical dynamics. In the context of Trinitarian doctrine, the three divine persons infinitely loved each other while exhaustively knowing each other. The love between the divine persons was omniscient and unlimited while there was no causation and no time's arrow. Also, when God began to exercise discretionary use of creative powers, the divine essence such as inexhaustible creative powers never internally changed while God entered into nonessential experiences.

God's first world qualities of self-existence, no causation, and no time's arrow have similarity to eternalism while God's first world's quality of potentiality to create has dissimilarity to eternalism. Likewise, eternalism helps to analogize the first world of God while all analogies by definition include similarity and dissimilarity.

5. ESSENTIAL AND NONESSENTIAL MODES OF GOD
The doctrine of divine atemporality and temporality implies that God has an essential atemporal experience and nonessential temporal experiences. The term "nonessential" in this context in no way implies unimportant or inadvertent, but God's nonessential experiences resulted from discretionary decrees.

The central nonessential experience of God in Christian doctrine is the Incarnation. Christ, the second person of God, remained one hundred percent God and also became one hundred percent human, the divine-human hypostatic union of the Incarnation. The hypostatic union was a manifestation of Christ who originally existed in essential mode, developed a nonessential mode at the beginning of temporality, and eventually developed into the Incarnation. Likewise, Christ had at least two nonessential modes while each mode was one hundred percent the second person of God.

Another divine nonessential mode in basic Christian doctrine is the outpouring and manifestation of the Holy Spirit, the third person of God. The essential mode and nonessential mode of the Holy Spirit are completely God in the same way the essential mode and nonessential modes of Christ are completely God.

An example of a manifest nonessential mode of the Father is at the baptism of Christ when the Father audibly said: "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." (Luke 3:22 NRSV). In fact, the baptism of Christ in Luke 3:21–22 shows respective manifest modes of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Likewise, the three divine persons relate to each other both essentially and non-essentially.

Additionally, no created person can possibly perceive the atemporal essence of God, but God reveals himself in the divine manifestations to angels and humans.

6. ABSTRACT OF THOUGHTS ON DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE
This model of the atemporal and temporal Trinity works with various models of divine foreknowledge such as compatibilism, Molinism, simple foreknowledge, and open theism. In the case of compatibilism, God foreordained all of his temporal responses including the determinism for all events while free-will agents are mysteriously responsible to God for their decisions. In the case of Molinism, God foreordained all of his temporal responses including the determinism for the outcomes of all apparently stochastic events while God definitely foreknows all free-will responses of all free-will agents. In the case of simple foreknowledge, God from atemporailty without decree had mysteriously foreknown the outcome of all events and God foreordained all of his temporal responses. In the case of open theism, God foreordained his temporal responses to all possible events.

__________
1. See a review various positions by Gregory E. Ganssle. 2007. "God and Time." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/.
2. James Goetz. 2011. "First Quasi-Cause: Uncaused Timeless Nature." http://theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/12/first-quasi-cause-uncaused-timeless.html.
3. William Lane Craig ."God, Time, and Eternity." A lecture delivered at Oxbridge Conference, July 23, 2002. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-time-and-eternity.
4. Ned Markosian. 2008. "Time." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/time/.


Copyright © 2012 James Edward Goetz

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Sacred Sex, Celibacy and the New Testament Part 3: Christ and Moses

Antagonistic critics of the Bible poke fun at crude laws in the Old Testament. For example, Deuteronomy 22:28–29 says that if a man seizes an unengaged virgin and forces sexual intercourse (rape), then that man must pay dowry to the virgin's father and permanently marry the virgin. In this case, Mosaic Law says that the rape should result in marriage.

Fortunately, Jesus Christ and the apostolic church taught about limits for Mosaic Law. For example, Mark 7:1–23:

[1] Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him [Jesus], [2] they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. [3] (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; [4] and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) [5] So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" [6] He said to them, "Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
'This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
[7] in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.'
[8] You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition."

[9] Then he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! [10] For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.' [11] But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, 'Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban' (that is, an offering to God) — [12] then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, [13] thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this."

[14] Then he called the crowd again and said to them, "Listen to me, all of you, and understand: [15] there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile."

[17] When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. [18] He said to them, "Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, [19] since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? (Thus he declared all foods clean.) [20] And he said, "It is what comes out of a person that defiles. [21] For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, [22] adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. [23] All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." (Mark 7:1–23)

Christ taught about Mosaic Law in response to Jewish leaders called Pharisees and scribes who criticized Christ's disciples. The Jewish leaders criticized the disciples for impurity (defilement) because they neglected to ceremoniously wash their hands before eating. This hand washing was not a mere issue of healthy living, but Jewish tradition developed a hand washing ceremony and other ceremonial washings untaught in Mosaic Law. In this case, there were no biblical grounds for criticizing the disciples while they disregarded an extra-biblical ceremony. Christ responded by accusing the Jewish leaders of directly disobeying the prophet Isaiah and Mosaic Law. Christ quoted Isaiah's rebuke of Israelites who honored God only with their words but not their hearts. And Christ said that the Jewish leaders abandoned God's commandments for mere human tradition. Christ then described how many Jews broke the biblical commandment of honoring their parents. In these cases, the elderly parents of various Jews needed financial support, but their progeny instead devoted money to God that could have helped their needy parents. These Jews may have looked good in public for giving financial offerings to God, but they neglected to honor their parents by helping them in their need. Christ concluded this public speech by proclaiming that no oral consumption makes a person impure, which superseded Mosaic dietary laws. Christ later explained to his disciples that sins such as fornication, adultery, and licentiousness begin in the heart of humans.

Christ also in Mark 14:49 and Matthew 5:17 referred to himself as the fulfillment of the scriptures that included Mosaic Law, and Hebrews 9:1—10:19 says that Christ fulfilled all ceremonial Mosaic Law. Additionally, John 8:2–11 portrays Christ in a scenario where he disregards Mosaic Law that says he should have stoned an adulterous. (Despite the controversy that this passage is an interpolation, the interpolation represents belief and practice in the early church.)

All of this from the Gospels and Hebrews indicates that New Covenant principles supersede Mosaic Law. However, Christ affirmed the immutability of some Mosaic Law when he taught that adultery is evil. Likewise, Christian's may disregard a literal application of dietary Mosaic Law and punishments prescribed in Mosaic Law, but Christian's should never disregard immutable Mosaic Law such as the prohibition against adultery.

This article focuses on the role of Mosaic Law in Christian life while this series focuses on sacred sex and celibacy. But since I began this article with a reference to Deuteronomy 22:28–29 that is repugnant to many people in modern times, then I want to briefly explain how such a law ever made it into the Bible. As stated earlier, the passage says that if a man seizes an unengaged virgin and forces sexual intercourse, then that man must pay dowry to the virgin's father and permanently marry the virgin. In the ancient context, the law protected the woman from a life of scorn and impoverished spinsterhood. Also, given that the rapist of a married or engaged woman faced the death penalty and the average man then could not afford polygamy, then the law made no opportunity for serial rapists and forced the man to turn into a responsible provider for the woman.

Finally, a common criticism against Christian moralizers who quote the Old Testament is that they arbitrarily pick and choose the biblical verses that they promote. I agree that many Christian moralizers appear to arbitrarily pick and choose biblical verses. However, as indicated in this article, a biblical basis teaches discretion when picking and choosing biblical verses that teach biblical ideals. In the case of morals and ethics, I promote a discretionary rule indicated in the Bible: New Testament principles filter Mosaic Law. In other words, Christians should disregard the literal application of Mosaic Law unless the New Testament teaches that a particular law is an ideal. For example, Christ taught the disregard of dietary Mosaic Law while supporting the prohibition against adultery.


Copyright © 2012 James Edward Goetz

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Sacred Sex, Celibacy and the New Testament Part 2: Adulterous Lust

"Why does my wife call me an adulterer? Sure, during the salsa dance, I asked her hot sister to sneak away with me to make love, but I struck out. I never seduced my sister-in-law."

Jesus Christ warned about adultery in the heart:

[27] "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' [28] But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [29] If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. [30] And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:27–5:30)

I heard many people misinterpret the above verses from Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. The faulty interpreters suggest that Christ condemned all sexual temptation when he warned about lustful looks at beautiful women. But the same Gospel that warns against lustful looks also says in Matthew 4:1–11 that Christ resisted temptation. Likewise, mere thoughts and feelings of temptations are not sinful. In the case of lustful looks, those looks go beyond temptation in the sight of sexually appealing eye candy.

The warning against lustful looks goes back to the tenth commandment in Exodus 20:17. That commandment warns men that they shall not covet their neighbor's house, wife, or anything that belongs to their neighbor. And the word "covet" refers to an excessive desire.

For example, in a modern day scenario, a man named John might see that his next-door neighbors own a stunning house and the wife looks stunning while she dives into her pool or applies sunscreen. This might instigate John to feel temptation. He might feel tempted to takeover his neighbors' house and make love to the wife. At this point, John has not coveted the house or wife. And if he refuses to harbor the temptation while following the Lord, then he avoids the sin of coveting.

But if John decides to feed these temptations, then he begins excessive desires for forbidden possessions. He might begin to make plans. He sees no way to steal the house, but he plans to seduce the wife. When opportunity arises, he tries to make the wife feel special. After developing a rapport with her, he subtly makes suggestive glances while trying to seduce her. He tries to pace the seduction over a few days or even a few months, but nonetheless, John commits adultery in his heart.

Regardless of how far John goes with his adulterous plans, God calls him to repentance and restoration in the name of Christ.


Copyright © 2012 James Edward Goetz

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Sacred Sex, Celibacy and the New Testament Part 1: Matthew 19:3–12

Jesus Christ taught about divorce, marriage, and celibacy in Matthew 19:3–12. Jewish leaders called Pharisees challenged Christ about divorce laws. Christ responded with a powerful teaching about marriage and sex:

[3] Some Pharisees came to him [Jesus], and to test him they asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?" [4] He answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' [5] and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? [6] So they are no longer two, but one flesh." Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.'' [7] They said to him, "Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?" [8] He said to them, "It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery."

[10] His disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." [11] But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. [12] For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." (Matthew 19:3–12)

During the days of Christ, Jews debated about the two rabbinical views of divorce taught in the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. Hillel taught that a Jewish husband could divorce his wife for any reason and Shammai taught a husband could divorce his wife only in the case of a sexually immorality. Likewise, in the case of divorce, Christ sided with the school of Shammai.

Christ also used this opportunity to teach about marriage. He referred to Genesis 1:27 and said that God made humans both male and female. Then he referred to Genesis 2:24 and said a man should leave his parents and join his wife to become one flesh, which refers to marriage and sexual union between a husband and wife. Based on these precedences, Christ proclaimed that nobody should divorce.

The Pharisees then asked why Moses commanded to give certificates of divorce. Christ replied that the biblical law about certificates of divorce was written for the hard-hearted Israelites. That biblical law was an accommodation apart from the biblical model taught in Genesis 1—2. Christ then clarified that nobody should divorce his spouse except for a severe violation such as adultery. Christ also taught that remarriage after divorce for a non-severe violation was adultery. For example, a no-fault divorce is invalid in the eyes of God while God requires such a divorcee to remain faithful to his spouse.

This strictness alarmed Christ's disciples. They suggested to Christ that abstinence from marriage was better than the risks of a disappointing marriage. Christ then taught about the option of deliberate lifelong celibacy while referring to three types of eunuchs: (1) males born as eunuchs, (2) males involuntarily made into eunuchs by castration, and (3) males choosing the life of a eunuch for God's kingdom.

The term "eunuch" in ancient Jewish tradition referred to (1) pagan males castrated in childhood to later to serve in harems without sexual temptation, (2) males with presumed congenital infertility, and (3) various governmental officials who could enjoy marriage.1 Christ first referred to males born as eunuchs: that is, males with presumed congenital infertility. He second referred to castrated males. He third figuratively referred to normal males deliberately choosing lifelong celibacy to fully serve in God's kingdom.

Christ's discussion of eunuchs focused on normal males who choose lifelong celibacy to fully serve in God's kingdom. Given the ancient context that Jews prohibited castration,2 Christ never suggested the concept of literal self-castration. Instead, he referred to Jews who choose lifelong celibacy to fully serve God.3

Christ taught paradoxes about marriage. First, divorce is impermissible because God made the husband and wife one that should never separate, but extreme violations make divorce permissible. Second, God commands humans to leave their parents and marry, but lifelong celibacy is also an option from God. What is more, Christ chose lifelong celibacy.
__________
1. "Eunuch," accessed May 28, 2012, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5904-eunuch.
2. "Castration," accessed May 28, 2012, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_04056.html.
3. For example, the Jewish sect called the Essenes avoided marriage as much as possible. See "Essenes," accessed May 28, 2012, http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5867-essenes.



Copyright © 2012 James Edward Goetz

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The Impossibility of Infinitely Elapsed Planck Times

Observation indicates that a flat universe with an incomplete past (1) begins, (2) endlessly expands, and (3) forever develops a finite age. Nothing ever binds the continuous aging of a flat universe while the universe endlessly develops a finite age. Despite an infinite number of Planck time coordinates independent of phenomena, an infinite number of Planck times will never elapse in a single lineage. Likewise, an infinite number of Planck times have never elapsed in a single lineage. Time and the universe could not have been past eternal.

Imagining time travel to any past event in a world with an eternal past also helps to explain the impossibility of infinitely elapsed time. For example, if a time traveler in a world with an eternal past could survive a two-minute journey in a wormhole to any past event, then the time traveler could never possibly travel an infinite number of Planck times but only possibly travel to time coordinates with real values. The apparent unlimited time travel ability would never cover an infinite number of Planck times.

The observations of limits for the elapse of time in time travel and the aging of a flat universe exclude the possibility of all cosmology models with a past infinite number of Planck times. For example, Mithani and Vilenkin [1] recently refuted three categories of models with an eternal past: (1) past eternal inflation, (2) cyclic evolution, and (3) emergence from eternal static seed. Apart from reasons supported by Mithani and Vilenkin, those models also fail on the grounds that infinitely elapsed time is impossible.

Susskind [2] responded to Mithani and Vilenkin by arguing that the universe is past eternal. He supported his argument by using an analogy of a semi-infinite one-dimensional landscape with an incomplete past and an infinite population size of people. However, Susskind's semi-infinite landscape falsely analogizes a universe/multiverse with an incomplete past except for a multiverse with at least one node that simultaneously branches into an infinite number of branches, which Susskind does not model. Apart from the respective exception, an indefinitely branching multiverse with an incomplete past will never have a landscape with a semi-infinite size. Susskind's assumption of a semi-infinite landscape is invalid.

In sum, any scientific model of cosmology must have an incomplete past: that is, a beginning. And all apparent merits in cosmology models that include an infinite elapse of time are futile unless the merits are transferable to models with an incomplete past.

References
1. A. Mithani and A. Vilenkin, "Did the universe have a beginning?," arXiv:1204.4658 [hep-th]
2. Leonard Susskind, "Was there a beginning?," arXiv:1204.5385 [hep-th].


Copyright © 2012 James Edward Goetz

An Infinite Elapse of Time is Impossible and Unscientific

This article evaluates the concept of an infinite lapse/passage of time and concludes that an infinite lapse of time is impossible, which was proposed in the sixth century AD by John Philoponus. Likewise, models of cosmology that require infinitely lapsed time such as models of a genuinely cyclic universe or a multiverse with past eternal vacuum energy are impossible and unscientific.

Modern day observation of a flat universe indicates that a flat universe endlessly ages and always has a finite age. For example, a flat universe has a potential infinite age and a continuously increasing finite age. Nothing ever stops the aging of the universe while the universe endlessly has a finite age. Despite a potential infinite age, an actual infinite age never occurs.

The observed impossibility of an infinite lapse of time indicates the impossibility of infinitely lapsed time. Likewise, all scientific hypotheses of cosmology should exclude the possibility of infinitely lapsed time. For example, the technical definition of a "cyclic universe" implies an infinite number of past cycles. This indicates that the concept of a cyclic universe is unscientific, regardless of widely published papers in scientific journals about cyclic models. Other concepts widely published in scientific journals that require an unscientific infinitely lapsed time include "eternal inflation" with no beginning.

Some scholars skirt around the impossibility of infinitely lapsed time and propose the philosophical concept of eternalism, which holds that future phenomena already exist. For example, the universe is uncaused with absolutely no distinction between the past, present, and future while all appearance of lapsed time and sequential events are an illusion. This concept of radical simultaneousness for all supposedly past, present, and future events disputes the impossibility of an apparent infinite lapse of time but at the expense of rejecting the concept of lapsed time. Also, rejecting the concept of lapsed time disputes every theory involving cause and effect, which includes the concept of scientific theory. In this case, perhaps nobody can disprove eternalism while the appearance of lapsed time is merely an illusion, but such philosophical theories are incompatible with the concept of science.

My argument about the impossibility of infinitely lapsed time sometimes prompts debate about Zeno's fifth century BC paradoxes of infinity. Zeno pointed out problems with the concept of infinity while attempting to support the nonexistence of motion and change, which is still in vogue today with the philosophical eternalism mentioned above. For example, Zeno said that all apparently finite lengths such as a cubit are infinitely divisible and likewise nothing has actually traveled the length of a cubit. But this amusing paradox never explains observations of objects that travel a cubit.

In sum, this brief paper proposes that the science of cosmology excludes impossible concepts such as infinitely lapsed time and limits itself to inference based on scientific observation.



Updated with minor corrections on 5/5/2012

Copyright © 2012 James Edward Goetz