On Providence (part 2)--Foreknowledge or Foreordaination
It seems as though many are confused when they speak of God's foreknowledge; too often it is equated with His action of foreordination. I find this confusion even amongst many of my Reformed friends. It would seem that foreknowledge and foreordination are not the same thing. Indeed the two are not synonymous. The former is simply God's knowledge of all things future and the later is his determiniation of all things (including future events). One is passive and the other is active. Consider Peters words in his sermon at Pentecost,
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men (Acts 2.22, 23. Emphasis added).
Peter here clearly makes a distinction between God's foreknowledge and his foreordination. Paul makes the same distinction in that often cited passage in Romans:
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (8.28-30. Emphasis added).
The actions of foreknowing and predestining are two distict acts performed by God. It follows then that God's simply knowing things is not the same as His predestining them. Obviously, there is a relationship between the two but what is the exact relationship between God's knowledge and his ordiation? This is an important question and one that hopefully we can explore in more depth as it will probably be the focus of my thesis.
Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men (Acts 2.22, 23. Emphasis added).
Peter here clearly makes a distinction between God's foreknowledge and his foreordination. Paul makes the same distinction in that often cited passage in Romans:
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (8.28-30. Emphasis added).
The actions of foreknowing and predestining are two distict acts performed by God. It follows then that God's simply knowing things is not the same as His predestining them. Obviously, there is a relationship between the two but what is the exact relationship between God's knowledge and his ordiation? This is an important question and one that hopefully we can explore in more depth as it will probably be the focus of my thesis.
posted by Josh at 11:53 AM
7 Comments:
So here is a question, does foreknowledge imply foreordination or some form of determinism. Apparently a number of the ancients thought so. They seemed to say that if you could know the future, that would mean that the future is determined and that no events are contingent. In other words, if you can know certainly what will happen in the future then those things that happen are necessary and thus their can be no free choices. What do you think of this?
Maybe God is "open"?
Anonymous,
He isn't.
Justin,
I'm don't think foreknowledge entails either foreordination or determinism. That's what I was trying get at. I think many assume that it does, but I want to distinguish between simple prescience and fore-determination. Further, I don't think a settle future (or lack of contengency, for that matter) entails lack of freedom. Well...I think it entails the falsehood of libertarian or Arminian or indeterminishtic freedom conception (but not for compatibilist, or Calvinist conceptions), especially those which rest on the principle of alternate possibilities. If God's knowledge of future actions is settled then ii follows that those actions are settled. But if actions are settled then the person cannot do otherwise than what is settled. Therefore, a person is not free (if freedom is conceived of as the ability to do otherwise). It seems then that one must give up foreknowledge or libertarian freedom. Take your pick. Lastly, I don't think certainty entails necessity, altough neither poses a threat to compatibilistic or Calvinist conceptions of freedom but they certainly pose a threat to the kind of freedom mentioned above.
So does foreordination or determinism not work well with compatibilism or Calvinism? Or are you just saying they don't have to follow?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Justin,
It seems to me that compatibilism follows from foreordination; there is no other form of freedom that is consistent with it. Foreordination and compatibilism are perfectly consistent, thus Calvinism is consistent.
Post a Comment
<< Home