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.