Is Freewill compatible with Determinism?

[Jaaanosik]

The claim seems to be that God can know all things that happen in time, because he is beyond time. Because we are in time, we face limitations.

1. I do not think it follows that because God is not limited by time, that he can know things that have not happened yet. It might be true that ‘if X is in time, then X cannot know the future’ but further argument is required to affirm the converse claim that ‘if X is beyond time, then X can know the future’.
2. If it is a logically necessary truth for us, it is a logically necessary truth for God. If it is logically impossible, it is logically impossible for God as well. I do not think we wish to reject this thought. If we do, I think we might be reduced to fideism.

I think there are two ways to proceed. If we affirm that what is logically impossible for us is impossible for God, we can proceed to answer this question by looking at whether it is logically impossible to reference individuals before their conception such that the future events might be inherently indeterminate. However, if we disagree about the power of logic, we might consider whether what is logically impossible for us must also be impossible for God.

I’ll just leave you with CCC quote:

302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:

By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, "reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well". For "all are open and laid bare to his eyes", even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.161

 

[preferanonymous]

“The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it.”

I think it might be difficult, though perhaps not impossible, to reconcile this with something like the following:

“Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.”

How are we look to the ordering of human nature to figure out the good of man while at the same time admitting that this nature is inclined toward evil? How does one reconcile teleology with original sin? Do we look at the end of the man who has grace? But how else would be weed out those affected by grace and those who are not unless we already had an idea of morality without respect to teleology?