Does God Know The Future?
Seems as though it’s a rhetorical question, but I will explain that there are movements in Christianity that do believe that God does indeed not know what our actions will be. There are four major views on the foreknowledge of God. I’d like to note that this study is in the realm of Theology Proper. Theology Proper is the branch of theology concerned with the characteristics of God; this refers to the study of His incommunicable (attributes we can’t share with God such as omniscience, omnipotence, and the like) and communicable attributes (attributes we have as God does such as love, hate, and the like).
‘To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly.‘
Augustine
The four views are The Open View, Simple Foreknowledge View, Middle Knowledge View, and The Classical View. What do you think has given us these varying views? What else? Free will. I pray that someday we do not concerning ourselves with our free will and God relieves us all of our anthropocentrism. Anyway, here are the four views of divine foreknowledge.
The Open View
This is a theology based upon the interpretation of Scripture broken into two “motifs” or ways of understanding God’s foreknowledge. The first motif is that of “future determinism” or that God does indeed determine future events to come to pass, but the other is the “motif of openness.” This means that Open Theists believe that God determines some things, but other things He allows to come about through the free actions of creatures.
The classical view of divine foreknowledge interprets the first motif as speaking about God as he truly is and the second motif as speaking about God only as he appears to be or as figures of speech. In other words, whenever the Bible suggests that God knows and/or controls the future, this is taken literally. Whenever it suggests that God knows the future in terms of possibilities, however, this is not taken literally.
Gregory Boyd, ‘God of the Possible’ (pg. 14)
An Open Theist believes that determinism and freedom are not compatible (the position of incompatibilism) which is in contrast to the Classical View of God’s foreknowledge. They would pose the question: “if God truly knew what was going to happen, how can you say that we are free?” They believe in Libertarian free will or the belief that we can choose to the contrary. Due to this apparently high amount of freedom God has granted us, He cannot know what will come about in certain circumstances.
‘While claiming to offer meaningfulness to Christian living, open theism strips the believer of the one thing needed most for a meaningful and vibrant life of faith: absolute confidence in God’s character, wisdom, word, promise, and the sure fulfillment of his will.‘
Bruce Ware
You have to be careful when reading Open Theistic theology. It sounds logical, in fact it is the logical extension of the Middle Foreknowledge view; but this stance is in no way Scriptural. They largely take anthropomorphisms (attributing human characteristics to God for our understanding) out of the Bible. Due to this, they would take a passage that says God “changed His mind” (Exodus 32:14) or that God “regrets” (Genesis 6:6) literally. Modern advocates of this theology include Gregory Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and John Sanders.
“Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.“
1 Samuel 15:29
The Simple Foreknowledge View
This view is advocated in modern Synergistic (Arminian) theology. This view says that God knows all, but only because He “learns” about what we do. In other words, God endowed us with such freedom (Libertarian again) that God’s knowledge is contingent on our free actions. This is how Arminians reconcile their doctrine of Conditional Election or that God chooses us because we choose Him.
In this view God does not foreordain or determine what will come to pass. Here is an example of an example of how they read into Scriptures back up the doctrine of contingent election:
For those whom He foreknew [that is to say that God saw who would choose Him when He looked down the corridors of time], He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined [contingent upon their self-determining will], He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Romans 8:29–30
This view is problematic because it actually reveals that God is the ultimate source of determinism and not the individual (logical fallacy of “irrelevant conclusion”). Furthermore, Paul does not say what I put in brackets above. He simply says: “For those whom He foreknew” which in itself does provide for us to infer such an interpretation. The Greek word for foreknow is proginoÌ?sk which means “to forsee/foreordain.” And verse 30 clearly states that “these whom He predestined, He also called” which ascribes the action to God.
“Therefore, even if God did base his predestination on faith which he foresaw, it was a faith which he himself intended to create. So the whole motive for the idea of foreknown faith collapses. It still leaves us with the freedom and right of God to elect or choose whom he will call effectually into faith. For God to predestine someone on the basis of faith which he himself creates, is the same as basing predestination on the basis of election.“
John Piper
The Middle Knowledge View
This view of God’s foreknowledge is also referred to as Molinism; it was pioneered by Luis De Molina, a Jesuit, and remains a staple in Catholic orthodox doctrine. This theory again attempts to reconcile Libertarian free will with that of God’s foreknowledge. This view contends that God looked through all possibilites of different worlds and chose one that coincided with His will so as not to determine choices by willing agents (humans). It is also summarized in saying that God knows all the possibilities of our future free actions. The Remonstrance, or articulation of the Five Points of Arminianism, largely reflects the view of Molinism (to which Jacob Arminius advocated).
That is why it’s in the “middle.” That is to say it is in the middle of God’s inability to know our future free decisions (in the Open View) and God’s foreordaining those future free decisions (as is held in the Classical View). Modern proponents of this theology include Luis de Molina, Jacob Arminius, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and Thomas P. Flint.
The Classical View
The Classical View is the view that radically deviates from the previous three. In this view, God did not “learn,” “choose between possibilities,” or simply “not know.” This view contends that God is sole determining agent. He has complete and perfect knowledge of the future, because He determined as such.
This view, as averse to other three, doesn’t hold to the free will definition provided by Libertarian philosophy. The view on free will in the Classical View is referred to as Compatibilism. This doctrine says that determinism and free will are in fact compatible. So, their definition of free will is not that we can choose otherwise, but that we are not coerced in making the choices God ordained. The three previous views see this as illogical, and they attempt to resolve the apparent paradox. The first thing you learn is hermeneutics is to allow the Scriptures to speak for itself, and always interpret Scripture with other Scripture. Therefore, if something is seemingly a paradox, do not try to resolve it. Let’s look at the following examples of how all orthodox Christians view a scenario such as this.
The Trinity
- The Father is God (John 8:41), The Son is God (John 1:1), The Holy Spirit is God (1 Corinthians 3:16).
- God is one (Mark 12:29).
- Therefore, God is Triune.
Compatibilism
- God is sovereign and determining (Ephesians 1:11, Isaiah 46:10).
- Man is free (James 1:14) and responsible (Isaiah 55:6–7).
- Therefore, free will is compatible with sovereignty.
No Christian would try and resolve the doctrine of the Trinity (although we do have Modalists, Mormons, and other cults that do attempt to reconcile this doctrine; but they are not Christians), but Christians squirm when they hear of Compatibilism.
“But what if the foreknowledge of God, and the liberty of the will cannot be reconcilled by man? Shall we therefore deny a perfection in God to support a liberty in ourselves? Shall we rather fasten ignorance upon God, and accuse Him of blindness to maintain our liberty?“
Stephen Charnock
‘The correct approach is to insist that God foreordains all things and that all future events are under His sovereignty. The future is absolutely certain to God. He knows what will take place, and He foreordains what will take place. Foreordain does not mean coerce. It simply means that God wills that something take place. He may will future events through the free choices of creatures. This is the great mystery of providence — that God can will the means as well as the ends of future events. God can even will good through the wicked choices of men.‘
R.C. Sproul
This view is held by Monergists (Calvinists). Modern proponents include Jonathan Edwards, John Piper, Charles Spurgeon, and John Owen.
One Final View
Outside of these four prevailing thoughts of God’s foreknowledge we find a minority thought system called Process Theology (Process Theism). This theory is based on philosophical speculation on the metaphysical nature of God. This theology states that everything in life is a process, and this applies to God as well.
This means that God grows with us, learns with us, and is dependent on us. That is that reality is not static (in one sense determined) but is continually evolving. This theology denies the self-sufficiency of God as well as some hold to denying the pre-existence of Christ and the Trinity in its orthodox form.
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
Ephesians 2:10
Conclusion
It is the author’s opinion that the Classical View gives the most glory to The Creator’s omniscience and sovereignty over His creation. The Bible speaks of God creating and foreordaining according the “kind intention of His will” (Ephesians 1:5). Let us glorify Him as such.
In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
James 1:18
Soli Deo Gloria!
For more information visit Monergism.com.
Recently, I attended a conference wherein Bruce Ware lectured. He continually referred to God choosing things along the way. I asked him how this lined up with the Classical view of comprehensive foreknowledge. He responded that he was an “odd duck” among Calvinists, because he believed in Middle Knowledge, and that God chose on the basis of MK before creation.
That sounded fishy to me. So, after the Q&A session finished I approached him and asked what he meant. He said God looked at all the options, and chose before creation. I pointed out that if God actually analyzed and chose in this way (rather than “chose” being anthropomorphic), then that means there was a time when God was not omniscient. Not only that, eternity becomes sequential/time based since there is a before, during, and after of the choice.
His response? He begged the issue with, “Well, I don’t know what choosing is like in eternity,” and “But he wasn’t dependent on man for that knowledge” (which really addresses His Aseity /Self-sufficiency, and not the question of His omniscience).
So, while castigating Open Theists, it seems Ware believes in a god who was NOT omniscient (before choosing the future). .…Not to mention the problems engaged by employing MK (counterfactuals of freedom) in relation to predestination, and arguing there is a maximum number of saved God can obtain with human freedom in place (as if free will was really an issue in play on the road to Damascus.
@Malcom: Those are great comments, and I completely agree with your appraisal of his theology. He is “outside the bounds” of the reformed understanding of the compatibility of sovereignty and freedom.
Not sure if his answer was actually “begging” the issue or not. I assume he was making the point of the possibility that God has always “eternally” known “the best” possibility for the events of the human time line. That is just as easily said as the view of the Calvinist that says “God has always known whom He would save”. Does the Calvinist believe there was a time before God determined the elect in which He was not omniscient? No– He has always known who the elect would be. MK simply states the same thing — He has always known which time line would unfold. I think MK has some real problems but this does not seem to be one of them to me.
While “God has always ‘eternally’ known ‘the best’ possibility for events of the human time line” might come close to “God has always known whom He would save,” the two remain distinctly separate. In the former case, knowing the “best possible” is the basis for God’s choice. For the Calvinist, God sovereignly chooses, and so it is the best choice. If one claims to regard God as all sovereign in such matters as salvation, and Ware does, then the “best possibility” for saving the most possible is to save all. [Biblical examples, such as Christ’s intervention with Saul of Tarsus, can be marshaled to demonstrate God’s ability to save even some hardened opponents to Christ through miraculous means. Yet he does not extend that powerful call to all.] A Calvinist, in contrast, maintains God sovereignly chose the elect based upon his free choice, so as to demonstrate his righteousness and mercy; not based on an impotent response to the question, “What’s the greatest number of people I can save while maintaining human free will?” (Ware’s contention). The Calvinist answer is, “Everyone, if He so chose.”
Ware’s position is really not based on sovereign choice to save individuals, but foreknowledge of deterministic outcomes for a given universe that includes human free will. But the fact is, knowledge of such an outcome for a given universe in which “free will” is in play (in contrast to other possible such universes) would be knowable only via determinism. And free will choices for salvation in it still would make God’s choice of that universe based upon the foreknown human decisions within that potential universe. So, he ends up back with Arminianism, not Calvinism. Ware’s “compatibalism” is a logical mess.
If God is moving specific individuals to make the decision for salvation in Christ, whereas others he cannot because they are not capable (due to the predestined universe God CHOSE), then free will is not really an issue at all. The Calvinist view might just as well be in play. And again, if God was examining different universes, even in a single moment, and then choosing the one in which most people would be saved (Ware’s scenario when I heard him speak), then God obviously did not know either the quality of those potential universes, or which universe He would choose in advance. Thus, Ware’s picture of God is decidedly not eternally omniscient. He simply can’t make the jump to acknowledge it, because it does not match his orthodox verbiage. He effectively threw-out mystery and tension, replacing them with a predestination story in clear contradiction to his own professed theology.
I would argue that Ware is indeed begging the question. He is still pleading rightness of his view, but simply using a smoke screen of pleading ignorance about knowing what choosing in eternity is like (which is itself an unstated assertion that choosing in eternity must be qualitatively different in an undefined way based on being in eternity, such that it would allow his claim). That, my friends, is begging the question, with a smoke screen as a prop.
So, let’s see, then. We know what choosing in time is like. It is momentary, and time dilineated. How could choosing in eternity be different? Well difference would have to be that the choosing would go on eternally. So, God is simultaneously undecided between options and decided about every option He wants for all eternity? He exists in all eternity and times at once, but is in different states of decision in different parts of eternity and time? So, God is either eternally un-unified, or eternally conflicted?
What happened to terms, and definitions, and logic? Right out the window! Imagine the heretical theologies one could construct and justify simply by continually appealing to “We don’t know what that means in eternity.”
Thanks for the insightful commentary Malcom.
Sure.
We should note that his smoke screen regarding choice in eternity is really based on an appeal to ignorance. He is asserting a premise (qualitatively different choice in eternity) is true because (he believes) it has not yet been proven false. He even admits ignorance about it while asserting it as a sollution for contradiction pointed out between exhaustive divine omniscience and his view of God choosing a particular future for creation from among various possibilities.
Background for that would be that because eternity is incomprehensible, since we cannot grasp or exerience its extent, choice in eternity is likewise incomprehensible. The latter does not follow from the former.
Slight correction: it’s Exodus 32:14, not 31:14 you meant to quote. You might want to edit it.
You are right Timothy thanks. I made the change.