
What did the Ancients Say about God’s foreknowledge?
In this post, I hope to share with you what the ancient luminaries thought about God's foreknowledge from an ecclesiological history. (It is going to be a bit long)
God’s Foreknowledge in History
In the previous post, I mentioned that Open theist’s conception of God’s foreknowledge is not historically a new theory. Traditionally, the Socinians shared a similar view. On the other hand, historically, the church luminaries upheld an exhaustive view of God’s foreknowledge. God’s omniscience was never thought of something impartial or imperfect. Virtually all Christendom affirms God’s foreknowledge of human free choices. The church maintains that “God fully knows himself and all things actual and possible in one simple and eternal act.” In other words, from all eternity past God knows and is aware of every contingency. According to John Calvin, “God foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place,” on the other hand, Jacob Arminius wrote, “God has known from eternity which persons should believe… and which should persevere through subsequent grace.” (John Piper provides substantial details in “Is the Glory of God at Stake in God's Foreknowledge of Human Choices”?). In his provocative work, The Freedom of the Will, Jonathan Edwards observes, “…And therefore, unless God does exactly and perfectly foresee the future acts of men’s wills, all the predictions which he ever uttered concerning David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyprus, Alexander; concerning the four monarchies, and the revolutions, victories, prosperities, and calamities, of any of the kingdoms, nations, or communities of the world, have all been without knowledge.” Furthermore, Edwards notes three things about God’s knowledge and human free choices that sustain his previous claim. “If God does not foreknow, he cannot foretell such events; that is, he cannot peremptorily and certainly foretell them. If God has no more than an uncertain guess concerning events of this kind, then he can declare no more than an uncertain guess. Positively foretell, is to profess to foreknow, or declare positive foreknowledge. Secondly, if God does not certainly foreknow the future volitions of moral agents, and then neither can he certainly foreknow those events which are consequent and dependent on these volitions. The existence of the one depending on the existence of the other, the knowledge of the existence of the one depends on the knowledge of the existence of the other; and the one cannot be more certain than the other. Lastly, if God [doesn’t] foreknow the volition of moral agents, then he did not foreknow the fall of man, or of angels, and so could not foreknow the great things which were consequent on these pertaining to the great work of redemption; all things which were done four thousand years before Christ came, toe prepare the way for it; and the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ…etc”
If God cannot know the future choices of moral agents, how, then, does he maintain control over a relatively free world? For God to be able to control future choices, at least, he has to have a foreknowledge of what these things will be or could be; and through his own intervention in creaturely state of affairs whenever it is deemed necessary to accomplish his purposes God could actively maintain control over things to be and the choices of free agents. In other words, God must have known from all eternity every free-will act, every planned free-will act, since he knows human hearts, plans, and intentions. “These things are not uncertainties for God; he does not have to wait for them to occur before he can know them with certainty” (See, Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God. 410). God must have knowledge, otherwise, he could be wise; wisdom is the flower of knowledge, and knowledge is the root of wisdom, said Charnock (ibid).
The Early Church Fathers (2nd century)
What did the early church fathers think about God’s foreknowledge? Did they claim God’s knowledge was comprehensive? We begin with Justin Martyr.
Justin Martyr (100–165)
Justin Martyr was concerned about how biblical prophecies could be perfectly fulfilled as they were foretold by God. According to Justin, the things God absolutely knows will certainly transpire; God could so predict a number of things including human actions and intentions, future events, etc as if they had already happened. So in view of God’s knowledge concerning predictions of prophecies, he writes, “So that what we say about future events being foretold, we do not say it as if they can about a fatal necessity; but foreknowing all that shall be done by all men, and it being his decree and the future actions of men shall all be recompensed according to their several value, he [God] foretells by the Spirit of prophecy that he will bestow meet rewards according to the merit of the actions done, always urging the human race to effort and recollection, showing that he cares and provides for men (Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapter 44).
Ireneus (b. 2nd century; d. c 200)
Irenaeus links [God’s] foreknowledge with (his ability to predict) prophecy . He harks back to God’s act of creation so to describe his foreknowledge, “ For after his great kindness he graciously conferred good [upon us], and made men like to himself, [that is] in their own power; while at the same time by his prescience he knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [his] love and [his] power, he shall overcome the subtance of created nature” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.29.1)
Origen (185–254)
In his argument with Celsus, Origen contends that God foreknows all things and his knowledge is full. “For God, comprehending all things by means of His Foreknowledge, and foreseeing what consequences would result from both of theses, wished to make these known to mankind by his prophets” ( Origen, De Principiis, 3.1)
Post Patristic Era -
Later theologians would confirm what many church fathers formerly taught about God’s omniscience. Similarly, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Jacob Arminius, and others maintained harmoniously that God fully foreknows the future and future choices made by free creatures. They all affirmed that God’s knowledge is “perfect” and “vast;” the future his creatures create does not catch God off guard. God is not caught off-guard since he has foresight, anticipating what moral agents will do.
Saint Augustine (354-430)
In various theological spectrums, Augustine is considered the most influential theological thinker. For Augustine, Go infallibly foreknows all that shall come to pass wonderfully. He expresses this conviction clearly in these words, “Surely, if there be a mind, so greatly abounding in knowledge and foreknowledge, to which all things past and future are so known as one psalm is well known to me, that mind is exceedingly wonderful, and very astounding; because what is so past, and whatever is to come after ages, is no more concealed from him than was it hidden from me when singing that psalm, what and how much of it had been sung from the beginning, what and how much remained unto the end. But far be it that Thou, the Creator of the universe, the Creator of souls and bodies,--far be it that Thou shouldest know all things future and past. Far, far wonderfully, and far mysteriously, Thou knowest them” (Augustine, Confessions, 11.31)
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Aquinas is well known for his skilled and systematic mind ; building upon Aristotle’s thought he developed his own philosophical theology. Aquinas maintained a God who is in total control of the future, one who has a comprehensive knowledge of all of history past, present and future.. According to him, “Everything that happens is brought about by God as the first or primary cause, but God acts concurrently with libertarainly free agents so that the actions of moral creatures are the free choice of the creatures themselves. God’s agency in every event in history determines the outcome, but he usually works through secondary, creaturely causes, and he works in such a way that the events are genuinely contingent or dependent upon the actions of the creatures. God is timeless, and so his own action never precedes the creature’s action. For this reaon God has a comprehensive foreknowledge of all of history past, present, and still future, but he knows it all in his eternal “now” so that he does not technically have “foreknowledge.”
John Calvin (1509 – 1564)
Calvin links God’s knowledge with his foresight (or prescience) and the things which he predestined/foreordained ( the doctrine of predestination/ foreordaination). According to Calvin, God’s omniscience includes everything in thistory of the created world, past, present, and future. God’s knowledge of the future is not simply foresight, it is a knowledge of his own will, a knowledge of what he has determined the future should be. Further, Calvinists teach that the sovereign God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and therefore he foreknows whatsoever comes to pas. Calvin also writes, “We, indeed, ascribe both prescience and predestination to God; but we say that it is absurd to make the latter subordinate to the former. When we attributes prescience to God, we mean that all things always were, and ever continue, under his eye; that to his knowledge there is no past or future, but all things are present, and indeed so present, that it is not merely the idea of them that is before him, but he truly sees and contemplates them as actually under his immediate inspection. This prescience extends to the whole circuit of the world, and to all creatures” ( John Calvin, Institute of the Christian Religion, 3.21.5)
Martin Luther (1483–1546)
Luther was just another Augustine theologically speaking. By consequence, he assumed and affirmed God’s foreknowledge, and that it was God’s intention to foreordain all things, so God knows perfectly what he has decided and predetermined from the beginning. His explication of God’s foreknowledge must be understood in his free will contention with Erasmus. For example, Luther notes, “It is, then, fundamentally necessary and wholesome for Christians to know that God foreknows nothing contingently, but that he foresees, purposes, and does all things according to his immutable, eternal and infallible will… For the will of God God is effective and cannot be impeded, since power belongs to God’s nature; and his wisdom is such that he cannot be deceived. Since, then his will is not impeded, what is done cannot but be done where, when, how, as far as, and by whom, he foresees and wills” ( Martin Luther, Martin Luther on the Bondage of the Will: A new translation of De servo arbitrio, 80-81).
Jacob Arminius (1560-1609)
While Arminius denies that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass but clearly affirms God’s foreknowledge of whatsoever comes to pass. He affirms, “Inclination in God is natural towards his own creature, whether the man believes or not. For that inclination does not depend on faith, and uncertainty cannot be attributed to the will of him who, in his infinite wisdom, has all things present to himself, and certainly foreknows all future events, even the most contingent.” ( Jacob Arminius, An Examination of the Treatise of Williams Perkins, 1.4)
Others-
The following people or models below do not affirm clearly God’s complete foreknowledge
Lelio Socinus (1525-62)
Socinus was an Italian theologian, along with his nephew Fausto Socinus, they denied the cardinal doctrines of Christendom including the full deity of Christ, his substitutionary atonement, and justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ. Both Protestants and Catholics regard them as heretical. Both Lelio and Fausto contend that God does not know “in such a way that whatsoever he knows will surely come to pass.” In other words, in regard to human free choices, God simply knows future possibilities, but not future certainties. Furthermore, according to Robert Strmple, the Socinians insited that “it was a contradiction of human freedom to believe in the sovereign foreordination of God. So they went all the way (logically) and denied not only that God has foreordained the free decisions of free agents but also that God foreknows what those decisions will be.”
The Molinist Model = ( Luis de Molina [1535-1600])
Luis de Molina was a Spanish Jesuit. He wrote a commentary on the first part of the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas. At any rate, the Molinist model is a theological system named after Molina. This view is often called by theologians as “the Middle-Knowledge.” Accordingly, God’s action in the world is God’s knowledge of what would happen in all possible situations. God knows the actual future that will come to be, and he also knows all possible future that could be if circumstances were different. Christian philosopher and theologian, William Lane Craig, is today’s most proponent of the Middle knowledge view. Notice this view does not, however, deny God’s foreknowledge. Molina explains, “… By which [middle knowledge], in virtue of the most profound and inscrutable comprehension of each free will, he [God] saw in his own essence what each such will would do with its innate freedom were it to be placed in this or that, or indeed, infinitely many orders of things—even though it would really be able, if it so willed, to do the opposite” (Luis de Molina, On Divine Foreknowledge , 52.9)
The Process Model = (Alfred North Whitehead [1861–1947])
Whitehead is known as the Father of process theology. First, this view affirms that the universe is an on-going process phenomenon and is characterized by change carried out by the agents of free will. Second, God is a process being, so he learns as things unfold in the universe. Theologians and philosophers of this particular tradition contend that God has an abstract (or primordial) and a concrete (or consequent) pole or aspect, and he is therefore a being that is in process. His being is not fully actualized; it is becoming. In the abstract pole, God has a fixed character, whereas, in his concrete pole, he is very much to influence outside of himself. That is, by external forces. He takes these up into himself and responds to them , so that he is in a constant state of interacting with the created order.
Summary:
In conclusion, traditionally, as we have observed above, God’s omniscience or foreknowledge is clearly affirmed. It is argued that his knowledge is perfect and extends to all things, past, present, and future, including future events and decisions orchestrated by moral agents. Moreover, we have also seen that God possesses an infallible knowledge, infallible, yet independent upon free agents and what will occur in the future. Finally, it is also taught that God’s knowledge is immediate, without the precess of thought, logic, or inference. In this respect, traditionally and historically Open theism is in opposition to what is commonly held and affirmed (by the majority) about God's foreknowledge. In the words of Tozer, “To say that God is omniscient is to say that he possesses perfect knowledge and therefore has no need to learn. But it is more to say: it is to say that God has never learned and cannot learn” (A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, 86)
* For a more substantial historical detail on this topic see Millard J. Erickson, What Does God Know and When Does He Know it? The Current Controversy Over Divine Foreknowledge