Trinity, Time, and an Unfolding Future
By Allan R. Bevere
A robust doctrine of the Trinity, time on the quantum level, and macroevolution undermine traditional notions of omnipotence.
Acts 15:28 and its context suggests that, because the future has truly not happened, God cannot know it. The passage says, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials” (Acts 15:28).[1] This is perfectly in keeping with a robust doctrine of the Trinity and lends credence to the notion of amipotence.
The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-35)
Acts 15:1-35, often referred to as the Council of Jerusalem, details a significant moment in the early Christian church where a major theological and practical dispute was addressed and resolved, at least by formal proclamation. It was as pivotal as the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE that formally resolved the question of the person of Christ.
The early Christian church was growing rapidly, including many Gentile converts. This growth raised questions about whether Gentile Christians needed to observe Jewish laws, particularly circumcision. The matter of such observance did not concern how Gentiles entered the New Covenant; rather, the contention in question was what Jewish practices were necessary for Gentiles now in the New Covenant in Christ.[2]
It is not within the scope of this chapter to explicate the proceedings of the Council and its decision. What I want to focus on briefly is Acts 15:28: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials.” This is a rather odd statement for those who embrace a classical theism that views God as omnipotent and in control of everything. How could the Holy Spirit—who is divine—suggest to the early church that the decision of the Council seemed good? Are they not definitely good? How would classical theists respond to the notion that the Ten Commandments seemed good to God? If God knows the future, God would know what is good and how such goodness will play out.
We must be careful about putting too much theological freight on one verse of Scripture. It is my view that there are other passages in the Bible that speak to my contention that God does not know the future; but I find this verse in Acts to offer an intriguing way to think about the mission of God in the world as it unfolds with the cooperation of God’s people. To do that, we must begin with exploring the contention that the Christian God is inherently relational. A robust doctrine of the Trinity offers such an account.
The Trinity
The Bible affirms and Orthodox Christianity claims that the God of Israel is inherently relational. The modern god of deism is unbiblical; and the mechanistic, clockwork view of the world and universe has been shattered by twentieth century science. On the quantum level, the universe is more subtle and supple than the eighteenth-century notion that the laws of nature are absolute. There is an indeterminism built into the fabric of the universe where the smallest elements at the quantum level are inherently related to one another and act in relation to one another.[3]
Such indeterminism is present at the macro level of the universe as well. In evolutionary development, God allows the universe the freedom to make itself. Thus, while God guides, massages, and cajoles the process, God does not providentially determine how everything develops in finest details. What species go extinct and which species survive in the long history of evolution is God permitting the universe to make itself.
N.T. Wright has observed that if God has created through evolution, the doctrine of the Trinity is what we should expect.[4] In short, because the universe—macro and micro—is inherently relational, then God should be inherently relational as well. It hardly makes sense for an impersonal deity to create human beings as desirous of and needing relationships. It is the doctrine of the Trinity that reflects the universe God has created and vice versa. Just as the quantum world is entangled with itself, so the Trinitarian God has entangled himself with the universe. As John Zizioulas notes, reality’s relationality is a distinct echo of the Creator’s Triune character.[5]
Moreover, for relationships to be genuine, they must be able to grow and develop. Just as parents delight in experiencing the growth and development of their children from newborns to adults and as that relationship grows and changes, so God’s relationship to creation grows and changes. We see this in God’s relationship with his people. The Law of Moses is not immutable and unchangeable. As the children of Israel approach the land of Canaan, God gives them revisions in the law to reflect the change of situation.[6] God tests Abraham in the sacrifice of Isaac because God is not sure that he can trust Abraham to be faithful (Genesis 22:1-19). In 1 Samuel, God relents and gives the people of Israel a king, something God did not want to do (1 Samuel 8:4-22). True and vital relationships require the unknown, meaning they require freedom—not the smoke and mirrors “freedom” of an omnipotent God whose decrees make freedom merely an illusion.
Just as a parent delights and has sorrow witnessing a child’s development, so our Trinitarian God delights in witnessing the righteousness and compassion of humanity and sorrows at its sin and brokenness. Freedom is necessary for genuine relationship. In so doing, God risks relationship, even though things may not turn out the way God desires. The Incarnation of Christ is a fully Trinitarian act by which God fully entangles himself with the world to be in relationship for the purpose of reconciling it.
Time and the Future
That brings us to the future. If genuine relationship requires freedom, then God cannot know what may become of the relationships he desires to have with human beings. God is omniscient in that God can know all that can be known, but what if the future has yet to truly unfold?[7]
In classical theism, God stands outside of time looking into time past, present, and future all at once knowing what has happened, is happening, and will happen.[8] But what if God’s relationship to time is more dynamic than that? If the universe is dynamic and evolving (the universe is still expanding, creating new galaxies and worlds) and is not deterministic and mechanical as the Enlightenment thinkers believed, then is it unreasonable to conclude that the character of creation reflects the character of the Creator whose relationship to time and the unfolding process of history is also dynamic and evolving? God may indeed stand outside of time, but God has also inextricably (Incarnationally) bound himself in time. Even in eternity, the future has yet to unfold. God cannot know what has yet to happen. John Polkinghorne writes,
…as part of the divine kenosis involved in the act of bringing into being the created other, allowed to be itself and make itself, God has freely embraced temporality in addition to divine eternity, even to the point that, in a creation that is a world of true becoming, God does not yet know the unformed future, simply because it is not yet there to be known.[9]
Once again, this perspective does no damage to the notion of God’s omniscience. God knows everything that can be known. As the future has yet to become, God cannot know what is still unknown.
Acts Reprise
We are now ready to return to Acts 15:28. The Church in Jerusalem needed to address the relationship of Gentiles to the Law of Moses in light of their faith in Christ. Their solution to the concern was “the double principle of no needful circumcision on the one hand and no needless offence on the other.”[10] In other words, circumcision was not to be required of Gentile converts because they too were on equal footing in the covenant just as were Jewish believers. To require circumcision was to treat Gentiles as second-class citizens in the church. The last three prohibitions were reminders to the Gentile Christians of the importance of not offending non-Christian Jews by engaging in behavior associated with local pagan temples.
This decision is contextual to its core. In another context, the latter three prohibitions may not be relevant depending on future circumstances. In his letter to the Romans, Paul leaves open the question of whether it is acceptable for believers to consume meat sacrificed to idols (Romans 14:13-23). He reminds the Romans of the importance of causing no offense, while realizing that not all will be offended.
It is in the context of the Jerusalem Council and the recipients of the letter that the church and the Holy Spirit come to one mind—what seemed good. The phraseology of seeming good makes perfect sense if one holds to a Trinitarian God deeply involved in the mission of the church walking with the church as it moves into a future that unfolds as it happens.[11] In light of present circumstances, the decision of the Jerusalem Council following the leading of the Holy Spirit seemed good.
In his book The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence, Thomas Jay Oord challenges the traditional view of divine -omnipotence—the idea that God is all-powerful in every sense. Oord argues that this concept is problematic and conflicts with the existence of genuine human freedom and the presence of evil and suffering in the world.
Instead, Oord introduces the concept of “amipotence,” which he defines as a form of divine power that is more relational and limited, formed by divine love.[12] Accordingly, God’s power is not about controlling everything or overriding human freedom but about working in ways that respect and cooperate with the natural order and human choices. Oord suggests that this understanding allows for a more coherent and compassionate view of God, one that aligns with the reality of a world where suffering and evil exist.
I would suggest that amipotence makes better sense of the mission of God in the world in which God cooperates with the church in all times and places in the various contexts in which it finds itself. I find that that this makes the church’s missional character much more interesting and exciting. We are engaged in a cooperative journey with the Trinitarian God of the Universe walking into an unfolding future in anticipation of what will happen because at any given moment, we are acting in accordance with what seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us. This makes Paul’s words to the Corinthians even more exciting:
…no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him’ (2 Corinthians 2:9; NRSV).
What an exceedingly great joy it is to know what God has prepared and is preparing for those who love God as we walk together into an unfolding future![13]
Bio: Allan R. Bevere is a retired Elder in the United Methodist Church and a Professional Fellow in Theology at Ashland Theological Seminary in Ashland, Ohio. He is an author, podcaster, and YouTuber. His writings, digital offerings, and social media can be accessed at his web portal entitled, “Faith Seeking Understanding.” – http://www.allanrbevere.org/
OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE
Alan Bevere’s exploration of God’s relation to time, like other open and relational theologians, leads him to reject the idea that God knows the future. His trinitarian focus highlights the Father, Son, and Spirit as a model of free, uncontrolling love. Genuine relationships within God require time to unfold. If the future were already known, true freedom in relationships wouldn’t exist—even within God’s self. Instead, God moves with us into an open, unfolding future. In this dynamic relationship of love, we discover our primary purpose: to participate in and embody love within the ongoing flow of life and time.
For more on Oord’s view of God the open future, see this article.
* A drabble is an essay exactly 100 words in length.
[1]. All Scripture references are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.
[2]. See Allan R. Bevere, Sharing in the Inheritance: Identity and the Moral Life in Colossians. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), pp. 2-10.
[3]. Polkinghorne, Science and the Trinity, p. 54.
[4]. N.T. Wright, “If Creation is Through Christ, Evolution is What You Would Expect.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ2qrkE-t00.
[5]. John Zizioulas, “Relational Ontology: Insights from Patristic Thought.” in The Trinity and an Entangled World: Relationality in Physical Science and Theology. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), pp. 146-156.
[6]. For example, the two different versions on the Ten Commandments. Exodus 20:2-17 reflects Israel’s time in the wilderness, whereas Deuteronomy 5:6-21 revises the commandments based on living in the land of Canaan.
[7]. David Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology and the Physical Universe. (London: T&T Clark, 2010, pp. 115-135).
[8]. Ex. Augustine. Confessions. Trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin. (New York: Penguin Group, 1970, p. 263.
[9]. Polkinghorne, Science and the Trinity, 54.
[10]. Tom Wright, Acts for Everyone, Part Two (London: W/JKP, 2008), p. 45.
[11]. This language is used by some church councils and papal decrees throughout history. See Jaroslav Pelikan, Acts. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005, pp. 175-177.
[12]. Thomas Jay Oord, The Death of Omnipotence and the Birth of Amipotence. (Grasmere, ID: SacraSage, 2023), 120-123.
[13]. I thank Rev. Lindsey Funtik for reading a draft of this essay and offering helpful suggestions.