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

by William Lane Craig

Does God know our actions before we do them? And if so, do human beings truly have free will? Dr. Craig contends that both of these notions are compatible, showing how the Bible teaches divine foreknowledge of human free acts, and reveals two ways of "reconciling divine omniscience with human freedom"

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Christian, Religion, Christianity, Nonfiction, Biblical Studies

157 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1987

About the author

William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He and his wife Jan have two grown children.

At the age of sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, during which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until assuming his position at Talbot in 1994.

He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science.

Reviews

[Joey Kaching · Rating 5 out of 5]

5/5. What an excellent book. I should have read this years ago.

This book is an accessible introductory study of middle knowledge (A.K.A Molinism) and the apparent theological and philosophical tensions it seeks to resolve. The aim of the book is to persuade the reader to hold fast with confidence to the truths of scripture: God’s omniscience (including foreknowledge) and human freedom. Craig suggests this can be achieved by accepting Molinism and rejecting both Open Theism (or Process Theology) and Theological Fatalism (or some may say simply Calvinism).

The book deals directly with some of the most complex philosophical concepts and debates but remains accessible due to its clear concise writing style and structure and it’s reliance on simple illustrations and summaries.

The book promotes what may be described as a Molinist view of divine omniscience and deals with both philosophical and theological objections robustly throughout.

The greatest strengths of this book are it’s incredible conciseness and accessibility on such a complex and confusing topic.

However, it’s greatest strength is also it’s only weakness. Where other philosophical positions are relied on in its arguments, they are largely identified. However, the following background commitments are not dealt with in detail, which I suppose is for the sake of brevity and accessibility: the nature of human freedom; the nature of time; the nature of reality.

Libertarian free will is assumed from the outset but is never established. The A-theory of time is likewise assumed but not argued at length (thankfully due to its technical complexity!). It may be argued that the arguments also assume an anti-realist position regarding the truth value of counter factual statements. Although this is not dealt with directly, an argument is introduced to suggest that an anti-realist position is not necessary due to what Craig calls the “instantiation of the actual world”.

Both the lay reader and the academic who have an interest in and at least a basic familiarity with philosophy will find much to ponder and enjoy in this book. I pray it will help me to remain confident in what scripture affirms on these topics and develop a systematic theology that is faithful to the whole counsel of God’s word.

[Rick Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bill Craig is a prolific writer, the forefront of Christian Evangelical philosophy. In this book, Bill craig talks about Divine Foreknowledge and Freedom.

A lot of people (including myself), struggle with God's Sovereignty and freedom. He begins from biblical foundation, And shows how this topic intersects logic, philosophy and real life. Sometimes, you will hear people believing in Fate. The Early church fathers tackled this problem. In Tamil, people call it as "Vidhi", meaning whatever you do will not change the outcome.

Bill breezes through theological fatalism, and shows there's a logical fallacy. I would ask you to read the book to know more on this topic. Overall, a great book. My favorite part was his syllogism showing both are not at odds with each other. The last chapter is on Middle Knowledge, the fruitful concept of counterfactuals.

Deus Vult,
Gottfried

[Timothy Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

To summarize what Craig says in the epilogue, you should endeavor to learn and search every aspect of God's divine attributes and character before you give up and ascribe something to mystery. This book begins by establishing that the concepts of divine foreknowledge and human free will are biblical concepts. He then establishes through a series of logical scenarios that determinism is fallacious. He brings the whole thing home with a demonstration of how the doctrine of middle knowledge resolves the lingering tension between the theological concepts established in the first portion of the book.

I tried to adopt Molinism and middle knowledge before reading this book. It can be very challenging to defend that position without understanding the logical twists and turns those conversations they could take. But this little book covered about every objection to middle knowledge I've encountered so far. Understanding what makes something true is a foundational step that Craig makes very simple for hard-headed people like me. I now feel as though I have legs to stand on in the fight to maintain my position.

My only concession to this book is that, in the last portion, when he addresses the criticisms directly aimed at middle knowledge, Craig seems to speculate about the various worlds God could have created, what scenarios would hypothetically bring him the most glory, in an attempt to remove God from the responsibility of people going to hell. The whole final argument is predicated on the *possibility* that his position could be true, and that doesn't sit well with me. It by no means invalidates the soundness of middle knowledge or tarnishes how much I find it helpful. It may just be one of those areas we must ascribe to mystery.

[Nathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was simultaneously interesting and frustrating. William Lane Craig plumbs the depths of philosophy to attempt to formulate a logically sound explanation of God's foreknowledge, and proposes a view called "Middle Knowledge," also known in historical theology as "Molinism." My problem with this book lies not in the philosophical discussion, but in the lack of critical biblical examination. When Craig finally does get around to the biblical "support" for this doctrine of Middle Knowledge, he refutes his own two passages in a two-sentence footnote. Then, when discussing the theological side, he says that Middle Knowledge has benefits in understanding providence and predestination. In his discussion of predestination, however, his reasoning flatly contradicts the way that the Bible talks about predestination, election, and salvation as a whole.

In my opinion, this book is a good case study of what happens when philosophy is given the driver seat of our theology, rather than Scripture. To be fair, Craig attempted to bring Scripture and theology into the mix, albeit briefly, but his Scriptural analysis and theological reasoning were painfully weak. We must START with Scripture, not philosophize and then try to make Scripture fit into that mold.

***I have great respect for William Lane Craig, especially in the realms of apologetics and philosophy. I love William Lane Craig as a true brother in Christ. I will say, however, that his view on Divine Foreknowledge as presented in this book is Scripturally weak and incompatible with what the Bible says about God, man, and salvation.

[Joseph Bradley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great, short examination of one of the most hotly contested topics in Christian theology. Dr. Craig’s arguments are always so solid, but this one is a real gem. He is careful in how he articulates positions, and provides a reasonable Molinist alternative to the foreknowledge/freedom problem! Great read.

[Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Craig marshals a solid defense of middle knowledge (and therefore Molinism) as a sound philosophical concept that seems to reconcile God’s foreknowledge and human free will. He satisfactorily answers the philosophical objections of fatalists, but doesn’t really address the theological objections of Calvinists.

[Evan Minton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book answers the objection from Open Theists, Divine Determinists, Atheists, and others that human free will and divine foreknowledge are incompatible. Craig first refutes Open Theism by listing the myriad of biblical passages and verses that either directly assert, implicitly assert, or logically entail that God has foreknowledge (i.e He knows what is going to happen in the future). He also unpacks the biblical evidence that God knows counterfactuals (i.e If X, then Y). I haven't read it in a while, but I also think he makes a biblical case for libertarian free will as well, though I may be mistaken on this. From there on, he tackles the objection of how these biblical truths can be compatible.

If God knows what I will do in the future, doesn't that mean I can't do otherwise? If I were to do otherwise, then God's foreknowledge would be wrong, right? And if God's foreknowledge cannot be wrong, then I can't do otherwise. Therefore, either humans are free, or God knows the future (and counterfactuals of creaturely freedom), but not both. Craig responds that if we were to choose differently than we do in fact choose, then it would not be the case that God's foreknowledge is wrong. Rather, if we make a different choice then what God foreknew, then what God foreknew would have been different. Indeed, what God foreknew would have always been different. So if you choose X tomorrow, God foreknows X and has always foreknown X. But if you choose Y, then God foreknows Y and has always foreknown Y. Whichever way you choose, God's foreknowledge follows. In this way, Craig likens God's foreknowledge to a hypothetical "infallible berometer". The berometer forecasts the weather. It tells what the weather will be before the weather occurs. Because the berometer is infallible, it can never be wrong. But does this mean that the berometer determines the weather (like how Open Theists and Calvinists think God's foreknowledge causes future events)? No! If the weather were to be different, then the berometer would give a different reading. Likewise, if you were to make a different choice, God's foreknowledge would contain different content. The same can be said of God's middle knowledge (which is why Arminians like Roger Olson are wrong to say that Molinism collapses into determinism).

[Eric Mao · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was more philosophical than theological. It is basically a philosophical (with bits of theology) refutation of fatalism and divine determinism. Go to chapter 12 if you want the lay-down of Middle Knowledge and Molinism. Otherwise, chapters 1-11 basically buttress his statement in chapter 1 that "what will be is NOT what must be."

Toward the end of the chapter 12, however, I find myself being less convinced. Perhaps not on a logical level, but on an intuitive level of not being persuaded. Here, Dr. Craig applies Molinism to the question of those who have never heard of Christ and to those who are lost. He answers these questions by positing that: 1) those who have never heard of Christ would never have believed in Him in any world, actual or possible, and 2) it is possible that there had to be a number of people who freely chose to reject God in order for God to save as many people who freely chose Him according to His all-loving will. Dr. Craig's view is summarized in this excerpt:

"It is possible that all who are lost would have been lost in any world in which God actualized them. It is possible, then, that in order to bring as many people to salvation as he has, God has to pay the price of the number of people who are lost, but that he has providentially ordered things in such a way that those who are lost are those who would never have been saved in any case."

I would disagree with the language being used here to describe Dr. Craig's point, but nevertheless, I get his point. Like I said before, logically, Dr. Craig's suggestion makes sense. But I feel that this suggestion should not be readily accepted, but rather that it requires more thorough examination. I would have liked to read Dr. Craig explore this aspect further, and consider objections to his own view as well. I'm aware that he has greater volume works, but it seemed like the application of Molinism (in apologetics and theology) could be another book that laypeople can read as well. All in all, The Only Wise God was a good-length book for those interested in the philosophical side of the theological question of one way we can understand the co-existence of Divine Sovereignty and human free-will.

[Ben Holloway · Rating 3 out of 5]

Craig is partly responsible for the re-emergence of molinism and this book is an early presentation of his view. As such, it is worth reading. Craig's adherence to the view is motivated by the central problem the book seeks to solve - the foreknowledge problem. If God knows in advance that S will do A, then S will do A and it cannot be otherwise. Craig's truck is with that last little bit - it can't be otherwise.

Craig's insistence that the Bible be used in philosophical theology is refreshing and his chapter defending the biblical view of God's foreknowledge is an excellent little primer on the doctrine (and is sufficient to refute the claim that God does not know the future). Craig's exposition of the options for solving the foreknowledge problem is also good.

The book contains a couple of problems. First, it lacks a detailed response to the grounding objection, that God has no grounds for his beliefs about what libertarian free creatures would do in certain circumstances. Second, though molinism is supposed to show how God's comprehensive foreknowledge is compatible with libertarian free will, there are many places where the free will in question cannot be libertarian. If God chooses a world in advance, then all the states of affairs, including the actions of human beings, in that world will turn out and, given God's choice of that world, could not be otherwise, then the freedom in question is not libertarian free will. Libertarian free will asserts that there is no antecedent condition that determines the actions creatures. However, if God chooses a world from the range of possible worlds available and which he knows through his middle knowledge, then that world, that set of states of affairs, is the world which will turn out. No libertarian free will.

[David Rathel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book a few years ago in seminary for a research paper that I was writing on the problem of evil. I needed to read it again this summer for a course that I am taking on middle knowledge.

Craig offers a cogent argument against theological fatalism and offers a somewhat brief intro into the doctrine of middle knowledge.

There is currently a controversy of sorts over middle knowledge in certain theological circles, and I would say that this book is important to read so that one can fully understand the ongoing discussion.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent defense of the notion that divine foreknowledge is compatible with libertarian freedom. The first parts of the book conclude that fatalism is incoherent, the last part offers a theory of how to reconcile God's fore-ordination with libertarian freedom to avoid divine fatalism. This involves the use of Middle Knowledge.
Well written and clearly thought out as usual from this author.

[Seth Sowalskie · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a big fan of William Lane Craig's work, when I saw this book in a Half Price Books, I had to pick it up. I was already pretty familiar with his views on Molinism and God's middle knowledge, as well as the foreknowledge/predestination versus free will debate, so I assumed this would be a pretty straightforward and edifying read.

For the most part, that's exactly what it was. In the first part of the book, Craig focuses on establishing the biblical basis for both divine foreknowledge and human free will, arguing that you cannot deny that both are biblical. From there, he shifts in the second part of the book to attempting to refute theological fatalism, the idea that because God, an infallible being, knows with certainty that Person A will choose X, Person A has no free will to choose otherwise. That person must necessarily (in the logical sense) choose X. Craig spends most of the second part of the book explaining this position and then pointing out the flaw in the reasoning: just because someone will do something does not mean they logically must do that thing and cannot choose another. Just because God foreknows an event with certainty does not mean that the choice that is foreknown is not free. The two are causally unrelated. Now, if God foreknows Person A will do X, then there is no way Person A will not do X, because God is infallible. Similarly, if Person A had actually chosen Y and not X, God would have simply foreknown differently. Thus, Craig argues that there is no true incompatibility between God's foreknowledge and human freedom.

After establishing this, Craig works though various objections and also delves into other fields that fatalistic thinking has been discredited (e.g., time travel, precognition, etc.). I found these chapters to be the most tedious of the book, save for possibly the chapter on Newcomb's paradox, which I thought was interesting. Craig uses several fields as examples of where fatalism has been rejected, which tends to come across as repetitive, especially when the ultimate point, that what will be is not what necessarily must be, regardless of who knows it, is fairly simple to grasp.

In the third and final part of the book (save for the epilogue), Craig puts forth his theories or beliefs on just how God foreknows things, focusing on innate knowledge and middle knowledge, arguing that God knows all true statements innately, including true future-tense statements, as well as all true counterfactuals. These are some of the best chapters of the book, as Craig delves deeply (though concisely) into consideration of just how God is able to foreknow events, and what truth God really does know. He ends up affirming the Molinist view that God possesses: 1. natural knowledge (knowledge of necessary truths that derive from God's nature, including all possibilities); 2. middle knowledge (knowledge of counterfactuals about what free creatures will choose in given circumstances, for all possible circumstances); and 3. free knowledge (knowledge of the actual world and states of affairs within it, including foreknowledge of its future state of affairs). Craig does a good job of establishing a case for middle knowledge as a theological tool and logically necessary belief, as well as providing some brief biblical support for it, though most of the evidence he gives is from the theological side. I would have liked him to dive a little bit more into the objections from the theological side, particularly from a Calvinist standpoint, but that would have just been an additional bonus. His thoughts on middle knowledge explaining lost souls and those who never hear the gospel are interesting, but obviously theoretical and unable to be falsified. Nevertheless, they definitely provide food for thought.

In sum, this is a great read for anyone interested in the question of divine foreknowledge and free will, with Craig tackling the issue from both the philosophical and theological standpoints. I do think he succeeds for the most part in his argument against theological fatalism, as well as his argument for God's middle knowledge. I'd give it a 4.5 out of 5 stars, with my only critique being the tediousness and repetitiveness of the "fatalism in other fields" chapters.

[John Martindale · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well, I wanted to like this book. I was hoping to find a good argument that could make the classical view of foreknowledge fit in harmony with human freewill and the dynamic, passionate and active God of the bible. I loved Craig's book "Time and Eternity: exploring God's relationship to time" where he masterfully showed the absurdity of assuming God is outside of time. Towards the end of his book he made a little attack on Open Theism which naturally flows from this understanding of God's relationship to time, so i was really curious how he held on to the classic view of foreknowledge in light of this understanding of reality that seems to contradict it. For if one accepts that God is not outside of time, then it means the future has not happened yet, its not there, it does not exist, it is mere possibilities and contingencies and the only things that are certain are the things God declares He will do before hand. This is how God talks throughout the bible, this is how he acts, this is how people talk and respond to God throughout scriptures. Yet Craig won't give up on his interpretation of a few proof text which in his mind imply an exhaustively fixed foreknowledge. He does not seem to realize how the handful of proof text he holds color his reading of the rest of the bible and can easily be understood and interpreted from a different perspective that is actually logically in harmony with his understanding of God's relationship to time.
Since Craig believes God is not outside of time and that the future has therefore not happened yet, he needs to show not only how God can know the future with fixed certainty but also how we can be relational and interactive with his creation in light of a fix foreknowledge, but Craig does not even attempt to do this. Its one thing for God to know the future like a movie though it has yet happened, but its another thing when he is the star actor. With his view of middle knowledge, God knows all possibilities before creating, and then has this innate knowledge of all true statements concerning the possibilities. But since He is the main actor in the drama that has yet unfolded, and men's actions are contingent upon not only other people, but upon God, then not only does this fix foreknowledge mean we cannot do anything other then what is fixed in God's unchanging knowledge before time, but also God is a puppet to his own foreknowledge.* Also, Craig cannot make sense of the dynamic God of the Old Testament, who is testing, warning, giving countless ifs and then scenarios, promising one thing and then because men's actions, changing his plans, changing his mind, expressing lots of emotion and being very interactive with man in time and space.His view renders all of this as meaningless and God misleading us.
I was sadden by his critic of open theology (though he never named it), he totally misrepresented it, made several straw-men arguments and set them on fire. He claimed we say what we never say and that we believe what we don't really believe. This was upsetting to me, for before attacking us he needs to at least present what we actually believe, instead of making a straw-man. He must have read the open view with a critical bias that caused him to read into things, and make it say what he thought it said before hand . But yeah, he showed he does not understand where we are coming from at all, and he does not see the huge problems with fix foreknowledge. What we believe is not based on a few proof text, the scriptural evidence for a partly open future is staggering and overwhelming, its like an ocean compared to the few proof text for his understanding of absolute foreknowledge which can effortlessly be understood from our perspective. He claims we do away with foreknowledge which is a lie, we believe in foreknowledge, but we believe he foreknows somethings as certainties and other things are possibilities. This is how God talks all throughout scripture, one who rejects this view renders much of the bible absolutely meaningless and shows God to either be lying, misleading us or playing a game.


*Craig and I agree that the future has not happened and therefore does not exist. Yet he somehow believes that not only can God know all possibilities, but also know all future free-choices absolute certainty though the creatures yet exist. Though I disagree with him on this point, Lets just say for the sake of the argument I am about to give, say he is right. I will also agree with him that God merely knowing the future has no causative power on our action. Just as if I was able to go into the future and see the outcome of a baseball game and then return to the present to make a bet on the game, my knowledge would not have any mysterious control and power over the players in the game. I would merely know what will be, before it happens.
So yes, though according to Craig, God can't experience sequence foreknowledge, to understand middle know logical sequence, so yeah at some logical point A God knew all future possibilities and then at some point B He knew all all future-tense truths concerning what we would freely choose to do in the future and then at Point C He created this world. Find and dandy, His knowledge of what we will freely choose to do does not force us to do it, BUT He would also have to know beforehand all He would do, for our response often are responses to His actions! Even if all this knowledge is before the creation of the earth, it still has to be known in logical sequence, since future events are influence or caused by former events, and our future choices are contingent upon what God does before.
Therefore, If God knew all possibilities and then knew all we would freely choose (Middle Knowledge), He would also have to know all He would do beforehand. So then it would be like a movie to God, for He knows the end from the beginning. Therefore, everything He will do is already written in the script, This would make God like an actor, for within the Epic as it plays out he expresses hurt, regret, surprise and deep emotions and even “changes His mind and plans” but these changes were written before hand just to make the movie more interesting and have no real meaning. But because all is already written, He cannot change the future, for by foreknowing the future with certainty, He predestined His every move and He cannot act otherwise. So the crazy thing is God's absolute-foreknowledge does not mean fatalism is true for us, but it necessarily implies it upon God. For everything He foreknows about us is dependent upon what He will do in the future and therefore, when the time arrives in in our experience of time, He has no choice but to do X.
The only way to escape fatalism that controlled God for all eternity, would be for God to experience a Point A where future-knowledge did not exist as certainties and a Point B where that knowledge was concreted! But yeah, only if you accept this, can one say God at least had freewill once upon a time. Yet now, because of His absolute-knowledge, there is no longer any freewill for God, for it is already known, what God knows as certainty and once known it cannot be changed. But at least at the beginning God had some choices in the matter. But if his foreknowledge is from everlasting to everlasting then God never has had freewill, He is a mere puppet on the strings of His always existing knowledge, which he never had any choice in forming or determining.
So Therefore, the ONLY way to escape fatalism for God is to say that EVEN God has a future that is OPEN and He gets to Cause, Choose and Create. And again, there had to be a point A where God did not know the future as anything other then possibilities and then a Point B, where God knew the future as certainties. Whether this was BEFORE creation, Or whether it is NOW. IT HAS TO BE SO, Or Fatalism is true for God.
To say God is Timeless (In some eternal Now) does not help anything, For timeless is utterly contradictory to Person-hood and its an utterly incoherent concept. Existence means sequence, you can't escape this. There was a before God created and an after He created universe. Relationship requires sequence, thought requires sequence, love requires sequence. Time exist because God exist, like love exist because God exist.

[Daniel Hurt · Rating 3 out of 5]

William Lane Craig is a great thinker, and I think this work has a lot going for it, but ultimately it left me unsatisfied.

In terms of the good, he makes a reasonably strong argument that divine foreknowledge and human freedom are compatible. Essentially he argues that we are truly free, and that if we act differently then God's foreknowledge would have been different - or that our action is logically prior to God's foreknowledge, even though is it chronologically posterior. I think this just about works, even though it is deeply counterintuitive. Now, if we have true libertarian free will then it seems inevitable that future contingent propositions have an indeterminate truth value. Craig rejects this and holds to the line that future propositions are all true or false, but I think this is weakly argued and his counterexamples are either accounted for by alternative logics (e.g. supervaluation) or aren't as strong as he thinks they are. The whole argument falls apart if the truth value of future propositions are indeterminate.

Although it only formed a small section near the very end, my main reason for reading this book was to see how it addressed the concern that divine foreknowledge is incompatible with perfect goodness, in that it implies many people are created with God's knowledge that they will damn themselves (whereas he might have created only people who he knew would save themselves through their own free will). Craig respond by suggesting that, in the space of possible worlds that God could have created, that this world might have achieved the best balance between both the proportion and number of people that might be saved (because some people would reject salvation in all possible worlds). Though Craig argues that if this *might* be true then we can marry up God's foreknowledge, perfect goodness and omnipotence. However, I think it's clearly false, because I can easily conceive of a world where one extra person is saved, and if I can then God clearly can! At this point it seems that Craig is clutching at straws to hold his position together, and that something (either that some people are damned to eternal torment, that God knows all future propositions, or that God is entirely loving or powerful) needs to budge.

[Mark Rosekelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great investigation on the nature of God's knowledge and foreknowledge. Craig, a respected apologist of the Christian faith presents in few words (only 150 pages) an alternative understanding of foreknowledge and election. This book is not perfect, he really needed another 500 pages to expound, but it is a start. Most importantly he highlights that Calvanist are not the only monergist in town. There is a logically consistent way to simultaneously endorse the "free will" and "divine sovereignty" passages in the scriptures without appealing to the impossible paradox (redundant I know) of God's 'revealed will' and his contradictory 'hidden will.' This, I believe, places more fully the weight of sin, responsibility for the evil and rejection of God squarely at the feet of humanity while placing the sole responsibility and work of salvation on the providential, omniscient and omnipotent God, "for the praise of his glory."

[Ben Coleman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a fantastic read in which Dr. Craig demonstrates that appeals to mystery are not necessary when it comes to the reconciliation of divine foreknowledge (and sovereignty, for that matter) and human freedom. Though for centuries many have considered it impossible for people to have libertarian freedom if God has foreknowledge/prescience, this book explains the logical error inherent to that idea and revives the compatibility of the concepts.

On top of that, Dr. Craig highlights a possible model for understanding the logical order of God's omniscience that preserves human freedom without rendering God's decree as merely reactive.

[Sean · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brilliant examination of the concept of what some refer to as "middle knowledge", which explains how human free will is possible even as it upholds the Biblical doctrine of election and God's sovereignty. William Lane Craig brilliantly makes his case using logic and real-world arguments and explains why middle knowledge is probably what most Christians have always believed by default, even if they would never have expressed their theology as such. Definitely recommended for Christians who struggle to reconcile predestination with human responsibility--but be warned. This is heavy stuff, and you are likely to find your brain hurting a little as you read along. Mine certainly did.

[Jonah Updegrove · Rating 5 out of 5]

William Lane Craig is incredible at defending the Christian faith and he does a great job in this book at defending the Christian belief in God having foreknowledge of the future and humans also still having free will. Towards the end of this book he also defends Molinism well as an explanation as to how God could use Middle Knowledge to predestine the world the way he wants while again still allowing every human to have free will in the process. This shorter book makes me excited to open one of his longer books on Molinism. I highly suggest reading this to come to a better understanding of how confident we can be that all things (even in the future) are truly in his hands.

[Jennifer Layte · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is pretty short, but really densely packed with philosophical ideas, explanations, and logic, which my brain struggles to follow. I do like (even accept) the concept of divine middle knowledge for which Craig argues at the end, but for my own mental capacity, I maybe should have simply read the very last chapter, since the foregoing didn’t serve to elucidate this limited brain very much. I would think it might be a riveting discussion, however, for those more intellectually and philosophically inclined.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even though I learned a lot about the complexity of divine foreknowledge, had had this sense of Lane Craig not considering all the angles or all the objections(I could easily think of a few while reading...), and instead defaulting to his favorite theory of "middle knowledge". This topic is very exciting to muse about and it also touches upon things like time travel, multiple universes, telekinesis, and other topics that are seldom discussed in theological literature. It's very short, so by that, it manages to cover a lot - and it is thus worth the read.

[Max Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. William Lane Craig is one of the most prominent apologists of our day and, as i picked up this book, I hoped to come out of it with a better understanding of his view of God. While I am not sure that I am smart enough to follow Dr. Craig's arguments to their entirety, he does a great job in this book explaining his view of God's middle knowledge and logical priority in time. If you are looking for an understanding of middle knowledge or looking for a deeper understanding of God's foreknowledge and the responsibility of man, then this book is for you.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

A short but thorough defense of the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human free will. Most of the book is an argument against fatalism, the idea that what will be must necessarily be. Criag shows how fatalism rests on fallacious arguments, and that God can in fact know the future without causing it or necessitating it. The final two chapters deal with God's middle knowledge, and how that knowledge is also compatible with human freedom.
Highly recommended.

[Andrew Crawford · Rating 5 out of 5]

Craig's book dealing with the compatibility between God's sovereignty, divine foreknowledge, and human freedom is comprehensive and convincing. Recommended for anyone looking to go beyond the typical Arminian and Calvinist proof-texting nonsense that has bogged down this issue. It can be a little difficult to follow at times, but rewarding for anyone willing to take the time to study Dr. Craig's arguments.

[Thani Abuhamad · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found Dr. Craig’s work in this book to be very encouraging and stimulating. It will likely require at least one or two additional read-throughs to really capture the nuance of many of the book’s concepts—especially for the philosophically uninitiated, like myself! Even so, I was never turned off by any unwieldy passages: every part of the book is succinct, relevant, and written in a way that is accessible by anyone who is at least somewhat read.

[Nathan Bozeman · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who has rejected Calvinism for a long time (die to the ramifications on God's goodness and justice), I am happy to finally fully grasp an alternative view (Molinism).

Craig masterfully handles the subject, proves fatalism to be fallacious, and give us a Biblical alternative for the compatibility of divine foreknowledge and human free will.

[Tsebaot · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome! Would recommend!

I am now more interested to know about Middle Knowledge and I think it's a biblical position to endorse. As this view is the most adequate to explain Divine Foreknowledge and Man's freedom without actually comprosmising God's word and his character.

[Michael Josephbrennan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Divine Foreknowledge

My initial response and not my thoughtful one:

This seems to critique predestination and free-will, while trying to marry both unsuccessfully. Too many ideas seem to require the manipulation of God.

[Micah Klinger · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was all around extraordinary. However, the last 2 chapters were probably the most philosophically and theologically illuminating chapters I’ve ever read. Don’t argue for any side of the debate around predestination before reading this book.

[Sam Qadri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Indeed, assessable for lay-men theists in philosophy who struggle with the problem of fatalism.

[Bradley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finally. A doctrine that makes sense

Brilliant and encouraging. Dr. Craig eloquently puts into words thoughts I had been having for quiet some time now. It finally makes sense