Posted on 08/13/2003 6:04:31 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
To reiterate on what Woody rightly concluded. This is nothing more than the "Middle Knowledge" heresy. Here Arminius is re-defining God's "omniscience" to be that God knows all things "possible".
In "Middle Knowledge", God is said to be so smart that he "knows all potentialities". He doesn't know anything ~really~ until that event actually happens in time. However, he has known of it's potential reality and has contingencies in place in the event of any possible reality to ensure his "plan" will be accomplished.
In reality, God does not know much of anything if he doesn't ~really~ know what will indeed happen!
We can read further from the section you have quoted from:
XLIII. The schoolmen say besides, that one kind of God's knowledge is natural and necessary, another free, and a third kind middle. (1.) Natural or necessary knowledge is that by which God understands himself and all things possible. (2.) Free knowledge is that by which he knows, all other beings. (3.) Middle knowledge is that by which he knows that "if This thing happens, That will take place." The first precedes every free act of the Divine will; the second follows the free act of God's will; and the last precedes indeed the free act of the Divine will, but hypothetically from this act it sees that some particular thing will occur. But, in strictness of speech, every kind of God's knowledge is necessary. For the free understanding of God does not arise from this circumstance, that a free act of His will exhibits or offers an object to the understanding; but when any object whatsoever is laid down, the Divine understanding knows it necessarily on account of the infinity of its own essence. In like manner, any object whatsoever being laid down hypothetically, God understands necessarily what will arise from that object.
-from Arminius' Works, On the Understanding of God, XLIII
We also can read the following from the Wesley Center Online:
Further, Molina, Arminius, Plaifere, Goad, and Wesley also have in common the concept of "scientia media," or God's "middle knowledge," as an attempt to resolve the paradox of omniscience in order to maintain compatiblist view. It is this common denominator that I wish to explore this essay.
The Wesley Center Online goes on to say:
That Arminius advocated free-will is a well-documented fact of history. What is often overlooked is the fact that, like Molina, Arminius also an appeal to middle knowledge.
Furthermore, the Wesley Center Online says the following about John Wesley:
...the material indicates that Wesley did see the immediate value of the concept of middle knowledge to his Arminian position.
Well, Marlowe. It seems that True and Classic Arminianism indeed ~DOES~ deny the Omniscience of God!
Jean
Arminius and Wesley most definately did ~NOT~ believe in the absolute foreknowledge of God.
You, to your credit, buck the historical Arminian position on God's sovereignty...presuming, of course, that you define "absolute foreknowledge" as God pre-knowing absolutely everything with certainty and not mere "possibility".
Jean
Looks like someone was just picking a fight!
Those who adhere to "Middle Knowledge" believe they can rightly say that because God knows all "possibilities", that "God knows everything".
If that is the case, you could easily have been simply unaware of the meaning of those using the phrase "God knows everything".
I had a similar situation in College when taking an Astronomy class by Howard VanTill author of The Fourth Day. Although Prof. VanTill is a really nice guy, he's still a theistic evolutionist. Part of the problem he caused was his redefining the word "creation". He could wholeheartedly say that God "created" man. Now most non-evolutionary Christians would believe that meant that God created man distinctly from the Animals. That wasn't what Howard meant, however. He defined "created" as "providence". So, when man evolved from primates, Howard could easily say that God "created" man because God provided the evolutionary mechanism for man to evolve from lower forms of life.
Most in the class were ignorant of that fact and thus could find nothing wrong with what Prof. VanTill taught.
This is also true of "Middle Knowledge". By claiming that God "knows everything" they mean that God doesn't know everything ~really~ -but that he knows everything potentially.
This Middle Knowledge (as well as "Openness Theology") exists because these folks recognize that if God foreknows absolutely everything in reality, then everything he knows ~necessarily~ will occur and there is no freedom of the creature (man) to do "other".
Jean
~IF~ God ~could~ know the future, but voluntarily chooses not to, implies that the future is indeed "knowable".
This, of course, begs the question that if the future is "knowable", then what have the "Openness Theologians" really "solved" by claiming that God "chooses" not to know the future.*
Jean
*This line of thinking did not originate with me. ;)
Amen!
First, it would not matter what any Church Father said about anything, only what the Scripture says.
Second, Predestination was not an issue of any major debate until Augustine of the 4th century.
Imagine my shock when scrolling through this thread and finding me mentioned.:-)
Of course the bible happens to agree that the father and son are the only "persons" that make up the Godhead in heaven...and further that the Holy Spirit is their power and glory working in the created universe.
And btw, I would urge that you give up your heretical, unbiblical viewpoint that is a perversion of the gospel and based primarily upon tradition. Nothing personal though, just truth and charity. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.