Commentary

Does God’s omniscience conflict with human free will?

29 Comments

This question was sent to me by a friend from the Phillipines while I as on Facebook, on Tuesday night.

Here’s the setup for the question, from Come Reason ministries.

Excerpt:

Hello,

Christian doctrine holds that God is all knowing (1 John 3:20), and humans have free will (Deuteronomy 30:19 is my favorite example). however, at my favorite apologetics debate board, I have seen skeptics raise an objection to these points several times. the basic logic behind their arguments is this:

  1. A being with free will, given two options A and B, can freely choose between A and B.
  2. God is omniscient (all-knowing).
  3. God knows I will choose A.
  4. God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge.
  5. From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B.
  6. From 1 and 5, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist.

I have read many counter-arguments from apologetics sites, but they were either too technical (I couldn’t understand them), or not satisfying. so, I was wondering what would your input be on this issue?

Thank you,

Justin

Ever heard that one? Here’s Lenny Eposito’s answer:

Hi Justin,

Thanks for writing. This is a great question as it shows how even those who appeal to logic can have biases that blind them. Let’s examine this argument and see if it follows logically.

Premises 1 and 2 in your outline above are the main premises to the argument and are not disputed. The Christian worldview argues that every human being is a free moral agent and is capable of making choices simply by exercising their will, not under compulsion or because of instinct. Also, it is a long held doctrine of Christianity that God is all-knowing. The Bible says that God knows “the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).” For omniscience to be truly knowledgeable it must be correct knowledge, so premise number 4 is also granted.

However, point number 5 is where the logic falters. Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it. That does not follow at all. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn’t still freely choose the other option.

Let me give you an example. I have a five year old son. If I were to leave a chocolate chip cookie on the table about a hour before dinner time and my son was to walk by and see it, I know that he would pick up the cookie and eat it. I did not force him to make that decision. In fact, I don’t even have to be in the room at all. I think I know my son well enough, though, to tell you that if I come back into the kitchen the cookie will be gone. His act was made completely free of my influence, but I knew what his actions would be.

In examining the argument, the assumption is made in premise 3 that because God knows I will choose A somehow denies me the choice of B. That is the premise that Christianity rejects. Omniscience and free will are not incompatible and it is a non-sequitor to claim otherwise.

Thank you Justin for this interesting question. I pray that you will continue to defend the gospel of our Lord and may He continue to bless you as you seek to grow in Him.

That’s a great answer and should work in ordinary conversations.

More technical

J.W. Wartick maps out the arguments more fully with symbolic logic here on his Always Have A Reason blog. But I’ll just excerpt the gist of it.

Excerpt:

It is necessarily true that if God knows x will happen, then x will happen. But then if one takes these terms, God knowing x will happen only means that x will happen, not that x will happen necessarily. Certainly, God’s foreknowledge of an event means that that event will happen, but it does not mean that the event could not have happened otherwise. If an event happens necessarily, that means the event could not have happened otherwise, but God’s foreknowledge of an event doesn’t somehow transfer necessity to the event, it only means that the event will happen. It could have been otherwise, in which case, God’s knowledge would have been different.

[…]Perhaps I could take an example. Let’s say that I’m going to go to classes tomorrow (and I do hope I will, I don’t like missing classes!). God knows in advance that I’m going to go to classes tomorrow. His knowledge of this event means that it will happen, but it doesn’t mean that I couldn’t choose to stay in and sleep for a while, or play my new copy of Final Fantasy XIII, or do something more useless with my time. If I chose to, say, play Final Fantasy XIII (a strong temptation!), then God simply would have known that I would play FFXIII. His knowledge does not determine the outcome, His knowledge is simply of the outcome.

If we choose A, God would foreknow A. If we choose B, God would foreknow B. His foreknowledge of our choices is contingent on our making free choices.

I had to learn symbolic logic and Bayes’ theorem in college for my computers science degrees, and it’s pretty useful for understanding these philosophers. Philosophy is a lot like computer science, at least for analytical philosophy.

UPDATE: Here’s another one from Sam Harper. I would click through just to read his funny author profile.

29 thoughts on “Does God’s omniscience conflict with human free will?”

  2. The question at hand then becomes whether God’s “knowledge” as it’s described in Scripture reflects a knowledge that is merely descriptive (as you’re suggesting here), or prescriptive (i.e., determinative). I’ve heard exceptional NT scholars argue both ways.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I’m struggling to see how determinism could be compatible with the Bible.

      For one thing, the Bible talks about punishment for sinning. But I don’t see how God could hold people responsible for things that they are not free to avoid doing (determinism).
      Secondly, determinism is incompatible with rational thought, since you cannot even make rational statements unless free will is part of your worldview.

      So to affirm determinism is to deny morality and rationality. I think that those are integral to Christianity.

      Here is an article on free will and Christian theology by William Lane Craig that expresses these concerns better than I have:
      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8111

      Do you hold to libertarian free will?

      Like

      Reply

  3. When I was a freshman in college I was in a philosophy class that was dedicated to disproving God’s existence for about 1/3 or so of the semester.

    They used this argument, that God cannot be all-knowing if we have free will at the same time. I remember asking the TA, “Can you help me understand why we can’t have free will just because God may know in advance what we’re going to do with it”?

    She had no answer, and ended up changing the topic…

    It seems like this would be equivalent to making the argument that it is impossible for anyone to have free will because there WILL be some specific outcome when we exercise it, and that outcome will become known in the present. This sounds like such an absurd claim to me, but I don’t see how it is any different in principle than arguing that God’s omnicience and our free will is incompatible.

    Like

    Reply

    1. A related argument that I’ve heard is that hell equates to coercion because no one is going to select eternal pain and torture when you could have eternal bliss and happiness with God. It’s like putting a gun to your head and saying “Worship me or I’ll pull the trigger!”

      Ironically, the person making the argument ISN’T a Christian, and when I point out that knowing the consequences of hell didn’t affect the arguer’s free will to side against God and become an atheist, I seldom get any further protest.

      An alternate way to handle that protest would be to ask the protester that if they actually believe that because actions have consequences that it negates free will. When spelled out that way, they usually realize that it rings as a very hollow protest.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. That’s not true. I’m a Calvinist, and I don’t hate it. In fact, I argued the same on my blog. Although I don’t believe in libertarian freedom, I don’t think it is inconsistent with God’s perfect foreknowledge.

      Like

      Reply

      1. True Calvinists say there is no such thing as free will, especially when it comes to choices made as to whether one wants to follow Christ – that decision has already been made. But I will leave it at that to avoid turning this into a Calvinist/anti-Calvinist discussion.

        Like

        Reply

        2. That’s an all-or-nothing fallacy. Just because God chooses whom to save doesn’t make us predetermined machines. One aspect of our lives is determined, so we’re robots? That doesn’t follow.

          I understand avoiding a calvinist/anti-calvinist discussion, so I’m done and won’t respond if you don’t want to continue; I just wanted to give some input.

          Like

          Reply

    2. Err…nope. I’m a Calvinist and I don’t hate it either. R.C. Sproul explains compatiblism quite well, as does Sam Harper in his post.

      Like

      Reply

  5. This is a difficult topic to wrap my head around.

    Would it be logical for God to try and call certain people to Himself that He knows won’t come?

    I think he draws everyone to Himself regardless of what he knows will happen. I think that is because God is omnipotent and transcendent and therefore doesn’t share our worry about ‘wasting his time/energy.’ Also because he said that he does.

    I do not subscribe to Calvinism, but I do have to admit that because God knows what will happen in each person’s heart does make salvation seem like predestination.

    And why create people he knows won’t follow him? Does free will to follow God or not necessitate that some not follow? Do some people who will choose to follow their own desires and perish need to be created in order to prove to God’s followers that they had free will?

    These are the kind of thoughts to keep me up at night.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Sometimes, people can only freely respond to God when they suffer evil, or when they observe other people rejecting God out of sinfulness and/or irrationality. Suppose you look at an atheist and ask them if why they are an atheist and they say because the universe is eternal. You try to talk to them about the origin of the universe requiring a Creator and they punch your nose in. This causes you to realize that unbelief really is sinful, and you redouble your efforts to study the arguments and evidence. Or just consider how quickly Christianity is growing in places where there is a lot of human and natural evil and suffering. Seeing the rebellion of non-Christians and the virtuousness of Christians IS a cause of people responding to God’s drawing them to him.

      I really, really recommend that you read this paper on middle knowledge:
      http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/middle2.html

      REALLY.

      But you’ve come to the right place to discuss all of this. I’m going to let other people respond now. I do think you should read the post again to address the issue of whether foreknowing causes events to happen. The events will happen because people cause them to happen. God knows what events the people freely cause. His knowing the future is based on the free decisions of people. If they were going to choose something different, then his foreknowledge would be different because he would know that event instead of the other event.

      Like

      Reply

      1. That article is very difficult for me to understand. I am unsure of how it concluded that saying God couldn’t create a world in which all were saved wasn’t an impingement on His omnipotence. I saw where it happened in the text, I just don’t get it.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Well, you were asking about people who don’t believe, and the gist of the article was that God knows before the creation of the universe how all the people he could choose to create would respond freely in all the situations he could choose to create. So he creates a world where everyone who COULD freely believe in him gets all the evidence, and people, and love and family and circumstances they need to respond freely to him.

          Maybe I should just quote you Acts 17:27.

          Basically, the Bible is saying that God wants everone to freely respond to him, and that God deliberately puts people who can respond into times and places where they WILL respond

          Like

          Reply

          1. But why create people who cannot freely respond? The article suggested that somehow the price of having many people in Heaven is creating people who will be in Hell.

            Like

  6. An illustration I once heard on the subject is that God knows all the possible choices we have…like comparing our choices to moves in a game of chess. God is all-knowing and knows all the possible chess (life) moves we have in front of us but leaves us free to make the choice. But no matter what move is made, God still works his plans through it. Also, we normally see life from chessboard level but prayer is what helps us see from God’s level and helps us make the move that would most please him.

    Our free will is ultimately what make is possible to have a true relationship with God….and this free will has a mysterious interaction with God when you read how many times the Bible says God “changed his mind” because of the prayers and pleadings of men, especially in the Old Testament. It’s as if God waits for our interceding before taking certain actions but in the end His ultimate will is still accomplished.

    Like

    Reply

  7. When I read the logic, I knew the stumbling point was #5 and Lenny answered it exactly the way that I would have.

    As a Calvinist, though, I have a different view of God’s sovereignty. I believe he decrees not only the ends (as you acknowledge here) but also the means to arrive at the ends. His will vs. our will = LOSS for us. But, the traditional Calvinist confessions (like the Westminster Confession of Faith) hold that the eternal decree of God doesn’t “do violence to the will of the creature;” meaning that free will is part of the decree and therefore human moral responsibility is founded in God’s decree and established here.

    I’m not going to explore that in your comments section. That’s what I have a blog for. Suffice it to say that Lenny gave a great response and attacked exactly the point in the logic chain that I felt didn’t hold up or follow from its premises!

    Like

    Reply

  8. Hi WK,

    I read the Come Reason article and found it to be very helpful. I also read the J. Wartick excerpt and find it useful as well.

    Thanks a lot!

    Like

    Reply

  9. I think the response to the argument is even simpler than necessity and contingency. It’s the confusion of knowledge and action. Just because God knows something doesn’t mean that He is forced to act on that knowledge. If I know my daughter is going to burn her hand on an iron doesn’t force me to stop her. I most likely will, but I can choose to let her learn the lesson the hard way if I choose. My knowledge of the outcome doesn’t force my action in one way or another.

    That is where the argument falls apart. The phrasing of Premise #5 says “If God knows we will choose A then we cannot choose B.” That is equating knowledge with action, and the two are not equal. The premise correctly stated would be “If God knows we will choose A, then He knows we will not choose B.” Or “If we choose A, we cannot choose B.” But to say that if God knows we will choose A that we cannot choose B is to create a mixed metaphor, so to speak, and piece together two separate premises in one that just doesn’t follow.

    Like

    Reply

  10. I’ve been pondering this questions for a while now, and this article left me just as confused as I was before, but it was still a good read.

    I understand, from a human perspective, that I am free to choose my actions. However, because God is God, he know what I will choose, so in that sense, I’m simply following the plan God has laid out for me, but I think I’m making the decision.

    So, in that sense, all things are directed by God, which means, ultimately, everything we “choose” means nothing, and is part of God’s plan.

    Which then begs the question, am I truly saved? Do I think I’m saved, but, as part of God’s plan, I’m really not? Does it matter?

    Then the question, what is the point of prayer? Why would I need to ask for something that’s going to happen anyway? Why would I give thanks for something that was going to happen anyway?

    I’m pretty sure at this point, I’m thinking about this way too much. It was so much simpler in Sunday School when we didn’t ponder these things :)

    Like

    Reply

    1. Josh, your problem is the same problem as the Calvinists’ – you are confusing foreknowledge with fore-ordination. God is outside of time. He knows what will happen because he sees the end from the beginning. But KNOWING what will happen does not equal MAKING it happen.

      Your question as to whether you are truly saved is one the Calvinists also can’t answer. After all, how can you know you are one of the pre-ordained “elect”? Yet the Bible says that we CAN know we are saved when we place our faith in the work of Christ.

      The point of prayer is that it is our way of communicating with God – even though he knows our desires He still wants our communication.

      If we are not free to choose our actions, then we are nothing but pre-programmed robots who cannot love a God who says he wants our love – robots are unable to love. And if we are all pre-programmed robots, then God is the one who programmed sin into us.

      Like

      Reply

  11. I just can’t wrap my admittedly limited understanding around this statement:

    “He knows what will happen because he sees the end from the beginning. But KNOWING what will happen does not equal MAKING it happen.”

    To part of me it makes sense, but on the other hand, if he knows I’m going to choose something, even if He doesn’t force me to choose, I still have to choose the option He already knows I’m going to choose. I can’t change my mind at the last minute and throw Him for a loop.

    Of course, the Bible does say to seek and you will find, so I guess I’m at the seeking stage, but this is driving me bonkers.

    Thankfully the answer to this question isn’t critical to salvation. Either he already picked us or we can consciously choose. Under the first option, our choice doesn’t matter. Under the second, we can accept the gift of salvation, and work the details later (the seeking portion).

    Like

    Reply

    1. I think it’s confusing if you consider God to be operating on the same linear timeline that we do. Doing that places God on the “before” spectrum of time, and our choice as the “after.” But if you think of God as an eternal Being not limited to time, then you are better able to understand that God has a general knowledge of all events that have and will happen, but sees them all in a sort of “eternal present.” The reason we call it fore-knowledge is because it is “before” our own understanding, not because God knows something “before” we do necessarily.

      This is, in my opinion, how we are able to have free will without ever surprising God. Glad to see that you realize this is a tertiary issue, and not critical to salvation. We as apologists often fail to make that distinction analytically as we debate.

      Like

      Reply

  12. And I should mention, I’m not all that familiar with the Calvinist/Arminian (is that right?) thing. I know there’s one side that’s all pre-destination and one that’s complete free-will, and I’m sure there’s a dozen mixes in between.

    Like

    Reply

    2. Well, Calvinism is predestination – robots, if you will. The Bible says we have the free will. Arminians agree more with the Bible in that regard, but they still have much in common with other Augustinian teachings, which is really what Calvinism is.

      Calvinists have the habit of calling all non-Calvinists “Arminians” because they can’t conceive of anyone having independent thought and coming to a conclusion other than agreeing with them and Augustine.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to jay91 Cancel reply