Introduction

I am reading The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence by John Sanders. It is a thorough explanation of openness or relational theology. His writing is clear, and he is sources and footnotes are detailed. In Chapter 6, Risk and the Divine Character, he discusses the varied views of Omniscience (6.5). As I have had discussions with friends, I have heard many of these views explained (without being given a name). This post will allow me to share John Sander’s explanations and their names.

Foreknowledge and Omniscience

I need to define some words before we get too far in this post.

Soveriegnty: Full right and power of a governing body (in this case God) over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.

Omniscience: To say that God is omniscient means that at any time God knows all propositions such that God’s knowing them at that time is logically possible. -Hasker, 4. A Philosophical Perspective-

Foreknowledge: The concept of current knowledge of an event before it has occurred.

As we look at each mode of perceiving Omniscience, realize that they are all trying to provide space for a nondeterministic view of God’s sovereignty and space for God’s children to be free agents.

Simple foreknowledge

God, prior to creation, had a comprehensive direct vision of every single act that libertarian free creatures would actually do in this world. … This view was held by Arminius and John Wesley. … God simply ’looked ahead’ to see which people would exercise faith in God and on that basis, God elected them.

timeless knowledge

God, technically speaking, does not have foreknowledge because God foreordains all things. God does not ‘prevision’ or ’look ahead’ into the future to see what the creatures will do and make his decisions on the basis of the creature’s future actions, since this would mean that God was not in tight control of the creatures. … For Calvin and, I believe, that latter Augustine, what God knows is determined solely by what God decides to do. Thus God does not take any risks.

knowledge of all possibilities

God, prior to creation, knows all possible actions that creatures with libertarian freedom may take. In light of this knowledge God may decide what responses, if any, he will make to each action. … God may eternally decide to ‘prerespond’ to each and every situation that might arise. … God is never caught off guard, never surprised by any event and never forced to make any ad hoc decisions.

middle knowledge

This was developed by Luis de Molina and is also called Molinism. As a 16th century Jesuit, this was his method for handling divine sovereignty and choice by free agents.

God knows all the ‘counterfactuals of creaturely freedom,’ such as the things that would be different in the world had Moses refused to return to Egypt or had Mary rejected her role in salvation history. Proponents of middle knowledge sometimes claim that since God knows what each of us would freely decide to do in every possible set of circumstances, God simply brings about those circumstances in which we freely do precisely what he wants done, and so takes no risks. ‘In his infinite intelligence, God is able to plan a world in which his designs are achieved by creatures acting freely.’… God does not force the will of creatures. God simply knows how to bring it about that the creatures freely decide to do God’s will.

present knowledge (presentism)

Though God’s knowledge is coextensive with reality in that God knows all that can be known, the future actions of free creatures are not yet reality, and so there is nothing to be known. … the future is not fixed but is open both to what God and to what humans decide to do. God’s knowledge of what creatures do is dependent on what the creatures freely decide to do. … Some proponents of presentism affirm that God knows all possibilities that could ever happen, whereas other adherents affirm that God knows the general outlines of all possible futures.

Ordering the views

With these five views presented, there are a few questions we could ask. I believe most Latter-day Saints hold to all possibilities, simple, or presentism. I am squarely in the presentism camp.

How do the views order based on God’s control?

Here is my ordering from most to least control by God.

timeless -> middle -> all possibilities -> presentism -> simple

How do the views order based on God’s future knowledge?

Here is my ordering from most to least future knowledge by God.

timeless -> middle -> simple -> all posibilities -> presentism

Conclusion

As I shared in my previous post titled, ‘Does foreknowledge mean we are all on a God-fixed path?’, God has a plan and is actively working with his children to bring this plan to pass. At any given moment, there is an optimal path but not one path. He responds to our agency. Indeed, he wants us to be agents and act with Him in the journey.

• openness
• attributes
• time
• diagram