The "Paradox" of Classical Arminianism

“The upshot is that classical Arminianism may involve a PARADOX: God’s exhaustive and infallible foreknowledge (simple foreknowledge) together with libertarian free will” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006, 198-199).

I stumbled over Olson’s quote above a few days ago while rereading through some of Olson’s “Arminian Theology” once more. And then, on the same pages as the labeling of Classical Arminianism as “paradoxical,” came these words in a footnote:
“Some readers may wonder if I am affirming a logical contradiction here. I am not intentionally and certainly not comfortably doing so. I acknowledge a difficulty but am not convinced it is a sheer contradiction... I FEEL THE WEIGHT OF THE OPEN THEIST CRITIQUE OF CLASSICAL ARMINIANISM...” (199).

Olson states that to some, the idea of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and man’s libertarian freedom seems to be a “logical contradiction,” although he doesn’t seem to believe it is. And secondly, Olson also notes that he is quite aware of the Open Theist attack of Classical Arminianism.

Bruce Ware gives an example to show what he perceives to also be the Classical Arminian dilemma:

“For example, if God knows that later today Carl will take his family to the Oyster Bar restaurant for dinner and order a shrimp salad, then it must be the case that Carl will do just this and he may not choose differently. That is, because God knows this to be the case, and because GOD’S KNOWLEDGE BY DEFINITION IS INFALLIBLE, it follows that Carl will choose and do precisely and only as God knows he will. BUT IF THIS IS SO, THEN CARL IS NOT IN A POSITION IN WHICH HE COULD CHOOSE CONTRARY TO GOD’S FOREKNOWLEDGE. That is, he is not in which he could choose instead to eat by himself, or to take his family to Rose’s, or to eat leftovers at home and save the money. In other words, it appears that Carl is not able to choose differently than he will in fact choose, and if this is the case, then he does not choose freely. TRUE FREEDOM IN THE CLASSICAL ARMINIAN MODEL REQUIRES THE ABILITY, all things being just what they are, TO CHOOSE DIFFERENTLY THAN ONE DOES. But all things being just what they are, including God’s foreknowledge being just what it is, Carl must choose what God knows he will choose. Hence, he is not able to choose differently. And hence, he is not free. The challenge from open theism to other Arminians is simple: COMPREHENSIVE DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE AND LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE NOTIONS. YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH TOGETHER. So, if you value libertarian freedom (as classical Arminianism clearly does), then you must be willing to give up your commitment to comprehensive divine foreknowledge” (Bruce Ware, “God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism.” Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000, page 36).

In bold terms, Ware comes right out and states the problem Open Theists have with their fellow Arminian (Reformed) brethren: “Comprehensive divine foreknowledge and libertarian freedom are mutually exclusive notions.” And this is what Roger Olson labels as the “paradox” of Classical Arminianism.

But what would you, the reader say, if I told you that both exhaustive foreknowledge and libertarian freedom are not “mutually exclusive notions”? To see this truth, let’s look at the story of David, Saul, and the men of Keilah again in 1 Samuel 23:10-13.

I wanna take some time to point out the features of this passage that are pertinent to our discussion.

First, notice that the Lord’s words to David indicate foreknowledge. The Lord told David, “He will come down”(1 Sam. 23:11), referring to Saul (v.13), and “they will deliver you” (v.12), referring to the men of Keilah. Saul had indeed planned to enter Keilah and get David, which is demonstrated by the fact that “he halted the expedition” (v.13). This eliminates the validity of the Open Theist position, which states that God doesn’t know something before it happens. Here, God knew what Saul was doing before Saul even did it (that is, before Saul came to Keilah).

Next, look at how real David’s libertarian freedom is: even though God tells him that he will be handed over to Saul, he escapes and Saul doesn’t even arrive in Keilah (v.13).

But this last statement poses a problem for those who believe divine foreknowledge and true libertarian freedom exists. God reveals His foreknowledge to David, but David is allowed to act AGAINST that which God has told him. God tells him that he will be handed over to Saul, but David ends up hiding in such a manner that Saul cannot find him.

How do we account for God’s foreknowledge here? The Open Theist would say, “See, God doesn’t get everything right. He forecasted the future wrong on this one.” However, I would disagree. Because the Bible seems to affirm God’s exhaustive foreknowledge everywhere (cf. Psalm 139), I would say that God’s words to David here are correct. What God tells David is true (Saul really is looking to make his way to Keilah and capture David). And Saul would have done that very thing---IF God’s words to David revealed a PREDETERMINED action! However, they do not, for David is allowed to escape the hand of Saul. David gets to exercise GENUINE CHOICE here; libertarian freedom, as a result, is not an illusion---but a very present reality. Therefore, any theology we hold to must emphasize true, genuine choice, not a choice that turns out to be “predetermined.” It is for this reason that many theologies are wrong. If we are gonna hold to a truly biblical theology, we cannot undermine true libertarian freedom in order to uphold what we believe to be God’s sovereignty. If God is sovereign, surely He can be sovereign DESPITE our choices---and He doesn’t have to “manipulate” us in any situation whatsoever to have His purposes accomplished.

Now, to the paradox. According to Bruce Ware’s comments above regarding the Open Theist critique of Classical Arminianism, we find that there seems to be some “tension” between God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and man’s true libertarian freedom. If God foreknows everything, and what He knows will happen, how is it that man can do OTHER THAN what God already knows? If God already knows what a person will do, aren’t that person’s choices predetermined? The Open Theist tells us, “if you wanna hold on to freedom, get rid of God’s foreknowledge.”

But there is a problem with the Open Theist’s answer. If God is all-powerful, and gives man power to make decisions, then to take away sovereignty from God (foreknowledge) means to take away responsibility from man. Man doesn’t have more responsibility without God’s foreknowledge---but less. This is why taking away God’s foreknowledge is not a good idea. Our power of choice is derived from God. If God is not sovereign, then man does not have free choice (and therefore, he has no responsibility as well). To use the Open Theist attack against the Open Theist, “Open Theists cannot have it both ways.”

Looking at 1 Samuel 23, we find then, that God reveals what He knows to David regarding his immediate future. However, how do we handle the fact that God tells David something that DOES NOT COME TO PASS? God has to be telling the truth, right? Yes. God is telling the truth. But if He’s telling the truth regarding David and yet, David ends up in a different scenario, then God must know that too, right? Yep. So God then possesses two different types of knowledge--- He knows what does happen, as well as “what COULD happen.” “Could” is a conditional statement, which means that true libertarian freedom is present here. When God tells David “He [Saul] will come down” and “they [men of Keilah] will deliver you,” the Lord is saying that, BASED ON DAVID’S ACTION, either Saul could get David or not. It wasn’t of necessity, but certainty (a contingent certainty depending on David’s action in the situation). At the moment God told David, David had a real genuine choice and could make a real, genuine decision about what to do. 1 Samuel 23, then, presents us with not only genuine choice of human beings (David specifically here), but also God’s exhaustive foreknowledge.

But what about Olson’s label of Classical Arminianism as containing a “paradox”? The paradox involves divine foreknowledge. The paradox is solvable, but Olson denies help when he writes the following:

“MIDDLE KNOWLEDGE IS NO HELP because it assumes the possibility of counterfactuals of freedom and leads to determinism” (“Arminian Theology,” page 199).

How else can we explain 1 Samuel 23? Both God’s foreknowledge and human libertarian freedom were demonstrated. We can’t explain away the "seeming" determinism if all God knows is exactly what happens. 1 Samuel 23 does not lie under the label “David experiences EXACTLY WHAT GOD FOREKNOWS.” In fact, David does not experience what God foreknows; rather, he is able to change the course of events and make a choice that denies God’s prophecy from coming about. To account for God’s foreknowledge (His knowledge of David’s future was contingent knowledge based upon David’s choice), we must affirm middle knowledge---which is the very thing Olson denies!

In addition, Olson notes that “middle knowledge...leads to determinism.” I think this is a problematic statement for the simple reason that if you talk to any Molinist, they will tell you that Christians can affirm middle knowledge WITHOUT being Molinist in their theology. Thomas Flint affirms the same:

“Though the terminology of natural and free knowledge is Molinist, it is important to remember that we have thus far said nothing with which any traditionalist could reasonably take issue. No sensible proponent of that view could deny that some truths are necessary, and hence not such that God could choose to make them false; therefore, no such proponent could deny that some of God’s knowledge is natural. Nor could any such advocate plausibly deny that some truths are contingent, and that their truth is dependent upon God’s having freely chosen to act in a certain way; hence, no such advocate could deny that some of God’s foreknowledge is free. Our employment of Molinist language...should not mislead one into thinking that anything thus far affirmed would be controversial within the traditionalist camp” (Thomas Flint, “Divine Providence: The Molinist Account.” Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998, page 38).

Therefore, one can be Classical Arminian and still affirm middle knowledge---without leading to determinism or even Molinism. Arminius himself held to a certain Middle Knowledge. With regards to Arminius, I will discuss his view of scientia media (middle knowledge) in my next post.

The Power of Choice

I was having a conversation with a friend the other day about Arminian theology. I’ve been studying it intensely the last few days and discussing it with all those closest to me that I come in contact with. I always like to investigate my beliefs, subject them to scrutiny, see if my thought processes are warped or not.
When I talked to one of my friends about Arminianism, she stated that she was more libertarian. When I asked her about her view of libertarian freedom, what she didn’t know was that classical Arminians AFFIRM liberatarian freedom!! What scared her the most about Arminianism, though, was that she didn’t believe humans could have THAT MUCH FREEDOM to be able to walk away from the Lord and His Spirit!!!

So that got me to thinking—I decided then and there to do a post on “The Power of Choice.” I figured that, my friend, being very sound in her theology, echoed a sentiment of most people. VERY FEW libertarians know that Arminians affirm their principle tenet, although Arminianism is NOTHING LIKE Pelagianism (despite the attacks on the view itself)!!

We first see the power of choice when God decided to create man. The Lord God did it of His own will—He was not forced to create man and give Him dominion over creation. Neither was He forced to create anything else in creation, for that matter! However, He decides to create the world…and so He does. So choice becomes the motive by which man was created. Our very existence is due to the will of God—God’s CHOOSING to make humankind.

The next instance of choice that we see is that God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden to watch over it (Gen. 2:15).From the very beginning, God desired that man would work and created work as something good. In the same way that God worked by creating the world, so man, bearing HIS IMAGE and being IN HIS LIKENESS, would work as well. Notice that God had a PURPOSE for Adam—he was to “work and watch over” the Garden. God gave the Garden to Adam as something Adam was supposed to do. Whatever happened in the Garden, Adam would have to own up to and take responsibility for (whether it was good or bad).Calvinists who spend time assuming that God is supposed to do everything have NEVER read Genesis, where He gave control of the Garden to Adam. Adam was God’s “right-hand man.” Adam was supposed to keep the Garden in order.
Adam worked the Garden, watered the plants, made sure everything operated as it should; but he was also given the responsibility of naming the animals:

“So the LORD God formed out of the ground each wild animal and each bird of the sky, and BROUGHT EACH TO THE MAN TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD CALL IT. AND WHATEVER THE MAN CALLED A LIVING CREATURE, THAT WAS ITS NAME” (Gen.2:19, HCSB).

Adam was given the responsibility to name the animals, but it was not only a responsibility—it was a privilege. God so honored Adam as His creation that the text says, “WHATEVER the man called a living creature, THAT WAS ITS NAME.” If Adam said, “cat,” then the animal was a cat; if he called another “grasshopper,” then the insect was a “grasshopper,” etc. God does not override Adam’s power of choice. Although God created the animals, HE CHOSE for Adam to name them—and by Adam naming them, Adam was operating under the authority and power of choice that he had received from God.

However, as I said earlier, Arminians affirm libertarian free will—this means that God sets boundaries for man’s free will, but man is able to operate freely WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES. Although God gave man the power of choice in the Garden, the Lord still retained control over all things—for He created a woman FOR Adam (and Adam got no say in the matter):

“Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him.’ So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to come over the man, and he slept. God took one of his ribs and closed the flesh at that place. Then the LORD God made the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man” (Gen. 2:19, 21-22, HCSB).

Adam did not get a choice over whether or not he wanted to have a helper in the Garden—it was God’s garden, and mankind was God’s creation, so God would decide whether or not to appoint a helper for Adam.

Another good text to look at regarding the power of human choice is in Genesis 1. Let’s read it together:

“And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die’” (Gen. 1:16, HCSB).

God gave man a choice here as to how man would choose to walk before God; but if man broke it, he wouldn’t just have to leave paradise—he would die a physical (and spiritual) death.

Well, as Genesis 3 shows us, the serpent (whom Revelation calls “Satan”) deceives Eve, and she and Adam both partake of the fruit. Let’s listen in, though, regarding the fall in Genesis 3:

“And He said to Adam, ‘Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘Do not eat from it’: THE GROUND IS CURSED BECAUSE OF YOU. You will eat from it by means of painful labor ALL THE DAYS OF YOUR LIFE. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. You will eat bread by the sweat of your brow until you return from the ground, since you were taken from it. FOR YOU ARE DUST, AND YOU WILL RETURN TO DUST’” (Gen. 1:17-19, HCSB).

When Adam sins, ALL OF HUMANITY AND CREATION is cursed because of his sin. After Adam and Eve sin, God does not shake His head in horror; He does not ask Himself, “Oh no! My creation has sinned—what shall I do?” Instead, God distributes punishments to all three guilty parties—the serpent, Eve, and Adam (although Adam was the one God gave the instructions to). Not only would Adam have to work extra hard to till the soil (since his sin brought thorns and thistles to the ground), but he would actually “return to the ground” (he would die a physical death).God gave Adam the promise that he would die—and he did, according to Genesis 5:5. However, Adam and Eve also died a spiritual death as a result of their sin. The Apologetics Study Bible gives us these words as commentary:

“The couple did not immediately die physically (cp. 2:17). By God’s grace, their death was postponed till a later time. But their expulsion from the Garden (vv. 23-24) shows that the word of God was indeed fulfilled as the immediate consequence of their disobedience. They were cut off from access to the tree of life, WHICH SYMBOLIZED THE SOURCE OF LIFE (Gen. 2:9; Rv. 2:7;22:2,14,19)…The human couple’s expulsion signaled their spiritual death (see Eph. 2:1). That their physical death occurred is confirmed by the refrain “then he died” in Adam’s genealogy (Gn. 5:5). Physical death for humans was the result of disobedience in the garden (Rm. 5:12-21; 6:23)” (“The Apologetics Study Bible,” HCSB, page 9).

And this brings me up to a point I want to emphasize about libertarian freedom. When Adam and Eve sin, God gives them their punishments and never takes them back. And at the end of Genesis chapter 3, God shows Adam and Eve their boundaries—if you think that His punishment to them was boundary enough (that they couldn’t commit sin and escape punishment), read these words:

“The LORD God said, ‘Since man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil, he must not reach out, and also take from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.’ So the LORD God sent him away from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken” (Gen. 3:22-23, HCSB).

Here we see that God makes good on His promise. He told Adam that if he ate from the tree, he would die (Gen.2:16-17). Here, the Lord executes His words to Adam. Eating from the tree of life would have caused the couple to live forever—but this would go against God’s order regarding sin and death. So, because God is consistent and does what He promises, He takes Adam and Eve out of the Garden. This is why He removes them from the Garden and sends them out to the world to live and then die.

We see here that God has a boundary. He is consistent in His character, and He does not change man’s boundaries. God’s boundaries are God’s boundaries, and man isn’t allowed to move beyond them. Man wasn’t allowed to “get around” his punishment for sin and live forever—why? Because GOD PROMISED that man would die for eating the fruit. God demonstrated that He had set boundaries for man—when man attempted to go beyond those boundaries, God punished Him for it, thereby showing His justice. This is what libertarians affirm—that, within specific God-given boundaries, man is allowed to demonstrate freedom. And this is also what Arminians affirm—that God gives man libertarian free will—the right to choose IN THE BOUNDARIES God has established.

So, back to that friend of mine. As I mentioned at the beginning, her response is a typical response from libertarians and Calvinists who want to understand Scripture: they just don’t understand how man could have so much freedom as to walk away from God…

But man did—he “walked away” from His Creator the moment he ate the fruit. In that moment, he decided that he, man, would be the judge of right and wrong. Was the sin worth it? Nope. But thanks be unto God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!