Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views

[His clay]

Preliminary Introduction
This thread is entirely devoted to the book, Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. I'm partly responding to Carbon's thread on foreknowledge. Link following.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/question-for-arminians-and-calvinists-on-foreknowledge.494/

I figured that it would be better to start a separate thread dealing with the book, for I didn't want to take over the other thread. The format of this thread will be kind of like a diary. I'll make posts as I read the book. No single post will deal with the entirety of the book. For others, who may wish to follow along, I'll post the amazon link to the book that I'm reading. Link following.

Amazon.com

The book in the link above has a different cover, so I don't know if the page numbers differ from my version. However, that is the version I got from searching for the same isbn# on the back of my book. Hopefully, others can follow along if they wish.

Basic Summary of the Book
As the title of the book indicates, it deals with four different views on divine foreknowledge. The book has four main contributors. (1) Gregory A. Boyd contributes a section advocating Open Theism. (2) Dave Hunt supports the simple foreknowledge view. (3) William Lane Craig presents his case for middle knowledge. Finally, (4) Paul Helm argues for an Augustinian-Calvinist view.

The book is very simple in its organization. After the introduction, each author presents his case; and then the three other contributors respond. You also have a glossary, subject index, and scripture index at the back. The glossary is there specifically to aid the reader when encountering technical words. It is there to make the book more readable.

My Participation
As stated previously, I'll be making posts here and there in a diary-like fashion. As I read and consider the arguments, I'll post my comments. I'll probably use a method very similar to forum discussions. I'll quote the author's words and respond. My goal is to read and respond to each main section before looking at the responses the author received. I would rather that my responses be original, and if I happen to have the same thoughts as one of the responders in the book, then oh well.

 

[ReverendRV]

Preliminary Introduction
This thread is entirely devoted to the book, Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. I'm partly responding to Carbon's thread on foreknowledge. Link following.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/question-for-arminians-and-calvinists-on-foreknowledge.494/

I figured that it would be better to start a separate thread dealing with the book, for I didn't want to take over the other thread. The format of this thread will be kind of like a diary. I'll make posts as I read the book. No single post will deal with the entirety of the book. For others, who may wish to follow along, I'll post the amazon link to the book that I'm reading. Link following.

Amazon.com

The book in the link above has a different cover, so I don't know if the page numbers differ from my version. However, that is the version I got from searching for the same isbn# on the back of my book. Hopefully, others can follow along if they wish.

Basic Summary of the Book
As the title of the book indicates, it deals with four different views on divine foreknowledge. The book has four main contributors. (1) Gregory A. Boyd contributes a section advocating Open Theism. (2) Dave Hunt supports the simple foreknowledge view. (3) William Lane Craig presents his case for middle knowledge. Finally, (4) Paul Helm argues for an Augustinian-Calvinist view.

The book is very simple in its organization. After the introduction, each author presents his case; and then the three other contributors respond. You also have a glossary, subject index, and scripture index at the back. The glossary is there specifically to aid the reader when encountering technical words. It is there to make the book more readable.

My Participation
As stated previously, I'll be making posts here and there in a diary-like fashion. As I read and consider the arguments, I'll post my comments. I'll probably use a method very similar to forum discussions. I'll quote the author's words and respond. My goal is to read and respond to each main section before looking at the responses the author received. I would rather that my responses be original, and if I happen to have the same thoughts as one of the responders in the book, then oh well.

I look forward to reading your Thread...

 

[His clay]

Preliminary Introduction
This thread is entirely devoted to the book, Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. I'm partly responding to Carbon's thread on foreknowledge. Link following.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/question-for-arminians-and-calvinists-on-foreknowledge.494/

I figured that it would be better to start a separate thread dealing with the book, for I didn't want to take over the other thread. The format of this thread will be kind of like a diary. I'll make posts as I read the book. No single post will deal with the entirety of the book. For others, who may wish to follow along, I'll post the amazon link to the book that I'm reading. Link following.

Amazon.com

The book in the link above has a different cover, so I don't know if the page numbers differ from my version. However, that is the version I got from searching for the same isbn# on the back of my book. Hopefully, others can follow along if they wish.

Basic Summary of the Book
As the title of the book indicates, it deals with four different views on divine foreknowledge. The book has four main contributors. (1) Gregory A. Boyd contributes a section advocating Open Theism. (2) Dave Hunt supports the simple foreknowledge view. (3) William Lane Craig presents his case for middle knowledge. Finally, (4) Paul Helm argues for an Augustinian-Calvinist view.

The book is very simple in its organization. After the introduction, each author presents his case; and then the three other contributors respond. You also have a glossary, subject index, and scripture index at the back. The glossary is there specifically to aid the reader when encountering technical words. It is there to make the book more readable.

My Participation
As stated previously, I'll be making posts here and there in a diary-like fashion. As I read and consider the arguments, I'll post my comments. I'll probably use a method very similar to forum discussions. I'll quote the author's words and respond. My goal is to read and respond to each main section before looking at the responses the author received. I would rather that my responses be original, and if I happen to have the same thoughts as one of the responders in the book, then oh well.

I just reread the rules. I forgot to @ someone.
@Carbon

 

[civic]

I just reread the rules. I forgot to @ someone.
@Carbon

I hope you don't get a time out.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Preliminary Introduction
This thread is entirely devoted to the book, Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views. I'm partly responding to Carbon's thread on foreknowledge. Link following.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/question-for-arminians-and-calvinists-on-foreknowledge.494/

I figured that it would be better to start a separate thread dealing with the book, for I didn't want to take over the other thread. The format of this thread will be kind of like a diary. I'll make posts as I read the book. No single post will deal with the entirety of the book. For others, who may wish to follow along, I'll post the amazon link to the book that I'm reading. Link following.

Amazon.com

The book in the link above has a different cover, so I don't know if the page numbers differ from my version. However, that is the version I got from searching for the same isbn# on the back of my book. Hopefully, others can follow along if they wish.

Basic Summary of the Book
As the title of the book indicates, it deals with four different views on divine foreknowledge. The book has four main contributors. (1) Gregory A. Boyd contributes a section advocating Open Theism. (2) Dave Hunt supports the simple foreknowledge view. (3) William Lane Craig presents his case for middle knowledge. Finally, (4) Paul Helm argues for an Augustinian-Calvinist view.

The book is very simple in its organization. After the introduction, each author presents his case; and then the three other contributors respond. You also have a glossary, subject index, and scripture index at the back. The glossary is there specifically to aid the reader when encountering technical words. It is there to make the book more readable.

My Participation
As stated previously, I'll be making posts here and there in a diary-like fashion. As I read and consider the arguments, I'll post my comments. I'll probably use a method very similar to forum discussions. I'll quote the author's words and respond. My goal is to read and respond to each main section before looking at the responses the author received. I would rather that my responses be original, and if I happen to have the same thoughts as one of the responders in the book, then oh well.

Errgg...I'll watch here. I have an allergic reaction to WLC. I tend to burn anything he writes at this point so getting the book would be a bad idea.

 

[His clay]

Errgg...I'll watch here. I have an allergic reaction to WLC. I tend to burn anything he writes at this point so getting the book would be a bad idea.

That's up to you. I'm certainly not going to twist anyone's arm to read the book.

I already disagree with middle knowledge and Craig's stance on apologetics. However, I think that I will better learn from a strong philosopher what middle knowledge is. I've probably already read something on the topic already from him, but my memory isn't remembering everything in his coauthored philosophical book.

With the negatives stated, I still respect him as a philosopher, and he at least knows his own viewpoint. And I expect him to have some non-lightweight arguments in support. He is one of those that I expect to take some insights and leave many others. But he is clearly a good philosopher (not really a Christian philosopher at times though), so I at least consider his thoughts.

 

[makesends]

Errgg...I'll watch here. I have an allergic reaction to WLC. I tend to burn anything he writes at this point so getting the book would be a bad idea.

As do I to Boyd. Open theism is sand in my throat. And WLC is that bitty little moth that just flew into my eyesocket.

 

[praise_yeshua]

As do I to Boyd. Open theism is sand in my throat. And WLC is that bitty little moth that just flew into my eyesocket.

Dealing with Open Theism is the "bane" of the "Helm" position. Personally, I don't believe any of these 4 positions are exclusively opposed to one another. I have argued for years that the Truth lies between.....

Boyd is a reason man. I disagree with him on many things. Especially passivism. However, he states his view clearly and systematically. I'm not an Open Theist but I do believe that "shared view" of time within Arminianism/Calvinism is very flawed. There is no absence of time with God. God is Eternal. Which "never ending time".

I look forward to a discussion on the views in the book.

 

[His clay]

Responding to Open Theism (pt1)

Disclaimer: I won't be giving the entirety of each person's argument. If you want the full presentation of the other person's argument, then buy the book. However, I will try to summarize the authors as best I can, in as brief a space as possible. Then I will quote certain portions and respond.

Basic Summary of the Open Theism Presentation
In the final paragraph of the introduction (p14) Boyd gives his basic outline. I will quote his summary.

"In part one, I shall demonstrate that while the Bible certainly celebrates God's foreknowledge and control of the future, it does not warrant the conclusion that the future is exhaustively controlled or foreknown as settled by God. In part two, I shall discuss the biblical basis of the openness view of the future by outlining six aspects of an important scriptural motif that depicts the future as partly open and known by God as such. And in part three, I shall defend this view against five common objections."

It is interesting to note that Boyd holds to a view of the future where God knows exactly what He is going to do, but what God knows He is going to do is not representative of the whole. God knows what He intends to do in the future. However, because He does not work everywhere, much of the future is open.

Responding to parts of the Introduction
Boyd makes a few interesting comments in his introduction. He states, "All Christians agree that God is omniscient and therefore knows all of reality perfectly."(p. 13) Note his definition of omniscience here. I'll quote a two other systematic theology books on their definition of omniscience. Wayne Grudem states the following. "God's knowledge may be defined as follows: God fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act."(1) Millard Erickson argues for God's omniscience in the context of God's infinity. "God's infinity may also be considered with respect to objects of knowledge. . . He knows every truth, even those not yet discovered by humankind, for it was he who built them into the creation. And he therefore knows every genuine possibility, even when they seem limitless in number."(2)

We can note the significant contrast here. Both Grudem and Erickson point to God's knowledge of possibilities. Boyd only points to God's knowledge of reality. However, what Boyd says next really clarifies his view. "The debate over God's foreknowledge is rather a debate over the content of reality that God perfectly knows. It has more to do with the doctrine of creation that it does with the doctrine of God."(p. 13) I agree partially and disagree. I agree that the debate does revolve around the content of reality. I disagree that the debate revolves more around the doctrine of creation than it does with the doctrine of God. The two are more connected than Boyd wishes to accept. However, this is an important first move for him, for he is trying to diffuse his terminology revisionism by pointing to common ground.

Also important here is the fact that Boyd is taking his metaphysical stance for granted. For him, reality is both partly determined by God and partly determined by man. And libertarian freedom is the key piece in the picture. (3) Again, libertarian freedom is the key feature defining his view of metaphysics/reality. Hence, God knows his future intentions perfectly; however, outside of God's future intentions the future is open to be determined by the will of man. And since that portion of reality is created by the will of man, then God does not know what does not yet exist, for man's will has not made it yet. So that is exactly how Boyd can say that "God . . . knows all of reality perfectly." Not only is libertarian freedom a critical feature of reality for him, but the total omission of divine transcendence is also noteworthy. Only divine imminence is allowed.

Boyd goes on to make a rather controversial statement (considering the various positions represented in the book). "Although the other three views of divine foreknowledge represented in this work disagree with one another on many points, they agree that the content of reality, and therefore the content of God's infallible knowledge, is exhaustively settled." (p. 13) What Boyd means by "exhaustively settled" is hugely open to debate at this point. I would expect significant criticism from the other people in the book, for not all endorse Boyd's understanding of divine epistemology (i.e. how God knows what He knows). Boyd continues by saying, "In these views God knows possibilities only as what might have been, never as what might be. He knows possibilities only as having been forever excluded from reality, never as having been included within reality. In other words, God eternally knows reality as one settled story line in contrast to all other forever-excluded story lines." (p 13-14) Note here the complete focus upon divine transcendence for those with whom Boyd disagrees. Boyd completely ignores the role of imminence in the other views he is critiquing. It is this truncation/reductionism that constitutes a straw man fallacy on his part. Let me explain a little more. He only focuses upon God's knowledge of all things as being settled (transcendent), but he does not deal with the outworking of this knowledge in time (imminent). Hence, even the Calvinist knows that though God knows all things; we still have the perspective within creation where events progressively come about and genuinely appear to be "what might be." The difference is between absolute possibility (Boyd's view) and perspectival possibility (my view & perhaps other's view as well).

===========================
(1) Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. p. 190.
(2) Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998. p. 301.
(3) Note how I defined libertarian freedom in the following link, post #1.
https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/responsibility-and-causation.55/

 

[ReverendRV]

<snip> It is interesting to note that Boyd holds to a view of the future where God knows exactly what He is going to do, but what God knows He is going to do is not representative of the whole. God knows what He intends to do in the future. However, because He does not work everywhere, much of the future is open. <snip>

Are you saying he is against the Providence of God?

 

[His clay]

Are you saying he is against the Providence of God?

Two points:
(1) He would probably say that he is not against the providence of God. Just that God's providence doesn't determine those things determined by man.
(2) Obviously, his view of providence is defined in a different way than many, just like how a Calvinist would differ on the def of sovereignty with an Arminian.

More explanation will come when I cover part 1 of his presentation.

 

[ReverendRV]

Two points:
(1) He would probably say that he is not against the providence of God. Just that God's providence doesn't determine those things determined by man.
(2) Obviously, his view of providence is defined in a different way than many, just like how a Calvinist would differ on the def of sovereignty with an Arminian.

I would ask him if he thinks just one Act of Providence was Closed, get him to say Yes; and ask him why I should now accept that even one Act of Providence is Open...

Find out if he thinks that Jesus led an Open life. As a Divine Person, was Jesus REALLY Open?

 

[His clay]

I would ask him if he thinks just one Act of Providence was not Closed, get him to say Yes; and ask him why I should accept that even one Act of Providence is Open...

Find out if he thinks that Jesus was Open. As a Divine Person, was Jesus REALLY Open?

So my response (post #9) was significantly aimed at his introduction. In the next portion (part one), Boyd will explain exactly where your question is going, for he does at least address Acts 2 and 4 regarding the foreordaining of the crucifixion of Jesus. I think that his take on those passages is sorely lacking, but he at least tries to address them.

However, I think that you do raise an extremely good point. Does God's future acts of providence ever encompass the willing decisions of Christ? If yes, could Jesus have done otherwise? If no, then what about the passages that deal with God's future intentions? Again, more will be addressed in the next installment. Boyd spells things out in more detail.

 

[ReverendRV]

So my response (post #9) was significantly aimed at his introduction. In the next portion (part one), Boyd will explain exactly where your question is going, for he does at least address Acts 2 and 4 regarding the foreordaining of the crucifixion of Jesus. I think that his take on those passages is sorely lacking, but he at least tries to address them.

However, I think that you do raise an extremely good point. Does God's future acts of providence ever encompass the willing decisions of Christ? If yes, could Jesus have done otherwise? If no, then what about the passages that deal with God's future intentions? Again, more will be addressed in the next installment. Boyd spells things out in more detail.

Your Thread seems like it's going to be awesome...

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'll quote a two other systematic theology books on their definition of omniscience. Wayne Grudem states the following. "God's knowledge may be defined as follows: God fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act."(1) Millard Erickson argues for God's omniscience in the context of God's infinity. "God's infinity may also be considered with respect to objects of knowledge. . . He knows every truth, even those not yet discovered by humankind, for it was he who built them into the creation. And he therefore knows every genuine possibility, even when they seem limitless in number."(2)

We can note the significant contrast here. Both Grudem and Erickson point to God's knowledge of possibilities. Boyd only points to God's knowledge of reality. However, what Boyd says next really clarifies his view. "The debate over God's foreknowledge is rather a debate over the content of reality that God perfectly knows. It has more to do with the doctrine of creation that it does with the doctrine of God."(p. 13) I agree partially and disagree. I agree that the debate does revolve around the content of reality. I disagree that the debate revolves more around the doctrine of creation than it does with the doctrine of God. The two are more connected than Boyd wishes to accept. However, this is an important first move for him, for he is trying to diffuse his terminology revisionism by pointing to common ground.

I've studied this subject and Boyd for many years. I find Boyd to be an ethical man. More so that some of those that have opposed him. Especially Piper. I'm certain you know this history. However, if those watching, know how Piper targeted Boyd, without spending time "Googling" to get acquainted, I believe you already know how gracefully Boyd endured being personally targeted for his beliefs. I only say this to disagree with your comments highlighted above concerning "revisionism". Omniscience has a clear definition. Both Erickson and Gruden have their own explanation. If Boyd is "defusing"......then so are they. They are seeking to "flavor" the definition of "Omniscience.".

Relative to the definition for "Omniscience" from Grudem and Erickson above, I believe both's comments actually "quantify" the "limitless" knowledge of God. Grudem states "single and eternal act". *** Notice the word "act" *** Erickson uses the word "seem".

Both are limiting the knowledge of God to singular points that can be quantified.

Boyd's position limits the knowledge of God but so does Grudem and Erickson.

 

[ReverendRV]

I've studied this subject and Boyd for many years. I find Boyd to be an ethical man. More so that some of those that have opposed him. Especially Piper. I'm certain you know this history. However, if those watching, know how Piper targeted Boyd, without spending time "Googling" to get acquainted, I believe you already know how gracefully Boyd endured being personally targeted for his beliefs. I only say this to disagree with your comments highlighted above concerning "revisionism". Omniscience has a clear definition. Both Erickson and Gruden have their own explanation. If Boyd is "defusing"......then so are they. They are seeking to "flavor" the definition of "Omniscience.".

Relative to the definition for "Omniscience" from Grudem and Erickson above, I believe both's comments actually "quantify" the "limitless" knowledge of God. Grudem states "single and eternal act". *** Notice the word "act" *** Erickson uses the word "seem".

Both are limiting the knowledge of God to singular points that can be quantified.

Boyd's position limits the knowledge of God but so does Grudem and Erickson.

Please stop Poisoning the Well. I am the Moderator for this Thread, and have been instructed by the Administration to keep an eye on you...

Otherwise, enjoy the Thread and the Forum...

 

[praise_yeshua]

Please stop Poisoning the Well. I am the Moderator for this Thread, and have been instructed by the Administration to keep an eye on you...

Otherwise, enjoy the Thread...

Stop publicly shaming me. Do you handle moderator business publically like this for everyone?

I'm not "poisoning the well". I disagreed with the comments with facts and relative opinion. You and "the administrator" can't defend your position. Thusly, you're falsely fabricating reasons to "justify" targeting me. I'm hurting your "ministry" here... Right?

You're just trying to make yourself feel better for when you ban me. It is just a matter of time. Neither of you have ever been able to defend your position. It doesn't matter how long of a "tract" you write.

Do you want a "sounding board" or an "echo chamber". It has been my experience, both you want a "echo chamber".... after all. Only your own voice can satisfy you.

 

[Reformedguy]

Two points:
(1) He would probably say that he is not against the providence of God. Just that God's providence doesn't determine those things determined by man.
(2) Obviously, his view of providence is defined in a different way than many, just like how a Calvinist would differ on the def of sovereignty with an Arminian.

More explanation will come when I cover part 1 of his presentation.

So Gods providence does not extend to the future?

 

[His clay]

So Gods providence does not extend to the future?

As stated in post #9:

=================
In the final paragraph of the introduction (p14) Boyd gives his basic outline. I will quote his summary.

"In part one, I shall demonstrate that while the Bible certainly celebrates God's foreknowledge and control of the future, it does not warrant the conclusion that the future is exhaustively controlled or foreknown as settled by God. In part two, I shall discuss the biblical basis of the openness view of the future by outlining six aspects of an important scriptural motif that depicts the future as partly open and known by God as such. And in part three, I shall defend this view against five common objections."

It is interesting to note that Boyd holds to a view of the future where God knows exactly what He is going to do, but what God knows He is going to do is not representative of the whole. God knows what He intends to do in the future. However, because He does not work everywhere, much of the future is open.
================

So with respect to your question and what was stated earlier, God's providence does extend to the future; but His providence is not exhaustive. As he says, "it does not warrant the conclusion that the future is exhaustively controlled or foreknown as settled by God."

 

[David1701]

As stated in post #9:

=================
In the final paragraph of the introduction (p14) Boyd gives his basic outline. I will quote his summary.

"In part one, I shall demonstrate that while the Bible certainly celebrates God's foreknowledge and control of the future, it does not warrant the conclusion that the future is exhaustively controlled or foreknown as settled by God. In part two, I shall discuss the biblical basis of the openness view of the future by outlining six aspects of an important scriptural motif that depicts the future as partly open and known by God as such. And in part three, I shall defend this view against five common objections."

It is interesting to note that Boyd holds to a view of the future where God knows exactly what He is going to do, but what God knows He is going to do is not representative of the whole. God knows what He intends to do in the future. However, because He does not work everywhere, much of the future is open.
================

So with respect to your question and what was stated earlier, God's providence does extend to the future; but His providence is not exhaustive. As he says, "it does not warrant the conclusion that the future is exhaustively controlled or foreknown as settled by God."

Hmm...

If he does not think that the future is exhaustively controlled or foreknown as settled by God, then the implication is that God is subject to the time in his creation (i.e. he is in the past, relative to events yet to happen, and cannot know with certainty all events in the future partly because of that). This undermines God's aseity and certainly means that Boyd's definition of God's omniscience is more like "a lot of knowledge", rather than "all knowledge".