2741461304_ef974f87ab

Problems with the Simple Foreknowledge View

Some have proposed a model of divine foreknowledge which allows them to avoid the dilemma of affirming either that God creates people for the purpose of sending them to hell (Calvinism) or that he creates them without certain knowledge of their fate (open theism). In this alternative view God knows that certain individuals will be damned but cannot on this basis refrain from creating them. This is called “simple foreknowledge,” for it holds that God simply knows what will take place but cannot alter it in the light of this knowledge. The fact that God foreknows what will occur does not increase his control over what occurs.

This view is somewhat different from the classical Arminian position, in which divine foreknowledge was understood to increase God’s control over what transpires without denying human freedom. The original disagreement between Arminius and Calvinistic contemporaries concerned whether God predestines the elect on the basis of his foreknowledge of their faith, as Arminius held, or foreknows the elect on the basis of his having predestined them. The Arminian position presupposes that God acts responsively to his foreknowledge. Thus, he foreknows who will believe and then predestines them.

The simple foreknowledge position denies that God can respond to his foreknowledge in this way, thus avoiding the problem of God creating individuals he knows will go to hell. In this view, God’s act of creating people is not affected by his knowledge of what will become of them. It is as though God possesses “insider information” but must buy and sell as thought he did not. For the same reason, this view does not require divine reason behind every event that occurs. God eternally foreknows each particular evil that will ever take place, but he can do nothing about it.

There are a few problems with this view. First, this and every other version of the Exhaustively Definite Foreknowledge doctrine cannot adequately account for the many passages of Scripture that depict God as facing a partly open future. Indeed, in one respect the simple foreknowledge perspective fares worse than classical Arminianism or Calvinism. Whenever Scripture emphasizes God’s foreknowledge of future events, it is to exalt his sovereign control over what is to come, which is exactly what the open view promotes.

Second, while the simple foreknowledge position avoids some difficulties by denying that God can alter his behavior in response to his knowledge of the future, it invites other difficulties. How can God respond to anything? With all Christians, defenders of simple foreknowledge want to affirm that God sometimes intervenes to bring about events that are more in line with his will. But if God can’t alter the future that he knows is coming, how can he respond to this same future when it becomes present? In the simple foreknowledge view, God must first experience events in the present as though he had no foreknowledge and then foreknow what he experienced and how he responded. In other words, his foreknowledge functions as a sort of “hindsight.”

One might be inclined to pity God if this is his predicament. From all eternity he has seen what is coming—the cosmic war, the horror, the pain, the suffering, the unending plight of the damned. And he can even foresee how he will respond to these tragedies once they occur. But he cannot do anything ahead of time to avoid them. He’s hopelessly locked into an unending vision he can do nothing about.

Third, this understanding of divine foreknowledge is irrelevant. In this view, God’s exhaustive foreknowledge doesn’t make any practical difference for God or for us concerning the flow of history. Everything proceeds as thought God did not possess Exhaustively Definite Foreknowledge. Indeed, if we hold to the pragmatic criterion of truth and insist that a belief must be able to make a conceivable difference in life to be meaningfully affirmed, then simple foreknowledge must be dismissed.

—Adapted from Satan and the Problem of Evil, pages 88-90

Image by berendbotje54 via Flickr

Related Reading

When God’s “Plan A” Falls Through, What’s Next?

Image by Katie Tegtmeyer via Flickr Suzanne was angry, to say the least. Since her early teens, her only aspirations in life were to be a missionary to Taiwan and to marry a godly man with a similar vision, and she prayed daily about these. She went to a Christian college and, quite miraculously, quickly met…

Topics:

Who’s the God in Your Head?

The mission of ReKnew is to encourage Christians and non-Christians to rethink through things they previously thought they knew. The nine proclamations of the ReKnew Manifesto reflect nine aspects of traditional Christianity, and especially Evangelical Christianity, that we believe need to be reconceived. These by no means exhaust the things ReKnew will be concerned with,…

Sermon Clip: Does Romans 9 predestine you to Hell?

Did God predestine you to Hell? Can he even do that? In this short sermon clip, Greg Boyd talks about his own struggles when trying to understand Romans 9 which on the surface seems to imply that God determines who goes to heaven and hell. In the full sermon, Greg takes a deep look at…

Reflecting on Open2013

T. C. Moore has posted some of his reflections from the Open Theism conference. T. C. was one of several people who pulled this conference together and he did a great job. He’s also incredibly smart and very active in the open view community. Also, he’s a young church planter in Boston and I’m sure he’s…

Greg on the Open View: Video One

By popular demand, we’re sharing the first of Greg’s video presentations on the Open View of the future. If you enjoy it, you can find the rest of the series entitled A Flexible Sovereignty: A Biblical Understanding of Providence and the Nature of the Future by clicking here. This video was recorded in 2008 at Azuza…

What Happened on the Cross?

Since the time of Anselm (11th century), and especially since the Reformation in the 16th century, the tendency of the Western church has been to focus almost all of its attention on the anthropological dimension of the atonement, usually to the neglect of the cosmic dimension that is central to the NT. In the standard…