Myth #8: Arminians do not believe in predestination. Not so, says Roger Olson in Arminian Theology. Predestination, because it is in the Bible, is believed by Arminians. Here's his point: predestination is God's sovereign decree to elect believers in Jesus Christ, and it includes God's foreknowledge of those believers' faith.
The basic Bible verse for Arminians is Romans 8:29 (with 8:28):
28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Now, what this text says is that God predestines according to foreknowledge; and 1 Peter 1:1-2 says the same. Most Calvinists know that Arminians do believe in predestination, but it hasn't stopped the general popular comment that Calvinists do and Arminians don't when it comes to predestination.
Essentially, Arminians believe God knows what humans will do and predestination is rooted in, or related to, that foreknowledge. Election, for the Arminian, is corporate: God chooses Christ; all in Christ are chosen. There is an individual meaning (foreknowledge of individual choices) and collective meaning (election of a people). The individual then is conditional; the collective is unconditional.
Arminians have remonstrated with Calvinists for centuries on this singular point: if God chooses some to be reprobate (double predestination/elective sense), then God's gracious love and justice are threatened. Olson again goes through the same list to show the [in]consistency of Arminian thinking in a similar way] -- while both think they are consistent.] {bracketed material added later due to the mistake of saying "consistency"; thanks Kipp]
Two issues arise: middle knowledge and open theism.
Middle knowledge asks this: If God knows all, how can individuals be free (liberatarian free will)? If they are, then God knows all possibilities resulting from all permutations of decisions throughout all of history! Molinism resolves, according to some (e.g, Wm Lane Craig), the problem. Olson relies on Witt here and contends with him that Molinism is ultimately another form of determinism. (Terry Tiessen: Do you agree?) That is, counterfactuals of freedom are illogical.
Open theism:God does not, according to open theism, know the future exhaustively or infallibly. God's knowledge is limited because God has chosen it to be so. Not all Arminians believe this; in fact, most don't.
Thus, Olson concludes, Arminians are in a paradox: God's exhaustive foreknowledge and belief in libertarian free will. As Calvinists believe in unconditional foreordination of sin and human responsibility for sin, so Arminians have the paradox of libertarian free will and God's foreknowledge.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Has anyone encountered Gödel's incompleteness theorems with respect to this discussion? They are important because they speak to the limitations of what is knowable, which in turn raises questions about what it means to say that God is omniscient.
I've really appreciated this discussion on open theism and the fact that it's been so cordial without any charges of heresy. I've found that often those who are the biggest critics of open theism haven’t actually read any of its proponents, but instead just book reviews or books critiquing open theism.
I thought I'd chime in a few thoughts about open theism, as has been articulated by Boyd, that I believe are important to understanding open theism better.
1. The future is not fully open only partially, in that God will bring about what he purposes and that's not open but is determined to happen (this is in response to those who question how could God guarantees the 2nd coming, or Jesus’ crucifixion).
2. Boyd's open theism is closely tied to his warfare theodicy, which states that God is at war with Satan and his Kingdom. Satan and his angels have free will (just like us) according to the power and responsibility God has granted them (to do good, but they chose to do the opposite) that God won't automatically over-ride whenever they don't use it correctly (or else it wouldn't truly be free Boyd says). So, much of the evil and disaster that happens on this earth (including natural disasters) is directly tied to what happens in the spiritual realm. I’d love to go into this more but I don’t want this to get too long
3. As God predicts what we will do, open theism does believe that God is sometimes genuinely surprised by what his creation does. It takes seriously some of the OT prophecies where God exclaims surprise at what Israel decided to do instead of what he thought they would do in response to his actions (like his long suffering).
4. Open theists take scripture very seriously and it's not as simple their critics who say that they fail to understand literary devices in the Bible or they interpret anthropomorphisms too literally.
I suggest anyone who has questions about Open Theism read one of Boyd's books (God at War, Satan and the Problem of Evil, God of the Possible, Is God to Blame) and approach it with an open mind, ready to listen to what he has to say instead of just looking for something to disagree with.
Thanks Scot for this discussion
Blessings,
Bryan
Dana,
I saw this on Shults' blog after being directed to it by last Saturday's weekly meanderings. Usually when science terminology is used in theology or philosophy or ... it is used wrong (i.e. the meanings are changed substantially so that the connection with the physical concept is lost). I don't think that is the case here - I will have to take a look because it sounds interesting. And the title "Christology and Contemporary Science" is intrinsically appealing.
Beginning with certain calvinisitic determinist assumptions, I attended Asbury Theological Seminary. I lived in community with thoughtful Arminian theologians. So, I spent considerable time wrestling with paradoxes like the one Scot has alluded to in this post. A friend pointed me to an insightful writer - one of the most helpful "dialogue partners" for me - Wolfhart Pannenberg. I think his discussion of God's "eternality" is valuable in this discussion. A concept: that God is "temporally omni-present." That because the eschaton in in the present to God, then God "knows" what you will eat for breakfast tomorrow. But he does not "fore" know this - only, as it were, retrospectively, in the same way that I "know" the temperature yesterday. God's knowledge is not "causative" - it is not limited, and human beings act "freely," in a sense.
Pannenberg does not go along with Augustinian timelessness, although he does lay out an interesting explication of God's experience of "time" - God's "dimension," if you will. And here, as a side note, but germain to some other comments, I think a trinitarian concept of God is vital to making sense of the paradox of God being "outside of time," yet clearly acting in history. The Spirit has been, from the beginning, present in the created order. The Son entered history at a specific time and place. And perhaps we could say the Father exists in a different dimension, or experience of time.
Thank you for the fine dialogue.
Thanks Bryan (#34),
That is a nice concise summary of open theism that does its position justice without getting too dogmatic. I think right in the spirit of a community in discussion.
I am continuing to learn from these discusions and appreciate the different views and the very diverse inputs.
Sincerely
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.