Last year at this time, I published an article in the May 2014 issue of the St. Louis Amigan, titled “Experience”. That article seems to have been making something of an impact. With that in mind, it is reprinted here:
Back
in March, on the 23rd
of the month, I woke up all a-ponder, with many things running
through my mind.
There
was the issue of repentance, for I had been, in my dreams, living out
the restored presence of one whom I have greatly missed, but who is
not mine to desire. Though nothing untoward happened in my little
fantasy, there was the desire for it. There was, therefore, the issue
of repentance.
There
were various things involving my walk and its association to the life
of the Patriarch Joseph, including the return of past offenders and
how he went about discerning the conditions of their hearts. They had
wanted him dead, and sought to guarantee their wishes by giving him
over to a situation that no one had any business surviving. How did
he handle it, and was his methodology the righteous path to take?
There
was also the completion of an entire year of writing at least one
hymn per day that was on my mind, for, according to the best
knowledge of my memory, that day marked the anniversary, and,
therefore, 366 consecutive days of writing at least one hymn per day
(for the anniversary marks the beginning of another year, not the
conclusion of the previous). The anniversary hymn is included in this
issue.
Of
more importance, though, is a question in my mind. It is brought out
in Hebrews 5:8, where, speaking of Christ it says, “although
being a son, learned from His sufferings, obedience.”
One
of the essential and indisputable tenets of the Christian faith is
that Christ is God in flesh; also that God is omniscient, knowing all
things. How, then, does the omniscient learn?
Many
would see that question as a trap. They would think that they have
you in a spot that you can’t get out
of without violating your Christian faith. Every trap, though, has a
door, and knowing that trap will help you to learn how to open the
door and step out of the trap unscathed.
Scientific
research has presented us with evidence that could prove useful in
answering our question. Those who do not want there to be a God have
been struggling for the better part of a century against this
evidence, in fact, because of its usefulness in our endeavor.
When
people sense that they are in danger of losing a debate they have a
tendency to reduce to insult and intimidation. They do that because
they see it as the only way that they can silence what they do not
want to hear. These days, unfortunately, they also do not want anyone
else to hear, and their only method of accomplishing their goal is to
shout down and silence what they hate. What is it that Jesus said?
“The disciple is not better than his master.”
1
“If they hate you, know that they have first hated Me.”
2
It is not because of evidence that they deny God, because
the evidence actually proves God, and not their philosophical
rejection of Him. It
is evidence from scientific research that supports the logic that
proves our case.
Back
in the middle of the 20th
Century evidence was gathered that supported the Big Bang theory.
Ever since, all of the evidence of Cosmology has very stubbornly
continued to support the Big Bang. In fact, way back the 1960’s,
before he fell ill, Dr. Steven Hawking solved the Field
equations
of
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity,
indicating that the universe began in what has been called both
“the singularity” and “a zero-volume space”. Dr. Steven C.
Meyer then asks his students, “How much stuff can you fit in a zero
volume space?” The answer, of course, is “Nothing.” According
to science’s
own research, then, “nothing” is the amount of physical stuff
that began the universe.
Where
there is no physical stuff, there is also no way of measuring it,
because you cannot measure what does not exist. There were no
dimensions and no passage of time, because there was nothing for them
to measure, and where there is nothing to measure there is no
measurement.
So,
there was no space and there was no time. The absence of these is
important to understand the answer to our question: “How
does God learn?”
Since
there was nothing physical to cause it, that cause had to be
non-physical. Christians more often refer to such a cause as
spiritual. There is nothing physical about the spiritual. Some people
think that that disqualifies it as a cause of the physical, but don’t
panic. There is also nothing physical about your mind, but it
controls your body, which is physical.
If
you can do it without even thinking about it, so can God.
The
universe was created, so time and space also were created. The
creator of something is not bound by what it creates, but what is
created is bound by its creator. That means that the creator of the
universe is not bound by the universe, the creator of time is not
bound by time, and the creator of space is not bound by space.
Those
are bound by their creator. As to time and space, that could be
stated as meaning that time and space are contained within their
creator. Since
they are contained within their creator that means that at any point
of them, their creator is present.
Another
way of saying that is that as regards time, its cause is eternal, and
as to space, its cause is omnipresent.
No
sane person would ever seriously argue that the workings of the
universe cannot be figured out, since that quest has been getting
successfully pursued ever since earthly civilization began. They
might say that it is a testimony to the ingenuity of man, but it is
also a testimony to the rationality of the universe. The rationality
of the universe is
another way of saying that it is orderly as opposed to random; it
follows rules, rules that can be discerned, and rules do not arise on
their own. They have a creator, or ruler, and rulers such as these
have a mind; they are intelligent.
Since
the universe has time, space and order, that means that its cause is
eternal, omnipresent, and intelligent. Intelligent means that it is
aware. Since it is aware at all times and in all places, that means
that it is all-knowing. Christians usually refer to that as
omniscient. So, the cause of the universe is eternal, omnipresent,
and omniscient. I don’t know about you, but to me, that sounds an
awful lot like God.
The
people who claim that science proves there is no God do not know
science. We just used science—and used it accurately—to prove
that God must
exist. In fact, the evidence gathered by science requires
God to exist in order for that evidence to make any sense at all.
Those
who argue otherwise are not arguing from scientific evidence, but
from a pre-existing investment in a philosophy that denies the
existence of God. The only people who invest in a philosophy are
people who want to invest in it, and the only motive for wanting to
invest in it is that it tells you what you want to hear. Those who
argue that science proves there is no God do not want there to be a
God.
Now
that we’ve
addressed that question, we are free to address the question we’re
here for: How
does the omniscient learn?
Answering
this requires that the reader engage a concept of time that might
seem a little strange at first; a concept, in fact, that
involves pondering that which exists outside of the bounds of time.
Addressing
the Scripture in question, in fact, how does God obey (for that is
what He is said to have learned, obedience)? That
is an interesting concept in itself, but I don’t
think we have room to address it thoroughly in this issue. Suffice it
to say that it is a trinitarian issue of trust and submission and
love,
αγαπη
Love.
You
sacrifice yourself for the sake of another. That is how God obeys.
Since
God is unbounded by time (one might say “unaffected by time”),
what
He does is not restricted by, not bound by, and not illuminated by
the flow of time that we perceive. If He does something at time
coordinate x
it also happens at all points a—z.
It is sort of like the aorist tense to a whole nother dimension.
If
you can wrap your mind around that, then I posit you this: Most
people learn by experience. In the case of God, you might say that He
has experienced/is experiencing/shall experience it, all at once.
There is no easy conversion between our concept of time and His.
So,
since learning, from our perspective, involves coming to new
knowledge, was there ever a time when God lacked knowledge? There is
a reason for the previous two paragraphs. Pay attention to them and
ponder them. From our perspective, the answer to that must needs be
“No.” Our perspective, however, is not God’s.
Most
people, as I said, learn from experience. Sure, it is possible to
learn from books, so to speak, but book-learning has never been
thought of as being as valuable as experiential learning. In fact,
the whole line of argument surrounding our Scripture passage has been
to assure us that our God has been there; that He has walked that
path before us; that He knows it because He has lived it/does live
it/shall live it. That is the whole point of that Scripture passage.
“For
we have not a high priest unsympathetic with our weaknesses, but
tested and assayed in all the same ways.”
3
As it has been said, there is no greater teacher than experience.
1Matthew
10:24; Luke 6:40; John 13:16, 15:20
2Matthew
10:22; John 15:18
3Hebrews
4:15
