← Defenders Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript11 lines
- [00:01]
A
Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig today the Doctrine of God, Part 15. For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonablefaith.org We've been talking about divine omniscience, God's being all knowing. And in the last class we raised a problem that is occasioned by God's knowledge of the future. If God foreknows everything that happens, including our choices, then are we really free to do otherwise than as God foreknows we shall do? In other words, does God's foreknowledge imply a kind of theological fatalism about the future, that everything that happens happens necessarily? And I argue that that conclusion does not follow so long as we keep clear the distinction between the chronological priority of God's knowledge to the event foreknown, but the logical or explanatory priority of the event foreknown to God's knowledge. God's knowledge does not determine the event. If we use the language of determine, we we would say that the event determines what God foreknows. So when Judas betrayal was predicted by Jesus, Judas had the ability not to betray Jesus. He did not have to do it. But if he had chosen not to betray Jesus, then God would have foreknown that instead and Jesus would not have betrayed predicted it. So we have the ability to do other than as God foreknows that we shall do. But if we were to do other than as he foreknows that we shall do, then he would have foreknown something else instead. And so long as we keep that distinction between chronological and logical priority clear, I think we can see that God's foreknowing the future doesn't in any way threaten human freedom. Now, we ended the last class in the midst of a discussion of this. So before we move on to the next question, let me ask if there's any further discussion that anyone would like to raise about the issue of foreknowledge and freedom.
- [02:29]
B
Okay, Cindy, just to clarify, I guess I understand fully what you're saying as far as at each point in time we have the freedom to make decisions of our own free will. When you consider prior to time that God created this world and those that he pre determined or preordained would be his people at the end of time in that sense. And we're basically working that out, if you will, to that conclusion when you are born and he put you in a certain situation, knowing that the situations that he put you in would determine your decisions. And therefore, though at the end, it was predetermined you would be saved or not saved. So in that sense, it seems even before you were born, it was working out a play, if you will. I mean, that he knew. And I'm not suggesting that isn't free will for every point along the way, but his grace, his predetermination, his providence set the stage for you to make those decisions and come to him. And some would not. And I guess that's where people get confused because it seems as if. As if, yes, you have free will along the way, but he made you to be one of his, and he made this other person not, not to be one of his. And he knew before creation how that would play out.
- [04:05]
A
Yes.
- [04:05]
B
Is that totally. I agree. I think if we had the total free will in the sense of we determined our destiny, it puts us above God, you know, in the sense that we have that full choice. But it is God's grace and God that determines our ultimate destiny.
- [04:25]
A
All right, you've said a mouthful.
- [04:27]
C
I'm sorry.
- [04:29]
A
And I think what you've done is you've run a number of issues together that need to be teased apart and made clear. We need to make clear distinctions now. First of all, we need to distinguish, I think, between God's foreknowledge of the future, which is the subject of our present discussion, and God's foreordination of the future, or predestination is another word for foreordination, and the question of divine providence and election and determining your eternal destiny, whether heaven or hell. That's a matter of foreordination, not foreknowledge. And we'll take up these questions when we get to the doctrine of salvation, and we'll discuss the subject of predestination. And you'll see there that I consider predestination to be primarily a corporate notion, not an individual notion. That is to say, God predestines a people or selects a people for himself. But then it's up to you, by your free choice, whether you want to identify with that corporate group and be a member of that elect body. And so on that basis, foreordination and freedom are entirely compatible. But that needs to be developed, and we will discuss it later. Right now, we just want to talk about foreknowledge. Now, what you said actually forms a nice segue to the next question because what you were asking about was not, does God foreknow what people will do and where they will end up? But you were asking about, does God know what anybody would do? If he were to place them in certain circumstances, that would determine then how they would choose and where they would wind up. And that's not foreknowledge. That's middle knowledge, which is the next subject. So before we move on to that, let me just see if there's any further discussion of for knowledge and freedom. Now, the next subject then that we want to broach is the one that Cindy mentioned, and that is the notion of God's so called middle knowledge. Or we could call this hypothetical knowledge. This is God's knowledge of subjunctive conditional statements. Like, if you had been in Pilate's place, would you have condemned Jesus? How would you have acted had you been in that situation? That's not foreknowledge, because you never are in that situation. What this is called is middle knowledge, or knowledge of subjunctive conditionals or hypothetical knowledge. And this kind of knowledge is beautifully illustrated in Charles Dickens classic story, A Christmas Carol. You remember, at the end of that story, Scrooge is confronted by the spirit of Christmas yet to Come. And he is shown horrifying visions of his own death and the death of Tiny Tim, and people laughing about Scrooge's death. And horrified by these visions that Scrooge sees, he implores the spirit, are these shadows of things that will be or shadows of things that might be only? And the spirit does not answer Scrooge, why? Well, obviously we know from the story's end that the spirit was not showing Scrooge visions of things that will be. We know Tiny Tim does not die. We know that Scrooge reforms and repents, and as a result, the horrible things that the spirit showed him don't actually happen. So it wasn't foreknowledge, but the spirit wasn't showing him merely things that might be mere possibilities. I mean, after all, Scrooge might sell his business and become a florist in Covent Garden. That's possible. But why worry about that sort of eventuality? No, what the spirit was showing Scrooge is what would happen if Scrooge were not to repent? He was imparting to Scrooge knowledge of subjunctive conditionals. And Scrooge's question didn't take that into account. And so the spirit does not answer Scrooge. So the question then is, does God have this kind of knowledge? Does he have knowledge of these subjunctive conditionals? And in particular, does he have this kind of knowledge prior to his decree to create a world? Does he have hypothetical knowledge logically or explanatorily prior to his decree of a world, of what creatures in that world would freely do if they were in various circumstances, or what those same creatures would do if they were in other circumstances, or what would happen in still another possible world in which different creatures were created in different circumstances. Does God have this kind of knowledge logically or explanatorily prior to his decree to create a world? Well, this is a subject of considerable theological controversy. Proponents of middle knowledge follow the Catholic counter reformer Luis Molina in the late 16th, early 17th century in maintaining that God does have this kind of knowledge. But a good many contemporary theologians would say no, that God doesn't have this kind of knowledge. And so Cindy's question couldn't even arise for these theologians because God didn't know what you would do if he were to have you born at this time and place in history. And therefore he can't be held responsible for your ultimate destiny because he doesn't have middle knowledge. So for these theologians, God is in no sense responsible for having created such a messed up world as this one. He didn't see it coming, so to speak. Now, granted, he has simple foreknowledge of the future. He doesn't foreknow whatever will happen. But it is not as though logically prior to that, he knew well, if I were to create these people in these circumstances, this is the way the word world would turn out. He would just have simple foreknowledge of what will happen. But he didn't have this kind of middle knowledge and therefore can't be held responsible for why the world is so messed up or why there's so much evil and so forth. On the other hand, it seems to me there are powerful theological reasons for affirming that God does have this sort of knowledge. The Bible teaches divine sovereignty and providence over the whole of human history. The Bible says that nothing happens simply by accident outside of the plan and providence of God. Let me get my Bible and read you a very interesting passage from the book of Acts. This is from Acts chapter 4. The church in Jerusalem is gathered together in prayer, and in Acts 4:27, this is how they for truly in this city were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place. According to this verse, specific persons are named King Herod, the Procurator, Pontius Pilate, as well as all The Gentiles that were there, the Jews that were there, and this all unfolded according to God's plan and providence. So God is over everything that happens. Everything that happens does so either by God's direct will or at least his permission in the case of sinful actions. And this kind of providential planning requires middle knowledge. Even the opponents of middle knowledge recognize that you cannot have a robust doctrine of divine providence and sovereignty along with human freedom without middle knowledge. But according to middle knowledge, God knew what every free creature would do under any circumstances in which that creature might be placed. And that includes freedom permitting circumstances. We are not determined by our circumstances to do what what we do in certain circumstances. We have a measure of freedom within those same circumstances to act in different ways. And so by creating certain persons in certain circumstances, God can bring it about that his ultimate ends are achieved through the free decisions that people make. Now, when you think of this, you can see this would be unimaginably complex. Only an infinite mind could direct a world of free creatures toward his previsioned ends. Just think, for example, of what it would take to providentially arrange the success of the Allied invasion on D day without abusing or abridging the freedom of the people in involved. You would need to have a Winston Churchill on the scene. And in order for that to happen, that means that Lord and Lady Churchill had to have sexual intercourse at just a certain time and place so that that sperm would unite with that egg. That would eventually be Winston Churchill. And think of the innumerable contingencies that went into that single event. Whether Lady Churchill turned her ankle on a clod in the flower garden that day and so maybe wouldn't have been in the mood for sex. And whether that clod was there was due to whether the gardener did a faithful job in hoeing and raking the garden that morning. And maybe he didn't do that because he was kind of feeling depressed and so didn't do his work as energetically. And that's just one thing. That's just Churchill. And think of all of the rest of the people, the free agents involved, and the multitude of circumstances on both the Allied and the Axis side in order to engineer such an event. Truly, only an infinite omniscient mind could employ his knowledge of subjunctive conditionals to bring about even a single event in human history. And middle knowledge, I think, therefore, provides the key to the mystery of divine sovereignty and human freedom. By knowing how creatures would behave in certain circumstances, freely behave, I mean, and putting them in Those circumstances, God can ultimately bring about his ends without abridging the freedom of persons, but actually allowing them to do as they please and knowing that ultimately, despite their freedom, his ends will be accomplished. Now obviously, creatures, free persons will make a lot of bad decisions that God doesn't directly will. In any moral situation, God always wills that you do the good. He never wills that you should sin. Sin is contrary to the will of God. So God knows that creatures will often not do what he directly wills. Instead, they will rebel against him, they will sin, they will choose to act immorally. But given his middle knowledge, even allowing these sins and evils to occur, ultimately in this infinitely complex scenario, God's ultimate purposes will be accomplished. So when you look at our messed up world and wonder, how could God have created such a messed up world as ours with so much suffering and evil? The proponent of middle knowledge could say, well, God's options may have been limited. It may be that given human freedom and given God's desire that creatures are free, it may be that they would have messed up any world of free creatures that God might have created. Perhaps in any world that was feasible for God to actualize or realize, which involves this much good as the actual world, they would have also been this much suffering and this much evil. So that God's options may be significantly limited by human freedom to worlds that involve a good deal of suffering and evil. But God would in every circumstance will that people do the right thing, but he will permit them to sin if that's what they will to do. So on the molinist view, one needs to make a distinction between possible worlds, worlds that are possible for God to actualize, and what we could call feasible or realizable or actualizable worlds. For example, a world of free creatures involving this much good, in which everybody always does the right thing, no one ever sins. That's a possible world. That wouldn't be a robot world. This would be a world in which everybody has freedom, but they just all always do the right thing. They always freely do the moral thing, and so there would be no sin in that world. But given human freedom, it may be the case that such a world isn't feasible for God because if God were to create those creatures in those circumstances, even though it's possible for them to do the right thing, they wouldn't, they would go wrong and they would mess up the world. And so God's options of feasible worlds may be limited in the suffering and the evil that must be permitted in order to accomplish his will. Nevertheless, as a good God, in His Providence, he has selected a world which on balance, has more good than evil. And ultimately his will will be accomplished, it will win out, and his purpose will be achieved. There will be a multitude of persons in heaven from every tribe and tongue and people and nation who have come to know God and His salvation and to freely come into a relationship with Him. And so we can be confident that God's choice of a world is the best. Despite the evil and the suffering in the world. We can have trust and confidence in God that He has chosen a world which was a wise choice and a good choice. The onus for messing up the world is on us. It's not on God. It is we who, through our free choices, turn the world into such a decadent and evil place. And God allows that, but only with a view toward accomplishing his ultimately good purpose. So that would be a defense of the doctrine of middle knowledge. I think it's the only way to give a reconciliation of divine sovereignty and human freedom, which affirms libertarian freedom, but also God's providence over everything that happens in the world. And that gives powerful theological motivation, I think, for adopting a doctrine of middle knowledge. All right, any discussion of this question. My question is, so under this view, is this the greatest feasible world? Very good question. The question is, granted, this isn't the best possible world, right? Because we can imagine worlds that are better than this. Worlds without sin, for example, might be better. This isn't the best possible world, but is this the best feasible world? Well, I think that's an open question. It may be that even with respect to feasible worlds, there isn't any maximum, that they just get better and better and better. God could always have created more people, brought more folks into the kingdom. Perhaps worlds don't have an intrinsic maximal value, and therefore what God has to do is not choose the best feasible world, but just a good feasible world. For any world that he picks, there could always be one better. But so long as he picks a good world, he does nothing wrong. So I think probably most Christian philosophers today would be inclined to say that there isn't any ceiling to the goodness of worlds, that it could just go on and on. But if you do think there is a sort of ceiling, then I think what you could say is that there is a range of worlds of feasible worlds which are all in the top rung. They're all at the ceiling, so to speak, and that this world is one of those, and that God has picked one feasible world out of the best that could be made. And I don't see any problem with that. Given human freedom, it may be that any world feasible for God involving this much good would involve a lot of evil and suffering. And so this may be the best God could get. So it appears in the Bible that there are other worlds envisioned, like the eternal state, and if you believe in it, the millennium and, and all. And does that imply if a world without sin and all, we're all robots in the eternal state when we don't have where we don't sin? Is that a robot world? This is a good question. And I think that the question fails to appreciate that when we are talking about worlds, we mean a maximal state of affairs. The afterlife, heaven, hell, the millennium are not possible worlds. They're the final stage of a possible world. But they have a prehistory that leads up to them. And in heaven one receives one's reward or recompense for what one did during human history prior to that. So these are the final stages of a possible world. They're not possible worlds in and of themselves. Now you might say, well, but why not just create heaven just by itself? Just lop off the part before death and just start with heaven? Well, the problem there is, then you would have a new possible world. And it might be that if God were to try to do that, then the creatures there would go wrong and would mess it up. You can't just sort of extract the bad parts and think that the situation is unaffected. Once you do that, you've got a whole new situation and the game needs to be then replayed. Now, my inclination, Brad, and this is just my opinion, is that in heaven I suspect, or I think it's very plausible, let me put it this way, that the freedom to sin will be removed. I think that in this life God has created us at a sort of arm's distance that allows us freedom to rebel against him and do evil and resist him. But that in heaven, the redeemed in Christ will have such a knowledge of God and of closeness to Christ that he will be irresistible in his beauty, magnificence and love. And that the freedom to sin will be effectively removed. Sin is possible only during this veil of decision making at which we see through a glass darkly, so to speak. And here we determine our eternal destiny. But then once we see face to face, that vision will be so lovely and so irresistible that sin will be impossible.
- [27:27]
C
In heaven will we be able to see the middle knowledge as God dealing with human inclination in terms of, like the law of, inertia if you are uncertain, you set your course on certain way. Unless there's external force, it will just continue that way. In the beginning, when Adam and Eve kind of set their inclination into leaning on their own understanding and define good and evil according to their own understanding, God can project the result of this momentum to the ultimate destruction. So he intervened. And so Jesus say, my Father is always at work, and I'm working too. And that work is just to counter this kind of human momentum. And so saying that God has perfect middle knowledge he can project exactly a little inclination will eventually come through.
- [28:43]
A
Well, that isn't the way in which someone like Molina would explain middle knowledge. He would simply say that God sees into each individual creature's essence so deeply that he knows what that creature would do freely in any set of circumstances, including an initial set of circumstances before any character was laid down that might influence subsequent decisions. But as a sociological fact, what you're saying is obviously true, isn't it? That people do develop characters and habit patterns and inclinations that will influence them on into the future, both for good and for ill. You can also develop a good character that will help you to resist temptation or do the right thing. I don't think that's incompatible with human freedom. Because even the person who is morally corrupt can still choose, say, which kind of drugs he wants to do or whom to beat up and rob. One can choose a variety of sins. But certainly you're right that given corrupted, fallen human nature, there is that kind of inertia to sin that exists within fallen humanity. But I resist those analogies a little bit because I don't want to in any way to suggest that these decisions are not free and that we're not morally responsible for them. We're not like ball bearings rolling down a chute that have no freedom and no will, and hence no responsibility for what they hit and run into.
- [30:30]
C
I don't mean that we are not responsible.
- [30:33]
A
Okay, good. Let's let Dr. Bob weigh in here. As far as creature groups maintaining their perfection, we're 0 and 2. You got angels and you got humans. I'm inclined to believe that any creature with an absolute free will, given an infinite amount of time, will have to go up against God's will, have to break God's will at some point and therefore fall. So in my mind, it's hard for me to imagine any creature with a total free will remaining totally within the will of God. That's a really, really interesting question. I don't want to say, Bob myself, that sin is inevitable that the creatures couldn't avoid it because they do have freedom. But I think what you could say is that given enough time, every creature eventually will sin, that he won't go on forever freely always choosing the right thing. Now, that's not to say it's inevitable, but just that it will eventually happen. He will eventually sin. And that seems not implausible at all to me and would be compatible with human freedom. And that's one reason I think, that in heaven it's very plausible that when we see God in all of his beauty and righteousness, that our freedom to sin will be effectively removed. It's not as though in heaven we'll go on infinitely always choosing the good. It's that our ability to choose against God is just removed in the same way that iron filings attracted to a giant electromagnet just stick to the magnet because it is so attractive they couldn't resist it. And I'm sure that God, once we see him face to face and not through a glass darkly, will be so attractive that the freedom to rebel against him and turn against him will be removed. Well, let me wrap it up there because we're out of time. Next time we'll look at some application of the doctrine of divine omniscience to our lives practically. But I'll be happy to take any further discussion at that time as well. Let me close with a benediction from 2nd Thessalonians. May the Lord direct you our hearts to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Jesus Christ. Amen. The copyright for the content of this recording is held by Dr. William Lane Craig. For more go to reasonablefaith. Org.