The foreknowledge debate is essentially about how God exercises his sovereignty, not at all about whether or not he is sovereign. The issue surrounds exhaustive definitive foreknowledge (EDF), what it is and how God as the sovereign Lord of all, chose to create the world and the reality in which we as humans exist in, and he as God relates to us in. This discussion is framed within the constructs of three principle positions: the Arminian view – God foreknows future free actions, the Calvinist view – God foreknows by sovereignly ordaining the future, and the Open view – God foreknows all that shall be and all that may be (Boyd, Eddy, 2009, p. 47). All three of these positions will be examined within this paper and the one that I find most compelling and why will be explained along with how the position influences a disciple’s life in a positive passionate way.
This debate starts with the premise that, “Most Christians throughout history have believed that God knows everything that is to come. This is often referred to as the ‘classical’ view of divine foreknowledge, and it is still what the majority of evangelicals believe” (2009, p.48). From this premise however, “…a number of variations within the classical view” (2009, p. 48) emerge and the first “variation” that will be looked at is the Arminian view. The view held by Arminians is, “…that, while God predetermines certain aspects of the future, he leaves other aspects for free agents to determine….Arminians believe God still possesses that ability to foreknow with certainty how these free agents will choose. God thus foreknows all that will come to pass without predetermining all that will come to pass” (2009, p.50). An important aspect to the Arminian position is that, “Arminians deny that foreknowledge implies meticulous divine control...” and “While God certainly foreknows all that he foreordains, there’s no reason to conclude that God foreordains all that he foreknows…”(2009, p.53). In relation to EDF Arminians would believe that, “…God knows all that shall occur in the same way he knows as that is now occurring and all that has occurred. He simply sees it, but doesn’t necessarily bring it about. Much of what is brought about is the result of decisions made by free agents. Yet God knows it – past, present, and future – in exhaustive, definite detail” (2009, p. 52).
Another view of God’s foreknowledge and the degree to which God has EDF and what that means is the Calvinists view. The, “Calvinists agree with the Arminians in affirming that God possesses exhaustively, definite and eternal foreknowledge of all that shall come to pass….Calvinists hold that God’s foreknowledge is based on how God wills the future to unfold” (2009, p. 55). For Calvinists everything that occurs is within the scope of God’s will, nothing in reality is outside the control and will of God and this is the main way in which they differ from Armininians and Open Theists as Calvinists believe, “…that every detail of history is just such a state of affairs, for nothing takes place outside the will of God….God leaves nothing to chance…” (2009, p. 57).
With Open Theists and their view on EDF, the largest departure in position from Arminians and Calvinists occurs over what it is that God knows in the future. For, “…both Arminians and Calvinists agree that an omniscient God must know the future exclusively in terms of what will certainly come to pass….Open Theists depart from this view of foreknowledge and hold instead that the future is not just about what will come to pass but also about what may or may not come to pass” and “…while Arminians and Calvinists both hold that the future is exhaustively known by God in an eternal and definite manner, Open Theists hold that the future, since it is partly unsettled or ‘open,’ is known to God as such” (2009, p. 62). Open Theists posit their believe as the result of biblical and philosophical reasons, for, “Open Theists hold that the future is partly settled and partly unsettled primarily because they find this view reflected in Scripture…They affirm that God is the sovereign Lord of history who can predestine, and therefore, as much of the future as he chooses. Open Theists part with the classical tradition, however, in their denial that these settled passages tell the whole story. For there are also many other passages that depict the future as unsettled, and Open Theists believe that these passages must be taken just as seriously as the settled passages” (2009, p. 63).
For me the most compelling of the three views on EDF is the Open Theists position primarily because it affords the possibility of an infinitely wiser, intelligent God that does not need coercion or control to bring about good or a purpose to every evil. He can do this as his, “… wisdom is magnificent” (Isa 28:29b TNIV). The God who is infinitively intelligent can know every possibility and manage all of them as though they will or will not or may or may not occur and have a contingency for every possibility so that he can bring a purpose to every possibility that is chosen so that every negative may become a positive. Therefore, God not needing to have a specific divine purpose for everything that occurs prior to it occurring is in my estimation a more praise worthy, loving God. He willing risked and created reality in such a way as to relinquish some control and give his creation, both angelic and human libertarian free will that actually affects reality so that the possibility of love exists. Without a reality that involves risk and libertarian free will it is hard to imagine the real existence of love as love must be chosen to be genuine and not merely controlled or coerced.
As I have contemplated EDF the most compelling aspects of it are that it postulates a significantly more compelling intellectual argument for grappling with the problem of evil. The Calvinist, “Failing to distinguish between the sovereign use God makes of evil decisions on the basis of his foreknowledge, on the one hand, and foreknown occurrence of evil as part of God’s sovereign purpose, on the other, lands Calvinism in the deepest ditch of the notorious problem of evil” (2009, p53). And it is in the getting out of this “deepest ditch” that the Open Theist position is the most advantageous as it not only provides a philosophical and scriptural way out of the ditch, but more importantly it gives value to our prayers and how they can actually change reality by affecting God. This I believe for me is what allowed my heart to follow my mind and open up new vistas of how I think and worship such a great God because, “The open view thus infuses the Christian life with a sense of passion, significance, and urgency” and “…is the most plausible view because it squares with our everyday life….we all live as though the open view were true” (2009, p. 65). In my experience especially over the past couple of years I have found this to be increasingly true.
The EDF discussion is intriguing and there are obviously many facets to it and also a degree of mystery that I do not think anyone would deny as we are attempting to wrap our finite minds around the infinite - grasping to get an “eff of the ineffable.” Nevertheless, to the degree that we desire to know the mind of God, the more praiseworthy and glorious I believe he becomes and all the more my passion to worship him becomes enflamed within me.
This debate starts with the premise that, “Most Christians throughout history have believed that God knows everything that is to come. This is often referred to as the ‘classical’ view of divine foreknowledge, and it is still what the majority of evangelicals believe” (2009, p.48). From this premise however, “…a number of variations within the classical view” (2009, p. 48) emerge and the first “variation” that will be looked at is the Arminian view. The view held by Arminians is, “…that, while God predetermines certain aspects of the future, he leaves other aspects for free agents to determine….Arminians believe God still possesses that ability to foreknow with certainty how these free agents will choose. God thus foreknows all that will come to pass without predetermining all that will come to pass” (2009, p.50). An important aspect to the Arminian position is that, “Arminians deny that foreknowledge implies meticulous divine control...” and “While God certainly foreknows all that he foreordains, there’s no reason to conclude that God foreordains all that he foreknows…”(2009, p.53). In relation to EDF Arminians would believe that, “…God knows all that shall occur in the same way he knows as that is now occurring and all that has occurred. He simply sees it, but doesn’t necessarily bring it about. Much of what is brought about is the result of decisions made by free agents. Yet God knows it – past, present, and future – in exhaustive, definite detail” (2009, p. 52).
Another view of God’s foreknowledge and the degree to which God has EDF and what that means is the Calvinists view. The, “Calvinists agree with the Arminians in affirming that God possesses exhaustively, definite and eternal foreknowledge of all that shall come to pass….Calvinists hold that God’s foreknowledge is based on how God wills the future to unfold” (2009, p. 55). For Calvinists everything that occurs is within the scope of God’s will, nothing in reality is outside the control and will of God and this is the main way in which they differ from Armininians and Open Theists as Calvinists believe, “…that every detail of history is just such a state of affairs, for nothing takes place outside the will of God….God leaves nothing to chance…” (2009, p. 57).
With Open Theists and their view on EDF, the largest departure in position from Arminians and Calvinists occurs over what it is that God knows in the future. For, “…both Arminians and Calvinists agree that an omniscient God must know the future exclusively in terms of what will certainly come to pass….Open Theists depart from this view of foreknowledge and hold instead that the future is not just about what will come to pass but also about what may or may not come to pass” and “…while Arminians and Calvinists both hold that the future is exhaustively known by God in an eternal and definite manner, Open Theists hold that the future, since it is partly unsettled or ‘open,’ is known to God as such” (2009, p. 62). Open Theists posit their believe as the result of biblical and philosophical reasons, for, “Open Theists hold that the future is partly settled and partly unsettled primarily because they find this view reflected in Scripture…They affirm that God is the sovereign Lord of history who can predestine, and therefore, as much of the future as he chooses. Open Theists part with the classical tradition, however, in their denial that these settled passages tell the whole story. For there are also many other passages that depict the future as unsettled, and Open Theists believe that these passages must be taken just as seriously as the settled passages” (2009, p. 63).
For me the most compelling of the three views on EDF is the Open Theists position primarily because it affords the possibility of an infinitely wiser, intelligent God that does not need coercion or control to bring about good or a purpose to every evil. He can do this as his, “… wisdom is magnificent” (Isa 28:29b TNIV). The God who is infinitively intelligent can know every possibility and manage all of them as though they will or will not or may or may not occur and have a contingency for every possibility so that he can bring a purpose to every possibility that is chosen so that every negative may become a positive. Therefore, God not needing to have a specific divine purpose for everything that occurs prior to it occurring is in my estimation a more praise worthy, loving God. He willing risked and created reality in such a way as to relinquish some control and give his creation, both angelic and human libertarian free will that actually affects reality so that the possibility of love exists. Without a reality that involves risk and libertarian free will it is hard to imagine the real existence of love as love must be chosen to be genuine and not merely controlled or coerced.
As I have contemplated EDF the most compelling aspects of it are that it postulates a significantly more compelling intellectual argument for grappling with the problem of evil. The Calvinist, “Failing to distinguish between the sovereign use God makes of evil decisions on the basis of his foreknowledge, on the one hand, and foreknown occurrence of evil as part of God’s sovereign purpose, on the other, lands Calvinism in the deepest ditch of the notorious problem of evil” (2009, p53). And it is in the getting out of this “deepest ditch” that the Open Theist position is the most advantageous as it not only provides a philosophical and scriptural way out of the ditch, but more importantly it gives value to our prayers and how they can actually change reality by affecting God. This I believe for me is what allowed my heart to follow my mind and open up new vistas of how I think and worship such a great God because, “The open view thus infuses the Christian life with a sense of passion, significance, and urgency” and “…is the most plausible view because it squares with our everyday life….we all live as though the open view were true” (2009, p. 65). In my experience especially over the past couple of years I have found this to be increasingly true.
The EDF discussion is intriguing and there are obviously many facets to it and also a degree of mystery that I do not think anyone would deny as we are attempting to wrap our finite minds around the infinite - grasping to get an “eff of the ineffable.” Nevertheless, to the degree that we desire to know the mind of God, the more praiseworthy and glorious I believe he becomes and all the more my passion to worship him becomes enflamed within me.
Bibliography
Bible, TNIV.
Boyd, Gregory, A and Eddy, Paul, R. (2009) Across the Spectrum. Baker Academic.
No comments:
Post a Comment