Omniscience, free-will, predestination

[Anonymous_1]

My Ethics teacher will be holding a discussion involving these topics. I would like to know what the Churches teaching is and the relevent issues, arguments, and any apologetics that I might utylize if needed.

do we really have free will? I believe yes that it is our free-will that enables God to know our choice, it is not Gods imnicience that forces me to make my choices…

 

[Axion]

Anonymous_1:

My Ethics teacher will be holding a discussion involving these topics. I would like to know what the Churches teaching is and the relevent issues, arguments, and any apologetics that I might utylize if needed.

do we really have free will? I believe yes that it is our free-will that enables God to know our choice, it is not Gods imnicience that forces me to make my choices…

That’s the Catholic position. We still have free will. God gives grace to all, but it must be accepted.

Try looking at the Canons of Justification of the Council of Trent, which set things out reasonably clearly.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/12/council-of-trent-canons-on.html

 

[1ke]

Anonymous_1:

My Ethics teacher will be holding a discussion involving these topics. I would like to know what the Churches teaching is and the relevent issues, arguments, and any apologetics that I might utylize if needed.

do we really have free will? I believe yes that it is our free-will that enables God to know our choice, it is not Gods imnicience that forces me to make my choices…

Do you own a Catechism? It has the answers to these questions. Please obtain a copy and study it in preparation for your class.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Anonymous_1:

My Ethics teacher will be holding a discussion involving these topics. I would like to know what the Churches teaching is and the relevent issues, arguments, and any apologetics that I might utylize if needed. …

Here’s some introductory info from Fr. John Hardon:

**OMNISCIENCE. **God’s knowledge of all things. Revelation discloses that the wisdom of God is without measure (Psalm 146:5). And the Church teaches that his knowledge is infinite.

The primary object of divine cognition is God himself, whom he knows immediately, that is, without any medium by which he apprehends his nature. He knows himself through himself.

The secondary objects of divine knowledge are everything else, namely the purely possible, the real, and the conditionally future. He knows all that is merely possible by what is called the knowledge of simple intelligence. This means that, in comprehending his infinite imitability and his omnipotence, God knows therein the whole sphere of the possible.

He knows all real things in the past, present, and the future by his knowledge of vision. When God, in his self-consciousness, beholds his infinite operative power, he knows therein all that he, as the main effective cause, actually comprehends, i.e., all reality. The difference between past, present, and future does not exist for the divine knowledge, since for God all is simultaneously present.

By the same knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. As taught by the Church, “All things are naked and open to His eyes, even those things that will happen through the free actions of creatures” (Denzinger 3003). The future free actions foreseen by God follow infallibly not because God substitutes his will for the free wills of his creatures but because he does not interfere with the freedom that he foresees creatures will exercise. (Etym. Latin omnis, all + scire, to know.)

PREDESTINATION. In the widest sense it is every eternal decision of God; in a narrower sense it is the supernatural final destination of rational creatures; and in the strictest sense it is God’s eternal decision to assume certain rational creatures into heavenly glory. Predestination implies an act of the divine intellect and of the divine will. The first is foreknowledge, the second is predestination.

According to its efficacy in time, predestination is distinguished as incomplete or complete depending on whether it is to grace only or also to glory. Complete predestination is the divine preparation of grace in the present life and of glory in the life to come.

This doctrine is proposed by the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church as a truth of revelation. The reality of predestination is clearly attested by St. Paul: “They are the ones he chose especially long ago and intended to become true images of the Son, so that his Son, might be the eldest of many brothers. He called those he intended for this; those he called he justified and with those he justified he shared his glory.” (Romans 8:29-30). All elements of complete predestination are given: the activity of God’s mind and will, and the principal stages of its realization in time.

The main difficulty in the doctrine of predestination is whether God’s eternal decision has been taken with or without consideration of human freedom. Catholic teaching holds that predestination by God does not deny the human free will. Numerous theories have been offered on how to reconcile the two, but all admit with St. Paul (Romans 11:33) that predestination is an unfathomable mystery. (Etym. Latin praedestinatio, a determining beforehand.)

**FREE WILL. **The power of the will to determine itself and to act of itself, without compulsion from within or coercion from without. It is the faculty of an intelligent being to act or not act, to act this way or another way, and is therefore essentially different from the operations of irrational beings that merely respond to a stimulus and are conditioned by sensory objects.

[Fr. John Hardon, *Pocket Catholic Dictionary

]

I recommend more indepth reading from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) here:

newadvent.org/cathen/

Free Will
Predestination
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nature and Attributes of God
under “Divine Knowledge”

 

[Anonymous_1]

up!
please give me a logical argument to reconcile the notion of free will and Gods omniscience.

Also what is the Churches teaching on predestination>?

 

[RyanL]

Anonymous_1:

up!
please give me a logical argument to reconcile the notion of free will and Gods omniscience.

Also what is the Churches teaching on predestination>?

Simply put:

• Some are predestined for heaven (elect) CCC
• None are predestined for hell CCC
• We have free will CCC
• Since we cannot know if we are the elect (without direct divine revelation), we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling while trusting in God’s mercy CCC
• God knows all things, and is outside of time, therefore there is no distinction between past/present/future for Him and He is able to know the outcome before the onset, even though we freely choose our own decisions. CCC

Hope that helps, and I’m definitely open to correction from someone who knows better.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Lazerlike42]

God’s omniscience has no impact on your free will. Because He is omniscient, God knows every choice you are going to make, but He does not cause you to make them. It is a bit like watching your favorite movie. You know all the choices that the characters are going to make, but you in no way cause them to make them. Another example would be the one of a family of three: Mr. and Mrs. Jones, and little Johnny. Now Johnny has just come home from school with an F on his report card. Mrs. Jones knows that when Mr. Jones comes home he is going to flip out over the F, and yell and scream at Johnny. Does her knowing that cause him to get angry, or does she simply know what he, through his own free will, is going to do? It is the latter.

You may also find my post here helpful.

 

[Lazerlike42]

RyanL:

Simply put:

• Some are predestined for heaven (elect)
• None are predestined for hell
• We have free will
• Since we cannot know if we are the elect (without direct divine revelation), we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling while trusting in God’s mercy
• God knows all things, and is outside of time, therefore there is no distinction between past/present/future for Him and He is able to know the outcome before the onset, even though we freely choose our own decisions.

Hope that helps, and I’m definitely open to correction from someone who knows better.

God Bless,
RyanL

I don’t know if you were trying to convey this, but it the way it is worded seems to give the impression that all whom go to Heaven go there exclusively out of God’s choice, yet we ought to work hard because we don’t know if we are one of these chosen folks, which would be an idea quite similar to Calvanism. I don’t know if you meant it this way, but I wanted to clarift because I think some might read it that way.

The teaching of the Church is that some are predestined to Heaven and none are predestined to Hell, but that all have the chance of salvation until the day they die and end up in hell. Up until that point, there is always the choice of salvation for a person.

What the Church does not teach authoritatively is exactly what is meant by the word predestination. It may be the idea that God, of His own choice, ‘randonly’ selects certain people and gives them a special Grace by which they are just plain going to Heaven. That would be close to the idea of Thomas Aquinas. On the other hand, it may be that God knows who will accept Him and who will reject Him from all eternity and that He predestines people based on His foreknowledge so that he predestines to Heaven the people that He already knew would accept Him. This would be similar to the view of Luis De Molina (and also myself). Both views hold that our free will is not in any way impaired by God. In the Molinist (Molina’s) view its easier to understand how, whereas in the Thomist (Aquinas’) view its a little more of a mystery but is still held.

Consider the analogy of a party. At the party are a whole bunch of tables with different seats. God is going to put a little card with the person’s name on it that is supposed to sit at each seat. The Thomist view more or less says that first God puts some of the cards out saying who is going to sit in some of the seats, then He gets the RSVPs and somehow the people whose names He puts out RSVP and say they’re coming. The Molonist view more or less says that God first gets the RSVPs so He knows who is gonna come then He puts out the little cards of the people He knows are coming. This putting out of the cards corresponds to predestination in the analogy, whereas the people showing up at the party corresponds to them dying and going to Heaven.

The Church says that each of these views are acceptable to the faithful, as well as many in between, but that she does not teach authoritatively that either is necessarily correct because she does not know. The Church also teaches that some views are not permitted and that she knows they are incorrect (like the idea that a person can be predestined to hell).

 

[Axion]

Anonymous_1:

up!
please give me a logical argument to reconcile the notion of free will and Gods omniscience.

Also what is the Churches teaching on predestination>?

Key Canons of Trent on Predestination…

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

 

[RyanL]

Lazerlike42:

I don’t know if you were trying to convey this, but it the way it is worded seems to give the impression that all whom go to Heaven go there exclusively out of God’s choice, yet we ought to work hard because we don’t know if we are one of these chosen folks, which would be an idea quite similar to Calvanism. I don’t know if you meant it this way, but I wanted to clarift because I think some might read it that way.

Good point - thank you for the clarification. I would distinguish my post from Calvanism based on God not predestining anyone to hell (double predestination). I would agree that all may be saved, but if they are lost it is only through their own free will.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RobNY]

Here’s a couple of topics that might help you out, this one here and this one here. Enjoy.

 

[Philthy]

Anonymous_1:

up!
please give me a logical argument to reconcile the notion of free will and Gods omniscience.

?

Very simply, KNOWLEDGE of an outcome does not CAUSE the outcome. Therefore, I can still exercise free will in a situation where God already knows the outcome of what my freely willed choice will be.
Your opponents will stumble on the fact that if God “knew” what your choice was in advance, then you “had” to make that choice and therefore you could not have chosen any differently. They will conclude that your therefore had no free will to choose.
It sounds very reasonable, doesn’t it? But it is wrong! What they have managed to do is realize the IMPLICATIONS of what it means to KNOW something. Of course you will do what God “knew” you would do - THATS WHAT IT MEANS TO KNOW IT!!!But that knowledge did not CAUSE the outcome!
Here is a thought experiment you may share:
Lets assume you and I perfect time travel. We go into the future one week in advance and find ourselves in the Senate Judiciary Confirmation proceedings and we observe the Senators as they vote for or against Alito. We then return to “real” time with the knowledge of the outcome and we vow not to share that knowledge with anyone and resume our ordinary lives . When the next week roles around we watch the confimation vote and we witness all the Senators voting exactly as we “knew” that they would.
Did we know in advance their actions? YUP
Did that knowledge influence them in any way? NOPE
Did they exercise their free will? YUP
Does knowledge of an outcome influence the cause of the outcome? NOPE
Same thing with Gods knowledge of future events.

Here is another thread in which these ideas are developed more fully:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1185767#post1185767

Phil

 

[Hitetlen]

Both of these examples are erroneous, even though they pop up quite frequently.

Lazerlike42:

God’s omniscience has no impact on your free will. Because He is omniscient, God knows every choice you are going to make, but He does not cause you to make them. It is a bit like watching your favorite movie. You know all the choices that the characters are going to make, but you in no way cause them to make them.

The characters in the movie have no “free will”, their actions are decided by the script and the director. The example is therefore incorrect.

Lazerlike42:

Another example would be the one of a family of three: Mr. and Mrs. Jones, and little Johnny. Now Johnny has just come home from school with an F on his report card. Mrs. Jones knows that when Mr. Jones comes home he is going to flip out over the F, and yell and scream at Johnny. Does her knowing that cause him to get angry, or does she simply know what he, through his own free will, is going to do? It is the latter.

That is also incorrect. Mrs. Jones does not “know” that Mr. Jones will be angry, she merely has a “very good guess” about it. Maybe Mr. Jones just won the lottery, and could not care less about the grades.

True, real knowledge does not allow for deviation, does not allow for unexpected outcome - therefore “true knowledge” presupposes a deterministic universe, and thus lack of “free will”.

People like to say that God’s supposed omniscience does not determine what people will do, rather peoples’ actions determine what God “knows”. Regardless of the problems this idea brings up (temporal cause-effect reversal), it still assumes a deterministic universe.

 

[Hitetlen]

Philthy:

Here is a thought experiment you may share:
Lets assume you and I perfect time travel. We go into the future one week in advance and find ourselves in the Senate Judiciary Confirmation proceedings and we observe the Senators as they vote for or against Alito. We then return to “real” time with the knowledge of the outcome and we vow not to share that knowledge with anyone and resume our ordinary lives . When the next week roles around we watch the confimation vote and we witness all the Senators voting exactly as we “knew” that they would.
Did we know in advance their actions? YUP
Did that knowledge influence them in any way? NOPE
Did they exercise their free will? YUP
Does knowledge of an outcome influence the cause of the outcome? NOPE
Same thing with Gods knowledge of future events.

Phil

Your thought experiment just proved that time travel is impossible.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The examples are not erroneous, they are only imperfect. They are, as Plato might say, shadows of the true reality.

Obviously the characters actions are determined by a script and a director, however this is irrelevant. For instance, the difficulty goes away if I were to rewrite the example as follows:

God’s omniscience has no impact on your free will. Because He is omniscient, God knows every choice you are going to make, but He does not cause you to make them. It is a bit like watching a home movie. You know all the choices that the persons who were filmed will make, but you in no way cause them to make them, even though they are guaranteed to occur.

Clearly the arguement agaisnt my new example would be that I present the persons’ actions as future when in fact they have occured in the past, which is why I know what they are. This does not, however, hurt the example but strengthen it and allow it to represent an even more clear picture of God. We are all bound by the dimension of time. We may only have knowledge of the past. However, God is in eternity. Eternity is not the same thing as forever. Forever simply means the unending progression of time. Eternity is a state outside and not bound by the constraints of time. The viewpoint of observing time from the frame of reference of eternity is something similar (though not perfectly analogous to) watching a home video on a computer. When the people in the home video were being filmed, time moved only forward for them. They were only able to experience what was occuring at the time it was occuring, and to know of things that happened in the past. To the person using the computer, all of the events within the video are known, and may be experienced at any time. Simultaneously these events have happened, are happening, and will happen.

I don’t think it was even necessary to explain it that thoroughly, because it is a perfectly good example without the explanation.

The second example is also simply incomplete. It is true that the woman only has a “very good idea” of what her husband is going to do, but it is only an example. It is an attempt to represent something infinite (God’s knowledge) with something finite (the woman’s knowledge).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Your thought experiment just proved that time travel is impossible.

How do you deduce that?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The second example is also simply incomplete. It is true that the woman only has a “very good idea” of what her husband is going to do, but it is only an example. It is an attempt to represent something infinite (God’s knowledge) with something finite (the woman’s knowledge).

I like this. After all, we ARE limited in our knowledge, and any example we can give would HAVE to be limited by that. It appears to me that some posters, because they cannot grasp the correct implications to God’s infinite capacity, and our finite capacity, are really trying to limit God.

 

[Hitetlen]

Lazerlike42:

The examples are not erroneous, they are only imperfect. They are, as Plato might say, shadows of the true reality.

That is a matter of opinion.

Lazerlike42:

Obviously the characters actions are determined by a script and a director, however this is irrelevant.

It is very relevant, since the example is supposed to show that there was a “free will” during the movie-making process and there was none.

Lazerlike42:

For instance, the difficulty goes away if I were to rewrite the example as follows:

God’s omniscience has no impact on your free will. Because He is omniscient, God knows every choice you are going to make, but He does not cause you to make them. It is a bit like watching a home movie. You know all the choices that the persons who were filmed will make, but you in no way cause them to make them, even though they are guaranteed to occur.

During the filming process you don’t know what will happen for sure. When the film is viewed, however, there is no free will any more. There is no free will in the past, even though there might have been when it actually unfolded.

Lazerlike42:

Clearly the arguement agaisnt my new example would be that I present the persons’ actions as future when in fact they have occured in the past, which is why I know what they are. This does not, however, hurt the example but strengthen it and allow it to represent an even more clear picture of God. We are all bound by the dimension of time. We may only have knowledge of the past. However, God is in eternity. Eternity is not the same thing as forever. Forever simply means the unending progression of time. Eternity is a state outside and not bound by the constraints of time. The viewpoint of observing time from the frame of reference of eternity is something similar (though not perfectly analogous to) watching a home video on a computer. When the people in the home video were being filmed, time moved only forward for them. They were only able to experience what was occuring at the time it was occuring, and to know of things that happened in the past. To the person using the computer, all of the events within the video are known, and may be experienced at any time. Simultaneously these events have happened, are happening, and will happen.

Here you change gears and drag the assumed “out-of-time” property for God which should be substantiated, cannot be simply assumed. But even in this “explanation” the problem of deterministic universe is not overcome.

Lazerlike42:

The second example is also simply incomplete. It is true that the woman only has a “very good idea” of what her husband is going to do, but it is only an example. It is an attempt to represent something infinite (God’s knowledge) with something finite (the woman’s knowledge).

Indeed it is an example and an incorrect one. I heard many of these, for example stating that if I would see a 100 dollar bill and you observed my seeing it, you would “know” that I will pick it up - and that knowledge would not “force” me to pick it up. The same problem occurs, you would not “know” it, you would only have a good guess. I might not even see the bill if I were too deep in thought.

None of these examples involve “knowledge”. The examples try to show that “knowledge” does not compel the action, and since none of these examples entail “real knowledge” they all fail.

To sum it up: real knowledge is only possible in a deterministic universe, and in a deterministic universe there is no free will. Q.E.D.

 

[Philthy]

Tantum ergo:

How do you deduce that?

There was no evidence of deduction was there?

 

[Philthy]

Hitetlen:

Your thought experiment just proved that time travel is impossible.

You will have to do a little better than this my friend.
I disagree with you - please show me where I am wrong.
And please don’t get too far off track. Remember, my claim is that
knowledge of an outcome does not preclude free will in the outcome.