Critique of Divine Foreknowledge

This is a reflection of the book, Divine Foreknowledge, Four Views, with contributions by four scholars: Gregory A. Boyd who represented the Open-Theism view, David Hunt the Simple-Foreknowledge view, William Lane Craig the Middle Knowledge view and Paul Helm the Augustinian- Calvinistic view. These writers debated the level and exactness of God’s Omniscience including to what extent of the future as it unfolded in human history was known to God. It appeared to be an attempt to make God more palatable to believers regarding their own free-will and the ability of God’s children to act as free agents.

In the Open-Theism view they use a very literal understanding of God’s anthropomorphic traits as a mistaken redaction to the classical and Augustinian-Calvinist view to explain sin and evil. This theology misses the importance of proper exegesis of going back to the original languages which quite often can change the entire meaning of the text. Scholars know and have agreed that English was a poor translation of the original languages. The Bible was written in a way that brings in the reader to feel, act and respond to God and to cause an individual to have a personal relationship with his Creator. It is felt by this author that the process of all these writings laid out in this book takes God off the throne to a reduction of being a regular human being. How tragic can this be?  In an attempt to make God more reachable Boyd has in this viewpoint made God subject to human will. For a human being in crisis needs God to be more than that. God was and needs to be all knowing, omnipresent, and who stands outside of time and sees the story of humanity as a complete work. He needs to be a Creator who is involved with us in time as we pray to Him moment by moment. This lets us know that He was,  is, and is to come and there is no one like Him in all the earth. He is order, perfection, and absolute power. He is qualified to be the rock and foundation of a believer’s life. If this were not so the believer would be without hope in relying on a God who is angry, shocked surprised and barely in control and has an unknowable future. The fact that a scholar can be so off base and lead others down this sad road is nothing short of tragic.

The Simple Foreknowledge view is not an improvement to the author towards attributing to the power and majesty of God. This philosophy also contains a harsh reaction of the lack of understanding of John Calvin. They understand in that viewpoint that God is a harsh monster, author of evil and all tragedy in the world. In attempt to soften the blow they have found scripture to support their theories. They believe that God knows an exhaustive knowledge of events since before the foundation of the world, which is included by the classical view. However, they believe that after the creation was made God became uncertain, as noted in (Isa.5:4), regarding the grapes in the vineyard (Israel) were not domesticated but wild grapes. God, because of His current feelings of dismay, removes His protection from Israel and is exposed to the enemy. The emotive responses of shock in these verses according to the Simple Foreknowledge view is not written to help the reader understand God but is believed that God is sincerely having these feelings. In this view, God is truly surprised by the turn out of future events. The future is unknowable due to the free will of people’s choices. These choices God did not account for in Eternity past and cause God to change the direction of His plans. The author disagrees with the viewpoint because part of being God is knowing all things past, present and future. Hunt sees God as viewing evil in the present and having a reaction to the present data available, which all is not known to God. It becomes necessary that God becomes receptive in advance to the shifting conditions that happen at different flashes in time[1]. In the authors view this undermines God’s Sovereignty. Hunt’s ideology makes God no longer a rock of security that He is.  God designed and created each person himself in the womb of their mothers. In love and mercy God allows His creation to make choices and the choices made are knowable to Him. As was said in the lecture videos, Moses was made to intercede for the children of Israel as a result of the idolatry of the children of Israel. Through this experience the reader learns about God’s laws, thirteen attributes of Mercy and use of foreshadowing of the coming Messiah of promise. The very definition of the Torah is “a teacher or tutor” God gave us to learn His ways. Bad events that God foreknows do not preclude His love for us.  We live minute by minute, to become all that God has intended for us to be. It is not done for cruelty, as some would think, but for our betterment and instruction. Suffering and circumstances that navigated in the Bible demonstrate to us how to live and interact with one another.

Middle Knowledge was a view taken from the sixteenth century, Jesuit Luis de Molina was best known to mean that God has pre-volitional knowledge of true counterfactuals of creaturely freedoms[2]. God knows certain outcomes of one event just like we know that when one gives candy or broccoli to the author’s son he will eat the broccoli first and ask to hold on to the candy for later. In other words he wants both. If one was surprised for expecting the child to only want candy in the infinite realms of answers would be considered a counterfactual. Middle Knowledge is judged by Craig’s fellow writer’s as more conservative and a bit closer to Calvinist theology taking the sting out the notion and misunderstanding that God is the author of good and evil. According to William Craig Lane “God’s Middle Knowledge infallibly tracks true counterfactual propositions concerning our free choices.” [3]

The last view is the Augustinian-Calvinist view which one might be surprised is the authors favorite view. The reason for this is that it represents the power and majesty of God in the position God should carry. It is theologically based using scripture to reveal who and what God is and is not. There may be discrepancies here and there, however, it is to be understood through the fact that we have a loving and just God. He is for us, otherwise the world would have never been created in the first place. God did not create us because He was lonely. He has never been nor will he ever be lonely. He is complete in and of Himself, and He needs nothing and no one. However, God being the pure essence of love began creation from nothing into something and it is that something that we will talk about. God causes all things to happen in Him and through Him, and He also has a permissive will. Nothing evil can originate from God because God is perfect and cannot sin or have anything to do with evil (Jn.1:1-8). Things in perfect harmony of God’s will can happen like the Golden Calf incident whereby 3,000 people were destroyed and the remainder were mercifully saved.  

(Rom. 8: 28-30) And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.  And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (Crossway Bibles 2017).

Of course, there is a lot in this text that cannot be fully addressed here. The importance of this passage is that a loving God works out our Salvation and our lives for only good. An example of this would be a marriage to an abusive person. The woman has a baby by this person and it is a miracle because the woman is supposed to be sterile. The child is an absolute joy with a great personality and full of love. The husband continues to be abusive and cheats on the wife through Godly friends she leaves. God took a horrible situation and created a miracle child for this woman. The child is a walking talking example of God’s goodness and mercy. People have situations like this all the time. God allowed the marriage, even though it was not his perfect will, the woman suffered greatly and it turned into a blessing. That is not a cruel God that other authors want to depict who are against this conservative view of God.

In conclusion, a person who is saved and walking in progressive sanctification needs the security of a God that transcends space and time, who is all knowing, all merciful, all loving, filled with justice, strength, and sovereign. This is the God of great comfort to people who experience dark times and bright times. The unsaved need to know about the Irresistible Grace of God who died first before they were born so they would have everlasting life. They can have the promise of Heaven, living in peace and the presence of God Himself.  He is worthy of all worship, adoration, and our service to Him which can never repay what was done for us before He ever spoke anything into existence. Before He spoke, we were in His heart and mind, and therefore He knew us and we have value to Him. This is the embracing redeeming love of God missed by the other theories. To have a God that is uncertain, changeable, surprised and caught off guard is not of use to anyone. There would be no difference believing in a God like that then making one’s next door neighbor a god. If the neighbor is in the mood to see an individual they can tell them their problems with no assurance of outcomes in one’s life. The author feels that promoting a God like this can damage new people and effect their salvation and way of life. The author would not want to be in judgement of another’s way of teaching. The Bible warns us to be truthful to the word as Pastor’s and teachers. This methodology is quite concerning. (James 3:1) in the Amplified Version says this:

Not many [of you] should become teachers [serving in an official teaching capacity], my brothers and sisters, for you know that we [who are teachers] will be judged by a higher standard [because we have assumed greater accountability and more condemnation if we teach incorrectly] (Crossway Bibles 2017).

As clever as some theologians are must somehow in the face of describing an indescribable God be humbled to their knees in admiration of such power. In (Job 38), God has the perfect questions for those who doubt his Omniscience.  Perhaps if Job was unable to give God an answer when he faced God’s presence in the whirlwind then perhaps Boyd, Hunt and Craig might concede to a God that is not quite completely known. If not completely known, then He cannot be down-graded to a moody and unchangeable God whose knowledge of future outcomes is shaky at best. It should be assumed that any human beings best thinking is finite and flawed. The author will end with this quote.

Job 38:1-7 Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge?  Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.  “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?  Tell me, if you understand.  Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!  Who stretched a measuring line across it?  On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone—  while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy (Crossway Bibles 2017)?

References

Crossway Bibles. Biblegateway.com. 2017. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/? (accessed February 2017).

Eddy, James K. Beilby and Paul R. Divine Foreknowledge, Four Views. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001.

[1] James K. Eddy and Paul R Beilby, Divine Foreknowledge, Four Views. IVP Academic, (Downers Grove: 2001) 53.

[2] James K. Eddy and Paul R Beilby, Divine Foreknowledge, Four Views. IVP Academic, (Downers Grove: 2001) 122.

[3] Ibid; 132.