 Walter Chatton was a contemporary critic of Ockhams’s views about future contingents and divine knowledge. He also addressed the theories of Scotus, Wylton, and particularly Peter Auriol, his main source of inspiration, but mostly avoided formulating his own position. For an English translation with a commentary of his main treatise on future contingents, see Bornholdt 2017; see also the  SEP entry on Walter Chatton.  Peter Auriol put forward an original revision of the usual theological position that while future contingent propositions were neither true nor false in Aristotle, this was not acceptable concerning divine knowledge. Auriol argued that since these propositions lack a truth value, even God is aware of the future in an “indistant” way that does not imply that future contingent propositions should be treated as true or false. Auriol’s indistant knowledge abstracts from temporality and simultaneity and is allegedly compatible with God’s necessary immutability and human free will (Schabel 2000: 67–123). Auriol’s position inspired much critical discussion until early sixteenth century. It came to be regarded as heretical when a Papal commission made a decision about the theses of Peter de Rivo, who defended a view similar to that of Auriol. Some of de Rivo’s statements were officially condemned in 1474 by Pope Sixtus IV (Baudry 1989 (ed.), La querelle des futurs contingents (Louvain 1465–1475). Textes inédits; Schabel 1995–96, 2000: 315–336, 2003a).