Tag Archives: Molinism

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.

Videos

William Lane Craig meets the Reasons to Believe panel

5 Comments

Here’s the video: (106 minutes)

Host:

  • Kenneth Samples, philosopher

Panel:

  • Hugh Ross, astrophysicist
  • Dave Rogstad, astronomer
  • Jeff Zweerink, astrophysicist

Guest:

  • William Lane Craig, philosopher

Topics in the first hour:

  • is there a pro-theism/pro-Christian revolution going on in philosophy departments today?
  • is the revolution in philosophy spreading outside of the Anglo-American sphere?
  • has the progress of science hurt or helped the traditional theistic arguments?
  • is the epistemological argument from reason from Alvin Plantinga convincing?
  • what is the significance of the “heat death of the universe” for atheism?
  • can atheism rationally ground objective moral value and objective moral duties?
  • can atheists make any rationally-grounded moral judgments?
  • should Christians abandon rational arguments and evidence to appeal to postmoderns?
  • what is middle knowledge and Molinism and how are they different?
  • how would a Wesleyan/Arminian respond to the verses that seem to favor Calvinism?
  • how do arguments and evidence work with God’s drawing people into a relationship with him?
  • can God achieve full sovereignty over the universe merely by controlling circumstances?
  • what are counterfactuals and how are they related to middle knowledge?
  • what is Dr. Craig’s disagreement with Einstein’s special theory of relativity?
  • how does this disagreement with Einstein affect a person’s view of time?

And then there is an hour of questions from the callers, where topics like the Incarnation, God’s purpose in creating the universe, sin and Hell, annihilationism, and the “best” argument for God’s existence, and so on are covered. This is getting rave reviews by other Christian apologists on Facebook.