The foreknowledge of God: a question for Arminians

[Guest]

I went to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary yesterday with a close brother in the faith. Since he is a student there, he asked me If I wanted to come and sit in three of his classes with him. His teachers are Tom Shreiner, and Bruce Ware. Anyways, while in his second class, which was a systematic theology class, the current topic was the Incomunicable Attributes of God. I wont go into all the details, but Dr. Ware gave his critique of the Classical Arminian position, that, "God knows the future exhaustively, yet that knowledge doesn't determine it. His critique of it goes something like this:

If God exhaustively knows the future, but this knowledge doesn't determine it, then this undermines and gives no place for God's Sovereignty. If the Arminian position is true, then God is not Sovereign. The events of history from the beginning to the end are like a book, and If God foreknows all of this, then the created is in control and write this book, which excludes God from the picture of being the author of this book, (sovereignty), and mankind alone is the author. His position is that God foreknows the future, because He foreordained and predetermined it. In his mind, this means both God and man are the author of the book, and this is the only other option, and is the only plausible option. (Not including the Open View of the future). An extension of Dr. Ware's critique is if God foreknows man is going to reject Him, why does He strive to give man chances in time when He foreknows they will reject Him? Thus, to them, He doesn't. He passes by them, and saves the elect.

Thoughts anyone?

[Guest]

Good question.

Just to be clear, does Mr Ware also say that God is the determiner of all sin?

[Guest]

I just think the position described is unnecessarily rigid. Why does God's sovereignty need to imply that God dictates/determines every letter of the book. Why can't sovereignty simply mean that He directs the flow of the story and has determined the ending?

[Guest]

It is true that the Arminian position is logically inconsistent.
For if future choices of people are now known, then people are not free to choose ---- not because the knowledge removes the freedom, but because statements about future choices of free will agents have no truth value.

If it is now true that you kick the cat at some future time T, then you cannot refrain from kicking the cat at time T.

If it is now false that you kick the cat at some future time T, then you cannot kick the cat at time T.

In either case, you do not have the freedom to choose.

Therefore, it may be concluded that the statement that you kick the cat at time T is neither true nor false until time T comes about. At time T, the statement becomes true or false, depending upon your choice.

If God (or anyone else) knows now whether or not you will kick the cat at time T, then it is now either true or false that you will kick the cat at T. But I have just shown that the statement has no truth value now. Therefore no one can know what your choice will be at time T.

This is not only logical, but it is scriptural. Consider this passage:

The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and played the whore there? And I thought, "After she has done all this she will return to me"; but she did not return, and her false sister Judah saw it. Jeremiah 3:6-7

If God has known in advance that Israel would not return to Him, then why would he think that they would? It doesn't make sense.

True, Calvinism is more consistent in this regard than Arminianism, but it can't be true for the reasons I gave above.

It is difficult or impossible to believe that a God of total love is the author or all events, including the torture, rape, and murder of a little girl.

As Mattrose indicated, God can be sovereign without being the direct cause of every event. I suppose it could be maintained that He is indirectly responsible for all evil, since if He had not created anything, no evil would exist. But obviously, He believe that it was worth the risk to create free will agents after His own image, so that they might choose to submit to Him and fellowship with Him of their own free will.

[Guest]

Hopefully this question doesn't get off topic, as it is about classical Arminians position on foreknowledge, and the reformed view. Since Open Theists have abandoned the the classical position within Arminianism, they can no longer be considered classical Arminians.

However, I would like to ask a brief question. In the open theist view, can God fail?

[Guest]

Apparently I fall within the pale of open theology, though I didn't realize it until a couple of months ago.

In the open theist view, can God fail?

Can He fail in any other view?

I think the answer depends on what is meant by the word "fail".

The scripture tells us that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance.

But over 99% of the population is perishing, and has been since the time of Christ. Presumably, they will go to Gehenna (or "hell" if you prefer). Does that mean that God has failed to carry out His will?

In the prayer Christ gave us is the line, "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." This prayer implies that the Father's will was not being done on earth in the same measure as it was in heaven. No doubt this applies equally in our own day. Did the Father fail to carry out His will on earth?

[Guest]

Fail as in making a mistake. I must say that you give good food for that, with the exeption of your statistic. I think that is questionable, but besides that, good post.

[Guest]

I don't think God ever makes mistakes. A human mistake is where he makes errors in calculation, makes errors in logic, makes errors in understanding etc.

As I indicated in a previous post, God thought Israel would return to Him but it didn't. That was not a mistake. God was not "wrong" in thinking this. When He considered everything He knew about the Israelites including their thoughts and intentions (and He knew everything), it was reasonable to think that they would return to Him. God made no mistakes in assessing them. But they were free will agents. So in spite of their thought and intentions, they chose not to return to Him.

God can predict what free will agents will choose, and because of His complete knowledge, His predictions usually come true. But it is logically impossible to know what a free will agent will choose. So, sometimes God's predictions do not come true.

[Guest]

Paidion,

You said:

God can predict what free will agents will choose, and because of His complete knowledge, His predictions usually come true. But it is logically impossible to know what a free will agent will choose. So, sometimes God's predictions do not come true.

Usually?

So what right did God have to command that any prophecy which failed to come true would cost the life of the false prophet?

Do you believe in the case of predictive prophecy God suspends free will in order to avoid a false prediction when He guesses wrongly?

I don't get it. Seems to me some people think too much and try to fit "the unsearchable God" into their box. What does "His ways are beyond finding out" mean?

[Guest]

I went to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary yesterday with a close brother in the faith. Since he is a student there, he asked me If I wanted to come and sit in three of his classes with him. His teachers are Tom Shreiner, and Bruce Ware. Anyways, while in his second class, which was a systematic theology class, the current topic was the Incomunicable Attributes of God. I wont go into all the details, but Dr. Ware gave his critique of the Classical Arminian position, that, "God knows the future exhaustively, yet that knowledge doesn't determine it. His critique of it goes something like this:

If God exhaustively knows the future, but this knowledge doesn't determine it, then this undermines and gives no place for God's Sovereignty. If the Arminian position is true, then God is not Sovereign. The events of history from the beginning to the end are like a book, and If God foreknows all of this, then the created is in control and write this book, which excludes God from the picture of being the author of this book, (sovereignty), and mankind alone is the author. His position is that God foreknows the future, because He foreordained and predetermined it. In his mind, this means both God and man are the author of the book, and this is the only other option, and is the only plausible option. (Not including the Open View of the future).

Thoughts anyone?

God is indeed sovereign. This does not mean that He consistently imposes His will upon His creation - though of course, He has the power to do so.

To put it another way: although God could force us to act in the way that He would prefer, He instead allow us free will.

This does not preclude His sovereignty.

An extension of Dr. Ware's critique is if God foreknows man is going to reject Him, why does He strive to give man chances in time when He foreknows they will reject Him? Thus, to them, He doesn't. He passes by them, and saves the elect.

He gives man chances because He is a gracious and loving God. The fact that He already knows the outcome, is irrelevant; it does not detract from the fact that the end result is the product of (a) human decision and (b) God's response to it.

BTW, for anyone not familiar with my theological position: I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian.

I believe that human beings have free will (which disqualifies me from Calvinism) and I reject the concept of "total depravity" (which disqualifies me from both Calvinism and Arminianism).