Free Will, Predestination and Time

[Mark Quayle]

I'm posting this under Kitchen Sink, because I want those not claiming Christianity to be able to contribute. Within what I say here, I want it understood, though, that I am assuming the meaning of 'God' to be, among other things, the absolute Omnipotent, a person, (i.e. not a mere mechanical fact), the only First Cause (Creator), and under no obligation to nor subject to any cause external to himself. The point of the thread is not to debate those things, but rather to discuss: Assuming those things, then.....

When we consider the philosophical 'necessary attributes of God', such as The Simplicity of God, The Aseity of God, and so on, we may begin to understand such things as, that, for God, to think is to do, and to observe [the future] is to cause [the future].

Today I was reminded elsewhere of a principle to bear in mind, debatable perhaps, but it has merit, that Time is the measure of change, and perhaps only OUR measure of change. Time is a principle by which we operate, and to which we, to a large degree, find ourselves subject; it also seems to be our almost unavoidable point of view in thought and reasoning/speech, even for those of us who have some degree of understanding as to its relativity and its beginning. But it is not a principle to which God is subject, except as he subjects himself to it. Having said that, I still must admit to seeing that whole matter from my time-dependent point of view.

Concerning the Freewill - Predestination debate in which Christians so often and virulently engage, I think it prudent to understand that we do so from the point of view of people under that time envelope —even when we argue such concepts as the timelessness of God. The Bible is written for such people as ourselves, usually in language we, who are bound by time, can understand. (I don't mean that the Bible is then not quite accurate, for that is one of the amazing things I find about the Bible, which I take to be the Word of God, that it is accurate from both points of view, (and often with a precision we don't realize). But the reliability of Scripture is not the point of this post.)

So, when an opponent on a thread claims a scripture reference demonstrates free will, he may be right, depending on what he means by "free". And when I claim that he is wrong, because we are not "free" in the sense that he uses it, both of us are talking about the activity of choice, and other things that happen ('changes') within this temporal 'envelope' we are subject to, and as though the absolute value of our choices was better than zero. But from God's point of view, it is hardly a question: God does — we respond.

Both of us are arguing something that we see as precious, true and necessary, but we are arguing what we don't understand, but what is nevertheless written for us to pursue, to try to understand. People do absolutely choose. And God absolutely did predestine everything that comes to pass. But they only produce a conflict in the mind of those who assume time's point of view to be valid, to the exclusion of God's point of view.

My point, then, is not that 'free will' is wrong, from God's point of view (again, depending on what one means by 'free' in that context, nor even that 'predestination' is right, but that when we argue these things, it is mainly because we see things from this temporal point of view.

The same principle applies to so many things! Even our large Theological arrangements, soteriology, eschatology and so on, are written around our dependence on time, and so our use of Scripture. We see, "this, then that", when God says, "it is done".

 

[HTacianas]

I'm posting this under Kitchen Sink, because I want those not claiming Christianity to be able to contribute. Within what I say here, I want it understood, though, that I am assuming the meaning of 'God' to be, among other things, the absolute Omnipotent, a person, (i.e. not a mere mechanical fact), the only First Cause (Creator), and under no obligation to nor subject to any cause external to himself. The point of the thread is not to debate those things, but rather to discuss: Assuming those things, then.....

When we consider the philosophical 'necessary attributes of God', such as The Simplicity of God, The Aseity of God, and so on, we may begin to understand such things as, that, for God, to think is to do, and to observe [the future] is to cause [the future].

Today I was reminded elsewhere of a principle to bear in mind, debatable perhaps, but it has merit, that Time is the measure of change, and perhaps only OUR measure of change. Time is a principle by which we operate, and to which we, to a large degree, find ourselves subject; it also seems to be our almost unavoidable point of view in thought and reasoning/speech, even for those of us who have some degree of understanding as to its relativity and its beginning. But it is not a principle to which God is subject, except as he subjects himself to it. Having said that, I still must admit to seeing that whole matter from my time-dependent point of view.

Concerning the Freewill - Predestination debate in which Christians so often and virulently engage, I think it prudent to understand that we do so from the point of view of people under that time envelope —even when we argue such concepts as the timelessness of God. The Bible is written for such people as ourselves, usually in language we, who are bound by time, can understand. (I don't mean that the Bible is then not quite accurate, for that is one of the amazing things I find about the Bible, which I take to be the Word of God, that it is accurate from both points of view, (and often with a precision we don't realize). But the reliability of Scripture is not the point of this post.)

So, when an opponent on a thread claims a scripture reference demonstrates free will, he may be right, depending on what he means by "free". And when I claim that he is wrong, because we are not "free" in the sense that he uses it, both of us are talking about the activity of choice, and other things that happen ('changes') within this temporal 'envelope' we are subject to, and as though the absolute value of our choices was better than zero. But from God's point of view, it is hardly a question: God does — we respond.

Both of us are arguing something that we see as precious, true and necessary, but we are arguing what we don't understand, but what is nevertheless written for us to pursue, to try to understand. People do absolutely choose. And God absolutely did predestine everything that comes to pass. But they only produce a conflict in the mind of those who assume time's point of view to be valid, to the exclusion of God's point of view.

My point, then, is not that 'free will' is wrong, from God's point of view (again, depending on what one means by 'free' in that context, nor even that 'predestination' is right, but that when we argue these things, it is mainly because we see things from this temporal point of view.

The same principle applies to so many things! Even our large Theological arrangements, soteriology, eschatology and so on, are written around our dependence on time, and so our use of Scripture. We see, "this, then that", when God says, "it is done".

You hit precisely on the primary dilemma faced when defining predestination, and that is "observe" and "cause". It leads directly to the foreknowledge of God. Is God's foreknowledge an observation or a cause? Does God observe the future or does God cause the future to happen? Either of those is acceptable but I lean more towards cause. God knows the future because He causes it to happen. Rather than this is what will happen, it is this is what I will do. That leaves wiggle room in predestination because it does not fix absolutely the minutest detail of the future, nor does it fix the length of time between events. The bible is filled with "if". If you obey, I will this, but if you do not obey I will that.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You hit precisely on the primary dilemma faced when defining predestination, and that is "observe" and "cause". It leads directly to the foreknowledge of God. Is God's foreknowledge an observation or a cause? Does God observe the future or does God cause the future to happen? Either of those is acceptable but I lean more towards cause. God knows the future because He causes it to happen. Rather than this is what will happen, it is this is what I will do. That leaves wiggle room in predestination because it does not fix absolutely the minutest detail of the future, nor does it fix the length of time between events. The bible is filled with "if". If you obey, I will this, but if you do not obey I will that.

With that, I can agree heartily. However, in my thinking, this necessarily includes his intimate attendance to every detail. Yet, if he is what I think he is, still there is, as you say, wiggle room —not wiggle room as our minds want it to mean, but because 'he is doing' is no different, (from his POV), from 'he has done'.

 

[Neogaia777]

There is no "if's" of possible way things can go or cannot go with a God who is/was/still is fully omniscient unless He chose to limit some of that full omniscience, etc...

And there were also many, many times in the OT, where things did not go or happen the way God wanted or willed for them to go in the OT also, which would also imply He did not know which way it would or was going to happen or go also, etc, which, once again, points to a more limited amount of full omniscience also, etc...

And many of you might say "well, that's because He gave man free will", etc, which is fine, if you're also willing to acknowledge or admit also, God in the OT's also more limited amount of full omniscience also, etc, because otherwise, the two are diametrically opposed, and one cannot exist or else be truly so, without or apart from the other, etc...

God Bless!

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Surely God not wanting the death of a sinner and having died for them and from whom all other things are available for salvation, surely He does not cause the death and eternal sin of these sinners drawing Hebrews 6:6 and the few that have gone that way?

God's omniscience covers the movement of future and prospective atoms and planets and wills. The latter not being up to Him, or else even Satan and Michael are only robots fulfilling a program.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There is no "if's" of possible way things can go or cannot go with a God who is/was/still is fully omniscient unless He chose to limit some of that full omniscience, etc...

Why not, if he is talking to us where we see choices between this and that? It's not a question of him not knowing precisely, and in fact, causing precisely, but a question of whether WE know.

To put it another way, if God knows A will happen, and in fact is causing A to happen, and not B, but puts before us the choice between doing what will result in A or what will result in B, A will happen, because he is causing A to happen, and because we chose what will result in A.

But the point of the OP is that that whole discussion is held from our ignorant point of view, that sees cause-and-effect from the point of view of time dependence. We think, for example, in terms of it having to be one or the other, that God is doing, or that God has done, but not both.

And there were also many, many times in the OT, where things did not go or happen the way God wanted or willed for them to go in the OT also, which would also imply He did not know which way it would or was going to happen or go also, etc, which, once again, points to a more limited amount of full omniscience also, etc...

Returning to the OP: But what does it mean, from God's point of view, when WE say, "it did not go the way he wanted"? I will use the past tense in the next sentence to try to get the point across in human terms. God sees it as already done. So do we mean, "what he wanted", or "what he commanded"? Because if, from his point of view, it is already done, yet he created anyway, then it was his plan after all, for that to have happened.

And many of you might say "well, that's because He gave man free will", etc, which is fine, if you're also willing to acknowledge or admit also, God in the OT's also more limited amount of full omniscience also, etc, because otherwise, the two are diametrically opposed, and one cannot exist or else be truly so, without or apart from the other, etc...

The point of the OP isn't particularly the debate on free will vs predestination, but to try to get across a little of God's point of view. If it is already done, it is already known. If it is already known, yet he created everything that would result in that known result, then it was his will, i.e. his plan.

Again, our thinking is time-dependent. His is not.

 

[com7fy8]

When we consider the philosophical 'necessary attributes of God', such as The Simplicity of God, The Aseity of God, and so on, we may begin to understand such things as, that, for God, to think is to do, and to observe [the future] is to cause [the future].

I would say You can not know what is in the future unless You are in control of it.

But managing a reality can be not the same as producing it. God does not cause sinning > James 1:13 > but God does manage which way evil goes.

And yes there is destiny in this. Whatever is really going to happen can not be changed. God Himself can not stop whatever really will happen. So, God has destiny. But included in His destiny is how He alone is good, and therefore only He is able to initiate a choice to do what is really good.

And Philippians 2:13 says >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

He works us to will what He knows He wants. Only God can know at any moment what He desires to have us will and do. And so, any willing which is truly His will is done in sharing with Him working this in us.

Therefore, if our wills are free from God, so we are controlling our wills in separation from God . . . we have a problem.

 

[durangodawood]

.....God's omniscience covers the movement of future and prospective atoms and planets and wills. The latter not being up to Him, or else even Satan and Michael are only robots fulfilling a program.

Yeah its a strange tale in which a King creates a rebellion against himself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But managing a reality can be not the same as producing it. God does not cause sinning > James 1:13 > but God does manage which way evil goes.

But your statement is made from within this temporal mindset. If he sees it, he causes it. James 1:13 does not say that he does not cause that sin be. It says he is not tempted and doesn't tempt. Perhaps our words confuse us: Just what are we talking about when we say he caused or did not cause sin? Because, if you claim that sin is mere accident, then you invoke the self-contradictory notion of causation of chance. Or (haha) I could help your argument, sloughing meaning/use a bit, and say that since Scripture says that he cannot look on sin, then to not see is to not cause!

And yes there is destiny in this. Whatever is really going to happen can not be changed. God Himself can not stop whatever really will happen. So, God has destiny. But included in His destiny is how He alone is good, and therefore only He is able to initiate a choice to do what is really good.

But see how Temporal-centric, not to mention Humano-centric, your claim is, that God Himself cannot stop whatever really will happen? You go past merely complicating the question to implying something about God that is logically impossible: You said, "God has destiny". Destiny, whatever that is, is God-made. Remember that God is subject to no principle from outside himself, or he is not God (see the OP —if you wish to argue against that, it is another subject.) It's not that he cannot. It would be closer to the truth to say that he will not (predictive), but better to say that he has no plans to stop what he has decreed.

He works us to will what He knows He wants. Only God can know at any moment what He desires to have us will and do. And so, any willing which is truly His will is done in sharing with Him working this in us.

I think you are letting words push you around again. It would be silly to say he does not want that which he has decreed from the beginning will happen. But it would be inaccurate to say there is no sadness and pain within, or resulting from, that decree, nor that if it could be done some other way, he would not have done it. What he has planned, from the beginning, can only be done precisely as he has done/ is doing it. There is no wiggle-room that allows for chance or randomness, the only wiggle-room is for our speculation.

To put it a bit more concretely, per the OP, what he has planned, he already spoke into being. It is done. It is not subject to ongoing time, although ongoing time will accomplish/ fulfill it. Christ was slain from the foundation of the world.

Therefore, if our wills are free from God, so we are controlling our wills in separation from God . . . we have a problem.

In one sense nothing happens apart from the willful act of the Creator. If he had not caused, nothing could happen. In that sense, our wills are never free from God's control. If, however, you mean that we will in contradiction to God's command, i.e. in rebellion against him, yes, we have a problem.

 

[Halbhh]

You hit precisely on the primary dilemma faced when defining predestination, and that is "observe" and "cause". It leads directly to the foreknowledge of God. Is God's foreknowledge an observation or a cause? Does God observe the future or does God cause the future to happen? Either of those is acceptable but I lean more towards cause. God knows the future because He causes it to happen. Rather than this is what will happen, it is this is what I will do. That leaves wiggle room in predestination because it does not fix absolutely the minutest detail of the future, nor does it fix the length of time between events. The bible is filled with "if". If you obey, I will this, but if you do not obey I will that.

Nice. I like it when I don't have to work write clearly enough to lay out a particular explanation because someone did already.

 

[Halbhh]

To put it another way, if God knows A will happen, and in fact is causing A to happen, and not B, but puts before us the choice between doing what will result in A or what will result in B, A will happen, because he is causing A to happen, and because we chose what will result in A.

Well, I remember this particular detailed wording, where each word is important. From before the Flood:

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”


Or how Moses pled with God about the people:

7Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’

9“I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”

11But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’ ” 14Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well, I remember this particular detailed wording, where each word is important. From before the Flood:

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”


Or how Moses pled with God about the people:

7Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’

9“I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”

11But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’ ” 14Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Is there some reason to think that every word is not important somewhere else in Scripture?

Here is an apt explanation of Genesis 6:6 from a site that I find no reason to think is Reformed or Calvinist:
"The King James version says, “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Genesis 6:6 also Exodus 32:14). But the New King James Version gives a clearer meaning to this verse, “And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.”

"Therefore, the words “it repented” the Lord, can be understood from the explanatory statement “it grieved him” to His heart. This shows that the repentance of God does not mean a change in His nature or purpose. The “repentance” of God is an expression showing the pain of divine compassion that is caused by man’s sin." I don't wish to add more words than necessary to what they said, but I ask you to remember that God is often presented in Scripture in Anthropomorphic language. We are looking at this question from a humano-centric, temporal, point of view.

Your other reference isn't the only other one, by far. But I would note that God had put Moses into the position of pleading with him, "standing in the gap" between God and Israel, to turn God's anger aside, and that, for the sake of his name. Psalm 106 gives a good review of those events.

One such reference, Exodus 32:14 “So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.” actually comes out and says that God "changed his mind". This has been explained in several different ways, and I won't lay them out here, but will say, that other references say such things as that God is not like us, to "change his mind", and Scripture does not conflict with Scripture. It is saying (and context bears this out) that God changed the force of his direction.

 

[zippy2006]

People do absolutely choose. And God absolutely did predestine everything that comes to pass. But they only produce a conflict in the mind of those who assume time's point of view to be valid, to the exclusion of God's point of view.

I don't know why isolating the temporal frame of reference would solve the conflict between free will and predestination.

In the Christian world the concept of free will is usually tied up with (moral) responsibility, for free will is generally acknowledged to be a necessary condition for responsibility. The object of free will and responsibility are our choices or actions, for these are the things which are said to be free, and these are the things we are held responsible for. Time is just the medium in which choices and actions exist (at least for material creatures).

So to simplify: responsibility presupposes free will; both responsibility and free will presuppose the ability to act; and the ability to act presupposes time.

Thus time itself is not a central piece of the puzzle. Instead, the heart of the problem comes down to the simple metaphor wherein you have two sovereigns reigning over the same kingdom. The sovereignty of the one will be in competition with the sovereignty of the other--a sort of zero-sum game. Time itself is somewhat tangential, especially if you think it is possible for sovereign entities to act without being in time.

 

[durangodawood]

...if you think it is possible for sovereign entities to act without being in time.

Can we even know what that means? Sounds like nonsense to me. "Action" is not a meaningful concept without time.

 

[zippy2006]

Can we even know what that means? Sounds like nonsense to me. "Action" is not a meaningful concept without time.

Yes, that is the prima facie intuition, but even apart from technical debates the acts of God that are in question here are precisely those acts which occur in time. For example, when God acted to divide the Red Sea and contradict Pharaoh's will, he was acting in time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't know why isolating the temporal frame of reference would solve the conflict between free will and predestination.

In the Christian world the concept of free will is usually tied up with (moral) responsibility, for free will is generally acknowledged to be a necessary condition for responsibility. The object of free will and responsibility are our choices or actions, for these are the things which are said to be free, and these are the things we are held responsible for. Time is just the medium in which choices and actions exist (at least for material creatures).

So to simplify: responsibility presupposes free will; both responsibility and free will presuppose the ability to act; and the ability to act presupposes time.

Thus time itself is not a central piece of the puzzle. Instead, the heart of the problem comes down to the simple metaphor wherein you have two sovereigns reigning over the same kingdom. The sovereignty of the one will be in competition with the sovereignty of the other--a sort of zero-sum game. Time itself is somewhat tangential, especially if you think it is possible for sovereign entities to act without being in time.

The question is not just action, but disposition, decision, will. Responsibility presupposes will, not free will in the sense that it is without cause. If any decision is made within the chain of cause and effect, it is caused, whether we know it or not.

But my point was not about that, but about the view from 'down here' that doesn't know (or understand) God's viewpoint, where he spoke it all into existence. All the details are (to put it crassly) a subset of innumerable and unpredictable (or so we think) details, governed by cause-and-effect, within the larger set of "God did". There is no independence from God's causation. But there remains our responsibility. And God remains just.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, that is the prima facie intuition, but even apart from technical debates the acts of God that are in question here are precisely those acts which occur in time. For example, when God acted to divide the Red Sea and contradict Pharaoh's will, he was acting in time.

But only an intuition, within the minds of those bound by time.

Sure he acts within time. If you remember many of my past posts, you will see I mention my opinion that in fact nothing exists without his upholding its existence. That does not, however, imply that time is a function or principle within which all things abide. To me, he may be as intimately involved with every smallest motion of mass or energy or whatever else is real, as to say it is all made of a very physical/real substance we might call 'his love'.

Scripture also includes God deciding things within time. That does not negate the fact that to him, it is still all in this "envelope" (so to speak) which he spoke into being, to include the details, his purposes and the end he brought about. To him, and indeed factually it must then be true, that is "already" (human words) a done deal. God need not wait. It is we who must wait. And so he is patient with us.

 

[zippy2006]

But my point was not about that, but about the view from 'down here' that doesn't know (or understand) God's viewpoint, where he spoke it all into existence. All the details are (to put it crassly) a subset of innumerable and unpredictable (or so we think) details, governed by cause-and-effect, within the larger set of "God did". There is no independence from God's causation. But there remains our responsibility. And God remains just.

But how does "the view from 'down here'" soften the difficulties of free will and predestination?

For example, Hitler perpetrated the Shoah. If that event was not independent of God's causation, then can God remain just? If it was independent of God's causation, then can God remain sovereign?

That is an example of what I meant when I said that you have two sovereigns reigning over the same kingdom, and I don't see how the time element could solve the difficulty. It does soften the difficulty of foreknowledge and free will, but apparently not predestination and free will.

But only an intuition, within the minds of those bound by time.

My point is that even if Durangoda's intuition is incorrect, the same problem would persist, for if free beings can act outside of time then the "two sovereigns" problem would persist unchanged.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You hit precisely on the primary dilemma faced when defining predestination, and that is "observe" and "cause". It leads directly to the foreknowledge of God. Is God's foreknowledge an observation or a cause? Does God observe the future or does God cause the future to happen? Either of those is acceptable but I lean more towards cause. God knows the future because He causes it to happen. Rather than this is what will happen, it is this is what I will do. That leaves wiggle room in predestination because it does not fix absolutely the minutest detail of the future, nor does it fix the length of time between events. The bible is filled with "if". If you obey, I will this, but if you do not obey I will that.

How does that line up with John 5:34 or Romans 2:4-5? Was Jesus really trying to save those people who were seeking to kill Him and if Moses will be the one to accuse them then will they be saved despite Jesus’ efforts to save them? Or thru God’s kindness and patience was He really leading the people Paul was speaking to, to repentance while they were still refusing to repent and will they still receive God’s wrath on judgement day as Paul predicted?

 

[aganrock]

The historical issue has been whether will, foreknowledge and predestination are God's essence or God's energies i.e. what He is or what He does.

St. Gregory Palamas describes what happens when the two are confused:

"If the energies of God do not in any respect differ from the divine
essence, then neither will they differ from one another. Therefore
God’s will is in no way different from His foreknowledge, and consequently
either God does not foreknow all things—because He does
not will all that occurs—or else He wills evil also, since He foreknows
all. ...Thus God’s foreknowledge differs from His will, and so both differ
from the divine essence."
- Philokalia Vol. IV, op. cit., “Topics of Natural and Theological Science,” pp. 392–393 c.

Distinguishing the divine energies, St. John of Damascus writes:

“We ought to understand that while God knows all things beforehand, yet He does
not predestine all things. For He knows beforehand those things that are in our
power, but He does not predestine them. For it is not His will that evil be done nor
does He compel virtue. Hence, predestination is the work of the divine command
based on foreknowledge.”
- De Fide Orthodoxa, Ch. 44 “Concerning Prescience and Predestination.”