One of the more common objections I hear to Arminianism/Wesleyanism/Molinism (I don't want to keep typing that; let's shorten that to "Arminianism", shall we?) is that "the only logically consistent Arminian is an Open Theist".
Why? Why is the only consistent Arminian an Open Theist, according to them? They contend that since God "peers into the corridors of time" and does not in fact predestine every act (by the way, that is not an entirely accurate understanding of any of the three traditions, at least as classically understood), there is no way that He can know the "unpredestined" future without certainty.
Before you accuse me of creating a straw man of Calvinism, understand that I have heard this argument not only from many Reformed friends of mine, but from Reformed theologians and apologists like Dr. James White.
What this says is actually far more revealing of Calvinist understandings of God's foreknowledge than of Arminian understandings. First, a few points to clarify on the other three positions:
In the three non-Calvinist traditions, classically understood, God in fact DOES predestine everything. God's predestination, however, is based upon His foreknowledge (Romans 8:29). There is, then, active predestination: where God actively brings things about (this is not necessarily based upon foreknowledge, although many times is or at least could be). The other type of predestination is passive: predestination that is ONLY based upon God's foreknowledge, wherein He does not actively move to alter the situation, in His Providence. The major example would be sin itself. Unlike in monergistic Reformed theology (see Westminster Confession/London Baptist Confession chapter 3, line 2), Arminianism is able to claim that God foreknew sin and therefore predestined in light of the fact of sin, rather than predestined sin without foreknowledge (which is my central contention with Calvinism; but that is perhaps another article for another time).
If the contention made by these Calvinists--the contention that God can't know anything exhaustively unless He predestines it--is true, then...well, that's what Open Theists say, too. The Open Theist simply says that God doesn't predestine everything, while the Calvinist claims that He does.
Think about that.
Both the Calvinist (at least the ones who argue similarly to Dr. White) and Open Theist claim that God can't foreknow something with 100% certainty unless God predestines it. They both agree on the NATURE of God's foreknowledge; in fact, they both agree on the Nature of God's Omniscience! Their point of contention is in the ACTIONS of God (God predestines everything, and therefore knows the future exhaustively, for Calvinism; God doesn't predestine everything, and therefore does not know the future exhaustively, for Open Theism), not the Nature of God; at least not necessarily.
What does the Arminian say?
The Classical Arminian, Molinist, and Wesleyan says that God's knowledge of the future is natural. God does not need to commit an act of predestination in order to foreknow future acts. It is simply part of God's foreknowledge, that knowledge.
Now, if Calvinists do not make the claim that "the only logically consistent Arminian is an Open Theist", it is far more possible for them to claim that they are fundamentally different from Open Theists in their understanding of the Nature (as opposed to Actions) of God.
So, respectfully, I suggest that this argument against Arminians, Molinists, and Wesleyans no longer be used.
Thanks for reading all of the way through; I hope you like my blog! If so, I'd love for you to check out my Patreon page and support me as I go through seminary. Oh? You don't know I'm in seminary? Well, I am! Yeah, if you wish you can check out my article on that, here. Be sure to check out my Facebook page, too!
Oh! And I also run a podcast with my atheist friend, Xrys! It's called The Religious Nut and Hellbound Sinner Podcast, and we have a fun time discussing all sorts of topics: religion, politics, science, philosophy, movies, etc. Check out our Facebook page on that, as well!
8 comments:
Calvinism and Open Theism are contradictory. Open theism holds that the future is not knowable by anyone, even God. It is an attempt to explain free will, as they say that Christians cannot be totally free if God knows the future. Calvinism would say that God predetermines everything according to His sovereign will, and that his will cannot be thwarted - which is what I believe.
Can our we wrap our puny minds around this: that God is completely sovereign and man has free will?
The answer is, we are finite beings trying to understand an infinite God. There are some things in scripture that you can't justify in your mind, and you have to hold them both as true.
You also have to consider that we are not totally free. We have strong influences around us every day. We are limited by our nature. You are "free" to do anything inside your nature.
The Bible is clear that God is Omniscient, and that includes knowing the future:
Psalm 139:4, 16: “Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD...All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
It is extremely important to understand the meaning of the word "foreknowledge" as used in Romans 8:29. Yes, according to this passage Gods predestination is based upon his foreknowledge.
But what does the Bible mean when it says foreknew? is it speaking of God knowing the future?
Of course God knows who will be saved in the future. But that's not the issue here. God is not "looking down the corridors of time" to see who believe. That would contradict Ephesians 1:11 and many other passages.
"...also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will..."
So back to my question "what does the Bible mean when it says "foreknew?"
It was once said that the best way to interpret scripture... is to interpret it with other scripture.
The answer comes in John 10:27 when Jesus says:
"My sheep hear my voice and I KNOW them, and they follow me."
The Bible often uses the word "know" to describe an intimate relationship. e.g. "Adam knew his wife Eve."
Well, those who are saved have a very intimate relationship with God. The Bible is clear on that too.
It also says in Amos 3:2:
"You only have I known of all the families of the earth."
The NIV correctly translates that same verse "You only have I chosen.... "
It's not WHAT he foreknew, but WHOM he foreknew. In the case of Romans it is: THOSE - who are saved.
So when it uses the word "foreknew" it is describing that intimate relationship.
I had to do this in two posts:
Now in other passages when the Bible speaks of Foreknowledge in the sense of knowing some thing, as in: the future, consider this quote by Boettner:
"The Almighty and all-sovereign Ruler of the universe does not govern Himself on the basis of a foreknowledge of things which might haply come to pass. Through the Scriptures the divine foreknowledge is ever thought of as dependent on the divine purpose, and God foreknows only because He has pre-determined. His foreknowledge is but a transcript of His will as to what shall come to pass in the future, and the course which the world takes under His providential control is but the execution of His all-embracing plan. His foreknowledge of what is yet to be, whether it be in regard to the world as a whole or in regard to the, detailed life of every individual, rests upon His pre-arranged plan." (Jeremiah 1:5; Psalm 139:14-16; Job 23:13, 14; 28:26, 27; Amos 3:7)
God can't foreknow something unless he already predestined it. If he made the future, how could he know something to come to pass when it doesn't come to pass? That would be illogical. I am not putting God in a box. God can't know a future that doesn't exist, because there is only one future that He knows.
As extreme forms of Calvinism fail in that they essentially turn humans into robots, so open theism fails in that it rejects the biblical understanding of God's sovereignty and omniscience.
Hey, Alex! I appreciate your response. Perhaps I didn't explain my position in the article as well as I should have, but you seem to be falling right into what I wrote in it: God, in both Calvinism and Open Theism, can't know the future unless He predestines it. That means that God's Omniscience is really not a part of Him. God only knows everything if God does certain actions.
Perhaps I need to do what I was planning on doing: doing a Part 2 article. I was planning on covering some of the topics that I see you have brought up in objection; are there any other points you wish me to cover?
Also, Alex Masella, if you could carefully reread the article I would greatly appreciate it. I'm not the most eloquent person, so I may not have explained everything as well as I should have.
I do want to say that Calvinism and Open Theism are contradictory; I do agree with you on that. However, they are only contradictory in God's ACTIONS; they (if Calvinists argue against Arminians in the way demonstrated in this article) both start with the same exact understanding of God's knowledge.
God can’t know the factual future (the future that will come true) unless he predestines it, but he can know the unfactual future without predestining it (God can know hypothetical results).
Thus you could say that God CAN “foreknow” something that won’t happen in the future. He can imagine what would have happened had you eaten toast instead of chili for lunch. So in that sense, God CAN foreknow a future that he doesn’t predestine. But then that’s not really foreknowing then is it? Because it’s a hypothetical future.
The future does not depend upon man. God exists first. God decrees His will before anything else happens. This is particularly important for the doctrine of Salvation and man’s choice. Perhaps the topic of another post could be on God’s Sovereignty vs Man’s free will.
If you take a look at that quote by Boettner, who defines foreknowledge as “the transcript of his will,” then yes, in that sense God can’t foreknow something unless he predestines it. This doesn't mean that God's Omniscience is not a part of Him.
I believe that God has exhaustive knowledge: that God not only knows all possible outcomes, he also knows which outcome will unfold. The Open Theist rejects both of these. If Calvinists and Open Theists both agree that God can't know the future unless he predestines it in that sense. That's fine. But everything else is different.
If God can know future acts without predestining them, then He is no longer Sovereign. Right? Because that would mean that these “acts” would be outside of His control because he didn’t plan them. His Foreknowledge has to be based upon his Predestination, not the other way around. And they can't be based off of each other, that would be circular reasoning.
What this all comes down to is, who is in control? If God foreknows something that he doesn’t predestine, that leaves everyone else to guide the future. That’s the connection between Open Theists and Arminians. But I don’t think Calvinists need to use that argument against Arminians anyway.
I would agree that this is true under the Calvinist understanding of God's foreknowledge.
The problem is, Alex, that the Open Theist has the EXACT same view of God's foreknowledge!
My whole point is that a Calvinist cannot in good conscience claim that an Open Theist denies God's omniscience...because on the same grounds, it can be argued that the Calvinist understanding of God rejects God's omniscience.
Post a Comment