The Definition of Exhaustive Foreknowledge in the Writings of Richard Rice
Location
Seminary Commons
Start Date
10-2-2017 10:30 AM
End Date
10-2-2017 11:00 AM
Description
My poster addresses an apparent contradiction between Richard Rice’s model of God’s exhaustive knowledge of the possibility of future free choices and the generally accepted traditional model of God’s exhaustive definite knowledge of the certainty of future free choices. According to Rice, scriptural descriptions of God’s emotions should be taken at “face value”—that is, interpreted literally, because “their expressions faithfully portray the inner life of God.” This literal interpretation of divine emotions impels Rice to deny God’s exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future free choices. Hence, Rice proposes an almost completely univocal reading of a God of love, who risks and expresses regret, and frustration over what transpires. This leads Rice to replace the traditional interpretation of omniscience (that God can know everything of the future including the free choices of humans) with the claim that “God can know everything there is to know.” This means that, on one hand, “the future does not yet exist so God does not know it.” However, on the other hand, “the future which God knows is partly composed of possibilities and partly determined by God.” In response to Rice’s view, I reflect on the following questions. How should foreknowledge be understood: univocally, equivocally, or analogically? Should foreknowledge be understood in terms of future possibilities or future certainties or both?
The Definition of Exhaustive Foreknowledge in the Writings of Richard Rice
Seminary Commons
My poster addresses an apparent contradiction between Richard Rice’s model of God’s exhaustive knowledge of the possibility of future free choices and the generally accepted traditional model of God’s exhaustive definite knowledge of the certainty of future free choices. According to Rice, scriptural descriptions of God’s emotions should be taken at “face value”—that is, interpreted literally, because “their expressions faithfully portray the inner life of God.” This literal interpretation of divine emotions impels Rice to deny God’s exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future free choices. Hence, Rice proposes an almost completely univocal reading of a God of love, who risks and expresses regret, and frustration over what transpires. This leads Rice to replace the traditional interpretation of omniscience (that God can know everything of the future including the free choices of humans) with the claim that “God can know everything there is to know.” This means that, on one hand, “the future does not yet exist so God does not know it.” However, on the other hand, “the future which God knows is partly composed of possibilities and partly determined by God.” In response to Rice’s view, I reflect on the following questions. How should foreknowledge be understood: univocally, equivocally, or analogically? Should foreknowledge be understood in terms of future possibilities or future certainties or both?