Divine Foreknowledge

How is man free if God foreknows all things (i.e. states of affairs that will happen)?

Middle knowledge and Simple Foreknowledge affirms libertarian freedom (LF), commonly called liberty of indifference. The position can be construed, roughly, that a person is free if she can choose equally options A or B as the primary source of her choice. She is the first cause of her choice in that she creates the causal chain between actions and acts. This construal of freedom may be the case without the principle of alternate possibilities (PAP). Moreover, it denies the logical possibility of LF and determinism to be compatible, thus named incompatabilism.

The alternative takes compatibilist freedom (CF) as true. This approach argues freedom is best formulated as liberty of inclination. A person is free if she can choose her strongest inclination either option A or B without coercion or constrain. This view allows for hypothetical alternate possibilities.  However, it concedes, all things considered, determinism and freedom (i.e. as so defined) are compatible.

If the first approach is true then God's foreknowledge is not equated with foreordination. God knows things intuitively and exhaustively either by simple foreknowledge  or middle knowledge. So God's foreknowledge is causally inert.

God's knows all true necessary and contingent propositions qua omniscient. Any given proposition is known by God:

(1) God knows P will obtain

But this does not logically entail:

(1)* God knows P must obtain

(1) is a contingent proposition while  (1)* is a necessary proposition. For example, God knows John will choose to eat a cheeseburger for lunch at T1. If John at T1, chose otherwise (e.g. Chicken Strips) then God would have known prior to T1. God's knowledge of free creatures is, in some significant sense, dependent upon their choices.

If the second approach is true then God's foreknowledge is grounded in foreordination. God knows things intuitively and exhaustively since He directly or indirectly determines the truth value of all contingent propositions. God determines all things such that it preserves liberty of inclination.

If, indeed, a person denies (1) he then affirms libertarian free choices are excluded from bivalence thus have no truth value until they obtain. Thus the future remains open. God's omniscience is revised. God only knows what is logically possible which excludes libertarian free choices.

Some problems with the open-theist that denies (1):

Open-theism's denial of the principle of bivalence is implausible. Propositions cannot be neutral, like concepts, since they bear truth value. Hence, a proposition is either true or false--despite it being indexed--thus bivalence applies to future contingent propositions.

If open theism is true then God is the most perfect being yet learns what free creatures will do. This seems contradictory to God as the greatest conceivable being.

Middle Knowledge is a creative attempt to reconcile meticulous providence with libertarian freedom. I agree with the Molinist it is not logically contradictory to say God determines the outcome of a free creatures decision. Perhaps some Molinist ideas can be used by the compatibilist as a heuristic device (e.g. Bruce Ware). However, in my judgement, Molinism does not reconcile the two. In fact, it compounds the problem. It adds mystery with mystery. The Molinist does not explain precisely how God knows what all free creatures will do in all circumstances. Some molinists assert God's knowledge penetrates to the very essence of free creatures. Yet this remains a mystery. But then we are asked, by Molinists, to affirm God knows what all free creatures would do in all circumstances. Two mysteries without parsimony or comprehensive explanatory power and scope.

Sovereignty and Scripturalism

What I've been thinking about lately:

I read a post of an Arminian that argued sovereignty is a contingent attribute of God. I couldn't  help but think this in and of itself doesn't go far; one must distinguish between eternal or temporal contingency. Still, this doesn't help the Arminian's case since sovereignty seems to be essentially grounded in all of God's attributes (i.e. authority, knowledge, power, goodness, freedom and control). Perhaps, one could say God is sovereign independent of creation in virtue of God qua God exists in all possible worlds with the power to actualize any possible world He eternally decrees by divine wisdom. In a sense God is sovereign over those things which are possible (things He chooses not to actualize) and those things which are actual (things He has created).  


Steve Hays posted a critique of Scripturalism; I've enjoyed his interaction with Ryan a Clarkian in the comments section. Paul Manata made a comment that I think is worth considering. Can epistemic infallablism be shown to be true? If it is possible then must it be actual? Cannot axiom S5 help to demonstrate this?  If so, is this wildly counterintuitive?      

Free Offer of the Gospel

In defending the free offer of the gospel, David H.J. Gay argues this passage plausibly teaches God’s desire to save all people. This would be consistent with the distinction between God’s preceptive and decretive wills. Gay argues:  

“God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3-4)

The NASB is the same as the NKJV: ‘God... who desires all men to be saved’; the NIV is virtually the same: ‘God... who wants all men to be saved’; the AV: ‘God... who will have all men to be saved’. Should it be ‘will’ in the sense of ‘decree’ or ‘desire’? θελω can mean either. 22 And what about ‘all’? Did Paul mean ‘all sorts of men’? If so, Paul was saying either, ‘God decrees all sorts of men to be saved, which has no bearing on the issue – all sorts of men will be saved; or, ‘God desires all sorts of men to be saved’, which leaves the issue as it was – if all sorts of men are not in fact saved, then God desires something he has not decreed, and if all sorts of men are saved, then the ‘desire’ in effect amounts to ‘decree’. But if ‘all’ means either ‘all the elect’ or ‘all without exception’, Paul was saying:

‘God decrees to save all the elect’, which is a truism; or ‘God decrees to save all men without exception’, which is false; or ‘God desires to save all the elect’, which is a truism; or ‘God desires to save all men without exception’. Of these, the last is the only possibility: God desires to save all men, even though he has not decreed it. This is the paradox in question.”[1]

I think two textual questions stand out in this passage that must be addressed to ground the plausibility of this passage teaching God’s desire to save all men. First, in the preceding verses 1-2,  Paul uses the term ‘all’ in reference to prayer. How should this be understood? Second, the following verses 5-6, explain Christ gave himself as a ransom for ‘all.’ Are we to interpret ‘all’ the same as in verse 4? I think there is a way to consistently interpret ‘all’ in these verses to mean all men without implying universal atonement. This can be seen similarly to Isaiah 45:22. The Apostle draws two themes. We see God’s inclusive desire to save all men. And yet we also find God’s exclusive decree and saving work in the Person of Jesus Christ.[2]     

---

[1] David H.J. Gay. The Gospel Offer is Free. (Brachus Pub, Sec. ed. 2012)p.p.92-93.

[2] John Frame. The Doctrine of God. (Philipsburg: P and R Press, 2002)p.p.535-537.

Theological Ambiguity

There are many biblical doctrines articulated with ambiguous language which breeds misunderstanding.

I hope to clarify a few of these doctrinal misunderstandings. 

1. God is Triune
Christians explain the Biblical teaching that God is one eternal being who is simultaneously three persons. Yet many Christians speak as though the three persons are separate in nature. Biblical Christianity, however, sharply defines the persons as distinct but not separate. The essence of God is neither divided nor separated. Thus Christians are just plainly mistaken when they define the Trinity with the word 'separate.' This is not merely a semantical quibble here, it is foundational to distinguish trinitarian monotheism from polytheistic tritheism. Therefore, an informed Christian will properly define the doctrine of the Trinity as one eternal being (neither divided nor separated in nature) who is simultaneously three persons, namely, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In other words, God is one what and three who's. More discussion of this topic is in my post here.       

2. Divine Attributes

Christians often say God is all-powerful and all-present. From the sounds of it, Christians seem to be saying, God can do absolutely anything and He is present even in the depths of hell. So these attributes need to be carefully but briefly defined. Christians' believe God is all-powerful in the sense that He can do whatever He wills; and what He wills is consistent with His nature. This implies there are things God cannot do that have no affect on His omnipotence. For example, God cannot create a married bachelor since such a thing would contradict His rational nature. Moreover, such a thing is not any thing at all but merely a contradiction of terms. So creating a married bachelor amounts to creating nothing. But of course God could have refrained from creating.

 God is all-present in the sense that He is cognoscente of all things in virtue of causally ordaining and sustaining all things. This means God is not spatially located everywhere, but rather, God is "causally present everywhere" since He controls all things.


3. Sin

Sin is a general term that refers to anything that does not conform to God's revealed: nature, purposes, or commandments in the states of beings, motives, or actions. With this definition in view it shows sin is essentially spiritual and not merely physical. In the case of humans, when Adam sinned, all mankind became sinners by imputation, inheritance, and imitation. To explore, further, how we might characterize man's condition, please review my posts here and here.  

4. Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

It is said Christians are indwelled and filled with the Holy Spirit. This simply means Christians are controlled and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Thus there is not two spirits (i.e the Holy Spirit and the human soul) indwelling the physical body of any given believer. 

    

Biblical Soteriology

Soteriology is branch of theology that deals with salvation. This is important because it impacts our presuppositions towards the sovereignty of God and his relationship to man. In the Bible, clearly it teaches that God saves people, however, what is disputed is how God goes upon doing it. In the Bible there are some peculiar words that are use that have divided Christians for centuries concerning how God saves people, words like foreknew, and predestined. The two different views on how God saves people are Arminianism and Calvinism which we will be looking at briefly.

Arminians hold to the view that man has a libertarian free will-- that can choose contrary to their sinful natures-- enabling them with the help of the Holy Spirit to choose to accept or reject God's offer of salvation. They believe since God is Omniscient ( he knows everything) he has predestined those who will choose salvation.

Calvinists hold to the view that man is dead in his sins (Eph 2:1), radically corrupted, and a slave to sin (Romans cpt 6). Man does not have a libertarian free will rather a compatiblist will, so he can make choices but only according to his sinful nature, therefore he cannot choose God. God must by his Sovereign will and prerogative regenerate a sinner dead in trespasses by his irresistible grace which cannot be refused. It is like God raising a man from the dead without his permission (Like Jesus raising Lazurus). Calvinists believe that the Bible teaches God predestines people to salvation according to his good-will and purposes (Eph 1:11, Romans 8:29-9:33) not because of future knowledge of them willfully accepting salvation with their free will. Calvinists hold that if God predestines people because of their choice then those that choose not to accept salvation are not predestined because they did not do something that the predestined people did. They did not meet the condition in order to be predestined. Calvinist would conclude that if God predestines people because of their choosing to believe in him man is saved by works and grace which is in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches that man is saved by grace alone to the Glory of God (Eph 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, Rom 11:6). The question that would deduce from what Calvinists believe is why does God save anybody? the answer is we all have a wicked heart (Jer 17:9) and are sinners deserving justice which is hell, but God for his Glory has chosen to save some people by the substitutionary death of his son Jesus Christ. But who are we to question God and his divine wisdom and counsel?