quote:

---

Does God Know the Future?
Discussing the Openness of God Theory
by Dan Treier
Professor of Theology, Wheaton College

Does God know what I am going to say next? Does God know the future? The central debate: a risky or a non-risky God. John Sanders opens his recent book, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (InterVarsity, 1997), with a true story.

The police car, lights flashing and siren whaling, sped past me as I was driving home. When I reached the corner I could see several police cars and an ambulance up ahead at the scene of an accident. Because I was working for the local newspaper as a photographer at the time I reflectively decided to take some pictures of the accident. When I reached the scene I could see a semi-trailer blocking the road, a motorcycle lying on its side, and a white sheet covering something near the truck. Someone approached me and said, “You don’t want to take any pictures here. Your brother, Dick, is lying under the wheels of that truck.” The next few minutes are a blur in my memory, but I do recall getting home. I went to my room and prayed, “God, why did you kill my brother?” As I look back on that prayer I am fascinated that I asked God such a question. I was a nominal Methodist at the time and I did not believe that God caused everything that happened. Perhaps I had picked up from the broader culture the belief that God was the cause behind all tragedies – acts of God as insurance companies call them. In the years to come many a Christian tried to provide me with good reasons why God would have ordained my brother’s death.

The rest of the book unfolds Sander’s claim of God’s divine providence. He wants to claim that the key element is not what kind of knowledge God has, which is the way we have framed the question here, but the type of sovereignty or rule over creation that God has decided to exercise.

The medieval thinker, Boethius, wrestled with the questions of God’s providence, human freedom, and the problem of evil. Boethius held that God is unconstrained by time, that he is so far outside of time that he sees time all at once. God does not experience events in time-order the way we do. For Boethius, God could know the future because God knows all of time as present to him, and even though he knows the future, humans also have full free will.

Thomas Aquinas held a few hundred years later that there is no risk to the future for God knows the future because he knows himself. God knows what is in God’s own mind. He sees what we will do in the future and thus God knows the future by knowing the contents of his own mind, of his own plan. However, his plan does not direct us; it is just aware of what we do. God simply looks ahead and knows but does not cause.

We define this as simple foreknowledge. John Calvin held the hardcore view that God knows the future by knowing himself and by knowing what he has decreed or determined would come to pass. There is no risk, not simply because God knows what free agents will do, but because human freedom is of a different kind. We have the freedom to have the perception that we have choice, and in some sense our choices are not constrained. Yet, God has decreed ultimately what the future will be and God gets what God wants. We define this as exhaustive foreknowledge.

Why does Sanders reject this overwhelming tendency of the Christian tradition towards some kind of no risk view of providence?

In Christian theology when someone challenges a traditional viewpoint, our continued loyalty is in the tradition until we have overwhelming reasons for giving up that loyalty in favor of the new view. We ought to approach Sanders’ new position with a fair degree of conviction about where the tradition has spoken in this matter, but we also need to demonstrate humility - enough to listen carefully to the challenge.

Why does Sanders claim that God doesn’t know the future? Why does he voluntarily limit God from knowledge of the future?

He claims that God has granted us the libertarian freedom: the freedom to choose “A” or “B” fully unconstrained. God has granted us this freedom and he has therefore constrained himself not to know the future because he wants a truly personal relationship of love to develop within us. He desires a “give and take” relationship. Sanders advocates a “relational theism,” that is, a relational view of God. He believes that God has to limit himself in order to have real interaction with his creation. Can God really be in a “give and take” relationship with you if he already knows the outcomes of your prayers? Sanders says that Christian tradition is committed to a no risk view of God because the tradition wants to view him as “sufficiently dignified,” that is, what God must be like if God is the most perfect being. According to human reason God should know the future to be “sufficiently dignified.” This is not the drastic re-working of the traditional view that most believe.

In the Middle Ages, Aquinas also re-worked the definition of God’s power. Have you ever heard the famous question, “Can God make a stone too heavy for him to lift?” If God can’t make a stone too heavy, it doesn’t seem like God is all powerful. If he can make a stone too heavy, there is something he cannot do. Aquinas said that when we talk about God being all-powerful, we do not mean that God can make a stone too heavy for him to lift. What we mean is that God has the power to do everything that is logically consistent that is in keeping with his nature. Sanders says that he is doing the exact same thing when it comes to God’s knowledge. God knows everything that is logically consistent for him to know given the nature of his project: to be in a loving “give and take” interaction with humanity. In denying that God knows the future, Sanders claims that he has brought healing to certain aspects of the classic view of God that have gone astray. He does not feel he departs from the tradition entirely. For example, he still claims God to have the classic attribute of wisdom. How does Sanders support this risky view? I have listed four ways, a brief sampling, for the sake of time.

1. In the Old Testament, God forewarns Abraham in the book of Genesis that his descendants will suffer for four hundred years in a strange land. That would seem like God knows the future right and is in fact telling Abraham the future about this four hundred years of suffering. Sanders says that God does not here speak with precision about who will cause the trouble and the timing is ambiguous. Later, Abraham is called by God to go sacrifice his son, Isaac, on an altar. There is a very interesting statement when Abraham goes up the mountain. He keeps his intent from Isaac the whole way up the mountain. He places Isaac on the altar in preparation for the sacrifice when God stops his hand and provides a ram as an alternate sacrifice. God says that now he knows Abraham would respond faithfully. Sanders says that this indicates God didn’t know until he actually saw Abraham play out his activity on the mountain. (See Genesis 22.)

2. Joseph is sold into slavery and is taken to Egypt. His brothers are distressed for selling him into slavery as the story closes (and the situation is drastically reversed), and they are afraid for what Joseph will do with them once their father has died. Joseph says to his brothers, “What you have intended for evil, God intended for good.” This is a classic statement for the Christian tradition of God’s knowledge. God has the future within his control so events do not catch him by surprise, and seemingly evil events ultimately do work out for some kind of good. Sanders says that nothing in this text demands this interpretation, that God could not have desired the sinful acts of Joseph’s brothers which he thinks the Christian tradition implies. Remember Sanders’ own story, that nothing would have imply God actually desired his brother’s death. He says that this is simply a retrospect, Joseph’s attempt to reassure his brothers about God’s intention. In the Old Testament, Sanders says in effect that God jumps up and down waving his arms and shouting, “Here I am,” so much does he desire covenant relations with Israel, and yet Israel over and over again doesn’t respond.

3. In the New Testament, Sanders spends long pages. I will mention one particular example in the story of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ. He follows the recent work of a biblical scholar who argues that Judas did not intend to betray Jesus. Instead, what Judas intended to do was arrange a secret meeting between Jesus and the temple establishment in Jerusalem; the meeting would invoke reconciliation to enhance Jesus’ political influence and lead to Israel overcoming the Romans. The reason Sanders chooses this view? It gets him off the hook for God planning in advance Judas’ actions that bring about Christ’s death despite Peter in the book of Acts stating the deliberate foreknowledge and planning of God (see Acts 1:15-20). Sanders believes that even in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus is struggling about whether or not to go to the cross (see Matthew 26:39), that he legitimately was asking the Father to not have to drink this cup. In other words, Jesus was committed to the Father’s will, but wasn’t sure that the Father’s will included the cross. Sanders believes that the cross in fact was not foreordained by God, but was “God’s wise response” to the way Israel chose not to follow his son.

4. As for Christian tradition Sanders notes that for every Augustine committed to an unchangeable and all knowledgeable God, for every Aquinas committed to a God who knows the future and still maintain the freewill of humanity, for every Calvin committed to a God who has predetermined the future, there are Wesleys who emphasize God’s engagement with humans and his love for all humanity. These latter theologians did not carry through their positions to Sanders’ conclusion, yet this doesn’t denote that Sanders instinct has not existed in the Christian tradition.

Continue Reading /Does God Know the Future? Part 2

As for living life, Sanders has two basic points.

1. An open view of God would not have us telling each other that God will work a horrible situation for good. It is jarring and arrogant if we immediately point out what might be good consequences. Sanders thinks we ought to simply acknowledge up front there is pointless evil in the world. God feels bad about it but he has to let there be pointless evil in the world in order to obtain what he wants, that is, a relationship with us.

2. If God knows the future, God can not have authentic relationship with us. When we pray for something God already knows what will happen. How can that be a genuine relationship? An open view has God actually answering pray. For instance, if you do not pray tonight for your parents’ good health, then there is less likelihood they will stay healthy. Sanders believes that that God actually changes his plan on the fly in response to things like prayer. God has certain end-range goals promised in the Bible, but most details are left up for grabs.

Let me just survey a couple of responses.

1. Moderate Calvinism

Under no-risk responses defenses have mainly come in terms of moderate Calvinism, that is, a certain kind of human free will where we sense a power of choice. In addition, compatible freewill defines a defense, that is, a freewill that complies with God’s knowledge and determination of the future. In other words, moderate Calvinism says God did not force each of you to come tonight, but God did know and did decree before the world started that you would come even though the actual cause for coming was your choice.

2. Soft Calvinism

I want to read to you from someone who is open to reworking the tradition on this issue, but he is offended at the particular way that Sanders does it. He offers a re-reading of Luke 1: 26-38 verses, where the angel Gabriel announces to Mary about the birth of Jesus.

In the sixth month God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, “Greetings you who are highly favored. The Lord is with you.” Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid Mary. You have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son and you are to give him the name Jesus.” [But in parenthesis, the angel is thinking, “That is the way I’ll put it to encourage her. Actually, if she does not cooperate, she will not be with child and her high favor will turn into crushing personal failure. Still, if she does cooperate it is most unlikely after this announcement that she will give him any other name except the name Jesus.”] “He will be great and be called the son of the Most High [though there is no guaranteeing what he will do, and I suppose he could veer way off coarse.] “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. His kingdom will never end [at least that is the scenario we have every reason to expect, since God is resourceful at brining these things about. Nor will you tax his resourcefulness too much if you won’t bare the child. Of course, if you refuse, we will have to find someone else who will have some reason to go to Bethlehem for Jesus to be born because that fits best with the prophesy of Micah. Alternatively we could leave Bethlehem out of it and find some other way to make Micah’s words prophetically meaningful. Still it can be done.] “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” The angel answered, “[Strictly, I can tell you only how it would be if you were to consent, but not precisely how it will be since that depends on you.] The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One [that will in such an event be born] will be called the Son of God. As it turns out, Elizabeth, your relative, is going to have a child in her old age and she is said to be barren is in her sixth month. [Now the ideal role is that this child should become the Baptist, the prophetic forerunner to his cousin Jesus. And God is very much hoping that you will not disappoint him and force a change of plans.] Nothing is impossible with God.” “I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her [relieved].

Sanders did write a response, and not surprisingly he was upset. But for all his frustration, he doesn’t actually retreat from the substantial point of the satire. So, if you find this understanding problematic, you may be less willing to revise the tradition as Sanders has revised it. That said, I do think that Sanders’ open or relational view of God has raised important issues. For instance, in Christian theology we have tended to favor some biblical passages over others that have apparent problems, whether it be Moses bargaining with God in Exodus 32 or the test of Job. In light of these examples and others, Sanders’ conversation is a fair one to have.

Let me now highlight five weaknesses of Sanders’ view.

1. He says not to presume what is dignified for God to be like according to reason, but rather reflect on biblical stories. But he has all sorts of presumptions about what it mean for God to really be in a “give and take” loving relationship. And most of these come from postmodern culture.

2. He desires to place statement of God’s knowledge in the historical setting and not apply these as blanket statements.

3. He is not always thoroughly Trinitarian, that is, believing God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons who have one being in relations of mutual indwelling. He even lapses sometimes into calling God a person not one being with three persons mutually indwelling each other. Christians throughout the ages have believed the triune God as essential to understanding the gospel story itself. I wonder if there aren’t more riches to be explored in this doctrine of the Trinity that are not explored by Sanders.

4. He assumes that we have to make a choice between pointless evil and finding an good reason for evil. As to the problem of evil, he has been uncharitable to the Christian tradition.

5. He desires to hang everything on the kind of sovereignty God holds. Does God rule every event? His answer is no, and therefore he put the world at risk. Christians tell a story as the central conviction. We look to what God the Father has done in his Son, Jesus Christ, who suffered the punishment for evil and shows what true human life looks like. And then by the Holy Spirit, we gain hope for the future. We can be sure that one day we will live in harmonious community with God and others on a new heaven and a new earth. As the Holy Spirit gives us this hope, he prompts us to pray as the defining posture of our lives; to pray that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven; to pray so to lead us to transformed lives the way God intended us to live.

Return to Start

---