Freedom/Foreknowledge and Ockham's way out

Hello Johnp:

I am not all that sure that I understand what you are saying. If you want to try to clarify, that might be helpful. If you believe what you are saying is as clear as it can be, then so be it. Either way, if I were to give up on free will (as you claim to have done), then the logical inconsistency disappears.

If you are saying that I act in accordance with my desire and go ahead and consume Captain Crunch, then I am with you (in the sense that I understand what you are saying) as long as we both understand that my desire is not turned into an eating action through the use of free will.

I think free will is a concept that we Christians can throw around rather cavalierly. I have a lot of sympathy for those who argue that it is a myth or an illusion. Ultimately I do not adopt this position but I can certainly see its appeal. Philosophers have struggled with free will for millenia. Even if one believes in an immaterial "soul", some non-physcial "seat" for free will, it is hard to see how this non-physical thing "pushes the physical buttons" that need to be pushed in order for free will to have any effect in the world.

At the end of the day, I think that our concept of free will is somehow flawed. And maybe we will never be able to make sense of the notion.

 

Does an Eternal being lack knowledge that must be gained?

Why would eternal God establish before the creation of the world, that His only begotten son manifested in the flesh must die to gain knowledge? He already knew!

He established His Son's death even before he created the first man because HE KNEW!

He created man KNOWING that man would sin.

He established that the penalty for sin is death.

He established from the Foundation of the world that His Son's death is necessary to man's salvation from spiritual death, the lake of fire, because of sin.

He knew from the foundation of the world that out of all them men who ever lived, that many would believe and many would not, so he established that He would save all men who have faith in him.

He knew that His Son's death would pay the penalty for sin, so that man through faith Could and Would be saved by himself, those who have faith in his son bypass judgement and enter into the presence of his Son.

HE KNEW!

 

Hello Andre.

I think the idea of God's foreknowledge having no effect on your free will is where I will stay. I do not believe that free will would be affected by God knowing your every step.

The confusion you see in my last post shows that I have not had this conversation fully yet. I am still trying to find the right words to descibe my beliefs. Bear with me.

First of all I would like to point out that giving up on free will is not a cop out. I have not given up on it because it causes too many problems but I believe in the Sovereignty of God. For another to choose anything makes them sovereign. Simple as that and without logical inconsistancies. That is a bonus not it's appeal.
The same goes for the time thing you mentioned. I believe God is in the time frame and cannot time travel nor do I believe He exists throughout all time at the same time. The past is gone and the future is still to be for Him as well as us. I do not see time as a constraint but as freedom. Perhaps it is also helpful to add that even if God can "escape" the timeline, I am stuck in it.

Surely if you satisfy desire you have free will? What do you think, that you can have a desire for the food, you can satisfy that desire but your will was not involved? Your will was free because you will have acheived your desire. Your will was not free in regards to all else. It takes notice of your desires and the consequences of your intented actions. It is not free from what you are. It is not free from your desires. Our will is bound to us and God's will is bound to Him.

All concepts of free will are flawed because there is no such thing.

Any better?

john.

 

Hello Johnp:

I know this may sound self-serving and pompous, but in the interests of ferreting out counterargument, I am going to boldly assert that I have provided a slam-dunk logical case to the effect that God's foreknowledge is inconsistent with my personal freedom (as these terms are normally understood). No one has actually yet pointed out the flaw in my argument (I don't think). I understand the appeal of "God can know the future without causing it". It seems people are unwilling to work through the implications of such a position. Am I being too hard on you all? (By the way, I am "boasting" about the strength of my case to serve as an incentive for someone to attack it - I really am not "married" to my position. But I just do not see the flaw in it).

I understand your point about sovereignty and never believed that you rejected free will to avoid a logical inconsistency.

About having "desire" for Captain Crunch: I think that a being could have desire without free will. We all desire water if we are dehydrated - we cannot "turn off" that desire, we have no freedom to choose not to be thirsty.

In summary, I have no "objections" to your denial of the reality of free will except for a powerful intuiton to the contrary. And that is not something we can really debate, is it?

 

Hello Andre.

If the future is fixed for us because of God's foreknowledge it must be just as fixed for God because of the same foreknowledge no? Does His foreknowledge force Him to do the things He foreknows?

Yes we can. Might be that you do not mean 'intuition' because that is extremely unscriptural. Is this your flaw? Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Scripture alone must determine our beliefs. Remember that our intuition is part of our fallen nature we cannot trust it in spiritual matters. Maybe you mean that it is an understanding you have drawn from scripture?

john.

 

The fact that God knew, is no reason to keep His created man from experiencing unto knowledge!

Why did God even begin this little creation experiment anyway?

 

That's all I've been saying! There is no reason to speculate even once about God's omniscience, omnipotence, etc., He is ETERNAL needing no knowledge of or from us! It is we who need to know!

 

This is the double edged sword upon which CAlvinism so gleefully falls when it tries to use that logic to insist that man can not possibly have "choice", can not possibly have "free will", can not possibly have ANY OTHER OPTIONs!!

That argument applies equally to God Himself and is in fact an "argument from the void" of what Cavlinism does NOT know about "being God".

It claims that since IT can not "figure out how God does it" then GOD CAN NOT FIGURE IT OUT EITHER!!

How can God KNOW what He will do AND YET STILL have options, choice, free will?? Calvinism does not know - but it freely uses that SAME principle to insist that MAN can not have options or choice due to the SAME fact of foreknowledge.

The "problem" is OBVIOUS - Calvinists are not God and they don't seem to be very good and temping for Him when it comes to "figuring out" how God can choose BOTH free will AND foreknowledge.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hey Bob,

Listen to these Calvinists:

What do you suppose they meant by "either necessarily, freely, or contingently"?

Now listen to these Calvinists:

Now ask yourself why it makes sense for you to say that Calvinists "insist that man can not possibly have 'choice', can not possibly have 'free will', can not possibly have ANY OTHER OPTIONs!!". That statement has been proven false. Will you continue to assert falsehoods?

 

Hi Andre,

I don't mean to sound pompous either, but I missed your slam-dunk logical case. Could you restate it, or point me to it?

What about "God can cause the future without destroying the freedom and responsibility of His creatures"? That's what my forefathers taught, and what I believe the Bible teaches as well.

The biggest problem I have with what I've read so far is that the Bible asserts God's completely accurate foreknowledge of all events; but it never, to my knowledge, speaks of any man's actions as anything other than a choice to obey or to disobey.

 

Whatever, you quote Calvinists as saying

"God from eternity, decrees or permits all things that come to pass, and perpetually upholds, directs and governs all creatures and all events; yet so as not to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures"

Regardless of all the arguing that Calvinists to do try to show otherwise, the fact remains, and yet to be disproven, that your quote above does make God the author of sin. Unless Calvinists are going to re-define the English or even Greek language, we cannot ignore the meaning of the term "decree". I like to be accurate in what I believe and teach, and my English dictionary by Oxford, informs me on the meaning of "decree", "to command by decree; to order, appoint, or asign authoritatively, ordain. To ordain by Divine appointment or by fate. To decide, determine". All of which tells us that the person who decrees something, does do, with the authority that to those the decree is made, is not given an option. It is out of their control to refuse or reject. If God id said to "decree", or, "preordain" all events that come to pass, and by this we must include sinful actions. Then, there is NO way out of this, that God does "cause" us to sin against Him. I have seen the "solutions" that some Calvinists propose, but they will simply not solve the problem, since the very language they use, must determine what they believe. It must be remembered, that when God "decrees" something, it cannot be taken in the same way in which an earthly ruler does so, where his subjects can ignore what is "decreed". With God, He ensures that His decrees are carried out.

We must come back to the fall of man and sin. If God is said to have "decreed" this from eternity past, as Calvinism does teach, then there is no doubt in the honest mind, that God is directly responsible for Adam and Eve disobeying Him, and the entrance of sin into the world. In which case it would be unjust for Him to punish is for actually putting into practice, those things that He has so decreed that we do. I will continue to beat this drum, as there is no doubt in my mind, and those who are honest with the facts, that this aspect of Calvinism has no foundation in the Word of God, and has to be rejected as being heretical.

I expact you or some other Calvinist to answer my objections here, honestly and clearly. The facts are there, and need to be addressed from Scripture.

 

Hello Bob.

This is the double edged sword upon which CAlvinism so gleefully falls...
What are you saying? I was using Andre's argument and asking if the conclusion is the same for God. I was not saying this is what I believe but it is what an anti-Calvinist believes.

That is a false statement because Calvinists use explicit scripture, " the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Romans 8:7." To prove their beliefs where's yours? "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

How does God choose foreknowledge?

john.

 

Hello whatever.

If I can answer for Andre then he can let me know where I have misunderstood him.
To me it says that in order to preserve the correctness of God's foreknowledge my life path must inevitably lead to my choice of Captain Crunch. It is simply not possible for me to choose Corn Flakes tomorrow morning. This and other choices have been ruled out. After all, what does it mean for me to have freedom of choice? Among other things, it almost certainly means that at 730 am tomorrow morning, I should have the freedom to choose Corn Flakes. But this option has been taken away from me. So I really do not have free will. (Page 3 posted 18 May, 2005 05:11)

Truthmakers have no will to choose any other option but what their will prompts them to do which must prove God's foreknowledge correct.

How's that Andre?

The issue of sovereignty rises here. EX 4:21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. This is no simple disobedience but the direct control of a man by God designed to show us that our will is in the hands of God alone to do with as He pleases. To sin or not is in the hands of God.

john.

 

Hello icthus.

You connect free will with responsibilty. These two things are not joined. Free will does not exist. I believe we are responsible regardless of reason that says we are not if we have no free will. God says we are. RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

The paragraph of yours beginning 'Regardless':
You speak about the statement above. yet so as not to destroy the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures... This statement that is made is false. They wanted to keep God's hands free of any stain, as if, that reason says comes from causing a man to sin. I do not see this. I see God as One who does as He pleases.

You have stated my belief on this subject very fully. God must be the Author of sin. His decrees are followed without deviation by us whether we are saved or not. Whether we sin or not. Whatever we do we do because God has decreed it. God is Sovereign. Praise the Lord!

That's man's wisdom not scripture. Scripture faces it head on, RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

Heresy is an ambiguous word as is free will. With God, He ensures that His decrees are carried out. Ask Pharaoh.

john.

 

Originally posted by johnp.:

If the future is fixed for us because of God's foreknowledge it must be just as fixed for God because of the same foreknowledge no? Does His foreknowledge force Him to do the things He foreknows?

I would agree with your logic.

Originally posted by johnp.:

Might be that you do not mean 'intuition' because that is extremely unscriptural. Is this your flaw? Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Scripture alone must determine our beliefs. Remember that our intuition is part of our fallen nature we cannot trust it in spiritual matters. Maybe you mean that it is an understanding you have drawn from scripture?

I would not be as inclined as you are to dismiss intuition. I do not agree with your "Scripture alone must determine our beliefs" claim. I do not want to be the one to initiate a "sub-debate" about this but will gladly explain my position to any who are interested. Note that this does not mean that I am not willing to reconsider my intuition that free will exists. In fact, as I debate this topic, I find my confidence in the validity of this intuition seems to be waning.

In response to whatever (interesting name), I would refer you to my posts in this thread as follows:

15 May 22:06 (10:06 PM)
16 May 13:19 (1:19 PM)

Originally posted by whatever.:

What about "God can cause the future without destroying the freedom and responsibility of His creatures"? That's what my forefathers taught, and what I believe the Bible teaches as well.

I have tried to argue, using principles of "common sense logic", that this position simply does not work. It sounds OK but when you perform a "worked example", inconsistency results.

Some "general" comments: I think that we may need to be more careful in unravelling the concept of free will. There is a common sense understanding of this term, but perhaps there is a more precise, meaningful way to understand free will that somehow gets rid of the problem. I kind of doubt this, though. Haven't better minds than ours unsuccessfully grappled with this problem for centuries?

I find this topic to be very interesting and am willing to try to make my case that foreknowledge is inconsistent with free will even more "carefully". Who knows, in so doing, I may "talk myself out" out of my position. But I won't do this unless someone is really interested (I don't want to presume that there is interest in this).

 

Oh and by the way, I would say that Johnp succeeded in his effort at characterizing my position. Thanks.....