Divine Omniscience
An Arminian brother and friend has recently posted on his blog regarding how Calvinists (like me) are out to lunch when it comes to divine aseity and divine knowledge. He’s responding to an old post of mine (along with a Facebook discussion). I want to respond to J.C.’s post in order to bring some clarity to my actual argument, which he honestly seems to dismiss by a change of topic. Fasten yer seat belts and pull up yer socks and hose… let’s go!
My first issues is J.C.’s definition of divine aseity. Right off the bat, J.C. draws his definition of aseity from an unfortunate place, a standard online dictionary. Aseity is a technical theological term with hundreds and hundreds of years of history. The flatness of his stated definition can easily be seen when it’s compared to more fulsome theological definitions.
J.C.’s definition drawn from an online dictionary: God’s aseity means that his “existence derived from itself, having no other source.”
According to theism.info, “The doctrine of divine aseity holds that God is entirely self-sufficient, that he is not dependent upon any other thing either for his existence or for his nature.”
According to the Roman Catholic theological encyclopedia, “It is to this very property of absolute independence, or self-existence by nature that we give the name of aseity. This notion of aseity includes, therefore, according to our conception, a negative and a positive aspect; absolute independence and self-existence, which complement each other and form one single objective property.”
According to John Frame, a Reformed theologian, “The terms self-contained, self-existent, self-sufficient, and independent are often used as synonyms for a se.”
Having a more robust definition of aseity will prove to be important, as, in the classical Christian understanding of it, it involves far more than God’s existence having no source outside God himself. Not only is God’s existence in view, but so are his nature (as self-contained, self-existent, and self-sufficient) and his absolute independence (both negatively and positively considered). It should be clear that the definition of aseity offered by J.C. is quite anemic, which helps him in his attempted demonstration that my critiques “lack coherence.”
The robust articulation of divine aseity draws heavily on the classical Christian doctrine of divine simplicity, which states that God is absolutely and radically one. God cannot be divided or separated in any way. What’s more, he is identical with his attributes. Simply stated, God IS what he has. This wonderful doctrine doesn’t get much air time, now-a-days, but that’s to the church’s detriment. Now, since, in God, the self-existent One, essence and attributes are identical, his knowledge is of necessity tied in with his essence – his being. God IS his knowledge. So, if God is dependent upon creation for knowledge, then we have a serious theological problem. We have subjected the being of God to dependence upon his creation, which is absurd. Now, against this J.C. argues that God didn’t have to create, but chose to do so. But the fact that God might not have created, or that he (supposedly) created knowing that he wouldn’t of himself know the choices of his self-determining creations, doesn’t help. It doesn’t help because it doesn’t actually touch the issue at hand. The issue isn’t what God knew before creating. Nor is the issue God’s freedom to create or not to create. The issue is that, according to J.C.’s theory, God’s knowledge isn’t a se – it’s not from himself; it’s from another source. To say that God willed his own ignorance, and that he willed to remedy that ignorance by gleaning knowledge from his own creation is still asserting that God’s knowledge is from another source, that is, his “self-determining” creations. Obviously, these creations are more than merely self-determining: they’re divine-knowledge determining, and thus determining of the divine essence. Does that work for you?
Of course, we could thumb our noses at centuries of Christian theology and throw out the doctrine of divine simplicity (a thing which I suspect that J.C.’s, unfortunately, readily willing to do… indeed, already has done). Suppose that God’s essence is not identical with his attributes. Suppose that we can say God exists a se, but that his attributes can be gleaned or strengthened (or whatever) externally. On this theory (which I think is J.C.’s), God gains part of his knowledge from an external source: creation. If that paradigm works with God’s attribute of knowledge, why not all his other attributes? Would we be opposed to the notion that, in certain areas, God’s not all-powerful, but actual gains power from his creation? What if God, in a certain area, were not completely truthful, but gained truth from his creation? How about if God, in a specific relation to his creation, lacked goodness, but gained it from that relation? All of these options are, of course, quite unthinkable.
So, J.C. needs to justify his position at least insofar as providing a biblical basis for why God can be less than perfect in one attribute and not in others. Why can God’s knowledge not be completely a se, but his, say, being, wisdom, power, justice, holiness, goodness, and truth are. That said, J.C.’s surprised me before. Maybe he thinks that all God’s attributes are, to some extent, actually gleaned from his creation.
The semi-thoughtful reader will already know that, in J.C.’s thought, the classic doctrine of divine immutability was tossed out the window a long time ago. For, manifestly, if God doesn’t change, his knowledge cannot increase. His knowledge would (like all his other attributes) be infinite, eternal and unchangeable. Learning is growth. Growth is change. The Bible says that God doesn’t change.
Change is to immutability what ignorance is to omniscience. Both are a far cry from the immutability and omniscience of God in the Bible.
What say you? Has J.C. nailed this issue, or is he creating a massive theological mess? My original post on the Armianian view of God addressed this issue. The Arminian is, all too often, willing to modify and downgrade classical Christian theology to hang onto what I think is an unbiblical view of the freedom of humanity. I hope the readers see that classical doctrines like aseity and simplicity act as guards against just such theological perversions. Finally, the reader will note that J.C.’s not attacking “Calvinism” at all. He’s actually attacking classic Christian doctrines. Notice that my defense has not been an appeal to “determinism” (as J.C. consistently calls it), nor have I mentioned TULIP. This, again, demonstrates that Arminian anthropology ofttimes does significant theological damage. The best defense against this theological damage is not necessarily “Calvinism,” but simply historic Christianity.
Tim,
Thanks for pointing out that Divine Simplicity has fallen on hard times. Overall, Christians today need to get back to basics in the doctrine of God. I suspect that the prevalence of social trinitarianism (which is too close to tri-theism) in Evangelicalism is a contributing factor. (Yes, Dr. J’s influence can’t be denied).
Doubtless you are also dealing with a failure to hear the Word. As one blog has suggested recently, the Bible wouldn’t be written like it is if it was coming from an Arminian perspective (or molinist, or open-theist, or process perspective). What is unclear about this text?
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will” Eph 1:7-11
[...] Prussic attempts to salvage his hopeless case after I pointed out his fallacious reasoning concerning God’s [...]
You can see from above that J.C. has responded to my post above. Head on over there and get a load of what he’s got.
J.C. presents my understanding of divine simplicity as “comical.” While such slams don’t accomplish anything and are not helpful, the do make me wonder if J.C. actually wants to engage in meaningful exchange of ideas. If all he wants to do it type little zingers, let him type to himself. If he wants, however, to exchange ideas with respect, then I’m on board. In any event, for the time being, I’ll try to distinguish my “comical” notion from J.C.’s caricature of it.
God’s knowledge of history is a se and, therefore not dependent upon anything outside himself. God purposed and decreed history from eternity. He decreed creation and history – it flows from his mind and is entirely derived from him. Thus, there’s no way to contort my position into saying that God *needs* creation to know or love… etc. All of God’s knowledge or love (or whatever relative attribute) comes from God and not from creation. I say God’s knowledge is perfect in and from himself. J.C. says that God learns from us. Then he turns around and attempts to accuse me of making God dependent upon creation!
More at the root of the issues is that J.C. demonstrates his lack of understanding of the distinction between the so-call absolute and relative attributes of God (a basic theological distinction). Here it is: God’s absolute in everything that he is. He is prefect, self-contained, and a se in all his attributes. Some of these attributes would not be *manifested* apart from creation. For example, God is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his mercy. That IS what he IS. That attribute would not be manifested, however, apart from some context wherein God could show is mercy. This, of course, is the stated and central purposes for creation. Paul mentions this in that highly Arminian text of Romans 9:
What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory… (vv. 22-3)
While God makes manifest his attributes in creation, he’s not at all dependent upon creation for these. Contrast that with J.C. who says that God knows because we do/choose. We’d have to add a whole new category of divine attribute to account for J.C.’s notion: absolute, relative, and derived. J.C.’s misunderstanding runs through his whole rebuttal to me.
As to immutability, J.C. paints another caricature of my position (which, again, is the classic Christian position). God is unchanging and unchangeable, but not static. The Christians have always distanced themselves (in certain important ways) from the various Greek notions of divine immutability. Thus, J.C. set up and then takes down his straw man. The classic view of immutability has always made room for relational changes… see here for an example of how J.C. leaves behind even classical Arminianism in his view of divine immutability.
As to God’s knowledge of sin, J.C. reasons thus: “If all of God’s knowledge is innate to His being, and sin is something encompassed in His knowledge, then sin itself is essential to God’s being.” Hmmm… seems like he just might be missing something in his analysis. First, the knowledge of a thing is not the thing. More deeply, what’s missing in J.C.’s analysis is the Creator/creature distinction. While God’s knowledge is a se, he is still radically distinct from creation. Without this distinction (again, most fundamental theological distinction), we would be Panentheists. We’re not. We’re Christians. Our songs go like this: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen”
Tim,
Thanks for keeping God’s simplicity in the forefront and for logically and clearly articulating this important truth.
“Donkey Kong?” Well that would certainly explain the monkey business I’ve been seeing.
In an attempt to make this simple: God is “bound” to creation as it is his eternally decreed, chosen means of manifesting his own attributes (yeah, the relative attribute thing). He’s “bound” in the sense that it’s exactly what he’s eternally wanted to do. In all of this God remains completely a se, creating the cosmos for his purpose. If J.C. wants some “freedom” for God, what he’s really wanting if “freedom” for God to do something other than what God wants to do. That, indeed, is a curious freedom.
As to immutability, J.C. thinks I contradict myself:
Quite honestly, I fail to see any contradiction here. God’s knowledge is perfect and eternally complete. Creation and history flow from God’s unchanging knowledge and decree. Where’s the contradiction? God’s eternally and unchangeably “coming up with” creation. If J.C.’s trying to hold my feet to the fire because of the mystery of how the unchangeable God relates to creation, I confess that I cannot fathom God, nor can I even express what I comprehend. This, however, involves no “contradiction,” which is obvious from his quotations. What’s more, please note that J.C. did not respond to the accusation that an increase in God’s knowledge is change, but God is unchanging. THE BIBLE SAYS SO. Instead, he responds with straw man, talking about God as “static.” Sorry, that dog don’t hunt.
My final point: Please take note that J.C. is not warring against “Calvinism” at all. He’s fighting against some of the most fundamental Christian concepts of God that precede the Reformation by well over a millennium. He’s setting himself up against the classical articulations of the church. I’ve already shown that his notions of immutability are contrary to those of his teacher, Arminius. Arminius stood in the catholic tradition (God bless him), but J.C., on these issues, simply doesn’t; he departs from that tradition. He acts and speak as though he’s after “Calvinism” or “determinism,” but let the readers decide if that’s actually so.
Uh, yeah… really, you should read the article more carefully before responding to it.
Well… seems like I read it carefully enough, as I finally nailed J.C. down here. That’s right, we might have made some headway. I asked J.C. wanted God to have freedom to do something other than what he actually wants to do. He wrote, “In some sense, yes. God obviously wanted to create me, else I wouldn’t be here. I hold that God didn’t have to choose to create me, -that the desire to create me was rooted in His freely choosing, not something necessary to His nature. Are you arguing otherwise, that God couldn’t help but to desire & choose to create me?”
Alright, God freely chose to create (and save!) J.C. only because that’s EXACTLY, ETERNALLY, and UNCHANGEABLY what HE wanted to do. I suppose God acts in accordance with his nature, just as all created volitional beings do (though, of course, God is simple). I think that J.C. wants to separate his plans, purposes, decree, etc. from his nature. As I mentioned before, God is simple, so piecing God a part is impossible. He is identical with his attributes. We oughtn’t twist this around (as J.C. sees continually to want to do) and make creation necessary to God. We ought not desire to protect God from his own desire and plan.
One more comment and I’m done typing for today (I think). A friend of mine was reading over this exchange and had an observation, which I will relate and add to. (This friend, by the way, was an Arminian not too long ago, so his insights into the mindset are often more penetrating than folks like me.) J.C. wrote this:
First of all, what does God know that’s essential to his being? Everything. J.C. said so. The content of divine omniscience is, well… everything, which includes “what he knows about us.” But then he goes on to say there are things he doesn’t need to know. Which is it? Is OMNIscience “essential to his being” or is it not, J.C.? If it is, then please retract the comment above (or at least explain with without such a glaring inconsistency – retraction would be preferable). If, however, divine omniscience is not “essential to his being,” then why limit this divine ignorance to humanity? There is no part of creation that’s “essential to his being,” right? On your premises, God should be ignorant off all knowledge of creation. J.C. will need to justify his limitation of divine ignorance, a thing I’m eager to read.
Easier refuted than read.
J.C., you continually have the tail wag the dog. First, there is no “prior to God deciding to create” – you’re consistently predicating all sorts of creational aspects to God. ALL OF WHICH, classical Christianity denies. It’s just further proof that you’re at odds with mainstream Christian thought. What you think is an “inevitable conclusion” is not at all necessary and has been avoided by all Christendom. Thus, your arguments fall flat. I have already owned that, insofar as God’s purposed in himself to do WHAT HE WANTS, he’s bound himself to a course of action. That course of action includes creation and redemption. Thus, God’s freely bound himself to his own purpose and plan. That YOU want him to have more freedom is quite silly.
Also, you still have not *actually* answered how God’s omniscience is not OMNIscience. He either possess ALL knowledge or he doesn’t. I get tired of running into ignorant omniscience, changeable immutability, etc. Maybe you should just make up a whole new lexicon to talk about God, so as to get away from all this pesky historical talk that Christians have used for centuries and centuries. You can say I’m not getting it, but i get this: God either knows all things or he doesn’t. You can’t seem to make up your mind, as you’re still speaking out both sides of your mouth.
[...] Prussic attempts to salvage his hopeless case after I pointed out his fallacious reasoning concerning God’s [...]
[...] Does God Know Cuz of Us??? « ProvidenceFeb 28, 2011 … My first issues is J.C.’s definition of divine aseity. Right off the bat, J.C. draws his definition of aseity from an unfortunate place, a standard online … [...]