Customer Reviews

The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

William Lane Craig is one of Christianity's brightest philosopher and apologist. In The Only Wise God, Craig tackles the confounding and apprarent contradiction between freedom and God's foreknowledge. So, if God always knew that I was going to read The Only Wise God, then I could not do otherwise since God's foreknowledge necessitated my action. Yet, Craig argues that this isn't the case. Just because God knows I will do something, doesn't make that action inevitable. Craig argues that I could have exercised my ability to refrain from reading his book, and that if I had done such a thing God would have known this. Moreover, Craig deals with the three primary objections to the idea of God's foreknowledge and shows how all three of them are inadequate or deficient. For the serious student who wants to uphold the truths taught in the Bible, one must believe in God's infallible foreknowledge of the future.

In addition, Craig also refutes logical and theological fatalism. Craig demonstrates that logical and theological fatalism have many aspects in common and the only factor that differentiates the two is that theological fatalists have thrown God into the equation. Some previous reviewers have chided Mr. Craig for interacting with D.A Carson's book, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility because they feel Craig's arguments are inadequate. First, the book is very short in length, only 151 pages, and second the purpose is not to conduct a point by point refutation of Carson's work. The point is simply to show that in the Bible God's causation of good actions and evil actions are described differently, and that God is not directly the cause of sin. Yet, the theological fatalist must grant that if God is totally sovereign and controlling every event in history that He is equally responsible for both the good and bad, and in the exact same way. Furthermore, there is no way to get around the oft mentioned notion that God is the author of sin since He is the first cause of everything and second causes only do what the first cause impels them to do.

Finally, Craig deals with the subject of how God can possess knowledge of all true events. Craig believes that God possesses this knowledge innately and that He knows all truthful propositions simply because He is God. In the last chapter, Craig explains the idea of middle knowledge which positis that God has knowledge of all counterfactual situations. Therefore, God knows what any individual will freely choose in any set of circumstances. Craig mentions the two biblical proofs(I Kings 23:6-13, Matthew 11) examined by the Jesuit theologians to prove that God has middle knowledge. Also, Craig shows how this concept grants God a wide degree of providential control over creation while allowing creaturely freedom at the same time. To prove that God does not possess middle knowledge, but only natural and free knowledge, opponents are going to have to refute Craig's arguments and show how the biblical passages do not apply to middle knowledge but to something else. The refutations offered by the likes of Reformed Baptist, A.H. Strong, and Francois Turretin are inadequate and do not stand up to Scripture. Turretin actually says that God does not know how individuals would have reacted in different circumstances, when in Matthew 11 Jesus obviously alludes to the fact that He does know just how they would have acted given a different situation. Overall, this is a strong work and one that will not be easily refuted since Craig's argumentation is very sound.

This is an excellent book pertaining to the philosophy called Molinism (the view of Divine foreknowledge and human freedom via Luis de Molina). While I disagree with this view for philosophical and theological reasons (I believe it is more detrimental than good), I nonetheless, enjoy studying the issues, and this is one of the best books still available written by an evangelical. Craig covers God's knowledge of the past, present, and future, the issue of fatalism, Innate knowledge and the increasing popular view "scientia media" (middle knowledge). While I firmly believe that this is a good book to read for the current issues, I disagree with the overall philosophy of Molinism since it has too many problems within its system (i.e. it breaks down the simplicity of God, it makes God an epistemological spectator, it is ultimately determinism of circumstances, it denies efficacious grace, and it lacks biblical support). Therefore, I would recommend this book since Craig does such a good job at defining Molinism and describing the philosophy. However, it should be read in light of other works (i.e. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange's work titled "The One God," "Still Sovereign" by Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware - available here at Amazon at a good price, and others). Overall, this is an excellent book to research and I have an enormous amount of respect for Craig.

This book is awesome! W.L Craig does a great job at showing that divine foreknowledge is compatible with free will. He holds that there are two ways of looking at foreknowledge - Chronological and Logical.

Chronologically, God knows ahead of time whether or not Jones will cut the grass on Saturday.

But logically, Jones chooses of his own free will whether or not he will cut the grass on Saturday, and God's foreknowledge is based on Jones's free choice. In other words, God didnt force Jones to cut the grass on Saturday. But He knew what Jones would freely choose, and based on Jones's choice, God writes this day in His book (Psalm 139:15-16).

By the way, if Jones decides to go golfing on Saturday, then this would prove that God foreknew something different than what we thought He foreknew!

The bottom line is this: Just because God knows what we're going to do ahead of time doesnt mean we MUST do it. We choose to do it of our own free will, and God acts based on what He knows of our free choices ahead of time.

Craig also shows how fatalism and determinism are flawed in their denials of free will. He stresses that God knows about all possible worlds and all possible humna decisions and what they would or wouldn't do in certain circumstances. Craig calls this middle knowledge. He references 1 Samuel 23 and Matthew 11:20-24 as examples of this.

He also deals with the question of why would God create a world where some people would use their free will to reject Christ? Why not create a world where no one could reject Christ?

Craig replies by noting that there is apparently no possible world in which all persons would freely choose Christ. God has in fact created a world with an optimal balance between saved and unsaved - and those who reject Christ would have never accepted Him under any circumstances.

My head and my heart were greatly affected by this book. I love Dr. Craig's writings! His book "Hard Questions - Real Answers" is another favorite.

_The Only Wise God_ is a defense of freewill (in the face of divine foreknowledge) and Molinism. Craig turns his attention to the age-old dilemma of human freedom and divine foreknowledge, and attempts a solution. Through a series of discussions on time travel, psychic precognition, and logical fatalism, Craig tries to show that people have freewill even though God knows what they are going to do tomorrow. The strengths of this book include its Biblical defense of divine foreknowledge, and its amazingly clear presentation of the Molinist doctrine of "middle knowledge." However, I do not think that Craig proves his point. His entire case rests upon the reduction of theological fatalism to logical fatalism. That is, Craig thinks that the existence of an omniscient God poses no more of a threat to libertarian freedom than it would if no God existed. But this reductionistic presentation has been sharply critiqued by Nelson Pike and others. I was unconvinced by Craig's book, and I suspect most people will be. The strong intuition that God's past belief about what I will do tomorrow is somehow "fixed" and "unalterable" is hard to deny, and Craig doesn't deal with this issue in any real detail, since he sees it as superfluous.

Furthermore, Craig attempts to refute the major lines of D. A. Carson's argumentation in his book, _Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility_, but in doing so he does not fairly wrestle with the actual Biblical passages. Having read Carson, this severely disappointed me. Craig claims that the Bible says men have freewill, but he produces no clear-cut verses that establish this fact, and he brushes aside the counter-examples given by Carson without any discussion.

I recommend this book for a good defense of Molinism. But for a Biblical critique of Craig's belief in libertarian freewill, I recommend Carson's book mentioned above, and the site,

www.freewill.doesntexist.com

This site offers a storehouse of arguments and Biblical passages used by Calvinists and Arminians alike.

This book is a "must" for anyone struggling with foreknowledge, predestination, free will, fatalism, etc. It is recommended for its clear focus on the subject matter and for its brevity. The book presents the problem, arguments, counter-arguments, and solution; thus, the style of the book is Thomist even if, as stated earlier, the book itself is not a tome. Craig states the problem (Are divine foreknowledge and human freedom compatible?), describes attempts to avoid the problem (denial of either divine foreknowledge or human freedom), decomposes the problem into two pieces (Is human freedom compatible with the fact that certain future-tense statements are true? And how does God know the truth of future-tense statements?), answers the first question across several fields of study, and then addresses the second question. Craig explains divine foreknowledge with the concept of middle knowledge. I have had difficulty understanding middle knowledge in other books and articles, but the explanation here is clear.

The author considers the question: If God is omniscient, then doesn't His foreknowledge of my future acts constrain my free will? A sticky issue indeed. But Dr. Craig utilzes modal logic and the molinist idea of middle knowledge to show that omniscience and free will are not incompatible. What makes the book even more interesting is how middle knowledge can bring interesting insights into soteriology and missiology.

One negative comment about the book is that the chapters concerning Newcomb's paradox, backard causation in time travel, and human precognition are difficult to understand for laymen (especially Newcomb's paradox). The point of these chapters is to show that knowledge of future free acts is not incompatible with free will. But the technical nature of Newcomb's paradox et al. makes the reader lose this point.

A second negative comment is that the book mainly considers the question of fatalism but does not address determinism proper.

Overall, however, the book is certainly challenging and will keep you up late at night pondering deep thoughts. Impress your friends

W.L. Craig's "The Only Wise God" examines the question of whether divine foreknowledge and human freedom are compatible. Craig is one of the leading contemporary philosophers of religion - this small book is one of his early popular works.

To get a sense of the question one could take an argument such as the following:

1. God knew that you were going to read this review today
2. God's foreknowledge is infallible
Hence
3. You will read this review today

An implication of this argument, if true, is that divine omniscience and freedom may not be compatible. This conclusion is not particularly appealing from either theological or commonsense perspectives. From a theological vantage point it seems unlikely that the sense of individual responsibility inherent in most religious traditions could exist independent of individual freedom. Whereas from a commonsense perspective freedom appears to be an all too obvious brute fact - you could have chosen not to read this review.

Some theistic commentators have attempted to get out of this box by advocating a type of open-theism wherein does not know all future facts. From the Christian perspective, however, the majority position is that God does possess infallible foreknowledge - hence the original dilemma remains. Further complicating this is the related question as to the nature of time itself (is it tensed or tenseless) and God's relationship to time (is he in time or outside of it).

Craig takes a view of time known as presentism (only the present exists) and argues that divine foreknowledge and freedom are compatible. In doing so, he uses an approach credited to Luis de Molina known as middle knowledge. In accordance with molinism God's foreknowledge stems his knowledge of all future counterfactuals. Hence if you had chosen not to read this review God would have known that. Craig does a nice job of presenting this argument - well worth the read.

Overall, the book is an excellent popular-level introduction to a range of interesting theological and metaphysical questions. Though it is aimed at theists, I think any reader interested in metaphysical questions regarding time could also find it a useful introduction. "Divine Foreknowledge Four Views" is also a good read and some of Craig's detailed philosophical work regarding time is excellent as well.

William Lane Craig is one of the deepest readers you will ever encounter. His knowledge is vast as is his writing ability. Few books have challanged me to study as much as the works of Craig.

Having said that, let me state that THE ONLY WISE GOD is no easy read. It takes time and you will need your Bible open to examine the passages that Craig covers as his defends his understanding of God's middle knowledge (or the more popular name, Molinism). The differences between Craig and Molina though are that Craig is evangelical and believes in justification by faith whereas Molina was a Catholic theologian who rejected the Reformation movement. Craig's defense of middle knowledge is two fold, first he describes what middle knowledge is and then he seeks to defend it from its common attacks. The book is a deep, philsophical study into the knowledge of God and man's free will. The book is neither Calvinist nor Arminian but seeks to stay true to the biblical teaching concerning God'sovereignty.

Overall, this is a good book. While the casual theological and philsophy reader may find Craig's book hard to grasp, the serious student will no doubt walk away with a deeper understanding of what middle knowledge is and whether it is based on the teachings of the Bible.

Does the Bible teach that man is free or that God is sovereign, or both? If only the first, then how can God know the future? If only the second, then how are we responsible? If both, then how do they work together to give God His providential control, and us our genuine, real freedom?

Craig tackles these difficult questions in this very abbreviated version of his more scholarly work. Craig defends that the Bible teaches both God's providence and human freedom, and the rebuts objections that if an act is known in advance, it cannot be free (the fatalist fallacy). Then Craig applies this to other areas (like time travel and newcombe's paradox). Finally Craig defends Middle Knowledge against philosophical objections (primarily the grounding objection) and theological objections. What we have left is a robust understanding of both our freedom and God's control. Craig convincingly argues, to the dismay of Calvinists, that we need not be determined for God to be soverign, and aruges against open theists that God can foreknow our genuinely free actions.

This book is short, and for a popular audience, but it is also difficult material. I highly recommend it, but only for those interested in seriously contemplating it.

I actually bought this book after I had already read someone else's copy, not only because I wanted to read it again, but because I wanted to add it to my personal library. The book was very helpful to me because it thoroughly addresses (and, in my view, successfully refutes) the argument that divine foreknowledge and human freedom are incompatible, but it does so in such a way that it was accessible to a layman like myself. Even so, I found it helpful that I had already done a fair amount of reading on Christian philosophy and apologetics. Some of the concepts that come up in the book can be tough the first time one encounters them.

Chapter 12 is a kind of bonus chapter, because it goes beyond the problem of foreknowledge and freedom and also addresses the question of God's providence. It is probably the best treatment of the molinist view of providence that I have read. It is a well-reasoned and very understandable overview.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in exploring the issues of foreknowledge, freedom, and providence.