__________________
A Position Paper
Presented to
Dr. Kyle Claunch
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
__________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for 27060 WW
__________________
by
JonChristopher Alan Collins
May 29, 2022
Part 1: Introduction to the Issue (1-2pp)
This paper will be engaging the doctrine of God’s foreknowledge. The main positions within the topic of divine foreknowledge include Reformed (Calvinism), Simple Foreknowledge (Arminianism), and Open Theism. The paper will argue against Open Theism and Simple Foreknowledge in favor of the Reformed understanding.
The methodology of my paper utilizes sources from authorities on each position. I will present each theological viewpoint pertinent to the paper. Once that is complete, I will examine the strengths of the Reformed position and why the other positions are not Biblically consistent. The Bible will be used in addition to other sources. Later, I will focus on objections to the Reformed view purported by the other positions.
Part 2: Positions on the Issue (3-4pp)
In Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views Gregory Boyd defends Open Theism. Boyd states that Open Theism “agrees unequivocally with the classical view that God is omniscient, but it embraces a different understanding of creation.” Boyd is a prominent Open Theist; he states that the view “holds that the reality that God perfectly knows not only excludes some possibilities as what might have been, but also includes other possibilities as what might be.” Because of this, reality consists of “settled and open aspects” (14). Open of course means that something is undetermined and not fixed. Boyd does not deny God knowing all of reality but seems to redefine reality.
He asserts that “this view holds that he knows the possible aspects as possible and knows the settled aspects as settled. 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” (14). From this, it appears God does not know anything as definite simply because he’s God, but because he chooses what to know as definite and otherwise.
Hence, Boyd states that God “leaves open whatever he wants to leave open, and hence he perfectly foreknows the future as possible to this extent.”[1] In his book “What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?” Millard J. Erickson provides an assessment of Open Theism.
Erickson states that theologians holding this position “agreed that God has complete and perfect knowledge of the past and that he also has exhaustive and accurate knowledge of all present truth.” Erickson notes that God, according to this view, also knows some of the future. However, he said that in most cases, according to Open Theism, “God does not know what a given human is going to do until that person actually decides and acts.”[2] Boyd agrees with this.
Boyd acknowledges that the classical view argues that God knows the future entirely while also maintaining the freedom human creatures have. On the other hand, Boyd states that “Openness theists argue that God is not able to do this because it constitutes a logical contradiction.”[3]
Simple Foreknowledge (Arminianism)
Simple Foreknowledge (Arminianism) is another view that must be discussed. David Hunt articulates the view in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. He defines Divine Foreknowledge as God having “complete and infallible knowledge of the future.”[4] Before defining his position further, Hunt discusses what he is not advocating.
“The expression simple foreknowledge is sometimes used to designate a particular means by which God knows the future, namely, via a direct apprehension of the future itself.” Hunt makes clear that he isn’t arguing by what mechanism or means God knows the future; he simply argues that God knows it. According to Hunt, affirming Simple Foreknowledge “is by itself wholly compatible with human freedom, divine agency and enhanced providential control.”[5] In this way, Simple Foreknowledge seeks to affirm Divine Foreknowledge while at the same time allowing for robust human freedom.
Returning to Hunt’s discussion of mechanism, he states that a “useful way of thinking about such knowledge is to imagine that God is equipped with a “time telescope” that allows him to observe temporally distant events.” He admits that he finds this explanation “a very natural and attractive way of thinking” about the attribute of Divine Foreknowledge. Again though, Hunt isn’t arguing as to how God sees the future, and regarding the matter, he states his official “position on the mechanism of divine foreknowledge will be agnostic” (67).
Reformed Foreknowledge (Calvinism)
The final view to be considered in this paper and the one I will defend is the Reformed viewpoint (Calvinism). Briefly, and at its most basic level, the position I am defending is this: God knows all because God sovereignly ordains all that transpires. This position will be strongly cemented moving forward throughout the paper. Due to the fact that this view is the one I will argue for, the final portion of this part of the paper is devoted to providing clarity about what is to come. With that said, I am compelled to make one additional statement about my methodology.
Part 3: Support for My Position (3-5pp)
The Westminster Confession provides excellent articulation of the Reformed view of Divine Foreknowledge, and it deals with God’s decree. In chapter three, the confession states, “From all eternity and by the completely wise and holy purpose of his own will, God has freely and unchangeably ordained whatever happens.” It plainly states that the God of the Bible ordains whatever comes to pass; however, it does offer one clarifying point.
The clarifier is that God’s ordination of whatever happens “does not mean, however, that God is the author of sin (he is not), that he represses the will of his created beings, or that he takes away the freedom or contingency of secondary causes.” Furthermore, it notes that the will of his created beings and “the freedom and contingency of secondary causes are established by him.”[6] It later discusses election as it pertains to Christians, but again, the focus of this paper is on the divine attribute of God’s Foreknowledge. Biblical support for this stance on the issue will be offered later.
So, this articulation is clear that God ordains whatsoever happens; at the same time, it highlights that God is not the author of sin nor responsible for sin. Augustine of Hippo is yet another source one can find in support of the Reformed position. William Rowe interacts with Augustine on this topic in his article “Augustine on Foreknowledge and Free Will.” Rowe states that the problem Augustine is grappling with is how free creatures decide to perform “certain actions and that God foreknows that we shall will to perform these actions.”[7] In other words, how is it possible that humans are free and responsible for their sinful actions if God knows all future actions and events? Is God not the author of sin?
Rowe argues that Augustine addresses this dilemma by denying that “if a man must necessarily sin, there is no voluntary choice in his sinning.”[8] More can be said regarding this article, but out of respect for the Bible and also the length of this paper, I will turn to Biblical support for the Reformed position of God’s Foreknowledge. First, consider Proverbs when it states that man’s heart “plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps” (Prov. 16:9).[9] It is clear here that while humans can make plans the outcome of those plans is ultimately in God’s hands, and God will have his way and accomplish his will. Perhaps another verse is clearer.
The same Biblical book also asserts that the lot “is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Prov. 16:33).[10] Proverbs also tells readers that God has made everything, even the wicked, for its purpose (Proverbs 16:4).[11] If every decision is from the Lord, then it follows that it is so because he ordained it to be; this stands in opposition to Simple Foreknowledge’s model where God knows the future because he sees it. Additionally, if everything has been created for a certain purpose, including the wicked, then it also follows that this is so because God ordained it as such. Every action, good or evil is ordained in line with his will, but he remains just and good. The sinner alone is responsible for their sin. Aside from God’s ordaining of all happenings, the Bible affirms God’s perfect and exhaustive knowledge of the future, something Open Theism rejects.
Bruce Ware asserts in his book “God’s Lesser Glory” that this is seen in Isaiah. Ware juxtaposes false gods with the one true and living God. Anchoring his reasoning in selected texts from Isaiah, Ware displays God asserting his supreme knowledge saying through the prophet “Tell us, you idols, what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods” (Isaiah 41:22-23).[12] Ware explains the significance of this.
He states that it is significant given the claim of Open Theists that God has knowledge of and foresees “just selective future events.” He points out that the test God is putting forth is not about the foretelling of certain events. While God does foretell of certain events, Ware states that the real test is “whether the future can be declared and announced generally before it occurs.”[13]
Paul Helm articulates the Reformed position in the earlier referred to work offering four views on God’s knowledge of the future. Helm states that the weakest view “is a sense of divine foreknowledge that is logically prior to God’s decree; it is in the light of what he foreknows that God decrees this or that; what he decrees is conditioned by what he foreknows.” This description fits Simple Foreknowledge.
According to Helm, the Biblical understanding of the world is one in which God being creator of all rules over all. Importantly, Helm states that God “numbers the hairs of our head, directs the fall of a sparrow and the flight of an arrow; he turns the hearts of humans as he wishes; like a potter, he has power over human clay.” He solidifies the Reformed viewpoint further, and what he states about God’s so-called forgetting or reacting goes against Open Theism especially:
It is true that God is said to forget, to be surprised and to act and react toward his people in blessing and chastisement. These may appear to be the actions of someone with limited knowledge and power, but the scriptural language in such cases is usually recognized as metaphorical or symbolic, language “accommodated” to some human situation or need.[14]
In line with the Reformed argument, Helm underlines God’s governance over his entire creation; meanwhile, he also affirms human responsibility by stating that “although God ordains everything which comes to pass— even the evil actions and omissions of human beings— men and women are nevertheless accountable to God” for all they do and neglect to do. While bringing the truths of human responsibility and God’s sovereignty to the forefront, he stresses that they must remain in tension alongside each other.
When we are faced with problems about the consistency of these concepts, it is tempting to modify one or both of them. But we must make every effort to avoid such a course of action. Scripture holds them together, it even speaks of them in the same breath, and so must we. For if Scripture teaches them in this way, they must each be true and so together be consistent, even though it may be difficult for us to grasp this now.[15]
Returning to the Bible, Helm notes the instance in Acts in which the Apostle Peter declares to listeners that they are responsible for the death of Jesus and that it was according to God’s foreknowledge and plan. Using this example, Helm reasons that there are cases where an evil person’s actions are “the result of the set purpose and foreknowledge of God, for one such occasion was the crucifixion of Christ, the focal event of the Christian faith.”[16] The book of Revelation supports this.
Readers are told that Jesus, the Lamb, was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). During a prayer in the book of Acts, speaking of Jesus it states “to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined” to happen (Acts 4:28). Ware points out that not only does Open Theism assert that God changes his mind and reacts emotionally, but some Open Theists don’t even believe Christ’s crucifixion was a fixed reality, claiming he merely decided on the path of the cross in the garden of Gethsemane.[17] Aside from that, Ware also deals with Open Theism promoting a straightforward reading.
Open Theism asserts that readers should take a Biblical text at face value and not read another meaning into the Scriptures. For instance, in cases where God appears surprised or to change his mind, the meaning of those passages should be understood as literal. Ware points to Boyd’s comment that Open Theism is anchored in the belief that passages “constitute the motif of future openness” should be understood just like passages that speak of determinism.
While Ware states that he generally believes it’s wise to accept a “straightforward meaning of the text as the intended meaning,” he said to do so unless there are compelling reasons not to believe the straightforward reading renders the intended meaning.[18] In his response to Open Theism, Helm discusses what he states is a “profoundly different appreciation of the plight of humankind and the saving grace of God.”
Helm, speaking on differences of this grace states “it is that action of God which is causally necessary for human salvation but never causally sufficient. The human will can always frustrate the grace of God.”[19] Now, the focus of this paper must briefly turn to Simple Foreknowledge.
Helm rebuts accusations of fatalism from a Simple Foreknowledge proponent:
It is obvious that not every doctrine that denies indeterministic free will is a case of fatalism, since determinism denies it and determinism is distinct from fatalism. Fatalism is the doctrine that whatever will be will be, holding (in one prominent version) that the denial of free will follows from the laws of logic alone. It holds that some future event X will occur no matter what. But determinism denies this.[KC5]
One final Bible passage displaying God’s sovereign power is in Genesis. Joseph tells his brothers “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20).[20] It can be said from this text that God actually meant the hardship that befell Joseph to occur for God’s own purpose and glory. Finally, I will consider two objections to the Reformed position.
Part 4: Objections to My Position (1-2pp)
Open Theism’s strongest objection sits in Boyd’s assertion that “if Helm is correct that God is the necessary and sufficient ground of salvation, then the ultimate reason why some are saved and some are not is because God himself chose to save some and not others.” Respectfully, that is precisely the point. He also rightly states that Helm’s “conclusion stands in tension” with the teaching of God’s love.[21] Again, this is the point.
First, God states in Exodus that he will show grace and mercy to whom he pleases to (Exodus 33:19).[22] From this verse it seems clear that he chooses to show grace and mercy. Also, in the book of John, Jesus himself states that no one can come to him unless God the Father draws them (John 6:44).[23] Romans is clearer when it states that those God predestined, he also called (Rom. 8:30).[24] So, yes, Boyd is correct about Helm’s assertion, but his disapproval of it does not make it untrue; I would conclude his disagreement to be a non-argument. Boyd’s comment about the tension of Helm’s conclusion is weak.
Teachings being held in tension doesn’t make them untrue. For instance, God is gracious and loving, but he is also just; his wrath is against evil. The Simple Foreknowledge objection comes from David Hunt.
Hunt argues that “if we were subject to universal causal determinism, why wouldn’t God then be the ultimate cause of all our actions (and not just of our good actions)?” Hunt reasons that God created everything and knows how creation operates. Hunt states that “he created the initial state of the universe and the causal rules by which one state is succeeded by another state, and he foreknew just what would result from his setting things up this way.” Thus, Hunt concludes that unless God “created something with the power to make an undetermined contribution to reality, God is the sufficient cause of absolutely everything— including our sins.”[25]
Again, Scripture teaches truths that can be held in tension. God can determine something without being the cause. As previously shown, the Bible does teach that God determines outcomes. Alongside that, it teaches that humans are responsible for their actions. With all due respect, Hunt’s statement that God is the sufficient cause of everything including sin unless he created something that’s able to act apart from determination comes off like an attempt at grasping that which can’t fully be grasped. Hunt’s claim that God would be responsible for sin under the stated conditions is true to Simple Foreknowledge, but it nonetheless ignores the Biblical reality of God’s act of determining; Simple Foreknowledge like Open Theism remains inconsistent with the Bible.
In conclusion, the Reformed position on God’s Divine Foreknowledge is most consistent with God’s revelation of himself. Simple Foreknowledge and Open Theism do not withstand scrutiny; the foundation on which they stand is unsteady. Thus, Simple Foreknowledge and Open Theism are unreliable explanations of God’s knowledge of the future.
*Honor Code: I have written this paper exclusively for 27060 WW. If I received any editing or proofreading advice, I have made all such corrections myself. I have also documented each paraphrase, direct quotation, and borrowed idea in compliance with the Turabian and SBTS style manuals.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views. InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Robert White, Banner of Truth Trust, 2014.
Erickson, Millard J. What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge. Zondervan, 2006.
Evangelical Presbyterian Church, “The Westminster Confession of Faith” https://epc.org/wp-content/uploads/Files/1-Who-We-Are/B-About-The-EPC/WCF-ModernEnglish.pdf, 2010.
Robinson, Michael. “Why Divine Foreknowledge?” Religious Studies, vol. 36, no. 3, 2000, pp. 251–75, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20008295. Accessed 26 Apr. 2022.
Rowe, William L. “Augustine on Foreknowledge and Free Will.” The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 18, no. 2, 1964, pp. 356–63, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20124060. Accessed 26 Apr. 2022.
Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory : The Diminished God of Open Theism. Crossway Books, 2000.
[1] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 14. InterVarsity Press, 2001.
[2] Erickson, Millard J. What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge, 13. Zondervan, 2006.
[3] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 42-43. InterVarsity Press, 2001.
[4] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 65. InterVarsity Press, 2001.
[5] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 67. InterVarsity Press, 2001.
[6] Evangelical Presbyterian Church, The Westminster Confession of Faith, 8. https://epc.org/wp-content/uploads/Files/1-Who-We-Are/B-About-The-EPC/WCF-ModernEnglish.pdf, 2010.
[7] Rowe, William L. “Augustine on Foreknowledge and Free Will.” The Review of Metaphysics 18, no. 2 (1964): 356–63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20124060.
[8] Rowe, William L. “Augustine on Foreknowledge and Free Will.” The Review of Metaphysics 18, no. 2 (1964): 356–63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20124060.
[9] Proverbs 16:9 – ESV
[10] Proverbs 16:33 – ESV
[11] Proverbs 16:4 – ESV
[12] Isaiah 41:22-23 – ESV
[13] Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory : The Diminished God of Open Theism, 102-103. Crossway Books, 2000.
[14] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 163-164. InterVarsity Press, 2001.
[15] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 167. InterVarsity Press, 2001.
[16] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 164-167. InterVarsity Press, 2001.
[17] Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory : The Diminished God of Open Theism, 47. Crossway Books, 2000.
[18] Ware, Bruce A. God’s Lesser Glory : The Diminished God of Open Theism, 65-66. Crossway Books, 2000.
[19] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 63-64. InterVarsity Press, 2001.
[20] Genesis 50:20 – ESV
[21] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 193. InterVarsity Press, 2001.
[22] Exodus 33:19 – ESV
[23] John 6:44 – ESV
[24] Romans 8:30 – ESV
[25] Beilby, James K, et al. Divine Foreknowledge : Four Views, 198. InterVarsity Press, 2001.
JonChristopher Collins 