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):

1. They could deny that forgiveness involves a change in one’s evaluation of another person, or a change in one’s mental life.
2. They could deny that forgiveness needs to be given in response to something external to the agent.
3. They could deny that God’s forgiveness is anything like our forgiveness of each other.
4. They could deny that God had previously had a negative evaluation of us. 
5. They could deny that God currently has a positive evaluation of us.
6. 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:

1. If God is timeless, he is not capable of undergoing change in any form.
2. A necessary condition to being forgiven is that the subject initially have a negative evaluation of the object of forgiveness.
3. A necessary condition to being forgiven is that the subject no longer have a negative evaluation of the object of forgiveness.
4. Therefore, if God forgives someone, he goes from having a negative evaluation of them to no longer having a negative evaluation of them.
5. 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.
6. God is timeless.
7. Therefore, God cannot have a change in his mental and emotional life.
8. Therefore, God cannot go from having a negative evaluation of someone to no longer having a negative evaluation of someone.
9. Therefore, God cannot forgive anyone.

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

1. If God is impassible, he is not capable of being moved to do an action by anything external to himself.
2. If God forgives someone because they have repented, then he has been moved to act by something outside of himself.
3. God is impassible.
4. Therefore, God cannot be moved to act because of something outside of himself.
5. Therefore, God cannot forgive someone because they have repented.
6. 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.

By Will Hess

I have served in church leadership and pastorship for over a decade now and I have noticed a continual theme: pastors are quitting. I am not talking about those who have been involved in some form of infidelity (because I’ve seen that as well) but I am referring to good, honest, God-fearing pastoral families who are leaving ministry in droves. As someone who has also stepped down from full-time pastoral ministry – I have regularly found myself wondering why this was the case. Many people I knew who had stepped down from ministry were people of whom I had great respect for, personable, loved God, loved people, and were over all fantastic people that would be the benefit of any Christian fellowship. After talking to many of these individuals, I can honestly say, the reason we are losing good pastors is because of bad environments. We have a deeply sick disease at the root of our Western churches and the problem is only getting worse – not better.

Let me explain, for years all I wanted to be was a minister of the Word of God. Serving others, teaching others, and lifting up the Body of Christ. However, once I joined ministry, I experienced so many problems that it is hard to even know where to begin. I had to be a whistle blower on sexual abuse allegations while the lead pastor attempted to cover it up, I also experienced the nastiest forms of church politics, manipulation amongst the people, and saw people striving for power grabs and authority. While this was happening, most people were quick to critique, make accusations, and complain, but even fewer were willing to serve, assist, and build up. I experienced nasty division while my wife’s mother was passing away, and again when we lost two of our pregnancies. Yet, we pressed on. My wife and I continued to serve, but once she got pregnant for the third time, I knew it was time for a change. For the health of my wife and the health of my child.

This was one of the hardest decisions I had ever made because, truthfully, ministry was my life and dream. It is what I always wanted to do, but I also knew that this environment was not healthy for a family. I remember being puzzled, as it was nothing like what I thought ministry would be, and to this day, I do not believe it is what ministry should be. We sell ministry as a job that is focused on the Word of God and serving others for the sake of Christ. The reality is vastly different than the pitch and I think this causes pastors to reconsider their careers. Over the years I have contemplated the issues that ministry families face and thought I would document them here. This will be a different article than what we typically promote here. This one will not be biblically exegetical, nor will it attempt to be academic. This post I am hoping will help non-ministry families realize what their pastors are truly facing, help ministers articulate some of their own thoughts, and perhaps be something that can help steer our churches in the right direction.

NUMBERS DON’T LIE

All someone has to do is take a cursory view of statistics regarding pastors and it’s easy to see that our pastors are not okay. Currently 38% of pastors have considered leaving ministry this past year alone. I also know the vast majority of those who enter pastoral ministry, will not retire as ministers – meaning most of them quit along the way. The statistics are alarming and prove the mental health of our ministers are not in a good place. Frequently stating they are stressed, have no close friends, they were under-prepared at seminary, work absurd hours, and so much more – it’s no wonder 1,500 pastors leave the ministry every month. So why is that? In no particular order I will give various reasons I think ministry is not a viable field for many ministers.

ABSURD EXPECTATIONS

Pastors are often faced with expectations that are impossible for any one man to perform. My personal experience of this still has me laughing from time to time. In my second pastorate I was expected to be the lead pastor, preach three or more times a week, lead the youth group, lead praise and worship, lead a few bible studies, handle upkeep of over 5 acres of land, council people’s marriages, assist with financials, disciple various individuals, put together various curriculum, keep track of all church supplies, help in two remodeling projects at the church at a moment’s notice (and if I was unable to help whenever this gentleman chose to work on his project – I would be accused of being a lazy millennial), and many more. All this while placed in a tiny one-bedroom apartment making poverty level income. Eventually, once the old pastor moved, I moved into the parsonage which we found to be infested with hundreds of bats and falling apart. Apparently, the old administration knew of the infestation, they just didn’t do anything about it. Things spiraled even more out of control as we had to handle 3AM phone calls to help a hurting family, had to deal with sexual abuse within the youth group, substance abuse, and so much more.

Remember, this is just scraping the surface of my particular story and I have actually heard far worse stories than my own. No singular person can be expected to spearhead all these issues at once. Plus, each of these issues typically involves wildly different skill sets. Pastors shouldn’t be expected to be project managers, accountants, counselors, theologians, orators, and anything else you need him to be. A pastor is a man same as you and he has a particular skill set. Typically, that skill set involves counseling, preaching, teaching, and theology. Even amongst pastors, those categories range in strength. Some are better at preaching than they are systematically teaching. Some pastors are horrible speakers but wonderful counselors. A church should never expect their pastor to be the “one man with all the hats”. If a pastor is able to fill other roles and he wants to, that’s awesome! But it should hardly be the expectation.

In fact, I am aware of many churches who won’t hire a pastor unless he is able to play an instrument, sing, or lead worship. Which is frankly unacceptable, we are pastors, not entertainers. If you want a concert, go buy a ticket. If you want builders and architects, go hire one. If you want a CEO, get a job, and go work for a multi-billion-dollar corporation. These are not the roles of a pastor and many people have it entirely backwards. If your pastor is willing and able to do those tasks – great! But that’s not his job. According to Scripture, if a pastor meets the qualifications, he is to be a minister of the Word of God to the flock. That’s it. It’s not an easy job either, but it is what pastors are called to be. 

All this to say, pastors often are buried under unrealistic expectations. They clock in 55-75 hours a week and often don’t get a full day off to be with their family. In fact, those unrealistic expectations often are extended to the family as well. The pastor’s family isn’t to just be present within the ministry, but to be at the beck and call of everyone in the church. This often means pastor’s wives aren’t even able to plan their day with their families without the potential of it being entirely ruined or interrupted. After all, if you don’t live up to the expectations of people, the people will get upset, which will lead to more meetings, angry phone calls, and people leaving the church. One thing ministry taught me was how incredibly immature and fickle people can truly be. Wal-Mart Karens got nothing on Christian Karens and when the customers get upset – it will be hell to pay. (Pun intended)

THE KARENS STRIKE BACK

What most people end up saying here is, “well, if they don’t like the pastor, they can leave!” Which is true, but for pastors this isn’t so simple. If someone leaves the church, it is rarely peaceful. The person who leaves a fellowship often feels they have to validate their decision to leave, so they gossip behind the pastor’s back for months, find anything they can to twist and distort to make the pastor/church appear inadequate, defame his ministry tactics or capabilities, and once all the seeds of dissension have been properly planted and nourished – they will leave. Upon leaving, they will attempt to take as many with them as possible, this is often what is at the root of a church split. Typically, this means when someone leaves, it causes the pastor even more havoc as he is continually inculcated with demands for an explanation as to these people’s exodus and is forced into correcting the record of falsehoods, lies, gossip, and slander. I cannot tell you the number of backwards stories I have heard go through the rumor mill and come out the other side nearly unrecognizable.

Honestly, this is why whenever negative press comes out on any pastor, I am always apprehensive. I know many pastors who have been horrible and abuse their positions, but I also know even more great pastors whose names have been dragged through the mud over disgruntled members. This can get even more difficult for a pastor as sometimes they are privy to information that could save them from the persecution, but often it would mean exposing someone else’s grave sin in order to do so. Thus, many pastors will just take the beating, convinced they’re being a good martyr.  On the flip side, many abusive pastors know this, and will continually claim, “there’s more to it than that, but I am not at liberty to discuss this.” They use this tactic to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. Due to the complexity of perception, pastors often feel stuck between a rock and a hard place when disgruntled members go on the offensive. Either tell everyone the issue and risk gossiping yourself or come off like a potential abuser who withholds information. It’s a nasty spot to be in.

It’s also worth noting that when this occurs, pastors are forced to spend hours of their weeks stomping out unnecessary fires, all because some random member in the church chose to cause division in their disagreement and instead of leaving peacefully or striving for unity, they attempt one more political stunt to bring havoc onto the church and the pastor.

When those aforementioned unrealistic expectations are not met, busybodies get to work, and cause a pastor a lot of grief. If he’s lucky, the busybody will leave, along with their ilk. If he’s not lucky he could lose his job, livelihood, and home. Remember, for the congregation the church is just the building in which they fellowship. For the pastor, it is often his lifeblood. I have known pastors who have lost their jobs and home due to someone successfully turning a congregation on a pastor. In the end, these people are often too willing to sacrifice the pastor and his family on the altar of their own petty agenda.

This also means that every disgruntled member can become a serious financial threat to the church and the pastor’s family. Consider that if people leave so does their tithe. This means pastors are often faced with a choice of bending the knee to the demands of a mob or standing on their own principles and risk losing funding. Personally, I took a stand for what was biblical, consistent, and true, and this forced me to get a job to sustain myself as a minister – that way I could focus on ministry without financial pressure (one of the best decisions I ever made). However, this isn’t true for all pastors. Some pastors choose to either comply with the increasing demands of the people, or just shape the church’s culture to be as seeker friendly and milquetoast as possible. It’s no wonder so many pastors step down or lose all backbone. They’re people after all, just like you and me, and to continually fight can be exhausting.

Obviously, I do not think this is good. Pastors should have strong backbones and biblical principles and churches should support that. Congregants would do well to not making mountains out of mole hills. Your pastor isn’t perfect, and neither are you – there will be disagreements. This is why God calls us to humility. One of the marks of a truly healthy church is when people can disagree with each other without splitting the place asunder. Pastors, I’d also encourage you to be loving, gracious, and kind at all times, but if someone is causing division – follow Matthew 18:15-20 as fast as possible. Protect your flock and mark those that cause division.

Christian Karens aside, the primary reason pastors don’t want people to leave is because they want to see lives changed for God. Every person that leaves can often feel like a personal failure (and maybe it is) and thus pastors will usually fight to keep people rather than cast them out. Remember, pastors are shepherds, and they want to lead sheep and protect the church from wolves. It can be difficult for a pastor to come to terms that someone within his flock has been a wolf this whole time and it is better they depart than for them to stay.  Thus, he will often work hard to meet with the person, attempt to flesh out any obstacles between them, and try to bring reconciliation. This is because pastors want to see lives changed by Christ and unity to thrive amongst the brethren, it’s typically the driving force behind their call to ministry. (Because it certainly isn’t the money).

In short: church politics suck.

THE POVERTY GOSPEL

All this can leave great pastors emotionally and mentally strained. However, this merely brings us to discuss the financial issues pastors are faced with. Most pastors make precious little money. Most pastors (myself included) make poverty level salaries. Which gets increasingly absurd since churches often expect their pastors to have lofty seminary degrees while paying pennies to the metaphorical dollar. This creates a major imbalance for pastors as they are usually trying to pay off school debt while making barely any money. In all actuality, many pastors I know have had to go on government assistance just to make ends meet.

This gets even worse when it comes to dealing with upset people in the church. Every single person that leaves is also dollars leaving. Should pastors necessarily think this way? Probably not, but it doesn’t change the reality that people leaving the church means funding leaving the church. In other words, every single person that leaves could very well impact a pastor’s ability to put food on their table for their family. Most pastors I know will always choose to do the right thing, despite the financial pressures, but then we wonder why good pastors eventually quit? Probably because they don’t want their income and family’s well-being dependent or controlled by a fickle group of people who aren’t afraid to turn on you in a moment if they don’t get their way. Which is asinine since a church ought to be the hands and feet of Christ, meanwhile pastors often feel alone despite being surrounded by people (but more on that later).  It gets even worse when people actually threaten to leave and take their tithe with them (yes, this has happened to me. No, I did not acquiesce to the man’s request after that stunt).

Even more egregious is pastors are told, “this is the way it’s supposed to be. You shouldn’t be in it for the money! Was Jesus wealthy? Was Paul rich?” Yes, people will shame you just for desiring a living wage. Ironically, I was told this sort of thing continually from a person who was on the hiring committee at my second pastorate who made well over six figures a year.  Meanwhile this same individual would regularly be upset my wife and I didn’t continually host people at our house for dinner – despite them paying their last pastor twice as much. However, we could barely afford our own food, let alone paying multiple families. He chocked up my pay shortage to “a lack of experience” (I was fresh out of seminary but notice the corporate mindset already. Experience = more pay). I was young and naïve at the time, I shouldn’t have agreed to the salary in the first place, but I was sold on the poverty gospel. That I was to be a willing servant of the Lord no matter how little I made or how much it cost. After all, you can’t put a dollar amount on a soul! I still cringe at my naivety at the time.

Now, not all churches can afford to pay their pastor a living wage and keep the lights on. Most pastors understand that and are willing to endure for a while. That’s fine and even admirable. However, I would suggest that if a church is going to have multiple paid staff, their first goal ought always to be to get their pastor a full-time living wage. Take care of your Jerusalem before you worry about the uttermost. So often churches get financially bogged down by trying to get a better production, fancier programs, or perhaps they desire the noble goal of getting involved in missions. Although missions is great work, if the church can’t yet support their pastor on a full-time living wage, then they really shouldn’t be spending hundreds and thousands of dollars a year on missions where pastors are trying to get a full-time living wage. It’s putting the chariot before the horse. Consider, if your pastor is financially stable, he will be in a healthier state of mind and thereby become more effective in his position. Likely this will help create a healthy church which will grow and allow more financial latitude in order to support even more missions, non-profits, other pastoral staff etc.

This is of course only if a church truly desires to have a full-time pastor. However, I highly recommend having a bi-vocational pastor where he is asked to minister the Word of God, have the other logistics covered by the congregation, and have the expectations of availability adjusted accordingly. Paul was a tent maker, Jesus was a carpenter, have our pastors have their own trade as well. This will relieve tons of pressure on the pastors. If a church finds this untenable then they should seek to provide a living wage for their pastors while not making other unnecessarily large financial commitments.

It has been demonstrated that financial pressures can be the top thing that destroys marriages and drives people to depression – then we wonder why so many pastoral families fall apart? Why so many leave the ministry? Well, despite all the pressures in ministry, financial pressure is easily one of the top issues. This is why I, and many others, opted to enter the secular workforce and operate our own personal ministries independently. Think about that for a moment. Good pastors have chosen not to receive a salary at a church and continue to minister independently just to avoid the absolute trainwreck that is church-based financial pressure. Want healthy pastors? Have realistic expectations, don’t let small things get in the way, give your pastor space, and compensate them fairly. If you choose not to pay a pastor at all (as many pastors/churches choose to do), then adjust your expectations accordingly and understand his time will be far more limited.

LIVING IN A FISHBOWL

Pastors and their families are continually living under the microscope of other people’s perceptions. Often this leaves pastors and their families feeling like they are walking on eggshells – even in their own home. Remember those absurd expectations I rambled on about? This is where those expectations become invasive as everyone becomes the critic of you and your family. Your child having a bad day? People will think their pastor is a poor parent. Dealing with a personal family problem? People will think you’re distant and disinterested in the church. Like sci-fi movies? Well, someone at church might find those horrendously evil. Like to watch sports at your favorite bar and grill? Sounds good, unless Miss. Shirley at church doesn’t like the idea of her pastor going to a sports bar. Like to play video games online with your friends from seminary? Well, if brother Ken finds out, he’s going to be upset. Did you go shopping at Target? Well, someone’s going to get mad that you’re supporting a place with a backwards bathroom policy (while they order another package on Amazon). On and on I could go, but you get the picture. Everything you do is often scrutinized. You’re not allowed a personal life. Whatever you enjoy doing privately better stay private, or else you might be in for more church drama.

Consider what message this sends to pastors and their families. “Don’t tell anyone at church we watched Lord of the Rings, went to the movies, went to the beach, went to that restaurant, had a glass of wine, have an Amazon membership etc.” Due to constant scrutiny pastors often live secluded lives at home and have even fewer close friends. What this essentially communicates to pastors is they should live double lives. They should not be open and vulnerable but closed off from the very people they are to be shepherding. Where’s the sense in that? No one wants their job to be that invasive in their personal life. Well, neither do pastors, and this is one of the top complaints I have heard from ex-pastors. They were tired of their personal life always being under scrutiny because of the fickle nitpicking of cantankerous church members.

THE LONESOME ROAD

Now, if you consider everything I’ve discussed up to this point, it should be no surprise to you that many pastors don’t have close friends. In fact, in my first seminary, I was told not to have any close friends within the church I pastored. Why? Because I was to be their shepherd, not their friend. I deeply disagreed with this (and still do), so when I began pastoring, I befriended everyone. I was open and honest at all times – and this backfired hard. When decisions were made these people didn’t like, they were quick to take all our joking, confiding, general conversations, and twist them as weapons for their cause. I remember I was shocked when this happened. I couldn’t imagine Christians being so malicious toward one another (told you I was naïve). The first time this happened I remember thinking to myself, “screw it, I’m not befriending anyone. At this point, pastoring is my job. Nothing more.” I quickly realized how foolish and childish such a thought was and chose to press on. This happened a few more times and I grew increasingly apprehensive of developing any friendships within the church as I really didn’t want to deal with that sort of betrayal again. Originally, I thought my story was unique and I just happened to get the short straw.  That was until I began to talk to other pastors, and they echoed similar sentiments.

This didn’t make ministry any easier though. I didn’t have many close friends. Most my close friends were states away. Honestly, I accepted that I’d likely be mostly alone. I’d call friends and family whenever I really needed to talk to someone, and just continue pastoring my flock. I would bear the burdens of the flock, and my distant relationships would serve to bear my own burdens. Needless to say, this wasn’t healthy, but it was certainly better than dealing with potential drama. As I’ve spoken with and counseled other ministers, I have grown to realize many pastors operate the same way since being open and vulnerable with a group of people can result in people using that against you. Many pastors have no one to confide in if they’re struggling. After all, pastors are supposed to “have it all together” and thus are not allowed mistakes, human error, or struggles. It’s no wonder why so many pastors leave the ministry or fall into living double lives.

In all actuality, churches should strive to have an open and honest relationship with everyone within its walls, the pastor included. The church is instructed to operate in unity and bear one another’s burdens. Unity isn’t possible if people are continually striving to nitpick. Bearing burdens isn’t possible if no one is able to share their burdens. We will never succeed as a church if we continue to ostracize our ministers in hopes that in their isolation, they will remain strong. Pastors are often surrounded by people, but the loneliest person in the room. Everyone comes to him for their problems, but he has no one to confide in about his own burdens. After all, last time he did, someone condemned him for it, ran around, and used it as political leverage. I am not referring to grave immoral sin here either, I’m talking about standard struggles or even how he operates his own home on a day-to-day basis. Yes, even the daily operations of his home could come under fire because someone thinks he’s “too strict” while another person will accuse him of being “too loose”. It’s an impossible tightrope for many pastors to walk, so they just choose to distance themselves from the flock. Keeping their personal lives practically a secret.

CORPORATE CHURCH

A lot of these issues stem from the culture by which we have cultivated the church. Many of us go “church shopping” and enter churches wondering what the church can do for us and not what we can do for the church. This is because the Western world is extremely consumer and individualistically minded, and not communal. What can often happen is a new family comes into the church and begins to attend for a few months. The pastor has gotten to know them, maybe had them over for dinner, and invested into them. However, a while later these people leave because they feel the church doesn’t meet their needs.

I remember this happened with one family. We had gotten to know them over the course of a year, had dinner with them, went to movies with them, and even connected with their kids. Eventually this family left the church, why? Because they didn’t feel “connected” in the church. This same family would show up to service notoriously late and leave as soon as service was over. It was no wonder they weren’t connected to anyone in the church – they were never there. Want to get connected in the church? Get to know people within the church. Show up early and fellowship. Find ways you can serve in the church. To expect to barely show up, warm a pew, leave, and somehow have a rich connection is just unrealistic.

Situations like this can cause pastors or churches to stop viewing church members as Christian brothers/sisters but instead to begin viewing them as customers. After all, these people seem to only want to consume, not serve. They seem only interested in the self, and not others. Plus, if they leave, the church will lose funding, the pastor might lose his salary, a missionary might have to be dropped, and on and on the list could go. Thus, churches start aiming everything on Sunday morning to be a performance of sorts where they do everything they can to be as seeker friendly as possible. Does it tend to create shallow followers? Yes. But does it ensure the business model operates well and the customers stay happy? Absolutely.

This places undue pressure on pastors as they attempt to lead the church in the ways of God. Either they can gear things to be seeker friendly and compromise their principles, or they can stick to their principles, but many might protest that it’s not “inclusive” enough. This is the problem with corporate church -we’ve made pastorship a career and the congregation his customers. These customers will spend money there or take it on down the road where they can get a product that better suits them. It’s a relentless and unnecessary pressure all because we treat church like a business. The church should be a fellowship, the office of the pastor something to be respected, and the service should be used to encourage and equip the brethren. In short, the church ought to be a living and breathing organism. The goal should be to grow people spiritually, not necessarily numerically. It ought to be community minded, not individualistically focused. The church isn’t a business, it is the Body of Christ. A fellowship of believers.

In fact, I would personally encourage pastors to become bi-vocational if they can or in the very least have a skill that can effectively be used in the secular work force (after all, even Paul was a tent maker). This removes a lot of the aforementioned financial pressures, allowing the pastor financial freedom and it also pushes the church a little further away from a corporate model. However, if your pastor does serve in the workforce, then a church must adjust their expectations for a pastor. If he is juggling two jobs – then it will mean he’s going to have less time to do miscellaneous duties and will have to focus on the main parts of being a pastor. If you do choose to pay your pastor full-time then still be sure to curb expectations and not to create a corporate atmosphere where you’re the paying customer, he’s the CEO, and the church is the business. That is about as toxic as it is stupid and just creates numerous problems in a church.

BURNOUT

Needless to say, this can cause pastors and their families to experience exhaustion in the pastorate where they feel they are perpetually navigating a mine field. When I talk to pastors/missionaries I have repeatedly heard that they feel they are continually pouring out and very few people pour back. This isn’t because these people are weak or desire pity, it’s just spiritual physics. If you live to only serve others and never receive any form of appreciation, only demands, you will continually drain yourself. In short, ministers need to be ministered to as well. Sometimes this could involve a card, a gift, or just being willing to serve in the ministry. Sadly, most people prefer to attend than to serve, and this can be a serious discouragement to a pastor. If not discouraging, it can certainly be exhausting.

Think about it for a moment. A pastor is preaching multiple times a week, leads worship, has discipleship meetings, counsels people, hosts activities, studies, visits people in need, is filling in for three different ministries, and for weeks he has been announcing that they need someone willing to help in nursery. Weeks turn into months as he continues to announce that their nursery workers need help – all he ever receives is an awkward silence. For months he has been serving everyone beyond his expected duties, and he can’t even get someone to volunteer to go on a nursery rotation. This sort of thing is disheartening to a pastor because as he, and a select few people, continue to serve the congregation…the congregation never wants to serve in return. This can cause a number of problems: resentment toward the congregation, cliques amongst the leadership, the same people running things for years and eventually never wanting to give up their seat, and even complacency as people fall into routine. This list could be endless, but you get the point.

This pastor would obviously be struggling to keep his head above water. Let’s take the same pastor and say that on Sunday morning, right before he preaches, some lady in the church complains about a lack of family activities being done at the church. He acknowledges that he would like to create more opportunities for fellowship activities across all age groups and asks if she would be willing to organize such a thing. She responds with, “well, I’m super busy. I’m not looking to lead this thing, just thought it would be a good idea.” In a moment of transparency, the pastor responds, “well, if you’re not willing to lead it, I don’t think anyone’s going to. Most everyone else is stretched thin as it is.” Now, this Christian Karen gets upset and starts gossiping to everyone that pastor doesn’t care about fellowship, because if he did, he would do what she suggested.

The pastor goes up to the pulpit and preaches on Romans 9, ends service in a song, lifts up a final prayer, steps down from the platform and suddenly a man walks up to him and says, “I disagree with your take on that passage.” The man proceeds to tell him how theologically wrong the pastor is on this topic and others. The pastor asks if the man has read on the topic and studied it deeply. The man scoffs and says, “I don’t read them theology books. I just read the Bible for what it says!”. The pastor finds the statement amusing yet annoying as the pastor understands they both read the word but doesn’t mean you’re interpreting it properly. However, the pastor chooses to just graciously hear the man out and finally is cut loose from the awkward conversation. Suddenly he’s grabbed by someone else who informs him that Jane, an elderly woman in the church, lost her temper on Amanda again in the kitchen. The pastor begins to hurry over to see what the matter was, but not before he is grabbed by Richard who tells him “your sermons are good, but I really wish you’d slow down from time to time it’s hard to keep up with you!” Pastor acknowledges he could slow down and continues to walk quickly, trying to find Jane or Amanda. The words, “Hey Pastor!” ring across the hall, “These are my parents in from out of town! They were so excited to be here today.” He exchanges pleasantries with them and wishes them the best. He continues his search just to find out both women had left.

He goes home and attempts to call both of them. He gets in touch with Amanda, and she explains the situation. He knew that Jane could be territorial about the church kitchen and that it has been her baby for 36 years. With a deep breath he calls Jane. No answer. He gets a text from a church member telling him that Jane is calling people telling them her “new rules” for the kitchen. He tries to call her again. She picks up and lets her explain herself. After an hour conversation with her he gets her to calm down and things return to normal. He looks at the time and realizes he has to lead youth group in an hour. He rushes out and the night continues as normal. (As normal as youth group can possibly be that is)

As insane as this picture I’ve painted seems, this is a pretty normal occurrence for pastors. They are continually running to the next thing and stomping out fires all while people critique, engage in small talk, and complain about varying subjects. This can be exhausting mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. I know personally, the burnout was the #1 thing that was wearing me down. Honestly, I can handle complainers, entitled Karens, and people’s subjective judgment. What I couldn’t handle was running around so much I’d rarely see my family. I chose to make a change. I got a career, built my own ministry from home, got involved in a friend’s church, became an Elder there, and I have found I am far more effective in ministry now than I ever have been. Why? Because all the aforementioned baggage I no longer have to endure. I have freedom I’ve never had and can personally invest into people’s lives directly. I can teach that which I believe to be biblical without having to question whether or not my job will be sustainable. Oddly enough, the removal of my pastoral salary was the thing that gave me the most ministerial freedom.

HOW TO KEEP GOOD PASTORS

I’m not saying that pastors would be better off quitting nor am I saying this describes every church. To make such a claim would be foolish. There are many healthy churches out there and many pastors in great positions. I am blessed to be in such a church. My goal here is to shine some light on the issues pastors are facing on a day-to-day basis and why so many leave. If this did describe your church, be part of the change.

However, I would be remiss if I didn’t follow through with some solutions to the problems. After all, I am known in my house to say, “don’t raise a complaint if you can’t raise a solution.” Honestly, as monumental as these problems are, they’re really more of a snowball effect with only a few issues at their core and it would really help absolve these issues completely.

1. Become a community: This is a nearly foreign concept in our Western world because we are so individually focused. If each individual shifted their focus on others within the community this would create less selfishness and thereby less self-centered ideals being pushed in the church. This would ideally result in less hurt people in the church in general (congregants and pastors alike). When one reads Acts, we see the early followers fellowshipping and breaking bread with one another, sharing their property etc. Why? Not because they were socialists (sorry progressives) but because they were a community who loved and cared for one another. This means putting others ahead of our egos.
2. Unity in Diversity: Remember that not everyone is going to agree on everything. If unity were conformity, then we wouldn’t see disagreements amongst apostles in the early church. But we do. Thus, it cannot be true. Rather, remembering unity in one Lord, one Spirit, one God, and one mission ought to be enough for believers to not despise one another, but rather to love one another. Allow for diverse opinions and even for leadership to make decisions that you might disagree with. Do not make mountains out of mole hills.
3. Remove Animosity: if you’re angry at someone in your church, go talk with them or learn to let it go. Animosity only breeds bitterness and resentment, things that hurt churches and yourself. You’re going to have to live with each other in heaven, so you may as well start practicing here on earth. A mark of a mature Christian is someone who can address each situation as it comes without constantly living in the past. There have been plenty of people in churches I have disagreed with, some that even frustrate or annoy me, but in the end they’re my brother or sister in Christ – show them love and respect.
4. Promote Mental Toughness: If you’re going to disagree with people in the church (and trust me you will) you better be able to have the mental fortitude to deal with that. The church gets nowhere with weak minded and strongly opinionated people. In Paul’s day he’s walking around a place like Corinth and dealing with a believer who is sleeping with his mother-in-law. Yet, nowadays, Christians can barely handle a mild disagreement or someone dropping a four-letter word. In short: toughen up. We are the Kingdom of God and sometimes we allow ourselves to be far too mentally fragile.
5. Serve in your church: Rather than criticizing everything in the church, how about you help in the church? Want change? Help foster it by carrying the burden of service. No one wants to work with someone who does nothing but has the nerve to complain about everything.
6. Don’t sweat the small stuff: At some point in your life, you need to figure out your “non-negotiables” in a church and then stick to those. If your non-negotiables are shallow surface level items – you should deeply reconsider your thoughts. Try keeping them simple: Do they preach the good news of Christ? Do they believe in the divinity of Christ? What’s their position on Scripture? How do they promote a Spirit of Christ within the church? It’s okay to attend a church where you don’t agree on everything. Just be sure that you know what you will not negotiate on – and honestly that list should be pretty short and kept to the essentials of the Christian faith.
7. Be humble: The biggest issue in all of these things is pride. If you’re attacking the church or its people, you really need to slow down and consider if it’s truly worth it? I’ve known people who will never walk into a church again because of the division some Christians were sowing. Put your pride and ego aside and learn to work together and never attack another believer or his family over a trivial disagreement.
8. Think of your church as an extension of Christ: Do not view it as an extension of yourself, your preferences, your agenda, or your own passions. If you cause division, ask yourself if it’s worth taking a hammer to the Body of Christ? One must seriously consider the repercussions. If Christ died for the church, then consider that every move you make could cause damage to the church for which Christ died.
9. Mind your business: Let’s be honest – sometimes we need to keep our thoughts and opinions to ourselves. As someone who is highly opinionated and speaks regularly in his public ministry, I try to speak less about every single waking opinion I might have at church regarding matters that don’t concern me. It saves me a lot of headache and also is a way to promote unity. If you get involved do so in a way that is seeking to build up, exhort, and bear one another’s burdens. Not in a way to drive your own agenda forward. And speaking of business – stop thinking of it like a business where it’s a product and you are the customer. No. This is Christ’s church, and you are a member of it. Don’t get it twisted.
10. Take care of your Jerusalem: Whether you like it or not, the church you’re at is your church. These are your people. This is your Jerusalem. Take care of it. Support your church’s ministry, including your pastor. You won’t always agree and that is just fine. In fact, your maturity will shine through when you support him even when you disagree. Financially prioritize your Jerusalem and you might just see enough growth to care for the uttermost parts of the world. If a church cannot (or chooses not to) financially support their pastor – then adjust expectations accordingly. Don’t expect full time work if he is not a full-time employee. If he is full time and your church has prioritized that, then be sure to still keep healthy expectations. After all, he’s a pastor, not your hireling. You do not own him. Often times Israel failed because they became divided amongst each other, became entitled, stirred up division, and did not properly prioritize. Do not follow their pattern – prioritize Jerusalem.

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.