Does God's Foreknowledge Preclude Free Will?

No. God knowing what you will do in the future does not mean you don't have free will. Whatever it is that makes something true, God knowing it isn't a truth maker. If God knows I'm going to wear jeans today, His knowing it isn't what makes it is true. Whatever makes it true is how God knows it, otherwise, he wouldn't know it at all since there would be nothing true to know (or, if God knowing something in the future makes it so, how did He know it in the first place?). To make the case more apparent, say I am currently wearing jeans. Then God currently knows I am wearing jeans. But God knowing I am wearing jeans at this moment isn't what is making me wear jeans at this moment, anymore than God knowing the past is makes makes the past true, and so, it isn't true of the future as well. 

Comments

  1. UnknownJuly 21, 2017 at 10:13 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownJuly 21, 2017 at 10:15 AM

    Interesting case, I'm curious. Since this is on the topic of Divine Foreknowledge and Creaturely freedom, what's your take on the Molinist position? It seems to me to be quite tenable, but I'm always open to hearing different perspectives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AdrianJuly 23, 2017 at 1:00 PM

      I'm a bit on the fence on that at the moment. Had you asked me five years ago, I would have been a die hard Molinist. But since then, I've read "Predestination" by Lagrange and "Ten Philosophical Mistakes" by Adler, and they have a different definition of freedom (a Thomistic definition) which I'm sympathetic to. So, is freedom the ability to do otherwise or is it the power to act upon intellect? I tend to think the latter, but I'm still not definite on it.

      Delete
  3. Sam HarperJuly 8, 2018 at 11:04 AM

    If the direction of causation is from the truth or reality of a situation to God's knowledge rather than the other way around, then wouldn't that entail backward causation in the case of God knowing the future?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is
Read more