Theology

How One’s View of Time Affects Interpreting Predestination

by J.W. Phillips
07/03/25
Not For Sale

  Message Writer
  Hire Writer

Tweet

How One’s View of Time Affects Interpreting Predestination

In Edgar Allen Poe’s poem,“The Bells, this recurring phrase is found: “Keeping time, time,time in a sort of runic rhyme.”

Using this phrase, the poet tracks the markers of time, the moods of time, and the modality of time itself. Whatever the mysteries of time, we do understand how it unfolds. The chronology is always past, present, future. There are no exceptions to this.

As it turned out this linear view of time became an unforeseen problem to theologians of the Reformed persuasion.

Their challenge was to explain seemingly irreconcilable views in Scripture. For example, there is the scripture that says God is unwilling for any to perish (II Peter 3:9) and other Scriptures which say that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4).

You see the problem. If God really didn’t want any to perish, how is it possible that he only chose some to be saved and that all those not chosen were destined to perish?

The linear view of time forces the unbiblical conclusion that God either changed his mind, or if not that, was duplicitous. The before-and-after dynamic of linear time compel this choice.

But if a different time model was operative, that conclusion may be wrong.

Taking up the task to explain all this, which Scripture never does as such, enveloped these Reformers in an inescapable quandry, so that views that were secondary and tertiary at best became primary.

In their theologizing of this issue, the Reformers instructed us on two tenets that were designed to solve the problem. These two tenets—the limited design of atonement and irresistable grace—became the most objectionable views in Reformed theology. Yet, according to Reformed theologian Jay Adams, that was the beef in the Reformed burger.

People ask, where’s the beef?—a popular catchphrase meaning: Where’s the substance? Where’s the proof?

Well, according to them, here it is. We must digest the idea that God only chose some to be saved (not others); and that God made sure those he chose would be saved by dispensing a grace they couldn’t resist.

Whoa! This becomes the centerpiece of theology? This becomes a dividing line in Protestant theology? What a horrible reconfiguration of the gospel! Scripture never pushes this perspective. Reformers do.

These are not mean-spirited people, obviously, and certainly not careless people or non-academic people. So what threw them off course?

The critical factor, I submit, was their assumption that there’s a linear time connection between the predestination of God in eternity and the salvation of man today. This assumption then became the basis of faulty “if, then” thinking. Remove the assumption and the nonsense stops.

Actually, we are given a strong hint in both the Ephesians passage and in the II Peter passage we cited that this issue about time is critical to understanding what is being asserted.

II Peter 3:8 says, “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

The Reformers did forget, or at the very least failed to contemplate the significance of this “one thing”.

This verse doesn’t just say that God has a different perspective about the shortness and length of time than we do. It says something else: that God exists outside time, and outside time the dynamics are different!

“One day is as a thousand years.” Would anyone in time and only in time link Monday with the millenium? That thought would never cross their minds!

For the Christian, the millennium is going to be great! As for Mondays, not so much. Why? Because the weekend is over, so back to the grind they must go!

Some of you might remember the Mamas and the Papas’ number one hit from the mid-60s, “Monday, Monday.” This song offered the lyric:

Monday, Monday
Can’t trust that day
Monday, Monday,
Sometimes it just turns out that way

More to the point, of course, is that this verse in II Peter flags our attention so we’ll focus on the immensely important fact that God’s relationship to time is different than ours. When interpreting Scripture, therefore, we must seriously consider this.

But we haven’t.

II Timothy 1:9 speaks of grace “given us in Christ Jesus before time began.” Titus 1:2 adds that the promise of eternal life was set forth “before time began.” Ephesians 1:4 says God “chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

A strong scriptural case can be made that time began with the creation of the world.

The idea of God existing outside of time, as described in Christian texts like these, aligns better with a non-linear perspective of time.

The dynamics in eternity, which continues today, are different! How different? We don’t know. Scripture identifies one way in these verses, but it doesn’t give us a full revelation on this.

Another scriptural disclosure related to the time issue does prompt this question: How can it be that Scripture provides hundreds of statements predicting with specificity events that would occur hundreds of years later, and always be right? Could someone existing only in time do that? No way! Not if exclusively operating on resources from self.

We must remind ourselves that the western concept of linear time is only one of many possible ways to understand time. There are other paradigms about time.

Trying to solve the same problem the Reformers were trying to solve, proponents of open theism postulated that God chose to live in time, accepted the limitations of time, and therefore responds to events as they occur. In this scenario, the future is unknown, even to God. An avalanche of scriptures prove this view wrong.

Why did open-theism make this mistake? Because they were focusing on those scriptures that depict God responding to us as if he were in time, which he is.

The Reformers focused more on eternity; the open theists focused more on time. The mistake they both made was assuming and adopting a linear time perspective for their respective models.

The linearity of time contrasts sharply with a multidimensional tapestry of time. Time might be more than just a one-way street; it could be a complex construct where temporal sequences are not just sequential but are also interconnected in a multi-directional framework that transcends our linear, human-centric perspective

Think of 3D, 4D, or 12D models: spinning, swirling, interconnecting yet distinctly different from each other, and certainly different from the flat, linear 1D model

We know so little about these things, and therefore we shouldn’t speculate about them to the point of including them in our theolog

Alternative concepts of time such as the cyclical, spiral, relative, and psychological views are problematic as well. But there may be more credibility to the contribution Albert Einstein made.

This renowned luminaryconceived of a cosmos where massive objects warp the fabric of spacetime. In an article titled, “Time Dilation: Why Does Gravity Slow Down The Flow Of Time?”Akash Peshin explained:

Einstein imagined what would happen if the tramcar traveled at the speed of light. As he gazed at the grand clock tower, he realized that if he were traveling at 186,000 miles per second, the clock’s hands, which already moved so solemnly, would appear to freeze completely. Meanwhile, back at the clock tower, time would run normally, and the hands would be ticking conventionally.

In his paper on general relativity published in 1915, Einstein postulated that there is no absolute time. Time is relative depending on the system of forces one is subject to. This purported time perspective lent itself to speculations of space travel where you arrive younger than when you left.

In the movie Interstellar, another Einstein-inspired speculation surfaces when Anne Hathaway tells Mathew McConaughey after landing on a faraway planet: “One hour on this planet is 7 years on Earth.” 

Speculation? Sure, but speculation with serious scientific credentials.

Many scientists believe that Einstein’s discovery is nothing short of groundbreaking. The notion that gravity impedes the flow of time, and that the more massive the object, the slower time passes in its vicinity is consequential if true. And if gravity does that, what else could do that?

The very idea of the arc of time bending, and the rate and degree it does so, is a fascinating thought.

At the very least we can say: The dynamics of time for God are different than they are for us, and that real time may not be the one-dimensional view the linear view presents. 

Assuming otherwise sets up the faulty reasoning that plagued both the Reformed and open-theism perspectives.

It is better not to go beyond Scripture and attempt to explain what Scripture doesn’t explain. By not heeding this caution, the result will invariably degenerate into horrendous interpretations that mix scriptural assertions with human deductions.

Acknowledging that different time schemes were involved doesn’t solve the problem the Reformers and open theism teachers were trying to solve. That solution eludes all of us. This is because the revelation God gave is true, not total; credible, not comprehensive; extensive, not exhaustive; sufficient, not entire. But though partial, God’s revelation is entirely reliable.

Our additions and deductions may not be.