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.

Calvinism, Objections, Questions and Answers

Calvinism, Objections, Questions and Answers

1. A person cannot rightly claim that Christ died for him, unless he knows he's elect.

This objection is answered when we understand that a person can know he/she is elect by repenting and trusting in Christ for salvation. It is true that Calvinism teaches that Christ did not died for every single individual. However, Calvinism asserts that Christ died for all those that repent and trust in Him. Thus people can know they’re elect by obeying God—repenting and trusting in Jesus Christ.

2. Doesn’t God have to “force” a person to believe the gospel?

It depends on what is meant by ‘force.’ If one means that God does everything, including believe for a person, then no. That would be hyper-Calvinism. If by it one means that God makes a person believe, like a person is forced to give money to a gunman, then no.  But if force is understood as changing a person’s heart, and desires to willingly want salvation, then yes.

3. If God makes a person trust in Christ, then a person does not have to do anything.

This objection is confusing Biblical Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism. Calvinism teaches that God changes a person’s heart giving him/her the ability to trust in Christ (Eph 2:1-5). Thus a person does something, namely believes in Christ, but behind this action is God’s enablement. In modern terms, a person commits him/herself to the person of Christ. But this commitment is only possible by God’s grace. Everyone is obligated to commit one’s self to Christ. Have you attempted to do so? If not why? 

4. If Calvinism is true people do not need to preach the gospel.

This objection is a repackage of the previous Hyper-Calvinist idea that God does not need or require means to accomplish his will. Again, this is against what scripture teaches. God does whatever He pleases (Psalm 115). It is true that God does not need anything, but if God requires means to accomplish His will then we cannot object to it. God has commanded Christians to preach the gospel as a means to draw people to Himself.

Furthermore, if God commands something, it is sufficient to obligate us to obey. So if God says preach, we should preach. If God says believe, we should believe. If He says repent, we should repent.

5. It doesn’t matter what your motive is for believing in Christ.

This is not true. The very reason why there is a distinction between pure and impure motives testifies to the fact. A pure desire for salvation is one that is Scriptural. For example, in Luke 13 Christ commanded people to repent or perish, indicating that fear of hell is a proper motivation to obey God. A more broad definition could be that pure motives are ones that consider God as the primary one offended by our sins. Thus we should seek to please and make right, the wrong done by our sins the way God has commanded through his Son. The offended party should be our primary concern, which is God. In summary, pure desires/motives are Scriptural and Theo-centric (God-centered). Motives, although maybe noble, cannot be based on a desire to please man but God. For example, a person should not desire salvation merely to be a part of a Christian community. Nor should a person trust in Christ in order to please their Christian friends or family. A person should want to please God and have a right relationship with Him, regardless of anything else. Thus a person, individually, trusts Christ for salvation because of awareness of sin and the only remedy Christ.