Next let us consider examples of the contrary by relation. Those are, indeed, said to be in relation because they come together in two bases, that is, likeness and contrariety. For, the same nouns or verbs are used partly by likeness, partly by contrariety, of which paradigms are foreknowledge and predestination when predicated of God. And first, then, we must observe that these and such like terms, whether nouns or verbs, cannot be properly predicated of God. For in that regard it might be said that God has foreknowledge of something by foreknowledge, or foreordains by predestination, when to him nothing is in the future, because he awaits nothing, nothing is past because for him nothing passes. In him, just as there are not distances of places, so there are no intervals of times. And because of this no right reasoning permits such terms to be understood of God with the claim to be literal. For, how can foreknowledge be said to be his for whom there are no future happenings? Just as no memory of his can properly be spoken of, since for him there is no past; in the same way no foreknowledge since there is no future. And yet it is said: “The just shall be in eternal memory.” But God has seen, has foreseen, has known, has foreknown all things that are to be done before they are done, in the same way that he sees and knows those same things after they are done because, just as he himself is always eternal, so the universe that he made is always eternal in him.
- John Scottus Eriugena, Treatise on Divine Predestination.