Two well known strands of Protestant theology are the Calvinist and Arminian. There are a number of differences between these two schools but one of them keys on soteriology (salvation). Calvinists would hold that once a person is saved, he is always saved. Arminians dispute this idea. Consider the following thought experiment:
- A person, we’ll call him John, is born and arrives in his twenties. He is a devoted and sincere Christian.
- Then, in his twenties a series of circumstances arise and he loses his faith. Through his mid-thirties he is a not-Christian.
- Finally late in life and to his death he returns to the faith of his birth and is again a devout and sincere Christian.
We add to this mix “device X.” Device X is trained on John and makes him into an human Schrödinger‘s Cat. If a particular nuclei is seen to decay … he dies. The state of this nuclei is tested at points 1 and 2 during his life. So we now consider if he dies at points 1,2, and 3 in his life and the soteriological implications of this.
My (limited and likely flawed) understanding of the Calvin/Arminius dispute is that an Arminian would say he was saved at points 1&3 and a Calvinist would say at point 2 that even though John was not a believer that he (John) is still one of those saved that He (God) would still call him saved because He (being omniscient) knows that John will live through to point 3 and will return to the fold.
This is where the Many-Worlds theory comes in. An Arminian could argue that each of points 1,2, and 3 the universe splits. In one universe he lives. In the other he dies. Therefore the Calvinist argument that God can know the result is impossible. Just before point 1, there is one universe. After point 3 there are three and in two of them John goes on to be saved and one in which he is not. Therefore if Many Worlds is true God cannot say which John He is judging at point 1 … which is the Arminian statement on this question. Thus the Arminian view is compatible with Many Worlds while the Calvinist view is not.
If one take (the seemingly obvious and innocuous) view that belief or non-belief in the quantum theory known as the “many worlds hypothesis” is adiaphora. It is not essential to salvation whether you give the theory credence or not … and that given the dependence of this particular dispute between these two schools on this point … that therefore this point is thus also adiaphora and not dogma.
(Note: I’m going to be travelling this week on business. I’ll be checking the comment threads likely only in the evenings)
May 16th, 2010 | 10:20 pm | #1
The problem here is simple: most Protestant theology has “collapsed” the “eschatological horizon”. Luther and Calvin were concerned to fix the certainty of the justifying decree, forgetting that justification is only experienced as it is worked out in the sacramental, ecclesial experience of the believer.
Hence: “work out your salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you… (Phil 2:12-13)”: God works in us (sacraments, the word, miracles, etc.) but we must also work it out.
Evangelicalism compounded their error by turning justification into a felt experience. Now one had to “know” one was saved. How does one know an eschatological event?
We WILL BE saved (Romans 8:23-25; Galatians 5:5; Ephesians 1:13-14), for the justifying decree that declares us “saved” (not-damned) is eschatological (Romans 2:12-16).
Reopen the eschatological horizon and the problems disappear. We live in faith and love, anticipating in hope the eternal salvation that WILL BE ours. The promise is real, the presence of the Holy Spirit, the seal of our future salvation is real, yet the peril of our own possible apostasy is real.
The temporal vector in which we “work out our salvation” is not an illusion. The “working out” has real, indeed, eternal, consequences.
For the record, least someone try to pigeon-hole my position, I am neither RC nor EO.
May 17th, 2010 | 9:14 am | #2
God bless the elect Calvinists, the elect Arminians, the elect Lutherans, the elect Catholics, the elect Eastern Orthodox.
And God bless the non-Elect with all His common grace.
May 17th, 2010 | 9:17 am | #3
God bless the elect Calvinists, the elect Arminians, the elect Lutherans, the elect Catholics, the elect Eastern Orthodox.
And God bless the non-Elect with all His common grace.
… in this world.
;-)
May 17th, 2010 | 9:26 am | #4
Mark,
Classic Arminianism affirms divine foreknowledge. Your quantum interpretation would be a better way to model open theism, not Arminian theism.
I thought you were Eastern Orthodox. Does Eastern Orthodoxy deny God’s knowledge of the future?
In passing, I’d add that there are many divergent interpretations of quantum mechanics. Surely you know that better than I.
May 17th, 2010 | 10:20 am | #5
Yeah, but what does the Bible say?
Theology is not determined by thought experiments or physics. It is determined by God and what He has already said.
May 17th, 2010 | 10:52 am | #6
“Classic Arminianism affirms divine foreknowledge.”
God foreknew the Elect and the Non-Elect before he created them. And He created the Non-Elect anyways.
The LFW Sinner in Hell says that the LFW God is a cruel, sadistic monster because the LFW God FOREKNEW that the LFW Sinner WOULD CHOOSE to reject and refuse to repent, and yet LFW God created him anyways.
LFW Sinner in Hell: “LFW God, are you the Uncaused Cause of all things that happen?”
LFW God: “I am the Uncaused Cause.”
LFW Sinner in Hell: “LFW God, are you the Uncreated Creator?”
LFW God: “I am the Uncreated Creator.”
LFW Sinner in Hell: “LFW God, are you omniscient and know everything? There is nothing you don’t know?”
LFW God: “I am infinitely omniscient and there is nothing I don’t know.”
LFW Sinner in Hell: “Then you foreknew that I would reject you and that I would choose to refuse to repent. And You foreknew that I would spend eternity in hellish misery.
There is nothing that is created or caused until You do it because You are the Uncaused Cause and the Uncreated Creator of all that happens and all that is made.”
LFW God: “This is true.”
LFW Sinner in Hell: “Then I wish You had never created me. I am eternally tormented because of You. I hate You LFW God. You are a sadistic, cruel, vile, hateful LFW monster.”
LFW God: “I knew you were going to say that. I am lovingly omniscient and I knew you were going to choose Hell when I created you. And i decided to create you anyways.”
LFW Sinner in Hell: “I hate you! I hate you! I hate you! Oh how I hate you, you LFW monster God.”
———-
LFW Sinner in Heaven: “I chose to repent and to worship Jesus as my Lord and Savior. That’s the difference between me and the LFW Sinner in Hell. It’s such a good thing that I did that. Otherwise, if I hadn’t done that, out of my libertarian free will, of my own free choice of my making a good and wise decision, a work that God recognizes and accrues on my behalf, earning the blood of the Lamb to cover my sins, then I would have ended up in Hell like that miserable LFW Sinner in Hell.
Whew!! Good thing I did it when I did call out to Jesus and confessed my sins and repented.”
May 17th, 2010 | 11:18 am | #7
Frank Turk
“Yeah, but what does the Bible say? Theology is not determined by thought experiments or physics. It is determined by God and what He has already said.”
Oh, Frank, you’re such a killjoy! Doing theology is far more fun if we emancipate theology from the nuisance of truth constraints.
May 17th, 2010 | 11:22 am | #8
I’m surprised that commenters are ignoring David’s judicious comment. To be honest, reading complicated thought experiments about an individualized and ahistorical approach to soteriology makes my head hurt – and I usually love theology. While I tend to think that Frank Turk’s “What does the Bible say?” approach is a bit simplistic, since hermeneutics and one’s tradition will impact one’s perception of the meaning of Scripture (sorry if that’s a caricature of what you were saying, Frank), he is right in pointing us back to Scripture, which situates the narrative of salvation (as David’s comment points out).
Part of me wonders whether we just enjoy arguing rather then 1) giving an account of salvation that glorifies God and sheds light on Scripture and 2) getting about the work of apologetics in a world that finds the basic creedal claims of Christianity increasingly incredible. We need a narrative into which our salvation fits, and the best forms of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Catholic and Orthodox theology provide such a narrative by drawing on the richness of Scripture.
(This is not a commentary directly on Mark Olsen’s intriguing post, but only on the dynamic that makes it of such interest around here.)
May 17th, 2010 | 3:09 pm | #9
@ TUAD, comment number 6,
How does your dialog counter the fact that God has divine foreknowledge? You yourself say he does. Maybe I’m missing something from your argument.
May 17th, 2010 | 3:34 pm | #10
I’m guessing this is the blog that will settle it all. And the series finale of LOST will answer all of my questions.
May 17th, 2010 | 4:30 pm | #11
LFW Sinner in Hell: God is the Author of Evil.
Argument:
“1. Assume that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent.
2. Assume that humans have free will. [LFW]
3. God’s omniscience means that God knows, before conception, what each person will freely choose to do with her life. This includes the evil that she will commit.
4. God chooses to allow some humans to be born, but not others. [Libertarian] Free will nevertheless exists (by our assumption #2).
5. God could choose to prevent the birth of those who would freely choose to do evil, and allow the birth of those who would freely choose to do good. This would not prevent them in any way from exercising their [libertarian] free will.
6. God does not do this.
7. Therefore, God is responsible for the evil that people commit.”
From: Here.
(H/T to Steve Hays).
May 17th, 2010 | 4:34 pm | #12
(Oops. Correction is needed for the above. Preface God each time with the LFW descriptor.)
LFW Sinner in Hell: LFW God is the Author of Evil.
Argument:
“1. Assume that LFW God is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent.
2. Assume that humans have [libertarian] free will.
3. LFW God’s omniscience means that LFW God knows, before conception, what each person will freely choose to do with her life. This includes the evil that she will commit.
4. LFW God chooses to allow some humans to be born, but not others. [Libertarian] Free will nevertheless exists (by our assumption #2).
5. LFW God could choose to prevent the birth of those who would freely choose to do evil, and allow the birth of those who would freely choose to do good. This would not prevent them in any way from exercising their [libertarian] free will.
6. LFW God does not do this.
7. Therefore, LFW God is responsible for the evil that people commit.”
From: Here.
(H/T to Steve Hays).
May 17th, 2010 | 5:57 pm | #13
I’m going to become accommodating here: At least Arminianism has a sense of election, unlike some of those revivalists who hold to a wholly self-determined salvation. To them, Arminianism might even look like Calvinism! :-)
May 17th, 2010 | 9:57 pm | #14
Collin is right, hays is the kill-joy, and the Bible is still the foundational truths by which and from which our theology must come.
Is there any reference in the Bible to hypothetical futures that will not come to pass? I can think of two contenders off the top of my head, but since it’s not my position to defend the idea “that each of points 1,2, and 3 the universe splits,” I’ll leave it to the physicists to help us out with those. In the Bible, there is One God, and One mediator Christ Jesus, and it is appointed for all men once to die, and then the judgment.
One man is not an infinite number of souls: that some sort of pseudo-hindu rationalization to escape the idea that God really is in control of all things.
May 17th, 2010 | 9:59 pm | #15
steve hays,
Yes. And I’ve been Christian for 5 years as an adult and EO for half of that. I’m not the authority you deem me to be.
Augustine in his Confessions wrote that the Universe worships the creator through our understanding of its workings. I like that way of viewing things and think that Genesis 1 (following Kass) teaches that the Universe made by God is comprehensible. Quantum mechanics and its particular problems with determinism and the future are for me not adiaphora. Those experimental and theoretical understandings and the Resurrection are both right. If our understanding of faith is not compatible with both then it is our understanding that is at fault.
For myself I don’t know where to put the eschaton in relation to a Minkowski space-time, but it doesn’t particularly bother me at this juncture. Jesus will judge, I am a sinner and am repentant. What then is the use of forensic discussions trying to pare fine differences that comprise the fine points such as are men saved once and for all or not?
After all I’m Eastern Orthodox, there is no need to make sure everything wraps up all neat and tidy. In fact that’s where I’d fault the West in thinking that’s an interesting, useful, or for that matter possible task.
Frank,
The world is also God’s revelation of Himself to us. Not just Scripture alone.
May 17th, 2010 | 10:06 pm | #16
Frank,
In brief the Many Worlds hypothesis is that at “measurement” (an ill defined thing) the universe splits. Each result (for example is the particle’s spin up or down or did the particle decay or not) gives rise to a separate Universe in which the different results come to pass. In our example, in one Universe, John is dead at point 1. In the another he is not. And so on.
The theory has it that there is no communication between universes … so there are not an ‘infinite’ number of souls. If the idea of “possible” futures has any resonance with you, this theory posits that each possibility is real.
May 18th, 2010 | 1:48 am | #17
Mark Olson: “Quantum mechanics and its particular problems with determinism and the future are for me not adiaphora. Those experimental and theoretical understandings and the Resurrection are both right. If our understanding of faith is not compatible with both then it is our understanding that is at fault.”
I’m unclear as to your decision to put the “experimental” and “theoretical” understandings of quantum mechanics and the Many-Worlds Hypothesis/Theory on the same par as Scripture’s attestation of the fact of Jesus’s Resurrection.
I think this “understanding” that the theory of quantum mechanics and Scripture are on par with each other is at fault.
May 18th, 2010 | 10:01 pm | #18
TUaD,
It’s just who I am. When I was 11 I was enraptured by accounts of the discoveries and the genius at work as evidenced by those who uncovered and worked out the intricacies of quantum theory. I spent 20+ years diving into that my mind, soul, heart and strength to borrow a phrase … and after which I had lambskin in work related to String theory and no job (in Physics). As I’ve noted before its been just about 6 years now that I came back to Christ as a Christian. I have not however had any direct Theophany like St. Paul or a St. Siluan. I cannot and will not deny the Resurrection, but in the same way I cannot deny the truth of Quantum mechanics (but Many Worlds … that particular I can do without, ahem). I have had too many flashes of insight and understanding into how that works to deny it either. I firmly believe that we live in a world based on complex amplitudes and the wonders that entail.
Over and over in the Quantum story, the same kinds of questions and situations arose … how can results A and B both be true where it was clearly true that A and B were incompatible and could not be true at the same time. Yet it was always human imagination that was at fault. A and B could in fact both co-exist with the correct understanding. It’s like that with Quantum mechanics and a God outside of time. I don’t know how to reconcile an eschatological God existing eternally unchanging and outside of time yet interacting with a quantum Minkowski space-time manifold. Yet just because I can’t figure it out doesn’t mean I have to choose one or the other for I believe it is my imagination at fault.
Do you happen to think that resolving/reconciling this sort of thing is important? I happen to think that, like the Arminian/Calvin soteriological debate, it is not.
May 19th, 2010 | 7:37 am | #19
“Do you happen to think that resolving/reconciling this sort of thing is important?”
Dear Mark,
First of all, much thanks for your in-depth reply. It’s really cool.
With respect to the question above, I think it depends on what one considers a “sufficient resolution” and what lengths that someone will go in order to derive what they think is a “sufficient resolution”.
And with regards to the ineffable mystery of the “tension” between God’s Sovereignty/Man’s Free Will ages-old debate, I like how the monergists approach and address the issue.
God bless you, Mark.
May 19th, 2010 | 10:24 am | #20
Two things, Mark:
[1] Indeed – creation is one form of revelation. It is simply not the interpretive or definitive form of revelation: it is the one which requires God’s interpretation. Before you head down the “scripture requires revelation, too” path too far, remember that there’s a massive difference between having to sort out the meaning of the clause, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” and interpreting the moral meaning of (for example, chosen to be as clear as possible for the sake of contrast) the in-born tendancy of some men to be sexually-attracted to other men.
If you’re right, and creation is a competing revelation to Scripture — or one of equal authority which we must abide by — then our ability to understand the moral workings of the universe are, at best, provisional.
[2] So how many creator-Gods are there, Mark? If there are an infinite number of non-interposing “Frank Turks” in the multiverse, how many Jesus Christs are there? Are there Christs who do not save? It seems to me that the idea of universes which cannot interact and cannot be invalidated in some why is superstition and not science — regardless of the imaginative appeal it may have.
May 19th, 2010 | 6:11 pm | #21
“If you’re right, and creation is a competing revelation to Scripture — or one of equal authority which we must abide by — then our ability to understand the moral workings of the universe are, at best, provisional.”
Not so. Scripture can only be informed by Nature in regards to the material of Creation. Thus Science is not the path to understanding the moral dimension of revelation. The story of Noah is a perfect example of how this complimentary knowledge works, and how by themselves Divine and Natural revelation offer an incomplete truth.
Science (Reason), examines God’s creation and discovers that there is no evidence of a global flood in the time of Man. The Bible offers very few details, some of which are illogical in light of what we know to be True (the number of species of life on earth versus space on the ark, the rate of rainfall – per minute! – required to drown mountains, the highest elevation an olive tree can grow, etc.). More importantly, the Bible has never purported to be a scientifically accurate description of reality on par with physics and mathematics.
Instead the Scripture relates the story of the flood for the purpose of instructing us on Salvation. Likewise, the flood itself had a meaning beyond the accounting of natural forces — God offered Salvation to Noah and his family.
“our ability to understand the moral workings of the universe are, at best, provisional.”
This has always been true. Theology is the process by which Man understands Scripture. While scripture may be inerrant, theology is not and certainly should never claim to be. Consider that a half century ago the SBC used the Bible to justify segregation, or that even today, Protestants and Catholics has very different perspectives on God’s Commandment regarding the taking of life.
May 26th, 2010 | 1:57 pm | #22
Hi Mark Olson,
Here’s a blog post about quantum mechanics and transubstantiation that you might find interesting:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/25/does-quantum-physics-render-transubstantiation-meaningless/#comments
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact