Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 3
Origen concludes, “we must not imagine that the foreknowledge of God is the cause of future events”; what do you find most difficult about separating God’s knowing from God’s causing, and where do you see modern Christians collapsing those categories?
Another way to ask: What is hardest for you about believing God can know what will happen without causing it? Where do you hear Christians today mix up “God knew” with “God made it happen”?

Direct Answer The transcript frames the key difficulty as confusing certainty with causation: because God knows ahead of time, many assume He must be the one making it happen, but Origen and the other early writers deny that.

Support from Transcript:

  • Origen explicitly warns: “we must not imagine that the foreknowledge of God is the cause of future events.”
  • He explains instead: “these events naturally follow each person’s own choices.”
  • Bercot summarizes the early Christian distinction: “knowing something is going to happen is not the same thing as causing it to happen.”
  • Justin Martyr anticipates the confusion: some “suppose that we say that everything happens by fatal necessity because it has been foretold, for it is known beforehand,” and then he “explain[s] this.”
  • Tatian is quoted similarly: Jesus can foresee, yet “these events are not fated…they take place by the choice of free agents.”
Discussion Follow-ups Where do you hear Christians speak as if God’s foreknowledge means human choices are unreal (or unavoidable), especially when explaining sin or suffering?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10
Back Questions Next