Sovereignty, Freedom, and the Philosophers (pt. 2)

Another view that attempts to reconcile God's foreknowledge and human free-will is called Molinism (named after Luis de Molina) or Middle-Knowledge. Probably the best known proponent of Molinism is the Christian philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig. Middle-knowledge states that God not only knows what we will do, but what we would do in any circumstance that we were in. So he not only knew in advance as a matter of fact that I would freely take a shower yesterday, He knew that if circumstances had been different (perhaps getting home late and going immediately to bed) I would have freely chosen not to take a shower. So since He knows what all human beings would freely do under any circumstance, He chooses to actualize (create) the world that goes the way He wants, perhaps the one that has the largest number of people getting saved. So this view keeps God's sovereignty, since things are going the way He wants, and it retains human free will, since He isn't causing humans to act in a certain way. If God knows that Sally will freely choose chocolate ice cream if she entered an ice cream shop on Tuesday, and He wants that event to happen, he will actualize the world in which Sally went to an ice cream shop on Tuesday and she'd freely choose chocolate ice cream. If Sally instead freely went to the ice cream shop on Wednesday and freely chose mint ice cream, God would actualize the world in which those circumstances to happen, if indeed that's the desired result He wants to bring about. Under the actual circumstances of the world right now, I have a truck. However, God knows that if I were richer, then I'd have a porsche. If His desired result was for me to have a porsche, then He would have actualized the world in which I was richer. I think you get the idea.

It's a very clever idea and one I like to play around with in my head. As far as I can tell, it seems to nicely fit together God's foreknowledge and my freedom to choose without making it look like God is the one causing all of my actions. My only issue is that it goes beyond what the Bible actually says. It doesn't seem to contradict the Bible, which is better than open theism, but I'm not comfortable endorsing the view myself since the Bible doesn't seem to say this is how God works. Does that make the view completely illegitimate? I don't think it does. This doctrine of middle-knowledge is simply a model that philosophical-theologians use to fit together the Biblical data on God's sovereignty and human free-will nicely. The doctrine of the Trinity is the same way. It fits together the Biblical data on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a coherent way that makes sense out of the teachings. The doctrine, of course, uses some terminology and descriptions that the Bible doesn't use, like saying that God is three persons but one substance, but otherwise it doesn't go into much speculation. I guess that's mostly my problem with middle-knowledge: much of it feels like speculation. After some research I'll probably get back into this topic.

So do I have my own view? I don't have any well formulated view of my own yet. As a philosophically minded person, I want to seek out knowledge in these areas, but I'm with the Psalmist when he says "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it," (Ps. 139:6). I'll continue to seek knowledge on this since I'm made in the image of God, but with the humility of knowing that I am "dust," and will not be able to fully understand most everything, especially God.

Here's the interview with William Lane Craig on his view and a few others. His website, Reasonable Faith, has articles on it as well.

Sovereignty, Freedom, and the Philosophers (pt. 1)

When I told a couple of my pastors that I wanted to be a philosophy major, they gave me some helpful advice: let my theology critique my philosophy, not the other way around. Of course, philosophy can play a big role as a handmaiden of theology, but they meant that I shouldn't let my philosophical ideas contradict and judge Scripture. I think it's good advice.

One of my biggest interests- and struggles- is the reconciliation of God's sovereignty and omniscience with our moral responsibility and free will. How they can be reconciled has been a huge issue of debate amongst theologians and philosophers for centuries and probably won't end until the return of Christ. There are many intriguing ideas, but I honestly find some of them disturbing and irreconcilable with Scripture. I wanted to give my thoughts on some of these views that contemporary theistic philosophers have. This is just my initial thoughts and concerns over these views, not some exhaustively studied essay on the subject. Perhaps after doing more research I will post more thoughts. If I have in any way misunderstood these views, I will undoubtably be corrected in future readings on the subject.

First, there's a view called Open Theism, which is a view I got more interested in after listening to interviews with the philosophers Dean Zimmerman and Peter Van Inwagen. Popularizers of open theism are people like Greg Boyd and John Sanders. In open theism, God doesn't fully know the future. He knows the past and the present perfectly, but there is no way He can know the future actions of free creatures. God can make plans for the future and try to arrange things so that they go His way, but most of the future is open since humans have free will and his plans are contingent on those factors. Proponents of open theism would say that this doesn't diminish God's omniscience, they just define differently what kinds of things can be known by an omniscient God. Omniscience basically means that God “knows every true proposition and believes no false proposition” (1). According to William Lane Craig, there are also future tensed propositions, so God knows those as well. However, an open theist would say that since the future does not yet exist, future events have no truth value. Future events are neither true nor false, since the future hasn't happened yet. So it's no skin off God's nose if He doesn't know what the future actions of free creatures are, since it's not possible to know those. The notion of knowing the future actions of free creatures is like the notion of a four cornered circle, it's incoherent. Since most any philosopher of religion would say that God is coherent, it should be no problem for God's omniscience that He knows only what is possible to know, and much of the future isn't possible to know. It makes sense philosophically, but there are some questions on my mind. I'm no expert on the philosophy of time so hopefully my questions aren't too sophomoric. Is it really the case that future events have no real truth value whatsoever? If I say “World War I will not happen in 2020,” is that not clearly true since the notion of WWI happening in 2020 when it already happened back in 1914 is incoherent? I guess an open theist would say that the fact of the matter is WWI can't take place in 2020 when it already happened in 1914, but there's no fact of the matter to a scenario like “tomorrow I will wear an orange shirt,” and these are the kinds of propositions they're talking about.

Does it make sense Biblically? I don't see how it does. We see numerous passages showing that God knows what will happen in the future and I don't see how that can be reconciled with the open theist view. In Exodus he says “But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand. So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that he will let you go.” (Ex. 3:19-20). God here seems to clearly know that the Pharaoh wouldn't let the people go if Moses told him and he wouldn't let them go until God did wonders. You also notice later on that when things happen, like the Pharaoh hardening his heart, it happens “as the Lord had said” (Ex. 7:13, 8:15, 8:19, 9:12, 9:35). It seems highly unlikely that God simply made a conditional prediction. Another thing Scripture teaches is that God uses certain tests to show that the gods of other nations are false gods. “Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come. Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods,” (Isaiah 41:22-23). He uses the god's lack of ability to see the future as proofs that they aren't gods at all. “How presumptuous and wrong, then, for some system of theology to come along and deny of God the very basis by which he asserts his own deity,” (2). The main idea open theists have when it comes to interpreting Scripture is that passages that seem to show God's ignorance of something, passages showing Him learning new information, or passages showing Him changing His mind should be read just as literally as any of the passages that seem to show Him knowing the future. The anthropomorphic or rhetorical interpretations of passages like Genesis 22:12, where God says to Abraham "now I know that you fear God", are too awkward and farfetched to be taken seriously. They should be read in a straightforward manner. As for the passages that show God knowing the future, open theists get around that by saying God knows some of the future, like the things He decrees or the things that are an inevitable outcome of what's already happened, but that doesn't mean God knows the future exhaustively. So they believe that God knows the past and present fully, but only the future partly. However, if open theists are adamant about reading passages that seem to show God's ignorance in a straightforward manner, why not passages showing God's ignorance of present events? In Genesis 18:20-21, God tells Abraham that He will "go down" to Sodom and Gomorrah to see if they are sinning! If this is read in a straightforward manner, then we'd have to conclude that God doesn't even know the past or present fully. Once more, we'd have to conclude that God isn't omnipresent! Yet open theists affirm that God is omnipresent and knows the past and present fully, so there seems to be a difficulty on their part. They may say that those passages are clearly to be taken anthropomorphically because of the Scriptural evidence showing that God does know the past and present fully, but traditional theists would say that the passages showing God fully knows the future is very powerful and, therefore, passages seemingly showing God's ignorance or change of mind should be taken anthropomorphically. If Scripture shows that God knows “the end from the beginning,” (Is. 46:10) and that He knows the words on our tongue before we even speak it (Ps. 139:4), and our philosophy contradicts that, perhaps there's something wrong with our philosophy. If there's any advantage to open theism, it's that it seems to be a less troubling explanation for the problem of evil since it doesn't run the risk of making God look like the cause of evil. Still, because of Scripture, I'm not willing to endorse this view myself.

I'm going to be learning more about this and other views of divine providence, so I'll probably expand on this issue at some later date. Until then, I hope my description of open theism was accurate.

Here's the interview I watched with Dean Zimmerman giving this view.

Here's the interview with Peter Van Inwagen.

Here's the book I'm going to buy to learn more about Open Theism and the other views of divine providence. Four Views on Divine Providence

1. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, pg. 517

2. Their God is Too Small: Open Theism and the Undermining of Confidence in God by Bruce A. Ware, pg. 37

You Exclusivists...

Here's another one of my posts from Veritas.

Intolerance and Exclusivity

Colossians 2:8 (pt. 3)

The use of Colossians 2:8 elswhere in Scripture- This verse isn't quoted anywhere else in Scripture, as epistles tend not to be, but its themes can be seen almost anywhere. The reason God gives Israel the law and commands them to destroy the nations around them is so that they don't fall into their beliefs and practices (Ex. 23, Deut. 7:3-4). Paul warns Timothy to avoid the “irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called 'knowledge,' for by professing it some have swerved from the faith,” (1 Tim. 6:20-21). This is exactly the same concern that Paul has for the church in Colossae.

Relation of Colossians 2:8 to the Rest of Scripture- God's people are to guard their hearts and minds from false teachings so that they don't go astray and commit adultery against their Lord. This is why God had Israel destroy all of the cities and idols in the land He was giving them, so that they wouldn't adopt the ways of those other nations. Colossians 2:8 is an unequivocal reminder that we need to guard our minds from deceitful philosophies, since because of them some have “swerved from the faith” (1 Tim. 6:21). How to do that is spelled out more in 1 John 4:1, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

Use of Colossians 2:8 in Relation to Theology- Everything about the human condition is fallen, even the intellect. We are prone to believing false doctrines because we are gullible or rebellious. This verse emphasizes the importance of Christ in our lives. Abraham Kuyper once said there isn't one square inch of creation about which Jesus doesn't cry “This is mine!” Christ owns the mind as well as the heart, and our minds are to be subject to Him and His truth.

Life Issues Present in Colossians 2:8- This verse reminds us that sin corrupts our intellect just as much as everything else, and we need to guard it. We're “prone to wander” from God, and we need to think clearly about the different claims we hear espoused throughout the world. We shouldn't just believe everything, but ask “Is this Christ exalting or diminishing?” “Does this contradict what the Scriptures say?” “Does this glorify God?”

Audience and Categories of Application of Colossians 2:8-

Audience- Paul was clearly writing this for the church in Colossae, but he also wanted it to be read to the church in Laodicea (4:16). Much of this letter applies to all Christians at all times. Even non-Christians can hear important truths in this passage, because they're already falling for these deceits and need a change of mind that will lead them to Christ. The message Paul espouses in Colossians can be very helpful for us in the modern world since we're exposed to opposing opinions and worldviews all the time. Many times the deceitful philosophies we see in books, movies, television, and video games are so subtle that we don't notice the effect they're having on us. The specifics may not apply to us today, but the principle will always be important.

Categories- Colossians mostly deals with the human tendency to diminish Christ in our minds through erroneous philosophes.

Time Focus and Limits of Application of Colossians 2:8- While Paul is responding to some specific teachings that we may not encounter today, the principles he teaches are timeless. We all have the capacity to fall away from the truth because we were persuaded away by false doctrines. We need to trust in the one from whom true knowledge and wisdom come, and that is from Christ (2:2-3). All who listen to His words are on the side of truth (Jn. 18:37)

Colossians 2:8 (pt. 2)

Social Setting- During this time Colossae is in a state of decline due to the road for trade being moved north towards places like Laodicea. So the church was started during a time of economic struggle and decline. Different Greek philosophies and lifestyles permeated the city. The Hellenistic philosophies such as Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Platonic and Aristotelian thought were pervasive among the intelligencia. Epicureanism de-emphasized the divine and taught that one should gain as much pleasure in life as possible; but it had to be moderate pleasures, specifically intellectual ones. Overindulgence in sex and food can cause less overall satisfaction and, therefore, more misery Stoicism endeavored to break free from human passions (suffering, anguish, etc.) using reason and logic. They thought that human evil and unhappiness was caused by ignorance, not by separation from an almighty God. Platonic thought emphasized mind over matter; that which transcends the physical is better or greater than that which is physical and worldly. Mystery religions had communities of people worshipping different gods (such as god of fertility or god of the moon), indulging in alcohol and sex to get the experience of the divine. The Jewish community there used the Hebrew Scriptures to teach about and worship Yahweh, but there was a mystical teaching there emphasizing worship of angels as well. The church was full of people who had left these lifestyles, but the temptation to return was great. The church, living in a hostile world, can do much to transform culture, but what if the sinful world acts as a magnet threatening to bring God's children out of the church and back into it's philosophies and lifestyles?

Geographical Setting- Paul was likely in Rome when he wrote this letter. He was writing to the church in Colossae, which is located in Asia Minor, north of the Mediterranean Sea and east of Ephesus where Paul ministered for three years. It was on the south side of the Meander river.

Date- Colossians was likely written while Paul was imprisoned in Rome (Acts 28), which would place the letter at about the early A.D. 60's, specifically A.D. 62.

Literary & Historical- Colossae was a significant city in Asia Minor at around the fifth century B.C., but was refered to as a little city by the first century B.C. The church seems to have gotten its start during Paul's three year ministry in Ephesus in Acts 19 (A.D. 52-55). A Colossian named Epaphras must have heard Paul's proclamation of the Gospel in Ephesus and responded to it there. He then returned to his home city and started the church. Since the church's start there had been three major cultural stumbling blocks tempting the members of the church to leave: the intellectual group (philosophy, stoicism, platonism, etc.), the mystery religions (emphasized experience with the divine, indulgence), and behaviorism (Jewish law). The specific teaching that may have been espoused in the church and caused Epaphras such worry was a superstitious Jewish and pagan belief that emphasized calling on angels to protect from evil spirits and abstinence from certain foods and events. Epaphras brings this news to Paul, who writes an epistle to the church to be read out loud to the congregation.

Key Terms- This is the only time in the Bible that the word “philosophy” is used. It comes from two Greek words: philein, which means “to love,” and sophia, which means “wisdom.” So etymologically philosophy means “lover of wisdom.” In modern times we use the word philosophy to designate a specific academic discipline, but it was used much more broadly back in antiquity. It can be seen as the endeavor to seek knowledge and wisdom, the teachings of a specific person or group, or as ones view of the world. Josephus, a Jewish historian in the first century, called the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees philosophies. Magicians could even be called philosophers. This makes it clear that when Paul was warning the Colossians not to be taken captive by “philosophy,” he meant the ungodly teachings being taught by a certain faction or person in the church, not the discipline of philosophy.

Colossians 2:8 (pt. 1)

Being a philosophy major, I'm highly interested in... philosophy! There's a certain verse in the Bible that troubles some people and makes them weary of philosophy if interpreted wrongly, so I thought I'd write an essay on it in a format that I based on one of my pastors seminary papers. Enjoy.

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosphy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Colossians 2:8 (ESV)

Literary-Historical Context- Jesus had ascended back into Heaven, commanding the apostles to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). Since then the apostles had been evangelizing and spreading the good news of the Gospel throughout the region, setting up churches and eventually preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. Paul, a Pharisee who was violently opposed to The Way, encountered Christ in a vision and became one of His most loyal apostles, traveling to cities all over the known world and preaching the Gospel to the pagan gentiles. He was eventually arrested and imprisoned in Rome where he remained until his death, probably martyred during Nero's persecution. The church in Colossae was probably started during Paul's two year ministry in Ephesus. A native of Colossae named Epaphras may have heard Paul's message in Ephesus and, after giving his life to Christ, returned to Colossae to start a church. Over time there was a dangerous teaching that was harming the church. Epaphras, in response to these teachings that devalue Christ, goes to Rome and shared the news of the dangerous teachings threatening the church. This results in Paul writing this letter (epistle) to the Colossians as a response to the teachings found in the city; they are hollow and deceitful philosophies and only in Christ should they be rooted in.

Placement and Function- Verse 2:8 is set after Paul espouses the supremacy and divinity of Christ. Be “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith” (2:7). He builds them up by proclaiming not only that Christ is sufficient, but is the source of true knowledge and wisdom. The biggest question the ancient philosophers were asking at the time is what holds all things together. What gives the universe unity in all of this diversity? Paul says that Christ is “before all things, and in him all things hold together,” (1:17). The Colossians were once “alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds,” (1:21) but Christ has reconciled them so that He can present them “holy and blameless and above reproach,” (1:22). However, he follows that with “if indeed you continue in the faith,” (1:23 emphasis mine). Outside forces were threatening to pluck them out of God's grace, so Paul warns them not to be deluded by “plausible arguments,” (2:4). So after exalting Christ and warning the Colossians, Paul tells the Colossians not to be taken captive by these philosophies and empty deceits, because they are “according to human tradition” and “the elemental spirits of the world” rather than according to Christ, where true knowledge and wisdom lie (2:8). Why? He stresses again, using repetition to make his point, the deity of Christ, his authority, and the salvation he brought to them. Philosophy isn't intrinsically evil, afterall, “the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof” (Ps. 24:1, 1 Cor. 10:26), but it needs to be redeemed just like everything else in creation. Philosophy that does not lead to or find its source in Christ is empty and deceitful.

Rules Rules Rules.

My new post on the Veritas blog.

"Religion is Just a Bunch of Rules."