Thinking about free-will again...

I believe strongly that free-will is a concept that is important for Christians to embrace. Determinism is sort of old hat and Christians do not need to align themselves with a philosophy that is out of style unnecessarily. Under Christian theism the concept of divine foreknowledge is a deciding factor for many to place themselves in the determinist camp. The argument may run something like this:

• God has perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future.
• Any object of knowledge that God possesses is necessarily true.
• God has perfect knowledge of my writing this blog post prior (either logically or chronologically) to its actual occurrence.
• If God possesses knowledge of any actual event there is no way that it could not occur because it would render God's perfect knowledge false.
• Therefore, if God possesses knowledge of my writing this blog post prior to its actual occurrence then there is no way that it could not have occurred.
• If it is not possible for events to occur other than they do by our own choosing, then there is no such thing as free-will.
• It is not possible for events to occur other than they do because God has perfect knowledge of them.
• Therefore, there is no such thing as free-will.

To me, although poorly put, this seems like strong case that has been made. However, many offer what has been named the Simple Foreknowledge view. In this view, God knows what is happening because he sees it happening. His knowledge of events no more causes them to occur than my seeing someone in a chair causes them to be, in fact, sitting in a chair.

At first glance this view seems appealing: (1) We preserve God's foreknowledge of future events, thereby protecting his sovereignty. (2) We protect human notions of freedom. However, I find the Simple Foreknowledge view to be inadequate; the Simple Foreknowledge view makes God's knowledge of events contingent upon their happening. This seems problematic to me. I think you may run into problems with God growing in knowledge as he creates the world. This is not to say that he grows in respect to what is possible but only in respect to what is actual. He did not know what would be actual prior to his actually instantiating it.

I would like to propose what I see as a better alternative. As I see it, the main problems associated with these two views is the emphasis upon God's knowledge. Knowledge is not causal, nor does God posses knowledge that is contingent upon events actually occurring. Here is my view: while His knowledge is not causal, God possesses knowledge of everything that ever could be and will be. He knows this in virtue of his having perfect knowledge of everything.

Going back to the first argument, could things be otherwise? My answer would be, yes. God perfectly knows all of our free acts. Thus God knows what actually is and what will be, but it could happen otherwise if we choose otherwise. I believe this view protects God's omniscience and sovereignty while also protecting human agency.