Tag Archives: Foreknowledge

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.

Podcasts

Calvinism versus Foreknowledge: which view of God’s sovereignty is true?

7 Comments

I stayed up late tonight (Monday) listening to the Republican primary debate, so I thought that I would just dump out some links to some old debates on Calvinism and Foreknowledge. The speakers are introduced in the MP3 files.

There are two debates below, but the second one is in two parts.

The first debate

The first debate is all in one MP3 file.

The MP3 file is here.

Summary:

  • What is Calvinism and why is it important?
  • Does God love all people the same way in Calvinism?
  • Does God desire the salvation of all people in Calvinism?
  • Is the offer of salvation to all people a genuine offer on Calvinism?
  • Does Calvinism diminish or augment God’s sovereignty?
  • Can God accomplish his will by permitting evil creaturely actions?
  • Did Jesus die only for the “chosen”, or for the possibility of salvation for all?
  • Does a person’s responding to God’s offer of salvation detract from Gods glory?
  • Does our ability to resist God’s grace mean that we are “stronger” than God?

There is a little static in the audio for a few seconds every time they come back from a break, but nothing major. There are no commercials. And the debate is SO worth it, because there are almost no good debates on this topic, although you may be interested in reading the debate between William Lane Craig and Ed Curley.

The second debate

The second debate spans two MP3 files and in this debate, the two participants specifically discuss verses of Scripture that are relevant to the the two views.

Part 1:

The MP3 file is here.

The participants discuss the following passages:

  • John 6
  • Romans 8
  • Romans 9
  • Ephesians 1

Part 2:

The MP3 file is here.

The participants discuss the following passages:

  • Luke 13:34-35 (Deuteronomy 5:28-29)
  • Ezekiel 18:21-32 (Jeremiah 3:19-20; Ezekiel 22:30-31)
  • I John 2:1-2 (2 Pet 2:1)

I didn’t like this second debate as much as the first one.

My view

You can watch a video that describes my view. The only difference between my view and that video is that I do think you can lose your salvation by deliberate, voluntary apostasy. I.e. – the unforgiveable sin of renouncing the Holy Spirit.

Podcasts

MUST-HEAR: Michael Brown debates James White on Foreknowledge vs Calvinism

5 Comments

This is the second of a two-debate series. The first debate is here.

The MP3 file is here.

Participants:

Format: (from James White’s blog)

For those interested, we will be covering three texts of Scripture on Thursday: John 6, Romans 8/9, and Ephesians 1. Each will have 8 minutes to provide their exegesis of the text; then we will have four minutes of cross-ex each, then three minute conclusions before moving on to the next text. I know, not a lot of time, but that still covers 90 full minutes (we will not be taking any breaks at all).

The following Thursday we will repeat the process, but this time covering Michael’s chosen texts, Luke 13:34-35 (Deuteronomy 5:28-29) Ezekiel 18:21-32 (Jeremiah 3:19-20; Ezekiel 22:30-31) I John 2:1-2 (2 Pet 2:1).

Michael Brown basically represents my view on these issues. This is another great debate – but more technical than the first. Congratulations to Dr. White and Dr. Brown for this entertaining and collegial series of debates. Both speakers were very civil again, but not boring. We need more debates like this to make Christianity seem interesting to men. Men like to learn theology (and everything else) by see truth emerge from a struggle. We’re competitive.

The verses up for debate this time

Luke 13:34-35:

34“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

35Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'”

Deuteronomy 5:28-29:

28 The LORD heard you when you spoke to me and the LORD said to me, “I have heard what this people said to you. Everything they said was good.

29 Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children forever!

Ezekiel 18:21-32:

21 “But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.

22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.

23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

24 “But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.

25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, O house of Israel: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?

26 If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die.

27 But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life.

28 Because he considers all the offenses he has committed and turns away from them, he will surely live; he will not die.

29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Are my ways unjust, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?

30 “Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.

31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel?

32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

Jeremiah 3:19-20:

19 “I myself said, ” ‘How gladly would I treat you like sons and give you a desirable land, the most beautiful inheritance of any nation.’ I thought you would call me ‘Father’ and not turn away from following me.

20 But like a woman unfaithful to her husband, so you have been unfaithful to me, O house of Israel,” declares the LORD.

Ezekiel 22:30-31:

30 “I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none.

31 So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD.”

I John 2:1-2:

1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.

2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

2 Pet 2:1:

1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

My thoughts

This may be a bit repetitive – I’m a software engineer! Not a theologian!

In the first section, Brown makes the case that the Father (in the Old Testament) and Jesus (in the New Testament) have fervent desires for people to repent and be reconciled. But God chooses to allow people to freely choose to resist him. I believe that God could coerce the will (but then it’s no longer free). But he chooses not to. Free will is needed in order to have a love relationship with us. Calvinism doesn’t allow for people to resist God’s desire that specific people be saved, so on the Calvinist view, humans cannot love God since their will is coerced by God.

One commenter recently asked me whether non-Calvinists think that God rolls the dice and hopes to save as many as possible. The answer is NO. On the Foreknowledge/Middle Knowledge view, when God chooses which universe from the vast range possible universes he will create, the fate of each person is sealed for Heaven or Hell – but not by determinism! God chooses the time and place in which we will all live, and he knows whether we each will freely respond to his drawing us to him or not, because of where he places us.

Those who can respond to God in some possible time and place will be placed in a time and place in the universe where God will draw them to him in a non-coercive way (preaching, Bible, apologetics, natural revelation, etc.) so they can freely respond to this undeserved grace, be saved. And God  CHOSE the universe where that would happen WITHOUT FAIL, but without violating the free will of people – because he foresaw their choices in ALL circumstances, and CHOSE the circumstances to elicit that free choice to respond.

At the instant of the Big Bang, the group known as the “elect” is set. God locks into reality the exact amount of grace that each individual in the elect needs in order to freely respond to God’s saving grace. No guesswork, no rolling of the dice. God is sovereign over everything that happens from that moment on. He foreknows what each person will freely choose in every decision, and he is sovereign over how all those decisions will play out. At every moment of time God says “I am happy with this”. And in the end, his aims are achieved – without violating anyone’s free will.

Another one of my concerns with Calvinism is that it seems to make life meaningless. Let me explain. There are two kinds of decisions. First, you can make a decision that 1) affects where you end up when you die, or you can make a decision that 2) doesn’t affect where you end up when you die. On Calvinism, God makes all 1) decisions for you. Nothing you do can affect where you end up when you die. On the Foreknowledge/Middle Knowledge, you make the 1) decisions – but you make them in response to God’s unilateral saving grace being extended to you.

On the Foreknowledge/Middle Knowledge view, you do NOT choose God, because NO ONE desires God. But you choose to respond to God’s grace when he takes the initiative to reach down into your sinful, rebellious life and reveal himself to you. He rescues you, and he knew that he would rescue you from eternity. He knew you from all eternity. All you do is hold the life jacket he throws you. Which is nothing. But if you don’t hold it, you’re to blame, not God. In fact, because he knows what you’ll do, he probably won’t even throw you one unless he knows you’ll take it.

My specific views are spelled out more here: What are the differences between Wesleyan Arminianism and Calvinism?

And don’t forget that I blogged about the very first White-Brown debate (before the two-part series). I highly, highly recommend this introductory debate.