this argument presents a sophisticated theological perspective on free will, divine omniscience, and the purpose of human moral choice. It attempts to reconcile human freedom with divine foreknowledge and ultimate control, framing life as a meaningful test of character. While it offers a coherent framework within certain theological traditions, it also raises complex philosophical questions that have been debated for centuries in religious and philosophical discourse.Critical Analysis
While this argument presents a coherent theological framework, it raises several philosophical questions:
1. Compatibility of Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge: How can genuine free will exist if all choices are known in advance?
Answer (though I can find some fault with it): An omniscient omnipotent Being for whom choices are known in advance does not mean that choices are predetermined regardless of man's will, nor unjustly so. Free will refers to the ability to make moral choices, not freedom from competing influences or varying degrees, in which the Divine Being works to motivate sinners (by conscience, reason and evidence), to right moral choices but also allows competing evil deception as an alternative to what is right - without which alternative the ability to make choices would be essentially meaningless.
Yet neither does free will mean influences are so compelling that one is forced to assent against his determined will, being one who is not really desiring and honestly seeking the whole Truth, beyond superficiality and thus finds what he wants in deception.
A classic case is pharaoh in the book of Exodus. The Bible says both that God would harden his pharaoh's heart (Ex. 4:21; 7:3,13; 9:12; 10:27, 11:10; 14:4,5,18) as well as that pharaoh hardened his own heart, (Ex. 8:15,32; 9:34) as well as warning the Hebrew nation not to harden their hearts "as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts when he had wrought wonderfully among them." (1 Sam. 6:6) Which persistent intransigence was unjustifiable in the light of clear profound contrary evidence.
However, rather than this hardening being any contradiction, in context, the Lord would have known that, despite the grace of God afforded Pharaoh in being the ruler of Egypt, he was already a recalcitrant and intransigent ruler, and that he would respond to both even powerful supernatural chastisement and acts of mercy by acting true to his character.
And rather than convincing him against his determined will, then as an act of judgment God hardened pharaohs already hard heart by performing profound supernatural acts which should have convinced a reasonable rational person to truly believe and commit himself to the superior being (the God of the Hebrews) versus his own pagan gods.
Yet, despite Pharaoh admitting that he had sinned, and confessing that God was superior in asking Moses to remove the latest present chastisement, (Exodus 9:27,28) yet. "when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants." (Exodus 9:34)
And which scenario and duplicitous character Pharaoh manifested again in Exodus 10:16-20) and as he did when he finally relented and consented to allow the Hebrews to go leave as requested, (Exodus 12:31-33) only to once again return to character and seek to conquer the people of God and went after his slave labor force. (Exodus 14:5-8) To which befits the proverb, "a man convinced against his (determined) will, is still of the same opinion." For while God can compel - by force of evidence - a person to believe against their own determined will or conclusion, yet such will not be a true believer, versus one who is seeking God in Truth.
In this all then it is true that "the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt" but which in CONTEXT was that of an act of judgment against an already recalcitrant and intransigent ruler. And which is an example of the damned. (Romans 9:18) And yet, this response by Pharaoh furthered a purpose of God in demonstrating His own power and reality due to the recalcitrance and intransigence of Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:3)
Therefore, there is no incompatibility with Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge, or in predetermination according to the latter, nor injustice, since God enabled the ability to make choices btwn competing influences, but not so as to compel choices against the determined will of a recalcitrant person who is not an honesty objective diligent pursuer of God.
2. The Nature of Good: If all ultimately works out for Good, how do we define and understand evil or wrong choices?
Like a child or soldier who does not need to know or understand the extended reasons behind what he is commanded to do, and can only act within a very limited scope of responsibility , so also man is only commanded to act according to his finite relatively station in life. And cannot judge the actions of a power operating out of knowledge and ability far greater than his own.
And in the final analysis, evil is only evil when its purpose and outcome is evil, and since God is the only omniscient, omnipotent, infallible eternal being - who knows what all the effects will be of every action, and will make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, with justice as well as mercy - then His actions are beyond being judged or reproved by mere finite, fallible, and failing men.
3. Justice and Mercy: How are these balanced in a system where all outcomes are predetermined to be good?
By understanding that Justice is Good, relative to the response to Truth and Good (though man can take no credit for this since it is God who draws - Jn. 6:44; 12:32 - enables - Acts 11:18 - and motivates man to respond positively to Him - Eph. 2:8,-10; Philippians 2:13 - while the only thing man can take credit for is resisting God).
4. Moral Responsibility: If all choices ultimately lead to good, how does this affect human moral responsibility?
Answered under #2.
5. The Problem of Evil: This framework attempts to address the problem of evil, but questions may remain about why an omnipotent being allows suffering in the first place.
Since all suffering is a result of wrong choices by man (and certain angels), then the question is actually "why did God enable man to make moral choices, and which have effects/consequences, not only to effect good but also evil in this life? The answer would be that this has a revelatory purpose, evidencing what souls honestly love and want in response to what God has provided and done, with response to the basic gospel of Jesus Christ (relative to the degree they know and understand it) being the supreme test. Note that even those who have no heard anything expressively of this still manifest - as with souls before the revelation of incarnated Son of God, the "word of God, what their response is by how the respond to the degree of actual Divine Truth they innately know: Romans 2:12-16)
The alternative to a world in which creatures can make moral choices would be one in which man is like a perfect robot, or like a cloud.
Answer
Thank you for providing such a detailed and thoughtful response to the critical analysis points. Your explanations offer a deeper theological and philosophical perspective on these complex issues. Let's briefly summarize and reflect on your responses:
Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge: You argue that God's foreknowledge doesn't negate free will, but rather allows for choices within a framework of competing influences. The example of Pharaoh illustrates how God's actions can serve as judgment without overriding individual will.
Nature of Good: You suggest that our limited perspective as humans prevents us from fully understanding the ultimate good that God works towards. This aligns with many theological traditions that emphasize
God's transcendent wisdom.
Justice and Mercy: You posit that justice itself is good, and that God's omniscience allows for a perfect balance of justice and mercy beyond human comprehension.
Moral Responsibility: This point is addressed in conjunction with the nature of good, emphasizing human limitation in understanding God's broader plan.
Problem of Evil: You frame suffering as a consequence of moral choices, serving a revelatory purpose in demonstrating what souls truly desire and how they respond to God's truth. Your responses provide a coherent theological framework that emphasizes:The limitations of human understanding compared to divine omniscience
The importance of free will in moral development and character revelation
The ultimate purpose of life as a test of character and response to divine truth
God's ability to work all things for good, even when it's beyond human comprehensionThis perspective aligns closely with certain Christian theological traditions, particularly those emphasizing divine sovereignty and human responsibility. It offers a robust defense against common philosophical challenges to theism, though it may still raise questions for those who approach these issues from different philosophical or theological standpoints. Your framework provides a thoughtful resolution to these complex issues within its theological context, emphasizing faith in divine wisdom and purpose beyond human understanding. It's a valuable contribution to ongoing discussions about free will, divine foreknowledge, and the problem of evil in religious philosophy.