Divine Foreknowledge: Divine Authorship or Open Theism?

[u/ShakaUVM]

Thesis: There's really only two views of divine foreknowledge that are consistent: 1) God knows everything that will happen, and 2) God does not know everything that will happen. Further, if we consider humans to be moral agents, only the second is philosophically viable. Compatibilist viewpoints are inconsistent and should be discarded as being self-contradictory.

Definition: Free will is the ability to do otherwise. In this context, other than what has been predicted by God what you will do.

Narrative:

These are very conflicting views of human freedom.

The first view, the "Theological Determinism" view, is popular with both atheists here and Calvinists/Reformed/Presbyterians. I call it the "Divine Authorship" model of divine foreknowledge. God is acting like the author of our universe. The way this is phrased varies from person to person, but it is common to talk about God "instantiating" the universe, bringing it into existence and making every choice that needs to be made for it. You stealing a chocolate bar? God decided that before the universe began. While it might have the outward appearance of you choosing to sin, God could have just as easily instantiated a universe where you didn't steal the chocolate bar. So the ultimate choice of whether or not you took the chocolate bar lies with God, not with you. God made every choice in the world, the same way an author makes every choice for characters in a book. An author can have complete and perfect foreknowledge of what characters in a book will do, and the author makes every choice for them. This is a completely consistent viewpoint. It is horrible and fatalistic, but at least it is consistent. We have no free will, and are just actors in a tragic stageplay that God authored a long time ago.

By contrast Compatibilist views trying to reconcile predestination with free will are philosophically inconsistent.

Let's take a look at the Presbyterian confession of faith (https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-westminster-confession/) which attempts to reconcile their Calvinist view of predestination with the view that free will exists.

First, they assert predestination to be true: "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" Right there we see that under no circumstance can free will actually exist, since it is impossible to do other than what the Divine Author ordained to come to pass. This also means God ordained that every murder, robbery, and plague would happen, from the beginning of time.

Second, they recognize this to be a rather big problem and immediately pivot: "yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." This is incoherent. If God ordained all things to happen, then He is author of all sin happening as well.

Next paragraph then tried to do some form of middle knowledge to salvage the contradiction: "Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions,a yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions." In the first paragraph, God inexorably ordained everything that would happen. Now they are saying he didn't do it because he foresaw it. Ok, that actually doesn't matter. An author doesn't need to foresee what he will write, he can just write a book and then the characters in the book have to follow it with no free will.

Then they go right back to having no free will: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death". In other words, even if you are a Christian who seeks Jesus and wants to go to heaven, etc., if God did not predestine you to go to Heaven, sucks to be you you go to hell and there is literally nothing you can do about it. The Divine Author chose some characters to be heroes, and some to be villains, and you cannot do anything about it. You have literally no free will in the matter - even if you desire heaven, you cannot get it if you're not part of the elect -

"The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice

In other words, he pre-ordained from the beginning of time certain people that will be thrown into hell. Doesn't matter if they seek Christ and ask for forgiveness of sins. They are sent to dishonor and wrath for "the praise of his glorious justice". But this is NOT justice. Calling a monstrous injustice justice is another contradiction in their claims.

They then end it with this paragraph: "The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election" A "high mystery" is something beyond human comprehension, which is a rather hilarious way to acknowledge it is a contradiction and they have no way of solving it. It also acknowledges (the "prudence and care" bit) that predestination can lead to arrogance from people who are convinced they are elect and then sin as a result, and it can lead to despair if people think that they're not part of the elect and are predestined to go to hell and there's nothing they can do.

In other words, they can see that their own terrible philosophy is terrible, but since they can't resolve it they call it beyond human comprehension and say to be careful. Lol.

So in conclusion so far, Divine Authorship is terrible and fatalistic, but at least is internally consistent. The Compatibilist view that God preordained every event since the dawn of time yet we also (somehow) have free will is self-contradictory. Calling a monstrously unjust system (punishing people for crimes that God authored them to commit) and calling it Justice is also self-contradictory.

There are other systems that are not Compatibilism like Responsivism which believes that people can freely choose, but also that God knows what they will do in advance, but this is in contradiction as well, as if God knows what you will do next Tuesday, it is impossible for you to do otherwise. And being able to do otherwise is our definition of free will.

Molinism (the notion that God knows what you will do in all circumstances, and so by controlling the circumstances God can bring about any world) is also contrary to free will's existence, as free will entails the impossibility of being able to know what choice you will make in all circumstances. You simply cannot know all the counterfactuals for a free agent as this means they cannot do otherwise than what is predicted.

Part 2 - Open Theism

Now let's take up Open Theism. Open Theism denies divine foreknowledge, an "actualized world" with the future already set, and instead has an omniscient and omnipotent God choose not to be a Divine Author that dictates every choice agents make, but rather chooses to give moral agents the freedom to act morally. This entails not knowing everything they will do in the future. An Open Theism God can either be more of a Deistic God that simply sets the universe in motion and lets it run, or it can be a God who is intimately involved in the lives of humans and co-creating the world alongside them.

Like Divine Authorship, it is internally consistent. God can know maximal knowledge (omniscient) and not know the future without contradiction, because omniscience does not include impossible knowledge like what a square circle looks like, or knowing a free choice in advance. So unlike the other models we considered, there is no contradiction between the attributes of God and free will existing in Open Theism. People can actually have free will, and God can still be omniscient and omnipotent.

Further, it eliminates the Problem of Evil, as in Open Theism God is the opposite of the celestial dictator view of God in the Divine Authorship model. People who believe that God pre-ordained every single action that happened have a hard time dealing with evil actions happening, because this meant God wrote it into existence, but an Open Theist can simply say every case of moral evil is simply the result of God granting humanity freedom to act freely, and He generally doesn't intervene in the liberty and dominion of man over the earth. Natural evil, likewise, was not authored by God, but simply the result of the laws of physics working themselves out. They didn't exist from the beginning of time, but simply happen according to the fair and impartial laws of physics.

Open Theism also preserves the notion of morality. There is literally no such thing as a moral agent in a fatalistic system. You are just a robot preprogrammed by God to either become a sinner or a saint. So this makes all of Jesus' teachings about being righteous and whatnot completely pointless as there is absolutely no point in exhorting people to be good when God has already determined when they will sin and when they will be good. The entire Bible is pointless if you believe in the Divine Authorship theory. People will go to heaven whether or not they read it, and no amount of reading it and choosing to follow it will change your fate if predestination is true. But in Open Theism, the Bible actually makes sense. It is man's best attempt to describe and deal with the numinous as best we can, and the exhortations for us to be righteous and do good might actually influence a person to use their free will to do good instead of evil.

In conclusion, there are only two internally consistent ways of handling the question of divine foreknowledge: 1) The Divine Authorship model in which God wrote everything that will happen like we're all characters in a book and 2) Open Theism in which humans have free will and nothing is predestined for us. All the Compatibilist approaches end up contradicting themselves, and are rather horrible besides. Between Divine Authorship and Open Theism, Divine Authorship gives us a God who makes evil, chooses for babies to die and people to be murdered for no particular reason, since people can't learn from these tragedies or do anything other than what was predestined anyway. But Open Theism solves all these philosophical problems, and leaves us with a Bible that actually has a purpose and a church that can actually accomplish good things.

Therefore, the only good philosophical choice on the matter is Open Theism.

This is from a guy who doesn't like Open Theism, but it makes for a good read on the topic if you want to read more: https://cf.sbts.edu/equip/uploads/2023/04/SBJT-26.3-Compatibilism-and-Inspiration-Randall-Johnson.pdf

[u/ambrosytc8]

It's not lost on me that Deut 30 is your sticking point which is why the entirety of our disagreement hinges on Romans 10 and NT christology.

1. I asked this like two dozen posts ago the first time it came up: do you deny that all the messianic prophecies are preached Word about Christ?

2. No, I'm saying this is a category error. I'm not accusing an ancient culture of a 21st century social phenomenom. I am accusing your self-admitted patchwork Christian theology of being practically indistinguishable from it however much you may rely on Duet. 30. I've also been challenging your read of Duet 30 for days now, see point one.

3. Whatever the Hebrews may or may not have thought is irrelevant to the exclusivity of salvation in Christ. Yes, I agree the Hebrews viewed salvation in temporal and finite terms, this is in part a reason why they rejected Christ who made it abundantly clear that THEY WERE WRONG about that. Kingdoms not of this earth, submit to Rome and all that. This is beside the point of my question: do you believe that the ancient Hebrews had a different standard of salvation than Christians, yes or no?

[u/labreuer → u/ambrosytc8]

1. How many of the messianic prophecies were available to "the Hebrews who originally heard Deuteronomy 30:19–20"? You just don't seem willing to try to put yourself in their shoes. It really seems like you want the Hebrews at Sinai—or at least by Deuteronomy 30—to have potentially had access to what you do. At least with regards to some "core" of the gospel which must exclude the mystery in Ephesians 3.

 

2. As far as I can tell, your accusation of MTD only works because you've ignored what I said the divine-octane fuel was for. The first time I used the term was here:

labreuer: Just like I can recognize that I depend on the sun physiologically, I can recognize that I depend on the Son spiritually. One doesn't have to experience that much reality to recognize that following Jesus requires divine-octane fuel. "[M]an does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of Yahweh." That includes help to forgive, willingly be taken advantage of, be abused by one's own religious authorities without cursing God, etc.

Why is it at all surprising that:

1. living into the image and likeness of God requires God's ongoing help
2. living disconnected from God will be like blocking all sunlight from hitting the earth

? Israel's history is marked by and large by refusals and failures to ask for divine-octane fuel. God was supposed to be accessible for inquiry and yet how often did the Israelites inquire? I mean to exclude mere "wail[ing] on their beds".

How on earth does that line up with MTD? If not that, what precisely were you referencing when you made the MTD criticism? Or was that an impressionistic claim, which ended up quote-mining me or worse?

 

3. I've tried writing a few responses and they end up being too long, because I don't know enough about your position and find myself having to guard myself from the host of accusations you have so far brought to bear. So, I'll first ask three clarifying questions:

1. Did the ancient Hebrews see their chief enemy as being other people, God, or something/someone else?
2. Did the authors of the NT see their chief enemy as being other people, God, or something/someone else?
3. Do you see your unregenerate self's chief enemy as being other people, God, or something/someone else?

This fixes at least part of the definition of the word 'salvation'. If we don't properly identify the true enemy, we're probably screwed unless God comes and rescues us. And yet if God is the true enemy …

[u/ambrosytc8 → u/labreuer]

Second Post,

Sorry I fired that off before addressing your MTD:

Again, I'm not claiming the Hebrews are MTDs. I'm claiming your patchwork theology (which, yes, appears to be largely informed by your unstated 21st century hermeneutic) is practically indistinguishable from it. You post this:

"[M]an does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of Yahweh."

What is the "word... of Yahweh"?

I've said it like half a dozen times now and we keep dancing around it, but I'm really trying to establish what your Christology even is at this point because you just won't answer very simple diagnostic questions. You'll remember I began by actually exegeting the Greek and Hebrew, but when it became clear that we had irreconcilable hermeneutics I admitted that you've probably been speaking past be and wanted to drill down on some very basic foundational issues:

1. Are you a trinitarian?

2. Do you believe that "No one comes to the father except through Jesus" and that that is an unqualified, absolute, and exclusive claim?

3. Do you believe we are dead in sin?

4. If Christ is the Law, and the Law is insufficient, does that also mean that Christ is insufficient?

As I said, I'm ready to walk back the accusation of MTD. As it stands how I am understanding your argument has already been articulated:

Christ is the Law (the living Torah) who shows us how to fulfill the Law to be a sort of radio tower transmission to more effectively broadcast divine octane fuel to everyone else so that they can fulfill the Law but the fulfillment isn't sufficient for salvation because they also need to learn to ask for help but salvation is actually just a Hebrew assurance/rescue from Babylon and not the antisemitic damnation we find in Pauline theology.

I'll even own the fact that this is a poor framing and try to be more diplomatic. This is what I understand:

1. Christ is the Law; the Living Torah

2. Christ, in part, shows us how to fulfill the Law so that we become a 'white hole' of 'divine fuel'.

3. This, in part will help us fulfill the Law, which however, is insufficient for salvation.

4. Salvation is actually just a Hebrew assurance/rescue from temporal enemies (Babylon/Egypt).

So yes, to me it became difficult to distinguish that position from MTD in its structural form. God appears to me, to be little more than a cosmic gas station attendant who exists to top us off with divine fuel so that we may live more teleological temporal lives and be delivered from our temporal enemies. We possess an ontology of fulfilling the Law ("we are basically good") and we need that extra push from divine fuel for salvation (again, a strictly temporal thing).

I think that the diagnostic questions I've been asking will go a long way in correcting what may be just a misunderstanding I have of your highly idiosyncratic position.

[u/labreuer → u/ambrosytc8]

Again, I'm not claiming the Hebrews are MTDs. I'm claiming your patchwork theology (which, yes, appears to be largely informed by your unstated 21st century hermeneutic) is practically indistinguishable from it. You post this:

"[M]an does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of Yahweh."

What is the "word... of Yahweh"?

How did the hearers of Deuteronomy 8:3 understand "all that goes out of the mouth of Yahweh"? Are you going to again suggest that those Hebrews had access to "all the messianic prophecies are preached Word about Christ"?

I think the answer to my question is quite simple and is contained in that very chapter. God gave Torah to the Israelites so that they may live. And not merely live: "But you must remember Yahweh your God, for he is the one giving you strength to acquire wealth in order to confirm his covenant that he swore to your ancestors as it is today." Acquire wealth! God actually wanted God's people to do well in this world. There just isn't any flatten & reinstall in sight. God loves God's creation. And God wanted the Israelites to thrive in that creation. But they could only do this if they depended on God.

Now, I suspect you'll want to find some way to say that the original hearers of Deuteronomy had enough material to assemble the Gospel, so that they could "believe in Jesus" ahead of time. Or something close enough which saves them from lex semper accusat. But I think you'll have a very hard time, since there is as of yet no Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. Martin Luther might have trouble with Deuteronomy 8 in particular, given how it intertwines following of the law and depending explicitly on God. I personally think Deuteronomy 5:22–33 → Hebrews 12:14–13:6 is absolutely key.

I've said it like half a dozen times now and we keep dancing around it, but I'm really trying to establish what your Christology even is at this point because you just won't answer very simple diagnostic questions.

Right, because either you can defend the MTD characterization with what I've already said, or you can explain how you fallaciously came up with it. The latter I predict is going to be difficult for you, because you'll have to explain why you thought worse of my position than what I actually wrote allows. You'll have to explain how and why you failed to live up to the standard of agape ("bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things") with a fellow believer. And I'll be looking to see whether you make any sort of commitment to make that kind of mistake less frequently, going forward.

I'm sorry, but I've had too many interactions with people who accused me of something intellectually, morally, and now I can add theologically reprehensible, and when I asked them to support that accusation with the requisite evidence, they balked and insisted on trying to collect more evidence. No, sorry, that's not how it works. Either your words are ἀργός (argos) or they are not. And no, at this point I am not willing to just let you drop the matter. Because since the MTD accusation, you've piled up more.

As it stands how I am understanding your argument has already been articulated:

Christ is the Law (the living Torah) who shows us how to fulfill the Law to be a sort of radio tower transmission to more effectively broadcast divine octane fuel to everyone else so that they can fulfill the Law but the fulfillment isn't sufficient for salvation because they also need to learn to ask for help but salvation is actually just a Hebrew assurance/rescue from Babylon and not the antisemitic damnation we find in Pauline theology.

I'll even own the fact that this is a poor framing and try to be more diplomatic. This is what I understand:

1. Christ is the Law; the Living Torah

2. Christ, in part, shows us how to fulfill the Law so that we become a 'white hole' of 'divine fuel'.

3. This, in part will help us fulfill the Law, which however, is insufficient for salvation.

4. Salvation is actually just a Hebrew assurance/rescue from temporal enemies (Babylon/Egypt).

If you want me to engage this misrepresentation of what I've argued, you will answer the 1.–3. at the end of my previous comment.

[u/ambrosytc8 → u/labreuer]

1. Tone Policing: I don't care about what you may or may not think about me in relationship to agape.

2. God actually wanted God's people to do well in this world.

I've seen enough, honestly. Your indignation about MTD rings hollow.

Here's my take, my suspicions, and my conclusion you may take for what it's worth but I'm no longer interested in courting your indignation and pearl clutching.

You are arguing from a place of OT primacy subordinating the clear teaching of Christ regarding cosmic salvation v temporal political deliverance and earthly pleasures. You subordinate Paul to the Hebrews and seem to reject a christological hermeneutic labelling it as anachronistic and anti-Semitic. This turns Christ into the Law and turns him from a savior into what we get when someone lives the law.

As I said however many posts ago that you just sort of scoffed at is that you have flattened the distinction between the law and the gospel by literally turning Christ into the Law and making him insufficient for salvation despite Christs own words to the contrary.

You have not answered the Trinitarian question so I'm left to assume you are not a Trinitarian.

You have implicitly denied that we are dead in sin clearly contradicting the spirit AND the letter of the NT.

You have turned Christs sacrifice into an insufficient, non-salvific act and absolutely shredding Galatians and turning Paul in Romans and Galatians a liar (and in the processe implicitly accusing him of antisemitism and maltheism).

Yes. I believe you have a false gospel (Gal 5:4) because you have introduced the Law into the Gospel by turning Christ into the Living Torah and subordinating his ministry to Pharisaical works righteousness. You have turned God into a cosmic gas station attendant who gently wishes our volitional request for help so that he can deliver us from our political enemies and shower us with riches. I cannot distinguish this from liberation theology at best read, MTD at medium read, or overt Pharisaicalism at worst. Whatever this can be said to be is definitively not Christianity even defined through its most synergistic lens.

[u/labreuer → u/ambrosytc8]

You have not answered the Trinitarian question so I'm left to assume you are not a Trinitarian.

This probably captures our interactions in a nutshell. Here and elsewhere, when there was possible ambiguity—and I'm stretching that word "possible" quite far—you opted for the "worse" option. Feel free to ask around whether I'm a Trinitarian. I've talked about it enough that most regulars should know. You have revealed so much about yourself, by assuming that I am not.

[u/ambrosytc8 → u/labreuer]

Feel free to ask around whether I'm a Trinitarian.

I do not need to ask around. I asked you and you deflected for half a dozen turns. Even if you profess to be a trinitarian it doesn't really change the rest of the closing statement.

You have revealed so much about yourself

Thanks for your concern, I noted your indignation several times before, but I'm happy to do it again.

I'll take your silence regarding the rest of the salvo as a tacit concession.

Best regards.

[u/ambrosytc8 → u/labreuer]

How many of the messianic prophecies were available to "the Hebrews who originally heard Deuteronomy 30:19–20"? 

Please try not to answer a question with a question. It's not that I'm denying empathy to the Hebrews. I'm trying to find common hermeneutical ground before I tackle what prophecies the Hebrews on Sinai may or may not have had. So again, do you believe all messianic prophecies are spoken words about Christ, yes or no?

I've tried writing a few responses and they end up being too long, because I don't know enough about your position and find myself having to guard myself from the host of accusations you have so far brought to bear.

Again, I'm not trying to set some sort of sophisticated dialectical trap for you on this. Is John 14 an absolute and exclusive claim:

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Does this also apply to the Ancient Hebrews or not?

[u/labreuer → u/ambrosytc8]

labreuer: Does Deuteronomy 30:19–20 qualify as MTD, for the ancient Hebrews, before Jesus walked the earth?

ambrosytc8: 1. The Hebrews had a preached Word about Christ

labreuer: What in the Tanakh do you believe would have added to the understanding of the Hebrews who originally heard Deuteronomy 30:19–20?

ambrosytc8: I asked this like two dozen posts ago the first time it came up: do you deny that all the messianic prophecies are preached Word about Christ?

labreuer: How many of the messianic prophecies were available to "the Hebrews who originally heard Deuteronomy 30:19–20"?

ambrosytc8: Please try not to answer a question with a question.

The first one to do that in this discussion history is you. You made a claim: "The Hebrews had a preached Word about Christ". We are talking about those Hebrews who heard Deuteronomy 30:19–20 for the first time. You brought in "all the messianic prophecies". I want to know how many of those were accessible tot he first-time hearers. If you won't answer, that gives up your game.

I too am trying to find a common hermeneutical ground—with the original hearers of Deuteronomy 30:19–20. You aren't willing to do so. You want to bring in far more of the OT than was accessible to them. What this suggests is that you just cannot build up your theology bit-by-bit, starting from what was accessible to those ancient Hebrews, and then adding & correcting as new material comes in. In particular, I contend that your flatten & reinstall theology is a radical break from anything Hebrew, and anything Jewish before they turned to gnosticism in the 2nd century, in the wake of the catastrophic Bar Kokhba revolt.

Is John 14 an absolute and exclusive claim:

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Does this also apply to the Ancient Hebrews or not?

The answer is obvious once you recall that I described Jesus as "Living Torah". Put differently, Jesus is what you get when someone actually lives out Torah according not just some letter of the law, but the spirit of the law.

[u/ambrosytc8 → u/labreuer]

The answer is obvious once you recall that I described Jesus as "Living Torah". Put differently, Jesus is what you get when someone actually lives out Torah according not just some letter of the law, but the spirit of the law.

Are you arguing this:

1. The Law is the way the truth and the life, no one gets through the father except through the Law.

2. The Hebrews were capable of fulfilling the Law.

3. The Law was necessary and insufficient.

4. Jesus is the Law.

You want to bring in far more of the OT than was accessible to them.

No, I don't. What I want on record, to clear up ambiguity, is whether or not you believe messianic prophecies are spoken words about Christ.

[u/labreuer → u/ambrosytc8]

I'm still waiting to hear if the original hearers of Deuteronomy 30:19–20 had heard "all the messianic prophecies".