Time&Eternity

Aspects of a Theology of Time 221
Eschatological existence can be structured as a comprehensive exercise
in multi-perspective vision. Conceived individually, the breakthrough of
the eschaton means a reorganization of one’s lifetime. Justification can be
understood as the breakthrough of the “already” into the present circumstances
of life. The process that is referred to as sanctification then corresponds
to the “not-yet.” Thus, the kairos of the breakthrough stands in relation
to the chronos of continual development. The point at which the
“already” and the “not-yet” touch each other appears to be characterized by
an indeterminacy that is similar to quantum physics. A fixation of the “already”
means inexactness with respect to the “not-yet,” and a concentration
on the “not-yet” obscures the view of the “already.” The multi-temporality
of the Spirit that was addressed by Dalferth is useful here as the factor that
integrates the proper times into a common history. This multi-temporality
would then correspond to what the theories of relativity accomplish in
physics: Determination and comparison of the motion-dependent proper
times, and the combining of time, space, matter, and energy via gravitation.
In addition to this, one should consider whether the Spirit can also be
assigned an anti-entropic function. The Spirit could be understood as a
force that counteracts the relentless increase in entropy. 188 The role of faith
in the tension between the “already” and the “not-yet” could be further examined
with ideas from chaos research. In a combination of determinacy
and unforeseeability, a higher level of complexity is reached by a self-organizing
“build-up.” The emergence of faith can be understood similarly as the
interaction and cooperation of that which is given and that which realizes
itself: a self-organizing “build-up” to a higher level of complexity. This
model permits an understanding of how faith can be described both as a
gift and as one’s own “accomplishment.” It also explains why faith refers to
two different things: the unique event of coming to faith—the “already” of
faith, and the unending need for further growth—the “not-yet” of faith.
The opposition of realized and future-oriented eschatology therefore turns
out to be only apparent.
The role of the “already” and the “not-yet” can thus build bridges between
the given and the unforeseen, between pure determinism and unforeseeable
development, between freedom and causality. In this way, path and
goal are held together—something that scientific eschatology is unable to
accomplish. The dynamic nature of the “already” and the “not-yet” also
holds together ethics and expectation, struggle and hope. This dynamic relation
is the quintessence of Christian eschatology. It can be reconciled with
findings from the field of natural science, but it cannot be derived from
them.
In this regard, the absence of a fixed time–eternity relation in more re-