The standard foreknowledge debate asks whether God's knowledge of creaturely actions is compatible with their freedom. I pose a prior question is God's infallible knowledge of his own future actions compatible with his freedom? I argue it is not. Using branching-time semantics and four principles: factivity, essential infallibility, fixity of the past, and fixity of divine self-knowledge: I prove that libertarian divine freedom and essential omniscience are formally incompatible within a temporal framework. The non-causal defense, Molinism, and the hard/soft fact distinction each fail in the self-knowledge case. A trilemma remains: restrict divine self-knowledge, accept compatibilism, or embrace paradox
Jazz Maurizzi (Tue,) studied this question.