Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Christianity allow for free will?
physicspete
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 45 (68540)
11-22-2003 1:00 PM


The bible claims that humans have free will. It is also the opinion of many that as God is good, the root of evil lies in the free will of humans. How is this compatible with an omniscient God? For devine foreknowledge suggests that there is only one possible path in life to take, and the standard definition of free will contradicts this.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminAsgara, posted 11-22-2003 1:15 PM physicspete has not replied
 Message 4 by :æ:, posted 12-03-2003 2:18 PM physicspete has not replied
 Message 6 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-03-2003 3:37 PM physicspete has not replied
 Message 22 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 01-14-2004 8:53 PM physicspete has replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 45 (68542)
11-22-2003 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by physicspete
11-22-2003 1:00 PM


Welcome to EvC physicspete,
You may be interested in going over to Does the Christian God Play With Freewill thread or maybe starting a new thread in the Faith and Belief forum.
------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by physicspete, posted 11-22-2003 1:00 PM physicspete has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-03-2003 2:08 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 45 (70797)
12-03-2003 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminAsgara
11-22-2003 1:15 PM


Off topic question: Is there any way I can start a response in my reply field, save it somehow in the reply field mode, so that I can come back to it at intervals until its complete and ready to be submitted? If so, please enlighten me as to how. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminAsgara, posted 11-22-2003 1:15 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-03-2003 2:20 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 4 of 45 (70798)
12-03-2003 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by physicspete
11-22-2003 1:00 PM


physicspete writes:
It is also the opinion of many that as God is good, the root of evil lies in the free will of humans.
IMHO, this proposition carries greater implications that many realize. From this we must conclude that there exists no free will in heaven if free will is what causes evil and heaven is supposed to be "evil-free." Additionally, if we were to presume that free will can exist in heaven, then we can conclude that God is capable of creating an environment in which free will can exist without evil. If he is so capable yet an environment exists in which free will exists with evil, then we must conclude that God wanted evil there and in fact put it there, and the claim that free will is the cause of evil is thus negated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by physicspete, posted 11-22-2003 1:00 PM physicspete has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Prozacman, posted 01-03-2004 1:22 PM :æ: has not replied
 Message 11 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 1:46 PM :æ: has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 5 of 45 (70799)
12-03-2003 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Martin J. Koszegi
12-03-2003 2:08 PM


I think you can leave your reply field open as its own window or tab, and do things elsewhere with your browser. I do this, when I'm consulting other pages. The risk is, something may go wrong, and you may loose your message in progress. I know I've accidently close a message in progress, and had to start over.
The safest, surest way, is to compose your message in a word processor, and then copy/paste to the forum.
AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-03-2003 2:08 PM Martin J. Koszegi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-03-2003 6:13 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 45 (70825)
12-03-2003 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by physicspete
11-22-2003 1:00 PM


I am a Christian and I used to believe in full blown free will. But you're right about something--the Bible, while teaching at times from the perspective of free will, does have a lot to say about that predestined (and therefore unchangeable) way of viewing reality. Here's how I see it now:
Before God created anything, he had a "theoretical" knowledge of all future events that would result from his creation. This is called a "theoretical" knowledge, not to imply anything less than perfection of vision as far as accuracy of foreknowledge is concerned, but only because the "physics" of the knowledge was not yet carried out, i.e., the events that would spring forth from his creation-to-come were not actually "real" yet, not yet tangible. With this flawlessly accurate "theoretical" knowledge of how all events of the creation-to-come would unfold (which had, incorporated within it, a genuine capacity for what we call "free will," "chance," "the laws of physics," etc., to manifest), God made a mechanism called "creation" that would inexorably align with that established, primordial, intangible, "theory" of his. Thus, responding like the lockstep mechanism of a precision clock--and ranging universally from every particle of dust that seems to follow its own whimsy of movement as it blows through the air, to every movement and saying of all people (etc.)--the events of God's absolutely unalterable creative mechanism proceed, events that might be referred to as "ticks" of his clock. It should be reemphasized, though, that this truly unalterable plane of creation that we live in is a perfect reflection of God's theoretical knowledge of how things-to-come would be (based on the theoretical incorporation of genuine free will, chance, the laws of physics, etc., into the system).
Do you the reader, then, have a choice, for example, about whether or not you shall continue to read this information? If the answer to that question proceeds strictly from the theoretical perspective (upon which the mechanism of creation was built), then the answer would be "Yes," you do have a choice, i.e., the fact is based on
God's perfectly accurate pre-creation foreknowledge about how that "free will incident" (whether or not to continue reading) would unfold, a mode that is presented in the Bible at times. But if the answer to the question proceeded strictly from the tangible perspective (acknowledging the brute fact of God's unalterable mechanism of creation that he built based upon said forenowledge), then there is no "free will" whatsoever, i.e., we are experiencing an illusion of free will that harkens back to God's primordial, theoretical foreknowledge with which he pre-engineered all creation "ticks." To continue with the example about reading, we were known either to have proceeded reading or to have stopped reading, and the "decision" is not ours in this plane of existence--it has already been decreed, fixed, incorporated into the pre-programmed mechanism of God's creation--this creation, the one we are living in now, the only tangible creation that ever existed.
It is being proposed, then, that when God declares his hatred for some people (as for Esau, the false prophet/Deuteronomy 21:15, Romans 9:13, etc./Revelation 20:10 for example) in the scriptures, God is speaking from the tangible perspective, within which, it is revealed by God that the individual in question will not and indeed cannot ever come into agreement, consummated acceptance, with God's plan of redemption, and in fact is destined for eternal torment in hell as a rebel against God. In the primordial theoretical realm, though, God (in his foreknowledge of the world's need of a Savior) made a theoretical provision for all people, as in "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son . . ." (John 3:16a). In this tangible realm, though, this provision can be ultimately, rightly spoken of as being reserved only for the elect, for those whom God knew would come to him in light of the nature of his universal design. Acts 13:48 addresses "those ordained to eternal life." By definition, ordained things will come to pass no matter what--ordained things transcend all other criteria such as "free will," "chance," "the laws of physics," etc. And as indicated, all other aspects of the universe that envelop the ordained, exist as an interconnected framework through time that preserves the integrity of all things (i.e., from the tangible perspective--the "here and now" reality--literally everything is unchangeable in the preprogrammed nature of God's design, and so deserving emphasis). From the point of view of only this tangible perspective of God, then, the destiny for those to be doomed and those to be saved is unalterable and completely alien to this present world's concept of "free will": a phenomenon that literally never existed independently in this tangible realm. Thus, there is a set number of individuals who are ordained to eternal life, and there is a set, unalterable number of those who will be lost. To revert to the theoretical perspective, though, God did not preordain such eternal judgment upon individuals apart from his infallible foreknowledge (that made allowance for his creation's "free will") of what they would do within God's plane of creation-to-come.
The "free will" element of the theoretical realm is where inspiration for this tangible world's incidences of sadistic and atrocious behaviors, for example, come from (i.e., God did not, apart from his foreknowledge of how certain evil individuals would behave, ordain future atrocities). Conversely, it is within the tangible perspective that God can rightly inform us that we did not determine for ourselves that we would submit to God's plan. There was no human free will operating in this plane that determined our destiny to be saved. God created an unalterable mechanism that favored us to the point of salvation, and he can also be understood to have "passed over" those who are literally incapable of coming to God in genuine, submissive reverence regarding the rebirth requirement specifically, i.e., the specific moment of repentance and acceptation of Christ which results from the individual's direct request of God for salvation in Jesus' name. Of course, from our human perspective, we never know who will be "the next one" to experience the Holy Spirit's influence that will cause the individual to consummate an actual Christian rebirth. What might seem to be "a most hopeless case" (for whatever reasons: overt evil behavior, a piously sincere misdirection in hope regarding the only thing that actually saves the soul, i.e., religiosity, for instance, etc.), could become the next convert.
Is this information about God's totally preprogrammed creation to be taken as though Christians need not spread the gospel or engage in other good and required works? Of course not; quite the contrary, there's nothing capable of stopping those who are ordained to eternal life and to the no-less-destined post-salvation service of God in this life and in the life to come.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by physicspete, posted 11-22-2003 1:00 PM physicspete has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 2:05 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied
 Message 15 by Amlodhi, posted 01-05-2004 3:08 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

Martin J. Koszegi
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 45 (70866)
12-03-2003 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Adminnemooseus
12-03-2003 2:20 PM


Simple, excellant suggestion--I'll do it. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-03-2003 2:20 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Abshalom, posted 12-03-2003 6:27 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 45 (70870)
12-03-2003 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Martin J. Koszegi
12-03-2003 6:13 PM


Creation of Evil
Strictly from the "Creationist" point of view, "evil" was created before man. In Genesis, Chapter One, Verses 6 through 8, notice that in the "separation of the waters above from the waters below" something about it was not deemed 'good.'
It is thought by some biblical scholars that in order to open a space within "all that exists" to "create heaven" required an effort and an "equal and opposite reaction that expelled or propelled evil into another location; witnessed by the fact that only on the "second day" there is no mention of the Creator having "seen that it was good."
So, if "evil" was created on the "second day," then it existed before the "free will" of man, which could only have existed beginning on the "sixth day."
[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-03-2003 6:13 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 02-11-2004 10:21 AM Abshalom has replied
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 02-11-2004 11:05 PM Abshalom has replied

Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 45 (76381)
01-03-2004 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by :æ:
12-03-2003 2:18 PM


"...then we must conclude that God wanted evil there and in fact put it there...". A couple verses in Genesis appear to back this up as you may know. Gen. 3:5;"...you will be like God knowing good and evil.", and Gen. 3:22;"Then the Lord God said, 'See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good & evil". This may appear to support the possibility that 'free-will' is not the cause of evil. It also makes for the possibility that the serpent was a 'tool' in the hands of God. What do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by :æ:, posted 12-03-2003 2:18 PM :æ: has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taqless, posted 01-15-2004 1:12 PM Prozacman has replied

Stormdancer
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 45 (76623)
01-05-2004 12:31 PM


Isaiah 45
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD , do all these things.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Prozacman, posted 01-05-2004 2:17 PM Stormdancer has not replied

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 45 (76642)
01-05-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by :æ:
12-03-2003 2:18 PM


Good, better, best. ...
:ae:
You argue, in response to the idea that free will creates evil:
IMHO, this proposition carries greater implications that many realize. From this we must conclude that there exists no free will in heaven if free will is what causes evil and heaven is supposed to be "evil-free." Additionally, if we were to presume that free will can exist in heaven, then we can conclude that God is capable of creating an environment in which free will can exist without evil. If he is so capable yet an environment exists in which free will exists with evil, then we must conclude that God wanted evil there and in fact put it there, and the claim that free will is the cause of evil is thus negated.
Perhaps then we should restate the premise as, "Free will, as a part of a system for testing hearts, might include the opportunity to choose to create evil." Then, evil is the fault of those who chose to have that power, and was birthed out of their God-given free will with His permission. He, of course, knew what might happen when He gave such power, hoped (we suppose) that it wouldn't, but the choice to have or use such power does reveal a lot about what is in someone's heart, and so was consistent with His good will.
Meanwhile, free will probably does exist without evil, in heaven. To get to heaven, you have to hate evil, and pray "lead me not into temptation." That is, "don't give me the choice between evil and good." The only choices one chooses to have, are choices of good, better, or best, to sow abundantly or sparingly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by :æ:, posted 12-03-2003 2:18 PM :æ: has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by :æ:, posted 01-05-2004 2:13 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 45 (76646)
01-05-2004 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Martin J. Koszegi
12-03-2003 3:37 PM


The best laid plans ....
Mr. Koszegi,
When I go on a trip, the fact that my goal was "predestined" doesn't always mean that I get there. Free will, to my understanding, has to mean that, while God knows all possible outcomes of some choices He gives me, He doesn't know what I will choose and so does not know which of the possible variants of the future my choices determine will in fact occur. My free will, of course, is limited to choices that do not determine or significantly affect certain things that Jehovah has already determined will happen. We get to whereever He had determined. But, the route is influenced by my choices, in ways He cannot and doesn't want to predict with certainty. And, He does allow me to change His mind about many things He has "predestined." If I were to ask Him about a "strong-willed" child of mine, and were to hear Him say, "I hate this child, I have predestined this child to Hell." I would immediately ask whether the promise of Yeshua, about abiding in Him, His word abiding in me, gave me the right to ask Him to change His mind about my child. Probably, I would hear that it did, if I was willing to so beat the child according to instructions in Proverbs, to "save their soul from Hell." Or, perhaps, to bring to bear the promise that "the chastening we need for our well being was borne by Him", fasting and praying so that the child would be saved through the beating Yeshua took. Since Jehovah clearly states that He wants all saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth, it's never impossible to change His mind about those He hates. Just hard. "The salvation of a soul is costly." If I will sow abundantly enough, aren't all things possible?
So, free will trumps predestination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-03-2003 3:37 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

:æ: 
Suspended Member (Idle past 7185 days)
Posts: 423
Joined: 07-23-2003


Message 13 of 45 (76647)
01-05-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-05-2004 1:46 PM


Re: Good, better, best. ...
Stephen ben Yeshua writes:
Then, evil is the fault of those who chose to have that power, and was birthed out of their God-given free will with His permission. He, of course, knew what might happen when He gave such power, hoped (we suppose) that it wouldn't, but the choice to have or use such power does reveal a lot about what is in someone's heart, and so was consistent with His good will.
There's a problem here. In the typical Christian conceptualization of God, His foreknowledge is exhaustive and infallible. If that is the case, then your statement "He ... knew what might happen" is actually false. With infallible foreknowledge, He must've known what would necessarily follow his decision to create humans. In fact, its meaningless to speak of free will at all if God's knowledge is thus. All events are necessarily consistent with God's foreknowledge at the instant of creation and God is therefore culpable for all outcomes.
EDIT: Given this statement from you in your response to Martin:
Free will, to my understanding, has to mean that, while God knows all possible outcomes of some choices He gives me, He doesn't know what I will choose and so does not know which of the possible variants of the future my choices determine will in fact occur.
...it seems your God-concept is more consistent with the existence of free will than the god-concept against which I am arguing. It is only infallible and exhaustive foreknowledge of all single outcomes that negates free will. The probablistic scenario you've described is something different since God within it (as I understand it) God can be partially wrong.
[This message has been edited by ::, 01-05-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-05-2004 1:46 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-08-2004 1:18 AM :æ: has not replied
 Message 19 by JustinC, posted 01-14-2004 2:51 AM :æ: has replied

Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 45 (76648)
01-05-2004 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Stormdancer
01-05-2004 12:31 PM


As I thought, the ancient Hebrew God is both good & evil, and believers in the idea that He was good only will selectively read the Bible. By that, I mean they will consistently ignore or twist verses like Isaiah 45.7. to soften the fact that this God does some nasty stuff now & then.
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 01-05-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Stormdancer, posted 01-05-2004 12:31 PM Stormdancer has not replied

Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 45 (76662)
01-05-2004 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Martin J. Koszegi
12-03-2003 3:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Martin J. Koszegi
It is being proposed, then, that when God declares his hatred for some people (as for Esau, the false prophet/Deuteronomy 21:15, Romans 9:13, etc./Revelation 20:10 for example) in the scriptures, God is speaking from the tangible perspective, within which, it is revealed by God that the individual in question will not and indeed cannot ever come into agreement, consummated acceptance, with God's plan of redemption, and in fact is destined for eternal torment in hell as a rebel against God. In the primordial theoretical realm, though, God (in his foreknowledge of the world's need of a Savior) made a theoretical provision for all people, as in "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son . . ." (John 3:16a). In this tangible realm, though, this provision can be ultimately, rightly spoken of as being reserved only for the elect, for those whom God knew would come to him in light of the nature of his universal design.(emphasis mine)
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that all you are saying in your post is that God (as Omnipotent Calculator) is capable of crunching (perfectly) all the variables which will inevitably result in a given person's experiences and how said person will react to those experiences. This overlooks the fact that it is precisely these inevitable experiences that govern a person's reactions to later experiences.
Thus, for a bushman born 200 yrs. ago in unexplored central Africa, the inevitable unfolding of his experiences (set in motion by God) would inevitably cause him to react to those experiences by believing that "JuJuWhatever" was God in precisely the way his tribal elders did.
This is further exemplified in the demographic distribution of Christians in relation to the world population. The highest population densities of Christians are in areas that supply earlier experiential support for their theology.
We are, then, left with the choice:
1)Are those who don't profess a belief in Christian theology simply unfortunate in being born into a non-conducive set of experiential circumstances?
2)Or, did God (in his omniscience)arrange these inevitable circumstances such that congenital non-believers would be (a priori) sorted into those demographic areas which provide little or no early experiential support for Christian theology?
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Martin J. Koszegi, posted 12-03-2003 3:37 PM Martin J. Koszegi has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024