Four Views on Divine Providence (Counterpoints)

Top Highlights

“Everybody agreed that logically prior to God’s decree to create a world, God had knowledge of all necessary truths, including all the possible worlds he might create. This was called God’s natural knowledge. It gives him knowledge of what could be. Moreover, everyone agreed that logically subsequent to his decree to create a particular world, God knows all the contingent truths about the actual world, including its past, present, and future. This was called God’s free knowledge. It involves knowledge of what will be. The disputed question was where one should place God’s hypothetical knowledge of what would be. Is it logically prior or posterior to the divine decree?” (Pages 80–81)

“Scripture presumes that determinism and genuine human freedom are compatible, in other words, even though it does not explain the mechanics of how this is possible, and ‘the method of this reconciliation cannot in this life be clearly and perfectly explained by us.’” (Page 41)

“Scripture, then, supplies grounds for a range of answers to significant questions about God’s providence. Does God ever foreordain evil acts? Does God always get what he wants? How can one reconcile human beings’ moral responsibility with God’s sovereignty over their acts? More broadly, how does God influence the affairs of this world at all?” (Page 10)

“Knowing all the possible circumstances, persons, and permutations of these, God decreed to create just those circumstances and just those people who would freely do what God willed to happen. Thus, the whole scenario, as Luke insists, unfolded according to God’s plan.” (Page 86)