John Calvin and Free Will

[weepingforloman]

Okay, I have been away from the forum for some time, and I did not receive adequate time to finish my discussion (specifically with Lote Tree, although others did make points) about free will and God's omniscience. I believe that Lote Tree said something to the effect of "when did we decide?" after I made the claim that God created mankind with free will. I will address this first.

We were created in the image of God. What does God do? He decides to act, and acts. He is a creative being--in fact, He is the Creative Being (the capitals are essential). Before the fall of mankind, that image of God was perfectly clear and unspoiled. Therefore, humans made decisions. However, we fell (Lote--this is an important point. Though God knew we would fall, He did not desire nor cause us to do so. For, although great glory would have been in a perfect world, greater glory still comes from the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Though God could have stopped our fall, He did not--it was our own free exercise of will that caused the Fall). Our free will (which had existed--just as God's will is free, so too was ours, but free in the fullest sense-- to sin, to not sin, to breathe, play, love, work, and all other things under God's great Heavens) became enslaved to sin. So now, though our will exists, it is not free. It is in fact, constrained to the purely negative spectrum of decisions: at best, neutral, at worst, heinous. Now, I believe too that Christ brings redemption and freedom: the bonds of the will are loosed, and the will returns to its holy, original state--desiring to serve God. So the will is now freed... why do Christians then sin? I would begin by restating the obvious--not all those who claim faith actually have it. But, more importantly, the remains of the flesh cast a sinful pall on the freed will (to any educated reader, it will be evident that I use Calvin as the source of my argument--say what you will about Calvinism, the man was as brilliant a biblical/theological scholar as any).

Of course, Lote, if you will continue to argue based on God's omniscience, I will reply to you in this way: of course it is nonsense to suppose that man acts independently of God's knowledge and decree. How can one defy the will of the Omnipotent? But, there is a difference between the declarative will of God, that which He actively pursues and desires, and the permissive will of God, that which He sees, may or may not approve of, but allows. God is not less than human, He is more, and humanity is complex (even in its terrible condition!) enough to allow something to happen when we have the power to stop it (bad grammar, sorry, I'm terrible with this kind of thing). Why then cannot God? Do not blame God for the shortcomings of mankind. Do not believe that God forces murders, suicides (stephofthenight), rape, theft, or anything else.

[quasimodo1]

would you say you are pro-John Calvin or against, belief system wise?

[Lote-Tree]

Hello weepingforloman,

I thought it was something I said that you went away :-(

But welcome back :-)

I shall study your post and give you a response.

Regards,
Lote

[weepingforloman]

would you say you are pro-John Calvin or against, belief system wise?

Is this addressed to me? If so, undeniably yes.

[weepingforloman]

Hello weepingforloman,

I thought it was something I said that you went away :-(

But welcome back :-)

I shall study your post and give you a response.

Regards,
Lote

Yep, been away for awhile, but I just missed the stimulating intellectual debate so much I couldn't stay away:D

Looking forward to speaking more with you.

[Lote-Tree]

Hello,



Yep, been away for awhile, but I just missed the stimulating intellectual debate so much I couldn't stay away:D

Looking forward to speaking more with you.


Bueno!

Lets recap.

I have stated that omnsicient God does not allow for Free Will.

And we have decided that Omniscient means All-knowing.

Now lets use an analogy.

I am a computer programmer.

Let's say I have a robot or perhaps an android.

I can program this android two ways:

I can Script into this android all the actions it will perform. Therefore, this android will not do anything that I don't know already. I will know exatly what lines it will speak. In this respect I am omniscient of the androids actions.

But there is a another way I can program. I can program it so that it learns from Experience. In this scenario I will have no idea what lines the android will speak. Thus I am no longer omniscient - although I know everything about the code I have written into the android.

What say you?

Regards,
Lote

[Redzeppelin]

Hello,

Bueno!
Lets recap.
I have stated that omnsicient God does not allow for Free Will.
And we have decided that Omniscient means All-knowing.
Now lets use an analogy.
I am a computer programmer.
Let's say I have a robot or perhaps an android.
I can program this android two ways:
I can Script into this android all the actions it will perform. Therefore, this android will not do anything that I don't know already. I will know exatly what lines it will speak. In this respect I am omniscient of the androids actions.

But there is a another way I can program. I can program it so that it learns from Experience. In this scenario I will have no idea what lines the android will speak. Thus I am no longer omniscient - although I know everything about the code I have written into the android.

What say you?

Regards,
Lote

I've already responded to this (and what I believe to be the inherent flaws of this analogy) so I'm curious as to how weeping will do so.

[JGL57]

Hello,





Bueno!

Lets recap.

I have stated that omnsicient God does not allow for Free Will.

And we have decided that Omniscient means All-knowing.

Now lets use an analogy.

I am a computer programmer.

Let's say I have a robot or perhaps an android.

I can program this android two ways:

I can Script into this android all the actions it will perform. Therefore, this android will not do anything that I don't know already. I will know exatly what lines it will speak. In this respect I am omniscient of the androids actions.

But there is a another way I can program. I can program it so that it learns from Experience. In this scenario I will have no idea what lines the android will speak. Thus I am no longer omniscient - although I know everything about the code I have written into the android.

What say you?

Regards,
Lote

I don't wish to interfere with your game here - I will merely interject that it is possible to think outside the box, e.g., the Non-dualism of Hinduism, i.e., there is no separate god and a god's creation imagined, but just Brahman. It seems to me their ontology solves your problem - i.e., that of free will - not to mention the theodicy question and, well, everything else, really. :)

[weepingforloman]

Hello,





Bueno!

Lets recap.

I have stated that omnsicient God does not allow for Free Will.

And we have decided that Omniscient means All-knowing.

Now lets use an analogy.

I am a computer programmer.

Let's say I have a robot or perhaps an android.

I can program this android two ways:

I can Script into this android all the actions it will perform. Therefore, this android will not do anything that I don't know already. I will know exatly what lines it will speak. In this respect I am omniscient of the androids actions.

But there is a another way I can program. I can program it so that it learns from Experience. In this scenario I will have no idea what lines the android will speak. Thus I am no longer omniscient - although I know everything about the code I have written into the android.

What say you?

Regards,
Lote

I would say that the analogy falls somewhat short. God is outside time (your average computer programmer is temporal), He sees all that is and will be (they are ultimately the same, time is illusory). God has in fact "programmed" us to learn from experience, but He knows what experiences will befall us. He knows what th eultimate result of His actions will be before He makes them, but those results are themselves the result of our own exercise of will (I don't say free will, but will is nevertheless exercised). While that means that He could in fact manipulate, so to speak, the substance that we are made of to fit a specific plan, He does not, because the making of choices is an integral part of what humanity is. Therefore, God is omniscient, yet we still exercise our will.

Grace and Peace.


I don't wish to interfere with your game here - I will merely interject that it is possible to think outside the box, e.g., the Non-dualism of Hinduism, i.e., there is no separate god and a god's creation imagined, but just Brahman. It seems to me their ontology solves your problem - i.e., that of free will - not to mention the theodicy question and, well, everything else, really. :)

Only problem there is that I don't believe in Brahman...

[Lote-Tree]

I don't wish to interfere with your game here - I will merely interject that it is possible to think outside the box, e.g., the Non-dualism of Hinduism, i.e., there is no separate god and a god's creation imagined, but just Brahman. It seems to me their ontology solves your problem - i.e., that of free will - not to mention the theodicy question and, well, everything else, really. :)

I have already suggested that. That is one of the option that resolves omniscience and free will paradox.

There is only one will and that is the will of God. There is only one reality and that is the reality of God. All that we see around us are expression of that one reality.

[weepingforloman]

I have already suggested that. That is one of the option that resolves omniscience and free will paradox.

There is only one will and that is the will of God. There is only one reality and that is the reality of God. All that we see around us are expression of that one reality.

That's true, mostly because there could be no world if it did not reflect the reality of God. Creation is an eternal statement, made by God, of God's character. Though every aspect of creation is fallen because of the Fall of Man, truth of God is still to be found in it. You, I, all life, all non-life, all spirits, and all else (if there is anything else) is a reflection in some way of God.

[Lote-Tree]

I would say that the analogy falls somewhat short. God is outside time (your average computer programmer is temporal),


Time is irrelevant here. The relevant bit is that the programmer would not know the outcome of the action after the android has made it and not before. If he knew before hand then the action becomes scripted - then he would have knowingly created that android with that action.

[Redzeppelin]

Time is irrelevant here. The relevant bit is that the programmer would not know the outcome of the action after the android has made it and not before. If he knew before hand then the action becomes scripted - then he would have knowingly created that android with that action.

What is relevant is God's omniscience - and not so much in terms of time (though I respect weeping's use of it) but in terms of quantity and quality: God knows us intimately and He is quite aware of all the factors that influence our choices and how the unique details of our psychology will process all these different factors.

In terms of omniscience, God "knows" the vast sweep of history - but individual choices do not exist to be known until they are made. That's how freewill and omniscience can exist. Read Richard Rice's The Openess of God to get a feel for this idea.

Either way, your analogy (still) doesn't work because the computer programmer cannot create real life that can be influenced by the myriad factors that our lives can be. The computer is a finite system - and so is our brain, but our brain is pretty complex and it doesn't always use the logic that a computer program is generally bound to in making its decisions.

[weepingforloman]

I still think that the key is time: God does not experience it, so the terms "before" and "after" become useless. All is Now to God. I suggest reading "Mere Christianity," it has an excellent section on the role of eternity.

[quasimodo1]

This limitation used to be referred to as "anthropromorphism".

[weepingforloman]

We anthropomorphize God because we cannot comprehend the divine. It is necessary to speak in terms we understand. We cannot fully understand God, so we speak with words we are used to using when describing people (God is, after all, personal).