Nothing Is Sinful Because It Is Pleasurable

It is not that uncommon to come across non-Christians who think that the Christian faith is, to some extent, against people experiencing pleasure. And this thinking is one reason why some are put off our faith.

Reasons why some people think that the Christian faith is negative towards pleasure

There are two reasons why some non-believers connect our faith with a negative attitude towards pleasure.

First, there are some Christians who, to a certain extent, really do view pleasure negatively. So when non-Christians encounter Christians who think this, they sometimes assume that this attitude towards pleasure is a standard part of the Christian faith.

Second and more importantly, some non-believers see Christians opposing various things that give pleasure, such as getting drunk or having sex outside marriage, and they often just assume that the reason we oppose these things is because they are pleasurable.

The result of these two factors is that there is an impression among some non-Christians that the Christian faith is, to some extent, against people experiencing pleasure.

God is positive about pleasure

It can hardly be overstated how wrong it is to think that the Christian faith is against pleasure.

To begin with, we need to understand that God Himself experiences pleasure. The Bible is full of references to God taking pleasure in people and things.

For example, in Psalm 149:4 we read:

‘For the LORD takes pleasure in his people . . .’ (ESV)

What is more, even before God made the universe, the love relationships in the Trinity between Father, Son and Holy Spirit undoubtedly caused God a tremendously deep source of pleasure.

Secondly, a major part of God’s purpose in creating humans was so that we could experience pleasure – first and foremost pleasure in God Himself, but also pleasure in human relationships of various kinds and in other aspects of creation.

To put it bluntly, God is thoroughly in favour of people experiencing pleasure.

Things are not sinful because they are pleasurable

If something is against God’s will, it is important to understand that there is always some reason other than it being pleasurable that makes it sinful.

So, for example, getting drunk is not sinful because it is pleasurable, but because it causes people to lose self-control. Losing self-control can lead people to do unwise things, and it also fits poorly with the dignity of human beings as creatures made in the image of God.

Similarly, sex outside marriage is not sinful because it is pleasurable, but because God designed sex to cement the marriage relationship between husband and wife that mirrors the relationship between Christ and His church.

It is crucial to understand that God is not a kill-joy. He isn’t against pleasure. There is no activity that is sinful because it is pleasurable. The world as God made it is simply not like that.

A special case

Despite what I have just said, there is one kind of situation where pleasure is a problem in and of itself. This is when people treat pleasure as an idol and seek it more than they should.

Sometimes a person can become obsessed with seeking after pleasure, and in that sort of situation there is a sense in which pleasure itself is a problem for that person.

However, the point still stands that in terms of what any particular activity involves, it is not the pleasure derived from an action that makes it sinful. It is always something else.

Living in a time of war

If Adam and Eve had not fallen into sin, and if there had been a human race that had never sinned, everyone would have experienced nothing but great pleasure all the time.

Similarly, after we die or Jesus returns to earth, our lives will be nothing but pleasure, and this is what God will want.

However, the reality is that the human race has fallen into sin, those of us now on earth have not yet died, and Jesus has not yet returned. This means that it isn’t possible right now for us to experience pleasure all the time. Although pleasure should be a part of our lives, suffering is also unavoidable to a certain extent. We are living in a kind of wartime, when normal peacetime activities can’t always be enjoyed.

In 2 Timothy 2:3-4 Paul tells Timothy:

‘Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.’ (ESV)

There should be no doubt that these words are meant to apply to all Christians. We are all soldiers of Christ Jesus, and soldiers can expect to experience hardships of various kinds. A time will come when suffering and hardship become things of the past, but that time is not yet.

Correcting wrong ideas

When we come across non-Christians who have wrong ideas about the attitude of the Christian faith towards pleasure, it is worth trying to correct those ideas if we have an opportunity.

As I have already noted, some non-believers are put off our faith because they think that it views pleasure negatively to a certain extent. When people decide not to follow Jesus and reject the salvation that is in Him because of wrong thinking like this, it is a real tragedy.

If we can help them to view things correctly on the real Christian attitude towards pleasure, for some it may make the difference between the decision to accept Jesus as Saviour and Lord and the decision not to.

It is also worth trying to correct the thinking of Christians who have a poor understanding in this area. Some believers view God as more severe than He really is, and they seem to imagine that to some extent He is against us experiencing pleasure. If we can help them see reality better on this topic, it could only aid them in their relationships with the Lord.

 

See also:

Charismatic Churches and Their Attitude to Hardship

Is There Any Place for Entertainment in Church Services?

How and Why Should Christians Rejoice?

What Is the Christian Faith Really All About?

Is It Right to Say That God Hates the Sin but Loves the Sinner?

If you have been a Christian for any length of time, you will probably have heard the saying, ‘God hates the sin but loves the sinner’. You might even have said these words yourself.

There are some Christians, however, who object to this saying. They point out that the Bible refers to God hating sinners, and they claim that the saying is actually misleading.

So what should we make of this disagreement? Is this a helpful saying or not?

In my view, it is a helpful saying, although it is also true that there is a sense in which God hates sinners. Let me explain what I mean.

God hates sin

To begin with, we need to be clear that the first part of the saying – ‘God hates the sin’ – is always correct. There is no sense in which God loves sin or is in any way neutral about it. He only hates it. That’s nice and simple.

Different senses of love and hate

When it comes to the second half of the saying – ‘but loves the sinner’ – things are not so simple. The reason why this is not a simple issue is that we can think of different ways in which God loves and hates people.

It is actually very common in language generally for words or phrases to have more than one meaning, and this is true of love and hatred. There is one sense in which God hates sinners and doesn’t love them. And there is another sense in which God loves sinners and doesn’t hate them.

Let’s take a moment to think about each of these things in turn.

God hates sinners

Firstly, the Bible is clear that there is a sense in which God hates sinners.

In Psalm 5:5 David says:

‘The boastful cannot stand in your sight; you hate all evildoers.’ (CSB)

Note that this verse doesn’t say that God hates the actions of evildoers, although that is certainly also true. It says that He hates the evildoers themselves. So these words make it clear that God hates sinners.

Similarly, in Psalm 11:5 David writes:

‘The LORD examines the righteous, but he hates the wicked and those who love violence.’ (CSB)

This verse is equally clear that God hates sinners.

So the Bible teaches that God hates sinners, but in what sense does He do this?

I would suggest that God hates sinners in the sense that He is disgusted by them. Sinners repulse Him. He is also repulsed by the actions of sinners, but we can’t neatly distinguish between His disgust at the sin and His disgust at the people themselves. God hates sinners themselves in this sense.

The opposite of hating someone in the sense of being disgusted by them, is loving someone in the sense of admiring and being drawn to them. And it can’t be true that God loves sinners in the exact opposite sense to the sense in which He hates them. So, in this sense of loving, we can say that God doesn’t love sinners.

In one sense, then, God hates sinners and doesn’t love them.

God loves sinners

But there is another kind of love and hatred that we need to consider.

The Bible is clear that there is a sense in which God loves sinners.

In John 3:16, for example, we read:

‘For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.’ (CSB)

In this verse ‘the world’ means the people who populate the world. And the Bible tells us in many places that all people are sinners. So the verse is clearly implying that God loves sinners.

Similarly, Romans 5:8 says:

‘But God proves his own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.’ (CSB)

This verse is explicit that God loves sinners.

So the Bible teaches that God loves sinners, but in what sense does He do this?

This love is essentially about desiring the wellbeing of the people who are loved. Even though people are sinners, God wants good things for them. God loves sinners in this sense.

The opposite of loving someone in the sense of desiring their wellbeing, is hating someone in the sense of desiring their harm. And it can’t be true that God hates sinners in the exact opposite sense to the sense in which He loves them. So, in this sense of hating, we can say that God doesn’t hate sinners.

In one sense, then, God loves sinners and doesn’t hate them.

Hating the sin but loving the sinner

We have seen that there is a sense in which God hates and doesn’t love sinners, and that there is another sense in which God loves and doesn’t hate sinners.

He hates sinners in the sense of being disgusted by them, and He loves sinners in the sense of desiring their wellbeing.

This means that if we are thinking of this sense of loving, it is indeed correct to say that God hates the sin but loves the sinner. Although He hates what sinners do, in love He still desires what is good for them.

So the saying, ‘God hates the sin but loves the sinner’, is a good one. However, it doesn’t give the whole picture on the issue of God’s love and hate for sinners, because there is also, as we have seen, a sense in which God hates sinners.

Christians should hate and love sinners in the same ways that God does

We have seen, then, what God’s attitude to sinners is. But what about Christians? Should we aim to hate and love sinners in the ways God does, or should we do something different?

Importantly, in Ephesians 5:1 we are told to be imitators of God, and there is no good reason for thinking that we shouldn’t imitate Him in His attitude to sinners.

Besides, various Bible passages point in this direction anyway.

For example, in Psalm 31:6 David says:

‘I hate those who are devoted to worthless idols, but I trust in the LORD.’ (CSB)

Similarly, in Psalm 119:113 the psalmist writes:

‘I hate those who are double-minded, but I love your instruction.’ (CSB)

And again, in Psalm 139:21-22 David says:

‘LORD, don’t I hate those who hate you, and detest those who rebel against you? I hate them with extreme hatred…’ (CSB)

There is no good reason for thinking that Christians today shouldn’t follow these examples. So we should hate sinners in the way God hates them.

But we should certainly also love sinners in the way God loves them.

For example, in Matthew 5:44-45 Jesus says:

‘But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven. For he causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.’ (CSB)

There is no doubt that the enemies and persecutors of Christians that Jesus refers to here are people who are unrepentant of various sins. This passage therefore clearly implies that Christians should love sinners.

And note how the passage draws a parallel between the love of Christians for sinners and the love of God for sinners. Just as He loves sinners by giving them sunshine and rain, we should also love sinners in ways that are appropriate for us.

In the sense that God hates sinners, then, we should do likewise. And in the sense that God loves sinners, we should also do likewise. We should hate sinners by being disgusted by them, but we should love them by desiring their wellbeing.

 

See also:

The Justice and Mercy of God

Imitation as a Principle of Christian Living

Should Christians Forgive Those Who Are Unrepentant?

Christian Teachers and Evangelists Should Speak Often about Hell

Is It Right to Say that God Died on the Cross?

The old Christian hymn by Charles Wesley, ‘And Can it Be?’ includes the line:

‘Amazing love! how can it be that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me!’

So what are we to make of these words? Is it correct to say that God died on the cross, or should Christians avoid speaking in this way?

In answer to this question, I would say that in the most fundamental sense God did not die on the cross, but that there is a sense in which we can say that God died on the cross.

God is immortal

The first thing we need to be clear about is that God is immortal. In fact, 1 Timothy 6:16 explicitly uses the word ‘immortal’ to describe God.

To be immortal is to be undying and incapable of dying. So God cannot die and therefore obviously has never died.

This is why I say that in the most fundamental sense God did not die on the cross.

The God-Man Jesus Christ

But things are not quite so simple.

To begin with, we need to understand that the Bible teaches that three things are true about Jesus Christ all at once. First, He is truly God. Second, He is truly man. And third, He is one person.

All three of these points are crucial, and over the centuries many heresies have arisen among people who have accepted only two of the points but rejected the third. Christians need to stand firm, however, on insisting that all three are true.

So the one person, Jesus, is a combination of God and man. He is the God-Man. His divinity and humanity are not confused or mingled. They are distinct. But He is still only one person. This is standard Christian theology.

Two opposite things are sometimes both true of Jesus

There is something about Jesus, however, that at first sight looks very strange, but which it is important to understand.

Because Jesus is only one person, anything that is true of His divinity can be said to be true of Jesus, and anything that is true of His humanity can be said to be true of Jesus. And this sometimes leads to opposite things both being true of Him.

A good example to illustrate this is the issue of how much Jesus knows. In His divinity Jesus knows everything there is to know, i.e., He is omniscient. But in His humanity He doesn’t know everything, i.e., He is not omniscient.

We actually have a striking example of Jesus’ lack of knowledge in Mark’s Gospel. In Mark 13:32, referring to the time when He will return to earth, Jesus says:

‘Now concerning that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father.’

In this verse ‘the Son’ is a reference to Jesus Himself, so the verse is clear that there is something Jesus doesn’t know. And this lack of knowledge is true of His humanity. But because He is only one person, anything that is true of His humanity can be said to be true of Jesus. So ‘Jesus is not omniscient’ is a correct statement.

However, in His divinity, Jesus knows everything. And, again, because He is only one person, anything that is true of His divinity can be said to be true of Jesus. So ‘Jesus is omniscient’ is a correct statement.

Therefore, ‘Jesus is not omniscient’ is a correct statement, and ‘Jesus is omniscient’ is a correct statement. In one sense He is not omniscient, but in another sense He is.

Jesus died on the cross

The same sort of thing applies to Jesus’ death on the cross. In His divinity He clearly did not die on the cross, because God is immortal, as I have noted. But in His humanity He certainly did die on the cross.

And, once again, because anything that is true of His humanity can be said to be true of Jesus, ‘Jesus died on the cross’ is a correct statement.

The person who is Jesus Christ is the person who is God the Son

So it is true that Jesus died on the cross, but it was in His humanity that He died, not in His divinity.

But if He didn’t die in His divinity, that means it is wrong to say that God died on the cross, isn’t it?

Not really, and here is the point. I have said that Jesus Christ is one person. However, crucially, this person is the person of God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.

At the incarnation, the person who is God the Son joined Himself to a human nature to become the God-Man Jesus Christ. But the person, God the Son, stayed the same. The person who is Jesus is none other than the person who is God the Son.

Therefore, because Jesus died on the cross, and because the person who is Jesus is the person who is God the Son, we can legitimately say that God the Son died on the cross.

And finally, we can shorten saying that God the Son died on the cross to saying that God died on the cross.

So, even though it was only in His humanity that He died on the cross, we can legitimately say that God died on the cross.

Summing up

In the most fundamental sense, then, God did not die on the cross. God is immortal and cannot die.

But in another sense, it is right to say that God died on the cross, as follows:

(1) In His humanity, Jesus died on the cross.

(2) Because Jesus is only one person, anything that is true of His humanity is true of Jesus, so we can say that Jesus died on the cross.

(3) Because the person who is Jesus is the person who is God the Son, we can say that God the Son died on the cross.

(4) Saying that God the Son died on the cross can be shortened to saying that God died on the cross.

So I would say that we can sing the words of Charles Wesley’s hymn with a clear conscience.

 

See also:

How Can the Word Be With God and Also Be God?

Paradoxes and Tensions in the Christian Faith

Salvation Is Not by Doing Good but Only Those Who Do Good Will Be Saved

The Justice and Mercy of God

How Can the Word Be With God and Also Be God?

One of the most well known verses in the Bible has to be John 1:1, where the apostle begins his Gospel by saying:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’

Those of us who have been Christians for a long time will surely be very familiar with these words. However, it is very easy through over-familiarity to lose sight of the tremendous paradox that the words contain.

At first sight, this sentence seems to include what looks like an obvious contradiction. If the Word was with God, that implies a distinction between the Word and God. But if the Word was God, that implies identity between the Word and God. So how can we square this circle logically? Is the verse just talking nonsense, or is there a way to make sense of what it says?

The translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and others

Jehovah’s Witnesses are one group that will not hesitate to say that the way this verse is translated in evangelical and other circles is self-contradictory and a mistranslation. They would argue that it should be translated:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.’

They claim that the verse isn’t saying that the Word is the one true God at all, but that the Word is a creation of God that is described as ‘a god’.

I don’t want to get into a long discussion in this article of how Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret this verse. Suffice it to say that in the immediate context of the beginning of John’s Gospel their interpretation is not a very natural one, and that in the light of the rest of this Gospel their interpretation should certainly be ruled out.

We should have no hesitation in saying that John 1:1 states both that the Word was with God and that the Word was God.

The Trinity

Before we turn to think about how the Word can be with God and also be God, I need to say something about what is commonly referred to as ‘the Trinity’.

The Bible teaches that God is one Being who is three Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each Person is fully God but is neither of the other two Persons.

All analogies from everyday life fall short of adequately portraying the Trinity, but I like to use the analogy of a coin. If we take a coin, we can say that the whole coin is a metal, the whole coin is a solid, and the whole coin is money. The property of being a metal, the property of being a solid and the property of being money are different things, but they all apply to the whole coin.

Similarly, the whole Being that is God is the Father, the whole Being that is God is the Son and the whole Being that is God is the Holy Spirit. Father, Son and Spirit are different Persons, but they are all fully God.

This analogy of the coin falls short of describing the Trinity, because the Persons of Father, Son and Spirit relate to each other, whereas the properties of the coin that I mentioned don’t relate to each other. But I think the coin analogy has some merit in describing the Trinity.

Making sense of how the Word can be with God and also be God

Let’s get back now to John 1:1, with its claim that the Word was with God and the Word was God. Is this really possible? Does it make sense?

The answer to this is a clear yes.

Let’s think for a moment about the nature of language. If you look in any detailed English dictionary, you will find that the vast majority of words have a range of meanings. They have what linguists refer to as a ‘semantic range’.

But it isn’t just English that is like this. Every language, both ancient and modern, is similar, and that includes the Hellenistic Greek that the New Testament was written in.

In the New Testament, the standard word for ‘God’ is the noun theos. But this word can mean more than one thing. Sometimes it is used to refer to the Being that is God without thinking about the Persons of the Trinity. But at other times it is used to refer specifically to the Person who is the Father.

In John 1:1 theos is used once in each of these ways. Here is the verse again with some explanatory additions in square brackets:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [i.e., the Person who is the Father], and the Word was God [i.e., the Being that is God].’

Importantly, ‘the Word’ in this verse is a precise reference to the Person of the Trinity who is the Son. So if we take theos to mean what I have said it does in the square brackets, the sentence makes perfect sense. The Word/Son is a distinct Person from the Father, so it is logical to say that in the beginning the Word was with God. But the Word/Son is fully the Being that is God, so it is logical to say that in the beginning the Word was God.

There is no contradiction here at all.

Why does the Bible refer to the Person who is the Father as ‘God’?

But this raises an important question. If Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally God, why would the Bible in this verse (and in others) refer to the Person of the Father simply as ‘God’? Does this imply that somehow the Father is more divine than the other two Persons of the Trinity?

The Father is certainly not more divine than the Son and Spirit. However, I do believe that there is a primacy that belongs to the Father that doesn’t belong to the Son or Spirit. I would say that among the Persons of the Trinity, the Father is the first among equals. At the risk of seeming to de-personify the Persons of the Trinity, I think we might even say that the Father is the default Person of the Trinity.

According to Scripture, the Son and Spirit are in some respects dependent on the Father in ways that the Father isn’t dependent on the Son or Spirit.

For example, in John 5:26 Jesus says:

‘For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself.’

See in this verse how even the life that the Son has is derived in some sense from the Father! Crucially, however, this is an eternal derivation, so there was never a time when the Son didn’t have this life. The verse is therefore not saying that the Son was created. Rather, in view here is what theologians refer to as the eternal generation of the Son. But it is still a dependence of the Son on the Father in a way that the Father is not dependent on the Son.

Similarly, the Bible also portrays the Spirit as dependent on the Father in a way that the Father is never portrayed as dependent on the Spirit. In John 14:26, for example, Jesus says that the Father will send the Spirit in Jesus’ name. We will look in vain, however, to find a biblical reference to the Spirit sending the Father or anything remotely similar.

Understanding that the Father holds a position of primacy among the Persons of the Trinity can help us to understand why the Bible can often refer to him simply as ‘God’. If we turn our minds to thinking about God as a personal Being, it is natural for us to think immediately of the Father before thinking of the Son or the Spirit. Hence the New Testament often refers to the Father simply as ‘God’.

Summing up

We have seen, then, that the statement in John 1:1 that the Word was with God and the Word was God isn’t nonsense. Once we understand that the word ‘God’ is being used in this verse in two different ways, all becomes clear. In the beginning the Word, i.e., the Son, was with the Person of the Trinity who is the Father, and the Word was the Being that is God.

And once we recognise the primacy of place that the Father takes among the Persons of the Trinity, it helps us to understand why the Bible often refers to him simply as ‘God’.

 

See also:

Paradoxes and Tensions in the Christian Faith

Is It Arrogant for Christians to Claim There Is Only One True Faith?

Salvation Is Not by Doing Good but Only Those Who Do Good Will Be Saved

The Justice and Mercy of God

God’s Knowledge of the Future Is Unlimited: A Brief Attempt to Refute the Error of Open Theism

In the last few decades, a serious error has arisen in the church that has come to be known as ‘open theism’. 

Proponents of this view believe that God’s knowledge of the future is limited, and they argue in this way:

God has given human beings the ability to have real relationships with Himself.  This means that He gives us genuine free will (often referred to as libertarian free will or contra-causal free will).  If God knew all the future, then the future would be fixed, and a fixed future is incompatible with humans having free will.  Therefore God cannot know everything that will happen in the future.

The main concern of open theists is to uphold a belief in the free will of people.  They are opposed to the idea that all actions of people are determined by causes that are ultimately outside themselves.  The belief that God’s knowledge of the future is limited is not their main interest.  But it is a belief they feel it is necessary to hold if they are to retain their belief in free will.

I don’t want to get into the whole issue of God’s sovereignty and people’s free will here, except to say that I am fairly sure that open theists’ view of free will is a good one.  However, I am certain that they are completely mistaken about God’s limited knowledge of the future.  In fact, the free will of people is entirely compatible with God knowing everything that will happen in the future.

There are a few points I would like to make:

Anthropomorphism

Open theists often point to passages in the Bible where God speaks about regretting that He has done something, changing His mind, or gaining new insight.  They claim that these passages show that God’s knowledge of the future is limited.

For example, in Genesis 6:5-6 we are told: 

‘The LORD saw that the evil of man on the earth was great, and that the inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.  Then the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.’ 

Similarly, in 1 Samuel 15:10-11 we read: 

‘Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: “I regret that I made Saul king, because he has turned away from following Me . . .”’ 

Again, in Genesis 22:12, after Abraham has proved himself willing to sacrifice Isaac, God says: 

‘. . . now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.’ 

And in Jonah 3:10 we are told: 

‘When God saw what they [the Ninevites] did and that they turned from their evil ways, He relented and did not bring on them the disaster He had threatened.’ 

Many other texts could be added to this list. 

It is true that at first glance these passages do seem to suggest that there have been times when God has learned something that He didn’t previously know. 

However, we need to be careful not to interpret biblical texts more scientifically and technically than we should.  Ancient Jews often expressed things using colourful, non-literal figures of speech.  And one example of this is the figure of speech known as anthropomorphism. 

Anthropomorphism involves speaking about someone or something as if he/she/it is a human being, although literally that is not the case.  In the Bible it is used frequently to describe God.  God is invisible spirit (John 4:24), but it is impossible for us to conceptualise Him in that way.  So the Bible often anthropomorphises Him. 

For example, the Psalms frequently speak about God stretching out His hand, baring His arm, and about His voice, His footsteps etc.  God is pictured as if He is a human being, so that we are able to conceptualise Him better.  (The incarnation, in which God the Son took upon Himself a human nature in order to become the God-Man Jesus Christ, is very different from anthropomorphism.  Anthropomorphism is simply about picturing the invisible God as if He were a human.)

When used to describe God, anthropomorphism doesn’t just involve physical features, however.  Human psychological reactions are sometimes attributed to God that He does not literally experience.  (Often this use of human reactions to describe God is called anthropopathism, but we can think of it as a type of anthropomorphism.)

It is very easy to understand the four passages I cited above, and many others, in this way.  There is no reason for us to suppose that God literally grew in knowledge or that He literally realised He had made some bad decisions.  Instead, God is being visualised as if He were a human who has grown in knowledge or come to realise something.  As humans we are more able to grasp the distress that God literally feels, or the dislike or like that He literally has, if psychological anthropomorphisms are used.  The alternative would be to talk about Him in abstract terms.  But these usually don’t impact on us so well.

To understand passages like the ones cited above literally is therefore to fail to understand their symbolic nature.  Properly understood, they don’t suggest that God’s knowledge of future events is limited in any way.

Biblical passages that contradict open theism

There are also a number of biblical passages that contradict open theism.

Revelation 13:8 is one example.  In this verse, grammatically the most natural way of reading the text in Greek is: 

‘. . . whose name has not been written in the book of life of the Lamb slaughtered from the foundation of the world.’  

If this is the correct interpretation, this verse would be telling us that at the time the world was created, the crucifixion of Christ was a definite part of God’s plan.  This is a big problem for open theists, because, in their theory, at the time God made the world He didn’t know whether people would sin or not.

It is grammatically possible to take the Greek of this verse differently and connect ‘from the foundation of the world’ with ‘whose name has not been written’.  It would then mean: 

‘. . . whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slaughtered.’  

Under this interpretation, although the Lamb is no longer explicitly said to have been slaughtered from the foundation of the world, a new problem arises for open theists.  According to open theism, God doesn’t yet know which people will in the future come to faith in Christ for salvation.  However, this doesn’t square with names that have been written in the Lamb’s book of life from the foundation of the world. 

Plainly, however we understand Revelation 13:8 grammatically, it contradicts open theism.

Similarly, in 1 Peter 1:18-20 Peter says: 

‘. . . you were not redeemed with perishable things . . . but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or defect.  He was foreknown before the foundation of the world . . .’ 

Note how this passage states that Christ was foreknown by God before the foundation of the world.  Because there is also a reference to Christians being redeemed by Christ’s blood, God’s foreknowledge of Christ here surely includes His crucifixion.  Again, this means that God must have foreknown human sin as a certainty, something that open theism denies.

Another relevant passage is Ephesians 1:4.  Here Paul states: 

‘. . . He [God] chose us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world . . .’ 

This runs into the same difficulty for open theism that we have just seen in connection with Revelation 13:8 and 1 Peter 1:18-20.  If God chose people in Christ before He made the world, then He is surely envisaged knowing for certain at that time that the human race would sin, something that open theists deny.

Other passages could also be added to the ones I have just listed, such as Jesus’ prophecies of the sins of Judas Iscariot and Peter.  Quite simply, there are biblical texts that seem clearly to contradict open theism.

God existing outside time

Something else we must consider is the relationship of God to time.  If God’s knowledge of the future were limited, that would have to mean that He exists in time.  In other words, He would have to experience the progression of time as humans experience it, or at least in a similar way.

Open theists are clear that they do indeed believe that God exists in time.  And some other Christians also take this view.

Those Christians who claim that God exists in time fall into two camps.  Some believe that God has always existed in time.  And others believe that God created time and then chose to enter into it. 

Let’s think about each of these groups in turn.

Firstly, then, there are those who claim that God has always existed in time.  They argue that time is not something God created, but that it has always existed back into the infinite past. 

This, however, is an extremely dubious idea.  The concept of a God who has always existed in time is a long way from the unchanging God of traditional Christian faith.

It is worth noting too that in physics time is widely understood as something that is bound up with space, and there seems to be no good reason for thinking that physicists have got this wrong.  Importantly, all Christians agree that God created space.  So if time is indeed bound up with space, it would make sense if time were also a created thing.

As far as the Bible is concerned, it is true that there don’t seem to be passages which plainly teach that God created time.  However, importantly, no passages teach that He did not create it.  And in fact, Jude 25 fits very well with the idea that time was created. 

The Greek of the best attested text of this verse includes the phrase pro pantos tou aionos.  In close English translation this means ‘before all the age’, where the age in question is apparently the entire course of time.  Many English translations appropriately translate these words as ‘before all time’. 

It is true that ‘before all time’ in this verse cannot be taken strictly literally.  ‘Before’ is a temporal idea, so ‘before all time’ cannot be a technical statement.  Nevertheless, this verse does seem to suggest that time had a beginning.

When all these points are taken into consideration, we should not hesitate to say that God created time.  And in that case, He couldn’t have always existed in time.

As I have noted, there is a second group of Christians who believe that God exists in time.  Those in this group accept that God created time when He created the universe.  But they argue that, having created time, God then entered into it, and that ever since He has existed in time.

This, however, is also an extremely dubious theory.  The idea of a God who would change in this way is in stark contrast to the unchanging God of traditional Christian faith.  And it also seems very implausible that God could or would allow Himself to be bound by something He created.

The positions of both groups of Christians who think that God exists in time therefore fail to convince.  And if He is outside time, there would be nothing to stop Him knowing the future exhaustively.

How we picture God knowing the future

It seems that when most Christians think of God knowing the future, they picture a God in the present who is peering into the future.  In other words, they picture God thinking about the future in the same way that they would picture a human thinking about the future.  Similarly, with the past, they picture God looking back into the past in the same way that we remember things.

It is true that the Bible visualises God in this way (e.g., in Romans 8:29; 11:2; 1 Peter 1:20).  Nevertheless, we can easily see this simply as an anthropomorphism that helps us to conceptualise Him better.

If we want to think more precisely about God knowing the future, I would suggest that there is a better picture we can use.  We can think of God looking at time in the same way that a human being looks at a straight line drawn on a piece of paper. 

The human is outside the line drawn on the paper and can see the whole line at once.  Similarly, God is outside time and can see it all at once. 

In this visualisation God is ‘based’ in His timeless state.  But He sees all points of time as if they are present, and He can stoop down to our level and act at any point on the time line.  However, He is literally no more present at any point of time than at another.

Someone might want to object to this picture by saying that recent scientific theories have challenged the linear view of time.  However, that would make no difference.  Whether we see time as a straight line, a curved line, or even as a multi-dimensional object, God can still be visualised outside it, looking at it all, and ‘present’ at each point.  From outside time, in this picture, He is therefore looking at what a human would call ‘tomorrow’ or ‘yesterday’ in exactly the same way that He is looking at what a human would call ‘now’. 

Personally, if I use this way of visualising God’s relationship to time, I find it easy to understand His ability to know what is future from a human perspective.  God is, I believe, from His timeless standpoint, looking at what I am doing right now, in exactly the same way that He is looking at what I did yesterday, and what I will do tomorrow, and so on. 

I should point out that when I say God ‘sees’ or ‘is looking’ at me or the time line of human history, I am necessarily being imprecise.  This is because I am using an English present tense to describe what is really timeless observation by God.  But it is impossible to use a verb in the English language without giving that verb a tense.  Hence the imprecision.

I should also point out that when I speak about God looking in exactly the same way at what we regard as past, present or future, I am not saying that within the universe the past, present and future are all equally objective realities.  Rather, I am adhering to what philosophers refer to as the A-theory of time.  According to this theory, the past has ceased to be objectively real and the future is not yet objectively real.  However, crucially, the past ceasing to be real and the future not yet being real are truths that apply to what goes on inside the universe.  But God is outside the universe.

Our actions and God’s knowledge

As I have noted, the main reason why open theists believe that God’s knowledge of the future is limited is because they want to uphold belief in the genuine free will of people.  They think that if God knows everything that will happen in the future, then the future would be fixed in such a way that people could not have free will.

There is confused thinking taking place here.  The assumption, whether it is recognised or not, is that God’s knowledge of future human actions would somehow cause those actions.  This, however, is to put the cart before the horse.  God’s knowledge of the future is actually knowledge that has taken all human actions into account.  In other words, it is human actions that lead (in part) to God’s knowledge of the future being what it is, not God’s knowledge of the future that leads to human actions being what they will be.

For example, suppose that at some point tomorrow I have the choice whether to go out or stay at home.  God knows what I will do, but that knowledge will in no way cause my action.  If I go out, then God knows that I will choose to do that.  If I stay at home, God knows that I will choose to do that.  God knows what I am going to do, but my will is unaffected by God’s knowledge of how I will use that will.  Instead, how I will use my will affects what the future is that God knows.

Conclusion

That ends our discussion, so let’s sum up the key things we have found.

First, the idea that God has limited knowledge of the future in areas where the human will is involved is clearly unbiblical.  Some passages show His knowledge of people’s future actions.  And those passages which might at first sight seem to imply that He has sometimes grown in knowledge can easily be understood as anthropomorphisms. 

Second, the belief that God knows all the future in no way conflicts with a belief in the genuine free will of people.  God’s knowledge is a knowledge that has taken all human actions into account.  It is not a knowledge that in any way causes human actions. 

Open theism, although it might mean well, actually presents a picture of God that seriously fails to do justice to His greatness.  It should therefore be regarded as a serious error. 

I would suggest that those Christians who think, for example, that God didn’t know that human beings would sin, or that Saul would turn out to be such a bad king, are a long way from understanding the greatness of God.  Quite simply, God knows absolutely everything, including everything that is future from a human perspective.

See also:

Beware of Overconfidence in Understanding Why God Does What He Does

The Justice and Mercy of God

Are the Old Testament and New Testament Portraits of God Contradictory?

Christians Should Beware of Overconfidence in Understanding Why God Does What He Does

In Romans 11:33-36, the apostle Paul concludes the long doctrinal part of his letter to the Christians in Rome with an outpouring of praise:

‘Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God!  How unsearchable are His judgments and inscrutable His ways!  For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has become His adviser?  Or who has first given to Him that he might be repaid?  For from Him and through Him and for Him are all things.  To Him be the glory forever.  Amen.’

Part of what Paul praises God for here is the fact that His ways are so much more profound than we humans can comprehend.  We simply cannot begin to understand Him properly.

Here are some examples of where I find myself just saying that I don’t know why God has done what He has done or does what He does:

The twelve apostles

Take the 12 apostles.  Jesus chose an inner circle of 12 disciples.  Then, after the defection of Judas Iscariot, we are told that the first Christians took great care to find a suitable replacement for him (Acts 1:21-26), and nothing in the text suggests that they were wrong to replace him.

So, here we are back with 12, God’s 12.  We might then expect these men to have been more prominent and more greatly used in the early church than any other Christians.  But this is not what we find.  Instead, God chose Paul, who was not one of the 12, and arguably used him more greatly than any of them, and certainly more greatly than most of them. 

If the 12 were so important, why didn’t God use them more than Paul?  If Paul was used because of some talent that he had, why didn’t God choose someone with Paul’s talent to be one of the 12 in the first place?  We can guess at the answers to these questions, but I don’t think we can reach confident conclusions.

Similarly, reading between the lines in Acts 12, 15 and 21, and Galatians 1-2, it seems that at a time when most of the 12 were still alive, the most important figure in the Jerusalem church was probably James the brother of Jesus, who was not one of the 12.  Even if he was not the most important, he was definitely one of the most important and was more influential than most of the 12.  Why didn’t God choose one of the 12 to perform this role at that time?  Again, we can make guesses, but I don’t think we can really know for sure.

Receiving the Holy Spirit

As another example, take receiving the Holy Spirit.  At times in Scripture the mysterious act that is the laying on of hands is used for new Christians to receive the Spirit (Acts 8:15-17; 19:6).  But at other times God imparts the Spirit without any laying on of hands (Acts 2:1-13, 10:44-46).  If He is content to do it without hands sometimes, then why does He ever want hands to be used?  I don’t think we can properly understand it.

And then there is the strange situation in Acts 8:5-17 when there is a delay in new Christians receiving the Spirit until the apostles Peter and John go from Jerusalem to Samaria and lay hands on them.  Why were they needed to lay on hands on this occasion?  Why could Philip the evangelist, who evangelised the Christians in Samaria, not do this himself?  This is especially perplexing because there are good reasons for thinking that in the early church non-apostles often laid hands on new Christians for them to receive the Spirit. 

Commentators are not slow to say why they believe the Christians in Samaria were delayed in receiving the Spirit.  We can make guesses, but I don’t think we can be confident that we know for sure.

Tongues

Consider also the phenomenon that is speaking in tongues.  At least as regards the type of tongues-speaking that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 14, this involves speaking words that make no sense to the mind in order to build up the Christian.  Why has God established this form of spiritual edification?  I don’t think we can figure it out.

Similarly, what about the gift of interpreting tongues (1 Corinthians 12:10; 14:5, 13, 27-28)?  Someone speaks in a tongue, and that person or someone else then interprets this into intelligible language.  This tongue plus interpretation is in effect the equivalent of a prophecy.  But why doesn’t God just speak through prophecies instead of using this more complicated method?  I think a solution is beyond us.

Believing without seeing

Another thing that I have spent some time wondering is why the Lord wants us to believe in Him without seeing Him.  Why doesn’t Jesus manifest Himself to us visibly?  After all, when we are perfected in heaven we will see Him face to face, so why not now?  We can guess at the answer to this, but I don’t think we are in a position to do more than guess.

Resisting overconfident explanations

We need to resist the temptation to come up with an explanation for everything we read about in the Bible at almost any price.  I am sure that modern Western Christians are often overconfident in the explanations they give for why God acts in the ways He does.  Things that I suspect are actually beyond our ability to know are frequently explained away in unconvincing and simplistic ways.

Instead, I think we can learn from the attitude of ancient Jews.  They were much more comfortable than modern Westerners are in leaving things unexplained, and in allowing tensions and paradoxes.  They were often happy to admit that God’s ways are beyond comprehension.

By all means, let us try to find answers to questions when it looks like that might be possible.  But I think it is usually unwise to expend a lot of effort trying to understand mysterious things.  And if we don’t know answers, we should admit that, instead of coming up with unconvincing explanations for the reasons behind God’s actions.  Even in situations when we think that we can perhaps understand why God has done something, I believe there should often be a lot more hesitancy and caution on the part of many Christians who seem so quick to make bold pronouncements about what has been going on in God’s mind.

We are finite and God is infinite, and there is much that He does that we are not going to be able to understand.  We must not pretend that we are wiser than we really are, and end up trying to fit God into a box.  He is far too big for that.

See also:

Trusting God When We Are Not Sure What to Do