Monday, November 9, 2009

More about two realities:

OK first things first, since we have to deal in scripture let me address that. As for an explicit teaching I can show a few things that I think support my theory but mostly only implicitly. I think this is acceptable however, because if we are to require explicit teaching for every doctrine then we may have to ditch the Trinity along with my two realities theory.

So I guess my question is, if I can show that scripture implicitly supports my theory and that my theory is not explicitly negated in scripture, if it aids in my ability to reach and love the lost, then shouldn't I feel free to adopt and even promote this position? I'm not asking this question as a challenge, but really as just a question.

So for some inferences on the two realities consider Genesis. When Adam and Eve sinned God banished them from the Garden of Eden, out of His Holy Presence. "He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. Gen 3:24" Now I believe that the purpose of Creation was to reveal the Glory of Christ. So it was by God's will that Adam and Eve sinned, God created them in a reality where this was possible, and he knew and even foreknew that it would happen. When the sin happened God banished them from his presence and from the direction of His will (they knew good and evil for themselves Gen 3:22), this banishment was a severe separation hence the cherubim and flaming sword. So God banished them into a reality where they would be left to decide good and evil for themselves. God created this reality for the express purpose of destroying it (Romans 9), but not until His redemptive purposes were accomplished. So God created this reality where we are allowed to decide what is good and evil on our own, the purpose he created this reality for was to enable us to marvel in the Glory of Christ as he saves us from the planned destruction. Is he still not completely sovereign over this reality? If I blow up a balloon for the express purpose of popping it to bring joy to my son, am I not still sovereign over the balloon and the air in it even if I allow the molecules inside to go where they will?

Next consider salvation: Can a sinner come into the presence of God? Can a former sinner come into the presence of God? No. (Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, easy ones!) It would not be just for God to allow this to happen because of who He is. So if I live in a reality in which I am a sinner that is destined for destruction and I come to faith in Christ, the only way I can come into the presence of God is if my faith in Christ makes me absolutely new from the beginning of time. What about my past? Well at the revealing of Christ is when it will be destroyed along with the rest of the reality that was prepared for destruction. My new past is that I was unconditionally elected from before time began (because there would be no other way that I could enter into God's presence). So the blood of Christ literally makes us a new creation, not a renovated creation, a new one. So with two realities I can uphold unconditional election, and man's free will at the same time. I can read Romans 9 and go right on to Romans 10 and not see any kind of inconsistency or confusion. I guess that makes me a Calvinian, or an Arminivist.

I put some other verses on my blog post that I really think could be used to infer support of my two realities theory. Any reference to a new birth, new heavens, new earth, old passing away, kingdoms coming to nothing, etc. One interesting one is in Daniel 2:36-45. Daniel is interpreting King Nebuchadnezzar dream. In it he sees a kingdom coming: "41 And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay.42 And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle." Prior to Christ the Holy Spirit was not sent to us. God interacted with his people directly where he needed and through the priests and prophets in order to separate himself from the sins of the people. After Christ the Holy Spirit is among us. So we have the Kingdom of God among each one of us. And we each as individuals are experiencing the reality of Adam's banishment, and through the new Adam, the reality of God's Kingdom, at the same time. One of these kingdoms is strong and one is brittle, just like the interpretation of the dream in Daniel.

Now, let's talk about the will of God. Who can resist God's will? Nobody right? If someone could then they could dethrone him or otherwise thwart his purposes. So the logical conclusion of this from our perspective is that reality IS the revealed will of God, because it wouldn't have happened if it weren't. However I think I've shown how it could be possible for God to will a reality for the purposes of destroying it, and then allow for individuals within that reality to be "given over to their lusts" (Rom 1:24), with out those sins being against the will of God (because his will is that they are going to be destroyed with the reality anyway).

Two wills or two realities, which one makes for a bigger God? My argument is that saying God has two wills, one of which is constantly frustrated by our inability to live up to it, puts God into the same constraint of space and time that we exist in. If we say there are two wills and one reality then we have to do mental gymnastics to say that God willed the evil but is not responsible or accountable for it. We'll even go so far as to say that the evil is good because it accomplished God's purpose, but we should be careful because "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20" Clearly there is good and there is evil, clearly we sin, and clearly it is not God causing us to sin (James 1:13). So something has to give here. Either God wills that I sin and James is wrong, or I am free to sin against the will of God and Paul is wrong (Romans 9:6-18 ). I'm not willing to accept either one of those solutions.

However, if we say there is one will and two realities then it all makes sense. How can something be real and be against the will of God? It can't, but God could will a reality where man could live for a time outside of his will. So I'm not going against Romans 9, everything in that reality was "endured with much patience" and "prepared for destruction", for the purpose making "known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory". I see two realities here, one prepared for destruction, one prepared for glory. We are saved from the one into the other. When we enter His Kingdom we are made new creations, not refurbished creations, new creations. Something that is new does not have a history, it is new. So how can I be new if I am old unless my history is changed due to a change of reality? That's what I am saying. I think my theory sees a bigger God with a single will, instead of a God constantly frustrated by our disobedience to one of His 2 wills. I think my theory also affirms scripture more literally than I did prior to this theory (understanding kingdoms, rebirth, new heavens, etc much more clearly), and I think it solves some apparent paradoxes in scripture (which for obvious reasons can't be paradoxes).

So how do we apply this to real life? Well the story of Joseph is a perfect example. To do the will of God in the reality of Adam's banishment so that people will be saved from the coming destruction. Christ not only made it possible but also taught us how to live in two realities, to be "in the world but not of the world" (which isn't scripture but is also inferred from places like John 11:17, 1 John 2:15-17 etc).