The Foreknowledge Debate: Where do you fall?

Abstract

Does God have foreknowledge of all that is to come or is the future open for events to occur that God does not have knowledge of how they will end? This question opens up a discussion of two views on the foreknowledge of God. What does God know? Are our futures open or have they already been settled?
This reflection paper will cover the two views of the debate over God’s foreknowledge of the future. The two views which will be discussed are the classical view and the open view. Within the classical view there are two trains of thought, the Calvinist and the Arminian perspectives, each with a similar but different take on the classical view. Of course the views as they relate to the Calvinist and the Arminian perspectives fall in line with the doctrinal differences of the two as it relates to predestination and free will. The open view is more singularly focused and does not require additional explanation at this time.
Within the context of the argument both sides argue that Scripture is on their side and of course each side highlights Scriptural references to aid them in their arguments of their views as it relates to the topic of the foreknowledge of God. The classical view perspective says “Christians hold that humans are responsible for their actions but deny that the future is entirely up to humans to settle” (p. 38).
The open view side of the foreknowledge debate, as noted above, also cites scripture for the sake of their argument and theological perspective and note “that God sometimes predestines and/or predicts aspects of the future” but that “the future is partly settled, either by God’s will or as a consequences of present circumstances” (p. 43)
Both sides agree that God is “omniscient (all knowing)” though the open view disagrees with the classical view over what there is for God to know (p. 38 & 43). I will discuss in greater detail the two views and my own personal thoughts and beliefs as to the theology I most prescribe to.

Highlight

In the reading of The Foreknowledge debate, I came across a statement made by the author which summed up for me my belief as it relates to this debate. “God knows what I shall freely do, but this does not mean that he determines what I do” (p. 43). Of course as a Methodist (Arminian), I must “insist that exhaustive divine foreknowledge is compatible with self-determination” (p. 43). An example of how God can take a decision, with malice intent, and turn it around for good or into his will is the story of Joseph (Gen. 37-47). Joseph's brothers hated him and threw him into a pit. Then they sold him as a slave, and he was taken to a foreign country. People lied about him, and as a result, he was thrown into prison. In the end, we know how God took this decision and made it work out to fulfill his will.
I can understand aspects of the open view perspective and from one point see that what they are saying could in some ways be construed as an Arminian classical view perspective on some levels, but know that there are divergent issues which make that comparison somewhat challenging. One example of this is where the author points out that “the open view allows us to affirm the scriptural teaching that prayer can change God’s mind and affect what happens in the world” (p. 47) Is that to say the classical view does not believe in the power of prayer? No! I do see where this allows for free will, for one to make a conscience decision to ask God for intervention or insight into a particular situation. Prayer is one relational aspect of our relationship with God and our way of communication with him, however; through prayer God is still ultimately in control. I find comfort in knowing that “God knows not only what will happen, but what would have happened under different circumstances” (p.38).
I do not believe, from either perspective, that we cannot box God into a particular category. The open view theology has points of interest which merit dialogue, but given the context of the entire debate I must side with the classical view Arminian perspective as it relates to the theology debate of God’s foreknowledge.

Effect

In the reading of this brief essay, the concepts of the classical view and open view have become clearer to me and allowed me to understand that within the circle of Christian theology that there will continue to be debates, but we must be open to discussion of the debates and be willing to attempt to see others viewpoints even though we may disagree with them.
As I consider how the reading of this essay will affect my ministry, I am forced to think of the world around me and the secular world which on its face appears to be spiritual in many ways these days, but they have an attitude of anything goes and that one should believe what they want to believe. That concept in and of itself to me is very idol focused. Our world is similar in aspects to the time spoke of in Jeremiah 10: 1-10. Our world is full of idols and people believe that they “have the sole power and sole responsibility to determine the future for themselves and for life” (p. 38). Whereas, Christians hold that humans are responsible for their actions but deny that the future is entirely up humans to settle.” (p. 38).
It will be an uphill battle, but going fourth in my ministry I feel called and obligated to reach out to those that are lost, those that are making idols of money, and career and addictive substances or other substitutes for God. By informing people that God is in control and “that God knows all that shall come to pass, including the decision of free agents” I think is powerful (p. 39). Open view theists object to this view, but who are we to limit the power of what God knows of all time both past and future. Knowing that God has the foreknowledge of all to come and knowing that he will ultimately win the battle against evil and that through my faith and belief is Jesus Christ brings comfort to me and I want to share that with others who may not have that comfort in their life.
In the end, I agree with the classical view and from that perspective I strongly believe that “any view that denies God the ability to know the whole of the future is misguided” (p. 39). I as well as the people that I will minister to will find comfort in that I believe.

References

Boyd, Gregory A. & Eddy, Paul R. (2002). Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. Grand rapids Michigan: Baker Academic.

Would Christ be Welcomed in Your Chruch?

The following is a sermon preached at Old Chapel United Methodist Chruch today, September 6, 2009.

The scripture for this sermon was James 2:1-13. A scripture of reference to note in addition to the primary scripture is Romans 16:16 " In Christ divisions are insignificant"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James 2:1-13

In the scripture of James 2:1-13, we have a letter written by James brother of Jesus. This letter was written in the mid 60’s C.E. This letter was not written to one particular church, but written to numerous churches in the Diaspora. In this scripture lesson the partiality, or discrimination, being addressed is most likely in a synagogue setting. It may not have necessarily been a worship service, but a meeting where decisions regarding the church were taking place amongst it members. We are able to break the scripture lesson into two segments. The first being vs. 1-7 which is focused on not showing any partiality in church and the second vs. 8-13 which notes that showing partiality is against God’s law.
In the First Century A.D., people were either rich or poor, slaves or free, Jew or Gentile, Greek or barbarian. We can see in Ga 3:28 that we are all one in Christ & Col 3:11 which says that Christ is all and in all. In modern day America we still place people into groups or classifications as we attempt to describe people and place them into categories. I believe it is human nature to do this as our brains work to somehow organize what we see. However, God calls us to aspire to have a nature of that of Christ. Whether rich or poor, both groups fall within God’s people and we do not glorify one that is God’s people, for the sake of the other or because of one’s status in culture. Being rich or poor has no impact in God’s eyes, it all about one’s heart.
In his autobiography, Mahatma Gandhi wrote that during his student days he read the Gospels seriously and considered converting to Christianity. He believed that in the teachings of Jesus he could find the solution to the caste system that was dividing the people of India. So one Sunday he decided to attend services at a nearby church and talk to the minister about becoming a Christian. When he entered the sanctuary, however, the usher refused to give him a seat and suggested that he go worship with his own people. Gandhi left the church and never returned. “If Christians have caste differences also,” he said, “I might as well remain a Hindu.” That usher’s prejudice not only betrayed Jesus but also turned a person away from trusting Him as Savior.
In modern day America, this very example that Mahatma Gandhi experienced is repeated in some churches across this great nation of ours. One Sunday morning, when I was about 6 or 7 years old, the church service was just getting started. My memory of this event is somewhat hazy, but I always have remembered it. As the service was starting a young black couple walked into the church. One could have heard a pin drop and the piercing glares shot right through them in this rural southwestern Virginia all white church as they slid into the back row. This memory has always stayed with me. We must remember that Christ died for all people, black and white, rich and poor as we are all one because “the blood of Christ makes us one” and as Christians we must challenge ourselves and our fellow Christians that “now is the time for his church to come together.”
We have to be cognizant of our tendencies to judge people on their outward appearances. This tendency is inconsistent with our faith. Take the Movie Shallow Hal for example. This movie obviously does not discuss the issue of rich and poor in the church or even racial issues, but it does address our own prejudices to judge people based on appearance.
As we delve into the scripture vs. 1-7 two very important questions come to mind.
1. Have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
2. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him?

To prefer the rich and discriminate against the poor is to align oneself with the secular world and to become worldly in the worst sort of way. If a poor man is a good man and the rich man is an evil man then why would we judge them on their outer appearance, for that matter until you get to know the person then how can you judge them if you do not know them. God does not judge us because of what we outwardly do, but what he sees in our heart that we really are. It’s like Shallow Hal, who when under Tony Robbin’s spell, he saw Rosemary’s heart and her inner person, who she was in God’s eyes. We must appreciate people for who they are and not what they have or how they look. We should look at people as God see them and that is through their heart.
The 2nd part of the scripture for today is vs. 8-13. I like the way it reads in The Message,

8-11You do well when you complete the Royal Rule of the Scriptures: "Love others as you love yourself." But if you play up to these so-called important people, you go against the Rule and stand convicted by it. You can't pick and choose in these things, specializing in keeping one or two things in God's law and ignoring others. The same God who said, "Don't commit adultery," also said, "Don't murder." If you don't commit adultery but go ahead and murder, do you think your non-adultery will cancel out your murder? No, you're a murderer, period.
12-13Talk and act like a person expecting to be judged by the Rule that sets us free. For if you refuse to act kindly, you can hardly expect to be treated kindly. Kind mercy wins over harsh judgment every time.
From vs. 8-13, there are two main phrases I want to discuss. The first is "Love others as you love yourself." And the second is kind mercy wins over harsh judgment every time. Both of these statements tie into what I think the main point is for this entire scripture, which is to welcome all into this “House of Prayer.” Rich or poor, black or white welcome all. As we read in Matthew 25:43 Jesus said “I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” I believe this scripture speaks to the lesson today and that is as Christians, we must welcome strangers, we must love others as we love ourselves and grant mercy and grace to others as God grants grace and mercy to us. A stranger, rich or poor must be welcomed by us who call ourselves Christians, followers of Christ.
I close today with two questions for you to ponder: Are you a Christian? For real Christians are known by their love. And if you are, would Christ be welcomed here today?