A light is placed inside an empty train car on one side. Across the car on the opposite inside wall is a mirror which reflects the light back across from where it came. A man stands inside the car and records the time it takes for a flash from the light to reflect in the mirror and return to its original side.
The same experiment is repeated, only this time, a man also sits outside the train car as the car rolls slowly by him at the speed of one mile per hour. This man also records the time it takes for the light to cross the car and return.
The time recorded by the second man outside the car is longer by an infinitesimal amount than the time recorded by the first man who was inside the car even though they both time the same flash.
Why? Because the light for the second man, who views a moving car, must travel at an angle that is slightly longer than the distance the light must travel for the first man. Thus the second man records a longer interval though timing the same flash.
This experiment demonstrates Einstein’s theory of relativity; a theory that states that time can expand and contract resulting in variable measurements depending upon ones perspective. (For more on this concept, see the website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/ and http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/
Should this knowledge affect our understanding of time in theology? Men view time from within the time/space continuum ( as though we are in the train car), but God views time from outside of the time/space continuum (as though he is outside the train car). Is this concept the solution to the tensions we find in scripture between the sovereignty of God and the free will of man? For instance, when the scriptures say that “Pharoah hardened his heart” and then also say that “God hardened Pharoah’s heart”, must we reconcile these two statements or relate them to one another in a hierarchy? Perhaps we can learn from Einstein’s conclusions that the two statements differ and cannot be reconciled, yet both are true.
4 comments:
Here's a few questions.... to answer your question:
1. Define what you mean by the 'free will' of man.
2. Define what you mean by the 'sovereignty of God'.
3. Is man truly unable (Total Depravity) of exercising his will to be saved?
4. Does the cross (i.e. death & atonement) of Jesus Christ make salvation possible or actually saves?
Just a start.... to a theological 'debate' of sorts. Your 'Calvinist' friend and former classmate, Larry.
Larry,
Thanks for the reply.
Let me start with the definition of God's sovereignty. God's sovereignty over time is completely comprehensive. He knows the end from the beginning. And he knows it in intricate detail. He knows every event that will happen and every possible event that could happen and the results of those possible events if they did happen. He knows every detail of every thing in time including the time, place, and cause of death of every sparrow that has ever fallen or will fall. He even knows the number of hairs on our head (and he keeps hitting the "subtract" button on his calculator in my case). But, not only does he know all of this, he planned it all and he brings it to pass. Nothing can occur without his permission. Nothing can occur that is outside of his plan. Nothing or no one can accomplish anything inside time except God empowers him to do so. It is difficult to overstate the effect and implications of God's sovereign rule over time.
The problem with free will, for me, is two-fold. First, I cannot think of any definition of free will that fits with the biblical description of God's sovereignty. Given the description of God's sovereignty that we find in the scriptures I do not see how free will can exist. Second, it is clear that free will does exist. For one thing there are clear statements in scripture that require it, and two, theologians, no matter their place on the spectrum of Arminianism to Calvinism, all hold to some view of free will.
My observation is this, then: Since Einstein has demonstrated mathematically that time is bendable and its measurement is not objective, but is dependent upon the perspective of the time-keeper,(read again my illustration which is actually an observation that Einstein made; though light has a constant measurable speed, there is no objective time which can be stated for the light to cross the inside of the train car and return, for the time it takes is relative to the position of the one measuring the time) is it possible that both God's sovereignty and man's free will are fully active within time?
Jody,
Sorry for the belated response. I'll try to be brief as well.
The first paragraph you wrote on the sovereignty of God was very well written! The second paragraph, I think, has some good questions regarding 'free will'. Perhaps I could focus the conversation to one of what does 'free will' have in relation to our salvation in Christ. Although I know that you probably don't accept the Calvinist rubric of belief regarding soteriology, I think your questions are quite common and, speaking for myself, were a source of struggle over several years until I recognized that we truly don't have a 'free will' in regard to salvation. We're completely broken, sinful, and totally unable to come to God in a way that exercises faith that 'saves'. In other words, the reason that the Psalmist wrote that 'salvation is of the Lord' (I believe that was David), he meant this to mean that his salvation, by faith alone, was not something he could have attained in and of himself. Salvation was completely an act of God's will (monergism) without the input of man's will to believe God. In stating this, it would be obvious, from the Calvinist point of view, that the 'ordo salutis' starts with regeneration that precedes faith. Once we are regenerated by the complete saving work of God, we are able to then trust Christ in faith, which thus saves us. To infer that we have some 'degree' of free will *in regard to salvation*, we become robbers of the glory due solely to God. Perhaps these comments will spur another round of conversation, although I am not willing to become pugnacious or antagonistic toward your view on salvation (and I don't expect the conversation to take such a turn-- I know you well enough of your graciousness, which often exceeds my own).
Larry
Thanks for the reply.
If we do not have free will in salvation, then I don't see how discussing salvation helps us solve the tension between sovereignty and free will. At that point, the doctrine of salvation is not pertinent to the discussion.
I would also note that denying free will in salvation (at least by some definition) raises the question of whether free will exists at all. If free will does exist yet does not exist in salvation then it seems that salvation is a special category in which God's sovereignty operates differently than it does in other realsm of space and time. Again, it renders a discussion of soteriology useless trying to reconcile sovereignty with free will.
Post a Comment