What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge

by Millard J. Erickson

Does God know the future? Or is the future unknowable even to God? Arguing that God interacts with his creatures spontaneously, the controversial new movement known as 'open theism' has called classic church theology up for reexamination. Confronting this view, classic theists maintain that God has complete foreknowledge and that open-theist arguments are unorthodox. Each view has implications for our vision of the future and of God's dealings with humanity. Millard Erickson investigates the claims and counterclaims of both sides of the debate, looking at questions about prayer, the nature of evil, and the free will of human beings. He considers biblical and hermeneutical issues, the historical development of the doctrine of divine foreknowledge, philosophical influences, the doctrinal structure of the debate, and the practical implications for the church and believers today. What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? Is a thorough and fair examination of both sides of this debate that arrives at some thought-provoking conclusions.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Audiobook

272 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2003

About the author

Millard J. Erickson (PhD, Northwestern University) has served as a pastor and seminary dean and has taught at several schools, including Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Western Seminary (Portland and San Jose), and Baylor University. He has also held numerous visiting professorships, both in the United States and internationally, and is the author of many books. Erickson lives in Mounds View, Minnesota.

Reviews

[Chad Gibbons · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is more of a critique of Open Theism than anything. Not really what I was expecting. It was supposedly written from a neutral standpoint, but from page 2, it was clearly not neutral at all. Erickson is coming from a pretty entrenched Calvinist viewpoint. He said the book was for Arminians as well, but it was evident throughout that Erickson doesn't really see anything but Calvinism as an option for Christians. He looks at a few different arguments from Open Theists to see if they hold any water.

Biblical evidence
Some bible verses seem to support God not knowing things, or that he is surprised by things, but how are we supposed to read these texts? The Open Theist view isn't really consistent here. If you were to apply their hermeneutic consistently, God not only wouldn't know the future, but the present and past as well. Rather, Erickson says these are better understood as anthropomorphisms or anthropopathisms. I think this is certainly correct, but here Erickson is shackled by his Calvinism. The proper response for Wesleyans would be a broader question of biblical authority and genre critique. This would argue for the same thing Erickson does, only better, in my opinion. Erickson can't do that because of his particular theology, hermeneutics, and views on inerrancy.

The bottom line though, Open Theism doesn't really have an argument on scriptural grounds. This is especially true when reading Isaiah (and others), but Isaiah 40-46 tackles this subject head-on with the idea that you can differentiate between the one real God and a false god because the real one can tell the end from the beginning. In other words, the very thing Open Theists say God can't do is the very thing that Isaiah says makes God distinct. Arguments from prophecy are also pretty potent. Hezekiah's life being extended 15 years, Peter's 3 denials, and prophecies that involve people who aren't even born yet are the most difficult hurdles for Open Theists. They have answers to these things, but they are really bad answers. Even if Open Theism were somehow true, it seems clear the biblical authors didn't think so.

Traditional evidence
Open Theism argues that Greek thought crept into the church from the start and that the idea of God's foreknowledge comes more from Hellenistic philosophy than Hebrew thought. Erickson argues cogently and thoughtfully against this. Here, in my opinion, was the most illuminating part of this book. Two things stand out: 1) The Jewish/Hellenistic dichotomy is historically naive, simplistic, and doesn't account for the evidence. 2) The areas where we can identify outside Greek influences on Christian theology aren't pertinent to Open Theism. In fact, Greek philosophy was far more amenable and similar to Open Theism (e.g. Heraclitus, Thales, and many pre-Socratics) than to traditional Judaism and Christianity. If classical theism has Greek influences (which it certainly does) Open Theism has more so.

Historical evidence
Open Theists argue that the historic church never really considered the question of God’s relationship to time. But this is not entirely true. Open Theism has several antecedents in the church, they were just all heterodox, heretics, or worse (e.g. Celsus, Marcion, Socinus). Not a good pedigree for people who point fingers at others' pedigree.

Philosophical evidence
Erickson goes into a lengthy diatribe against anyone who isn't a compatibilist in this section. This part of the book will be a big waste of time for Wesleyans. Erickson just can't fathom anyone not being Calvinist in regards to divine foreknowledge and human free will (a common problem for Calvinists) and touted compatibilism as the only Christian option. Ah well. He gives several arguments here that are a textbook case of missing the point.


At the end of the day, I think I'm personally done with Open Theism. Unless there’s some kind of big discovery or something, I’ve read from proponents and opponents and they're just treading the same ground. Biblically, there’s no real case to be made for it. Historically, there’s no real case to be made for it. Philosophically, there's a small but extremely shaky case to be made. Scientifically, maybe there's an argument to be made that the future isn't real. For me, the most important questions regard the nature of time - something that wasn’t even addressed in this book. If we could prove that the future doesn’t exist, then Open Theists are getting somewhere. But for them to try to squeeze the bible into that thinking is difficult (I would say impossible) and anachronistic.

With no good reason to believe Open Theism from really any angle, I think I'll probably stop wasting my time on the subject. I did my due diligence and it’s time to move on. Somebody make sure to tell God so that he knows about it. Maybe he can try harder next time.

[John Martindale · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was a pleasant surprise. Millard Erickson made a genuine and serious attempt to accurately represent the views he was critiquing. He wrote the book in a calm and reasoned manner, so even when I disagreed with him, I didn't feel my emotions were being provoked. This is the first time I read anything critical of the open view that wasn't simply a long chain of misrepresentations, straw man, and gross caricatures. So yes, Erickson, thank you.

Now for some comments. First, this was a decent sized book, so I can't respond to much, I'll mention a handful of things though.

Concerning the test of Abraham's faith, which seemed to suggest God learned something, Erickson's main line of argument for why we can't take it literally, is the text suggest something that even Open proportionate are unwilling to accept; that God doesn't even know the present state of someones heart. Erickson points out how Greg Boyd saw Jesus telling Peter that he'd deny him three times, to be based upon Jesus' perfect knowledge of the current state of Peters heart. So the inconsistency Erickson sees is Open theist must claim the God who knew Peter's heart perfectly didn't know Abraham's heart perfectly, which a literal reading of the Abraham testing narrative would suggest.
Here is how I want to respond. In the Abraham narrative, we have a progression, first God says He will fulfill the covenant without condition, then in the middle God says He will do it IF Abraham does x,y, and z. After this God makes it explicitly clear that Sarah will be the one who has a son. Directly after this Abraham ask for the blessing to go to Ishmael instead, something God refuses. Then we see Abraham glibly handing off Sarah to be another mans wife, and God has to intervene, after this Isaac is born, we have God telling Abraham to submit to Sarah's spiteful hatred against Hagar and Ishmael. It seems responsible to conclude that God saw Abraham was STILL inclined to give the blessing to Ishmael, so he made the best out of an evil situation; seeing to it that Ishmael wouldn't partake of the inheritance due to his absence. So now, after these things, we read it was “After these things” that God decided to test him. The AFTER THESE THINGS I think is key, this current part of the narrative has a big IF connected to it, God will only fulfill the covenant IF Abe does x,y, and z. But what do we see from Abraham? Lots of questionable behavior and signs of lack of faith, and lack of being in line with God's intentions.
So I think God did know Abraham's heart perfectly, and what did he see, in that moment Abraham was double-minded, he was straddling between fear of God and fear of man and self interest, he was a mixed beg. God saw it was necessary to test him, to force a decision. God saw Abraham was waving, and it was precisely because He knew Abraham perfectly, knowing Abraham truly could have gone in two different ways, that a test was necessary. After Abraham passes the test, God not only says “now I know” but says “BECAUSE you have done this, I will fulfill my promise”. Completely the progression from “I will”, to “I will IF you do” to “I will because You did”.
So yes, one doesn't have to deny that God knew Abraham's heart, one can affirm it was precisely because God knew Abraham's heart—that Abraham was on the fence, and could have come off on the side of faith or the side of disbelief, that God needed to test him.

On Foreknowledge, Erickson makes mention of the word foreknow/foreknowledge in the New Testament, but did not mention that scripture provides no reason whatsoever to interpret foreknowledge as meaning knowledge of the future. Among the handful of times the word is used is when Paul is standing on trail in the book of Acts, and states how “the Pharisees foreknew him from the beginning.” Another example is when Peter is telling a church that since they foreknow these things (they were already aware of the dangers of the false teachers), to be on their guard. Foreknow simply means to know beforehand—to have previous knowledge of. IT ONLY MEANS to know the the future beforehand, if the word foreknow is combined with something indicating the future, and I don't think this is ever the case. Paul is saying the Pharisees had experiential knowledge of him before that moment when he was on trial, and Peter was saying the church already had knowledge of a threat. Of course, since people today understand foreknowledge to mean “knowledge of the future” translators don't put “foreknow” in these two examples above, but only “know”, less the public get a sense of the actual sense and usage of the word. But when the word is used in relation to God, the translators always put foreknowledge. For example “Those whom He has foreknown, he has predestined...” the deal is, if we let the bible dictate our understanding of foreknowledge, this passages simply means “Those who God already has experiential knowledge of (In other words, those whom He is already is in relationship with), He has predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.”
When I did the word study, nowhere do I recall a context that suggested foreknowledge means knowledge of the future, the word foreknow, despite current usage, seems only to mean previously held knowledge, something everyone has.

Erickson cites someone whose work claimed that over a 1000 something verses suggested the traditional understanding of foreknowledge of the future, while there is only a 100 something passages that support the open view. I don't think it was helpful to present this, for there are only a handful of passages (As Erickson acknowledges) that seem to suggest God knows the future as exhaustively settled, the main one is in the book of Isaiah comparing the true God who declares the future, with false gods who do not. Which can be interpreted from other passages which always states he brings about what he declares. So what are these 1000 or so other verses? I can only assume they're passages that mention things like prophesy, which from an open perspective actually supports the open view--because the conditional nature (even when not stated), God regularly stating that he'd bring things to pass, and the relational nature of prophesy (often not presented as what must happen, but presented in hopes to elicit a change of heart so a judgment doesn't happen). For me it is not just a 100 or so verses which support the open view, not just a handful of proof text, but pretty much the whole of scripture seems to assume the future isn't fixed, that possibilities are real, that people are free, that decision a real, that we are responsible and could do otherwise, that God is relational and one of the perfections of God is that He'll lovingly and wisely adjust when situations change. So yes, a handful of text do more explicitly support my view, but there are so, so many others that seem to assume my position. There are 1000s of passages that I could marshal to support the open view. The problem of course is I already hold the open view, so from my perspective so much fits and is in harmony with my perspective, while only a few isolated text seem in serious conflict. The one who compiled the list Erickson refers to undoubtedly held to the traditional view, so of course, from his perspective so much will seem to suggest an exhaustively settled view of the future, then an open view.

The last thing I'll mention is Erickson's section on the influence of Greek Philosophy needs addressing. The mere declaration that the Greek understanding of perfection, immutability, timelessness and impassibility, which are so alien in the Hebrew scriptures, didn't heavenly influence the church fathers, didn't cut it for me. The examples of Greek influence are legion, and I do think some open theist have been fair in pointing out that of course early theologians didn't embrace Plato completely, but they took parts and rejected a lot. Also philosophy isn't bad, but as evangelicals the intention is scripture to be the greatest authority on what God is like, so Greek philosophy isn't bad from an open philosophical point of view, except where it subverts and overrides the clear scriptural revelation of God. The Greek concept of perfection, immutability, timelessness and impassibility are not clearly expressed in scripture, they just are not, and yet these words and concepts were commonly assumed and expressed by the church fathers. Of course, this is simply an assertion of mine to the country Erickson's assertion, in a review I don't have time or space to give the evidence.
I did appreciate Erickson pointing out that possibly even modern Calvinist, though still embracing timelessness or the eternal now ( which I think are thoroughly Greek philosophical concepts), don't accept the Greek understanding of immutability and impassibility. Honestly, I am glad to here that. It shows some progression has been made.

[Mandimby Ranaivoarisoa · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good restatement of classical theology, and an incisive and peaceful critique of open theism.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A STRONG THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF ‘OPEN THEISM’

Millard Erickson (b. 1932) is a theologian (and ordained Baptist minister) who taught theology at Western Seminary, Bethel University seminary, and Baylor University.

He wrote in the Preface to this 2003 book, “Although I had previously [studied] the movement at some length, I resolved that, with as open a mind as possible, I would again search through the teachings of the open theists, who have claimed that they are indeed calling for a reformation of the church’s theology. This book represents a fresh attempt on my part to explore and answer… My aim in this investigation is to be as fair and impartial as possible. It is important to distinguish between impartiality and neutrality, however. Judges, referees, and umpires are expected to be impartial; they are not expected to be neutral or to refuse to render a judgment… I will, however, come to some definite conclusions regarding the relative strengths of two competing views.”

He adds in the Introduction, “there have been several different views of how God knows the future, but there has been basic agreement among advocates of simple foreknowledge, middle knowledge, and Calvinism that God does know the future. Similarly, the issue is not one of Calvinism versus Arminianism because both agree, as contrasted with open theism, that God does know the future exhaustively… Here the question is: How much does God know about human actions, and when does he know it?... does he know in advance of their occurrence? Does God know the future, and how much of it does he know?... Are we really free, or are we simply doing what we are programmed to do? And… does God knowingly allow or even cause things that he knows will lead to evil and suffering in the future, or is he unaware of such consequences?... the questions come down to this: Can we trust God?” (Pg. 15-16)

He summarizes, “We have looked at a number of passages that the open theists use in support of their contention that God does not know the future. Some of these do not appear to carry the weight that the open theists attach to them. Others, however, on a straightforward or plain sense reading, appear to support the open view more fully than they do the traditional view. Advocates of the traditional view are able to give some explanations or interpretations of these, often by suggesting that they are anthropomorphic or phenomenological. They describe things in terms of the hearer or reader, and how things appear to such… The bigger issue … is a hermeneutical one: In what sense… should these passages be regarded?” (Pg. 38)

He notes, that Jesus’ prediction “of Peter’s denial is especially detailed… It is difficult to imagine a more detailed prediction of the future action of a human being and fulfillment of the prediction. If ever there was a case of Jesus knowing the future … this must be it… As seemingly conclusive as this incident is, [Gregory] Boyd is not about to concede that it established divine foreknowledge… Rather, he believes that this is a case of God so knowing the present situation that he could predict what would happen… [But this] situation is much more detailed than that. It involves not one but three denials… not only did Jesus predict what Peter would do in this situation, but he also predicted what he would do subsequently.” (Pg. 51-53)

He summarizes, “The preponderance of theology during the history of the church has held to the traditional view of divine foreknowledge… This … gives us the answer to the question of whether open theism may be a new reformation similar to that of the sixteenth century. In that case, there was a return to biblical motifs that the church has held from the beginning but had neglected as its history unfolded… The open theist appeal is not a call to return to an earlier, purer version of biblical understanding. It is a call to something new in the mainstream of orthodox Christian thought.” (Pg. 131)

He clarifies, “Barth and Brunner … went out of their way to avoid the dangers of corrupting their theology with philosophy… This is not to suggest that the orthodox or classical formulations of the doctrine of God are free from philosophical influence or that they operate without a philosophical basis. All theologies work with some sort of philosophical categories, whether recognized and acknowledged or not… I would contend that most contemporary evangelical theology uses what I would term ‘orthodox realism’… the common-sense philosophy of Thomas Reid has [lately] been undergoing something of a revival of interest.” (Pg. 146-147)

He argues, “[Clark] Pinnock suggests, in a strange and indirect way, that Hitler’s freedom, which he abused, may have been necessary in order to realize great goods. God may have been limited by certain metaphysical constraints… this far-from satisfactory solution to the problem of the inexplicability of evil seems to make the open theist position even less satisfactory than the traditional orthodox position with its promise and explanation of how God can and will ultimately eliminate evil. All theological positions have their difficulty with this thorny problem, but open theism may have more than its share. The dilemma for open theism … appears to be that either God must honor his irrevocable gift of freedom, in which case there is no assurance that evil will not be ultimately triumphant, or he must revoke it by intervening or acting unilaterally. This, however, would be coercion, and thus it would conflict with a basic principle of open theism.” (Pg. 194)

He acknowledges, “The great virtue and strength of the open theist interpretation is the ability to extend the natural meaning principle to some portions of scripture that have often been read otherwise. This enables the ordinary Christian, without a seminary education, to read and benefit from the Bible, simply taking it at its word.” (Pg. 244-245)

He points out, “There also is a problem for open theists in terms of how God can assure that his purposes are achieved. Each of them states that, if necessary, God can act unilaterally. This, however, appears to be a case of external coercion, something that even compatibilists reject. It is not a question of whether God coerces, but rather of how often he does so.” (Pg. 252)

Erickson’s book will be of great interest to those studying the ‘open theism’ position.

[Paul Hess · Rating 3 out of 5]

Erickson does a decent job dismantling the open theist view of foreknowledge, but he doesn’t seriously develop the classical view of foreknowledge. Instead he almost takes that view of granted. As someone who agrees with Erickson in affirming the classical view, this was a disappointing omission, and it meant that Erickson did not address the claims of open theists as comprehensively as he could have. He only mentioned issues like immutability, aseity, etc. in passing or downplayed the importance of these issues in affirming God’s foreknowledge, yet these are essential in providing a strong defense of divine foreknowledge. It’s possible that such discussions could have been extraneous to Erickson’s purpose for this book, but that wasn’t clear. If his purpose was to refute open theism and affirm divine foreknowledge, he ignored *major* arguments in favor of his position.

[Rob Martinez · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book! As I shared in other places, start with chapter 10 and then read the rest of the book. I know that this is backwards. However, you will sense right away, that the author is adequately, and fairly presenting both sides of the debate. Both traditional and open theism are fairly presented, with strengths and weaknesses scattered along the way. This is a must read book!

Chapter 10 provides an excellent conclusion to the whole matter. I will likely reference this book quite often as needed. Millard Erickson does an excellent job, and is definitely qualified to address the issue! Enjoy! Also, this available in audiobook.

[David Flores · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting academic and philosophical arguments of free-will and God's omniscience.