The Foreknowledge of God

The Foreknowledge of God
Sara Bodirsky
History of Philosophy II
April 26, 2005
Today, the religious world is being confounded and perplexed over the subject of God's foreknowledge. Extremists are saying that God knows all of the details of the future, but extremists on the other side of the pendulum are saying that God knows very little of what will happen in the future. This topic has been creating quite a stir in the religious world for centuries, beginning with John Calvin during the Reformation period. But, has the question only been around for a few hundred years? This question dates back to (at least) the time of Abraham. God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his only son as a test of faith. While watching Abraham's knife clutched in his raised hand, ready to murder his son in God's name, God realized that Abraham did indeed have faith in God, and an angel interrupted Abraham before the first cut. People have often wondered if this "test of faith" was actually necessary. "Was this test necessary?" some would ask. "Could not God have known Abraham's response without actually putting Abraham through the test?" Well, did God know that Abraham would indeed pass the test of faith? Or has He limited His foreknowledge to the extent where humans can make their own decisions, and God not have any inclination as to what the outcome will be? While attempting to separate fact from fiction, we will take a look at four different branches of ideas: the Open-Theism view, the Middle-Knowledge view, the Simple-Foreknowledge view, and the Augustinian-Calvinist view.
The Open-Theism view is a view that is quickly gaining popularity today. The definition of the Open-Theism view is that "God knows the future partly as a realm of possibilities, not exclusively as settled facts" (Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views). According to Gregory A. Boyd, "In this view, the sovereign Creator settles whatever he wants to settle about the future, and hence he perfectly foreknows the future as settled to this extent. This view has recently been labeled the 'openness view of God,' though, as with the classical view, it would be technically more correct to refer to it as the 'openness view of creation'."
The Open-Theism view believes that even though God is in control of the future, it does not mean that he knows everything or controls everything that will come to pass.
To some, Isaiah 46:9-11 seems to say that God has complete knowledge of everything that will happen in the future, and that he has predestined everything. However, Boyd disagrees. He has two observations that suggest otherwise. There are no scripture that say that God knows everything that will happen, and Boyd says that the scripture does not imply that God declares all things "from ancient times." Also, Boyd says, "the context of the passage qualifies its claims." In verse 10, God adds, "My purpose shall stand, and I will fulfill my intentions." He can use his intention to put events into motion, and is not stating that he "just happens to know" what will happen in the future.
But what does the Open-Theism view say about Judas Iscariot's betrayal of Christ? Boyd believes that the Scripture only predicts or foreknows future events, but God does not necessarily know who will fulfil the events. God foreknew that someone would betray Christ over to the Jews, but God did not choose Judas to do it, so God did not "cause" Judas to sin by betraying Christ. Also, Peter's betrayal fits along the same lines. God did not make Peter deny Christ, but God knew that there were certain personality flaws within Peter that would lead him to do this, so that was how Christ was able to predict Peter's denial. God knew that the event would happen, but He did not know who would be the one to do it. Once God "knows" something, it must come to pass, and God would not cause anyone to sin by His knowing what was to come to pass.
Another point that Boyd makes is that the things that humans do often surprise God. In Isaiah 5 verse 4, God was surprised at the way humans did not turn out the way he had expected them to. He compared Himself to an owner of a vineyard, and Israel as the vineyard, and expressed dismay because his vineyard yielded wild grapes, instead of the grapes He had took so much time cultivating. This passage teaches us that God, very often, doesn't know what will happen in the future. Although certain things are settled, He leaves certain choices open to mankind. The Lord also experiences regret and frustration with man, as was the case after He made Saul king of the Jews, and frustration when all will not come to repentance. God gives mankind many choices, and the Open-Theism view teaches that our paths to Heaven or Hell are not set in stone, and that, while some things are foreknown, not all things are, and humans have a choice in what they do.
The Simple-Foreknowledge View is the view that God "simply" knows what will come to pass, and no future event is withheld from His knowledge. According to David Hunt, who upholds the position defending the Simple-Foreknowledge View, most who follow the belief are agnostic as to God's method of knowing the future, but still are confident that God indeed does know the future. Hunt makes four main points, as to why he believes that the Simple-Foreknowledge View is the correct view:
1.) There is considerable evidence for divine foreknowledge. He makes the point that His foreknowledge is "integral to who He is". In Isaiah 41:22-23, God's foreknowledge is the main defining line between Himself and the gods.
Isaiah 41:22-23:
"Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. (23) Tell is what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified."
Hunt uses multiple other examples to prove his first point:
1.) In Genesis 40, Joseph correctly discerns the dreams of Pharaoh's butler and his baker.
2.) In Matthew 26, Jesus foretells that Peter will deny him three times, and that Judas Iscariot will betray him.
3.) Psalms 139:4- "Even before a word is on my tongue, O LORD, you know it completely."
4.) Isaiah 46:9-10-"I am God, and there is no one like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done."
His second reason for believing in Simple-Foreknowledge is "the central Christian understanding of God as a supreme and perfect being arguably requires that God has complete and infallible knowledge of the future." Hunt believes that there is something wrong, if a person believed that God was "surpassingly great while also attributing to him ignorance of some future event." Hunt believes that if we do not believe in God's total foreknowledge, that we are not able to say with full confidence that God is as great as possible.
His third reason for believing the Simple-Foreknowledge View is that "divine sovereignty and providence" cause God to have to be "supremely knowledgeable as well as supremely powerful." The Bible teaches mankind about a God who is in control, yet not controlling or manipulating mankind to act in certain ways.
His fourth reason is that the church philosophers held the same view. Justin Martyr suggested that God is delaying the Last Judgment because "in His foreknowledge He sees that some will be saved by repentance, some who are, perhaps, not yet in existence." St. Augustine believed that if a person believed that God exists, but still denied His foreknowledge of future things, then that person was foolish, because if someone was not "prescient of all future things", then he is not God. Several other Christian philosophers take the same position, such as Boethius, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.
We will briefly discuss Boethius and his views. Ancius Manlius Boethius was born around 480 A.D. Boethius became entangled in a conflict with Theoderic regarding the unification of the Roman and the Eastern churches. Theoderic was an Ostragoth, an Arian Christian, which made him a "vile heretic" in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. Theoderic tortured Boethius mercilessly for months. Boethius then began to question his faith, and came up with a question. By what law did God allow good people to suffer, as he did, and evil people to prosper, as Theoderic seemed to be doing? Boethius wrote The Consolation of Philosophy, which dealt with this problem. (Richard Hooker).
The Middle-Knowledge View teaches that God knows not only what will happen, but He also knows what would have happened if He had chosen to create another world. It is believed that God foresaw which, among many options, would be the best course of action for Him to take. According to this view, "God chose to create the world He did because He foresaw that this exact world best attained his objectives for creation while preserving the freedom of creatures." Followers of this view believe that God knows what people would do in different circumstances. For example, let's say that Judas had been the one to deny Jesus three times, and Peter had been the one to betray Christ. The course of church history would have been much different, because maybe God foresaw that Judas Iscariot did not have the fortitude to have turned from his denial, and be the first to deliver a gospel sermon. Did God think of the future before Peter's denial? Middle knowledge theists seem to believe so.
Craig has several scriptures which he believes support middle knowledge:
1 Samuel 23:6-12: "When Abiathar the son of Ahimelech had fled to David to Keilah, he had come down with an ephod in his hand. Now it was told Saul that David had come to Keilah. And Saul said, "God has given him into my hand, for her has shut himself in by entering a town that has gates and bars." And Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. David knew that Saul was plotting harm against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, "Bring the ephod here." Then said David, "O Lord, the God of Israel, please tell your servant." And the Lord said, "He will come down." Then David said, "Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?" And the Lord said, "They will surrender you."
This passage shows that God can see future possible situations, and that there are many other courses of action that a person can take, which all will result in different consequences, which only God can foresee.
Jeremiah 38:17-19-"Then Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, "Thus says the Lord, the God of hosts, the God is Israel: If you surrender to the officials of the king of Babylon, then this city shall be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and you shall not escape from their hand."
Deuteronomy 18:22-"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him."
These two passages further illustrate that with God, if-then situations do exist. Middle knowledge theists believe that in God's sight, numerous different plans of action exist. For example, God probably had to have thought of the correct plan of salvation. According to middle knowledge, He would have contemplated, thought over, and foresaw all possible outcomes for all possible methods of salvation, which caused him to finally choose the method which mankind finds in the Bible today.
The last view which we will discuss is that of the Augustinian-Calvinist persuasion. The main contributors/originators of this theory are Augustine of Hippo, and John Calvin, the noted Reformation leader.
So, what is the Augustinian-Calvinist theory? This view decrees "God knows all that shall come to pass because He preordains all that shall come to pass. Unlike the other three views presented in this book, this view denies that agents possess self-determining (or libertarian) freedom." Mankind can do as they like, as long as their actions fall into "the sovereign plan of God."
So, what are the major arguments for the belief? Helm has a few points which he makes.
1.) "Without such freedom, God's saving grace is always resistible, and so saving grace can never ensure its intended effect."
2.) "According to Scripture, such irresistible grace-the grace that alone is causally sufficient for faith and for a faith appropriation of Christ-when it is received, is liberating."
Helm asks, "What of the objection that some human partners do resist God's grace?" According to Augistinianism, God creates a truly personal relationship with people who lack the capability to establish it for themselves.
Helm's argument consisted of three main strands. First, "that only such an account of human freedom is logically consistent with divine efficacious grace; causal indeterminism therefore has serious adverse theological consequences. Secondly, that this account does full justice to divine omniscience and is simpler than its closest rivals. And finally, there is reason to think that in any case divine foreknowledge and human incompatibilism are logically inconsistent."
Helm, in my opinion, did an awful job of defending this view. He only mentioned one scripture (Acts 2:23), which did nothing to support his theory. Instead of proving his points with Scripture, he relied on man's logic, which is unbefitting to Christians. He gave me the impression that he was trying to prove something to the three other sides, rather than clearly convey his thoughts and ideas to college students and laymen, as was intended in the Introduction. His section was very difficult to understand, and did not clear up anything for me in regards to Calvinism.
In conclusion, the four different views of God's Foreknowledge all have very valid points, some more than others. It is necessary to study these points out for oneself, to see what God says about it, and not only what man thinks. Philosophy is a good thing, but as Christians, we must remember that man's philosophy is nothing when compared to God's philosophy, and it is important to always remember that even though man can figure out certain things, God sees the big picture, and we should remember that He is God, and we are not.
References:
English Standard Version
Gregory A. Boyd, Divine Foreknowledge
David Hunt, Divine Foreknowledge
William Lane Craig, Divine Foreknowledge
Paul Helm, Divine Foreknowledge
Richard Hooker, http://www.wsu.edu:8000/~dee/CHRIST/BOETHIUS.HTM