Home List of Predestination Articles

Where Did the Theory of the Exhaustive Foreknowledge of God Originate?

God does not change.

Any addition to knowledge would be a change in knowledge.

Therefore God’s knowledge does not change.

God’s knowledge does not change.

The future brings new events.

God knows the future.

Augustine on Absolute Foreknowledge

The City of God, Book XI, c.21, page 364

In anticipating these motifs of Calvinism Augustine explains God’s Knowledge on the basis of immutability. The premise is God does not change and any addition to His knowledge would be a change, therefore God’s knowledge does not change:

“For what else is to be understood by that invariable refrain, “And God saw that it was good,” than the approval of the work in its design, which is the wisdom of God? For certainly God did not in the actual achievement of the work first learn that it was good, but, on the contrary nothing would have been made had it not been first known by Him. While, therefore, He sees that that is good which, had He not seen it before it was made, would never have been made, it is plain that he is not discovering, but teaching that it is good. Plato, indeed, was bold enough to say that , when the universe was completed, God was, as it were, elated with joy. And Plato was not so foolish as to mean by this that God was rendered more blessed by the novelty of His creation; but he wished thus to indicate that the work now completed met with its Maker’s approval, as it had while yet in design. It is not as if the knowledge of God were of various kinds, knowing in different ways things which as yet are not, things which are, and things which have been. For not in our fashion does He look forward to what is future, quite different and far and profoundly remote from our way of thinking. For he does not pass form this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness; so that of those things which emerge in time, the future indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable and eternal presence. Neither does He see in one fashion by the eye, in another by the mind, for He is not composed of mind and body; nor does His present knowledge differ from that which it ever was or shall be, for those variations of time, past, present, future, though they alter our knowledge, do not affect His, “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” Neither is there any growth from thought to thought in the conceptions of Him in whose spiritual vision all things which He knows are at once embraced. For as without movement that time can measure, he Himself moves all temporal things, so He knows all times with a knowledge that time cannot measure. And therefore He saw that what He had made was good, when He saw that it was good to make it. And when He saw it made, He had not on that account a twofold nor any way increased knowledge of it; as if He had less knowledge before He made what He saw. For certainly He would not be the perfect worker He is, unless His knowledge were so perfect as to receive no addition from His finished works.”

Plotinus III, Loeb Classical Library, trans. by A.H. Armstrong, Ennead III, Chap. 7, Sec. 3, p.305)

“seeing all this one sees eternity in seeing a life that abides in the same, and always has the all present to it, not now this, and then again that, but all things at once, and not now some things, and then again others, but a partless completion, as if they were all together in a point, and had not yet begun to go out and flow into lines; it is something which abides in the same in itself and does not change at all but is always in the present, because nothing of it has passed away, nor again is there anything to come into being, but that which it is, it is:...”

“Necessarily there will be no ‘was’ about it, for what is there that was for it and has passed away? Nor any ‘will be,’ for what will be for it? So there remains for it only to be in its being just what it is. That, then, which was not, and will not be, but is only, which has being which is static by not changing to the ‘will be,’ nor ever having changed, this is eternity. The life, then, which belongs to that which exists and is in being , all together and full, completely without extension or interval, is that which we are looking for, eternity.”

(Ibid, p. 154)

Now the expression, “Once hath He spoken,” is to be understood as meaning “immovably,” that is, unchangeably hath He spoken, inasmuch as He knows unchangeably all things which shall be, and all things which He will do.”

The unchangeableness or the immutability of God is the foundation upon which Augustine develops his ideas of foreknowledge. Because God’s knowledge does not change the future must be foreknown by God also. Interestingly Augustine touches on another theme at the same time; the intemporality of God. “For not in our fashion does he look forward to what is future, nor at what is present, nor back upon what is past ; but in a manner quite different and far and profoundly remote from our way of thinking. For He does not pass from this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness ; so that of those things which emerge in time, the future, indeed, are not yet and the present are now, and the past no longer are ; but all of these are by comprehended in His stable and eternal presence.” God is not affected by time therefore he must be out of time or without time.

In addition Augustine views God as having no transition of thought: “He does not pass from this or that by transition of thought. This static conception of God forces God into a mold as much as it forces man into a mold.

Augustine assumes that everyone agrees that God knows all future events:

(Ibid, p. 152)

Nevertheless, they are far more tolerable who assert the fatal influence of the stars than they who deny the foreknowledge of future events. For, to confess, that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly.

(Ibid, p. 156)

For one who is not prescient of all future things is not God.

Book V, c.10 , page 157

Therefore we are by no means compelled, either, retaining the prescience of God, to take away the freedom of the will, or, retaining the freedom of the will, to deny that He is prescient of future things, which is impious.

On page 364 we see that Augustine maintains that in order for God to have perfect knowledge he cannot receive additional knowledge. There is no Biblical proof given for this statement because there is none. Augustines concept is based solely on reasoning from Platonic logic.

Augustine instead of investigating God’s Word on the Foreknowledge of God simply states that God must have prescience or the knowledge of all things that will happen in the future. Again notice the lack of Biblical evidence. Using Platonic reasoning and ad hominem arguments Augustine forces his view of Foreknowledge on his readers. His ad hominem attacks on the views of detractors suggests that Augustine had no answers for those who deny the prescience of God. Educator H. Scholfield describes indoctrination as “far from encouraging the use of evidence to substantiate, it actually suppresses all evidence which is in any way likely to undermine the beliefs and ideas it is attempting to inculcate...the victim of the indoctrination will never be able to consider an alternative because none appears to be available...”

Immutability of God

God is perfect.

The perfect does not change.

God does not change.

PLATO

Plato, Plato V, Republic I, Book II, p. 191, trans. by Paul Shorey

A dialogue between Socrates and Adeimantus

“Is it not true that to be altered and moved by something else happens least to things that are in the best condition...that the healthiest and strongest is the least altered....And is it not the soul that is bravest and most intelligent that would be least disturbed and altered by any external affection...those things which are well made an in good condition are least liable to be changed by time and other influences. That is so. It is universally true then, that that which is in the best state by nature or art admits least alteration by something else. So it seems. But God, surely and everything that belongs to God is in every way in the best possible state...Then does he (God) change himself for the better and to something fairer, or for the worse and to something uglier than himself? It must necessarily, said he, be for the worse if he is changed.”

In this dialogue between Socrates and Adeimantus, Plato presents his classical presentation of the Immutability of God. This concept was proposed by Plato and later adopted by Augustine through the writings of the Neo-Platonists. This view of perfection is called the static view of perfection.

We would disagree with Plato that perfection must be static. If God were to respond perfectly to each situation as the event occurs then God could be perfect and dynamic. As an illustration consider a football coach. If the coach was determining the plays of both teams, then the coach could easily cause his team to win. Such a coach would not be brilliant or admired. However if a coach were able to respond perfectly to the changing strategy of the opposition, the such a coach would have to change his game plans as the opposition changed their strategy. This coach would be practicing dynamic perfection. Such a coach is more worthy of our admiration.

Augustine

The historical influence of Plato on Augustine is easily documented in The Confessions of St. Augustine. He visited Simplicianus and mentioned that he had read “certain books of the Platonists.” Simplicianus “much rejoiced over me(Augustine), for that I had not fallen upon any other philosphers’ writings, which use to be full of fallacies and vain deceits, after the rudiments of this world : whereas in the Platonists, God and his word are everywhere implied.” St. Augustine’s Confessions transl. by William Watts 1631,The Loeb Classical Library, The MacMillan Company, New York, May 1912, Vol. 1, p. 409)

In the tradition of Neoplatonic mysticism Augustine turned inward to reach the good. This act of introspection is described on page 86: “ I entered and beheld with the eye of my soul, above my mind, the Light Unchangeable.” From Augustines Platonic background he had been taught that God was immutable or unchangeable, so this was his conception of God in his conversion. Again Augustine “ I found the unchangeable and true Eternity of Truth, above my changeable mind.”

So also in City of God we find Augustine praising the Platonic philophers and admitted that the concept of the immutability of God was taken from them.

Augustine, The City of God, trans. by Marcus Dods, The Modern Library, Random House, New York,1950

p. 250-25l

These philosophers, then, whom we see not undeservedly exalted above the rest in fame and glory, have seen that no material body is God, and therefore they have transcended all bodies in seeking for God. They have seen that whatever is changeable is not the most high God, and therefore they have transcended every soul and all changeable spirits in seeking the supreme.....He who is clever judges better than he who is slow, he who is skilled than he who is unskillful, he who is practiced than he who is unpractised; and the same person judges better after he has gained experience than he did before. But that which is capable of more and less is mutable; whence able men, who have thought deeply on these things, have gathered that the first form is not to be found in those things whose form is changeable.

p. 256-257

Then, as to Plato’s saying that the philosopher is a lover of God, nothing shines forth more conspicuously in those sacred writings. But the most striking thing in this connection, and that which most of all inclines me almost to assent to the opinion that Plato was not ignorant of those writings, is the answer which was given to the question elicited from the holy Moses when the words of God were conveyed to him by the angel; for, when he asked what was the name of that God who was commanding him to go and deliver the Hebrew people out of Egypt, this answer was given: “I am who am; and though shalt say to the children of Israel, He who is sent me unto you;” as though compared with Him that truly is, because He is unchangeable, those things which have been created mutable are not-a truth which Plato vehemently held, and most diligently commended. And I know not whether this sentiment is anywhere to be found in the books of those who were before Plato, unless in that book where it is said, “I am who am; and thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Who is sent me unto you.”

Augustine freely admits the concept of Immutability is a Platonic idea. He references these philosophers by which he means the Platonic philosophers and he mentions Plato. He then attempts to draw an analogy between the these philosophic concepts and God’s Word. We admit that this connection alone does not invalidate the concept. However what is the Biblical evidence?

Augustine cites Exodus 3:14 “ And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” The exact meaning of the Divine Name is not certain. However what is certain is that there is no reference to immutability. The meaning probably is a reference to the eternal existence or prescience of God. Citing verses with obscure meanings is hardly proof of a major doctrinal concept.

Notice also that Augustine uses philosophical reasoning as proof of his doctrine of Immutability. Reasoning is a dependable tool only with a Biblical foundation. This foundation is Platonic.

In other chapters on repentance Augustine attempts to prove Immutability with Scripture that say God does not change. We have examined these verses in detail already. These verses refer to specific attributes of God like His character and eternal essence but not His knowledge. Augustine forced the Platonic concept of God into this doctrine: that nothing about God changes, not even His knowledge.

Calvin

Calvin on Immutability:

“God remains unchangeably the same. God is here contrasted with created beings, who, as all know, are subject to continual changes...he is here placed in a state of settled and undisturbed tranquillity...Although he subjects the world to many alterations, he remains unmoved; and that not only in regard to himself.” 1)

“The book of life being nothing else than the eternal purpose of God, by which he has predestined his own people to salvation. God, it is certain, is absolutely immutable..” 2)

“To this the words of Augustine refer, “As we do not know all the things which God does respecting us in the best order, we ought, with good intention, to act according to the Law, and in some things be acted upon according to the Law, his Providence being a Law immutable.” 3)

“Besides as he is the Eternal Wisdom, the Immutable Truth, the Determinate Counsel of the Father.” 4)

“By that immutable counsel of God, by which he predestined to himself whomever he would, was alone effectual for their salvation...That Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction.” 5)

“Because his immutable decree had once for all doomed them to destruction.” 6)

“Where it is said that God repented of having made Saul king, the term change is used figuratively. Shortly after it is added, “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent, for he is not a man, that he should repent.” In these words, his immutability is plainly asserted without figure.” 7)

1) Calvin, John, trans. James Anderson, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan. p.462

2) ibid, p. 73

3) Calvin, John. Calvin’s Institutes, Book One, Chapter XVII, c2, p. l03.

4) Ibid, p. 517.

5) Ibid, p. 494.

6) Ibid, p. 522.

7) Ibid, p. 109.

As proof that God remains unalterably the same Calvin declares that God remains unmoved. Compare this statement with Aristotle (Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, The Loeb Classical Library, trans. by Hugh Tredennick, Harvard University Press, 1933, p. 207) “for there is something which always moves that which is moved, and the prime mover is itself unmoved.” Calvin obviously is borrowing his ideas from Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, and mixing them with his theology of immutability.

Why is Calvin certain that God is immutable? Is this plainly asserted in Scripture? In this article most of the occurrences of the Hebrew word for repent are listed. Of the 32 occurrences, 26 are references to God. God is said not to repent 6 times. 20 references are to God repenting. Is Calvin certain that God does not repent because of Scripture or because of his Platonic influence?

Does Scripture prove God’s immutable counsel. Where is this clear evidence? It is interesting that when Calvin is presented with the evidence that God changes he dismisses it lightly.

Calvin’s explanation that “change” is just a figure of speech is unacceptable. A figure of speech is used to represent one concept in terms of another because the nature of the two concepts allows an analogy to be drawn. There is no analogy between the concepts of “does not change his mind” and “changes his mind”.

The Niphal form of the Hebrew word naham is used in 1 Samuel 15:11 and 1 Samuel 15:35 to mean that the Lord repented. However in 1 Samuel 15:29 the same word is used to say that the Lord does not repent. If we understand that the Lord does not repent but that in this specific instance God will not change his mind the apparent conflict is easily explained. However Calvin uses another approach. Calvin is convinced that God is immutable and therefore the term change is used figuratively with God. Where does Calvin obtain his conviction that God is immutable? Why does he dismiss without an explanation the idea that God could change his mind?

Calvin quotes Augustine as a source for immutability. As we have already demonstrated Augustine received his doctrine of Immutability from Plato.