God's Foreknowledge - Peter, Judas and Christ
I recently read Greg Boyd’s explanation of Christ’s foretelling Judas’s betrayal and Peter’s denial. The basic issue is that in open theism, a free choice cannot be foreknown. Boyd’s states that at the time of their sins, Judas and Peter were not free (i.e. they couldn’t choose remain faithful to Christ). But since their prior free choices had formed their character, they were still responsible even if not free at that specific moment. (Boyd on Peter, Boyd on Judas)
While I suspect this explanation is unsound for multiple reasons, let’s for the moment grant that it’s true. What about cases were the future is foretold, yet counterfactual ability is asserted?
Matthew 26:52-54: But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”
Christ claims the ability to do otherwise and that what He was going to do. Even if Judas and Peter didn’t have the ability to do otherwise, Christ did. So scripture asserts future free acts can be foreknown.
How does this singular example impact all of open theism? Scripture teaches God’s knowledge is infinite:
Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. (Psalm 147:5)
So if future free choices are knowable, God knows them. Open theism relies on future free acts, as a category, being unknowable. One counterexample impacts the whole system.
While I suspect this explanation is unsound for multiple reasons, let’s for the moment grant that it’s true. What about cases were the future is foretold, yet counterfactual ability is asserted?
Matthew 26:52-54: But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”
Christ claims the ability to do otherwise and that what He was going to do. Even if Judas and Peter didn’t have the ability to do otherwise, Christ did. So scripture asserts future free acts can be foreknown.
How does this singular example impact all of open theism? Scripture teaches God’s knowledge is infinite:
Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. (Psalm 147:5)
So if future free choices are knowable, God knows them. Open theism relies on future free acts, as a category, being unknowable. One counterexample impacts the whole system.
Comments
God be with you,
Dan
"....I would be the first to admit that I have not figured out this issue of God's sovereignty versus free will,...."
That raises a question for me to ask you:
What about "God's Free Will" to reach out to known unbelievers like Peter and the rest? Who can God know the details of such things under the circumstances?
And example of God's Free Will reaching out knowing full well they didn't believe can be understood by these Scripture verses here:::>
Mar 14:26 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Mar 14:27 And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away, for it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'
Mar 14:28 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."
“So if future free choices are knowable, God knows them. Open theism relies on future free acts, as a category, being unknowable. One counterexample impacts the whole system.”
It is significant that **both** open theists and calvinists stumble in this area. **Both** deny that freely chosen actions can be foreknown by God. The calvinist chooses to believe that free will (as ordinarily understood) does not exist: while the open theist chooses to believe that foreknowledge (as ordinarily understood) does not exist. The open theist **reasons** that if God foreknows the action, then free will is eliminated. For the open theist, since free will obviously exists, the error must be foreknowledge (so they deny that God foreknows freely chosen actions). For the calvinist, since foreknowledge obviously exists, the error must be free will (so they deny that free will [as ordinarily understood] exists). The calvinist **reasons** that if God foreknows the action, then free will is eliminated.
So the open theist desiring to hold onto free will **chooses** to deny God being able to foreknow freely chosen actions. The calvinist on the other hand desiring to hold onto Gods’ foreknowledge **chooses** to deny the reality of freely chosen actions. Because of their commitments to the false presupposition that foreknowledge precludes free will, they both end up rejecting a biblical truth, ending up holding onto one truth while disgarding another. The open theist holds onto free will, the calvinist holds onto foreknowledge.
They both limp along with their one-legged false theologies.
Contrary to **both**, the correct conclusion derived from the bible is both/and, that God has foreknowledge AND that freely chosen actions occur (and since God knows all things he knows these as well). Actually, Open theism and calvinism are the extremes which ought to be rejected because both deny a biblical truth (ironically each rejects the biblical truth which the other holds onto: Open theists are right about the existence of free will but wrong about the nonexistence of foreknowledge and calvinists are right about foreknowledge but wrong about the nonexistence of free will). The proper and biblical theology is to maintain both that free will exists and that God has foreknowledge of all events (including events that involved freely made choices).
Robert
Yep, Calvinism and OT are off in opposite directions. I had an interesting discussion with Steve Hayes at one point. He seemed to indicate that God doesn't foreknow the future directly, but rather He knows it indirectly, via His plan. So perhaps Arminianism is not only alone in asserting God can foreknow future free acts, but also in asserting God can foreknow the future directly.
God be with you,
Dan
Yes they go in opposite directions from the truth, which appears to be in the center between them (they are both extremes and errors). They are both peg-leg-one legged inadequate theologies, just in different ways. A person has a healthy theology that walks on two legs only if they affirm both that God foreknows everything that will occur in the future AND that God can and does know future events that involve freely made choices.
“ I had an interesting discussion with Steve Hayes at one point. He seemed to indicate that God doesn't foreknow the future directly, but rather He knows it indirectly, via His plan.”
According to the advocate of exhaustive determinism, God knows the future **only** because he exhaustively predetermined it and is carrying it out. So he only knows it because it is His plan. But that is not what most Christians mean by foreknowledge, for most of us, it means that He just knows everything and that **everything** includes future events (even including future events that involve genuine choices or technically called libertarian free will). For both the open theist and the calvinist/determinist, God ****cannot**** know future events that involve libertarian free will. Both groups agree on what God cannot do. And yet what they claim God cannot do, is precisely what **most** Christians throughout church history have believed that God can do, because he in fact knows everything.
“ So perhaps Arminianism is not only alone in asserting God can foreknow future free acts, but also in asserting God can foreknow the future directly.”
Apparently the majority of us throughout church history have been wrong according to the determinists and open theists in our belief that God can (and does) know the future events that involve libertarian free will. ***Both*** calvinists and open theists mistakenly claim this is impossible (and they then provide assorted philosophical arguments as to why this is supposedly impossible). I start with the presupposition that God being the God of the bible knows everything. It seems to me that God must know everything directly, without learning it or being told about it, or even planning it.
This would mean (and I think of it this way because I am a very visual person) that it would be like seeing everything directly and at once (what some call the “eternal now” perspective). C. S. Lewis spoke of it as if you saw the entirety of a parade in one glance (you would see the beginning of the parade the part passing by individual persons as well as the part still to come in the parade. I think something like this is true. I say **something like this** because we really do not know precisely **how** God knows what He knows, only that He knows **everything,** including those events that involve libertarian free will.
Robert