Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

The Problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will

I. Introduction

The Problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will is a philosophical and theological issue that has puzzled scholars and believers for centuries. At its core, it raises questions about the nature of God’s foreknowledge and how it relates to human freedom. Some argue that if God knows everything in advance, then human actions are predetermined, and free will is removed. On the other hand, others believe that God’s foreknowledge does not remove human freedom but rather coexists with it. This issue is not just a philosophical debate, but it also has important implications for our understanding of God, human responsibility, and the nature of reality. In this article, we will explore this problem in detail, examining various perspectives and offering insights and solutions to this complex and fascinating topic.

A. The Importance of the Problem

The Problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will is an important issue for Christians to understand for several reasons:

It impacts our understanding of God: Our understanding of God’s nature and attributes is central to our faith, and this issue raises questions about God’s power, knowledge, and sovereignty. If we do not have a clear understanding of how God’s foreknowledge and human freedom can coexist, it can lead to confusion and doubt about God’s character.
It affects our view of human responsibility: The issue of foreknowledge and free will has important implications for our understanding of human responsibility. If human actions are predetermined, then people cannot be held responsible for their choices and actions. On the other hand, if human freedom is maintained, then people can be held accountable for their choices and actions.
It challenges our beliefs: The Problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will presents a challenge to our beliefs, as it requires us to reconcile two seemingly contradictory concepts: God’s foreknowledge and human freedom. This challenge can help us grow in our faith and deepen our understanding of God and his ways.
It helps us respond to objections: Knowing how to respond to the Problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will can help us defend our faith and answer objections from skeptics. By having a clear understanding of the issue and the various perspectives, we can provide thoughtful and informed responses to those who question the compatibility of God’s foreknowledge and human freedom.

In conclusion, understanding the Problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will is essential for Christians as it impacts our understanding of God, human responsibility, and our beliefs. By gaining a deeper understanding of this issue, we can grow in our faith, defend our beliefs, and deepen our relationship with God.

B. The Purpose of the Article

This article dealing with the Problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will will serve several purposes, including:

Providing a clear explanation of the issue: This article will provide a clear and concise explanation of the Problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will, including its history, key concepts, and implications.
Presenting various perspectives: This article will present and analyze various perspectives on the issue, including the views of philosophers, theologians, and biblical scholars. This would help readers understand the diverse range of opinions and arguments surrounding the issue.
Offering solutions and insights: This article will offer solutions and insights into the Problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will, providing a Christian perspective on the issue. This would help readers understand how God’s foreknowledge and human freedom can coexist in a way that is consistent with biblical teaching and sound theology.
Answering objections: This article will address common objections to the compatibility of God’s foreknowledge and human freedom, providing thoughtful and informed responses to skeptics.
Strengthening faith and knowledge: By presenting a comprehensive and well-researched understanding of the Problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will, this article will strengthen readers’ faith and deepen their knowledge of this important topic.

In conclusion, this article in a Christian apologetic book dealing with the problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will serves as a valuable resource for readers seeking a deeper understanding of this complex issue. This article will help readers strengthen their faith, deepen their knowledge, and respond to objections by presenting a clear explanation, diverse perspectives, and insightful solutions.

II. The Concept of Foreknowledge

Foreknowledge is the ability to know something before it occurs or comes into being. The concept of foreknowledge is often associated with the idea of predestination, which is the belief that events, including human actions, are predetermined and cannot be changed. Foreknowledge is typically associated with a deity or a supernatural being who has perfect knowledge of the future.

In a religious context, foreknowledge is often attributed to God, who is believed to have complete and perfect knowledge of all things, including future events. This belief is rooted in the idea of God’s omniscience, which means that God knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen. Foreknowledge is seen as a characteristic of God’s divine nature and a reflection of his sovereignty over all things.

In philosophical discussions, the concept of foreknowledge raises questions about the nature of reality and human freedom. Some argue that if God knows everything in advance, then human actions are predetermined, and free will is removed. On the other hand, others believe that God’s foreknowledge does not remove human freedom but rather coexists with it in a way that allows for human choice and responsibility.

In conclusion, foreknowledge is the ability to know something before it occurs or comes into being. In a religious context, it is often attributed to God and seen as a characteristic of his divine nature. The concept of foreknowledge raises questions about the nature of reality and human freedom and is a topic of ongoing philosophical and theological discussions.

A. The Definition of Foreknowledge

Foreknowledge is the ability or power to know something before it happens or comes into existence. It refers to a pre-existing knowledge of future events or circumstances, often considered complete and accurate. Foreknowledge can be attributed to a deity or a supernatural being who has perfect knowledge of all things, including future events. In a religious context, foreknowledge is often considered a characteristic of God’s divine nature, reflecting his sovereignty and omniscience. In philosophical discussions, the concept of foreknowledge raises questions about the relationship between knowledge and reality and the nature of human freedom.

B. The Implications of Divine Foreknowledge

The implications of divine foreknowledge are a subject of ongoing philosophical and theological debate. Here are some of the key implications of the belief in God’s foreknowledge:

Predestination: If God has foreknowledge of all events, including human actions, this can lead to the belief in predestination, which is the idea that events, including human actions, are predetermined and cannot be changed. This raises questions about the nature of human freedom and choice.
Free Will: If God knows everything in advance, including human actions, does this mean that human choices are predetermined, and free will is removed? Many philosophers and theologians argue that God’s foreknowledge does not remove human freedom, but rather coexists with it in a way that allows for human choice and responsibility.
Responsibility: If God knows in advance what people will do, does this mean that they are not responsible for their actions? This raises questions about the nature of moral responsibility and accountability.
Divine Sovereignty: The belief in God’s foreknowledge is often seen as a reflection of his sovereignty over all things, including future events. This reinforces the idea that God is in control of everything and that everything happens according to his plan.
Divine Omniscience: Foreknowledge is often seen as a characteristic of God’s omniscience, which means that God knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen. This reinforces the idea that God has complete and perfect knowledge of all things.

In conclusion, the implications of divine foreknowledge are complex and multifaceted. While the belief in God’s foreknowledge reinforces his sovereignty and omniscience, it also raises questions about the nature of human freedom, responsibility, and choice. These questions continue to be the subject of philosophical and theological discussions.

III. The Concept of Free Will

Free will is the ability of individuals to make choices and decisions that are not determined by outside forces or influences. It is the idea that people can act and make decisions based on their desires, motivations, and beliefs rather than being forced or coerced into acting a certain way.

Free will is a central concept in many philosophical and religious discussions, as it raises questions about the nature of human agency, responsibility, and morality. Some argue that free will is essential to moral responsibility, as people must have the freedom to choose between right and wrong to be held accountable for their actions.

However, the concept of free will is also controversial, as it raises questions about the relationship between human action and the laws of physics or the concept of determinism. Some argue that everything that happens, including human actions, is predetermined by previous events and conditions and that free will is an illusion.

In conclusion, free will is the ability of individuals to make choices and decisions that are not determined by outside forces or influences. It is a central concept in many philosophical and religious discussions and raises questions about the nature of human agency, responsibility, and morality. Despite ongoing debates about its nature and existence, free will remains an important concept for understanding human choice and decision-making.

A. The Definition of Free Will

Free will is the ability of individuals to make choices and decisions that are not determined by outside forces or influences. It refers to the idea that people have the capacity to act and make decisions based on their own desires, motivations, and beliefs rather than being forced or coerced into acting a certain way. In other words, free will is the ability to act according to one’s own free choice and not because of any external constraints or influences.

B. The Implications of Human Free Will

The concept of free will has important implications for various aspects of human life, including morality, responsibility, and the nature of human agency. Here are some of the key implications of the belief in human free will:

Moral Responsibility: If people have the ability to make choices and decisions based on their own free will, then they can be held morally responsible for their actions. This means that people can be held accountable for their choices and the consequences that result from those choices.
Personal Autonomy: Free will is often seen as a cornerstone of personal autonomy, which is the ability of individuals to make choices and decisions that reflect their own beliefs, values, and desires. This means that people can act in meaningful and fulfilling ways rather than being forced to act in ways that are determined by outside forces or influences.
Free Society: The belief in human free will is often seen as a requirement for a free society, where individuals are free to make choices and decisions that reflect their own beliefs, values, and desires. This can result in a diverse, creative, and dynamic society, where people are free to pursue their own goals and ambitions.
Ethics and Morality: The concept of free will is closely tied to the idea of ethics and morality. If people have the ability to make choices and decisions based on their own free will, then they can be held responsible for their moral choices and the consequences that result from those choices.
The Nature of Reality: The belief in human free will raises questions about the nature of reality and the relationship between human actions and the laws of physics or the concept of determinism. Some argue that everything that happens, including human actions, is predetermined by previous events and conditions and that free will is an illusion.

In conclusion, the concept of free will has important implications for various aspects of human life, including morality, responsibility, personal autonomy, the nature of reality, and the structure of a free society. Despite ongoing debates about its nature and existence, free will remains an important concept for understanding human choice and decision-making.

IV. The Compatibility Problem

The compatibility problem for the problem of foreknowledge and free will refers to the apparent conflict between two seemingly incompatible beliefs: that God has foreknowledge of all future events and that human beings have the ability to make free choices and decisions. The problem arises when one tries to reconcile the idea of God’s foreknowledge with the idea of human free will. If God knows in advance what choices a person will make, it appears that those choices are not truly free, as they are predetermined by God’s foreknowledge. On the other hand, if human choices are truly free and not predetermined by God’s foreknowledge, then it seems that God’s foreknowledge is limited.

The compatibility problem has been debated by philosophers, theologians, and scholars for centuries, and several different solutions have been proposed to resolve the apparent conflict. Some argue that God’s foreknowledge does not determine human choices and that human choices are truly free. Others argue that God’s foreknowledge is not limited and that human choices are determined by God’s foreknowledge. Still, others argue that God’s foreknowledge and human free will are not logically incompatible and that both can be true.

In conclusion, the compatibility problem for the problem of foreknowledge and free will is an important issue for those who believe in both God’s foreknowledge and human free will. The problem raises questions about the nature of God’s foreknowledge, the nature of human free will, and the relationship between the two. Despite ongoing debates and differing viewpoints, the compatibility problem remains an important area of inquiry for those who are interested in the relationship between God, human freedom, and the nature of the universe.

A. The Problem of Determinism

The problem of determinism refers to the philosophical issue of whether all events in the universe are predetermined and inevitable or whether some events are the result of free will and chance. Determinism is the belief that all events, including human actions, are determined by prior causes and conditions and therefore are inevitable. According to determinism, everything that happens, including human choices and decisions, is the result of a chain of causality that is determined by physical laws and previous events.

The problem of determinism arises when it is considered in relation to the concept of free will. If everything is predetermined, it seems that human beings do not have the ability to make truly free choices but are instead merely following a predetermined path. This raises questions about the nature of human agency, responsibility, and morality.

Critics of determinism argue that it is incompatible with the idea of human freedom and responsibility. They argue that if everything is predetermined, then human beings cannot be held responsible for their actions, as they are merely following a predetermined path. Moreover, they argue that determinism undermines the ability to make moral judgments, as actions cannot be considered right or wrong if they are predetermined.

In conclusion, the problem of determinism is a central philosophical issue that raises questions about the nature of causality, free will, and human responsibility. While determinism has been widely accepted by many philosophers, it remains a controversial and debated topic, with ongoing discussions about the compatibility of determinism and free will.

B. The Problem of Indeterminacy

The problem of indeterminacy refers to the philosophical issue of whether some events in the universe are truly unpredictable and random or whether they can be determined by prior causes and conditions. Indeterminacy is the belief that some events, such as the outcome of a coin flip or the decay of a radioactive particle, are truly random and not determined by prior causes or physical laws.

The problem of indeterminacy arises when it is considered in relation to the concept of causality. If some events are truly random, it seems that they cannot be explained by prior causes and conditions and therefore, cannot be predicted with certainty. This raises questions about the nature of causality and the predictability of the universe.

Critics of indeterminacy argue that it is incompatible with the idea of causality and determinism. They argue that if some events are truly random, then it is impossible to fully explain and understand the universe, as random events cannot be predicted or explained by prior causes and conditions.

In conclusion, the problem of indeterminacy is a central philosophical issue that raises questions about the nature of causality, predictability, and randomness. While indeterminacy has been widely accepted by many philosophers, it remains a controversial and debated topic, with ongoing discussions about the compatibility of determinism, causality, and indeterminacy.

C. The Problem of Middle Knowledge

The problem of middle knowledge refers to the philosophical issue of how God can have knowledge of future contingent events, such as human choices and actions, without determining them or infringing on human freedom. Middle knowledge is the knowledge that God has of what any possible person would do in any possible situation.

The problem of middle knowledge arises because, on the one hand, if God knows what a person would do in a certain situation, it seems to suggest that the person’s choice is predetermined and that they do not have free will. On the other hand, if God does not know what a person would do in a certain situation, it seems that God’s knowledge is limited, which raises questions about God’s omniscience.

The concept of middle knowledge is used to reconcile the apparent contradiction between God’s foreknowledge and human freedom. According to proponents of middle knowledge, God knows what a person would do in a certain situation, but this knowledge does not determine the person’s choice. Instead, it is the result of God’s knowledge of the person’s free will and the laws of nature.

In conclusion, the problem of middle knowledge is a central philosophical issue that raises questions about the nature of God’s knowledge, human freedom, and determinism. While middle knowledge remains a debated topic, it is widely accepted by many philosophers as a solution to reconcile God’s foreknowledge and human freedom.

Response to The Problem of Middle Knowledge

We would argue that middle knowledge is a necessary component of God’s omniscience and that it does not infringe on human freedom.

Our response to the problem of middle knowledge is based on the Molinist view of the relationship between God’s knowledge, human freedom, and causality. God has middle knowledge of all possible worlds, including all possible choices and actions of free agents. This knowledge is logically prior to God’s free will, but it does not determine it.

We would argue that God’s middle knowledge allows Him to know what any possible person would do in any possible situation without infringing on their freedom. We also argues that God’s middle knowledge is a necessary component of His omniscience, as it allows Him to know all things that can be known, including future contingent events.

In conclusion, our response to the problem of middle knowledge is based on the Molinist view, which reconciles God’s omniscience and human freedom by positing the existence of middle knowledge. God’s middle knowledge allows Him to know all things that can be known, including future contingent events, without infringing on human freedom.

V. The Christian Response to the Compatibility Problem

The Christian response to the compatibility problem, also known as the problem of foreknowledge and free will, is the attempt to reconcile the seemingly contradictory notions of God’s foreknowledge and human freedom. This is a central philosophical issue in Christian theology, as it raises questions about the nature of God’s omniscience, human freedom, and determinism.

There are several different Christian responses to the compatibility problem, including Molinism, Simple Foreknowledge, and Open Theism.

Molinism, which was developed by the Spanish Jesuit priest Luis de Molina, argues that God has middle knowledge, which is the knowledge of what any possible person would do in any possible situation. This knowledge is logically prior to God’s free will, but it does not determine it.

Simple Foreknowledge, on the other hand, argues that God simply knows everything, including future contingent events, but this knowledge does not determine them. Proponents of Simple Foreknowledge believe that human freedom and God’s foreknowledge are compatible, as God’s foreknowledge does not causally determine human choices.

Open Theism, which is also known as Neotheism, argues that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of future contingent events, as these events are not yet determined. Proponents of Open Theism believe that God’s relationship with humanity is one of love, interaction, and co-creation, and that God’s knowledge of the future is limited.

In conclusion, the Christian response to the compatibility problem is a central philosophical issue in Christian theology, and there are several different views on how to reconcile God’s foreknowledge and human freedom. These views include Molinism, Simple Foreknowledge, and Open Theism, each of which offers a unique perspective on the relationship between God’s knowledge, human freedom, and causality.

We would respond positively to the concept of Simple Foreknowledge. Simple Foreknowledge is a view that holds that God has complete and exhaustive foreknowledge of all events, including future contingent events, without causally determining or influencing them. This view seeks to reconcile God’s foreknowledge with human freedom and moral responsibility.

We are a strong advocate of the doctrine of divine foreknowledge, and we believe that it is a fundamental aspect of God’s nature as an omniscient being. We argue that God’s foreknowledge is a necessary condition for his sovereignty, goodness, and providence. We also believe that God’s foreknowledge does not undermine human freedom and moral responsibility, as God does not causally determine or influence the free choices of human beings.

We have argued that Simple Foreknowledge provides a coherent and biblical understanding of God’s knowledge and power and that it is a viable option for those seeking to reconcile God’s foreknowledge with human freedom and moral responsibility. He has also argued that Simple Foreknowledge is consistent with the biblical understanding of God’s sovereignty and goodness.

We would take a critical view of Open Theism. Open Theism argues that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of future contingent events, as these events are not yet determined. This view is seen as a challenge to classical theology, which holds that God has complete and exhaustive foreknowledge of all events, both past and future.

We are a proponent of classical theology and the doctrine of divine foreknowledge, and we have argued extensively against Open Theism. We believe that Open Theism undermines the traditional understanding of God’s omniscience, sovereignty, and goodness. We argue that if God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of future events, then God is not in control of the future, and this would imply that God is not sovereign.

A. The Rejection of Determinism

The rejection of determinism refers to the rejection of the idea that everything that happens, including human choices and actions, is completely determined or causally determined by prior events or causes.

Determinism is a philosophical viewpoint that states that the future is completely determined by the past, and that the events and choices of individuals are the result of previous causes and conditions. This means that the future is unchangeable and that every event and choice is predetermined.

However, many philosophers and theologians reject this view, as it is incompatible with human freedom and moral responsibility. They argue that if determinism were true, it would mean that people do not have the ability to choose and act freely but that their choices and actions are predetermined by prior events or causes.

The rejection of determinism is often associated with the concept of free will, which is the ability of individuals to make choices and act freely, without being determined or influenced by outside forces. Those who reject determinism argue that free will is essential for human freedom, moral responsibility, and accountability.

B. The Acceptance of Molinism

Molinism is a philosophical and theological view that seeks to reconcile the concepts of divine foreknowledge and human free will. It was developed by the Spanish Jesuit priest Luis de Molina in the 16th century and has since become a popular position among some Christians.

The basic idea of Molinism is that God has what is called “middle knowledge,” which is knowledge of all possible worlds and the free choices that individuals would make in each of those worlds. This means that God knows what each person would choose if they were faced with a particular set of circumstances.

Those who accept Molinism believe that God uses his middle knowledge to create a world in which he can bring about his desired outcomes without violating human freedom. They argue that God’s foreknowledge of human choices does not determine or restrict human freedom, but rather it allows him to bring about his purposes in a world where individuals have the ability to choose freely.

In addition, Molinists believe that God’s middle knowledge provides a way to resolve the problem of foreknowledge and free will, by showing that God’s foreknowledge is not the cause of human choices but rather the result of them. They argue that God’s foreknowledge is a result of his knowledge of the choices that individuals would make in different circumstances rather than a cause of those choices.

C. The Embrace of Mystery

The embrace of mystery refers to the idea that some aspects of reality, including religious and philosophical questions, may not be fully understandable or capable of being rationally explained. Instead of attempting to explain or understand these mysteries fully, one may choose to simply acknowledge and accept them as they are.

In the context of the problem of foreknowledge and free will, this means accepting that the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and human free will may not be fully understandable. Some individuals may choose to embrace the mystery of how God can have complete knowledge of the future while still allowing for human freedom and choice.

The embrace of mystery does not necessarily mean a lack of belief or a rejection of certain ideas but rather an acceptance that some things are beyond human comprehension. It is an attitude of humility and openness towards the limits of human understanding and a recognition that there may be aspects of reality that are simply mysterious and beyond explanation.

In summary, the embrace of mystery involves accepting that some aspects of reality, including religious and philosophical questions, may be beyond full understanding or explanation and choosing to simply acknowledge and accept them as they are.

We would have a nuanced response to the embrace of mystery in the context of the problem of foreknowledge and free will. While we would acknowledge that some aspects of reality, including the relationship between God’s foreknowledge and human free will, may be beyond full understanding, we would also argue that there are rational and coherent solutions to these problems.

We defend Molinism, a philosophical system that seeks to reconcile God’s foreknowledge with human freedom and choice. In this view, God has what is called “middle knowledge” of the possible choices and actions of free creatures but does not causally determine their choices. We would argue that Molinism provides a solution to the problem of foreknowledge and free will that does not require embracing mystery.

That being said, we would also acknowledge that there are limits to human understanding and that some aspects of reality may be mysterious and beyond explanation. In our view, embracing mystery would not necessarily mean rejecting rational explanations but rather recognizing the limits of human understanding and acknowledging that there may be aspects of reality that are simply beyond explanation.

VI. Conclusion

A. The Importance of the Problem

The knowledge of the problem of foreknowledge and free will is important for Christians for several reasons:

To understand the nature of God: The problem of foreknowledge and free will raises questions about the nature of God’s relationship to the world and the limits of his knowledge and power. By understanding the various positions and arguments in this debate, Christians can gain a deeper understanding of the nature of God and his relationship to humanity.
To defend their faith: The problem of foreknowledge and free will is often used by skeptics and critics of Christianity to argue that the idea of an all-knowing and all-powerful God is incompatible with human freedom and choice. By having a solid understanding of the various Christian responses to this problem, Christians can be better equipped to defend their faith against these objections.
To deepen their faith: Engaging with the problem of foreknowledge and free will can be an opportunity for Christians to deepen their faith by reflecting on the nature of God and the limits of human understanding. It can also help them to appreciate the richness and complexity of the Christian faith and to avoid oversimplified or reductionistic views of God and reality.

In summary, having knowledge of the problem of foreknowledge and free will is important for Christians because it helps them to better understand the nature of God, defend their faith, and deepen their faith.

B. The Role of Faith in Resolving the Compatibility Problem

The role of faith in resolving the compatibility problem between divine foreknowledge and human free will is a matter of debate among Christians. Some argue that faith is essential in resolving this problem, while others believe that the problem can be resolved through philosophical and theological arguments alone.

For those who believe that faith is essential, faith provides a way of embracing the mystery of God’s foreknowledge and human freedom. They argue that the nature of God is beyond human comprehension and that faith provides a way of accepting this mystery and trusting in the goodness of God.

Others argue that while faith may provide comfort and assurance, it is not necessary to resolve the compatibility problem. They believe that the problem can be resolved through philosophical and theological arguments that show how divine foreknowledge and human freedom can coexist.

Regardless of one’s perspective on the role of faith in resolving the compatibility problem, it is widely accepted that the problem of foreknowledge and free will is a deep and complex one and that both faith and reason are important in understanding and resolving it.

Being Christian apologists, we would have a strong emphasis on the role of faith in resolving the compatibility problem between divine foreknowledge and human free will. We would argue that faith provides a basis for accepting the mystery of this issue and that it allows individuals to trust in the goodness and sovereignty of God, even if they do not fully understand the relationship between foreknowledge and free will.

We would argue that while there are philosophical and theological arguments that can be made to reconcile these concepts, faith is ultimately what provides the assurance and comfort that these concepts are compatible. We would point to the example of Molinism, which he supports, as a way of reconciling these concepts through faith.

In our view, the role of faith in resolving the compatibility problem is not to provide a definitive answer but rather to provide a framework for embracing the mystery of this issue and trusting in God’s sovereignty and wisdom. In this way, faith is seen as a key factor in resolving the compatibility problem and maintaining a personal relationship with God.

C. The Relevance of Foreknowledge and Free Will to Personal Faith

The compatibility between divine foreknowledge and human free will is a relevant issue for personal faith, as it raises questions about the nature of God and the freedom of humans.

For many, the concept of divine foreknowledge raises questions about the role of human free will. If God knows everything that will happen in advance, does this mean that human beings have no real freedom to choose their actions? This can lead to feelings of uncertainty and a loss of control over one’s life, which can impact one’s personal faith.

On the other hand, the belief in human free will raises questions about the nature of God and his knowledge. If humans have the freedom to make choices that are not determined by God, does this mean that God is not all-knowing, or that his knowledge is limited? This can challenge one’s beliefs about the omniscience and sovereignty of God.

For many, resolving the compatibility between divine foreknowledge and human free will is a matter of personal faith, as it impacts their understanding of God and their relationship with him. Through faith, they are able to embrace the mystery of this issue and trust in the goodness of God, even if they may not fully understand the relationship between foreknowledge and free will.

Ultimately, the issue of foreknowledge and free will is an important one for personal faith, as it impacts one’s beliefs about the nature of God, the freedom of humans, and the relationship between them.

Edward D. Andrews’ The Problem of Foreknowledge and Free Will without Predestination

Introduction

The Bible verse John 17:12 states that while Jesus was with his disciples, he kept them in God’s name and guarded them, but the son of destruction (Judas Iscariot) perished so that the scripture would be fulfilled. This raises questions about God’s foreknowledge and how it relates to human freedom, especially in the case of Judas Iscariot. This article will explore the topic of God’s foreknowledge and free will.

Foreknowledge Does Not Equal Foreordination

Critics argue that by knowing that Judas would betray Jesus, God predestined it to happen, and thus, human freedom is removed. However, the best solution to this problem is to understand that foreknowledge does not equal foreordination. God knows in advance what choices people will freely make, and it is the free decisions of human beings that determine what foreknowledge God has of them, not the reverse.

Foreknowledge and Free Decisions

Foreknowledge does not determine free decisions, but free decisions determine foreknowledge. This can be understood by distinguishing between Chronological Priority and Logical Priority. Chronological priority means that God’s knowledge (Event “A”) is chronologically prior to the event he foreknows (Event “B”). Logically, the event is prior to God’s foreknowledge, meaning the event does not happen because God foreknows it, but God foreknows the event because it will happen.

Foreknowledge as a Foreshadowing

God’s foreknowledge can be thought of as a foreshadowing of future events, similar to a shadow on the ground before seeing the person. God’s foreknowledge is like an infallible barometer of the future, letting him know what the future will be, but it does not constrain the future in any way.

Foreknowledge and Human Freedom

The presence of God’s foreknowledge does not prejudice the occurrence of events, and it does not remove the freedom of the person. For example, if Judas did not betray Jesus, God would not have foreknown the betrayal, and the occurrence of the event would not be affected by the presence of God’s foreknowledge.

God’s View of the Timeline

God has the ability to see down the timeline, similar to a man in a helicopter looking down on a parade. Just because God has this ability, it does not affect the free will choices of individuals. God has the ability to step into the timeline and alter events, which will create a ripple effect on future events.

Being a Molinist on the foreknowledge without the predestination aspect means that I accept the idea that God has middle knowledge—knowledge of all possible worlds and all possible choices that free agents could make in those worlds—while rejecting the idea of predestination. This perspective holds that God knows in advance what free agents will choose but that these choices are not determined or predetermined by God.

In this view, free agents have the ability to make genuine, uncaused choices, and God’s foreknowledge of those choices does not interfere with or constrain the freedom of those choices. This perspective would emphasize the compatibility of divine foreknowledge with human free will while rejecting the idea that God predetermines the choices that people make.

This perspective would also hold that God can use his middle knowledge to guide and influence the choices that people make if he chooses to do so, but that these choices remain genuinely free and uncaused. In this way, God would be able to work all things together for good while still allowing for the freedom and responsibility of human choice.

It is important to note that this perspective, while distinct from traditional Molinism, is still a minority view within the Christian community and may not be widely accepted or understood. Nevertheless, it provides a unique perspective on the relationship between divine foreknowledge and human free will that emphasizes compatibility and freedom.

In conclusion, God’s foreknowledge does not equal foreordination, and it does not remove human freedom. God’s foreknowledge can be thought of as a foreshadowing of future events, and it does not prejudice the occurrence of events. God has the ability to see down the timeline, but this does not affect the free will choices of individuals.

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 200+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).