Many have wondered how, if God knows everything we will do in the future, can we be said to have free will? After all, if we freely chose to do something other than what God foreknew, God would be wrong in what He foreknew; but since God cannot be mistaken we must do all that He foreknew we would do. Doesn’t this reduce us to mere actors, playing out the parts written for us by God? Are we puppets who have no control over our own actions? Darwinist, Robert Eberle, encapsulates this supposedly intractable problem of free agency in light of an omniscient God nicely:
Aside from his simple declarations without any foundation that he believes certain biblical stories and miracles are true, he runs into major problems. One is the claim that God knows what was, is and will be. Collins asserts that there is still free will, but fails to explain his logic for arriving at this extraordinary conclusion. Either what will be is known and fixed or it is not. An infallible god that knows what is going to happen is in conflict with the idea that there is free choice and thus a responsibility for one’s actions.[1]
While it is true that the future is fixed because God perfectly knows all that will happen and cannot be mistaken, this does not mean He fixes the future. It does not follow that God’s foreknowledge of our future acts causes us to choose those acts anymore than my knowledge of your past actions would make me the cause of your acts. As William Lane Craig has argued, we do not do what God foreknows, but rather God foreknows what we will do. In other words, God’s foreknowledge is not the cause of our actions; our actions are the cause of God’s foreknowledge. While God’s knowledge of all future contingent acts may be chronologically prior to those acts, the acts themselves are logically prior to God’s knowledge. This makes sense. Knowledge has no causal powers. It cannot cause anything, so therefore God’s knowledge of the future cannot be the cause of our acts.
While God knows for certain what will happen in the future, our free choices inform the foreknowledge of which He is certain. His foreknowledge does not necessitate/determine our choices. If we would have freely chosen to do X rather than Y, God would know X for certain rather than Y. But in God’s foreknowledge He knows we will freely choose Y, and thus is certain that we will choose Y.
For more reading see my article titled “Does God’s Perfect Knowledge of the Future Render Free Will and Human Responsibility Meaningless?”
[1]Robert K. Eberle, “The Language of God: If God Could Talk What Would he Say?” Review of Francis Collins’ book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Contained in an eSkeptic newsletter dated 02 October 2006.
Thinking to Believe 
July 23, 2009 at 10:54 am
On the contrary, God’s foreknowledge DOES necessitate/determine our choices.
In Acts chapter four, verses twenty-seven and twenty-eight we have a perfect example of learning that not only has God fixed the future, but His foreknowledge IS THE CAUSE OF OUR ACTIONS! Let’s read Acts 4:27,28:
“….For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and counsel determined before to be done.”
Their wicked actions were the sum of God’s will. And why, may we ask, should it not be reasonable to believe that God “worketh all things after the council of his own will” (Eph. 1:11) and not after the will of His creatures?
What we have read in Acts 4:27,28 accords perfectly with Isaiah 46:10 which reads: “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.”
When it comes to reconciling God’s sovereignty with man’s responsibility we should say with the Apostle Paul, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (Romans 11:33)
And we should think long and hard about these words of the Apostle Paul: “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou….?” (Romans 9:19,20)
The idea that man has a free will is not the teaching of Scripture. It is a figment of man’s imagination.
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Your exegesis aside, there is nothing about foreknowledge in itself that implies determinism. Simply knowing what will happen in advance does not determine that which will happen. If I could see into the future to know who will win the next Super Bowl, my knowledge of the outcome would not determine the outcome. The outcome would be determined by the free will of the agents involved in playing the game. I would simply know in advance how their free choices would play out in the end.
As for your claim that free will is a figment of our imagination, this is self-defeating. On this view, your believe that there is no free will is determined, just as is your exegesis of the Biblical text. You did not freely come to believe these things through a process of discursive thought, weighing the pros and cons. There is nothing rational about your beliefs. You may think they are, but that is just an illusion. Indeed, God could have determined that you believe you are a fish, and you would believe it, and think you are rational in your belief. If free will is an illusion, then rationality is not possible.
For those who believe like you, I don’t understand why you even attempt to engage people in dialogue. Why try to change my point of view if I am determined to believe something else? If there is no free will, you might as well be silent.
Jason
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 27, 2009 at 9:54 am
We do not possess God’s attribute of foreknowledge. We do not understand how it works from a human point of view. Our “if’s” concerning it are nothing more than mere speculation.
I should have made it clear concerning free will being a figment of man’s imagination. Sorry! I shall now attempt to make it clear.
The sinner’s will is enslaved. He is a servant of sin (Rom.6:17). He is free only in the sense that he is free to sin. He must be freed from sin (Rom.6:18). It is the truth that sets him free (Jn.8:32)!
Yes, God has determined through His foreknowledge every man’s destiny (Rom.9:21). But, this does not suggest that I be silent. How do I know if your a vessel of wrath, or, a vessel of mercy (Rom.9:22,23)?
So, by God’s help and grace, I shall continue to labor in the vineyard.
LikeLike
July 27, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Good post, Jason, Determinism commits the modal fallacy. Professor Norman Swartz does a great job explaining this here.
LikeLike
July 28, 2009 at 9:01 am
Jason, Scalia, and Professor Swartz are human beings, finite in their understanding when it comes to explaining how God not only knows the future, but, how He has ordained (fixed) every event in human history to come to pass – from the fall of Adam (Gen.3:6,7) to the crucifixion of Christ (Acts.2:23; Acts.4:27,28) to who will be lost (Jude 4) to who will be saved (Acts 13:48).
Despite Professor’s Swartz reasoning concerning “Determinism,” God cannot be charged with committing a fallacy, modal, or, otherwise, when it comes to determinism. God is not a man!
How God has determined every man’s destiny (Proverbs 16:4; Daniel 4:35) is incomprehensible to us. And rightly so. For the Scripture says, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (Rom.11:33)
LikeLike
July 28, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Gary,
True, we don’t possess God’s foreknowledge, but how does it follow that we can’t understand what it means for God to have foreknowledge, or the relationship of God’s foreknowledge to human freedom? I don’t see how that follows. I don’t possess God’s love either, but does that mean I cannot have any understanding of God’s love? I may not be able to fully comprehend it, but I can apprehend it. The same goes with any other attribute of God, including His foreknowledge.
Yes, I agree that we are in bondage to sin, and thus “free” to sin. But that is not at all tantamount to saying we lack freedom of the will. Indeed, it is freedom of the will that allows us to choose sin (consistent with our fallen nature). It is that same freedom that also allows even sinners to choose good.
My comment about your being silent was if you were claiming that we have no free will, which after your clarification, does not seem to be what you really believe.
Jason
LikeLike
July 28, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Gary,
The topic of this thread is divine foreknowledge and free will.
My previous post is directed at Jason in support of his conclusion that foreknowledge, in itself, does not preclude free will.
Regardless the merit of your scriptural argument (and I most certainly disagree with your exegesis), determinism does not and cannot hinge on foreknowledge.
I am not replying to your exegesis because determinism itself is not the topic of this thread.
LikeLike
August 2, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Jason,
Off the topic. I enjoy Dr. Craig. Brilliant philospher. My question: is it just me or does an otherwise logical and reasoning man, become illogical and even fallacious (to use his favorite word) when teaching/speaking on the “trinity”?
I know, what’s that have to do with anything? Nothing. Just genuinely curious if I’m the only this drives crazy.
LikeLike
August 4, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Darren,
He probably asks the same question of some of us! I have to say, however, that of all the different presentations of Trinitarian theology I have read, Craig’s is the most Bible-based and philosophically rooted of them all. If I were ever to become a Trinitarian, I would adopt Craig’s version of it. It was Craig who truly convinced me that the doctrine of the Trinity is coherent, even if it may not be the best model through which to explain the Biblical data.
Jason
LikeLike
August 4, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Jason, as you know, I most definitely disagree with you about Craig (with respect to the Trinity). Since this is not the topic of this thread, I’d like to share with Gary why I believe Craig’s version of the Trinity is illogical.
You have my permission to give Gary my email address and if Gary so chooses, he may contact me for further dialog.
Thanks,
Scalia
LikeLike
January 31, 2010 at 1:41 am
Just a lowly visitor here and know that this is old but, my “2 cents”, if I may:
Jason has it as it makes sense to me, only adding that if you look at all existence as a completed painting (with God working as the a-temporal artist) it would be consistent to say He merely used people to His glory, i.e. He knew Pharaohs’ heart was hard so He “guided” him to the effect of His choosing. He didn’t change Pharaohs’ will, He let Pharaoh “work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose…”
After all, it does read “ALL things”, right? As far as God working outside of time goes, I thought that was the whole point. He’s the Creator of everything. The first born.
No one ever responds to my main point above. Is it faulty? Nonsensical? Any input would be appreciated.
LikeLike
February 9, 2010 at 10:18 am
Jason, I would like to dialogue with Mark. Please, would you forward him my email address. Thank You.
LikeLike
February 9, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Gary,
Done.
Jason
LikeLike
February 11, 2010 at 10:08 am
Jason,
Thank You!
LikeLike
March 17, 2016 at 11:36 am
I think I have found the best explanation of the Trinity. My typing is terrible so please get in touch if interested.
Pastor Chet
pchet@gnmc.us
LikeLike
February 7, 2018 at 10:37 am
Your key thought seems to be in the quote: “God’s foreknowledge is not the cause of our actions; our actions are the cause of God’s foreknowledge.”
This seems to imply that the future is not fixed but fluid, and perhaps even that God, and God’s relation to the future is not fixed but fluid. From God must surely arise infinite possibilities and infinity seems incompatible with the idea of anything fixed since that pertains to limited forms in time and space. It would follow that human free will and it’s outcomes are not fixed but fluid and free, which attributes derive from the higher correspondence to these in Deity.
What do you think?
LikeLike
February 7, 2018 at 11:25 am
I think that God is a caricature concept like Superman.
We can and do therefore give attributes to the caricature concepts we create as our imagination is want to do but the attributes do not prove the existence of the caricature anymore than the caricature prove the attributes we give them foreknowledge. These are mere whimsical talking points that should always be understood to be preceded by “if this”; then, that”; or, “maybe this or maybe that”.
X-ray penetrating eyes and Laser burning eyes? Foreknowledge, fixed or fluid, talking points like a politician speaking and debating the theories of his ilk so they can perform verbal somersaults and cartwheels for oooh’s and ahhh’s of clarity.
LikeLike
February 7, 2018 at 12:12 pm
Poem of Illusion
“I put a veil twix God and me
A veil so thick I can not see.
Now God is high,
And I am low,
And what I am, I do not know.”
The sentiment in the poem is not so true of me.
LikeLike
February 7, 2018 at 3:39 pm
Give me a call. 1 414 383 6522
Pastor Chet
LikeLike