The Bible: Divine Foreknowledge / Free Will [Archive]

rachel

12-10-2005, 01:07 PM

often when something is translated the essence or correctness can be lost. When reading the Bible one must remember to readeverything pertaining to that topic, then you can see the complete picture. In addition Jesus, Immanuel, God come in the flesh said before He ascended back to heaven "for when He comes(Holy Spirit, third Person of the Trinity) He will lead you into all truth and righteousness. It is important to ask Him to show you the Truth concerning any matter.
The Bible for instance says" For God is not partial but the man from every nation who does His will is acceptable to Him" and then again " For God is notanxious for any man to perish" and " For God SO LOVED THE WORLD that He gave His Only Begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believes upon Him will have life everlasting' (paraphrase)
There are many others. The Bible also says" seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened, ask and it shall be given.' So if you don't know ask Him. "Call upon Me and I will answer" He says. And there is a great scripture that says "now the Boreans were more noble minded than the others for they studied the scriptures diligently so see that this was so." (paraphrase.)
IT is not true what you say about before the foundation of this world.

Ulalume<3

12-10-2005, 03:13 PM

Mililalil XXIV

06-07-2006, 09:16 PM

cuppajoe_9

06-09-2006, 12:58 AM

God exists outside of time, so he is not limited to it and can be in the past present and future all at the same time, so I believe he knows who will be saved or not, but I do not believe that he chose who will.I cannot tell you how many times I have heard this. What exactly does it mean to 'exist outside of time'? Even if such a thing were possible, why would it matter? If God already knows what you're going to do in advance, then you didn't really 'choose' to do it.
GOD's Foreknowledge isn't HIS Will, but scopes even the free choices of free wills.You're contradicting yourself. It doesn't matter that God does not choose in advance what you are going to do, because if he knows it in advance, then you did not choose to do it.

Example:

You are trying to decide whether to order a chocolate or a vanilla ice-cream cone. God knows in advance that you are going to choose vanilla. You choose vanilla. Only you didn't really choose it, because there was no possibility that you were going to pick chocolate, because God already knew you were going to pick vanilla.

rufioag

06-10-2006, 02:29 AM

Just becuase you know something may happen doesnt mean the knowledge has a direct affect on the outcome of the situation.

Gods specific knowledge of all outcomes does not mean he forces that outcome on the person. And you should probably rephrase your statement, you said if God knows what YOU are going to do. This menas that YOU made the choice not God.

Not to be picky but I beleive it proves the point im trying to make. That we make the choices but God knows the choices we are going to make. And this is how predestination runs hand in hand with Free Will and the choice of man kind to either choose righteousness or spend eternity in Hell. So by Gods knowledge of all events, it is in this way that God knows who will accept Him and therefore those people would be said to have been predestined, because before they were, He knew that they would choose Him. But of course this brings up the opposite affect as well that God knows before they were created that they would choose to reject Him and the existance of both acceptance and rejection proves the existance of Free Will.

earthboar

06-10-2006, 07:45 AM

This is an issue that many religious texts have; because of the fact that they all weren't written by the same person they tend to have conflicting positions. Looking at the bible there have been many editions, revisions, and additions. In some it says that anyone may be saved if they accept Jesus and in others their fate is predetermined. It basically boils down to preference, if you feel that God's plan is necessary than you would more than likely believe that it is predetermined or if you feel it is up to the individual to make themselves worthy than you would believe that you must accept Jesus. Please remember this is coming from the viewpoint of an atheist so I am not sure if this would be a correct assumption.

The funny thing about modern times is that we call an anthology "A Book". In fact, before the fourth century, there were many separate books of scripture, written by different authors at different times. Honestly, I think the illusion of the Bible as a coherent, unified story was probably originaly intended to make people think one single way, but it backfired, and is so subjective as to elicit an infinite number of interpretations. I enjoy collecting and reading Dead Sea Scroll translations, and the funny thing is the variety of interpretation and translations available, based on where the scholar stands on issues of orthodoxy, academia, is he American, Israeli, Jewish, Christian, you name it. What I love about the scrolls is that they haven't come down through several distilations of translation, as has, for example, the King James Bible. The primary sources are here and now, not lost for all time, remarkable! They were discovered in 1947, and the Nag Hammadi "New Testament" books were found only 2 years before, in 1945...doubly remarkable!! 2 primary sources discovered in the last century. If you read Coptic, Hebrew or Aramiac, you don't need an "authority" to interpret them, you can do it yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

DSS = velum, scroll, Hebrew & Aramaic, Palestine.
Nag Hammadi = papyrus, "codex", Greek & Coptic, Egypt.

In those days, the scrolls were pretty much separate entities, and there were a whole bunch of them, not just the ones found in the modern Bible(s). The earliest ones were Genesis, Daniel, Isaiah, and the Temple Scroll, and the traditions were coherent, of course, almost genealogical. But the nature of YHVH changed from carnivorous and demanding of animal sacrifice, to a statesman and general who would evict the Romans from Judea. The Essenes were clean, celibate, righteous, and according to Josephus, long-lived. However, their inflexibility was not conducive to the success of their society over time, as they completely died out, much like the more modern Shakers of New England. Incidentally, the only canonical text not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls was the Book of Esther. Why, well, people argue over that, too. But scholar Geza Vermes suggests it may just be accidental.

I think your question about salvation is a good one, though, in a fun way, because we can talk about it forever and not know the truth. It's like, "what color pencil am I holding behind my back right now?" And in fact, I don't even know, and maybe it's not even a pencil, maybe it's a crayon or a magic marker, or a chopstick, so even if you have guessed every imaginable color, you can still have the wrong answer.

cuppajoe_9

06-10-2006, 05:00 PM

Just becuase you know something may happen doesnt mean the knowledge has a direct affect on the outcome of the situation.True, but that is not what we are talking about. If God knows what you are about to do, then that is the only thing you can do.
Gods specific knowledge of all outcomes does not mean he forces that outcome on the person. And you should probably rephrase your statement, you said if God knows what YOU are going to do. This menas that YOU made the choice not God.No, it means nobody made the choice. If God has certain knowledge that you are about to chose to buy a new car, then you have no choice but to buy a new car. There is no way for God to be wrong, because he is omnipotent, so there is no way for you to not buy a new car.
Not to be picky but I beleive it proves the point im trying to make.Wrong.
That we make the choices but God knows the choices we are going to make. And this is how predestination runs hand in hand with Free Will and the choice of man kind to either choose righteousness or spend eternity in Hell. So by Gods knowledge of all events, it is in this way that God knows who will accept Him and therefore those people would be said to have been predestined, because before they were, He knew that they would choose Him. But of course this brings up the opposite affect [sic] as well that God knows before they were created that they would choose to reject Him and the existance of both acceptance and rejection proves the existance of Free Will.Predestination and free will simply cannot exist in the same universe. If you are predestined to accept or reject God, then you have absolutely no choice in the matter. It would feel like you have a choice, but if the choices you make line up exactly to God's plan then, then they weren't really choices at all. If such a thing as predestination exists, then we have no more control over the direction of our lives than the characters in a play have over theirs.

earthboar

06-10-2006, 06:04 PM

Predestination and free will simply cannot exist in the same universe. If you are predestined to accept or reject God, then you have absolutely no choice in the matter. It would feel like you have a choice, but if the choices you make line up exactly to God's plan then, then they weren't really choices at all. If such a thing as predestination exists, then we have no more control over the direction of our lives than the characters in a play have over theirs.

In behavioristic terms, environmental contingencies, both internal and external, define our next move. Free will is a cognitive construct to explain behavior for which we don't yet know the underlying reason why we did what we did. Given two choices, let's say we choose the one people who know us well wouldn't have bet on, there is still some internal condition that arranged conditions such that there was a propensity to act in a certain way (he wore the purple jacket, instead of the red one he likes so much). It is the action with the more rewarding outcome. I'm pretty sure I can predict the questions that follow that last statement.

rufioag

06-11-2006, 12:19 AM

cuppajoe_9

06-11-2006, 08:25 PM

I do not agree Joe. Just becuase someone has a prior knowledge of the outcome of the events does not affect the outcome of events. Say a man accepts God. He has used his Free Will to accept salvation. Now, becuase God knew that this man would accept him, in essence, this man was predestined because God had known he would choose to accept God.One more time: it does not matter if God 'chooses' whether a man accepts Him or not, if he knows it with absolute certainty before hand there is no free will involved. If the man has a choice as to whether to accept or reject God, it would be uncertain, and therefore God could not know before hand what he is going to do. Free will and omnipotence, like an unstopable force and an immovable object, just cannot exist in the same universe.
just becuase I know exactly the way a friend will drive to my house, does not mean I forced my friend to go that exact path nor do I have any power over the fact that my friend may deciede to go to someone elses house instead.This is poor analogy for two reasons:

1. You are not omnipotent (I hope).
2. Your friend KNOWS that you think he's going to your house. Because he has that knowledge he can, if he so chooses, defy you by going somewhere else. But since God knows everything about your future and doesn't tell you, there is no way you can do somthing that he wasn't counting on.

Asa Adams

06-11-2006, 11:39 PM

Hey, Cuppa buddy, you tired of having to repeat yourself yet? :lol:

Mililalil XXIV

06-12-2006, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by Mil
GOD's Foreknowledge isn't HIS Will, but scopes even the free choices of free wills.
You're contradicting yourself. It doesn't matter that God does not choose in advance what you are going to do, because if he knows it in advance, then you did not choose to do it.

Example:

You are trying to decide whether to order a chocolate or a vanilla ice-cream cone. God knows in advance that you are going to choose vanilla. You choose vanilla. Only you didn't really choose it, because there was no possibility that you were going to pick chocolate, because God already knew you were going to pick vanilla.
That is not logical in the least. Seeing is not forcing.

Mililalil XXIV

06-12-2006, 03:06 AM

One more time: it does not matter if God 'chooses' whether a man accepts Him or not, if he knows it with absolute certainty before hand there is no free will involved. If the man has a choice as to whether to accept or reject God, it would be uncertain, and therefore God could not know before hand what he is going to do. Free will and omnipotence, like an unstopable force and an immovable object, just cannot exist in the same universe.This is poor analogy for two reasons:

1. You are not omnipotent (I hope).
2. Your friend KNOWS that you think he's going to your house. Because he has that knowledge he can, if he so chooses, defy you by going somewhere else. But since God knows everything about your future and doesn't tell you, there is no way you can do somthing that he wasn't counting on.
Again, your reasoning takes nothing of the difference between Knowledge and enactment into consideration. How many times are you going to repeat the same thing without thinking through what has already been well stated?

cuppajoe_9

06-12-2006, 06:28 PM

Hey, Cuppa buddy, you tired of having to repeat yourself yet?Extremely.
That is not logical in the least. Seeing is not forcing.Ok, one more time: free will and omnipotence cannot exist in the same universe. Free will, logically, results in uncertainty. If God knows, with certainty, exactly what will happen in the future, then free will does not exist for anybody, God included. You and rufioag are the only ones who are talking about anybody forcing anything. If you accuse me of thinking that God makes your decisions for you, I will be forced to curse in Yiddish.

cuppajoe_9

06-12-2006, 06:29 PM

Again, your reasoning takes nothing of the difference between Knowledge and enactment into consideration.Again, none of this has anything to do with enactment.

kilted exile

06-12-2006, 06:47 PM

earthboar

06-13-2006, 07:00 AM

Ok, I'm going to try and set this out as I see it in a straightforward, step by step nature; and I would be grateful if someone could please point out the exact step where I am getting confused thanks.

1) God knows what I will choose.

2) Free Will involves me being able to choose any the available options.

3) For me to choose one of the other options, God would have to be wrong.

4) God can not be wrong.

5) I can not choose another option.

1) If we assume God is All-Knowing, maybe that is true. If we assume God isn't All-Knowing, then that makes life more interesting. When we're talking about God, we can pretty much make up what attributes we give to the Great One. I once heard a rabbi say that he thought God isn't All-Knowing. There are good reasons why this might be. If you know all the moves in advance, you don't need to play the game.

2) If there is free will, which I think there is, you can not only choose from the available options, but make up new ones, as well.

3) For you to choose any option, I don't think God is doing any hand over hand training. In fact, He may be learning from you by your actions. He's eager to see what you will do next.

4) God can be wrong, God has been wrong. If He doesn't admit to being wrong, then He must be ignorant. Such a thing is possible in my world view.

In all things, I'm not being facetious, I'm posing alternate ways of looking at the problem. Of course, the kind of God we prepose defines the set of problems that go with that god. Like a game of pick up stix.

matt 89

06-13-2006, 07:23 AM

just because god knows what your going to choose before you choose it does not change the fact that you choose it for yourself.

ShoutGrace

06-13-2006, 08:35 AM

I'd like to preface this post by saying that there are large bodies of Christians who believe wholly in predetermination / the necessary absence of free will. You can get a taste of it here (http://christian-truth.org/salvation/predestination/background.html).

I personally have taken a liking to what is referred to as 'Middle Knowledge'. I think that it satisfies the objections to divine omniscience.

"Molinism, named after 16th Century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, is a religious doctrine which attempts to reconcile God's omniscience with human free will.

Under this account, God allows us to choose our actions yet knows in advance what course we will choose. Key is the idea that God possesses total knowledge of how any free agent would act in any given circumstance. Thus, given agent A and circumstances C, God is said to know what action that person would freely choose. Such knowledge is called middle knowledge (or scientia media) because it is the second of three types of knowledge God possesses.

Molinists support their case with Jesus's statement in Matthew 11:23:

'And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.'

That is, Jesus claims knowledge of how the Sodomites would have responded under a different set of circumstances from those that actually occurred.

This account allows God to arrange for a person to carry out a specific act by arranging the circumstances surrounding the choice so that the act is both freely chosen and providential, thus maintaining the free will of the person."

Here is a little defense of freewill/omniscience :

"�4. For example, he says foreknowledge is not compatible with freedom. Well, I think that this is simply an invalid argument. It goes something like this:

1) Necessarily, if God foreknows X, then X will happen.

2) God foreknows X.

3) Therefore, necessarily, X will happen.

�5. Well, that simply commits an elementary modal fallacy in modal logic. It is a fallacious argument, and most people recognize it as such. It is possible that X not happen even though God foreknows it. What is true is that if X were not to happen, then God would not have foreknown X. And as long as that subjunctive counterfactual is true, there is simply no incoherence in God's having knowledge of future contingents."

This site (http://www.iep.utm.edu/m/middlekn.htm) contains a comprehensive, introductory article on Middle Knowledge.

This article (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/hasker.html) contains a defense of Middle Knowledge against specific atheist objections.

The Bible clearly teaches both freewill and predestination, depending on which verses are taken out of context and when they're taken out of context. I don't think that the overall view is at all contradictory; rather I think that it is coherent given the premises of Middle Knowledge.

cuppajoe_9

06-13-2006, 06:20 PM

just because god knows what your going to choose before you choose it does not change the fact that you choose it for yourself.Honestly, son. I just spent about six posts explaining that it completely changes that fact. Welcome to LitNet, by the way.

Grace: The second quote contains a valid argument, the first one does not. Arranging the circumstances which will lead to a person making the desired choice is, in effect, making the choice for them. If we allow for the possibility that God could be wrong, as your second source does, then free will can come into the model.

ShoutGrace

06-14-2006, 02:17 AM

Grace: The second quote contains a valid argument, the first one does not. Arranging the circumstances which will lead to a person making the desired choice is, in effect, making the choice for them.

I have to disagree here. You say that arranging the circumstances is in effect making their choice for them, but that just isn't necessarily true. It is an opinion. The free will of the person is preserved under an infinite number of different circumstances, of which God knows the outcome of each. You might be able to emotionally argue that hypothetically putting a creature in a specific situation in which it is free to make choices of which you know the outcome is wrong. I'm not sure. But this hypothetical creature's free will is still reserved. I think that your statement hinges on the words in effect, and the conclusion is both presumptuous and speculative. I haven't seen atheists or other anti-molinists debate that point.

If we allow for the possibility that God could be wrong, as your second source does, then free will can come into the model.

I'm sorry, I missed how my second source intimated that God could possibly be wrong. Could you enlighten me?

thevintagepiper

06-14-2006, 10:10 AM

I believe in predestination.

Romans 8:29
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Romans 8:30
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Ephesians 1:3-6
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Ephesians 1:11
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

For myself, all I need is scripture, but others are tending to need faulty human logic and reason as well....

cuppajoe_9

06-14-2006, 05:13 PM

Grace: I was refering to the sentence in that second source that says X may not happen even though God foreknows it. He could be wrong, in other words.
I have to disagree here. You say that arranging the circumstances is in effect making their choice for them, but that just isn't necessarily true. It is an opinion. The free will of the person is preserved under an infinite number of different circumstances, of which God knows the outcome of each. You might be able to emotionally argue that hypothetically putting a creature in a specific situation in which it is free to make choices of which you know the outcome is wrong. I'm not sure. But this hypothetical creature's free will is still reserved. I think that your statement hinges on the words in effect, and the conclusion is both presumptuous and speculative. I haven't seen atheists or other anti-molinists debate that point.I suppose whether or not free will is reserved in this type of situation depends on the degree to which God aranges the circumstances. If He, for example, were to arrange your day in such precise detail as to make it inevitable that it will occur to you to do the thing he wants you to, then we have eliminated free will. If He is more into the 'subtle guiding' approach, then free will may still exist, provided of course that there is no such thing as certain and precise knowledge of the future.

I don't see what the fact that I'm an atheist has to do with any of this. The question of free will doesn't have anything to do with why I don't believe in God, and to even make this kind of argument I have to assume that God exists.

ShoutGrace

06-14-2006, 05:26 PM

Grace: I was refering to the sentence in that second source that says X may not happen even though God foreknows it. He could be wrong, in other words.

He's not wrong in that situation. That is the point of Middle Knowledge. The fact that what He knew would happen in a given situation did not happen because the situation never occured doesn't make him wrong, that knowledge is still correct. It's explained in the next sentence :

"What is true is that if X were not to happen, then God would not have foreknown X."

So X would have happened if the circumstances would have been different. His foreknowing it makes it a factual possibility.

If He, for example, were to arrange your day in such precise detail as to make it inevitable that it will occur to you to do the thing he wants you to, then we have eliminated free will.

I can appreciate that thought on an emotional level, but philosophically speaking, I just don't think that the above is true. Free will is maintained in an infinite number of different scenarios. We don't have the free will to choose our circumstances anyway. A human will make a free choice in a specific situation, according to their constitution/personal composition. No matter how that specific situation came about, the free will of that person is there.

I don't see what the fact that I'm an atheist has to do with any of this. The question of free will doesn't have anything to do with why I don't believe in God, and to even make this kind of argument I have to assume that God exists.

I only mentioned 'atheist' to help clarify where the guy in the article was coming from. I agree with/appreciate what you've said above.

cuppajoe_9

06-14-2006, 05:37 PM

He's not wrong in that situation. That is the point of Middle Knowledge. The fact that what He knew would happen in a given situation did not happen because the situation never occured doesn't make him wrong, that knowledge is still correct. It's explained in the next sentence :

"What is true is that if X were not to happen, then God would not have foreknown X."

So X would have happened if the circumstances would have been different. His foreknowing it makes it a factual possibility.Ah, I see, you mean that God knows all the different possibilities about what could happen. That works just as well.
A human will make a free choice in a specific situation, according to their constitution/personal composition.Yes, but if God has narrowed down the possibilites so that there is only one choice that you can make, then you didn't really make that choice freely.

There's a very good Tom Stoppard play/movie on this topic called Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Very interesting, but you have to be familiar with Hamlet

Rosencrantz: I shall throw myself overboard, that'll put a spoke in their gears.
Guildenstern: Unless they're counting on it.
Rosencrantz: I shall remain on board, that'll put a spoke in their gears.

kilted exile

06-14-2006, 07:21 PM

others are tending to need faulty human logic and reason as well....

Yes, darn those fools with their reason and logic. Now, where did I put my pitchfork.

J/K ;)

thevintagepiper

06-14-2006, 09:58 PM

Not sure how much sarcasm/how much agreement that was; but I don't mean that I think human reasoning is useless or anything, simply that God's ways are higher than ours, and as a Christian that is all I need :)

ShoutGrace

06-14-2006, 11:04 PM

Yes, but if God has narrowed down the possibilites so that there is only one choice that you can make, then you didn't really make that choice freely.

Free will is a distinct entity. It isn't at all contigent on what situation you're in, or how you arrived in such a situation. No matter how you came to be in a certain situation, you still have free will in that situation/moment in time. You're saying that God manipulating other variables while maintaining your free will is effecting your free will. That is not true.

You're on to a different idea, I think. Theoretically, God can direct history in countless minute indiscernable ways, and put you in a situation where you will make a free, undisturbed choice according to your constitution. Your free will while making that choice is still the same.

I think you are arguing that God shouldn't direct your life like that. But that is a seperate issue from free will. Free will has to do specifically with your being able to make a choice on your own (or freely react or perform) in whatever temporal/spacial setting you're in.

Rosencrantz: I shall throw myself overboard, that'll put a spoke in their gears.
Guildenstern: Unless they're counting on it.
Rosencrantz: I shall remain on board, that'll put a spoke in their gears.

I lke that a lot.

cuppajoe_9

06-15-2006, 01:52 PM

I don't see a difference between having free will without the opportunity to use it and lacking free will.

Mililalil XXIV

06-15-2006, 02:17 PM

I don't see a difference between having free will without the opportunity to use it and lacking free will.
Which post(er) is this referring back to, which statement? I am trying to follow the progression of comments, but it isn't always apparent who is addressing whom.

cuppajoe_9

06-15-2006, 02:18 PM

I was replying to ShoutGrace's comments:
Free will is a distinct entity. It isn't at all contigent on what situation you're in, or how you arrived in such a situation. No matter how you came to be in a certain situation, you still have free will in that situation/moment in time. You're saying that God manipulating other variables while maintaining your free will is effecting your free will. That is not true.

Mililalil XXIV

06-15-2006, 02:38 PM

Free will cannot be bound even though a mountain were to bury the body of the one with it. Limitations of physical ability are not captivity of the free will in the environment it is in. One is not forced to be a pedaphile because he is alone with a little girl on a desert island. One is not forced to give up Hope because he has no physical means presently at hand to accomplish a goal. In holding on to an intent to accomplish the goal, even waiting manifests the same posture of free will.

kilted exile

06-15-2006, 09:26 PM

Not sure how much sarcasm/how much agreement that was

Seeing as you're new here (and also a piper) I'll let you in on a secret: nothing I ever post is to be taken seriously. The majority of the time I am joking, and the rest I'm merely talking nonsense

JAC

06-17-2006, 11:39 AM

Alright so the premise of the topic seems to be either; (A) God's sovereignty is complete so he must choose who will and who will not be received by him without ANY deference to what his creation might desire or; (B) Man can and does answer the sweet and wonderful voice of God when the Holy Spirit whispers I have always loved you.

Those who's hearts are drawn to (A) believe that if man has any say in the question of salvation God is less than God.

Those who believe (B) is a better understanding of the plan of salvation believe that God's love for man is in question if he can create billions of people to be destined for hell by His choice.

The group here by and large understands the conflict. I will make one thing very clear. I have read and studied the Bible for over twenty years now and I KNOW that both free will and Predestination are clear taught in the scriptures.

Here is my personal doctrine on the subject.

1. God never changes.

2. God desires all men to belong to Him.

3. God could choose to make all men SAVED by giving them all of the faith necessary and then scream into mans spirit so that all other sounds are drowned out by His love.

4. He has not chosen to do this.

Let us be very careful to remember that it is not about man, it is about God. When God created man (whom he foreknew would choose sin) he was sovereign. When God formed His plan of salvation, whatever that may be, he was sovereign. Nothing man can do within that plan effects God's sovereignty because it is all bounded by, limited by, encompassed by, and within His plan. Man is allowed (by God) to be in God's plan but he will never escape from it.

There is (in my opinion) only one model for the Church. A holy priesthood which proclaims to, teaches, and cares for the children of God.

Abraham was chosen by God. He did not choose God. The Jewish people were a chosen people they very clearly did not choose God. The mission for these chosen people was to proclaim God to the nations. The Old Testament is filled with this truth about the Jew. So that they may know that "I AM God". There was and still is a Jewish doctrine, provided by God, that allows for conversion into Judaism (into the Chosen people). Why give such a duty to the Jewish people? 2. Because God desires all men to belong to Him and to praise Him. This is the model for the Church. Some were chosen and some were allowed.

The Jews by and large failed. When they got hot for the Lord they guarded him jealously MY GOD NOT YOURS. When the were cold they forgot him altogether.

So the second stage of God's plan begins. Jesus arrives.
Jesus chose to Obey God (the Father) being co-equal he could have just as easily said no.

He begins to choose his disciples. They appear to have no more choice than old Abraham. Does this mean that everyone that Jesus called followed him? No. The crowds that fill the New Testament tell us that very few of those who were drawn by his message actually chose to stay with him through His entire journey here on earth and how about the young rich man.

There were twelve chosen (by God) tribes of Israel all other men were allowed (by God) to come. This was YHVH's plan.

There were twelve chosen (by God) disciples all other men were allowed (by God) to follow. This was Jesus plan.

I could go on to show the model at work at Pentecost but by now you get it.

Where do we get off choosing to disregard a huge portion or the scriptures (it does not matter whether you believe in (A) or (B)) because we are more comfortable with everyone being saved they way we were saved. Is it not more important to encourage all to be saved the way He wants to save them?

Now please got to your Bibles and either verify through word and prayer or use these tools to prove to me where the idea, which is not a doctrine mine or anyone else's yet, fails.

May Jesus bless your efforts.

Jac

cuppajoe_9

06-17-2006, 01:48 PM

ShoutGrace

06-17-2006, 06:56 PM

The point is that omnipotence and free will cannot exist in the same reality.

Now that is surely a false statement. I've never seen anybody argue that an all-Powerful Supreme Being and free will cannot exist at the same time. What is your reasoning behind this idea?

If it is possible to have certain knowledge of what will happen in the future, then the future has already been decided (not by God, or anybody else) and there is nothing that anybody (God included) can do to change it.

That doesn't achieve logical sense, either. Why should it not be possible for predestination to be real in it's fundamental form, and have God deciding every little aspect of existence all throughout time? It is certainly possible. Objections to this idea arise solely from the apparent contradiction between a loving, omnipotent God purposefully creating this world as it is and willfully allowing it to continue in this fashion.

Suppose we take the highlighted words out of your above statement.

But now it still is simply not necessarily true. That is the point of the subjunctive counterfactuals proposed by Molinists.

"�4. For example, he says foreknowledge is not compatible with freedom. Well, I think that this is simply an invalid argument. It goes something like this:

1) Necessarily, if God foreknows X, then X will happen.

2) God foreknows X.

3) Therefore, necessarily, X will happen.

�5. Well, that simply commits an elementary modal fallacy in modal logic. It is a fallacious argument, and most people recognize it as such. It is possible that X not happen even though God foreknows it. What is true is that if X were not to happen, then God would not have foreknown X. And as long as that subjunctive counterfactual is true, there is simply no incoherence in God's having knowledge of future contingents."

The doctrine of middle knowledge proposes that God has knowledge of metaphysically necessary states of affairs via natural knowledge, of what He intends to do via free knowledge, and in addition, of what free creatures would do if they were instantiated (via middle knowledge). Thus, the content of middle knowledge is made up of truths which refer to what would be the case if various states of affairs were to obtain. For example, the statement, "If John Laing were given the opportunity to write an article on middle knowledge for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he would freely do so," although true, is certainly not necessarily so. I could easily have refrained from writing, if I were so inclined (or too busy, etc.). Likewise, its truth does not seem to be dependent upon God's will in the same way that "John Laing exists" is. Even if God chose to not create me, the statement regarding my writing the article could still be true. In fact, its truth does not seem to be dependent upon God's will at all, but rather upon my will. One of the basic assumptions of the doctrine of middle knowledge outlined above is that God cannot will a creature to freely choose anything. Thus, the content of middle knowledge can be thought of as including a virtually infinite number of propositions of the form, If person, P, were in situation, S, then P would freely perform action, A (or P(S®A)).

Whether any theist or Christian believes in Middle Knowledge doesn't really matter. The important thing here is that it has been philosophically shown that the doctrine of free will and the doctrine of divine omniscience are not logically incompatible. It is possible that they can coexist.

ShoutGrace

06-17-2006, 07:08 PM

I have read and studied the Bible for over twenty years now

I am envious! :D Though in 20 years (if my health maintains) I should surely be able to say the same.

and I KNOW that both free will and Predestination are clear taught in the scriptures.

I have come to the same conclusion. It seems to be textually clear, but the question is whether it is contradictory or not.

4. He has not chosen to do this.

That is evidently clear as well. But I am having trouble understanding your explanation of it. Could you reply and just summarize your post - merely for the sake of clarity; I am most apprehensive of misinterpreting it.

p.s. Welcome to the LitNet! :D Hope you have a wonderful time here.

JAC

06-18-2006, 12:09 PM

First let me explain my comment on time I have spent with the Word. I am always seeking to take as much from the Christians who are more grounded than I. At the same time if I am aware of the experience level of the people I am conversing with it is easier to understand where to begin in a conversation about our Lord. As to your points, I will try to make myself clear.

Are the two doctrines at odds? No I do not see a conflict unless you place both on the same individual, or use both universally.

Some are chosen some are allowed. All within the soverign plan of God.

Your second point is one I cleared in my own mind by observation and the scriptures.

"Christ died for all".

Yet we have all witnessed the puny fist of the creation clenched in rage and sceaming "I will not accept you." at his creator as he passes into eternity.

I apologize if this seems a little rushed. It is Fathers Day so I must go and thank my Father.

God bless your efforts.

JAC
Just Another Christian

cuppajoe_9

06-18-2006, 05:05 PM

Now that is surely a false statement. I've never seen anybody argue that an all-Powerful Supreme Being and free will cannot exist at the same time. What is your reasoning behind this idea?This is ridiculous. I have already explained this about seven times in this thread.

1. Certain knowledge of the future is possible.
2. Because of 1, we can assume there is only one possible future.
3. Because of 2, there is only one possible choice you can make in a given situation.
4. Because of 3, free will does not exist, or it is an illusion.

If you have a problem with any of those steps (aside from 1), please point it out.
That doesn't achieve logical sense, either. Why should it not be possible for predestination to be real in it's fundamental form, and have God deciding every little aspect of existence all throughout time? It is certainly possible.It is certainly possible (though unlikely) but the topic of this thread is free will.
"Christ died for all".

Yet we have all witnessed the puny fist of the creation clenched in rage and sceaming "I will not accept you." at his creator as he passes into eternity.That could be the most self-righteous pair of sentences I have ever read.

ShoutGrace

06-18-2006, 05:50 PM

Let's review. I thought that the topic of this thread concerned 'Divine Foreknowledge / Free Will.' I only suspect that because I can see it at the top of my browser screen.

You said :

The point is that omnipotence and free will cannot exist in the same reality.

To which I responded :

I've never seen anybody argue that an all-Powerful Supreme Being and free will cannot exist at the same time. What is your reasoning behind this idea?

To which you responded :

This is ridiculous. I have already explained this about seven times in this thread.

Perhaps you think that omnipotence and omniscience are the same thing? I shall reiterate - Why do you think that free will and an omnipotent Supreme being cannot exist in the same reality?

If you have a problem with any of those steps (aside from 1), please point it out.

2. Because of 1, we can assume there is only one possible future.

That is a assumption that I think would be awfully hard to prove. I wouldn't agree with that. The Bible supports the concept of Molinism.

If you are submitting that 1 necessarily entails 2, then I think you have an awfully large burden of proof on your figurative shoulders.

Regit

06-18-2006, 09:35 PM

I have already explained this about seven times in this thread.

1. Certain knowledge of the future is possible.
2. Because of 1, we can assume there is only one possible future.
3. Because of 2, there is only one possible choice you can make in a given situation.
4. Because of 3, free will does not exist, or it is an illusion.

If you have a problem with any of those steps (aside from 1), please point it out.
I have a problem with steps 1, 2, 3, and 4. You have indeed attempted to explain these steps about seven times, but none satisfyingly.

First I will attempt to interprete the conclusion of each step in the way that my dictionary would allow me to.

Possible adj 1 capable of existing, happening, or being achieved. 2 probable but not certain.

I assume that you used the first meaning of the word.
Now I will re-write the steps in my understanding of them:

1. Certain knowledge of the future exists.
2. Because of 1, only one future can exist.
3. Because of 2, only one choice can be achieved, given a situation.
4. Because of 3, free will does not exist, or it is an illusion.

Ok?
Now my biggest problem is trying to connect their causation with the singularity of the terms accompanied by "possible". In other words, I do not deny the conclusion of each step, only its cause. To demonstrate I will re-write my understanding of the steps, without their causation:

1. Certain knowledge of the future exists.
2. Only one future can exist.
3. Only one choice can be achieved, given a situation.
4. Free will does not exist, or it is an illusion.

Step 1, of course, contains the condition that you were given. However, steps 2 and 3 are correct on their own, regardless of each other or any other steps. This leaves step 4, thus, completely unsupported. Now this is what your argument sounds like to me. Can you see where I have a problem? Your arguments do not connect simply because you attach the singularity of "future" and "choice" with knowledge and freewill, when the very definitions of these terms already supply that quality. I suggest you find another connection for your argument. I can see its potential, but your eight(?) attempts have not done it justice. Perhaps when you have, then I will disagree with it.

cuppajoe_9

06-19-2006, 01:06 AM

If you are submitting that 1 necessarily entails 2, then I think you have an awfully large burden of proof on your figurative shoulders.I don't even need a proof, it's tautological. If you know what's going to happen in the future, then that's what's going to happen in the future. That's what 'knowledge' means. If what you knew was going to happen didn't happen, then you didn't 'know' it with any certainty.
Can you see where I have a problem? Your arguments do not connect simply because you attach the singularity of "future" and "choice" with knowledge and freewill, when the very definitions of these terms already supply that quality. I suggest you find another connection for your argument. I can see its potential, but your eight(?) attempts have not done it justice. Perhaps when you have, then I will disagree with it. No, I really don't see your problem, unless we are defining 'free will' very differently. By the definition I'm using you have the choice of several options in a given situation, and it is not possible to know with certainty beforehand which you will choose. (I don't nescisarily believe that this is the case, I am just trying to prove that this situation is incompatible with omniscience and omnipotence). Never the less, I will try to expand my sylogism:

Assumptions:

Free will is the condition of having several options given a situation, with choice of any of the options possible, if not nescisarrily likely.

God exists, and has certain and precise knowledge of the future.

1. Certain knowledge of the future exists.
2. Because of 1, only one future exists.
3. Because of 2, only one choice is possible given a situation.
4. Because of 3, the assumption that one has several choices in a given situation is false.
5. Because of 4, and since free will demands several choices given a situation, free will does not exist.

Regit

06-19-2006, 07:41 AM

If you know what's going to happen in the future, then that's what's going to happen in the future. That's what 'knowledge' means. If what you knew was going to happen didn't happen, then you didn't 'know' it with any certainty.
Correct. I can see your logic, but I am afraid you misplaced "tautological". You forget that the knowledge you have does not cause that future. If the future is the effect, the knowledge of it is not the cause. If you know that you will drop a glass and break it tomorrow, then comes tomorrow, the cause for the glass breaking will be you dropping it (the ground hitting the glass, the velocity of the collision, etc) not the knowledge you had that it will break (unless your "knowledge" exists physically and can fly around breaking glasses). The same applies to the physical existence of choice: choice is, scientifically, a mental process, which should involve chemical reactions and other scientific processes. Then it is these processes or whatever that causes choice that effects the outcome of the future. Thus, if you want to apply strict logic, your argument broke the chain of causation, unless you can prove that knowledge (the definition of which you claim to know) of the future directly causes the future to be what it is. Which is, of course, not possible.

By the definition I'm using you have the choice of several options in a given situation, and it is not possible to know with certainty beforehand which you will choose.
Free will is the condition of having several options given a situation, with choice of any of the options possible, if not necessarily likely.

You should add: "Relatively to the time in which the choice maker and the observer is in, and to the knowledge that the same choice maker possesses at that time." Otherwise your definition can be challenged yet again using the same argument above. If the present is the future of the past, then using your argument, I can assume that no choices made in the past was made from freewill; and no person who existed in the past had freewill, simply because we, who exist in the future of that past, have the certain and precise knowledge of the outcome of their will. Now this is clearly absurd. And all that separates your argument from this one is the different points in the time line.

Furthermore, you make the assumption that freewill and the future have a direct relationship. Many things cause the future to be; in fact in many scenario, freewill has absolutely no effect on the future whatsoever. With many breaks in the chain of causation, a simple test of cause and effect will fail your argument.

Not to mention, the first assumption you made, about the certain and precise knowledge of the future of God, lacks definition. If you draw that assumption from the Bible, you are wrong. You will find in time and with research that the teachings explain God's knowledge very differently from this strict and narrow sphere you impose on it.

thevintagepiper

06-19-2006, 11:08 AM

Seeing as you're new here (and also a piper) I'll let you in on a secret: nothing I ever post is to be taken seriously. The majority of the time I am joking, and the rest I'm merely talking nonsense

Oh, thanks, that's good to know then! ;)

cuppajoe_9

06-19-2006, 01:57 PM

Correct. I can see your logic, but I am afraid you misplaced "tautological". You forget that the knowledge you have does not cause that future. If the future is the effect, the knowledge of it is not the cause.True, but I'm not claiming that knowledge of the future causes that future in any way. I'm saying that if it is possible to know exactly the effects each cause will produce then choice doesn't come into it at all. Free will demands that at least some causes can have uncertain effects. For example: if a person is put into a situation where they must choose to go through one of two doors, that is the cause. If they choose door number two, that is the effect. If, to God's certain knowledge, the person was going to pick door number two, then it was not a free choice, since a free choice would demand it to be possible for the person to have picked any of the doors.

And yes, I know I probably misused the word 'tautological'.
You should add: "Relatively to the time in which the choice maker and the observer is in, and to the knowledge that the same choice maker possesses at that time."I thought that would be self-evident. I think we agree that the choices you made in the past are a constant. We are arguing over whether the choices that you will make are variable given the condition of an omnipotent and omniscient being somewhere in the universe.
If the present is the future of the past, then using your argument, I can assume that no choices made in the past was made from freewill; and no person who existed in the past had freewill, simply because we, who exist in the future of that past, have the certain and precise knowledge of the outcome of their will.Oh come on, Regit. Do I really have to state explicitly that I assume time flows in only one direction?
Not to mention, the first assumption you made, about the certain and precise knowledge of the future of God, lacks definition.You seem like a bright guy. I think you know what the words 'certain' and 'precise' mean. But, if you insist, I mean that our hypothetical God has subatomically precise knowledge of the entire universe for an infinite stretch of time.
If you draw that assumption from the Bible, you are wrong. You will find in time and with research that the teachings explain God's knowledge very differently from this strict and narrow sphere you impose on it.Quite possibly, but since I am not planning to base my senior thesis on this argument, and therefore am not particularly keen to read the entire Bible in order to back it up, could I cheat a little bit and ask you to point me to one of the verses you are refering to?

Completely unrelated closing note: I wonder if Vintagepiper would be interested in a long and heated debate about feminism?

Regit

06-19-2006, 09:14 PM

True, but I'm not claiming that knowledge of the future causes that future in any way. Then what, do you think, does? Choice, I am sure, has some direct effect.

For example: if a person is put into a situation where they must choose to go through one of two doors, that is the cause. If they choose door number two, that is the effect. Incorrect. If the cause is that they must make a choice, then the effect will be that they will make a choice. The cause for the effect of them choosing door number 2 is, again, the physical processes that their minds go through in making that choice. Sounds more logical?

Oh come on, Regit. Do I really have to state explicitly that I assume time flows in only one direction?
Yes, you do, and I will object to it. For if you do, you will have allowed your original assumption its logic, but denied me the right to employ that logic. Here: If time can only possibly flow one way, then how can knowledge of the future be possible? It cannot. So if you work under the assumption that it can, then, well, it doesn't. Thus I respectfully demand a revised response to my argument.

I think you know what the words 'certain' and 'precise' mean. But, if you insist, I mean that our hypothetical God has subatomically precise knowledge of the entire universe for an infinite stretch of time. Yes. But the "definition" I used was in complete connection with the immediately followed sentences. I meant that your usage of the words is not well-defined, only for the lack of research of the Bible. It's a whole other debate. Let's get through with our argument of logic first.

cuppajoe_9

06-19-2006, 11:17 PM

Yes, you do, and I will object to it. For if you do, you will have allowed your original assumption its logic, but denied me the right to employ that logic. Here: If time can only possibly flow one way, then how can knowledge of the future be possible? It cannot.How isn't really the question. The condition was an omnipotent and omniscient entity somewhere in the universe, no? However, I submit that if you had subatomically precise knowledge of the universe as it exists now, including the trajectory of everything, you would be able to calculate every event for an infinte stretch of time. You can dispute this with quantam theory, but we might have to wait for one of us to get a masters in physics before we can finish this.

If you believe that this is already the case, and that there is no free will, then we agree and we're done here.

Regit

06-22-2006, 11:07 AM

How isn't really the question. The condition was an omnipotent and omniscient entity somewhere in the universe, no?Yes, and in order for that condition to hold, we must be able to view the time line in both directions; and that's why my argument about the present knowledge of the past and its connection with freewill of the past was perfectly valid and needs to be reviewed.

If you believe that this is already the case, and that there is no free will, then we agree and we're done here.Of course we do not agree on this point; and we are far from done lest you insist otherwise :). My argument is very simple: cause and effect holds, knowledge of an event alone, regardless of the timeline, is no direct causation of that event. Thus this knowledge cannot void direct causes of that event. Choice, on the other hand, can be a direct causation of an event. Choice, moreover, is on its own a valid entity in a scientific and philosophical point of view. Thus where a choice is made, freewill exists.

cuppajoe_9

06-22-2006, 03:22 PM

Yes, and in order for that condition to hold, we must be able to view the time line in both directions; and that's why my argument about the present knowledge of the past and its connection with freewill of the past was perfectly valid and needs to be reviewed.I submit that free choices cannot be made in the past, because the past is set. Free choices can only be made in the present. Let me illustrate:

Past..........................................Pres ent.............................................Fu ture
Set...........................................Choi ces made here..............................Variable

However, since the present is constantly moving from left to right, the choices made in the past were also free, since the past used to be the present.

Past..........................................Pres ent.............................................Fu ture
Choice that were made................Choices being made.............................Choices that have yet to be made

But, if it is possible to view the entire timeline from outside of it (if it is possible to rewind and fast forward like a videotape, in otherwords), then the choices are already set, and we are just playing them out.

Past..........................................Pres ent.............................................Fu ture
Choices that were made...............Choices that were made.......................Choices that were made

The condition of the first timeline is that the present is constant, not realtive. The present is not simply somebody else's past, in other words. Therefore, if God 'exists outside of time' as somebody has already suggested, then we again have no more choice as to where we end up than the characters in a play that has already been written.

Regit

06-24-2006, 10:30 PM

cuppajoe_9,

You submit that free choice cannot be made in the past? But that's not what I demanded; in fact I stated the opposite. You can argue that free choice cannot be made in the past; or if you submit, submit that you are wrong and choice/freewill is indepedent of time. At the risk of repeating myself; freewill is what causes choice; and choice is a separate entity. If you tie it with other's knowledge of it, you are arguing that freewill does not exist at all, regardless of whether there's a God or not (and that's just off topic). I would bring literature into this, except I thought I stated t clearly enough. The bottom line is "choices that were made" are still choices, and choices reflect freewill.

mtpspur

07-23-2006, 03:13 AM

My own belief is that Adam and Eve had 'perfect' free will and lost it when thy sinned in the garden of Eden. Mankind has the responsibilities to maintain there estate but the power is gone. So I don't do my usual rambling--here goes-in my experience my free will (or decision-making in the genral course has gotten me in more trouble then out of it. Reliance on the finshed work of the Lord Jesus Christ helps me because He has 'free' will that was not destroyed by the effects of sin entering out natures thru Adam.

cuppajoe_9

10-15-2006, 05:11 PM

It's been a while, but I don't think I'm quite finished yet.

1. Either the future is fixed or variable.
2. If the future is variable, then there are many possible futures.
3. If there are many possible futures, then it is possible that these variations are caused by freedom of will in the present, given that freedom of will means the ability to chose between several courses of action in a given situation occuring in the present. In other words: in a given situation at least two courses of action must have a probability of being caried out that is greater than zero.
4. If the future is fixed, then there is only one possible future.
5. If there is only one possible future, then it is impossible to change that future through action in the present.
6. If it is impossible to change the future, then in a given situation the probability that one of the possible courses of action will be carried out in the present is 1, ad the probability that any of the others will be carried out is 0.
7. Therefore, because of 3, if there future is not variable then free will does not affect future events.

This works for the past too :

1. Either the past is fixed or variable.
2. If the past is variable, then there are many possible pasts.
3. If there are many possible pasts, then it is possible that these variations are caused by freedom of will in the present, given that freedom of will means the ability to chose between several courses of action in a given situation. In other words: in a given situation at least two courses of action must have a probability of being caried out that is greater than zero.
4. If the past is fixed, then there is only one possible past.
5. If there is only one possible past, then it is impossible to change that past through action in the present.
6. If it is impossible to change the past, then in a given situation the probability that one of the possible courses of action in the past will be carried out is 1, ad the probability that any of the others will be carried out is 0.
7. Therefore, because of 3, if the past is not variable then free will does affect past events.

However, in the case of the past, we can add:

8. The past is fixed.
9. Therefore free will in the present cannot affect events in the past.

(Note to those who are easily bored: there are no new ideas presented in the rest of this post. You can stop reading now if you so chose.)

For an illustration, let us use the death of King Charles I of England.

1. From the point of view of the present, Charles I either died on the scaffold or he died in bed (ignoring, for the sake of argument, other possibilities, such as that he died somewhere else, or he is still alive).
2. If there are many possible pasts, than it is possible that Charles I either died on the scaffold or in bed.
3. If Charles I died either on the scaffold or in bed, it is possible that this variation is caused by freedom of will in the present.
4. If the past is fixed, then Charles I died on the scaffold, and it is not possible that he died in bed.
5. If Charles I died on the scaffold, then it is not possible to change that fact through decisions in the present.
6. If it is impossible to change the fact that Charles I died on the scaffold then, from the point of view of the present, the probability that Oliver Cromwell chose to execute him is 1, and the probablility that he chose not to is 0.
7. Therefore, because of 3, it is impossible to change the fact that Charles I died on the scaffold through action in the present.
8. Charles I, as is shown by empirical evidence, died on the scaffold.
9. Therefor it is not possible, through action in the present, to change the circumstances of the death of Charles I.

However, if we, for the sake of argument, shift the present to 1648 :

1. The future is either fixed or variable.
2. If the future is variable, then it is possible that Charles I will die on the scaffold, and it is possible that he will die in bed.
3. If both of these outcomes are possibilities, then it is possible that this variation is caused by freedom of will in the present. In other words the Oliver Cromwell may chose to execute him or he may chose not to. Both outcomes have a probablility greater than 0.
4. If the future is fixed, then Charles I will definitely die on the scaffold.
5. If Charles I will definitely die on the scaffold then it is impossible to change that outcome by choices in the present.
6. If it is impossible to change the circumstances of Charles I's death by action in the present, then the pobability that Oliver Cromwell will decide to execute him is 1 and the probability that he will chose not to is 0.
7. Therefore, because of 3, if Charles I will definitely die on the scaffold, then freedom of will in the present cannot change the outcome of future events, in this case, the execution of Charles I.

Regit

10-26-2006, 08:04 AM

It's been a while, but I don't think I'm quite finished yet.
You mean you're not quite finished with repeating yourself? I'm quite done with that. You can just re-read the posts if you want my arguments.
With this post you haven't made yourself any clearer; but that's not a problem, because I already got you before. It's not that I need explaining, it's that I need my arguments considered; you need to do some countering.

Jay J.

12-20-2006, 04:38 PM

This topic is a little old by now, but hopefully this will spark some conversation.

First, let's define free will:

Free will means that you can make choices that will impact the future. Free will doesn’t only mean that a choice can be made, it means that such a choice has the potential to be carried out in the world. In other words, free will means freedom of action. The word “will” is sometimes defined as a wish, or a desire. But it is also defined as “the power of controlling one’s actions.” I think almost everyone would grant that human will has internal, cognitive characteristics. But human will, as we should be able to see, also includes the ability to control one’s actions, in other words, will has an impact on present, and future, actions.

Second, let’s talk about the future:

If I have the freedom of action to determine whether or not to eat chocolate (C) or vanilla (V) ice cream tonight, then the future holds the possibility that chocolate or vanilla ice cream will be eaten by me, tonight. However if God knows which one I will choose, then we have already encountered a contradiction…See, if I can choose between C and V, then that is the same as saying that I may choose to eat C, and that I may choose to eat V. If the future holds the possibility for C to be eaten and for V to be eaten, then it is possible that I will choose the one that God “knows” I won’t choose. That means that God could be wrong, since God knows that it will just be one, and not the other. An omniscient being cannot be wrong. Therefore, God is not omniscient - On other hand, if God knows which one it will be, then you may say that I have freedom of choice, but not freedom of action, because freedom of action means that I can DO something, and that the future holds the possibility that my actions may be different than the ones God knows. Therefore, although I can choose whatever I want in my head, since the future is already known by God, I can only really carry out one of those actions. This would be a very weak version of free will.

Third, let’s talk about causation:

Foreknowledge does not have to be the culprit for my actions to be determined. I mean, God may be perfectly willing to not intervene in my life, but it may be that other things are what determine my choice and/or actions. Our universe may be determined, or pockets of our universe may be determined, or certain people may have brain and/or social structures that make their actions determined. Foreknowledge does not have to be the thing determining the future in order for the future to be determined.

Fourth, let’s talk about omnipotence and omniscience:

Traditionally, omnipotence has been thought to mean that God can do ANYTHING. Certain logical constraints have been proposed from time to time, but not without the risk of these propositions being labeled heresy. Omniscience could stand alone from omnipotence, that is to say that a being that is omniscient is not necessarily omnipotent. However the reverse is not true; an omnipotent being can do anything, and that would include the ability to decide to stand outside time and view the future. Who knows if this is actually possible or not, but to say that a being is omnipotent is to also say that said being is omniscient.

Questions, comments, testimonials?

Redzeppelin

12-21-2006, 02:04 AM

Hi there Jay.J - I'm glad you revived this thread - it's one of my favorite topics. I really liked your deft separation of freedom of choice and freedom of action - that discrimination might have solved a lot of earlier "round-and-rounding" by earlier posters.

I think one way to approach the idea of freewill is linked to God's identity/character. If God is love, then freewill must exist, because love cannot exist without the legitimate choice to choose NOT to love. If God knows that you are going to choose to love Him, you did not have (in your terms) the freedom to act otherwise. Wouldn't that contradict the very character of God? Love requires choice - because the scriptures teach us (as do some insightful psychologists) that love IS a choice. "Choice" cannot exist without two equally viable options. Predestination eliminates love - at least as far as I can determine.

bhekti

12-22-2006, 08:57 AM

I think one way to approach the idea of freewill is linked to God's identity/character. If God is love, then freewill must exist, because love cannot exist without the legitimate choice to choose NOT to love.

I think so.

...If God knows that you are going to choose to love Him, you did not have (in your terms) the freedom to act otherwise. Wouldn't that contradict the very character of God? Love requires choice - because the scriptures teach us (as do some insightful psychologists) that love IS a choice. "Choice" cannot exist without two equally viable options. Predestination eliminates love - at least as far as I can determine.

But it's difficult for me to understand this one because I think it is choice that requires love. You don't choose what you don't love, what you don't like. How can we choose to follow God if first we don't love him? How can we love God, if first of all He doesn't love us (thus choose us)?

Redzeppelin

12-23-2006, 10:29 PM

I think many people choose to follow God not because they love Him, but because they sense that they need Him.

blazeofglory

05-13-2008, 11:54 AM

Ok, here's the topic... In the Bible it states in several places that god has "chosen before the foundation of the world" who is to be 'saved' and who is not to be 'saved.' Paul writes in Romans that god has created many for the purposes of destruction only to show his mercy on the others. It follows from this that some are created only to burn in hell, and have no chance, none whatsoever, of reuniting with the father in heaven, because their father is not the father in heaven, but is in fact, the devil in hell.

On the other hand, many christians believe that we are all free, any of us, to CHOOSE, at any time, to accept the 'gift' of salvation and thus, restore our status of being on good terms with our creator once again.

I can't wait to talk this one out. I have many scripture references but I can not now access them.. Later I will be able. Anyway, please do discuss...
I think God is tyrannic and I do not understand why should he or she or it punishes some to help others. Uplifting some and organizing others is something unethical and amoral in point of fact.

That is why Mother Teresa secretly was skeptical about the existence of God despite the fact that she could not proclaimably go against it but secretly she was opposed to the orthodoxy notion of God.

jgweed

05-16-2008, 08:45 AM

Will can only operate in a time that has a past, a present now, and a future; now if God is deemed to be eternal, he cannot have this kind of time, and therefore cannot have
will, or foreknowledge; nor can there be a divine predestination.

The confusion arises when we predicate essentially human conceptions based on our understanding of time, to the concept we have of God. Granted, any attempt to theologically explain the being of God must be phrased in human terms (since both the authors and audience are human), one can only understand the explanation as poetic and analogical, certainly not literal. A further confusion results in the attempt to rationally argue from this anthropomorphic "premiss" to any sort of conclusions about human reality.

If we consider the text itself, upon which much argument is based, we find ourselves on critically unsure ground, and are in any case confined to interpretations, which can---and historically HAVE---varied widely. Or, again,
without any warrant, we wish to consider the Bible as somehow "special" and not subject to the kind of textual criticism and discussion that scholars have applied to other ancient texts, and we do not even have a critical edition of the Biblical canon for analysis.

We should, I suggest, understand these considerations when venturing to discuss predestination and free will in religious terms. It is indeed difficult enough to wade through the morass of perspectives when we discuss such topics strictly in human terms.