A Time to Forgive?

by Chris Stockman

I was sitting in church this past Sunday as we were saying the Lord’s Prayer, and began thinking about forgiveness and God’s relationship to time, as one does. Suddenly a thought popped into my head that I couldn’t shake. This article is the expansion of that thought. I propose the following for your consideration, as I believe that this is a question very much worth thinking about. This is intended to get the average person in the pew thinking. As a layperson myself, I want to see lay people putting some careful thought into what they are saying about God. The concepts talked about here have been at the forefront of theologians’ navel gazing for millennia, but I think I’ve done what I can to bring out the most significant aspects of them and avoid getting too far into the weeds.

I’ve heard someone say that God is timeless many, many times. From the pulpit, in casual conversation as an item that is taken for granted, etc. It’s one of those things that people think is the pious thing to say, and it’s a staple of what’s called classical theism. If you believe in classical theism, you are in good company, since nearly all of the most influential thinkers in the history of Christianity (Augustine, John of Damascus, Anselm, Aquinas, etc.) have been classical theists. But I would bet a lot that nearly all people today who share their beliefs about God and time (let’s call them atemporalists) have no idea what they actually entail. They certainly do not share some of the philosophical assumptions undergirding classical theism.

First let’s define timelessness. This is not as easy as one may think, since atemporalists are not always forthcoming with what they mean by their claims. Dr. R.T. Mullins (of The Reluctant Theologian Podcast fame) is a great one-stop shop for all things time. He defines timelessness as such:

“God is timeless if and only if God necessarily exists without beginning, without end, without succession, without temporal location, and without temporal extension.”^[1]

Every theist believes God has no beginning or end. The point of being “without succession” is what I am most interested in at the moment. In order to get very far beyond this point, we need to know what time is, otherwise to say that God is timeless (or not) isn’t saying anything. This is also very difficult, as, while many philosophers are quick to define their view of the ontology of time (what times are real) and of the flow of time, they have an unfortunate aversion to telling anyone what time actually is. So you believe only the present moment is real; that’s nice, but what is that? St. Augustine famously wrote in Confessions that he knows what time is until someone asks him about it.^[2] Thanks for nothing, Augustine.

Few have a coherent notion of what time is. There are broadly two views: a relational theory in which time exists only if change exists, and an absolute theory in which time is a definite thing that has a particular nature; it exists with or without change. I favor the latter for reasons beyond the scope of this article. Time is, basically, something that makes change possible.^[3] (There is a more full definition, but this will suffice for present purposes.) The doctrine of timelessness then, regardless of absolutism or relationalism, has some rather disturbing implications.

Here’s one: God cannot forgive you.

Now, before you classical theists go running to Thomas Aquinas or John of Damascus to save you, hear me out. (Then you can go running to Thomas Aquinas or John of Damascus.) Think about it. What is forgiveness? Someone wrongs you, and then, assuming they feel remorse (or if they don’t, but for present purposes assume they do), they apologize and ask for your forgiveness. You are feeling indignation or at least have some negative evaluation of the other person. But in response to someone asking for your forgiveness, or due to some consideration of what the ethical thing to do is, you forgive them. Your forgiveness involves you changing your evaluation of the person, and you no longer hold their offensive action towards you against them. A relationship that was broken or nonexistent is now restored or being built. I do not mean to suggest that this is all forgiveness involves. But I think I am on safe ground in asserting that this is part of the picture.

Now consider what shakes out from rejecting that God is temporal. By the offered definition of time, God is then unable to change. This is the doctrine of immutability, the belief that God cannot undergo any changes. This is frequently misunderstood even by advocates of timelessness, so it is worth stating more emphatically: God is not able to change in any way, no matter what change is being talked about. William Lane Craig writes of immutability: “God cannot change in any respect. He never thinks successive thoughts, He never performs successive actions, He never undergoes even the most trivial alteration…He cannot even change extrinsically by being related to changing things.”^[4] This is a big one, since many classical theists (on the internet, not scholars as far as I am aware) think that their view of God is compatible with a particular type of change. (More on that later.) If one admits change into the life of God, that is introducing time into his life. Mullins again notes that “Any kind of change that a being undergoes will be sufficient for that being to be temporal as it will create a before and after in the life of that being.”^[5]

So can a timeless, changeless God forgive you? Well, forgiveness involves changing your evaluation of another person in response to their apology. Your disposition towards another person is different. There is a difference in the forgiver. There has been a change in their mental state and emotional life. Applied to God, there was a state of affairs in which God had a negative evaluation of you due to your sin against him, and upon forgiving you there is now a state of affairs in which he has a positive evaluation of you (due to being placed in Christ).^[6] If it is metaphysically impossible for God to change, then it is metaphysically impossible for him to change his evaluation of you. Thus, from the perspective of a timeless God, you are unforgivable.

But it gets worse. There is another core claim that classical theists hold dear: impassibility. As with time, saying God is impassible isn’t saying anything unless we know what a passion is. This one is more controversial to define (with some characterizing it as God not experiencing any emotions), but it is held by some to be the claim that God cannot be acted upon and that there cannot be a disturbance in the For-I mean God’s eternal bliss, and that God cannot be affected by any considerations outside of himself. St. John of Damascus (675-749) called a passion “…a sensible activity of the appetitive faculty, depending on the presentation to the mind of something good or bad…But passion considered as a class, that is, passion in general, is defined as a movement in one thing caused by another.”^[7] Elsewhere in his work, Damascene states over and over and over that God is impassible, that deity is passion-less, or some variation of that. Thus for Damascene, the impassible God cannot admit a passion (movement) in his emotional or mental life by something outside of himself. Now, I disagree with Damascene, but he is illustrative of The Tradition™️. So how does this make things worse?

Remember how I said forgiveness involves changing your evaluation of someone in response to their apology? That is impossible per the doctrine of impassibility, as that would mean God has been moved to do something in response to something outside of himself. Your confession and repentance to God quite literally can have no effect. (How prayer in general even works on classical theism is another issue as well.) The idea that God can be moved to do anything is utterly anathema to the classical theist. One of the underlying reasons why this is so is that classical theism fundamentally denies that God even stands in a real relation to the world at all. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was not unclear: “But in God relation to the creature is not a real relation, but only a relation of reason; whereas the relation of the creature to God is a real relation, as was said above (I:13:7) in treating of the divine names.”^[8] This answer was given in response to the objection that if creation is applied to God in the active sense, then he would be temporal. There is much more that could be said on this point, but that is far beyond the present scope.

There is another way in which this somehow gets even worse^[9], but that should suffice for now: the classical God cannot forgive you since he cannot be moved to do so and is unable to change.

So, does the classical theist have a way forward? It turns out, yes, they do. They can keep their classical theism and their belief in God’s forgiveness, as I’m sure Barack Obama said in some possible world. Here are some options (I doubt this is exhaustive but it’s what I can think of):

They could deny that forgiveness involves a change in one’s evaluation of another person, or a change in one’s mental life.
They could deny that forgiveness needs to be given in response to something external to the agent.
They could deny that God’s forgiveness is anything like our forgiveness of each other.
They could deny that God had previously had a negative evaluation of us.
They could deny that God currently has a positive evaluation of us.
They could affirm that God does forgive you and that any change this involves is a Cambridge change.

Option 1 is unsuccessful since I fail to see how one can be said to have forgiven someone when they have the same evaluation of someone as before the forgiveness. If I still think my brother is a pest that I want nothing to do with after I forgave him for being a pest, I have not really forgiven him.

Option 2 is perhaps more promising, but notice that it no longer would apply to our scenario with God. Scripture is clear that God forgives those who repent. God’s forgiveness is not unconditional. Taking this option would effectively deny salvation through faith.

Option 3 is directly contradicted by the Lord’s Prayer: “and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”. Paul as well in Ephesians 4:32 writes “ Become kind toward one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as also God in Christ has forgiven you. (LEB)” If God’s forgiveness is utterly unlike ours, these statements from Jesus and Paul are unintelligible. I know this will be quite the hot take, but I do not believe Jesus and Paul were unintelligible.

Option 4 is a direct assault on any coherent understanding of sin. If God never assessed us negatively, then talk of salvation is meaningless; we aren’t being saved from anything, since we were never lost and were never at risk of God’s judgment. I don’t expect any classical theist to take this route.

If someone takes Option 5, I don’t know why they would want the Christian life.

Option 6 is interesting. A Cambridge change is one in which there is a change, but only on one end of the relationship. The example is given of being south of Cambridge. You then walk to the north of Cambridge. The change is that you were south of Cambridge and now you are north of it. Cambridge has not changed, you have. So, as defenders of classical theism are renowned for their charitable interactions with their opponents, they will kindly remind you that they are perfectly happy to accept Cambridge changes all day long with God. There is a change in God’s relationship to us, but it’s on our end, not God’s. We repented and asked for forgiveness. The change involved in God’s forgiveness is really a change in us. God is still (to use a temporal idea) in his perfect state of timeless and impassible bliss with his evaluations of all creatures great and small being known by him from eternity in his one, single instant.

While interesting, this is perhaps the most sinister option. We depend for our salvation upon God’s forgiveness. We would not be indwelled by the Holy Spirit without it. The idea that it is strictly a change in me that I am depending on for my salvation is truly terrifying. I still sin (change for the worse) and sometimes I may not look all that different from a nonbeliever; how then can I know that I really am forgiven? This idea would utterly destroy any assurance of salvation. Furthermore, it seems to fly in the face of the many passages that assert our utter dependence on God, even for our next breath (Job 12:10, Psalm 84, Psalm 104:29, Psalm 119:81-82).

Now, this by itself may not be a reason to reject that God’s forgiveness is a Cambridge change; maybe reality is just that dark. But there is another problem with the appeal to a Cambridge change: the relationship. The Cambridge change is only such if I really am in the relations “south of” and “north of” to Cambridge. But recall that a fundamental assumption to classical theism is that God is not really related to the world! The classical theist may try to wiggle out by saying that these Cambridge relations are not real relations. In that case, I don’t think I know what “real” means anymore. I give up.

In the form of premises, the argument is:

If God is timeless, he is not capable of undergoing change in any form.
A necessary condition to being forgiven is that the subject initially have a negative evaluation of the object of forgiveness.
A necessary condition to being forgiven is that the subject no longer have a negative evaluation of the object of forgiveness.
Therefore, if God forgives someone, he goes from having a negative evaluation of them to no longer having a negative evaluation of them.
If God goes from having a negative evaluation of them to no longer having a negative evaluation of them, then there has been a change in his mental and emotional life.
God is timeless.
Therefore, God cannot have a change in his mental and emotional life.
Therefore, God cannot go from having a negative evaluation of someone to no longer having a negative evaluation of someone.
Therefore, God cannot forgive anyone.

As a bonus, here is the argument from impassibility against forgiveness being because of repentance:

If God is impassible, he is not capable of being moved to do an action by anything external to himself.
If God forgives someone because they have repented, then he has been moved to act by something outside of himself.
God is impassible.
Therefore, God cannot be moved to act because of something outside of himself.
Therefore, God cannot forgive someone because they have repented.
Therefore, repentance is not a condition for God’s forgiveness.

Conclusion

I want to be clear about what exactly I have and have not argued for here. I have not argued that classical theism is false. I believe it is false, but that is not my argument here. My argument is that the doctrines of classical theism logically entail that God cannot forgive you.

This is in contrast to teachings derived from a sound reading of Scripture. Scripture reveals God as being highly interactive. The doctrines of classical theism are directly contradicted on every page of Scripture and would render crucial claims of the Gospel itself literally false. I do not believe that classical theism should be on the table for a Christian to believe. Of course, classical theists can still be Christians, but that is in spite of their model of God, not because of it. Christian, take solace in that God really has forgiven you, that he really does no longer hold your sin against you, that he really has transferred us from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of his Son (Col. 1:13), that you are really no longer under condemnation (Rom. 8:1), and that he really does currently have a positive evaluation of you (Eph. 1:3-14).

I am sure that classical theists will have their rebuttals, and I look forward to seeing what they may be.

^[1] Mullins, The Divine Timemaker, in Philosophia Christi Vol. 22, No.2, (2020), 213.

^[2] Yes, I’m aware that he had a little more to say on the subject than this. But that’s not the point.

^[3] Mullins, The End of The Timeless God (2016), 18. See also Mullins’ chapter in Ontology of Divinity (forthcoming), edited by Miroslaw Szatkowski, 99-111.

^[4] Craig, Time and Eternity (2001), 30-31.

^[5] Mullins, The End of The Timeless God (2016), 157.

^[6] After I had written this bit, I came across an article by Mullins in which he actually says as much. “When God forgives a repentant sinner, God changes both intrinsically and extrinsically. God changes extrinsically in that God comes to stand in a new relation to a creature. Namely, being the one to whom a sinner is repenting of her sins. Yet, God also changes intrinsically in that God’s knowledge will perfectly track the changes in reality. God now knows that He is being prayed to, and God now knows that He is forgiving the sinner.” (Mullins, Ryan T. “Open Theism and Perfect Rationality: An Examination of Dean Zimmerman’s views on God, Time, and Creation.” TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology 8.2 (2024), pg. 2-3)

^[7] Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2.22

^[8] Summa Theologica 1 q.45 a.3

^[9] I refer here to the doctrine of simplicity, rounding out the quartet of classical distinctives. This one is a bit more complicated to define clearly, and this post is already long enough, so I will save a consideration of it for a part 2.

Why I’m Not Quitting Ministry

By Will Hess

“It is my great honor and privilege to be the first to introduce to you today, Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Smith”
^[1]

Recently, I spoke these words and they rang out in an open dusty barn at a beautiful countryside wedding. I watched as two young people, whom I have grown to love and admire, walked down the aisle celebrating their marriage together with their entire lives ahead of them. It was a proper bookend to my ministry here in Michigan and one that filled my heart with joy, happiness, pride, and most of all…closure.

Why would I need closure? Let me explain…

In 2016 my wife and I moved here to minister at a small country church. We were young, excited, and ready to serve with all the excitement we had to muster. We quickly began discipling, serving, and creating plans for the future of the church. Things were going well…until they weren’t. Needless to say, ministry isn’t always easy. It took about a year for us to experience our first real trial as the church endured a split (not two years from a previous split they had suffered before our arrival). The reasons for the split were many, but most of all it was political and trivial – as most disunity tends to be. We felt betrayed as those who seemed to be our strongest supporters turned their backs on us over tertiary matters. During this split, my wife was gone in Washington nursing her dying mother in a hospice bed for four months. When my wife returned from her mother’s passing, the church had dramatically shifted. The people who once said, “we are praying for you and your family as your mom passes” were no longer to be found – leaving behind nothing but the bitter memories of hollow talk.

During this time though, we were able to rally some troops and begin to rebuild with a few key families. Things began to thrive again and we began to heal. We saw the Youth Group alone go from four kids to sometimes over thirty! We had so much momentum and it felt that not even the gates of hell could withstand the force of this church. It was during this time we met Brian Bode, the infamous co-host of our podcast. It was also during this time that my other best friend Andrew and his wife Brittany decided to move up from Alabama to help build the church even further. Soon after that decision was made though, we received momentous news!

[Youth Group Retreat and Pregnancy Announcement]

Cali was pregnant.

We were going to have a baby! Years of marriage thinking we couldn’t have a child and here we were – expecting our own little peanut. However, within just a few weeks, Cali miscarried. We were devastated. A month later, more turmoil began to grow with a few families in the church and not two weeks before Andrew and Brittany moved to Michigan – the church began to split…again…

I received a text and phone call at ten o’clock at night from the associate pastor. He was one of the key pillars to rebuilding the church after the recent split. He informed me they were leaving the church. They had shifted their beliefs regarding a matter we had once agreed upon and were unhappy. It seemed such a dramatic shift on an issue so I attempted to reason with him and figure out if there were any other underlying issues. Finally, he exploded. He unloaded issues he had from the beginning, venting all his frustrations out – blaming me for all of it. Come to find out, nearly every decision we had made together, he secretly disagreed with. He spoke critically of that, my preaching style, our youth ministry etc. What began to take place was this individual calling around the church sowing more and more seeds of discord with a slant that would make Fox News or CNN envious. I remember people trying to reason with him, but to no avail. It seemed he didn’t just want to leave the church – he wanted everyone else to as well.

This cut deeply as this was a person who had once told me, “I’ve got your six” and would help me shape the church.. This was a man I once viewed as a friend. A close friend actually. I’ll be honest…I was in legitimate shock. When my mother-in-law was dying this person would have me over, pray for my wife while she was away, break bread with me, laugh, and discuss our next steps for the church. Both of us were excited for the thriving church – just to see him bring a hammer to it and others. It was devastating as I saw a once thriving church heartbroken. Some people inclined their ears to him and left for their own various reasons. Others were disenchanted as they had helped rebuild the church three times now and chose to leave – exhausted (who could blame them?) Some used the disunity as an excuse to stop attending church altogether. It was agonizing.

We saw brother turn against brother during this time. One Sunday I was in Sunday School, listening to Brian teach, and my wife came up to me and whispered, “people are causing issues in the lobby”. I got up from the sanctuary, walked through the double doors, and found a group of people fighting with each other in the middle of the main doorway. I quickly separated the groups and informed them that such behavior was not appropriate. Needless to say, a chunk of them also left after this. I was tired, I was sad, I was angry, and I didn’t know what more to do. It seemed unity was impossible…

There was an old man in the church, who has since passed away, who was close friends with people from the original split that occurred before my arrival and also close with people from the one following. I remember asking him at this point (during the third split), “why have you stayed? Through all of this?” His response has always stuck with me, “because after four years, and three different pastors? I think we can stop blaming the pastors.” Little did that elderly man know how much I needed to hear those words. During this time I had begun to believe I was just an utter failure and perhaps ministry wasn’t the right place for me after all. Perhaps I was just young and dumb with delusions of grandeur.

However, fortune never favors those who wallow in self pity, so we picked ourselves up and carried on one last time. After the church endured its third split in a few years, we strapped up and prepared to build once more. Although this time? I was much more tired. Spiritually I began to feel like I had poured and poured and didn’t have much more to give. The fire I once had was but a small ember. I was also paranoid of who I could trust as I had now experienced close friends in a church say one thing with their mouth, but another with their actions. However, I am a fighter by nature, so we carried on. Then we got the news…

Cali was pregnant again.

[Cali surprises Will with pregnancy announcement]

We were excited, but also scared as last time we had a pregnancy? We lost it. During this time I tried to keep Cali out of the spotlight entirely. I wanted her away from the stresses of ministry and the disgruntled church members. I wanted her to be as comfortable as possible so she could go through pregnancy in peace.

It didn’t work.

A new issue had risen in the church. These other people were determined to be heard and continued to demand meeting after meeting pointing their finger at minuscule things – primarily other church members. Finally, one day, my wife told me she was bleeding again. At this time I was in bi-vocational ministry so I rushed home from work. It appeared she was miscarrying again but it was inconclusive. At the same time, we had a previously scheduled house showing. Cali told me to go to the showing and she would monitor herself – perhaps it was nothing (although we both knew that was likely untrue). So I went. After the showing I had to run to the store as Cali needed me to pick up some things. Then I got it, the dreadful phone call. Cali called me and informed me our precious baby had passed. In the middle of the supermarket, I broke down. Andrew and Brittany were with me at the time and quickly ushered me home to be with Cali.

As we sat there mourning, my phone went off. The family who was disgruntled wanted to meet with me in thirty minutes. I texted them that it was not a good time. They were insistent and my wife told me through her tears, “just go and put an end to all this”. So I left my broken wife, walked over to the church and met them. I informed them I had limited time as things weren’t going well at home. This couple then said, “ It’s okay, we figured Cali was pregnant again…sorry it sounds like it’s not going well”.

I couldn’t believe it. This couple knew what was going on in my home, put the pieces together, yet demanded for us to meet and address their complaint anyway. What was their complaint? That someone at church, their friend, cracked a harmless joke about them in good faith. It wasn’t a malicious joke nor cruel, but a simple folksy joke. Never have I ever felt like my family’s pain meant so little. Later that week, this couple and their extended family informed us they were leaving the church. This family whom we had personally invested in for years ended up discarding us like an afterthought. They even attempted to leave a letter with all their grievances before the entire church – for all to see.

This was my breaking point. I could barely take it anymore. My family was enduring tragedy after tragedy and it seemed people in the church were more concerned about childish things than anything else. I began to speak to ministry friends, unfolding every event in detail. I was surprised how often I heard similar stories from other pastoral friends. What I thought was an exception to the rule began to sound more and more like the norm. During this time, quitting began to sound more and more favorable.

Then my wife got pregnant for the third time.

At this point I was exhausted. My wife and I were spiritually and emotionally drained. I also didn’t want my wife to have to deal with the pressures of ministry anymore as our little girl grew in her womb. Thus, after much prayerful consideration, we stepped down from the church and focused on our family. October 30, 2020 my beautiful daughter was prematurely born, but perfectly healthy. We named her Elyona – which means, “My God has answered”. Our hearts were full.

[Elyona sporting TCS merch]

During this time we got settled into our new house, the podcast began to grow, I began to teach at my friend’s church, I began a new career so my wife could stay home, and in every way possible things were going well. I even began to accept the fact that perhaps I wouldn’t be in vocational ministry and even reveled in being able to minister to others on my own terms – no strings attached. With how well things were going, why go back? I had about every excuse in the book to stay as far away from full-time ministry as possible. Yet, I could not get rid of the pull. I’ve known since I was seventeen that God wanted me to serve Him in ministry. No matter how much I worked, how much money I brought in, I could not get ministry off my heart and my mind. But why? With everything I’ve said up to this point, hasn’t ministry been horrible to me?

No. Not really.

The reality is, ministry wasn’t all bad. Sure we experienced many horrible things, but amongst all those terrible experiences we had many blessings. During our trials we made great friends with people in our church. Without that church I wouldn’t have hardly any of the people who are close to me now. If it wasn’t for that church I’d never have built The Church Split with Brian. If it weren’t for that church I wouldn’t have the love for apologetics and unity like I do now. I look around me and see all the things that are most precious to me and know that it is because of our ministry at that little country church that we have what we do. Every day I’m surrounded by people whom I love, have seen grow, and have a true friendship with. In addition, despite all these negative things, I have also seen many positive things…

About six months ago I received a call from a young man who attended that church’s youth group asking me to officiate his wedding. When he originally came to the church it was because a friend of his from work (Tabby, our former editor) kept inviting him to youth group. This young man wasn’t very close to the Lord yet and lived a lifestyle that was unbecoming of a Christian. We took a personal interest in his walk, hoping we’d see him grow in the Lord, and grow he did! He surrendered his life over to Jesus Christ, he gave up friendships that were harmful, and became passionate about living a holy life. Eventually, we made him the leader of our praise and worship team.

Now, remember the man I mentioned earlier who spun things like Fox and CNN? This was one of those areas of contention for he did not believe this young man should be leading anything. He thought it was inappropriate of me to put him into leadership due to the young man’s recent background. He shamelessly held the young man’s background over his head. Yet, we continually saw fruit in this young man’s life. So although he faced condemnation from this older gentleman, he remained faithful to church and continued to pursue his relationship with Jesus Christ. He eventually got engaged to his girlfriend, a wonderful and sweet Christian girl. Months later, as I stood there closing the wedding ceremony, I had peace. My time at the church wasn’t all for nought. Not everything there was bad. Our ministry was not in vain. God had been faithful to us all these years.

This young man is but one of a few positive stories I could tell regarding our time at the church.

You see…we have a tendency to focus on the negative while missing the forest for the trees. Because of this tendency we can miss the blessings. Each and every one of my closest friends (save for a few) are because of my ministry at that church. Also, the greatest impact for the gospel we’ve ever seen was at that church. Despite the splits, there was a faithful and steady bunch that kept pushing forward. This steady bunch would recruit others to the cause and we’d see more people impacted by the gospel.

It wasn’t all bad. In fact, there were countless blessings along the way.

A while ago I wrote a piece, “Why Good Pastors Quit”. In that article I shared many of my own thoughts and experiences as to why so many people drop out of ministry. I stand by every word I said, but I wanted to add this to it: although many quit, many also cannot. Like myself, many pastors have a burning passion in their heart that won’t allow them to give up. Why is this?

Because the mission is more important than petty comforts.

We have a world that is lost and dying. There is conflict on every corner. There are people who are aimless, stumbling through life. There are people who are overwhelmed with depression feeling as if their life is without any and all purpose. There are others who are embittered by their past experiences. There are some who are filled with hatred due to an unjust world. These are all the works of the Enemy. If we want the world to turn around, then we have to be out there doing the work. We have to show people how they are made in the image of God, display to them the victory of the resurrection, project the love of Christ to them, and be prepared to give unto every man an answer for them hope that is in us. The reality is, as comfortable as life has been since leaving ministry – it’s not where I belong. I know that. Years ago I was given a mission to serve God and give the gospel to every creature. To serve the Lord with every fiber of my being. I can no longer stand on the sidelines – there’s too much at stake. This is why I’m not quitting ministry. People need the Lord and the gospel still works (my own life is a testament to that). If the harvest is truly plenteous, but the laborers are few, then my place belongs in the field – doing the work.

Stay tuned for a big announcement…

^[1] Actual names have been redacted for privacy reasons.
When Words Just Don’t Mean Anything Anymore: Part 2

By Will Hess

Recent events have sparked between us, The Church Split, and the renowned Dr. James White. This article you are reading is a more honest, straightforward, and detailed sequel to White’s libelous blog post about myself (here). Originally I was going to ignore it and laugh it off. However, after giving it some thought I believe it would be prudent to have the exchange documented properly as to not be misconstrued. Whether I want it to be relevant or not, many more people will see Dr. White’s thoughts prior to our own. This can lead to many poor understandings of the events and processes that took place. Thus, I thought I should at least publish the entire exchange, with my own explanations, as White already posted his thoughts and only included a portion of the conversation on Twitter. So let’s recap some recent events that will become relevant as we go.

For those in the theological community, many people will be aware of the controversy between David Pallmann (my personal friend) and Dr. James White. Even though White denies this, he recently attacked Pallmann and implied that no one should take Pallmann seriously due to his age and his place of employment (Dillard’s). This caused a storm of outrage by various people groups and some of the best memes I’ve seen in ages. However, White stated on a recent Dividing Line that Pallmann was a liar for these charges. Now, the esteemed Dr. James White has stated I (Will Hess) do not understand basic grammar laws or the meaning of words. So let’s have his words speak for himself. (I have highlighted the relevant information)

“So I was finishing up my 21st conference at Covenant of Grace Church in St. Charles when I heard people talking about “the coming storm.” So I started looking at the weather and my travel plans. Let’s just say I am thankful that I invested an extra four hours of travel today and have managed to get myself out of at least the direct path of this winter storm, and guaranteed my being in Conway on time to begin teaching my first class as a full professor at GBTS (Apologetics) starting this Thursday. I am from Phoenix, and while I have already seen snow on this trip, they are now talking about more than six inches in areas I had planned on being over the next few days. No thank you! My detour should also make it possible to do a DL Tuesday and Wednesday as well.
So last evening I was trying to catch up after the conference with what has been going on when I see a discussion in passing about Greg Bahnsen. I see someone named David Pallmann giving a “hot take” on Bahnsen, and some discussion taking place. So I go, “Did I miss something? Who is David Pallmann, and why are Reformed folks responding to his ‘hot take’?” So I clicked on it and found the “hot take.”
Hot Take: Greg Bahnsen wasn’t a particularly brilliant or original thinker. Most of his ideas predate him and have been developed far more rigorously by other thinkers. I would go as far as to submit to you that Bahnsen’s popularity has nothing to do with his rigor and everything to do with his rhetorical capabilities. I believe that his fans generally mistake his strong and confident words for sound argumentation. While we’re on the topic, I don’t think that Bahnsen is an isolated case. The Calvinist community in general is easily seduced by strong rhetoric which tells them what they want to hear. Think of James White, Scott Oliphint, Paul Washer, Jeff Durbin, Sye Ten Bruggencate, etc. All of these gentlemen are, in my opinion, very shallow thinkers and yet they are lauded by the Calvinist community. I don’t say this to be demeaning towards these individuals or to Calvinists. I would simply urge those who listen to these individuals to be careful that they are not mistaking rhetoric for rigor.
So, I track this gentleman down on Facebook and look at his information. He looks like maybe 25 years old, maximum. And he self-describes as:
Evidentialist
Radical Internalist
Christian Rationalist
Classical Arminian
Classical Foundationalist
I am not even sure what he means by some of that, but any young man who puts all of that on his FB bio is hardly going to be in a position to provide much of a meaningful insight into the work of Greg Bahnsen. In fact, you would expect an “evidentialist” and a “classical Arminian” to not find a lot of helpful material in Bahnsen, or in any of the others listed (including myself).
So I did not say much about the topic other than to screenshot his own description, and I purposefully included his own provided employment: sales associate at Dillard’s. It’s relevant.
I saw nothing in his “hot take” that demonstrated the slightest meaningful knowledge of Bahnsen’s work. His words sounded like a kid dissing a new band for not playing music in the exact way he wants it played. There was no substance. And when you then looked at his age, his self-description, and his standing and work, you found absolutely nothing that would explain why anyone, and I mean anyone, would care in the least about this “hot take.” A twenty-something Arminian kid thinks Greg Bahnsen was not a deep thinker and is only popular for his rhetorical skills. Forgive me for not thinking he has read Bahnsen’s work on Van Til, or, if he did, that he understood it.
But here is what has me just a bit hot under the collar this evening. I dropped the screen shot not for this young man, for I doubted he would even see it. I put it there for my fellow Reformed folks. Its purpose should have been obvious. Why on God’s green earth are we even talking about a single paragraph that simply has no standing? It has no substance, its author has yet to produce anything that would give him standing to make such sweeping conclusions no matter how much time he may have to read between customers at Dillard’s. So why are we wasting our time? I see stuff like this every day. I just scroll on by, or, if it is particularly egregious, mute, or maybe block, just to save myself aggravation in the future. But my whole intention was to say, in passing, to my own tribe, “Uh, really, guys? You are surprised this young fellow broad-brushes Bahnsen when this is how he describes himself? Don’t we have more important things to be doing?” The whole thing might have taken five minutes, probably less, last evening, and I sure did not give it a second thought afterward.
Until this morning, that is, when I find I have been messaged by Chris Date, rebuking me for posting the graphic, and saying it was “beneath me” to include his own information concerning what he does. I did not have time this morning for any of this silliness, to be honest, as I had to get out of the way of an oncoming winter storm, and I had no desires to be pulling my 5th wheel in bad weather, especially snow or ice. But the thought crossed my mind, “I wonder if that young fellow is one of Chris Date’s students at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary?” Upon getting set up at my new location, and hearing from another person about the topic, I checked and, yup, lo and behold, there is the connection. If you are not aware, that particular school is home to such folks as Johnathan Pritchett, Braxton Hunter, Leighton Flowers, and Tim Stratton. To say that presuppositionalism would be an unpopular view there would be to engage in massive understatement.
So I am sorry people missed the point of my tiny little graphical comment. I asked, “Who is David Pallmann?” and then provided his own self-provided information, all of which was directly to the point: he is clearly committed to a denial of Bahnsen’s foundational premises, and, he is in no position to provide a “hot take” that is anything other than “hot air”. He has not, as yet, produced the work, teaching, writing, or studying, to give him a basis for making broad, sweeping statements dismissing the depth of work (and the broad expanse of work) that Greg did in an even tragically shortened life.
I will close with this. The Internet encourages youthful arrogance and foolishness. When I read great men of the past, I see Calvin producing the first edition of the _Institutes_, and Owen writing _The Death of Death in the Death of Christ_, both at very young ages. And yet both works breathe maturity. Cyber activity does not seem to produce the same kind of maturity that hard work did in the past. I do not know Mr. Pallmann, but I would very strongly suggest he take the time to track down (it is available on line) Bahnsen’s final sermon. I knew Greg, not well, but well enough to know that he had diabetes, and was facing yet another open heart surgery in late 1995. He knew the chances were not good he would survive, and so he preached the last Sunday before his surgery. In essence, he got to preach his own funeral service. For years I had a cassette tape copy of that sermon (I am sure I still do, in a box somewhere). I listened to it again just recently. I would like to think that if Mr. Pallmann would listen to that sermon, he might hesitate, next time, before giving a “hot take” on a departed servant of the Lord who did so much in such a brief time given to him.”
Facebook:
James R. White
1/31/2022
8:47PM

Remember, White called David a liar for saying that White attacked him for his age and place of employment and in this very post by White – he admits to doing so deliberately. I knew White had a particular reputation amongst the theological community for such behavior, but it was definitely surreal witnessing these events take place. Especially since I had always respected White, even though I personally disagreed with him on a lot of topics and haven’t always appreciated his tone or representations. Regardless, I have always been appreciative of White as he was instrumental in my studies on textual issues (being raised KJV-Only), has done great work in defending the Trinity, and we even had him on our program. Needless to say, I have never hated White, but I have found some of his behavior troubling over the years at those whom he disagrees with. After these events with Pallmann, my skepticism became more concrete.

It is also worth noting I take no issue in White attacking Pallmann’s beliefs. In the theological world it is usually wise to separate beliefs from people and to readily attack belief systems while attempting to keep people’s dignity intact. Rarely does anyone do this perfectly, but it should be a modest goal. Thus, to attack someone’s employment, youth, or character based on a difference of belief system is usually considered poor taste. Regardless, White is clearly unfamiliar with Pallmann’s work as Pallmann published a lengthy in depth analysis of Presuppositional Apologetics quoting people like Van Til and Bahnsen.

Additionally, a few months ago David and I chose to begin a review of Dr. White’s book “The Potter’s Freedom” soon after the first of the year. We both had read the book as it is praised by Calvinists everywhere as one of the best books on Calvinism. However, after reading the book David and I both found it wanting. In which case, we decided we would broadcast a series going through varying excerpts of the book while discussing its issues. We thought this would be a fun and interesting experience as David and I both agree and disagree on a number of theological issues, but we both agree that Calvinism is wrong. This would allow us to present our own respective views in the discussion. Finally, we scheduled this series around the time that White disparaged Pallmann for his age and employment.

Then on February 11th, Dr. White debated Dr. Stratton on the topic of Molinism. Since then White has made many comments about Dr. Stratton and even implied that it wasn’t a real debate (because he evidently found Stratton inept). Recently Molinism has been on White’s radar and he has made many sweeping statements regarding Molinists, Molinism, and Dr. Stratton. Some of which are gross misrepresentations – which is exactly what caused our twitter exchange where White only published select responses. Nor did he post his own tweets – only my own.

Before going through the exchange, let it be noted that I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I have no issue with people correcting me and I really have no issue with admitting when I am wrong – much to the contrary to what White has maligned. My theology now compared to what it used to be is vastly different and this happened by avid study and receiving correction from many people. I also take no issue with people giving the logical conclusion of an argument, as long as the conclusion actually follows and is not a strawman representation. With that said, I would like to finally address the exchange.

James White to Will Hess

“@thechurchsplit Hey Will: off the top of your head, without googling, which came first in Luthers (sic) development: the material principle or the formal principle of the Reformation?”
James White (Feb. 14, 2022 at 12:42pm)

This tweet came out of seemingly nowhere that day so I chose to ignore it as I knew he was attempting to rope me into an exchange. The question was entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand in the episode with Pallmann and myself. Later on in his program, White stated that he was asking if we knew the difference between the formal principle (scripture alone) and material principle (salvation by grace alone through faith alone) of the Reformation. He was referencing a moment in our livestream where we briefly discussed the Reformation due to comments in his book. His book claims, “The issue of God’s absolute freedom and man’s absolute dependence is, in fact, the very central issue of the entire Reformation” (Pg. 34). David and I both disagreed with White’s claim for varying reasons. Pallmann stated he believed it was primarily the role of Scripture that was the defining issue. Myself, I believe history is far more complex to say that there is one singular issue that caused the entire Reformation. Either way, Luther’s principles and Luther’s beliefs are not the sole authority of the Reformation. Luther is but one man in a large historical event – he does not get to define the entire period of history. In reality, White pressing for Luther’s definitions is moot unless the opposition accepts Luther’s definitions as the standard. Personally, I find most of Luther’s teachings problematic and some of them even detestable.

Later on White did a livestream where he admits he saw that Pallmann and I had done a book review, only watched the first 20 minutes (which was admittedly mostly banter), and stated that it was filled with too many errors to take seriously, and took the time to “debunk” jokes, cursory statements on the Reformation, or mispronunciations. We found this to be hilarious as it just came off as petty as opposed to substantive (after all, even White can’t pronounce Thanos correctly in his debate with Stratton). Brian Bode, co-host of The Church Split, posted a clip on Twitter of White admitting he had not watched the entire episode. It should be noted Brian only chose to do this because at this point White called Pallmann a liar and myself a heretic on various episodes.

“@HwsEleutheroi @thechurchsplit
I have a lot of respect for Dr. White and I find the banter between Will/David and him funny, but you have to admit, if you are going to characterize something, its (sic) best to watch the whole thing first before making 3 separate response videos to it..”
Brian Bode (02/15/2022 at 8:03pm)

James White to Brian Bode:

“Could you explain why I would have to listen to all of it to correct the errors that are present from the start? Do you really think they went back and fixed their whoppers later on?”
James White

Brian Bode to James White:

“Yes because if Will did a book review of the Potter’s Freedom and read only chapter 1 you would have made the same comment. In your debates you tell people they can’t use an argument one way to prove their point and then the opposite way to prove their next point.”
Brian Bode

*White never responds*

Will Hess to Brian Bode:

“I mean this is the person who tweeted today that Molinists deny the triune God and that we never demonstrated any misrepresentations – although we did.
Ex: Molinists are not trying to rob God of any freedom. Not a single one would claim that’s the reason for their belief.”
Will Hess

I was referencing a Tweet from earlier where White, once again, attacked Molinists through misrepresentation and practically called them heretics who deny the Triune God of Christianity. In the following discourse you will see that he denies such a claim, but again, words have meaning and you can’t have your cake and eat it too. White also claimed that Pallmann and myself never demonstrated a single moment where White misrepresented another view. This however is not only false, but becomes obvious when one reads the Tweet I was referencing regarding the Triune God. Here is the aforementioned tweet.

“It is seriously sad that someone who claims to be a Reformed theologian could parallel God’s freely ordaining “whatsoever comes to pass” with Hydra controlling Bucky’s mind. This is why Molinism creates the myth of MK: they do not believe the Triune God, who split the sea, …raised the dead, multiplied the fishes and loaves, holds the billions of galaxies in His hand yet froze time in place to prove His faithfulness (Joshua 10:13), could create the realm of time in which to display His glory, reveal His attributes, all with exact precision, …so that His perfect will is accomplished by means of the real, meaningful, culpable actions of creatures made in His image.”
James White (02/13/2022 at 9:56pm)

(I will address this tweet later on, but for now I will just use it to provide context.)

James White to Will Hess:

“Will, your reading comprehension is so skewed by your bias it is shocking.
No semi-unbiased person could misread what I wrote as badly as you did.
Take a deep breath, put your detestation of Calvinism aside, and try reading what I wrote one more time. I’ll wait.”
James White

Notice the tone that White automatically takes by attacking character and intelligence, rather than addressing the topic at hand. You see, I wasn’t aware of this tweet until a Facebook group I am a member of posted it, and everyone was trying to figure out if White truly meant that Molinists deny the Triune God, His deeds, or His attributes. I was not alone in reading it this way (even in the thread this conversation is taking place in). It’s a sort of “hot take” on Molinism by the very person who maligned Pallmann for his own “hot take”. The difference is, Pallmann admitted his was a hot take, but White does not. This is because White’s post wasn’t intended to be a hot take, but a statement he believed to be logically coherent and fundamentally sound. It’s not…

Will Hess to James White:

“Condescension won’t get you far with me. These are your words. You said Molinists don’t believe in the Triune God, who accomplishes all these non-controversial things.
It’s not my detestation of Calvinism here that’s the issue – it’s your misrepresentation of Molinists.” *posts screenshot of aforementioned tweet*
Will Hess

James White to Will Hess:

“So, I point out that in English, the direct object of the denial is “could create the realm of time,” NOT “the Trinity,” and despite this obvious, inarguable reality, you refuse to accept the correction?”
This is amazing evidence of a serious imbalance, Will.”
James White

Will Hess to James White:

“Again, condescension doesn’t work. But it was a run on sentence. (sic) One that myself and others couldn’t even decifer. (sic) (typo: decipher. White was quick to point this out on his blog.)

Regardless, molinists (sic) affirm God is outside of time and created it. So to say Molinists “deny the triune God…could create the realm of time” – is blatantly untrue.

So you have a misrepresentation – again. Just another demonstration of it.

Also, it was admittedly sloppily worded, but according to your own standard, If someone sloppily misspeaks – they aren’t to be taken seriously at all.

Is it true for me but not for thee?”
Will Hess

The point here is obvious for anyone reading with a shred of honesty. He states that we never demonstrated how we misrepresented him, while saying Molinists deny the very thing they ardently affirm. Not just something they affirm, but something that is intrinsic to their doctrine. Namely, that God is outside of time, and created the realm of time. My other points regarding “if someone sloppily misspeaks” was in reference to his show where because I misspoke on a small statement – he states I shouldn’t be taken seriously. My point here was to show that in his efforts to come off superior, he is only coming off petty and pedantic. At this point a simple apology for the misrepresentation would suffice or a clarification statement on what was truly meant definitionally. Instead, White doubles down and chooses to condescend further.

James White to Will Hess:

“Will, my original thread was clear. I have “admitted” nothing about it being “sloppily worded.” Could you demonstrate where it was, grammatically?

The fact is, you misread it, then doubled down on the misreading, and now are saying it was “sloppily worded.” …

The problem here, Will, is that you are ostensibly “reviewing” a book that is many thousands of times longer than my tweet. If you failed so badly with 115 words (I counted), doesn’t this explain the face-plantingly bad content we have reviewed thus far?”
James White

Take note of the side step here, that he is not dealing with the accusation of misrepresentation, but instead is trying to speak adjacent to the topic at hand. I want to discuss the actual meaning of his words, and he is attempting to argue for grammatical structure. (Hilariously, my sister actually parsed the sentence out and we will likely feature it on a future program where she shows the misplaced comma that causes the confusion).

Will Hess to James White (at 3:20pm):

“You can’t help but be pedantic can you? Again, condescension doesn’t work on me nor does it make me feel any less, it just shows a woeful argumentation flaw here.
It wasn’t clear. I am not the only one who noticed such. However, let’s say for the sake of argument it was. Even if it was clear. Each and every one of those attributes the majority of Christians agree with. Molinists even affirm that God created time, they definitely affirm that God split the Red Sea -so you’ve essentially stated that Molinists deny the acts of God in scripture. Which is the same thing in essence. You can spin this however you want, but your statement is a misrepresentation of Molinists. I don’t know a single Molinist that denies any of those attributes. So yea, it was sloppy. So according to your own answer, anyone who misspeaks shouldn’t be taken seriously…they shouldn’t be taken seriously and it was even “embarrassing”. (referencing his own words toward me on his program)
No matter which way you spin this – it flies in the face of your own statements. That’s the reality.
So I’m not doubling down, I’m merely saying that no matter which way you spin it – you stated that Molinists deny the very God of Scripture they affirm. When (sic) (typo: whether) you mean His tri-unity or His attributes and actions.”
Will Hess

*White never responds*

This tweet was never published by Dr. White and I believe it is obvious as to why. Molinists affirm that God, “could create the realm of time in which to display His glory, reveal His attributes, all with exact precision, …so that His perfect will is accomplished by means of the real, meaningful, culpable actions of creatures made in His image.” By claiming that Molinists deny such, he is saying that they deny the very attributes of the Triune God that Christians affirm. For him to claim that he never said they denied the Triune God is to be obtuse. Let me give an example. If I said that I love my wife, but I can’t stand that she’s 4’ 10”, Korean, introverted, quiet, selfless, sweet, and meek – one would rightfully point out, “Will, you said you love her, but it sounds like you hate everything about her.” Such an objection would be appropriate. Likewise, to say that Molinists don’t believe the Triune God could create the realm of time to display His glory, reveal His attributes, accomplish His will all with perfect precision, is to say that Molinists don’t affirm the Triune God at all. To deny His attributes while affirming who He is would be nonsensical. This is the primary reason why myself and others objected to his statement. Regardless, this point was lost on White and he chose to ignore it. Hours later he published an article containing only a few of my tweets while removing all of his own in favor of a narration.

“I have compiled an article documenting @thechurchsplit ‘s errors and falsehoods concerning the thread from 2/13. I hope he will retract his false statements.” Link
James White Tweets at 6:29pm

Will Hess to James White:

“Ah, so we don’t respond anymore – we just write articles. Got it 👍
So to be clear – Molinists don’t believe the Triune God split the Red Sea? Asking because a lowly podcaster doesn’t understand sentences.”
Will Hess

Due to White’s tendency to ignore actual points against his statements, refuse to interact with actual objections, and only to gaslight and shift – I began to treat his statements the same way I would treat most any other twitter troll – with a sharp sense of sarcasm. Whether one agrees with this approach or not is irrelevant at this point. I have a general rule, people who refuse to engage you meaningfully, understand your position, speak with clarity, or act overly dismissive to your points – don’t really need to be taken seriously. White had only served to remind me of many of the most staunch IFB pastors or progressive Christians I had interacted with on the dumpster fire that is Twitter. By sidestepping, ignoring, condescending, and gasligthing, I knew not to take anything else he had to say with any amount of seriousness.

James White to Will Hess:

“I will add this to the end, if you wish, as final documentation that you refuse all correction, and intend to stick to your straw man misreading of the original statement. Give me a few moments.”
James White

(I was pleased to see that this did indeed make it into his post)

Once again, instead of engaging meaningfully, he just threatens to publish one last tweet as if I were a misbehaving child. The irony here is not lost on me though. For I had explained multiple times that White had misrepresented Molinists and his statements were not accurate. Instead of at least admitting how the misunderstanding could have taken place, he doubled down. He refused all correction. The very thing he was accusing me of. This is why rather than gaslighting and condescending, a meaningful explanatory conversation is likely more beneficial. Which is why I took the time to explain the issues and even gave room for the possibility of misunderstanding by granting a few of his points. However, White would not return the favor. Thus, I chose to remain cheeky while giving him one last time to give me a straight answer.

Will Hess to James White:

“You seem awfully upset for me just doing what I was decreed to do…
To be clear then, Molinists do not believe that God created time? Split the Red Sea? I mean…I’d hate to come off like I “refuse correction” but at this point it seems we are being a bit obtuse.”
Will Hess

*White Never Responds*

Others pointed out to White that his statement was unclear, and that others read it as offensively as I did. Rather than taking a moment to see why this could be, White chooses to double down and condescend to those who were objecting. One such example is:

James White to Someone Else:

“Wait…more people actually can twist my sentence into an assertion Molinists deny the Trinity? How? Please explain this process to me, since you have called me a liar now.”
James White

White’s followers were saying I and others have “8th grade reading levels” amongst a cacophony of other bloviating responses. Regardless of their statements, either White is saying that Molinists deny the Triune God, the actions that God has done, or the attributes that make Him uniquely God. All of which is a lie against Molinist positions and is blatantly untrue. If he wants to discuss how exactly those things are defined, that would seem a much more honest approach. Unfortunately, oftentimes in our effort to be grandiose in our speech – it can lead to imprecision. Normally, I would overlook such an error, but White has recently shown that he is unable to do so, and it is my goal to simply expose that he cannot live up to his own standards that he lambasts others for.

THREAD WITH BRIAN

White:

“Could you explain why I would have to listen to all of it to correct the errors that are present from the start? Do you really think they went back and fixed their whoppers later on?”
James White

Brian:

“Dr. White – to be fair to you I bought your book today.
One thing I found ironic was on page 22 when you say Geisler made no “attempt… to address the actual argument and the reasoning set forth”.
So you do agree with addressing the best arguments and not say the 1st 20 min.”
Brian Bode

White:

“I believe I asked you before: are you seriously objecting to responding to clear and obvious errors presented in the first few minutes of a lengthy video if I do not listen to the rest of it? Could you explain why I should wait to correct errors? Goodness, these guys say … there will be four or five of these videos. Using your reasoning, I should sit silently until they post the last one, right?
I took the time to show Dr. Geisler tremendous respect by carefully examining his writings on this topic, buying out-of-print copies of his works,
and following his arguments up to the present work. I had even written to him in the process of writing my own work, asking him to explain certain aspects of his position.
There is no parallel to a supposed “review” done by two wildly unbalanced and biased critics.”
James White

I wanted to point out something that I think is important. White claims that Pallmann and myself are not balanced and that we are biased. The Church Split regularly admits that we have a bias – because everyone does. The idea of perfect objectivity is generally a myth. We all have preconceived notions and lean toward our bias. This is why we continually push that we need to escape our own echo chambers to help challenge our own biases. White is ardently Reformed – does that make him wildly unbalanced or unbiased? According to his own standard, yes. Honestly, I would just argue that he has a bias and we have a bias. Thus, we should challenge our biases and merely recognize them.

Brian:

“So far you have responded to their jokes, a couple comments about your book as a whole, and even responded to a comment of a viewer Will read.
So yes I think the prudent thing would be to take the 2 hours to listen to something in its entirety before characterizing its whole.”
Brian Bode

White:

“I’m sorry, but what you are talking about, Brian?
I have responded, rather fully, on issues related to the Reformation, which they said I was utterly ignorant of. I demonstrated the opposite. What are you referring to?”
James White

Brian:

“Right, that’s kinda my point, you have responded in great detail to a few jokes and initial characterizations. I have your book in hand as we speak, imagine if I gave a 30 min response to ch 1 noting that you barely mention geisler, not having read ch 2 yet where you clearly do.”
Brian Bode

*White Never Responds*

What Brian is pointing out is entirely true. On White’s program he debunked and attacked a few jokes cracked by myself (as if the joke itself was meant to be an argument) and then responded fully on Luther’s views of the Reformation – which neither Pallmann nor myself even touched on. The topic of the series is White’s book, not a play by play of the Reformation. This seems to have been lost on White as he continually side steps the points being made and continues to speak about the Reformation as if that is the focus of mine and Pallmann’s discussion. It’s not.

Brian also points out that one should essentially “do their research” before painting with a broad brush. This is something Brian and I are passionate about because before we do any one of our rebuttal videos – we listen to the episode at least three times. We make notes and discuss what we think they mean by their statements. We attempt to do substantive responses devoid of ad hominem or other character attacks. This is why Brian had not joined us in our review – he hadn’t read the book and thought it would be dishonest. Granted, now he has read the book and will be joining us in the future.

What is the moral of all this? That White would make a great journalist on CNN with his obvious slanted blog post? Perhaps. Maybe it’s that I should be more careful on exactly how I speak (or type) lest someone becomes pedantic? Possibly. However, I would posit that the greatest lesson in all of this is that Twitter is a toxic wasteland of absurdity where only those who are truly masochists spend their time.

In all seriousness, it is not my goal to continually stir up trouble. I have no issue with people responding to my beliefs, framing them in a way that is consistent with their own beliefs, or even rebutting my thoughts. I do however take issue with lies and half truths while claiming to be dignified in the entire exchange. I am far from perfect, and I am happy to admit fault when I am at fault. I will not however remain silent when someone chooses to slander in such a dishonest way, calls someone who holds to orthodoxy a heretic, and calls another person a liar as he references your own public statements. If we want unity in the body of Christ – we will need to be a bit more honest than that.

Now, I am far too busy to continually edit this post with any sort of update, and since I want this to be a living breathing document – enjoy the following feed.
Tweets by HwsEleutheroi
A Time to Forgive People Who Reject Classical Theism

By Jordan Ferrier

A layperson’s response to Chris Stockman’s assertion that the God of Classical Theism cannot forgive sinners because forgiveness requires an immutable, atemporal, God to change.

Classical Theism (CT) is a vast topic. In 2023, Fuqua and Koons released a book, Classical Theism: New Essays on the Metaphysics of God. Taking a look at the table of contents, the individual essays have many types of Classical Theists: there are chapters that reflect a wide variety of faith backgrounds; Jewish, Islamic, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox.

CT spans a great deal of time, from Parmenides, who lived about 500 years before Christ, to John Duns Scotus (at least), who lived 1200 years after Christ’s triumph over Satan.

In Deuteronomy 6:4, Moses told Israel that God had told him to tell them, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

If you believe that God is one, you are some sort of Classical Theist; however, for over a millennia, Christian theologians have been asking, “God is one what?” and different Classical Theists have answered that question in different ways, which leads to quite a bit of confusion.

To try and clear up this confusion, I will try and present two very different views of God that were held by two of the theologians that Stockman referred to in his article, Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 A.D.), and Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274 A.D.)

Augustine was born in 354 in North Africa. His mother was a Christian, and his father was a pagan. While he received a Christian education, when he was 18, Augustine moved to Carthage and fully indulged in its pagan culture and had a son out of wedlock at the age of 19. While he was 19, Augustine read Cicero and declared that while rhetoric was his profession; his heart was in philosophy. Augustine became a Manichaean and struggled with the Epicurean problem of evil. After teaching rhetoric at Carthage, Augustine moved to Italy at the age of 29 and opened a school of rhetoric. After a few years, Augustine moved to Milan, read the works of Plato and Plotinus, and fully embraced Christianity at the age of 33. Augustine worked to fuse Platonic philosophy with Christian dogmas, and continued to struggle to resolve the problem of evil. Augustine returned to North Africa at the age of 34, where he served many years in the church at Hippo as a Priest and eventually as Bishop. (A much fuller account of the life of Augustine may be found at newadvent.org, St. Augustine of Hippo).

After converting to Christianity, Augustine had to reconcile how evil came into the world with his belief in the God of the Bible. We need to think through how Augustine thought of God, and how Augustine rationalized an answer to the problem of evil, which allowed him to believe that God existed, was Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent.

The problem of evil has 3 basic components:

An Omnipotent God could stop evil from coming into the world.

An Omnibenevolent God would want to stop evil from coming into the world.

We could easily blame a previous evil for a current evil, but the problem of evil asks how evil came into the world. To answer, “How did evil come into the world”, we need to restrict the discussion to how the first evil came into the world, rather than how evil keeps coming into the world today.

Augustine believed that Adam committed the first sin (Romans 5:12), that God, by his Omnipotent power could have stopped Adam from sinning, thus, it must be good that there is evil in the world.

Augustine wrote, “Nor can we doubt that God does well even in the permission of what is evil. For He permits it only in the justice of His judgment. And surely all that is just is good. Although, therefore, evil, in so far as it is evil, is not a good; yet the fact that evil as well as good exist, is a good. For if it were not a good that evil should exist, its existence would not be permitted by the Omnipotent Good” (Enchiridion, C. 96).

Augustine used what I call an “Omni-benevolence category theodicy”. This category of theodicy tries to explain why it was good for God to ordain, permit, or otherwise allow evil to come into the world, because God, being Omnipotent, could have stopped evil from coming into the world.

How God can will evil to happen, and it is good that evil happens, was a conundrum Augustine solved by stating, “Accordingly, in the case of these contraries which we call good and evil, the rule of the logicians, that two contraries cannot be predicated at the same time of the same thing, does not hold” (Enchiridion, C. 14).

God can will evil, and it is good that God wills evil, because the rules of logic do not apply to God’s Omni-benevolence.

Augustine also believed that everything happens as God wills, “Nothing, therefore, happens but by the will of the Omnipotent, He either permitting it to be done, or Himself doing it” (Enchiridion, C. 95).

In Parmenides, Plato writes, “Must it not be of a single something, which the thought recognizes as attaching to all, being a single form or nature.”

For Augustine, God was one essence, and the essence of God is a will. God is to be conceived of as one will, and the forms of God’s will would be a perfect will, an ordaining will, a will of permission, etc.

For Augustine, some of the attributes of God are incomprehensible. For example, why did God love one twin and hate the other? Because, “The love, therefore, wherewith God loves, is incomprehensible and immutable” (Tractate 110).

God, prior to creation, willed everything that would take place, and knew everything that would take place. After creation, God either did everything himself, or permitted the creatures he created to do what he willed prior to creation of the universe.

Augustine also spent a great deal of time on Romans 9 and how the election of Jacob and Esau, before they were born, fit into the will of God. Prior to any person being created, God willed the eternal destination of each person. God being in the Heavens, and doing as He pleases, means that God could permit Adam to sin and bring evil into the world, and God could choose to save some from eternal destruction, and pass over others and permit them to spend eternity in hell.

Augustine wrote, “The condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace” (Enchiridion, Ch. 100).

Any parent will tell you that it is difficult to think of one of your children suffering eternal conscious torment in the fires of hell. Augustine had to reconcile a God who is love, whose will is always done, who could give the gift of faith to every person which would guarantee their salvation, with people going to hell.

Augustine wrote, “Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He ‘will have all men to be saved,’ although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the Omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, ‘Who will have all men to be saved,’ as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will our salvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished” (Enchiridion, Ch. 103).

Again, Augustine is convinced that an Omnipotent God could save all, so God must have willed many not to be saved. How could a good and just God, will most people to spend eternity in hell, when God could save every single one?

Augustine answers this question in On The Trinity, Book 5, Chapter 1, by positing that God is without passion. If God suffered when a person made in His image went to hell, then God would want to save everyone:

The “creator though He lack nothing, ruling but from no position, sustaining all things without having them, in His wholeness, yet without place, eternal without time, making things that are changeable, without change of Himself, and without passion”.

If God could be made to suffer passion by the creatures He made, God would not send anyone to hell. For Augustine, God being impassible means that God dispassionately predestined most people to hell when he created the world. God wills all people to sin, and God wills to forgive some people. This is all done prior to creation, according to the will of God, which makes the will of God immutable. God is able to forgive the sins of the elect because God willed to forgive the sins of elect prior to God creating the world, which means God can forgive without His will changing.

The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century was a revival of Augustinian theology. Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk. John Calvin stated that he agreed with Augustine.

John Calvin wrote, “In a word, Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so, with all fullness and satisfaction to myself, out of his writings” (EPG, p. 20).

Calvin, “It would be utterly absurd to hold, that anything could be done contrary to the will of God . . . Whereas, Augustine proves, by this very argument, that everything that is done on Earth, is effectually ruled, and overruled, by this secret providence of God. Nor does he hesitate to conclude, that everything that is done, is done by the will of God” (EPG, p. 190).

Calvin, “But it could not be otherwise. Adam could not but fall; according to the foreknowledge and will of God” (EPG, p. 76).

Calvin, “The eternal predestination of God, by which He decreed, before the fall of Adam, what should take place, in the whole human race, and in every individual thereof, was unalterably fixed and determined” (EPG, p. 108).

Calvin, “Augustine then adds this short sentence; ‘These are the mighty works of the Lord! Shining with perfection in every instance of His will . . . (God) accomplished what He willed, righteously, and with the height of all wisdom: overruling the evils done, to the damnation of those whom He had justly predestinated to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom He had mercifully predestined to grace” (EPG, p. 26).

Calvin, “Augustine testifies, that men are not chosen because they believe; but, on the contrary, are chosen that they might believe”, “Again, in another place, he says, ‘Who created the reprobate but God? And why? Because He willed it? – Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?’” (EPG, p. 23).

Hopefully you can see from those quotes that Calvin is saying the same thing about Augustine’s version of Divine Simplicity as what I have been describing. This version of Divine Simplicity means that everything takes place necessarily, as God willed it from eternity past, and God is immutable (steadfast) so what he decreed and ordained to happen from eternity past will not change: Calvin, “All we say is that God is in charge of the world which He established and not only holds in his power the events of the natural world, but also governs the hearts of men, bends their wills this way and that in accordance with His choice, and is the director of their actions, so that they in the end do nothing which He has not decreed, whatever they may try to do. Accordingly we say that those things which appear to be in the greatest degree due to chance happen of necessity – not by their own innate properties but because the purpose of God, which is eternal and steadfast, is sovereign in governing them” (BLW, p. 38). Calvin continues, “Accordingly everything that happens, happens of necessity, as He has ordained” (BLW, p. 39).

Martin Luther, a monk in an Augustinian order of the Roman Catholic Church, said much the same thing, “You openly declare that the immutable will of God is to be known, but you forbid the knowledge of His immutable prescience. Do you believe that He foreknows against His will, or that He wills in ignorance? If then, He foreknows, willing, His will is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so: and, if He wills, foreknowing, His knowledge is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so. From which it follows unalterably, that all things which we do, although they may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, and even may be done contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily and immutably, with respect to the will of God. For the will of God is effective and cannot be hindered; because the very power of God is natural to Him, and his wisdom is such that He cannot be deceived. And as His will cannot be hindered, the work itself cannot be hindered from being done in the place, at the time, in the measure, and by whom He forsees and wills” (BW, Sect. 9).

Luther is rejecting simple foreknowledge, that God knows what will take place in the future: Luther is saying that God wills what will take place in the future, so God knows what will take place in the future.

Luther goes on to clarify what he meant by things “even may be done contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily”. While God is a necessary being, we are contingent beings, thus, when Luther says something is done contingently, he means that it is done by a contingent creature, not that the choice was contingent upon the creature’s decision, “But, (that we may not be deceived in terms) being done by contingency, does not, in the Latin language, signify that the work itself which done is contingent, but that it is done according to a contingent and mutable will – such a will as is not to be found in God! Moreover, a work cannot be called contingent, unless it be done by us unawares, by contingency, and, as it were, by chance; that is, by our will or hand catching at it, as presented by chance, we thinking nothing of it, nor willing anything about it before” (BW, Sect. 9).

Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century, about 900 years after Augustine. The Roman Catholic Church was completely Augustinian by this time. Augustine was a “Doctor of the Church”, and to go against Augustine would be to go against the teaching Magisterium, which would be tantamount to saying that the Roman Catholic Church was not the Church Jesus founded on Peter, the rock.

In his book on Thomas Aquinas, G.K. Chesterton remarks, “St. Thomas, for all his love of Greek philosophy, saved us from being Platonists” (Ox, p. 12). Chesterton continues, “So the Thomist was free to be an Aristotelian instead of being bound to be an Augustinian” (Ox, p. 18).

Chesterton was simply pointing out the historical fact that Luther, Calvin, etc., were Augustinian Platonists, while people like himself (and C. S. Lewis) were Thomistic Aristotelians. Aquinas would recycle the same words Augustine used, while giving them very different meanings, which means we need to pay careful attention to the details to grasp the differences between the two.

For Aquinas, God is one essence, and is to be conceived of as His attributes.

Rather than the essence of God being a will, Aquinas taught that God’s essence is His existence.

Aquinas gave an example similar to this:

A Pterodactyl has essence and used to have existence.

An Ostrich has essence and has existence.

A Pegasus has essence but has never had existence.

Pterodactyls had existence, but no longer do.

An Ostrich currently has both essence and existence.

The Pegasus is a mythological creature that has an essence, but has never had existence.

Essence and existence are separable in created beings.

God, having Aseity, was not created, thus, essence and existence are not separable in God, God’s essence is His existence.

Aquinas, “God is the same as His essence or nature” (Prima Pars, Q3, A3).

“Therefore, it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence” (Prima Pars, Q3, A4).

Aquinas agreed with Augustine that “God is truly and absolutely simple” (Prima Pars, Q3, A7).

However, Aquinas disagreed with Augustine that everything happens as God wills it: “The foregoing is to set aside the error of certain persons who said that all things proceed from God according to His simple will, which means that we are not to give an explanation of anything except that God wills it” (SCG, 1.87.5).

We need to return to the problem of evil.

Aquinas wrote, “Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of Divine Omnipotence” (Prima Pars, Q25, A3).

Aquinas used what I call an “Omnipotence category theodicy”. This type of theodicy shows that it is logically impossible for God to stop evil from coming into the world after God creates creatures with real freedom.

For example, when God created Adam:

Adam was created in the image of God

Adam was created with rectitude of nature

Adam was adorned with the light of reason

Adam’s will was ordered to the good.

Benevolence is “to will the good of another”, and God, being Omni-benevolent, willed the good of Adam.

God did not both will the good of Adam and for evil to befall Adam. That would be logically contradictory.

God gave Adam real freedom. This good gift was given through the freedom to eat from every tree, with a prohibition of eating from one tree. Even Omnipotence could not give freedom and withhold it at the same time, thus, contrary to Augustine, God could not stop Adam from eating from the prohibited tree after Genesis 2:17.

God did not want Adam to do the opposite of what God commanded Adam to do.

God did not give Adam permission to sin.

God did not allow Adam to sin; to allow something implies the power to stop it from taking place.

God did not will Adam to sin. If God willed Adam to sin, then it is a sin to do the will of God.

Aquinas rejected the Nominalism of Augustine (that two contraries can be predicated of God’s goodness at the same time, thus the rules of logic do not apply to God), and taught that God cannot do what is logically contradictory: give real freedom to Adam and withhold it at the same time, or, lie to Adam and remain the Truth, because a being that is both the truth and a liar is logically contradictory and nonsense.

Ed Feser, in his “Beginners Guides to Aquinas” states, “Aristotle and Aquinas would also be baffled by the modern tendency to think of causation as essentially a relation between temporally ordered events” (p. 20). Feser continues, “For Aristotle and Aquinas, it is things that are causes, not events; and the immediate efficient cause of an effect is simultaneous with it, not temporally prior to it” (p. 21).

Now, if that paragraph does not make much sense to you, perhaps you can concede that the task of explaining Thomistic Divine Simplicity is a bit tricky.

A comparison between the “Kalam cosmological argument” vs Aquinas “argument from motion for the existence of God” may bring some clarity.

The Kalam states that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist; Therefore, the universe has a cause. God did not begin to exist, God has always existed; Therefore, God is the cause and creator of the Universe.

The Kalam invites the reader to think back in time to the beginning of the universe. It is an argument that uses temporally ordered events. While I am not opposed to the Kalam as an argument for the existence of God, there are a few things to consider:

Could it be argued that God wound up the world and walked away?

Could it be argued that the prior event caused the current event, which stretches back to the creation of the world, which implies that everything was determined by how God created the world? After all, Atheists (like Sam Harris) concede that temporally ordered events means that everything is determined by the universe, and humans do not have free-will.

Can it be proven scientifically or philosophically that the world began to exist? Aquinas didn’t think so, instead, he thought that the fact that the Universe began to exist could only be known by Divine revelation.

To explain how Aquinas explained causation, I need to define and explain several terms:

Power is “potent”, as in, God is Omni-potent; thus, God is all powerful.

A potential is “potency”. A dog has the potential to wake up and run across the room.

While the dog is asleep, it is both potent (having the power to run), and potency (having the potential to run).

Act is “actuality”. The dog in the act of running has actualized the power to run and “moved” from the potency of running to the act of running.

In agreement with Aristotle, Aquinas stated, “potency does not raise itself to act; it must be raised to act by something that is in act” (SCG, 1.16.3).

Aquinas, “God is eternal: Everything that begins to be or ceases to be does so through motion or change. Since, however, we have shown that God is absolutely immutable, He is eternal, lacking all beginning or end (SCG, 1.15.2).

Aquinas is saying that God is immutable because God does not move from potency to act, because anything raised from potency to act must be raised by another that is in act; thus, “There is no passive potency in God” (Aquinas, SCG, 1.16).

Next we need to discuss the four causes: efficient, material, formal, and final cause.

Several years ago, I wanted to get a dog for my kids to enjoy. Before we bought the dog, I wanted to have a fenced in backyard, so I could let the dog out the back door in our suburb and not have to worry about it.

My work, every evening and weekend for months on end was the efficient cause of the fence.

The type of fence I built, made of wood, plastic, and metal, was the material cause.

The fact that it was a fence was the formal cause. You may be imagining a chain link fence, a wood picket fence, a fence made of vinyl panels, etc.; However, when you are driving through a suburb and see a fence, you know it is a fence, because it takes the form of a fence.

The final cause of the fence is fencing. The fence keeps the dog in and the neighbors out.

In summary:

Efficient cause: person

Material cause: wood, etc.

Formal cause: fence.

Final cause: the good of fencing.

Now, it probably is not too difficult for you to think of examples in your own life where you are the efficient cause, there is a material cause, where you form the material to effect a final cause.

The same four causes also apply to God.

God is the efficient cause of the Universe.

Matter is the material cause of the Universe.

Planets, people, animals, etc. are the formal cause.

The final cause is that what God created He ordered to the good (i.e., Adam and Eve).

After power, potency, act, and the four causes, I need to explain what is necessary and what is an accident.

Think of a loaf of bread that just came out of the oven.

What is necessary for the substance you just took out of the oven to be called a loaf of bread?

Does it have to be moist? No, you could have baked it until it was dry.

Does it have to be dry? No, it could be moist.

It is not necessary for dryness or moistness to be present for the substance to be a loaf of bread, so things that are not necessary are called “accidents”.

God is a necessary being, so there are no accidents in God.

The creatures that God creates are not necessary beings, so we are contingent.

God being necessary is a different “order” than contingent beings.

When God is the efficient cause of all things, God is the – first order efficient cause – of all things.

God, by the fact that he is upholding the Universe at this very moment, is the first order efficient cause of the entire Universe, and the fact that God is upholding the Universe is what makes it possible for a second order (contingent) person to be the efficient cause of building a fence.

The Thomist asks, “What attributes must God necessarily have prior to God creating anything?”

This is done by a process of remotion, where we remove what God is not, to know what God is (See SCG, 1.14).

God is not nonexistent, God is existence, which is the attribute of Aseity.

God is not finite, God is infinite.

God is not unjust, God is justice.

God is not willing the evil of another, God must be Omni-benevolent.

R.C. Sproul explains the Augustinian perspective of everything happens as God wills:

When evil comes into the world by God’s sovereign will, it is good that evil occurs (NC, 2007).

Vs.

Aquinas, “God cannot will evil” (SCG, 1.95).

God is not impotent, God must be Omnipotent.

God is not composed of potency and act, God must be pure actuality.

God is not composed, God must be simple (not divisible).

God is not changing (moving from potency to act), God must be immutable (always in actuality).

God is not created or His creation, God must be transcendent to His creation.

God does not fail to uphold the Universe, God is immanent to His creation.

God is not a liar, God is truth.

God is not unreliable, God is faithful.

God is not hate, God is love.

Etc.

Necessary attributes are pure actuality, they do not move from potency to act.

For example:

God is love.

Love is the essence, being, and substance of God.

Because God is love, God is jealous for those he loves.

Jealousy is not a necessary attribute, rather, it is the attribute of love in action.

Aquinas states, “An accident depends on a substance” (SCG, 1.23.7)

Jealousy is an accident, dependent upon the substance of love.

While God is jealous, and jealousy is an accident, jealousy is not a necessary attribute, or part of the essence, being, or substance of God.

God is just.

Because God is just, God hates evil.

While God hates evil, evil is an accident, evil is not a necessary attribute, or part of the essence, being, or substance of God.

When Thomists say that there are no accidents in God, that does not mean that the accidents of jealousy, grace, mercy, wrath, sovereignty, etc. are not attributed to God: those things are characteristics of God, that are attributed to God, that flow from the essence of God, and God is simultaneously all of His necessary attributes, but God is not simultaneously all of His characteristics.

As creatures, we are composed of both potency and act.

A tree has the potential to be cut down and made into a table.

The table has the potential to be cut up and used as firewood.

We all know a person who squandered their potential.

In Deuteronomy 30, God tells Israel through Moses, “I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction” (v. 15). Moses then explains that the choice is theirs to make. God has given contingent creatures the real freedom to choose to obey or disobey, and the choice is contingent on their decision.

The people Moses was speaking to had a will, an intellect, and a conscience. Paul explains “their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them” (Rom 2:15).

Choice is a function of the intellect, which is informed by the conscience.

People make choices, and then they either have the will to carry out that choice or not.

God cannot be good and withhold the grace people need to be able to choose him.

God cannot force people to freely choose him.

God has told us, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

When God gives the freedom of choice to people, like when God gave Adam and Eve the freedom to choose, and God gave Israel the freedom to choose, God still knows what will be chosen.

As Calvin explains, foreknowledge is not the cause of things (Institutes, 3.23.6).

Aquinas, “The Divine will does not remove contingency from things, nor does it impose absolute necessity on them” (SCG, 1.85).

God knew that the people of Keilah will hand David over to Saul (1 Samuel 23).

God knowing that the people of Keilah will hand David over to Saul did not cause it to happen.

God knowing that the people of Keilah will hand David over to Saul did not make it necessary that it happen.

God knew what will happen if David stayed in Keilah. God knew what will happen when he told David that the citizens of Keilah will hand David over to Saul if David chose to stay in Keilah.

God knew what will happen in both possible contingent futures.

When a choice is made by a contingent creature, and it is contingent upon their choice, people are able to do otherwise than what God wills. People are able to do otherwise than what God predestined. When God gives the freedom to choose to people, like he did to all the people of Israel, God cannot make every person choose life and prosperity. Foreknowledge does not cause an event to happen, and foreknowledge does not make an event necessary; God can intervene, like He did with David, and David made a different choice with his intellect, with the additional information God gave him.

For God to know how to correctly advise David, and for God to know how best to intervene, God needs to know all possible contingent futures. This is why in Thomistic Classical Theism, God is said to exist in eternity, outside of created time, because God is transcendent over His creation, and God simultaneously knows all possible contingent futures, which means that God knows how best to interact with each and every one of us.

The death of the timeless God has only taken place in the small minds of the philosophically inept.

This explanation started out by stating it would be: A layperson’s response to Chris Stockman’s assertion that the God of Classical Theism cannot forgive sinners because forgiveness requires an immutable, atemporal, God to change. Stockman also pointed out that for God to forgive, God would have to suffer passion and be “moved to do something in response to something outside of Himself”.

Aquinas, and Scripture, both say that “God is love”. For Aquinas, God is love in pure actuality. Each of God’s attributes extends to every other attribute, and God’s attributes are all co-extensive simultaneously.

God’s love is just.

God has the wisdom to love justly.

God has the power to wisely love justly.

The attributes of God that are necessary are all simultaneously one, because God doesn’t stop being just when he loves, and God doesn’t cease to be love when he dispenses justice.

God being impassible means that a contingent creature cannot swap places with God (a necessary being), and become the first order causation that moves God from the potency to love to the act of loving.

This would be like a stream rising higher than its source.

God is love, and God is already, and always, in the act of loving his creation. God is immutable because God does not change from potency to act. God can forgive sinners because sinners do not have to be the cause of moving God from the potential to love them to the act of loving them.

Stockman also wrote, “Classical Theism fundamentally denies that God even stands in a real relation to the world at all”, then quotes Aquinas, “But in God relation to the creature is not a real relation, but only a relation of reason; whereas the relation of the creature to God is a real relation, as was said above in treating of the divine names”.

The Question Stockman quotes from is Prima Pars, Q28, “Whether there are real relations in God?”

Aquinas answers, “Therefore as the Divine procession are in the identity of the same nature, as above explained, these relations, according to the Divine processions, are necessarily real relations” (Prima Pars, Q28). The relations Aquinas is considering are the concepts of paternity and filiation in God. As is stated in Q28, “The Father is denominated only from paternity; and the Son only from filiation. Therefore, if no real paternity or filiation existed in God, it would follow that God is not really Father or Son, but only in our manner of understanding; and this is the Sabellian heresy”.

For Aquinas, God is one nature and His creation is of a different nature.

If Stockman wants us to be in real relation to God, in the way Aquinas is discussing, then we need to be in very nature God.

If each of us is in very nature God, then God is a Quadrinity (or Trillioninity), rather than a Trinity.

For Aquinas, the creature is separate from God, and God is transcendent above His creation.

Stockman has simply misunderstood the definition of relation, and has stated something about Aquinas that is incorrect. If you have read this far, you can probably grasp how easy it is to misunderstand meanings when reading either Augustine or Aquinas.

A Time to Forgive?

You Might also like

Why I’m Not Quitting Ministry

When Words Just Don’t Mean Anything Anymore: Part 2

THREAD WITH BRIAN

A Time to Forgive People Who Reject Classical Theism