I've long had an issue with the notion of "foreknowledge." The very structure of the word is rooted in a chronological conception of epistemology. And when we apply it to divine knowledge, I think several serious issues arise.
For example, I think a fundamental pillar of the understanding of "knowledge" is that knowledge pertains to that which exists. That is, knowledge does not extend to "nothingness", for nothingness is categorically a misnomer, a negative way (really) of speaking about existence. And even if certain conceptions of knowledge don't have specific ontology (e.g., a unicorn), the constituent parts of the ideas certainly do–so the standard of ontology is essential to the nature of an object of knowledge.
But this creates problems when we extend such a defintion to divine knowledge, specifically if the notion of "fore-" attends the qualification. So the question for discussion comes in two parts:
1.) If knowledge necessarily extends to that which exists, how can God have "prior" knowledge of that which is not eternally existent, but created? In other words, how can God have knowledge of creation before God creates? [Note: By "before", I'm speaking in terms of logical, not necessarily chronological procession]
2.) If we insist that God has eternal knowledge of that which God creates; and knowledge of anything presupposes its existence; how can God's eternal knowledge of that which is not eternally existent not lead us ultimately to positing the whole of creation eternally within the being of God–a subtle, yet nonetheless very real pantheism?
I am a third rate philosopher at best. But I am a Christian, so I'll give my two cents.
Here are a few pearls strung together:
…this man [Jesus], delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death.
Acts 2:23
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.
1 Peter 1:1-2
God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.
Romans 11:2
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren…
Romans 8:29
In light of all the above, it seems it is not our prerogative to "have an issue" with attributing foreknowledge to God. God claims it, therefore we must affirm it.
Furthermore, we must do the work of discovering what the Scriptures mean in each of the above verses. It would do no good to affirm "foreknowledge" if our definition is out of sync with the Bible's. Words are shells.
So now I'll attempt to respond to your questions.
1) How can God have knowledge of creation before God creates? Isn't this called "planning"? To have knowledge of something (in God's case, perfect knowledge) before it becomes actualized?
2) I think your understanding of pantheism isn't quite right. Pantheism doesn't teach that creation exists within the being of God, but rather that God exists within creation. So for instance you slam a door and God says "ouch". With this understanding, it becomes acceptable to say that creation exists within God. After all, the apostle Paul said as much:
…He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist [have our being]…
In light of all the above, it seems it is not our prerogative to "have an issue" with attributing foreknowledge to God. God claims it, therefore we must affirm it.
Furthermore, we must do the work of discovering what the Scriptures mean in each of the above verses. It would do no good to affirm "foreknowledge" if our definition is out of sync with the Bible's. Words are shells.
I'm not sure why we must "affirm" it. After all, as you point out, words are shells that we load up with meaning. So if the word "foreknowledge" exists in our translations, this IMO means very little in the way of affirming a particular doctrine about some species of divine knowledge. As you rightly mentioned, the more important activity is to come to a right and consistent understanding of what we mean when we use words, and let such an understanding qualify the assumptions and presuppositions that we each inevitably force upon the texts.
Isn't this called "planning"? To have knowledge of something (in God's case, perfect knowledge) before it becomes actualized?
But that is entirely my point. If something is not actual (e.g., it doesn't exist), it cannot be an object of knowledge, for to speak of knowing "no-thing" is absurd. In this way, then, I think it is a logical problem to speak of God having knowledge of that which God creates "before" (again, in terms of logic, not necessarily chronology) God creates it.
That is, if the principle of ontologically-qualified knowledge is sound, to speak of God "knowing" creation before God creates it would seem to indicate that creation, in fact, exists eternally in tandem with God whereby it might be an object of eternal, divine knowledge. And if this knowledge is not eternal, from where did it come?
I would argue that God's knowledge of creation itself arises from the creative acts of God, that knowledge of that which God creates does not logically precede its existence, but rather emerges with its existence.
2) I think your understanding of pantheism isn't quite right. Pantheism doesn't teach that creation exists within the being of God, but rather that God exists within creation. So for instance you slam a door and God says "ouch".
Hmm, that's not really pantheism. Pantheism, in a nutshell, is the belief that God and creation are indistinguishable. Thus, when I say that foreknowledge necessarily leads to the conclusion that the creation must be consummate in eternality with God in order that it might be an object of eternal divine knowledge, I am simply saying that such a view demolishes the necessary ontological distinction which much exist in order to affirm an orthodox understanding of the relationship of God and creation. In other words, if creation is eternal by virtue of its necessary existence in the eternal foreknowledge of God, we must conclude that it is eternally essential with the very nature of God whereby it might exist in a similar, eternal, and self-existent manner as God. In this way, then, the dividing line between God (unoriginate) and creation (originate) is destroyed, and creation assumes all the essential characteristics of that which exists as God. This is pantheism.
With this understanding, it becomes acceptable to say that creation exists within God.
I don't have any particular issue with this idea. But it is not what the traditional notion of "foreknowledge" leads to…
I'll come back and touch on the other things you said, but for now I restrict myself to one topic.
I'm not sure why we must "affirm" it. After all, as you point out, words are shells that we load up with meaning. So if the word "foreknowledge" exists in our translations, this IMO means very little in the way of affirming a particular doctrine about some species of divine knowledge. As you rightly mentioned, the more important activity is to come to a right and consistent understanding of what we mean when we use words, and let such an understanding qualify the assumptions and presuppositions that we each inevitably force upon the texts.
This is slightly droll. Mere lines before you admit that we all impose presuppositions on the text (where I agree with you), you tell me what the word "foreknowledge" very likely does not mean, without undertaking any exegesis at all. Yes, we've all got presuppositions. But some of them are bad (I hope you would agree with me here?). And good or bad, you can't deny that yours are showing, here and now, like a run in a lady's panty hose or toilet paper stuck to the sole of your shoe. This clearly isn't, for you write with the sophistication of a semi-well-read philosopher, but it should be embarrassing for you.
In a discussion about what the apostles mean when they use the word "foreknowledge" why is it more important that we have a "right and consistent understanding of what we mean when we use words?" We're not analyzing our words. We're analyzing theirs.
When Luke, Peter, and Paul use the word foreknowledge, they are affirming something about God, aren't they? Yes, they are. Consequently, when I say we must affirm "foreknowledge," I mean that we are obliged to discover what meaning they "load up" into that shell and then continue to use such language. Is this an impossible task? Not completely. In fact, we can be more successful than not. Here you are probably howling, because if you don't, then you'd have to affirm foreknowledge. Which you clearly don't want to do – your presuppositions being what they are.
In summary: yes, we've all got presuppositions. But you draw the wrong conclusions from this fact if you seek to demolish all language – which you clearly do, if after seeing the letters "f-o-r-e-k-n-o-w-l-e-d-g-e" in the Bible, you are still reluctant to affirm the word that those letters spell. Poof.
Okay, next up is pantheism. It's almost my bedtime, so this will be short – the first of two parts. And for brevity's sake, this post is devoted solely to clarification. When I wrote this:
I think your understanding of pantheism isn't quite right. Pantheism doesn't teach that creation exists within the being of God, but rather that God exists within creation. So for instance you slam a door and God says "ouch".
You replied with the following:
Hmm, that's not really pantheism. Pantheism, in a nutshell, is the belief that God and creation are indistinguishable.
Well yes, I know. Which is implied by my example of slamming a door and hearing God say "ouch." I was trying to expand the definition of pantheism outside the bounds of your particular nutshell by putting it in my own. Restricting definitions to mere nutshells, in addition to keeping discussions concise and on point (a real benefit), is also useful for concealment. After all, it's dark in there. So at the risk of losing time on a slight detour, let's crack open this nut and air it out. Let's let some light in.
When we say God and creation are indistinguishable, the question becomes necessary and unavoidable - in what way does Pantheism say they are indistinguishable? According to Pantheism, does God exist in creation or it in Him? In putting forward my own definition of the term, my intention was to point out that in pantheism, God is indistinguishable from Creation precisely because He is located "in" creation; He animates it. This is exactly the reverse of the doctrine of foreknowledge, which puts creation eternally "in" the mind of God. He does not animate it, but superintends it. This is why I thought it significant that Paul said, "in Him we live and move and exist" rather than "in us He lives and moves and exists." I will write a little more later, but of course I believe there is a difference, metaphysically, between the doctrine of foreknowledge and pantheism.
In the meantime, you might ask yourself whether you "have an issue" with the doctrine of foreknowledge because you see it as pantheistic, or if you only see it as pantheistic because you "have an issue" with the doctrine. Remember, presuppositions are crucial in how we frame things.
So, in summary (again), I don't think we were disagreeing too much. You were simply using a peanut shell, while I was using a walnut shell. As we proceed, it will become important that we are using the same nutshell.
This is slightly droll. Mere lines before you admit that we all impose presuppositions on the text (where I agree with you), you tell me what the word "foreknowledge" very likely does not mean, without undertaking any exegesis at all. Yes, we've all got presuppositions. But some of them are bad (I hope you would agree with me here?). And good or bad, you can't deny that yours are showing, here and now, like a run in a lady's panty hose or toilet paper stuck to the sole of your shoe. This clearly isn't, for you write with the sophistication of a semi-well-read philosopher, but it should be embarrassing for you.
It's not embarassing to me at all. I am very upfront about the presuppositions that I bring to interpretation, theology and philosophy. Regarding the "badness" of some presuppositions, I agree with the sentiment. Obviously, we despite the agreement on the sentiment, we are left with few (if any) tools beyond these same presuppositions (or others) by which to adjudicate the legitimacy of particular presuppositions that would leave us with a conclusion we could feel amounts to something resembling propositional truth [whatever that might be].
In a discussion about what the apostles mean when they use the word "foreknowledge" why is it more important that we have a "right and consistent understanding of what we mean when we use words?" We're not analyzing our words. We're analyzing theirs.
Sure, we're analyzing words that we didn't write, but the act of interpretation is so penetrated by the philosophical baggage that we bring to the texts that the very act of interpretation is both the analysis of another's words and an exposition of our own presupposed understanding of those words in the form and contexts in which we find them. So when a biblical writer uses a word, we have an immense number of presuppositional hurdles to get past in order to come to an understanding of what they may have meant by the utilization of that word.
The immediate hurdle is the presuppositions of the translators who made certain judgments regarding the appropriate correlation of the instance of a particular word and the contemporary understanding of its translated counterpart in the cultural and philosophical milieu in which the translation was made. How can we be certain that they attribution of a Greek word or phrase to a particular English phrase accurately embodies the meaning that the ancient writer purposed? Without a nod of faith to the nobility of the translator's intentions and their competence in transcending their own presuppositions, we are left in a situation in which interpretation can never be absolute or certain, but only approximate and certainly not capable of the kind of assumption of theological precision which the idea of "foreknowledge" entails.
When Luke, Peter, and Paul use the word foreknowledge, they are affirming something about God, aren't they? Yes, they are. Consequently, when I say we must affirm "foreknowledge," I mean that we are obliged to discover what meaning they "load up" into that shell and then continue to use such language. Is this an impossible task? Not completely. In fact, we can be more successful than not. Here you are probably howling, because if you don't, then you'd have to affirm foreknowledge. Which you clearly don't want to do – your presuppositions being what they are.
This has nothing to do with affirming the appearance of a particular translated word in Scripture. Does the word "foreknowledge" exist in English translations of the Scriptures? Sure. But what does that mean? Does the mere appearance of a word affirm a particular doctrine that has been attached to that word? Does it mean that common meanings attached to this English word de facto indicate a 1-to-1 correlation to whatever Greek words and phrases from which the translation was rendered? Hardly, and even if it is, I think the loading up of a single word or phrase with such theological and philosophical precision is doomed to failure, especially given the relatively sparse devotion of exposition to this word in the Scriptures.
In summary: yes, we've all got presuppositions. But you draw the wrong conclusions from this fact if you seek to demolish all language – which you clearly do, if after seeing the letters "f-o-r-e-k-n-o-w-l-e-d-g-e" in the Bible, you are still reluctant to affirm the word that those letters spell. Poof.
The word "foreknowledge" is just a linguistic symbol. Its meaning is not self-evident or self-existent, but is rather derived from the meanings and intentions which individuals, cultures, etc. load into the linguistic symbol. So again, the mere appearance of the word "foreknowledge" has little meaning for the exposition of the understanding of the nature of divine epistemology. True enough, it certainly reflects culturally-specific philosophical understandings of the same, but does little in the way of establishing what the ancient writers actually meant by their usage of whatever words and phrases have been translated as "foreknowledge."
This is exactly the reverse of the
doctrine of foreknowledge, which puts creation eternally "in" the mind
of God. He does not animate it, but superintends it. This is why
I thought it significant that Paul said, "in Him we live and move and exist" rather than "in us He lives and
moves and exists." I will write a little more later, but of course I
believe there is a difference, metaphysically, between the doctrine of
foreknowledge and pantheism.
I understand your distinction, but I'm not sure how it
avoids pantheism. From the perspective of divine knowledge, that which
God knows necessarily has existence–I'm not sure how something can be
"in" the mind of God unless it correlates to something that "is"–after
all, in what way could we possibly say that God has knowledge of that
which lacks ontology? Such a notion is absurd ("God knows no-thing"),
but is required by the notion of foreknowledge. The necessary
conclusion, then, is that if something exists eternally in the mind of
God, the "something" must have ontology that is commensurate in
eternality with God whereby it might be understood to eternally belong
to the domain of divine knowledge.
In
the meantime, you might ask yourself whether you "have an issue" with
the doctrine of foreknowledge because you see it as pantheistic, or if
you only see it as pantheistic because you "have an issue" with the
doctrine. Remember, presuppositions are crucial in how we frame things.
Yes,
the presuppositions inevitable. From my perspective,
the "issue" proceeds from the necessary philosophical conclusions that I
see in the notion of divine foreknowledge.
Login 
Register 
Home
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
Search 
Recent Comments