by Thomas Abshier | May 13, 2025 | Uncategorized
Meeting #5, 5/12/25, Divine Constraints, Human Freedom, and Meaning
Divine Constraints and Human Freedom: The Paradox of Creation
Introduction
In the twilight of human understanding, where philosophy and theology meet, lies a profound question: Why would an all-powerful God choose to impose limitations on His actions? This apparent paradox formed the center of a remarkable discussion among Thomas, Charlie, Lucie, and Isak as they explored the tensions between divine omnipotence and the imperfect world we inhabit. Their conversation wove together questions of cosmic purpose, divine intention, and the very meaning of existence itself.
The Garden Paradox: Perfection and Curiosity
“Why do you think that humans were attracted to disobeying God, even though their world was perfect?” Lucie’s question cuts to the heart of creation’s most enduring mystery. If Eden represented perfection, what could possibly have motivated humanity to reach for something beyond it?
The answer may lie in the nature of consciousness itself. As Thomas suggested, “We’re curious. I think we always want something better than what we have… I think we want something better than perfect perfection.” This seemingly contradictory desire—to improve upon perfection—reveals something fundamental about the human spirit that may reflect divine intention rather than human failure.
Charlie offered a compelling analogy: “Cayenne studies animals a lot… She says that dogs never grow up. We provide them with everything… Only wolves grow up completely because they are fully in the challenging world.” In this view, the Garden represents not the ultimate destination but the protected nursery from which humanity needed to emerge. Perfect security, it seems, prevents the growth necessary for full development.
The serpent’s promise that “you will become more like gods” contained a truth that transcended its deceptive context. As Lucie observed, “When the serpent said, ‘you will become more like gods’—that wasn’t a lie.” The fall, paradoxically, may have been essential for humanity to develop the wisdom and moral maturity required to truly love God from a position of understanding rather than naivety.
Divine Self-Limitation and Meaningful Creation
Perhaps the most challenging aspect of this theological exploration is the suggestion that God deliberately constrains His own power. Thomas proposed that “God has imposed limits on Himself. He doesn’t do everything he can. He could make this a perfect world, and he clearly has not.”
This self-limitation creates what might be called “the divine paradox”: God could eliminate suffering, yet chooses not to—not from indifference, but because without limitation, life loses meaning. As Thomas elaborated, “If you can take a mulligan all the time, it isn’t real. It’s not a real game… Everything is without significance if you don’t have to pay for it. If there isn’t a cost, life is cheap.”
The group explored the possibility that God Himself underwent a development process, testing multiple “iterations” of creation before arriving at our current reality. Isak drew a parallel to the biblical flood: “When I think of the story of Noah’s Ark, it’s similar to God preserving little things and keeping them safe, and then once again starting over.” This suggests divine patience and wisdom developed through cosmic experience rather than existing as static attributes.
The Boredom Problem: Eternal Life and Meaning
“The boredom would kill me,” Charlie confessed while contemplating an eternal Garden of Eden. I would be so bored I would want to partake of the forbidden fruit and die someday.” This startling admission reveals a tension at the heart of human desire: we simultaneously long for perfect peace and meaningful challenge.
This paradox extends to our conception of eternity itself. Isak framed the question powerfully: “If all there is at the end, in heaven, in eternal life… is that we are refined so much that we become just like a part of God… it seems like that lacks the individuality that makes life fun and worth living.”
The resolution may lie in distinguishing between different types of imperfection. As Thomas observed, “The only thing we’re sacrificing is sin. We’re not sacrificing sunrises, sunsets, childbirth, difficulty, overcoming imperfections in life, and solving problems, joy, and sorrow.” The key question becomes: “Can you imagine a world worth living in that didn’t have disease, death, and sin? Would it be interesting enough?”
The Necessity of Difference and Choice
A world without meaningful distinction would be a world without meaning itself. As Thomas explained, “The entire creation is based on difference. If we didn’t have a difference between here and there, this and that, we would have no basis for choice.”
This necessity for contrast extends to our moral understanding. When Charlie observed that in Genesis, “each day of creation, He said, ‘This is good,'” he realized a profound truth: “In order for there to be a decision that something is good, there has to be the possibility that it’s bad.” Without the possibility of evil, the concept of goodness itself loses meaning.
Yet this raises troubling questions about divine intention. Lucie directly asked, “Do you think that God actually wanted us to eat the fruit?” Her question probes whether temptation itself was part of the divine plan rather than an unfortunate accident. The discussion suggested that while God may not have desired disobedience itself, He may have recognized its necessity for humanity’s spiritual development.
The Universe as Divine Workshop
Isak proposed a fascinating model of creation: “What if God did this experiment in this universe and then didn’t like it… continually making everything and then wiping it out and getting to a point. So this wouldn’t be the first time… This would be maybe Earth 7000 or something.”
This concept of multiple creation attempts raises profound questions about divine nature. As Isak pondered, “Are we watching God having an adolescent phase and choosing evil, or living as part of everything, including evil, and having different lifetimes and then scrapping them, but learning from them?”
Thomas suggested that Christ’s incarnation represented a solution to this divine dilemma: “The father, by creating the son, separated himself out and said, ‘I am not going to be part of creating anything evil. You are in charge of creating this thing… You’re the one that gets to reconcile the world to me.'” This theological framework provides a way to understand how God might engage with an imperfect creation while maintaining His perfect nature.
Conclusion: Toward a World Worth Creating
The discussion ultimately points toward a profound synthesis: a creation requiring both freedom and constraint to achieve its purpose. The apparent imperfections of our world may be necessary features rather than flaws in the divine plan.
“I think the only way I can put it,” Thomas reflected, “is to say that God has his plan, and it’s something that’s larger than the particular specifics of any one person.” This larger purpose appears to involve the development of souls capable of choosing good from a position of mature understanding rather than naive innocence.
The ultimate question becomes not why God allows imperfection, but whether we could imagine a meaningful existence without it. As Isak articulated the challenge: “Would that world be a docile, sanitized world that is void of intrigue? Maybe, maybe not.”
Perhaps the most profound insight emerged in Thomas’s final reflection: “The concept we’re talking about is wanting sin and imperfection in our lives to make existence interesting. But what if humanity eventually puts on the mind of Christ, and people overcome disease and death by choosing not to sin? Can you imagine a world that’s worth living in that didn’t have disease, death, and sin? Would it be interesting enough?”
This question beckons us toward a deeper understanding of divine intention—one that recognizes the possibility that God’s self-limitation may be the greatest expression of divine wisdom. By creating a universe where actions have consequences, where choices matter, and where growth requires struggle, God may have fashioned the only kind of reality where beings created in His image could truly develop the capacity to love, create, and choose goodness from a position of wisdom rather than innocence.
In this view, the Garden of Eden was never meant to be humanity’s permanent home, but rather the protected beginning of a journey toward a far richer destination—one that would preserve the wonder of existence while transcending its current limitations.
by Thomas Abshier | May 12, 2025 | Physics/Christianity/Life
In Dr. Abshier’s altered state revelation, he envisioned a galactic center surrounded by a cloud of stars, with each star connected to the center by a delicate strand of light. He interpreted this imagery as a representation of the relationship between God the Father and the Son, as well as the connection between the Son and creation. From this symbolism, and as an explanation of God’s declaration to Moses that His name was, “I Am that I Am,” he proposed that God the Father created or begat the Son as a projection or duplication of Himself.
The Father endowed/delegated the Son with the authority and power to create the entire creation. He/the Son/the Logos, spoke all the elements of creation into existence in the same manner by which He was created—through the projection of consciousness. He/the Word spoke countless points of consciousness into existence. He assigned each Conscious Point one of four types of properties, 1) plus and minus electron Conscious Points, and 2) plus and minus quark Conscious Points. Each Conscious Point had a type (a set of properties), which meant that it followed the rules of that type, e.g. 1) repelling/moving away from Conscious Points of the same charge, 2) being attracted to all Conscious Points of quark type, or 3) aligning with the spin of other Conscious Points, etc. The macroscopic effect of such microscopic obedience to law in displacement is the manifestation of the laws of nature. Underneath the appearance of force acting between particles is the lawful obedience of countless numbers of Conscious Points composing quanta of mass and energy obeying the laws of movement in response to position and type. The appearance of “energy” in fields, mass, and motion are names given to types of order of the background sea of Conscious Points.
Each Conscious Point, being aware, could relate to other Conscious Points and move in relation to them according to the laws governing that type of Conscious Point. Every Conscious Point in the universe remains still and occupies a position for a Moment, during which it observes its neighbors, computes its appropriate movement, and then moves. I call this cycle of observation, computation, and movement a “Moment.” The Moment occurs many times per second. Each cycle/each Moment resembles a movie frame—a vignette of reality that is the fundamental unit of time.
The movement of Conscious Points from Moment-to-Moment results in action, change, and transformation. An underlying grid of absolute markers, Conscious Points which I call “Grid Points” are the elemental metric of distance. Each Conscious Point has a position on a Grid Point at every Moment. At the beginning of each Moment, every Conscious Point simultaneously surveys a sphere, a limited number of Grid Points in its local sphere, and exchanges information about the property, distance, and velocity of each of the Conscious Points in that local sphere. The sum of the effects produced by each of the Conscious Points in that sphere produce a single net result, a movement, a displacement for that Moment. The limitation on the number of Conscious Points considered each Moment gives rise to the speed of light limit. The separation of positions by Moments creates the experience of motion and the passage of time. The assembly of groups of Conscious Points into quanta, which are perceived as on the physical layer of mass and energy, fundamentally/unalterably prevent perception of the granularity of the Conscious Points by experiment. That is, science will never be able to detect or “see” a Conscious Point.
This obscuring of the layer of pure consciousness disguises the oneness of the creation and the clear recognition/realization that the universe is a manifestation of the mind/spirit of God. It is a miracle is that God, who is only good and love, could create a universe that allows one to freely choose good or evil. It is a miracle that has created a universe from His own substance/mind/spirit and is therefore under His volitional control, and still created the actuality of a universe where individuals can choose and exercise free will to either rebel and pursue unGodly satisfaction of the flesh/evil, or love Him by following His way, and thus satisfy His desire for love.
by Thomas Abshier | May 11, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity
The Paradox of Service and Faith: Embracing Our Role as Unprofitable Servants
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/11/2025
In a world that celebrates achievements, rewards initiative, and praises those who go “above and beyond,” Christ’s teaching in Luke 17:5-10 presents a radical counterculture. When the apostles asked Him to increase their faith—perhaps the most natural request disciples could make of their Master—Jesus responded with what appears to be two disconnected teachings: one about faith moving a mulberry tree into the sea, and another about servants who merely do their duty. Yet in this seemingly disjointed response lies a profound truth about the nature of faith and our relationship with God.
The Illusion of “Above and Beyond”
The apostles’ request for increased faith reveals a common misconception: that faith is something we can acquire more of through some divine infusion, separate from our actions and attitudes. Christ’s response challenges this notion by linking faith not to extraordinary spiritual experiences but to a proper understanding of our position before God.
When Jesus speaks of the servant who comes in from working in the fields only to prepare dinner for his master, He paints a picture that would have been familiar to His audience but jars our modern sensibilities. We instinctively think, “Shouldn’t that servant get a break? Hasn’t he already done enough?” This reaction reveals our tendency to quantify our service, to determine when we have done “enough” for God.
Yet Christ dismantles this thinking. The master does not thank the servant for doing what was commanded; it was simply his duty. Then comes the statement that forms the core of this teaching: “So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.'”
This conclusion seems harsh to ears accustomed to appreciation and recognition. However, it addresses a fundamental spiritual reality: we can never place God in our debt. As the apostle Paul would later ask, “What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Corinthians 4:7). Every capacity we possess—every opportunity to serve, every good work we perform—originates from God’s provision and operates within His sovereignty.
The Proper Foundation for Faith
The connection between this teaching about servants and the apostles’ request for increased faith becomes clear when we recognize what undermines faith: an inflated sense of our own contribution. When we imagine that our service has earned us something from God, our faith subtly shifts from trusting in God’s character to trusting in our own merit. We start believing God should act because we have earned it, rather than because of who He is.
The phrase “We are unprofitable servants” strikes at the heart of this misunderstanding. The Greek word for “unprofitable” (achreios) doesn’t imply that our service is worthless, but rather that it brings no profit or advantage to God. As the psalmist acknowledges, “O my Lord, my goodness is nothing apart from You” (Psalm 16:2). God, being complete in Himself, gains nothing from our service that He didn’t already possess.
When Jesus spoke about faith as small as a mustard seed moving a mulberry tree into the sea, He wasn’t suggesting that faith is a force we generate through spiritual effort. Rather, true faith recognizes that all power belongs to God, and our role is simply to be channels through which His power flows. The mustard seed’s smallness emphasizes that the power comes not from the size of our faith but from the object of our faith—God Himself.
The Freedom of Recognized Duty
Far from being discouraging, the recognition that we are “unprofitable servants” doing our duty liberates us from the exhausting pursuit of trying to be “profitable” to God. It frees us from calculating our spiritual worth based on our performance and releases us from the anxiety of wondering if we’ve done enough to merit God’s favor.
Consider the implications of this teaching:
1. It eliminates competition in service. When all service is simply duty, the question of who has done more becomes irrelevant.
2. It removes the burden of earning God’s approval. Our standing before God rests not on our performance but on Christ’s finished work.
3. It clarifies the nature of rewards. When God rewards His servants, it is an act of grace, not payment for services rendered.
4. It establishes the proper motive for service. We serve not to gain but because we have already received everything in Christ.
This understanding transforms service from a transaction into an expression of gratitude. The servant in Christ’s parable wasn’t serving to earn his place in the household—he already had his place. His service flowed from his identity as a servant, not to establish that identity.
Faith Rooted in Reality
The connection between acknowledging our position as unprofitable servants and developing stronger faith becomes clearer when we consider that faith must be grounded in reality. Faith based on an inflated view of our spiritual worth will inevitably collapse when tested, because it rests on a false foundation.
True faith acknowledges the vast asymmetry between Creator and created. As the prophet Daniel witnessed King Nebuchadnezzar learn through humbling circumstances, God “does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?'” (Daniel 4:35).
This recognition doesn’t diminish us; it properly places us within the created order. Just as the stars shine most beautifully when they maintain their appointed orbits, we function best when we embrace our role as servants of the Most High God—not seeking to rise above that station but fulfilling it with integrity.
The Paradox of Spiritual Growth
Here we encounter a beautiful paradox: the path to increased faith begins with acknowledging that, even at our best, we are unprofitable servants. Those who truly understand this paradox find that their faith grows not despite this humbling reality but because of it.
When the apostles asked Jesus to increase their faith, they were likely seeking some technique or spiritual practice. Instead, Jesus directed them to a fundamental attitude adjustment. Faith grows not primarily through spiritual exercises but through an increasingly accurate understanding of our relationship with God.
The servant who recognizes his proper place before his master doesn’t serve less—he serves from a place of clarity, free from the delusion that his service makes God his debtor. This clarity fosters genuine faith because it places confidence entirely in God’s character rather than in our performance.
Living as Unprofitable Servants
How then should we live in light of this teaching? Christ’s instruction to “say, ‘We are unprofitable servants'” suggests that this acknowledgment should be more than an intellectual assent—it should be a declaration we make to ourselves and to God.
This doesn’t mean adopting a posture of false humility or engaging in self-deprecation. Rather, it means embracing the liberating truth that God’s love for us isn’t based on our usefulness to Him. When we truly comprehend this reality, service becomes an expression of who we are rather than a means to earn what we desire.
The practical implications are far-reaching:
1. We serve without calculation. When opportunities to do good present themselves, we don’t weigh whether they’re “required” or “above and beyond”—we simply recognize them as part of our duty.
2. We pray with confidence. Our prayers rest not on what we have done for God but on what He has done for us in Christ.
3. We face trials with resilience. When difficulties come, we don’t question whether we deserve them or have done enough to avoid them.
4. We celebrate God’s grace. Every good thing becomes a gift rather than a payment, intensifying our gratitude.
Conclusion: The Paradoxical Path to Greatness
The teaching about unprofitable servants represents one of the most counterintuitive aspects of Christ’s kingdom. In a world where significance is measured by achievement and recognition, Jesus presents a community where greatness comes through service without expectation of acknowledgment.
When the apostles asked for increased faith, they were unknowingly requesting something that could only come through a diminished view of their own significance. True faith flourishes when we embrace our identity as servants whose greatest privilege is simply doing what we were commanded to do.
The final irony is that those who truly internalize this teaching—who genuinely see themselves as unprofitable servants merely doing their duty—are precisely those whom God calls “good and faithful” (Matthew 25:21). By embracing our limitations and dependence, we position ourselves to experience the unlimited power of God working through us.
In this light, saying “We are unprofitable servants” isn’t a statement of worthlessness but a declaration of freedom—freedom from the burden of trying to earn what can only be received as a gift. It is in this freedom that faith not only increases but transforms into the very channel through which the impossible becomes possible.
by Thomas Abshier | May 11, 2025 | Apologetics/Theology/Christianity
The Divine Paradox: How God’s Self-Imposed Limitations Create Meaning in the Universe
By Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/10/2025
In the vast theater of existence, where stars are mere stage lights and galaxies serve as backdrops, an intriguing paradox emerges: the omnipotent Creator of all things appears to operate within constraints. This seeming contradiction—that an all-powerful being would choose to limit His own actions—invites us to explore a profound theological question: What boundaries might God establish for Himself to make the cosmic drama meaningful, and why?
The Necessity of Divine Restraint
The concept of a self-limiting God may initially seem counterintuitive. Why would infinite power choose finitude? The answer lies in the nature of meaning itself. Meaning requires context, contrast, and consequence—elements that would dissolve in a universe where divine intervention occurred capriciously or where outcomes lacked permanence.
Using everyday life as our precedent example, the masses do not throng to watch professionals take mulligans on every poor shot, keep pitching until the batter makes solid contact, continue serving until the reigning champ returns the ball, or the contestant chooses the door with the new car. Living with the consequences of every act gives life gravity and significance. Life choices have little meaning if no price is paid for performance and choice. God subjects Himself to the same limitations as in The principle of consequence. For choices to matter, their effects must be unalterable/permanent. A creation where the divine hand can rewrite the script reduces the story of life to play-acting without significance beyond the moment—living with the knowledge that each act leaves a permanent mark encourages sobriety and the acquisition of wisdom.
The Economy of Miracles
Most of us have seen what appear to be divine interventions, but not for everyone, and not every time. The question is, why is God selective and seemingly plays favorites? This fact raises the troubling question: “Why does God do miracles for some and not for others?” This selective intervention pattern suggests another self-imposed limitation: the economy of miracles.
I believe God has the power to do anything and desires only good things to happen to every person all the time. We know this because it was this way in the Garden of Eden. God allowed evil to come into the world at the hands of man’s decisions. I believe God wants to return to that idyllic universe, but He is doing it in the same way that He learned how to create a good universe. There was a choice/action, and there was the consequence.
I frame the universe as a spiritual economy. Perhaps God limits His miracles based upon a system of spiritual credits. Maybe the Kingdom of Heaven is authorized to do miracles based upon the kindness, prayers, sacrificial service, dedication, loving God, and worship of those who love God and His way. Scripture instructs us to pray repeatedly for His intervention. This may be a measure of sincerity or desire, not a strict accounting between prayer/works/service. Regardless, some criteria limits the exercise of miracles. Perhaps it is by divine whim exercised randomly to keep life interesting that regulates the dispensing of miracles. There are many options to explain/justify/rationalize how God chooses to limit His performance of miracles. The dispensing of miracles does not appear to be strict or limited to the credits He has received from the prayers and service of His saints, but some type of accounting may be active. The disparity between strict accounting and God’s grace may be bridged by the establishment of a debt that will be paid by someone sometime. There does not appear to be strict accounting, and multiple negotiation, payment, and performance paths seem to be available. This suggests that divine intervention operates within a multifactorial cosmic balance sheet. Limitation of consumption based upon credit is at the heart of the economic system of man’s trade in goods and services, and it is likely true that some balance between payment and expenditure regulates God’s administration of miracles. The alternative is caprice, favoritism, or a God-directed plan without human input/participation/influence. The universe maintains its integrity precisely because God honors this system of spiritual exchange.
The crucifixion of Jesus exemplifies this principle. If that wasn’t the case, I don’t think Jesus would have died on the cross. This was an example of a payment made once, for all, and before the act to allow salvation from the eternal and sure death required as the consequence of sin. The gift of salvation, the payment for sin by Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, is an eternal credit established to pay for the illicit pleasure of sin. This is an example of the existence of a ledger of credits and debits that must be met. The greatest divine intervention—salvation itself—required the greatest payment, but even this gift required payment, giving one’s entire being/life/soul to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
The Integrity of Linear Time
We see Biblical stories recounting instances where time appears manipulated, such as when “the sundial went backward” during King Hezekiah’s illness. To execute this miracle, the sun may have, in fact, receded, and the entire universe moved back to a previous position in the sky. Likewise, it is possible, in the interest of economy of expenditure of spiritual credit, that the intervention was a localized appearance. More significantly, this story does not indicate that people’s lives were lived again, and in so doing, they had the option of taking different actions and choices. This suggests another boundary: the preservation of temporal integrity.
While God could theoretically run the universe backward and forward at will, doing so would undermine the coherence of creation. Each moment gains significance precisely because it cannot be endlessly revisited or revised. The arrow of time provides the essential narrative structure within which meaning develops.
As I argue, the possibility of divine time manipulation exists but is rarely exercised. This underscores my postulate that God has a plan and organizes the universe according to criteria that do not revolve around the apparent needs or welfare of any person’s circumstances. While God cares about the needs and welfare of every person, the definition and criteria governing His administration of miracles and the enforcement of His will to execute a plan cannot be predicted. Thus, the rarity of such interventions preserves the integrity of the creation’s story while allowing God to exercise His sovereignty.
The Scarcity of Divine Intervention
Perhaps most fundamentally, God appears to embrace the principle of scarcity in His interaction with creation. Divine intervention is precious precisely because it is not commonplace. Like any scarce resource, its value derives partly from its limitation.
This scarcity creates the conditions for faith itself. In a world where divine action was constant and obvious, belief would be unnecessary—it would be mere observation. The space between divine interventions creates the essential tension where faith develops, and free will operates meaningfully.
The Resonance Between Creator and Created
Underlying these self-imposed boundaries is what might be called the principle of resonance—the idea that human experience must be meaningfully similar to divine experience for the relationship to have purpose. God and man must be resonant, fairly similar, and connected in terms of their natures, perceptions/feelings, and experience of life. Otherwise, man’s allegiance wouldn’t satisfy God’s need/desire for love.
This resonance requires that human struggles bear authentic weight. If God could and did eliminate all suffering without regard for cosmic consequence, the resulting reality would lack the necessary conditions for growth, choice, and love. The limitations God accepts create the necessary environment for creatures made in His image to develop attributes that reflect His own.
The High Stakes of a Meaningful Universe
It is commonly said among Christian circles, “Nothing is too difficult or costly for God.” This slogan opposes the concept that God must limit His actions in performing miracles. And certainly, this chestnut of Christian orthodoxy is true in the sense of true potentiality. Still, God’s exercise of this force must be balanced by the final and perhaps most important limitation: the imperative of meaning itself. God limits Himself not because He lacks power but because He values meaning above the exercise of raw omnipotence.
I have argued, “If God could literally do anything at any time, with no cost to it, this is a meaningless world.” The limitations God accepts are not signs of weakness but expressions of purpose—they create the conditions where choices matter, relationships develop, and love becomes possible.
In the biblical narrative of creation, God repeatedly pronounces His work “good.” This judgment implies standards—criteria against which creation could be compared and found wanting. By establishing and honoring these standards, God creates the framework within which meaning can believably exist within the hearts and minds of both God and man.
Conclusion: The Ultimate Divine Paradox
The greatest paradox may be this: in limiting Himself, God expresses His love. By establishing boundaries that create space for consequence, scarcity, temporal integrity, and resonance between Creator and created, God crafts a universe where meaning can emerge, and love becomes a felt experience based on service, sacrifice, and mutual sympathy for the limitations of the other.
Divine limitations are not weaknesses but strengths—they are the artist’s disciplined choices that transform raw possibility into meaningful creation. In the words of G.K. Chesterton, “Art is limitation…” The frame limits every picture and requires that we focus on a single possibility and live inside the reality of that moment of the illustrated “now.” In the same way, life is ultimately fulfilling when the experience of the moment fully consumes our being. The reality of the past and future distracts us from enjoying the moment. Perhaps Heaven is a state of the eternal now, where both past, present, and future are experienced without the distraction of fear of the future and regret from the past. Perhaps it is the work and interest of heaven to intervene in the lives of men on earth with thoughts and feelings and warnings of future consequences. Perhaps if we were sensitive to the messages from Heaven and could distinguish them from the temptations and seductions from Hell, we would return to the Garden and experience the joy of life as adults, which would satisfy the need for peace, love, and challenge required by both God and man.
God frames the cosmic picture not because He cannot do otherwise but because He chooses to create a universe with meaning and authentic interest. The play of life must have true significance on a level of real consequences. Life is an eternally evolving story with episodes of tragedy and triumph, investment and expenditure, satisfaction and disappointment, control and unrestrained competition with uncertain outcomes. The existence of polarities and opposition of forces of life is the underlying dynamic upon which the dramas of human choice and experience play out.
In this light, God’s limitations on His actions aren’t constraints on His power but expressions of His wisdom—they create the necessary conditions for a universe where life is real, stakes are high, and love has meaning.
Scriptural Justifications for “The Divine Paradox: How God’s Self-Imposed Limitations Create Meaning in the Universe”
The essay “The Divine Paradox” presents a theological framework suggesting that God voluntarily limits His actions to create a meaningful universe. While this perspective offers thought-provoking insights into divine-human relations, it’s important to examine its scriptural foundations. Below, I analyze the biblical support for each key concept presented in the essay.
The Principle of Consequence
Biblical Support:
- Galatians 6:7-8 – “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”
- Deuteronomy 30:19 – “This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.”
- Romans 6:23 – “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Analysis: The Bible consistently presents a universe where actions have consequences, supporting the essay’s argument that meaningful choice requires permanence of effect. Scripture portrays God establishing systems where choices lead to outcomes, suggesting He values this causal relationship.
The Economy of Miracles
Limited Biblical Support:
- Mark 6:5-6 – “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.”
- 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 – “…a thorn was given me in the flesh… Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'”
Questionable Support: The essay’s specific concept of “spiritual credits” lacks direct biblical reference. While Scripture shows God sometimes withholding miracles (as in Mark 6:5-6) or declining requests (as with Paul’s thorn), it doesn’t explicitly frame this as an economic system with “credits” that God earns and spends.
Counter Scriptures:
- Psalm 115:3 – “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.”
- Isaiah 55:8-9 – “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
These verses emphasize God’s freedom to act according to His will rather than within a system of limitations.
Thomas:
Scriptural Justifications for “The Divine Paradox: How God’s Self-Imposed Limitations Create Meaning in the Universe”
The essay “The Divine Paradox” presents a theological framework suggesting that God voluntarily limits His actions to create a meaningful universe. While this perspective offers thought-provoking insights into divine-human relations, it’s important to examine its scriptural foundations. Below, I analyze the biblical support for each key concept presented in the essay.
The Principle of Consequence
Biblical Support:
- Galatians 6:7-8 – “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”
- Deuteronomy 30:19 – “This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.”
- Romans 6:23 – “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Analysis: The Bible consistently presents a universe where actions have consequences, supporting the essay’s argument that meaningful choice requires permanence of effect. Scripture portrays God establishing systems where choices lead to outcomes, suggesting He values this causal relationship.
The Economy of Miracles
Limited Biblical Support:
- Mark 6:5-6 – “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.”
- 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 – “…a thorn was given me in the flesh… Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'”
Questionable Support: The essay’s specific concept of “spiritual credits” lacks direct biblical reference. While Scripture shows God sometimes withholding miracles (as in Mark 6:5-6) or declining requests (as with Paul’s thorn), it doesn’t explicitly frame this as an economic system with “credits” that God earns and spends.
Counter Scriptures:
- Psalm 115:3 – “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.”
- Isaiah 55:8-9 – “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
These verses emphasize God’s freedom to act according to His will rather than within a system of limitations.
Thomas: This type of supporting example and contrary counterexample is not uncommon in the corpus of the Biblical text. Such comparative dyads can 1) validate a dismissive/condemnatory attack on the credibility of the Bible’s authenticity, 2) give validity to the theology of a sect’s factional interpretation of scripture that allows only one polarity of belief, or 3) be used as the indicator of a higher/broader/more inclusive perspective that includes both perspectives, about how God’s nature/His rules/how spiritual world functions. It is this latter perspective that I attempt to identify in my postulates about how the world works, how God designed the world, and the options God has open to Him.
In the principle of the economy of miracles, there are examples where God was limited (through Jesus) in performing miracles. We could ignore the totality of the scriptural data/revealed precedent documenting God’s ability, power, and sovereignty, or we could note that He does not act and possibly cannot act in certain circumstances. In such examples, we see evidence of a rule of limitation that He has put in place that limits His miraculous intervention (Jesus doing no miracles because of their lack of faith). This is important. We only need one example to disprove the postulate of omnipotent power being self-limited to postulate that God uses discretion in His exercise of omnipotent power.
The Preservation of Temporal Integrity
Partial Biblical Support:
- Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 – “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens…”
- Acts 17:26 – “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.”
Limited Examples: Scripture does contain rare instances of time manipulation:
- Joshua 10:12-13 – “On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: ‘Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.’ So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped…”
- 2 Kings 20:9-11 – The shadow moving backward on the stairway of Ahaz as a sign for Hezekiah.
Analysis: While Scripture affirms God’s ordering of time and history, it doesn’t explicitly state that God limits His manipulation of time to preserve meaning. The rarity of temporal miracles could support the essay’s thesis, but this remains interpretive rather than explicit in the text.
Thomas: The principle of temporal integrity is hinted at in the Biblical text, and limited examples of God overriding this integrity give weight to the postulate that God has control over time, should He so desire for His purposes. However, the limited number of examples indicates that this principle is rarely violated compared to the ordinary/expected/structural facts of our lives and how He administers the creation.
The violation of temporal integrity can be seen to an extent in a few examples of scientific and spiritual postulation:
- Time bifurcates at every quantum interaction event, as is postulated in Hugh Everett’s “Many World Hypothesis.” The Many Worlds Hypothesis is used to explain the conflict between the quantum realm and the ultimately small.
- I postulate that God may have restarted the universe many times to reinitialize the creation after learning of the consequence of His design. He may have gotten it right the first time. But given the vastness of God’s knowledge and wisdom in administering the universe, I postulate that He may have begun the universe repeatedly. The postulate of God creating a sequence of universes explains His wisdom and vast experience in distinguishing and balancing the power of good and evil.
Thus, while God could manipulate time, He has chosen to limit His manipulation of time in the physical and spiritual universe. While such intervention is possible, I believe it is not used as a standard, expected, normal law of life.
The Principle of Scarcity
Mixed Biblical Support:
- Amos 8:11-12 – “‘The days are coming,’ declares the Sovereign LORD, ‘when I will send a famine through the land—not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD.'”
- 1 Samuel 3:1 – “In those days the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions.”
Counter Scriptures:
- Joel 2:28 – “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.”
- John 1:16 – “Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given.”
Analysis: Scripture shows periods of both divine scarcity and abundance. While some biblical passages describe times when divine revelation was rare, others portray God’s desire to pour out His Spirit abundantly. The Bible doesn’t explicitly frame divine interaction as intentionally limited to create value through scarcity.
The Principle of Resonance
Strong Biblical Support:
- Genesis 1:27 – “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
- John 17:21-23 – “…that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me…”
- 1 John 4:19 – “We love because he first loved us.”
Analysis: The biblical concept of humans being created in God’s image strongly supports the essay’s argument that there must be resonance between Creator and created. Scripture consistently portrays a God who desires relationship with humanity and who made us capable of responding to and reflecting His nature.
The Imperative of Meaning
Implicit Biblical Support:
- Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 – “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”
- Romans 8:28 – “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
- Revelation 21:5 – “He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.'”
Analysis: While the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that God limits Himself to preserve meaning, it consistently portrays God as purposeful, working toward meaningful ends and creating order from chaos. The biblical narrative assumes meaning in history rather than randomness.
Conclusion: Evaluating the Scriptural Basis
The essay “The Divine Paradox” presents a thoughtful theological framework that aligns with some biblical principles but extends beyond explicit scriptural teaching in key areas:
Well-Supported Concepts:
- The reality of consequence in God’s created order
- The significance of humanity being made in God’s image
- The purposefulness of God’s actions in history
Concepts with Limited Support:
- The specific framework of “spiritual credits” governing divine intervention
- The idea that God intentionally creates scarcity of divine action
- The explicit notion that God limits Himself to preserve meaning
The essay offers valuable philosophical reflections on divine-human relations, but readers should recognize that some of its specific mechanisms (particularly the “economy of miracles” concept) represent theological speculation rather than direct biblical teaching. While not contradicting Scripture’s overall portrayal of God, the essay builds a systematic framework that goes beyond what the Bible explicitly states about God’s self-limitation.
Scripture clearly shows God establishing patterns and systems in creation, but attributes this more to His wisdom, purposes, and character than to limitations He imposes on Himself. The Bible emphasizes God’s freedom, sovereignty, and transcendence alongside His immanence and relational nature, maintaining a tension that the essay attempts to resolve through its framework of divine self-limitation.
In summary, while the essay presents thought-provoking theological insights compatible with general biblical principles, its specific mechanisms for explaining God’s interaction with creation extend beyond explicit scriptural teaching and should be engaged as theological reflection rather than direct biblical exegesis.
The Preservation of Temporal Integrity
Partial Biblical Support:
- Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 – “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens…”
- Acts 17:26 – “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.”
Limited Examples: Scripture does contain rare instances of time manipulation:
- Joshua 10:12-13 – “On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: ‘Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.’ So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped…”
- 2 Kings 20:9-11 – The shadow moving backward on the stairway of Ahaz as a sign for Hezekiah.
Analysis: While Scripture affirms God’s ordering of time and history, it doesn’t explicitly state that God limits His manipulation of time to preserve meaning. The rarity of temporal miracles could support the essay’s thesis, but this remains interpretive rather than explicit in the text.
The Principle of Scarcity
Mixed Biblical Support:
- Amos 8:11-12 – “‘The days are coming,’ declares the Sovereign LORD, ‘when I will send a famine through the land—not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD.'”
- 1 Samuel 3:1 – “In those days the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions.”
Counter Scriptures:
- Joel 2:28 – “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.”
- John 1:16 – “Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given.”
Analysis: Scripture shows periods of both divine scarcity and abundance. While some biblical passages describe times when divine revelation was rare, others portray God’s desire to pour out His Spirit abundantly. The Bible doesn’t explicitly frame divine interaction as intentionally limited to create value through scarcity.
The Principle of Resonance
Strong Biblical Support:
- Genesis 1:27 – “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
- John 17:21-23 – “…that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me…”
- 1 John 4:19 – “We love because he first loved us.”
Analysis: The biblical concept of humans being created in God’s image strongly supports the essay’s argument that there must be resonance between Creator and created. Scripture consistently portrays a God who desires relationship with humanity and who made us capable of responding to and reflecting His nature.
The Imperative of Meaning
Implicit Biblical Support:
- Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 – “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”
- Romans 8:28 – “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
- Revelation 21:5 – “He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.'”
Analysis: While the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that God limits Himself to preserve meaning, it consistently portrays God as purposeful, working toward meaningful ends and creating order from chaos. The biblical narrative assumes meaning in history rather than randomness.
Conclusion: Evaluating the Scriptural Basis
The essay “The Divine Paradox” presents a thoughtful theological framework that aligns with some biblical principles but extends beyond explicit scriptural teaching in key areas:
Well-Supported Concepts:
- The reality of consequence in God’s created order
- The significance of humanity being made in God’s image
- The purposefulness of God’s actions in history
Concepts with Limited Support:
- The specific framework of “spiritual credits” governing divine intervention
- The idea that God intentionally creates scarcity of divine action
- The explicit notion that God limits Himself to preserve meaning
The essay offers valuable philosophical reflections on divine-human relations, but readers should recognize that some of its specific mechanisms (particularly the “economy of miracles” concept) represent theological speculation rather than direct biblical teaching. While not contradicting Scripture’s overall portrayal of God, the essay builds a systematic framework that goes beyond what the Bible explicitly states about God’s self-limitation.
Scripture clearly shows God establishing patterns and systems in creation, but attributes this more to His wisdom, purposes, and character than to limitations He imposes on Himself. The Bible emphasizes God’s freedom, sovereignty, and transcendence alongside His immanence and relational nature, maintaining a tension that the essay attempts to resolve through its framework of divine self-limitation.
In summary, while the essay presents thought-provoking theological insights compatible with general biblical principles, its specific mechanisms for explaining God’s interaction with creation extend beyond explicit scriptural teaching and should be engaged as theological reflection rather than direct biblical exegesis.
