2 Peter 3:9

[fastfredy0]

Free Will - the ability to make choices independent of God

I wonder if God could create such a thing as Free Will. It would require giving someone a will and God would not know the outcome which contradicts an all knowing God.

 

[Arial]

Free Will - the ability to make choices independent of God

I wonder if God could create such a thing as Free Will. It would require giving someone a will and God would not know the outcome which contradicts an all knowing God.

"Free will" unless how it is being defined is given, is a contradiction in terms. It is always a contradiction in terms, but I doubt we will ever get people to stop using it, so the next best thing is to insist they define exactly what they mean by it.

 

[Papa Smurf]

Free Will - the ability to make choices independent of God

I wonder if God could create such a thing as Free Will. It would require giving someone a will and God would not know the outcome which contradicts an all knowing God

Hey FastFredy, I hear that definition of free will regularly (out here in Christian Cyberland anyway), that for our wills to truly be "free", God cannot "know" the choices that we are making ahead of time, and/or the eventual outcome of those choices.

I always wondered why that is true, so (lucky you ) I thought that I'd take this opportunity to ask. So (assuming that this idea is true for now), how does God's "knowledge" (of the choices that I'll make, or of the outcome of those choices) affect the freedom of my choices (unless He chooses to act upon that knowledge, of course).

IOW, what am I missing here

Thanks

God bless you!!

--Papa Smurf

 

[makesends]

Free Will - the ability to make choices independent of God

I wonder if God could create such a thing as Free Will. It would require giving someone a will and God would not know the outcome which contradicts an all knowing God.

It is logically more ridiculous than that. 1. It is self-contradictory to cause something to happen uncaused. 2. It is also self-contradictory for there to be more than one first cause. And for those who claim that libertarian free-will does not claim anyone but God is first cause, then, 3. It is also self-contradictory for anything to happen by chance.

 

[fastfredy0]

It is logically more ridiculous than that. 1. It is self-contradictory to cause something to happen uncaused. 2. It is also self-contradictory for there to be more than one first cause. And for those who claim that libertarian free-will does not claim anyone but God is first cause, then, 3. It is also self-contradictory for anything to happen by chance.

Agreed ... I didn't want to go into other reasons to invalidate "free will". Your argument is based on the Law of Causality (every effect has a cause).

 

[makesends]

Agreed ... I didn't want to go into other reasons to invalidate "free will". Your argument is based on the Law of Causality (every effect has a cause).

Yes, but, the Bible is eminently logical. It posits all three of those points in one way or another.

I guess what I meant is that logically, it is not only an outrage and heretical in its implications, but that it is also logically ludicrous, which means that even logically it is outrageous and heretical in its implications!

 

[fastfredy0]

Hey FastFredy, I hear that definition of free will regularly (out here in Christian Cyberland anyway), that for our wills to truly be "free", God cannot "know" the choices that we are making ahead of time, and/or the eventual outcome of those choices.

If God was not all-knowing, that that definition of Free Will would be possible IMO.

Aside: Two beliefs have been singled out as hallmarks of open theism branch of Arminianism: divine temporality and the denial of exhaustive definite foreknowledge.

I always wondered why that is true, so (lucky you ) I thought that I'd take this opportunity to ask. So (assuming that this idea is true for now),

Well, I do not believe the statement that God does not know what all future events will be, is true. If God did not know all future events, then accurate prophecy would be difficult to impossible if God got specific.

So (assuming that this idea is true for now), how does God's "knowledge" (of the choices that I'll make, or of the outcome of those choices) affect the freedom of my choices (unless He chooses to act upon that knowledge, of course).

The question is getting a little 'wordy' for me so not sure I will have an answer to what you meant by the question but ...
God's "knowledge of one's chooses", in and of itself, does not affect the freedom of one's choices. It is the reason why God has "knowledge of one's chooses" that we know that "free will" is not possible. God's "knowledge of one's chooses" is sourced in His decision to cause all events to occur in His creation. It is also the reason God knows all things; because He determines all things.

 

[fastfredy0]

It posits all three of those points in one way or another.

I agree that all 3 points are true. I can't say scripture clearly validates the three points such that it would be clear to a child.

 

[fastfredy0]

My favorite syllogism to prove God determines all things and therefore Free Will is false is:
(where Free Will is defined as making choices that are not determined by God)

Premise 1: God is eternal, immutable and knows all things without exception (put in the "without exception" given
@Carbon recent thread on the word ALL )
Premise 2: From nothing nothing comes
Conclusion: The only way God can know all things eternally given He existed before creation is if He determined all things. If God determines all things then "free will" is invalidated.

Aside: I always dislike saying "before creation" as "before" suggests time and before creation time did not exist so using the word "before" seem inappropriate.

 

[Arial]

Yep. And when it comes right down to it. Calvinism goes so much further than the acronym T U L I P.
TULIP is just a briefing

So true. It is also prone to an automatic resistance for someone coming from the pov of Arminianism. Something like this:

"Total depravity can't be true because not everyone is depraved and people do good things as well as bad things."​

"Unconditional election can't be true because that makes God unfair and unjust.
"Limited atonement can't be true because the Bibe says he took away the sin of the world."​

"Irresistible grace can't be true because the Bible says people resist the Holy Spirit."​

"Perseverance of the saints can't be true because the Bible says in Heb 6 that people can lose their salvation."​

​

Why this reaction? My two cents: If one has always been taught Scripture from the pov of Arminianism there is a lack of consistent, systematic, exegetical, Bible driven and God (who he is driven), doctrinal teaching from the Scripture. By God driven I mean all doctrine must ultimately flow out of who God says he is because every word in the Bible is God speaking and revealing.

So, a view of Calvinism that comes from only knowing the acronym is a view that does not know what Calvinism is---it is a reactionary view. What is inside, the makeup, of what became reduced to TULIP is Calvinism. And even then, it is only a small part of Calvinism. Inside Calvinism/Reformed theology is the entire Protestant Christian faith---most of which, generalized, even Arminianists believe.

​

 

[Arial]

In fact, even those who suppose themselves to be teaching through the text —i.e., not topical preaching, but expository. I've watched them go the whole way through Romans and suppose they have given it a thorough go.

I have been in many Bible studies where they are going through the book of John, a book that is filled with the sovereignty of God in election and the order of salvation and miss every bit of it.