Human Freedom vs. Divine Determinism

<p>Sometimes human free will is a problem skeptics raise against the existence of God. This objection is usually presented similarly to this version by Nelson Pike: (1) If God exists, then He has infallible foreknowledge. (2) If God has infallible foreknowledge, then humans can’t have free will. (3) But humans do have free will, so (4) therefore God must not exist. Several solutions have been proposed to answer this objection to God. One such solution is called “Open Theism,” and it rejects premise 1 and says that God does not have infallible foreknowledge of free human choices. This response falls outside the bounds of orthodox historical Christian thinking. Another solution that rejects premise 1 focuses on the idea that God exists outside of time and therefore His knowledge is not foreknowledge but is rather timeless. A third solution called Okhamism rejects premise 2 by saying that future free choices cause God’s knowledge even though they happen chronologically after God has that knowledge. A fourth solution called Compatibilism rejects premise 3 by claiming that human beings do not have free will in an absolute sense. Many Calvinists and Reformed theologians take this position. Finally, another solution is Molinism, named after Luis de Molina, which rejects premise 2. Molinism claims that God can have “middle knowledge”; in other words, He can foreknow what all humans would freely do in any set of circumstances.</p>

By Adam Lloyd Johnson – Published on ConvincingProof.org

Sometimes human free will is a problem skeptics raise against the existence of God. This objection is usually presented similarly to this version by Nelson Pike: (1) If God exists, then He has infallible foreknowledge. (2) If God has infallible foreknowledge, then humans can’t have free will. (3) But humans do have free will, so (4) therefore God must not exist. Several solutions have been proposed to answer this objection to God. One such solution is called “Open Theism,” and it rejects premise 1 and says that God does not have infallible foreknowledge of free human choices. This response falls outside the bounds of orthodox historical Christian thinking. Another solution that rejects premise 1 focuses on the idea that God exists outside of time and therefore His knowledge is not foreknowledge but is rather timeless. A third solution called Okhamism rejects premise 2 by saying that future free choices cause God’s knowledge even though they happen chronologically after God has that knowledge. A fourth solution called Compatibilism rejects premise 3 by claiming that human beings do not have free will in an absolute sense. Many Calvinists and Reformed theologians take this position. Finally, another solution is Molinism, named after Luis de Molina, which rejects premise 2. Molinism claims that God can have “middle knowledge”; in other words, He can foreknow what all humans would freely do in any set of circumstances.

References: Explanation of Alvin Plantinga’s Ockhamism, A Major Flaw in the Compatibilist Understanding of Freedom

< Prev.

Intro to Apologetics Part 15A

Next >