“We have to believe in free will,” said Nobel laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer when asked whether he believed in free will or determinism. “We’ve got no choice.” Singer’s quip highlights the conundrum we face in trying to decide which one to accept. While we might have the ability to freely choose to believe in determinism how would we know whether our choice to affirm free will was not determined?
A similar question arises when we consider the relationship between human free will and divine foreknowledge. If God knows everything before it happens then how can we we be responsible for the choices we make? If we accept that God can foreknow all that will ever happen, does that mean that free will is an illusion?
According to evangelical philosopher William Lane Craig, we are quite justified in believing that God has the ability to foreknow events without having to accept the conclusion that such knowledge causes us to make the choices we do. In order to arrive at that determination, though, we must first take a detour through the philosophical puzzle know as Newcomb’s Paradox.
If the Being predicts that you will take what is in B1 and B2, he does not put the $1,000,000 in B2.
If the Being predicts that you will take only what is in B2, he puts the $1,000,000 in B2.
If you randomize the choice, then the Being does not put the $1,000,000 in B2.
What should you do? There are two primary arguments for how you should choose:
Argument #1: If you take what is in both boxes, the Being will almost certainly have predicted this and left B2 empty. On the other hand, if you take B2 alone, he will have put the $1,000,000 in it. So you should take B2 alone.
Argument #2: Either the $1,000,000 is already sitting in B2 or it is not, and which situation obtains is already fixed and determined. If the being has already put $1,000,000 in B2 and you choose both, then you get $1,001,000. If he has not, then you get $1,000. Either way you get $1,000 more than you would have by choosing B2 alone.
But to make the choice even clearer (or perhaps murkier) let’s assume that 10,000 other people have already made a similar choice. Everyone who went with the first argument and chose B2 alone got the $1,000,000 while all those who followed the recommendation of the second argument wound up with only $1,000. Obviously, if you trust are a rational gambler, you should choose B2 alone.
Let’s also add a further assumption by saying that B1 is transparent and you can see the $1000 just sitting there. B2, however, has a transparent side facing a third person, who can plainly see whether B2 is empty or not. The money is not going to appear or disappear. The million dollars is there or it is not. Are you going to take what is only in the second box, passing up the additional $1,000 that you can plainly see?
Now what if we assume that this Being is God. Because of His foreknowledge he not only makes a prediction but makes a prediction based on what He knows you will do. In other words we can frame the argument as:
If you were to take B1 and B2, then God would have believed that you would take B1 and B2.
If you were to take B1 and B2 and God believed that you would take B1 and B2, then God would have put nothing in B2.
If you were to take B1 and B2, then God would have put nothing in B2.
Given this fact, your only rational choice is to choose B2 alone.
The obvious objection to this is that God’s predictive ability requires backward causation. It appears that the causal lines are drawn backward in time from the choice to the prediction and then forward from the prediction to the placing of the contents in the box. The problem with this assumption, as Craig notes, rests upon a misunderstanding in which the causal relation between an event or thing and its effect is confused with the semantic relation between a true proposition and its corresponding state of affairs.
For example, if at time and place TP I choose B2 alone, then the statement “Joe chooses B2 alone” is true at TP because of the semantic relationship between a true statement (“Joe chooses B2 alone) and the corresponding state of affairs (I choose B2 alone) which makes it true. The relationship between a true statement and its corresponding state of affairs is semantic, not causal.
So how does this fit in with our question of the compatibility of our freedom with God’s foreknowledge? As Craig writes in his summary:
By now the answer should be clear. It is I by my freely chosen actions who supply the truth conditions for the future contingent propositions known by God. The semantic relation between a true proposition and the corresponding state of affairs is not only non-causal, but asymmetric, The proposition depends for its truth on which state of affairs obtains, not vice versa. Were I to choose otherwise than I shall, different propositions would have been true than are, and God's knowledge would have been different than it is. Given that God foreknows what I shall choose, it only follows that I shall not choose otherwise, not that I could not. The fact that I cannot actualize worlds in which God's prediction errs is no infringement on my freedom, since all this means is that I am not free to actualize worlds in which I both perform some action a and do not perform a. The Newcomb Paradox provides no reason for thinking that from
There is $1,000,000 in B2 because I am going to choose B2
and
Were I going to choose B1 and B2, the $1,000,000 would not be in B2,
it follows that
I am not free to choose B1 and B2.
From this we see that it is possible for our decisions to determine God's past beliefs about those decisions and to do so without invoking some form of backward causation. Although the example is rather peculiar, Newcomb's Paradox provides us with an adequate representation of how divine foreknowledge can be completely compatible with human freedom.
1
The problem is that Scripture heavily implies that he not only has foreknowledge, but that he also has pre-determined our choices through his sovereign will (or in some cases, blatantly states). The answer to that is to look outside of purely linear casual relationships, which are based upon our finite viewpoint. Quantum physics has touched upon this some what, positing possible scenarios where an effect my come before, or simultaneously with the cuase in space-time.
Still, you arrive at the same broad conclusion as what you wrote above: There are ways to step outside of the free will/determinism paradigm.
posted on 11.12.2004 1:26 AM2
Joe, when I saw your title, I was thinking, "Wow, is that all Pandora sold for?"
Craig's still valiantly trying to piece together a new version of the "middle knowledge" notion of divine foreknowledge. It won't wash.
Here's the problem: it equivocates with regard to the temporal relations of propositions.
On the one hand, for the demonstration to be meaningful (relevant to the divine foreknowledge debate), the propositions involved must be temporally situated, i.e., the proposition must be true *before* the phenomenon which decides its truth value occurs.
On the other, for the demonstration to be successful (not breaking down internally), the propositions involved must be *not* be temporally situated, i.e., they must be viewed as fully-qualified propositions of the "it is always true that . . . " sort.
If you try to consistently use *precisely* the same language throughout the demonstration, you will quickly see it break down. It's an accidentally too-clever exploit of the weakness of using tensed language to speak of time--actually, most attempts to discuss the temporality of knowledge end up being language shell-games, full of things like "You can't know X" (when it should be obvious that you *can't know* what you can't know) and "If God knows it's true before it's true" (when it should be obvious that if God knows it's true, it's true *THEN*).
I don't see that you can escape the dichotomy. I also can't see the double-preterist position as at all consistent with a Biblical theology proper.
My suggestion: start with a fairly radical free-will theist position but a commitment to Biblical inerrancy and (subordinate to that)agreeing with as many brethren in the best-attested traditions as possible; then attempt to identify the Biblical constraints and the traditional desiderata; then see whether it isn't possible to model all those Biblical and traditional elements without affirming the tenets to which free-will theists cannot assent.
I have, thus far, encountered neither text nor argument which persuades me that I must affirm absurdities about the philosophical description of God's foreknowledge in order to account for the Biblical data, nor have I encountered a real desideratum (as opposed to a theological short-cut in disproportionate pursuit of one) of any main tradition which cannot be thus accomodated.
Admittedly, I am neither very ancient nor a professional theologian. I'd have expected to hit the skids long before now, though, if I were going to . . . considering I graduated from a Calvinist school and attended a Presbyterian church while in grad school, while also doing a stint in a Nazarene church as a Sunday School teacher, despite my Baptist background.
posted on 11.12.2004 5:44 AM3
It seems to me that the problem doesn't exist in the argument so much as it exists in the arguer.
We have little concept of anything outside of space and time. We were created to exist within these constraints whereas God can exist within and without. Some of us have a desire to know the answer to these un-answerable questions. But what does the striving profit us?
Maybe we would be better off if we filled our days with doing, rather than thinking in endless, circular, inconclusive arguments.
This is not to say that I am an anti-intellectual, as Paul would say, "May it never be!" only that sometimes we have to realize that the wisdom of mankind is foolishness to the Lord.
posted on 11.12.2004 6:29 AM4
I have four children. My youngest, Megan, is always pushing up to and beyond the boundaries I've set for her.
I once put a box of cookies on the kitchen table, and told her not to have any until after dinner. I pretended to leave the room, sat back, and watched. I KNEW that she would take a cookie and, sure enough, in only a few minutes, she had taken and eaten two.
Now, the fact that I knew she would take the cookies doesn't change the fact that she did so on her own free will--that she willfully disobeyed.
There is no contradiction between free will, and the fact that to a sovereign God, the future is as clear as the past.
posted on 11.12.2004 8:46 AM5
Joe: Great post!
Eric & Lisa: Amen!
pgepps: If I understand your argument, you're saying that there is no way for someone to have foreknowledge of events (am I reading this correctly?). However, I'd again refer you to the argument I made yesterday with DS, which is that this kind of "paradox" has already been proven mathematically with space-time. I can show it to you, if you'd like?
posted on 11.12.2004 8:49 AM6
The HUMAN PARADIGM Psalm 25:12
Consider:
The way we define 'human' determines our view of self,
others, relationships, institutions, life, and future.
Important? Only the Creator who made us in His own image
is qualified to define us accurately. Choose wisely...
there are results.
In an effort to diminish the multiple and persistent
dangers and abuses which have characterized the affairs
of man in his every Age, and to assist in the requisite
search for human identity, it is essential to perceive
and specify that distinction which naturally and most
uniquely defines the human being. Because definitions
rule in the minds, behaviors, and institutions of men,
we can be confident that delineating and communicating
that quality will assist the process of resolution and
the courageous ascension to which man is called. As
Americans of the 21st Century, we are obliged and privi-
leged to join our forebears and participate in this
continuing paradigm proclamation.
"WHAT IS MAN...?" God asks - and answers:
HUMAN DEFINED: EARTH'S CHOICEMAKER
by JAMES FLETCHER BAXTER (c) 2004
Many problems in human experience are the result of false
and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised in man-
made religions and humanistic philosophies.
Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe. The
balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human reason
cannot fully function in such a void, thus, the intellect
can rise no higher than the criteria by which it perceives
and measures values.
Humanism makes man his own standard of measure. However,
as with all measuring systems, a standard must be greater
than the value measured. Based on preponderant ignorance
and an egocentric carnal nature, humanism demotes reason
to the simpleton task of excuse-making in behalf of the
rule of appetites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.
Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament, cannot
invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist lacks
a predictive capability. Without instinct or transcendent
criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with foresight
and vision for progression and survival. Lacking foresight,
man is blind to potential consequence and is unwittingly
committed to mediocrity, averages, and regression - and
worse. Humanism is an unworthy worship.
The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with a
functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the foot-
dragging growth of human knowledge and behavior. Faith,
initiated by the Creator and revealed and validated in His
Word, the Bible, brings a transcendent standard to man the
choice-maker. Other philosophies and religions are man-
made, humanism, and thereby lack what only the Bible has:
1.Transcendent Criteria and
2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.
The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival equip-
ment for today and the future.
Man is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by nature
and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of Criteria.
Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive characteristic
is, and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of
his environments, institutions, and respectful relations
to his fellow-man. Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom
whose roots are in the Order of the universe.
At the sub-atomic level of the physical universe quantum
physics indicates a multifarious gap or division in the
causal chain; particles to which position cannot be
assigned at all times, systems that pass from one energy
state to another without manifestation in intermediate
states, entities without mass, fields whose substance is
as insubstantial as "a probability."
Only statistical conglomerates pay tribute to
deterministic forces. Singularities do not and are
therefore random, unpredictable, mutant, and in this
sense, uncaused. The finest contribution inanimate
reality is capable of making toward choice, without its
own selective agencies, is this continuing manifestation
of opportunity as the pre-condition to choice it defers
to the natural action of living forms.
Biological science affirms that each level of life,
single-cell to man himself, possesses attributes of
sensitivity, discrimination, and selectivity, and in
the exclusive and unique nature of each diversified
life form.
The survival and progression of life forms has all too
often been dependent upon the ever-present undeterminative
potential and appearance of one unique individual organism
within the whole spectrum of a given life-form. Only the
uniquely equipped individual organism is, like The Golden
Wedge of Ophir, capable of traversing the causal gap to
survival and progression. Mere reproductive determinacy
would have rendered life forms incapable of such potential.
Only a moving universe of opportunity plus choice enables
the present reality.
Each individual human being possesses a unique, highly
developed, and sensitive perception of diversity. Thus
aware, man is endowed with a natural capability for enact-
ing internal mental and external physical selectivity.
Quantitative and qualitative choice-making thus lends
itself as the superior basis of an active intelligence.
Man is earth's Choicemaker. His title describes his
definitive and typifying characteristic. Recall that his
other features are but vehicles of experience intent on
the development of perceptive awareness and the
following acts of decision. Note that the products of
man cannot define him for they are the fruit of the
discerning choice-making process and include the
cognition of self, the utility of experience, the
development of value-measuring systems and language,
and the acculturation of civilization.
The arts and the sciences of man, as with his habits,
customs, and traditions, are the creative harvest of
his perceptive and selective powers. Creativity is a
choice-making process. His articles, constructs, and
commodities, however marvelous to behold, deserve
neither awe nor idolatry, for man, not his contrivance,
is earth's own highest expression of the creative process.
Man is earth's Choicemaker. The sublime and significant
act of choosing is, itself, the Archimedean fulcrum upon
which man levers and redirects the forces of cause and
effect to an elected level of quality and diversity.
Further, it orients him toward a natural environmental
opportunity, freedom, and bestows earth's title, The
Choicemaker, on his singular and plural brow.
Deterministic systems, ideological symbols of abdication
by man from his natural role as earth's Choicemaker,
inevitably degenerate into collectivism; the negation of
singularity, they become a conglomerate plural-based
system of measuring human value. Blunting an awareness
of diversity, blurring alternatives, and limiting the
selective creative process, they are self-relegated to
a passive and circular regression.
Tampering with man's selective nature endangers his
survival for it would render him impotent and obsolete
by denying the tools of diversity, individuality,
perception, criteria, selectivity, and progress.
Coercive attempts produce revulsion, for such acts
are contrary to an indeterminate nature and nature's
indeterminate off-spring, man the Choicemaker.
Until the oppressors discover that wisdom only just
begins with a respectful acknowledgment of The Creator,
The Creation, and The Choicemaker, they will be ever
learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
The rejection of Creator-initiated standards relegates
the mind of man to its own primitive, empirical, and
delimited devices. It is thus that the human intellect
cannot ascend and function at any level higher than the
criteria by which it perceives and measures values.
Additionally, such rejection of transcendent criteria
self-denies man the vision and foresight essential to
decision-making for survival and progression. He is left,
instead, with the redundant wreckage of expensive hind-
sight, including human institutions characterized by
averages, mediocrity, and regression.
Humanism, mired in the circular and mundane egocentric
predicament, is ill-equipped to produce transcendent
criteria. Evidenced by those who do not perceive
superiority and thus find themselves beset by the shifting
winds of the carnal-ego; i.e., moods, feelings, desires,
appetites, etc., the mind becomes subordinate: a mere
device for excuse-making and rationalizing self-justifica-
tion.
The carnal-ego rejects criteria and self-discipline for such
instruments are tools of the mind and the attitude. The
appetites of the flesh have no need of standards for at the
point of contention standards are perceived as alien, re-
strictive, and inhibiting. Yet, the very survival of our
physical nature itself depends upon a maintained sover-
eignty of the mind and of the spirit.
It remained, therefore, to the initiative of a personal
and living Creator to traverse the human horizon and
fill the vast void of human ignorance with an intelli-
gent and definitive faith. Man is thus afforded the
prime tool of the intellect - a Transcendent Standard
by which he may measure values in experience, anticipate
results, and make enlightened and visionary choices.
Only the unique and superior God-man Person can deserved-
ly displace the ego-person from his predicament and free
the individual to measure values and choose in a more
excellent way. That sublime Person was indicated in the
words of the prophet Amos, "...said the Lord, Behold,
I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel."
Y'shua Mashiyach Jesus said, "If I be lifted up I will
draw all men unto myself."
As long as some choose to abdicate their personal reality
and submit to the delusions of humanism, determinism, and
collectivism, just so long will they be subject and re-
acting only, to be tossed by every impulse emanating from
others. Those who abdicate such reality may, in perfect
justice, find themselves weighed in the balances of their
own choosing.
That human institution which is structured on the
principle, "...all men are endowed by their Creator with
...Liberty...," is a system with its roots in the natural
Order of the universe. The opponents of such a system are
necessarily engaged in a losing contest with nature and
nature's God. Biblical principles are still today the
foundation under Western Civilization and the American
way of life. To the advent of a new season we commend the
present generation and the "multitudes in the valley of
decision."
Let us proclaim it. Behold!
The Season of Generation-Choicemaker Joel 3:14 KJV
CONTEMPORARY COMMENTS
"I should think that if there is one thing that man has
learned about himself it is that he is a creature of
choice." Richard M. Weaver
"Man is a being capable of subduing his emotions and
impulses; he can rationalize his behavior. He arranges
his wishes into a scale, he chooses; in short, he acts.
What distinguishes man from beasts is precisely that he
adjusts his behavior deliberately." Ludwig von Mises
"To make any sense of the idea of morality, it must be
presumed that the human being is responsible for his
actions and responsibility cannot be understood apart
from the presumption of freedom of choice."
John Chamberlain
"The advocate of liberty believes that it is complementary
of the orderly laws of cause and effect, of probability
and of chance, of which man is not completely informed.
It is complementary of them because it rests in part upon
the faith that each individual is endowed by his Creator
with the power of individual choice."
Wendell J. Brown
"Our Founding Fathers believed that we live in an ordered
universe. They believed themselves to be a part of the
universal order of things. Stated another way, they
believed in God. They believed that every man must find
his own place in a world where a place has been made for
him. They sought independence for their nation but, more
importantly, they sought freedom for individuals to think
and act for themselves. They established a republic
dedicated to one purpose above all others - the preserva-
tion of individual liberty..." Ralph W. Husted
"We have the gift of an inner liberty so far-reaching
that we can choose either to accept or reject the God
who gave it to us, and it would seem to follow that the
Author of a liberty so radical wills that we should be
equally free in our relationships with other men.
Spiritual liberty logically demands conditions of outer
and social freedom for its completion." Edmund A. Opitz
"Above all I see an ability to choose the better from the
worse that has made possible life's progress."
Charles Lindbergh
"Freedom is the Right to Choose, the Right to create for
oneself the alternatives of Choice. Without the possibil-
ity of Choice, and the exercise of Choice, a man is not
a man but a member, an instrument, a thing."
Thomas Jefferson
THE QUESTION AND THE ANSWER
Q: "What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son
of man that You visit him?" Psalm 8:4
A: "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against
you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing
and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and
your descendants may live." Deuteronomy 30:19
Q: "Lord, what is man, that You take knowledge of him?
Or the son of man, that you are mindful of him?" Psalm
144:3
A: "And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose
for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the
gods which your fathers served that were on the other
side of the river, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose
land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will
serve the Lord." Joshua 24:15
Q: "What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is
born of a woman, that he could be righteous?" Job 15:14
A: "Who is the man that fears the Lord? Him shall He
teach in the way he chooses." Psalm 25:12
Q: "What is man, that You should magnify him, that You
should set Your heart on him?" Job 7:17
A: "Do not envy the oppressor and choose none of his
ways." Proverbs 3:31
Q: "What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son
of man that You take care of him?" Hebrews 2:6
A: "I have chosen the way of truth; your judgments I have
laid before me." Psalm 119:30 "Let Your hand become my
help, for I have chosen Your precepts."Psalm 119:173
References:
Genesis 3:3,6 Deuteronomy 11:26-28; 30:19 Job 5:23
Isaiah 7:14-15; 13:12; 61:1 Amos 7:8 Joel 3:14
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 Psalm 119:1-176
DEDICATION
Sir Isaac Newton
The greatest scientist in human history
a Bible-Believing Christian
an authority on the Bible's Book of Daniel
committed to individual value
and individual liberty
Daniel 9:25-26 Habakkuk 2:2-3 KJV selah
"What is man...?" Earth's Choicemaker Psalm 25:12 KJV
http://www.choicemaker.net/
Choicemaker@netscape.com
An old/new paradigm - Mr. Jefferson would agree!
(There is no alternative!)
+ + +
"Man cannot make or invent or contrive principles. He
can only discover them and he ought to look through the
discovery to the Author." -- Thomas Paine 1797
7
With no false humility, I think I'm bright enough to digest these heavy arguments, but I choose to nibble at them, rather than totally commit myself to such meals. Is that bad?
I may be wrong, but I think the "sola Scriptura" and "unless I be convinced" positions, so fundamental to the Protestant movement (and hence Evangelicalism, yes? no?) make this a painful enterprise for Evangelicals. Not that I'm endorsing the "God doesn't want us to think about such things" approach. Not at all.
But as a Catholic, I get to "think outside the box" -- it really doesn't depend on ME to figure out what Scripture "finally" says on the subject (Scripture can be adduced to support free will, and divine manipulation and all sorts of middling positions). I get to appeal to Tradition, which has synthesized the conflicting Biblical data perhaps as well as we can, and concluded (in my words): We believe in God's "omni-ness" and we believe God wishes us to be free; grace lifts us to freedom; how it all works together is God's problem, not ours.
If that's not satisfactory, how about this? Do the Gospel accounts of Jesus Christ sound as though he didn't believe we, somehow, could respond in freedom to his Gospel?
Or am I badly missing the point?
Septimus
posted on 11.12.2004 9:04 AM8
Kevin W.
food for thought. Do you really think she had free will, when you, knowing she could not help herself, put her in that situation? Of course she did, but you set her up. This is one of the arguments atheists make: How can God put us in situations where we can't help ourselves, and then blame us when we fail to measure up.
9
I don't buy it. For one thing, it seems like an exceptionally pained argument to try to get to a (sorry) predetermined conclusion. The arguer starts from two assumptions: we must have free will, and God must be truly omniscient. But despite the logical acrobatics presented here, I contend that both can't be true.
As I pointed out in another thread, it's like the old conundrum of "what happens when an irresistible force hits an immovable object?" The answer is easy, once you see it: the existence of these two things is mutually exclusive. That is, if there is such a thing as an irresistible force, then there cannot be an immovable object, and vice versa.
It's the same with foreknowledge and free will. The only way it is logically possible to know with absolute certainty what the outcome of a series of events will be is if there is only one possible outcome. The existence of only one possible outcome is at direct odds with the concept of free will.
It's really quite simple.
And it should be pointed out that theists and atheists alike have the same problem. In a truly deterministic universe, free will cannot exist. So either the universe is not deterministic (i.e., the future is not set, and therefore not known or knowable), or there is no free will.
Of course, I'm just a two-bit schlep, and philosophers (both Christian and otherwise) have struggled with this for centuries, so I don't expect I'll be able to iron it out, either. :)
posted on 11.12.2004 10:04 AM10
"It's the same with foreknowledge and free will. The only way it is logically possible to know with absolute certainty what the outcome of a series of events will be is if there is only one possible outcome. The existence of only one possible outcome is at direct odds with the concept of free will."
Actually, this is very succinctly put for a two-bit sclep, tgirsch. However, theists would argue that their divinity is not bound by human conceptions of logic, so we're still just working our rhetorical muscles.
posted on 11.12.2004 10:23 AM11
Rob:
However, theists would argue that their divinity is not bound by human conceptions of logic, so we're still just working our rhetorical muscles.Not necessarily. Joe has argued -- on this site -- that God can do anything that it is logically possible for Him to do. God cannot create an object that is so heavy, even God can't lift it, because that would be a logical impossibility. posted on 11.12.2004 10:51 AM
12
Giraffe,
Close, but no cigar. Were the cookies in the fridge or in the cupboard, she would have found them. The only way to deny her the chance at them would be to lock her in her room. Which is hardly allowing her to exercise her free will, now, is it?
We have many temptations around us by virtue of the world we live in, but most of our sins we indulge in freely, and we seek out the temptations we're after. You have to go looking for crack cocaine or prostitutes. You have a lot of work to do before you can consummate an extramarital affair. And my Megan had to slowly and quietly open the box, take out cookies, and carefully place the box on the table at precisely where it was before so I would think nothing had been done. And, had it gone this far, she would have consciously lied to me about the whole thing.
The fact that I was there, watching it all, changes nothing. And the fact that God watches us with the foreknowledge that we lack, changes nothing either.
posted on 11.12.2004 11:09 AM13
"The only way it is logically possible to know with absolute certainty what the outcome of a series of events will be is if there is only one possible outcome. "
This seems to be true for mere humans. But we are not all knowing. It doesn't seem to be impossible to be for an all-knowing God to know which of many possible outcomes will occur. It sure seems to me that I am acting of my own free will when I am stealing cookies. Whether God knows ahead of time what I am going to do or not, is irrelevant to my free will.
posted on 11.12.2004 11:51 AM14
In his book "Letters From a Skeptic", Dr. Greg Boyd lays out an interesting theory that God does not know the results of our choices in advance. In this theory, God has perfect knowledge of all that is knowable, but until we make a decision and take an action, there is nothing to be known. In effect, God has ceded some of his power to us in the form of our free will. I've always thought of God existing outside of time, so that there was no future to him (or more precisely, no difference between past, present, and future.) Personally, I find that idea a little easier to comprehend. I guess we'll get to ask the question directly someday.
posted on 11.12.2004 11:51 AM15
Giraffe:
It doesn't seem to be impossible to be for an all-knowing God to know which of many possible outcomes will occur.Yes, actually, it does seem impossible. :)
It sure seems to me that I am acting of my own free will when I am stealing cookies.It seems to me like I'm standing on a flat world and that everything is revolving around me. How things seem to me is not relevant to how things are. posted on 11.12.2004 11:57 AM
16
It seems to me like I'm standing on a flat world and that everything is revolving around me. How things seem to me is not relevant to how things are.
Which plays back to my original post. And I forget who it was, but some one demonstrated the world was round by the slight curvature witnessed when a ship passed over the horizon line...
posted on 11.12.2004 12:20 PM17
David,
Double predestination, which is as far as I can tell what you have suggested, is problematic because God becomes guilty of the sin he does through you. This is why I am more of an traditional episcopalean than calvinist.
God cannot escape the guilt for the evil we do if we are not "free to act according to our nature." If God has predetermined that I am to do something evil, and has thus given me no choice but to go against His will, then God "put me up to it" as surely as a mafioso telling me that if I don't rob my boss that my wife'll get whacked.
Has God put many hard choices in front of us? Of course. However I'd like to see where you justify the belief that God actually chooses for us essentially everything we do, rather than choosing the events, leaving us to respond to them.
If God makes us do that which we do, then there is not only no righteousness in man, but for that matter, nor is there any sin either. Man is amoral, God is the moral agent using each man or woman as a puppet through which He acts. If evil is done, then it is God who is evil.
A friend of mine tried using Romans 9 to justify double predestination, and my response was simply that why would Paul, a very learned and articulate man, make an analogy that implies the ability of man to stand separate from God and ask God a question? The pot asked the potter a question, the man asked his God a question. To be able to ask a question, God had to give the man/woman the ability to choose to ask it. If God chooses our actions, then God chose to have us ask the question.
If double predestination be true, then man is nothing more than a thing, as he is a mere puppet to be totally controlled. God can hold us accountable, if that doctrine be true, but then in the end He must hold himself accountable because it was He that forced us to sin by choosing an action which lead us to do evil.
And lastly, if double predestination be true then it is absurd to speak of "man's nature" because man has no nature if double predestination be true, for we are mere puppets and puppets have no nature.
posted on 11.12.2004 12:22 PM18
I'm with Giraffe here. I don't see any problem with his proposition at all.
posted on 11.12.2004 1:47 PM19
Double predestination, which is as far as I can tell what you have suggested, is problematic because God becomes guilty of the sin he does through you. This is why I am more of an traditional episcopalean than calvinist.
God cannot escape the guilt for the evil we do if we are not "free to act according to our nature." If God has predetermined that I am to do something evil, and has thus given me no choice but to go against His will, then God "put me up to it" as surely as a mafioso telling me that if I don't rob my boss that my wife'll get whacked.
Good, point, but you are still tying your proposition to a traditional understanding of time and causality. What I am saying is that it may be possible for both to exist--pre-destination and free will--at the same time. If free will does exist alongside pre-destination in a way we can't understand (Super-string theory proposes up to 21 different spacial dimensions, but I wouldn't begin to picture it), then God is absolved of responsibility for our actions, so that even though they are pre-destined for his purposes, they are also freely chosen by us as moral agents.
Scriptural support:
Romans 9:20-22
Exodus 9:11-12
There are plenty more passages, but I want to cut this short because I am lazy :-). Scripture speaks as much, or more so, of God's absolute sovereignty as it does free will. But it does speak of both. If we believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, then I put forward that this should be considerable. I am not saying it is correct and it may be proven wrong, but I wouldn't wave it off with out thinking it through.
posted on 11.12.2004 2:25 PM20
Kevin W wrote, "I once put a box of cookies on the kitchen table, and told her not to have any until after dinner."
You are predisposing in the rest of your post that your action in telling her not to have any had no effect on her subsequent actions. If she is in effect rebellious by nature, your telling her to do something would have direct results for how she chooses to act.
Stepping out of the bounds of analogy, God has told us how to act, from Adam onwards. "Don't eat from that tree", "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", etc. It seems inconceivable that human nature, being what it is, can do anything EXCEPT contradict God's divine will unless He has graciously stepped in on our behalf to "lead us in the pays of righteousness for His Name's sake".
I would love to hear free will argued from the Bible sometime. That would be interesting. It kind of turns the Bible on its head. Such argument has to play along the lines of "Israel wasn't the chosen people, YHWH was the chosen God", etc.Free will makes perfect rational sense but contradicts the Bible. As such, it must be rejected.
Joe, Atheists don't care one way or the other. A discussion amongst Christians about free will without God's input, i.e. Scripture for the Protestants or tradition for the Catholics, seems... disappointing.
posted on 11.12.2004 7:25 PM21
Thats.. "lead us in paths of righteousness for His Name's sake"
You can tell a lot about a person by their grammatical slips. :)
posted on 11.12.2004 7:27 PM22
Poster's regret.
What I mean by free will is the ability to act in accordance with God's will, accept Jesus as your personal savior, believe Jesus died for your sins, etc.
God attributes our damnation to our own disbelief, our own sinful nature.
posted on 11.12.2004 7:33 PM23
There are a handful of scriptures that have the appearence of predestination. Most are taken out of context and the others are references to unconditional prophecies of God. These are events that God is declaring they are not events that He sees in some heavenly crystal ball. Most prophecies in the Old Testament are conditional, if you obey then I will ... The weight of scripture confronts our will; it challenges us to do what is right and warns of the consequences of doing wrong.
There is no conundrum here. The difficulty lies with Plato and Aristotle's lack of understanding, not with Scripture. The early church fathers were overly influenced by the neoplatonics and unfortunately that influence still has its hold. Augustine assumed God existed in some timeless eternal now. There is no 'eternal now'; it makes for a great episode of Star Trek but it is has no place in Scripture. It creates very complex problems based on nonexistant premises.
God gives us a very clear mandate, obey Him (believe in His Son) and live forever or disobey Him and die forever. It has not been predetermined whether or not you will obey Him, that's up to you. You may not agree with this but then again that's your choice.
posted on 11.12.2004 8:20 PM24
tgirsch,
Try to explain a little more clearly the distinction you make between believing you have free will and "really having" free will. Imagine a universe in which there is no God (and you have your "real" free will). Then imagine a universe with a God (your "not-real" free will). How can you distinguish between the "real" and "not-real"? If you can't, I would hold, your perception of free will, is the real thing. So I think that's the sticky point to your argument. If God's knowledge of what you will do, implies no constraint on your action (just true predictive ability) then your claim of the lack of free will which results is not a measurable effect.
This is alas ignoring Bell's Theorem, i.e., in a classical universe. I'm not willing to try to parse the quantum mechanical implications of omniscience. Springer Verlag has a book on the game theoretic implications of omniscience and omnipotentency and so on. For the most part philosophy and theology hasn't caught up with Quantum Mechanics.
posted on 11.12.2004 8:21 PM25
David,
I am not disagreeing with you on predestination in principle, but rather "double predestination." The simple fact is that if God predestines me to choose to do something, even if He warps it so that I seem to freely choose it, then He made me do it. You don't need quantum theory for that.
I am not disagreeing with you on the matter of God putting the events in our lives there, but rather that God can be sinless if He directs the very choices themselves. If God is on any meaningful level predestining me to do a sin, then He is making me with the intent that I do evil, and thus He becomes evil, if not so suspect that no one should trust Him.
That is why most believe in single predestination. It is simply not logically possible to say that I can "freely choose" or even "choose according to my depraved nature" and then say that God forced me, by predestining me to that act, to do something. Free will and God choosing how we will react to a situation simply cannot coexist. Human will itself, doesn't exist if God chooses for us. We are nothing more then than elaborate automata.
posted on 11.12.2004 9:26 PM26
Guy wrote, "It has not been predetermined whether or not you will obey Him, that's up to you. You may not agree with this but then again that's your choice."
God would speak otherwise. I would suggest biblegateway.com and doing a word search on 'predestined' and 'chose'. Look for the subject and the objects. To save you time, they are predominately 'God' and 'us' respectively.
God bless you Guy!
posted on 11.12.2004 10:02 PM27
re: we have free choice
gedi wrote "God would speak otherwise"
God does not speak otherwise. He has predestined many things and they are going to happen but obediance and salvation are a result of us choosing to respond to His Gift. Predetermined moral behaviour is a contradiction in terms. It's incongruent and has no basis in scripture.
Before the ages God predetermined a redemption plan that involved many events that He has already brought about and many more that have yet to happen. But these unconditional prophecies in absolutely no way mean that Mr X is predestined to heaven and Mr Y is predestined to hell.
Look at these posts. Do you see how unbelievably complex these discussions are? They are trying to reconcile free will with this platonic conundrum of predeterminism. The greeks had a problem with this, not the prophets. That's because the problem does not exist, remember Rom 1:21?
The Bible has more than a few prophetic words that were never fulfilled. When an omniscient God speaks a word in scripture and its not fulfilled He was either lying or the word was conditioned on somebody's response. God can do almost anything but He can't lie, not even an anthromorphic theologically convenient white lie. So if God presents a conditional word in a conditional context then there is no other conclusion; I have a choice.
posted on 11.13.2004 12:41 AM28
@Emmaus--
A couple quick reactions.
1) "proven mathematically" doesn't mean very much. You have to establish that the constraints within which you've described a coherent mathematical system accurately model the "real world" you're trying to "prove" something about. It doesn't matter how precise your math is if your modelling isn't accurate.
2) quantum mechanics describes phenomena at a scale where relativistic effects apply--that is, at a scale where the error introduced by our observation is greater than the scale of the changes to be measured. The "uncertainty" described in quantum mechanics is an observer-relative uncertainty, and is by no means to be equated with a metaphysical indeterminacy. From a God's-eye-view, there is no uncertainty about the location and speed of electrons, whether there be authentic indeterminacy or not.
I very much doubt you've "proven" the contrary.
posted on 11.13.2004 1:20 AM29
Guy,
Romans 1:21 speaks of people forsaking their chosen status, yes. This is in keeping with Gods will to save the whole world. Some shirk their chosen status. This is clear, as you Paul pointed out in Romans 1:21.
Your argument, however, Guy is with God, not me. You cannot "accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior". You just simply do not have this power within you as a broken and fallen human.
"Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." - 1 Corinthians 12:2-4
God calls you, Guy, just as He called me to be His redeemed son, an heir of righteousness. The whole concept of praise is pointless unless you understand that God acted in your life to bring you out of your miserable condition.
And, no, predestination is not influenced by Plato. God was choosing people to be His own long before Plato was born. God breathed the Scriptures. He did not have to bend His will to that of Plato's in order that He might explain to them His plan of salvation. Again, such thinking is man-centric and disregards God's Sovereign Will.
God bless you, Guy!
posted on 11.13.2004 6:59 AM30
pgepps
You have some misconceptions about quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is usually at a very small scale (short distances and small objects) not high speeds (relativistic). And Bell's Theorem addresses theories with hidden variables compared to quantum theories. It shows that no omniscient observer can "really know" what is going on. Hence Mr Einstein's complaints about "god doesn't play dice". He correctly understood the philosophical underpinnings of quantum theory (and didn't like it). Alas, quantum reality with complex wave functions whose expectation values represent probability distributions represent our best (physical) understanding of how to model reality. Deterministic models have been ruled out as inconsistant with what we observe. To restate, this means that it is inconsistent with what we observe in nature that God could "know" the "real" position and velocity of an electron. God does in fact "play dice" at the quantum level.
31
For those involved, a question to ponder for illustration.
It was a prophecy that Jesus would not have his bones broken on the cross. That is what happened of course, as the Roman, seeing Him already dead, put the spear into His side, rather than breaking His legs as he did the other two prisoners.
How do you see this event? Your answer helps portray clearly the difficulty in establishing a "starting point" for a discussion such as this.
a) The Roman simply chose not to break Jesus' legs, and God "saw" this choice (from His position "outside" of time) and inspired the Old Testament writer to pen the prophecy.
b) God "made sure" (however defined) that the Roman would not break His legs, and the Roman was not making a free will decision here at all - though he did not realize this of course at the time.
c) some other explanation (though I think most explanations should fall in one of the two general categories above)
posted on 11.13.2004 11:06 AM32
One thing my Calvinist friends have never been able to answer for me is how can God be called a loving God, or ask us to truly love Him if we have no choice in the matter. If God predestines our actions, our choices, everything, if God had all control over all human history, then isn't this all some cosmic chessboard for God to manipulate? We can never truly love God because our love was forced. Christ's sacrifice is trivial and cheap and disgusting manipulation of man if man never really had a choice to reject God. Christ's sacrifice would be God making atonement for things He orchestrated.
If this corruption was all God's complete orchestration and none of it was our doing, then God is not noble, loving, humble, or holy. He cannot be because He would be creating the very situations in every detail for man's fall so that He would be able to come in and "rescue" man.
If you believe God predestined everything, how do you reconcile what God has clearly said about His character throughout the bible?
posted on 11.13.2004 11:51 AM33
Karin wrote, "Christ's sacrifice is trivial and cheap and disgusting manipulation of man if man never really had a choice to reject God. Christ's sacrifice would be God making atonement for things He orchestrated."
This doesn't necessarily follow. The Bible states clearly that man can and does reject God every time he sins. However, this is the default condition for mankind, if you will. If left to his own druthers, man would wallow in his own without the least regard for God. It is when God's countenance turns toward man and His face shines upon man that man is turned toward God.
And God did make atonement for things He orchestrated. Adam was perfect. He walked with God in a way nobody else has been able to since then. Adam knew no evil. Since being introduced to it, man has been like a cocaine addict, the more sin the better. Jesus Christ was slain from the foundations of the earth it says in
Revelation. God knew.. and still let Adam do so.
I don't feel so bad. Now God is intricately and irrevocably intertwined with humanity in a way much more intimate than we had before Adam fell. God is now incarnate, with us. Paul in Romans Chapter 5 explains exactly this relationship.
Karin wrote, "If this corruption was all God's complete orchestration and none of it was our doing, then God is not noble, loving, humble, or holy. He cannot be because He would be creating the very situations in every detail for man's fall so that He would be able to come in and "rescue" man."
I couldn't agree more. However, our ability to mess things up does not rule out God's Sovereign will in our salvation.
This is called predestination, or single predestination. What the Calvinists believe is double predestination. God forces people, in their eyes, to go to hell. Not easily reconcilable with "God is love", as you pointed out.
God bless, Karin
posted on 11.13.2004 2:19 PM34
Interesting site. I've heard of it before, but avoided it intentionally, because I don't agree with much of anything most Christians believe. In fact, I don't call myself a Christian much anymore at all, preferring the term "Follower of The Way", which is the pre-Christian term (I'm sure you all know that the term "Christian" was an epithet with a strongly pejorative connotation invented by the Romans).
I notice a lot of scriptural quotes here. You probably shouldn't rely too much on scripture though, as scripture has been polluted by various men with unsavory agendas over the ages (I think it was Jeremiah who said "the lying pen of the scribe has made it (The Word of God) of no effect", but like I say, I'm highly critical of scripture, so I don't quote it a lot).
Consider that the earliest Followers of The Way had no "Bible" and spread the Good News by word of mouth and example personally.
From my studies, I have come to the conclusion that the most reliable "Gospel" is the gospel of Mark. Note that there is no virgin birth story in Mark: It begins with the ministry of John the Baptist. Note also that the family of The Christ thinks He is INSANE when he confronts the powers that be. Would they have thought that if his birth had been attended by a series of miraculous signs and circumstances? I don't believe so. Now, if you simply excise everything before the ministry of John the Baptist in the other "Gospels", you get rid of all the virgin birth stories, which I am convinced are hokum: Jesus was sired in the natural way by Joseph, his fleshly father, and his status as the Son of God was not fully realized until He was baptized by John in fulfillment of all righteousness. If He had not been sired by Joseph, He would not have been a son of David according to the flesh - Which Paul assures us He was - as Mary was not of the Davidic line.
Why would this virgin birth story have been invented? Well, I have learned that certain early Jewish converts had issues with the Davidic line of kings because David's grandmother was an Idumean (A race allegedly cursed by G-d "forever", which is certainly another scribe-interjected prejudice which has no place in any "holy" scripture) Moabitess: Ruth. So, this virgin birth story would conveniently cleanse the corpus of The Savior of this "tainted" blood. Clever, no? No, not really. Consider the weakness of the OT scripture which is errantly translated as "a virgin shall give birth". The word translated as virgin really means young woman, and it referred specifically to the prophet's wife alone, I believe, but that's the best these scribes could do.
The most reliable parts of the NT have to be the letters of Paul, and his conversion is certainly the single most compelling argument for the faith outside of the gospels, and even a couple of "Paul's" letters are on shaky ground. Does Paul ever mention "The Virgin Mary"? No. Why? Simple answer: She wasn't a virgin at all. She was the wife of Joseph. Besides, Mary plays no part at all in our salvation. Catholics who idolize her are, well, heretics.
I could go on and on, as I've been at this endeavor for over twenty years, but I think you get the point. No human being, no matter how high an IQ they have, can logically defense the position that biblical scripture is inerrant, because it in fact is full of errors, as Jeremiah has pointed out. Why do you think John's revelation carries the curse for anyone who would alter the words of his book? (And that admonishment, by the way, applies only to John's revelation, and NOT to the entire bible, as intellectually vacuous theologians would have you believe.) Simple answer: John was well aware that errors permeated the OT and that they had been introduced by dishonest scribes. I'm not saying the bible isn't useful, just that it must be studied with a critical intellect on full alert. It's the opposite of the old X-Files saying that "the truth is out there": The truth is IN there, you just have to sift through with intelligence to find it and discard the chaff.
One of the best obstacles The Adversary has put in the way of the thinking man and faith is a bible filled with irreconcilable contradictions that simple-minded Christians insist is inerrant. Now, The Adversary, he's clever: Clever in the abject extreme.
Thinking outside the box? Yeah. I can do that. I can think and believe outside the bible too.
This is my Sabbath gift to you all.
As you were.
posted on 11.13.2004 4:08 PM36
"God forces people, in their eyes, to go to hell."
No. God allows people to willfully go to hell. This is God's soverign choice to leave people in the condition where they exercise their free will to earn a place in the lake of fire.
"Not easily reconcilable with "God is love"."
But quite reconcilable with "God is just and holy".
posted on 11.13.2004 6:19 PM37
Eric and Lisa:
We have little concept of anything outside of space and time. We were created to exist within these constraints whereas God can exist within and without. Some of us have a desire to know the answer to these un-answerable questions. But what does the striving profit us?
It seems to me that we have a pretty good concept of who God is, and he is arguably outside of time.
The striving definitely can change your behavior. For example, if one believes that our actions are predetermined it makes it easy for one to slip into a complacency and spiritualize the walk. Believe in predetermined actions has directly contributed to the evangelical concept that being a Christian primarily means praying the prayer and making sure you go church or small group, completely ignoring the lifelong work of sanctification.
posted on 11.13.2004 7:20 PM38
Bloghorn wrote, "No human being, no matter how high an IQ they have, can logically defense the position that biblical scripture is inerrant, because it in fact is full of errors, as Jeremiah has pointed out."
Ready and willing whenever you would like a go. My e-mail is listed.
posted on 11.13.2004 8:05 PM39
I wrote, "God forces people, in their eyes, to go to hell."
Gary wrote, "No. God allows people to willfully go to hell. This is God's soverign choice to leave people in the condition where they exercise their free will to earn a place in the lake of fire."
"In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. " - John Calvin, Institutes
I wrote, "Not easily reconcilable with "God is love"."
Gary wrote, "But quite reconcilable with "God is just and holy"."
"God is love." 1 John 4:9
I am gonna have to go with Calvin's namesake, John, over Calvin.
posted on 11.13.2004 8:17 PM40
For commentary on the fruit of hyper-Calvinism in terms of unholy living, one might study Yale University around the end of the 18th century, immediately before the revival led in large part by Timothy Dwight, and continued with Lyman Beecher - often called the Second Great Awakening.
posted on 11.13.2004 9:05 PM41
Tgirsch
"It's the same with foreknowledge and free will. The only way it is logically possible to know with absolute certainty what the outcome of a series of events will be is if there is only one possible outcome. The existence of only one possible outcome is at direct odds with the concept of free will."
I would disagree with this. I know the outcome of a series of events. I observed them just last week.
You see, if I have seen something in the past, then I know with certainty what happened. (ignoring epistomological questions at this point).
As God, being outside of time, has already seen every event occur, it is quite feasible to have both divine foreknowledge (foreknowledge is from our own perspective) and free choice.
That being said, I disagree with the definition of free will being used here. Free will, as far as I can tell, is that our decisions are not forced upon us by other beings or circumstances. I.e. Free will is our ability to use our own will to make a decision.
This does not necessarily guarantee that we could chose either A or not A, but merely that the choice that we will make is according to our own will and not someone elses.
To put it in a loose analogy. If my arm is raised, it is because I decided to do it, not because my friend Bob lifted it for me...
posted on 11.14.2004 7:25 PM42
Mark O:
Actually, I view the question of the existence of God as irrelevant to the question of the existence of free will. My point here was solely that free will and an omniscient God are mutually exclusive options. Could be free will doesn't exist at all (irrespective of God's existence), or it could be that God doesn't truly know the future, in which case free will is at least theoretically possible.
As for the difference between "real" free will and perceived free will, now you're starting to get into some really heavy philosophical territory. I guess it depends whether you believe truth is important to you, or if a compelling illusion is good enough. In the case of free will, at least, the compelling illusion is good enough for me. ;)
Alan:
I know the outcome of a series of events. I observed them just last week.Not even close to the same thing, because you didn't know the outcome before the events occurred. Post-knowledge is easy. Foreknowledge is hard.
As God, being outside of time, has already seen every event occur...In this case, not only is free will an illusion, but time itself is an illusion. This doesn't helpt the case. posted on 11.14.2004 9:42 PM
43
tgirsch, why would that make time an "illusion" rather than simply a dimension? A dimension of which God exists outside of..? Time is a peculiar animal in any case, you must admit. Would you agree that the scientific community's understanding of "time" has dramtically changed over the last 100 years?
I struggle to see how you equate knowledge of the future with control of the future. This is obviously a starting point in the discussion. The definiton of omniscience never seems to include control, yet you insist on this attribute in your definition (unless I am misreading you).
posted on 11.14.2004 10:29 PM44
tgirsch,
I think the point about the "real" and "perceived" free will is where we part company. I maintain that what you call "perceived" free will is real free will and that there is no other type. Your paradox of the omniscient observer and free will only serves to demonstrate the fault in your definition of free will.
To restate that another way, you have two definitions for a thing which are indistinguishable in practice. One of them introduces paradoxes avoided by the other. Wouldn't it make sense to discard the problematic one as flawed?
posted on 11.14.2004 10:47 PM45
When I look at my calendar I see events that have not yet taken place, becase I exist outside of that calendar. I see all of time spread out before me.
The essence of paradox is that A and B appear to be opposites (or that the statement "both A and B are true" appears to be absurd), only form a particular point of view. When one moves to a position where both sides of the coin are visible, so to speak, then the paradox resolves itself.
It seems clear to me that the point of view necessary to perceive the truth of both sides the free-will / divine omnipotence & omniscience is not available to us as finite, fallible, time-bound creatures.
Critics such as tgirsch are trapped in the fallacy that the physical, finite, time-bound world they can measure and comprehend is The Sum Total Of All That Exists.
posted on 11.15.2004 10:05 AM46
Re: Bloghorn's comments . . .
Marcion, Arius, call your office!
posted on 11.15.2004 10:13 AM47
Septimus wrote, "Marcion, Arius, call your office!"
Gnosticism on line 1, please pick up.
posted on 11.15.2004 10:52 AM48
To Dave S:
Dr. Greg Boyd converted me to Open Theism over a year ago and it's been a huge blessing to my understanding of God, Scripture, and life in general.
For anyone curious, check out "God of the Possible" by Greg Boyd or go to www.gregboyd.org for an explanation and don't rely on rumors from other people about Open Theisem.
I used to be a hardcore Arminian (though I never learned how to spell it) but there were several logical issues with it that bothered me. Once I got rid of the presupposition that an exhaustively settled future existed, it opened up the playing field in a great way. For example, Genesis 6 states that God regretted creating the world. If God has exhaustive foreknowledge or if God is the exhaustive cause of every event, how could God regret doing something? If he had exhaustive foreknowledge, he would've forseen this and not done it, and if he predestines everything, how could he regret what he authored? But if the future was open, even to God, then we can see how the world could turn on God against God's wishes and against his expectations...
-Phil
posted on 11.15.2004 11:31 AM49
Phil,
Boyd lost me with the argument that God could be surprised. That places limits on God. Rather than re-create God to conform to our limits of understanding, it makes much more sense to simply accept that God is far more complex than we can comprehend.
Boyd's problem is that his God is a terribly limited God - bound by man's capacity to understand cause and effect. "Open Theology" is tragically mis-named.
As to Genesis 6, I'm sure we've all done something and said beforehand, "I'm going to regret this..." :-^
posted on 11.15.2004 12:14 PM50
It is a huge mistake to translate the Hebrew word "nacham" as REGRET...
A word study might be in order...if Boyd has not done one, then you can do your own. But beware of anyone who offers deep theological insight without a proper understanding of the Biblical languages.
posted on 11.15.2004 12:24 PM51
Steve_in_Corona:
Because if the extra dimension you describe really exists, then from that perspective everything that has ever happened and will ever happen has already occurred. I concede that our understanding of time is questionable, but if free will is to have any meaning, there must be an indeterminate future. If anyone or anything knows exactly how the future will wind up, that means the future is set, and we have a word for that: predestination.
Mark O:
By your same reasoning, my perception that I'm standing on a flat world with everything revolving around me makes it true.
One of them introduces paradoxes avoided by the other. Wouldn't it make sense to discard the problematic one as flawed?Yes, it does. Which is why I discard the omniscient God theory. :)
corrie:
It is you who misses the point: how can God (or anything/anyone else) know the future with absolute certainty unless the future is set? And if the future is set, then that's predestination, not free will.
posted on 11.15.2004 1:08 PM52
Corrie - I don't see how Boyd's God is too limited. I think God has all kinds of limits on him. God can't do evil, he can't lie, he can't act outside of his nature. God is limited in those ways, so why can't God be limited to only know possibilities as possibilities and actualities as actualities?
Furthermore, check out Jeremiah 3:7 which says that God thought something would occur and it didnt. Boyd isn't saying God is suprised, the BIBLE is saying God is surprised (in the sense that something God expected didn't happen).
Steve - Gensis 6:6 says (in various translations like the NASB, NIV, NET, KJV, NKJV) that God was "grieved in his heart", that he was "sorry", that he "repented, and that he "regretted" etc etc regarding creation. The implications is pretty clear that God was sorry he made the earth. I think you would have to engage in some serious semantical tomfoolery to try and prove that God isn't experiencing regret. If it's not regret to be sorry you did something, then what is it?
-Phil
posted on 11.15.2004 3:03 PM53
Gedi, Joe, tgirsch et all,
I hate to be elitist, which as a general rule I am not, but this strike me a little as being like macro economics. Either one gets it or one does not. For example, President Carter thought that having the odd number license plates get gas on certain days and the even number of license plates get gas on other days would shorten the gas lines. I have noticed that either one intuitively understands why this will not work, or one does not. After all, such was the policy of the United State for a time.
Having written that, I am going to try.
Gedi, what about this scripture? Matthew 18:14 teaches, "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish." And yet some do! Either the Bible is not inerrant or your formulation is incorrect.
God stands outside of time. He invented time. Therefore, tgirsch, he is not bound by the rules of time. In John 8:58 Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." At that very moment, God existed He can see the results of our choices before they are made.
Kevin W's cookie example is brilliant and precisely right. I find another thought experiment useful:
Imagine a chess match between Gary Kasparov and a child. The child know the basic rules of chess, but has only played one game. If Kasparov wills a victory, then Kasparov will win. The child's will is irrelevant. Has Kasparov deprived the child of his will? Can he deprive the child of his will? He does not control the other child's moves. Therefore, the child has free will, but the outcome is not something the child can effect.
We understand that the child possesses free will but Kasparov is in control because we understand how much greater Kasparov is than the child. The differential between Kasparov and the child is negligible compared to the differential between God and man.
We see a dilemma because we fail to understand the greatness of God. We see a dilemma because we limit God to human attributes. We could not know the future without the future being controlled precisely because we are bound by time. This leads us to the assumption that God is in a similar situation.
Here are more verses: De 1:13, "Choose wise and discerning and experienced men from your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads."
De 30:19, "So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants..." Why tell us to choose if we have no choice? Here is more. Jos 24:15, "If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve..." 2 Sa 24:12, "Go and speak to David, 'Thus the LORD says, "I am offering you three things; choose for yourself one of them, which I will do to you.'" Pr 1:28-29, "Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently but they will not find me, Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD." Pr 3:31, "Do not envy a man of violence And do not choose any of his ways." Isa 7:15, "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good." Isa 56:4, "For thus says the LORD, 'To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant ...'" Php 1:22, "But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose."
The Bible spend a lot of time talking about something that does not exist!
posted on 11.15.2004 3:25 PM54
tgirsch,
You have it backwards. I can describe to you experiments to perform which show you the world isn't flat. You cannot describe an experiment to distinguish your "types of free will". Why do you think your will is of this "real" type? Perhaps it is just what you happen to take on faith?
55
JBP - I like the Kasparov analogy, although we are certainly not playing a zero-sum game with God.
Phil, I see no inconsistencies with God expressing regret and His perfect foreknowlege that he would do so. I can easily imagine Him grooving with the angels, and them saying, "So, Boss, what's next?" And God saying, "I'm going to create a universe populated by creatures with free will."
Angels: "But, but, but - They'll reject you! And we all saw what happened when Lucifer dissed you..."
God (sadly): "Yes, I know. And it's really a shame."
I'm sure the modelmakers who built the ships for those WWII movies we grew up were sad to see their creations blown up on screen. Expressing regret at an event does not negate foreknowledge of the event.
posted on 11.15.2004 3:52 PM56
JBP wrote, "Gedi, what about this scripture? Matthew 18:14 teaches, "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish." And yet some do! Either the Bible is not inerrant or your formulation is incorrect."
JBP,
Thanks for asking. Scriptural interpretation is bound by context. Jesus' address is framed by 18:1, "At that time the disciples came to Jesus". His audience is His disciples. He then goes through a series of comparisons between the disciples and small children from their midst. The parzble of the lost sheep ends with, "Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish." The Father wants not one of His elect to perish, read "the disciples and their children". Let not one stray, as the one from the ninety-nine.
posted on 11.15.2004 6:09 PM57
I think you would have to engage in some serious semantical tomfoolery to try and prove that God isn't experiencing regret. If it's not regret to be sorry you did something, then what is it?
posted on 11.16.2004 1:45 AM