I argue that God’s meticulous sovereignty is incompatible with our libertarian freedom. I do not claim to prove this claim, where doing so would involve showing that it is irrational to maintain that the two are compatible. Instead, I seek to identify principles that are intuitively plausible from which valid arguments for the incompatibility of libertarian freedom with the traditional view of divine providence can be constructed, and I seek to trace certain implications of maintaining their compatibility. My overall argument may be seen as a cumulative case for incompatibility: I believe that many readers will judge that the costs of maintaining the compatibility of the traditional view of providence with human libertarian freedom outweigh the costs of accepting the principles to which I appeal.
I approach the central issue of divine providence indirectly, by first considering principles that would lead one to “stronger” incompatibility claims: that libertarian freedom is incompatible with prior truth and with divine foreknowledge. As I proceed from the problem of logical determinism to that of the compatibility of libertarian freedom with divine foreknowledge and finally to its compatibility with divine providence, I expect that more readers will judge that the principles that lead to the particular incompatibility thesis being discussed have greater plausibility than the implications of maintaining compatibility. I believe that many readers will find that at least some of the principles to which I appeal are more plausible than the implications of accepting the most controversial compatibility thesis – that the traditional Christian view of divine providence is compatible with human libertarian freedom.
Finally, I end my dissertation by considering the two most plausible theological alternatives open to those who reject the compatibility of the traditional Christian view of divine providence with human libertarian freedom: Thomism and Open Theism. The former gives up libertarian freedom to maintain the traditional view of providence; the latter maintains libertarian freedom at the expense of meticulous sovereignty.
