Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views

“Recent discussion of divine foreknowledge has been fueled by the “open theism” debate. Open theism denies God’s exhaustive foreknowledge of the future and denies that God foreordains “whatsoever comes to pass,” that is, God does not eternally and immutably foreordain all events. Moreover, open theists maintain that human beings possess “libertarian” freedom, so that human choice occurs independent of both the divine decree and human nature. In terms of the logic of open theism, God’s foreknowledge is inconsistent with “libertarian” freedom. Why? God cannot in the nature of the case foreknow the future actions of free creatures since agents who possess “libertarian” freedom act without a specifiable cause for their behavior. As such, free acts can be known only after they have been performed. The four views represented here are: the open theist view (Socinianism) advocated by Gregory Boyd; the simple foreknowledge view (classical Arminianism) represented by David Hunt; the middle knowledge view (Molinism) defended by William Lane Craig, and the Augustinian-Calvinst view articulated by Paul Helm. Perhaps the best way to sum up the differences between these views is to point out that the Socinian, Arminian, and Molinist positions all deny divine foreordination and affirm “libertarian” freedom, whereas the Augustinian-Calvinist view affirms divine foreordination and a view of human freedom that is compatible (hence the term “compatibilism”) with divine sovereignty, foreknowledge, and foreordination. The articles in this volume represent the various positions fairly and are worth reading.”