4 Views of Divine Foreknowledge: The Augustinian-Calvinist View

This past Spring I read a book called Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views by James Beilby. If you are interested in purchasing this, you can do so on Amazon.com. This is a comparison of four views of God's foreknowledge from different scholars. What do we mean by God's foreknowledge? We mean what does God know and when does He know it. My last post, I summarized William Lane Craig's view of God's foreknowledge: Middle-Knowledge. Check it out here. This week I will look at the divine-foreknowledge view, which is fleshed out by Paul Helm. I will refrain from commentary until then last addition. Let me reiterate, I am not claiming which of these is my view, but rather a concise summary of the authors explanation and view of these opinions on God's foreknowledge. 

Divine Foreknowledge

The first argument for the Calvinist view is the “straight causal sense: God’s knowledge is the cause of things.”[1] This means there is no difference between what God causes and what he allows. The second argument is that God’s foreknowledge is subsequent to His creative decree. God decreed it, therefore He knows it. Consequently, divine foreknowledge and foreordination are different. The last and weakest argument is a sense of divine foreknowledge “that is logically prior to God’s decree.”[2] Therefore God decrees what He foreknows.

The Fixed Points

Helm believes there are fixed points to which we must follow before as we formulate understanding of God’s foreknowledge and free-will. First, all things are created by God.  Second, all things are ordered by God. Last, all things are governed by God.[3] Helm states, “Scripture teaches that although God ordains everything which comes to pass…men and women are nevertheless accountable to god for their actions.”[4] Divine sovereignty and human accountability before God are two fixed points. When inconsistency is apparent, “it is tempting to modify one or both of them.”[5] However we should not do this. Helm continues, “Scripture holds them together, it even speaks of them in the same breath, and so must we.”[6] The fixed point is the unique sui generis that is God’s relation to the universe that He created, sustains, and directs.

Argument 1: Foreknowledge, Freedom, and Divine Grace

Helm writes, “Divine grace and such a choice are then together causally sufficient for faith in Christ, for the personal appropriation of Christ. Without such grace no human being would come into a right relationship with God. But on the incompatibilist view by itself, such grace is never sufficient.”[7] Natural man is a rejecter of God and His rule. However, liberation comes from God’s irresistible and sufficient grace.[8] God’s saving grace is efficacious in restarting the human will, resulting in sufficiency in salvation to whom it is granted. There are those who do resist the grace of God and when doing so God’s grace is not efficacious for salvic purposes.[9]

Argument 2: Divine Perfection and Providence

Helm encourages to push omniscience of God generously and as far as it can go. God has strong omniscience, which makes Him perfect. God remains perfect and righteous despite His foreknowing the evil which would commence after creation.[10] “While God could not positively govern evil acts he nevertheless can infallibly know of their occurrence…permitting evil in this way God acts for the highest and holiest reasons even though the detail of such reasons may be at present hidden from us.”[11] How is this consistent with compatibilism and permission of the existence of evil actions when God is not the author? “God can only control an evil action by knowingly and willingly permitting it, by deciding not to prevent it; and the evil action occurs because it is cause by the natures and circumstances of those who perpetrate it, not by God, though he willingly permits it.”[12]

Argument 3: The incompatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom

Helm summarizes his argument as “if there is something in the past that entails something in the future and if what is past is necessary—accidentally or historically necessary—then what is entailed is similarly accidentally or historically necessary.”[13] If God’s foreknowledge of a past event p is therefore necessary and if that necessity of God’s knowledge that p then p is true. Therefore p is true.[14]

In sum, the Augustinian-Calvinist view holds that all things are determined by God. This determination does not mean that God makes someone sin or reject salvation, rather He allows it in sovereign plan. 

---

[1] Ibid, 163.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid, 164.

[4] Ibid, 165.

[5] Ibid, 167.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid, 170.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid, 171-174.

[10] Ibid, 173-176.

[11] Ibid, 176.

[12] Ibid. 179.

[13] Ibid, 185.

[14] Ibid, 185-186.