Free Will, Divine Foreknowledge, and Thomas Aquinas

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’ve recently done some reading on divine foreknowledge and human free will. The argument goes that if God knows infallibly what we will choose to do in the future, then that future is set in stone and we really don’t have free will. I doubt the soundness of this argument but the books I’ve been reading seem to think it is a serious issue. Not being terribly skilled in philosophy, I am not sure what to make of it. I am especially interested in what Thomas Aquinas had to say about the issue of free will and divine foreknowledge. Is there a way to reconcile both of this concepts without contradiction or relying on mystery as an explanation?

 

[dmwessel]

I’ve recently done some reading on divine foreknowledge and human free will. The argument goes that if God knows infallibly what we will choose to do in the future, then that future is set in stone and we really don’t have free will. I doubt the soundness of this argument but the books I’ve been reading seem to think it is a serious issue. Not being terribly skilled in philosophy, I am not sure what to make of it. I am especially interested in what Thomas Aquinas had to say about the issue of free will and divine foreknowledge. Is there a way to reconcile both of this concepts without contradiction or relying on mystery as an explanation?

God is love, and love always seeks what’s best for all involved. So then I have to think that come hell or high water, God will always be counted on to look for the best in me, rather than the worst - so then what does it matter as long as we have someone like that looking out for our best interests?

 

[Rolltide]

I’ve recently done some reading on divine foreknowledge and human free will. The argument goes that if God knows infallibly what we will choose to do in the future, then that future is set in stone and we really don’t have free will. I doubt the soundness of this argument but the books I’ve been reading seem to think it is a serious issue. Not being terribly skilled in philosophy, I am not sure what to make of it. I am especially interested in what Thomas Aquinas had to say about the issue of free will and divine foreknowledge. Is there a way to reconcile both of this concepts without contradiction or relying on mystery as an explanation?

Think of God as an NFL official who is also a football commentator for ESPN. It is the end of the season, and the Super Bowl is over. God is giving a report on the season in review.

Since all the games have been played, God knows every score, every play, and the outcome of every down. He knows who caught the ball, and who failed to make a tackle. He can analyze every aspect, or watch it in slow motion. God has knowledge of everything that happened that season.

As an NFL official, God also constructed the rules of the game. He picked the people who would officiate, and used the “instant replay” when necessary to overturn a few bad decisions, in order to make sure that the rules that he set came out the way they were intended.

Now, that said, God did not actually interfere in any of the plays, nor did he play the game for the people. Each coach, and player could have made any decision they chose. In a given situation, a quarterback could have opted to run the ball, make a pass, take a knee, or, heaven forbid, even throw the game. God did not make any of these decisions. He granted the players free will to play however they desired. This, however, does not in any way impact the fact that God still knows what happened, since it’s the end of the season, nor does it change the fact that God provided the rules to the game.

Eternity is a difficult concept, and it works a bit like that. Imagine God sitting at the end of time looking back at everything that has happened and knowing the outcome. He was able to construct rules… a plan… but still give us free will. It is a daunting concept to wrap one’s mind around.

 

[dmar198]

I’ve recently done some reading on divine foreknowledge and human free will. The argument goes that if God knows infallibly what we will choose to do in the future, then that future is set in stone and we really don’t have free will. I doubt the soundness of this argument but the books I’ve been reading seem to think it is a serious issue. Not being terribly skilled in philosophy, I am not sure what to make of it. I am especially interested in what Thomas Aquinas had to say about the issue of free will and divine foreknowledge. Is there a way to reconcile both of this concepts without contradiction or relying on mystery as an explanation?

Thomas Aquinas’s comments on free will, at least in the Summa, do not cover the objection of predestination in the same words you mention. But it does cover the objection that God causes some of our actions, therefore we are not free.

Remember this before you click the link: in the Summa Aquinas does not begin with his own arguments but with objections that are made against Catholic doctrine. Then, after he argues as best he can against Catholic doctrine, he answers his own arguments and proves Catholic doctrine. So the first arguments you see will be against free will, but keep reading the rest. newadvent.org/summa/1083.htm

I highly recommend the treatment of this in the Radio Replies series by Father Rumble. It answers your objection in the language of our time and does it very well.

Click here: radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=8
And here: radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-2.php?t=8
And here: radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-2.php?t=9
And here: radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-3.php?t=11
But especially here: radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-3.php?t=12
And finally here: radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-3.php?t=13

 

[JamesCaruso]

Think of God as an NFL official who is also a football commentator for ESPN. It is the end of the season, and the Super Bowl is over. God is giving a report on the season in review.

Since all the games have been played, God knows every score, every play, and the outcome of every down. He knows who caught the ball, and who failed to make a tackle. He can analyze every aspect, or watch it in slow motion. God has knowledge of everything that happened that season.

As an NFL official, God also constructed the rules of the game. He picked the people who would officiate, and used the “instant replay” when necessary to overturn a few bad decisions, in order to make sure that the rules that he set came out the way they were intended.

Now, that said, God did not actually interfere in any of the plays, nor did he play the game for the people. Each coach, and player could have made any decision they chose. In a given situation, a quarterback could have opted to run the ball, make a pass, take a knee, or, heaven forbid, even throw the game. God did not make any of these decisions. He granted the players free will to play however they desired. This, however, does not in any way impact the fact that God still knows what happened, since it’s the end of the season, nor does it change the fact that God provided the rules to the game.

Eternity is a difficult concept, and it works a bit like that. Imagine God sitting at the end of time looking back at everything that has happened and knowing the outcome. He was able to construct rules… a plan… but still give us free will. It is a daunting concept to wrap one’s mind around.

It’s not only daunting, it’s one that does not make sense to me. I believe that God is only in the present and therefore cannot be present to the future. I believe the future is nonexistent, except as an idea. It is how we describe what will one day be the present. It does not yet exist and so neither God nor anyone else can be present to a nonexistent thing.

Does that mean God cannot know the future? Not at all. A man can decide to shoot the Pope (it’s been tried before), but God can make the gun misfire without interfering with the man’s free will. In such a case, God is causing a certain result, even though free will wanted a different result. The man fulled the trigger (free will) but God determined the end result (the Pope lives, which is tantamount to knowledge of the future). What I don’t think God can know, assuming the man has perfectly free will, is whether or not he will pull the trigger. Since most of us have less than free will, that is, we are to some extent slaves to sin or slaves to good, God can figure out with near certainty what we will do. But certain outcomes themselves he can know with certainty in that he can make them happen the way he wants without interfering with free will. I’m not doctrinaire about this; it’s only the way I currently see it.

 

[Rolltide]

It’s not only daunting, it’s one that does not make sense to me. I believe that God is only in the present and therefore cannot be present to the future. I believe the future is nonexistent, except as an idea. It is how we describe what will one day be the present. It does not yet exist and so neither God nor anyone else can be present to a nonexistent thing.

Does that mean God cannot know the future? Not at all. A man can decide to shoot the Pope (it’s been tried before), but God can make the gun misfire without interfering with the man’s free will. In such a case, God is causing a certain result, even though free will wanted a different result. The man fulled the trigger (free will) but God determined the end result (the Pope lives, which is tantamount to knowledge of the future). What I don’t think God can know, assuming the man has perfectly free will, is whether or not he will pull the trigger. Since most of us have less than free will, that is, we are to some extent slaves to sin or slaves to good, God can figure out with near certainty what we will do. But certain outcomes themselves he can know with certainty in that he can make them happen the way he wants without interfering with free will. I’m not doctrinaire about this; it’s only the way I currently see it.

I’m fairly certain that that isn’t what the church believes though. It has always been my understanding that God exists completely outside of time. Since God exists in eternity, past, present, and future are all essentially simultaneous, and the terms have no meaning. Time is simply a construct of this universe. In fact, we know from Einstein that time is simply another dimension, like length, width, and height, and if God created those, he also created time. Within that construct, the above analogy works (albeit imperfectly).

 

[Skeptic92]

I’ve recently done some reading on divine foreknowledge and human free will. The argument goes that if God knows infallibly what we will choose to do in the future, then that future is set in stone and we really don’t have free will. I doubt the soundness of this argument but the books I’ve been reading seem to think it is a serious issue. Not being terribly skilled in philosophy, I am not sure what to make of it. I am especially interested in what Thomas Aquinas had to say about the issue of free will and divine foreknowledge. Is there a way to reconcile both of this concepts without contradiction or relying on mystery as an explanation?

I cant quote Aquinas directly off of my head, but I can already see the obvious problem: God isn’t conditioned by time. Divine foreknowledge is a by-product of God not being conditioned by temporality, as such God would ‘experience’ the universe as a single eternal moment consisting of what we experience as past, present, and future. This is no way refutes free will, it is simply a matter of viewing time in its proper context.

 

[belorg]

I cant quote Aquinas directly off of my head, but I can already see the obvious problem: God isn’t conditioned by time. Divine foreknowledge is a by-product of God not being conditioned by temporality, as such God would ‘experience’ the universe as a single eternal moment consisting of what we experience as past, present, and future. This is no way refutes free will, it is simply a matter of viewing time in its proper context.

It does refute libertarian free will, but I am not sure Aquinas believed in libertarian free will.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I’m fairly certain that that isn’t what the church believes though. It has always been my understanding that God exists completely outside of time. Since God exists in eternity, past, present, and future are all essentially simultaneous, and the terms have no meaning. Time is simply a construct of this universe. In fact, we know from Einstein that time is simply another dimension, like length, width, and height, and if God created those, he also created time. Within that construct, the above analogy works (albeit imperfectly).

I agree that God lives outside of time. That being said, time is not a physical commodity that you can collapse, past, present and future, and be present to at all times. Past and future time do not exist, they are merely concepts of what was once the present and what will someday be the present. Looking at it from a finite perspective, God cannot be present to my future, because my future does not exist. God can only be present to the present and that is why he is called the eternal present; he is the I am who am.

Now, if you say to me that I am looking at it from a finite perspective, I answer, yes, because that is the only perspective we can look at it from. Since we cannot see from an infinite perspective, the only way we could know that God is present to the future is by revealed truth, so please show me where this is revealed.

Picture it this way. Picture yourself as a baby, sitting in the middle of empty space. Just you and God. God doesn’t change. But you become larger, grow brown hair, become gray, and die. That is time. God meanwhile is everywhere and he does not change while you are going through your stages of life. God is present to each stage of your life, but only as they become the present. At old age the baby does not exist. God cannot be present to the baby when you are old. As a baby, the old man does not exist. God cannot be present to the old man, because the old man does not exist. I believe it is word games to say that because God is outside of time, he can be present to the past, the present and the future all at once.

To foreknow the future is not the same as being in the future. God is all powerful and can control what will be. If he wants you to die at age 80, you will die at age 80. He can make things happen without regard to free will. The only thing he cannot make happen is your free choice, and that because he has willed it so.

 

[Skeptic92]

I agree that God lives outside of time. That being said, time is not a physical commodity that you can collapse, past, present and future, and be present to at all times. Past and future time do not exist, they are merely concepts of what was once the present and what will someday be the present.

Dude, the Theory of Relativity and all working models of Cosmology require that time is an actually existing dimension of our universe with space. Spatio-temporal displacement is a requisite to exist within this universe, and time is indeed an actually existing physicality like space, electromagnetism, gravity, et al.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I’m fairly certain that that isn’t what the church believes though. It has always been my understanding that God exists completely outside of time. Since God exists in eternity, past, present, and future are all essentially simultaneous, and the terms have no meaning. Time is simply a construct of this universe. In fact, we know from Einstein that time is simply another dimension, like length, width, and height, and if God created those, he also created time. Within that construct, the above analogy works (albeit imperfectly).

Where does the Church teach anything about this?

Einstein was talking about aging slower by moving away from the earth at certain velocities so that upon your return, the earth would have aged more than you. It’s a relativistic way of looking at time, however, at no time would you be in “your” future. And when you arrived back on earth, it would be the earth’s present, not it’s future. On top of this, his theory would not allow for travel back in time, so you can’t them go back and relive your life knowing the future.

 

[Rolltide]

Where does the Church teach anything about this?

Einstein was talking about aging slower by moving away from the earth at certain velocities so that upon your return, the earth would have aged more than you. It’s a relativistic way of looking at time, however, at no time would you be in “your” future. And when you arrived back on earth, it would be the earth’s present, not it’s future. On top of this, his theory would not allow for travel back in time, so you can’t them go back and relive your life knowing the future.

Well, one of the special problems with black holes is that at the point of singularity, time completely breaks down. It is (at least theoretically) simultaneously past, present, and future all at the same time. This is also basic to how we view the Eucharist. We are not re-sacrificing Jesus… it is the SAME sacrifice. We are literally at Cavalry, outside of time, and thus the moment of the sacrifice is always eternally in the present, and even in multiple places at the same time.

 

[oldcelt]

I’ve recently done some reading on divine foreknowledge and human free will. The argument goes that if God knows infallibly what we will choose to do in the future, then that future is set in stone and we really don’t have free will. I doubt the soundness of this argument but the books I’ve been reading seem to think it is a serious issue. Not being terribly skilled in philosophy, I am not sure what to make of it. I am especially interested in what Thomas Aquinas had to say about the issue of free will and divine foreknowledge. ** Is there a way to reconcile both of this concepts without contradiction or relying on mystery as an explanation?**

I certainly have never seen one and I am in my mid fifties. The Abrahamic/Christian model of God has some serious issues that have largely been pushed aside as you said. So far as earlier people like Aqinas go, I don’t see why they would have any greater insight than you or me.

 

[Skeptic92]

I certainly have never seen one and I am in my mid fifties. The Abrahamic/Christian model of God has some serious issues that have largely been pushed aside as you said. So far as earlier people like Aqinas go, I don’t see why they would have any greater insight than you or me.

Issues like? The problem that started this thread (Free will and The foreknowledge of God) is easily solved if we recognise that we can not talk about God in the past, present, or future as the statement is nonsensical. Time is a condition of our existence, to place temporal restriction on God is to place restriction and conditions onto the Divine Nature which is self-contradictory. As applying any condition/restriction to the Divine Nature implies inherent contradiction, applying the conditional of existence through time to God is to be rejected.

 

[oldcelt]

Issues like? The problem that started this thread (Free will and The foreknowledge of God) is easily solved if we recognise that we can not talk about God in the past, present, or future as the statement is nonsensical. Time is a condition of our existence, to place temporal restriction on God is to place restriction and conditions onto the Divine Nature which is self-contradictory. As applying any condition/restriction to the Divine Nature implies inherent contradiction, applying the conditional of existence through time to God is to be rejected.

 

[oldcelt]

Issues like? The problem that started this thread (Free will and The foreknowledge of God) is easily solved if we recognise that we can not talk about God in the past, present, or future as the statement is nonsensical. Time is a condition of our existence, to place temporal restriction on God is to place restriction and conditions onto the Divine Nature which is self-contradictory. As applying any condition/restriction to the Divine Nature implies inherent contradiction, applying the conditional of existence through time to God is to be rejected.

Issues precisely like you listed and then “answered” them by calling them nonsensical. Time may not be an issue for a particular God, but they would certainly be aware of it and its impact on their creation. Omnipresence would probably be the term to apply to this. That means that God is everywhere, at all times in the human sense. If this deity chooses to in some way influence one of those human frames of reference, he could very easily deny free will or permit an evil act that he already knew would happen before the individual committing the act was ever born and then send that person to hell for something that God knew he would do from before creation.

This is not an issue for me since I believe in a non-interventionist God who began creation and has watched it unfurl from whatever his point of reference may be. I truly do not know if God is outside of time. That is one line of thought among others.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Well, one of the special problems with black holes is that at the point of singularity, time completely breaks down. It is (at least theoretically) simultaneously past, present, and future all at the same time. This is also basic to how we view the Eucharist. We are not re-sacrificing Jesus… it is the SAME sacrifice. We are literally at Cavalry, outside of time, and thus the moment of the sacrifice is always eternally in the present, and even in multiple places at the same time.

It is the same sacrifice, but in an unbloody manner, and it is the same sacrifice because God who was sacrificed is infinite. At this moment, the sacrifice is not occurring in the future, nor is it occurring in the past, it is only occurring in the present somewhere in the world. The bloody sacrifice only happened once, and that was before the body of Christ became glorified uopn his resurrection. When Jesus sacrificed himself 2000 years ago, he was not sacrificing himself today also, because at that time, today (meaning January 19, 2014) did not exist. He was not sacrificed today until today arrived and the sacrifice of the Mass was celebrated. The “same” sacrifice of the Mass is in the present, not in the past. It is the same because God is infinite, not because we are taken back 2000 years. Time travel does not exist.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I cant quote Aquinas directly off of my head, but I can already see the obvious problem: God isn’t conditioned by time. Divine foreknowledge is a by-product of God not being conditioned by temporality, as such God would ‘experience’ the universe as a single eternal moment consisting of what we experience as past, present, and future. This is no way refutes free will, it is simply a matter of viewing time in its proper context.

I can’t agree. God is not subject to time, but he did create time. What he created he keeps in existence and he watches it unfold as he designed it to do.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Dude, the Theory of Relativity and all working models of Cosmology require that time is an actually existing dimension of our universe with space. Spatio-temporal displacement is a requisite to exist within this universe, and time is indeed an actually existing physicality like space, electromagnetism, gravity, et al.

What you are talking about is relativity. It does not mean that you can go to the future and visit yourself there, or go to the past and visit yourself there. You can only exist in the present under Einstein’s theory or any theory that I know of. With the relativity of time and space it is possible that you will age faster or slower than someone else, but that is not the same as visiting the future or the past. It’s just relative. No way you and go an visit your children before your wife gets pregnant. haha Or visit your Mother before she meets your Father.

 

[Skeptic92]

What you are talking about is relativity. It does not mean that you can go to the future and visit yourself there, or go to the past and visit yourself there. You can only exist in the present under Einstein’s theory or any theory that I know of. With the relativity of time and space it is possible that you will age faster or slower than someone else, but that is not the same as visiting the future or the past. It’s just relative. No way you and go an visit your children before your wife gets pregnant. haha Or visit your Mother before she meets your Father.

For time to actually exist we do not have to be able to traverse one way or the other, it simply means it is an actually existing component of the universe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

It’s wiki, but it seems fairly accurate.

I’m not sure why you’re having problems with this, as God created time (hence being unconditioned by time) does it not follow that time is an actually existing component of our universe?

Also please look up the definition of ‘strawman’ as I never made an argument for time travel (I believe the mere conception of it is incoherent). What I did make an argument for is that God is unconditioned by time and is not limited to our restricted view of past, present, and future which we experience of recurring moments of the ‘present’.

The Divine foreknowledge follows from this: God doesn’t ‘experience’ (I know this term is deficient, I can’t think of anything better at the moment) past, present, and future like us finite beings in a conditioned existence. It isn’t a form of hard determinism, or a violation of free will, it is simply a point of reference. We shouldn’t place any restriction onto God that are of our existence, such as time.