posted
So I was having this debate at work today and I couldn't help but get frustrated.
My coworker suggested that God knows everything you are going to do before you do it, to which I responded "Doesn't that negate free will?" He said it didn't, but I argued that the two cannot co-exist.
Can somebody settle this? I'm really trying to understand where he's coming from, but I just don't see how both of them can actually exist. Logic, as it were, doesn't allow me to accept it.
For the biblical scholars in our ranks, here are some other questions that I would like an answer to:
The Word - It says "The Word was with God". What does this mean? I've heard it to mean that it is referring to Christ, but my coworker insisted that it referred to the Bible. That doesn't make much sense to me, seeing as how the Bible didn't even exist until about 300 AD and was compiled by a group of human beings.
Evenly Yoked - I suggested that two people of different faiths (a Catholic and a Protestant) could marry and be just fine. My coworker insisted that the bible taught against this. He said it was in the Old Testament, but I don't know if you can even take that as valid anymore, given that most of the old laws were done away with. Even if it still holds, does this mean that even if you're both still Christian, you can't be together because you're different denominations? For that matter, what if you're a different religion? Does this mean a Jew can't marry a Christian?
What do you guys think defines a Christian? Does it require you to believe in all these little things, or do you think it's as simple as believing in Christ, God, and being a good person?
I'm interested to see what your thoughts are on these things. Please leave a response, too. I could really use some help with these questions. If you have verses or whatever, feel free to cite them.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeff, For the knowledge versus free will, I see it as a function of time. If God is not limited by time, then (in a way over simplified way) everything has already happened for him. So, similarly to how, just because we can look back at actions that people took in the past doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't freely choose those actions, God knowing what, from his perspective, you have already done doesn't mean that it wasn't your freely chosen action.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow... one could write volumes on each of the 4 questions you posed and still not have fully explored all of the issues associated with them. :-)
1) Theologians like to put religious beliefs into categories and give them neat labels. It really helps when starting theological arguments like the old Calvinist vs. Arminian "free will vs. predestination" question you mention.
I tend to agree in principle with MrSquicky's reply, but the larger principle is that it is impossible for us to fully understand the nature of God (at least, in our present form on Earth). We can attempt to describe it in terms that make sense to us, such as God existing in another dimension or "outside of time," but the bottom line is that many aspects of God's nature and his kingdom that would seem contradictory to our limited understanding would not be contradictory at all if we fully understood his nature.
2) Many people believe "the Word" in John 1:1 refers to Jesus Christ. This is because the Greek term used in the text of this scripture is the word "logos," and this term is used in the book of 1 John to refer specifically to Jesus (1 John 1:1-2 and 1 John 5:7). John 1:14 also uses the same "logos" term when it says "...the Word was made flesh... as the only begotten of the Father," which is terminology reserved only for Jesus, as well.
(On a side note, a free program called e-Sword is very helpful when you want to look up root words from the English translations and see where those words occur in other locations in scripture. I've used e-Sword for years and really like it.)
3) This is a loaded question, because arguments against being "unequally yoked" are almost always rooted in old prejudices and hatred. That phrase has been used to justify discrimination against virtually every cultural group that has been discriminated against in the Western world.
The Old Testament actually is chock-full of warnings from God to the Israelites not to marry into the native tribes unless those tribes converted to Judaism, because otherwise the Israelites might be led astray. And, that same concept is what's being communicated in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 (Note: New Testament, not just Old), which says (My note in [brackets]):
quote:Do not be bound together ["unequally yoked" is another translation] with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,
“I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty.
As I said, this scripture is used as a justification for hatred and discrimination all the time, even in the present-day world, and I don't believe such action is condoned by this scripture. I believe it's a warning for Christians not to marry someone who is not a Christian... period, end of story. Now, is a Catholic person "not a Christian" if you're a Protestant person? Well, again, we're venturing into areas that are easily molded into ignorance and hatred. I'd say there's no easy answer to that question, as it's a very personal and individual issue if someone who is, say, raised Episcopalian wants to marry someone who is a confirmed Catholic. If they don't feel their faith is being compromised by marrying one another, then who am I to judge them?
The lines on that issue are much clearer for a Christian who wants to marry, say, a Muslim or a Buddhist, but I still see no justification for discrimination against either religious groups just because Christians are warned against marrying them.
4) Only God is fit to judge a person's soul, so only God can judge whether or not a person is a "believer" or has been saved/sanctified/absolved/redeemed/whatever term you like to use to mean "get into Heaven."
The New Testament does spend quite a bit of time talking about what the "fruits of the spirit" look like and how faith without corresponding actions reflecting that faith is useless/dead, but those are merely signs, not conclusive evidence. (In fact, Jesus himself says in Matthew 7 that not everyone who does works in his name are really followers of his.) We are not the judge of a person's soul.
The term "Christian" was created by men, so its definition is not as important to me. It can too easily be used to exclude, disparage, and demean people culturally, so I avoid using it as much as possible.
Posts: 124 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: Being a Mormon my responses are heavily influenced by Mormon thought. I don't intend to hijack this into another Mormon discussion since this it appears his coworker is coming from an evangelist background. However, I don't have any other point of view than my own.
Perhaps God is the perfect predictor too*. Have you ever predicted what someone would do before they did it? When you were correct had you taken away their free will? Perhaps God knows each of us so well that he knows exactly what we will choose to do in any given situation.
The idea of God spanning all time could be it too. It definitely makes God more sensational.
The Word: I've always understood "The Word" to mean Christ. Among Mormon scholars that seems to be the accepted definition.
Inter-denominational Marriage: I think this would largely depend on the denomination's beliefs and what your definition of "just fine" is. If by "just fine" you mean they can have a happy marriage and not get divorced then yes, they can be just fine. I would venture to say that if the beliefs between the denominations is more drastic then there is a chance of adding more stress to the marriage that would not have been there otherwise, but that doesn't mean the marriage will fail. As far as Mormons go, we believe that marriage in the temple is a necessary step towards eternal salvation. Similar to how baptism is a step towards eternal salvation. Does that mean that marrying outside the Mormon faith will damn you to hell forever? No. There are a lot of "fail-safes" in the doctrine to try to catch all circumstances.
There was a long discussion here as to what defines a Christian in regards to Mormonism. For most here "Christian" means you accept the Nicene Creed. That seems to be the accepted definition in the more scholarly circles (I would consider most in Hatrack to fall into the "more scholarly" side of things). Personally I think that outside of that circle the definition is a little more broad but others don't think so and we have no data to know or sure so it's pointless to debate.
*I don't have any citations for this. I'm not sure if I came up with it on my own or heard it somewhere so it's not anyone's official doctrine or anything.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the word "logos" (word) in the prologue to John, your coworker is wrong.
Skip a few lines down from the one you quoted, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God," and you get to "And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. John testified to him and cried out, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me ranks ahead of me because he was before me.” ’ From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."
In general I think there's a fair bit of room for interpretation in Biblical texts. But interpreting logos in the Gospel of John to not refer to Jesus Christ would be stretching credulity well past the breaking point.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm a fan of the Aristotelian solution (denying that propositions about future events have truth value) though I know a lot of Christians who are fans of Molinism.
I think that the way that what a lot of laypeople have in mind when they say that free will is compatible with foreknowledge is the Augustinian solution.
Again, that link gives a pretty clear run down of the positions, and you should really check it out if you are interested in the topic.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: As far as Mormons go, we believe that marriage in the temple is a necessary step towards eternal salvation.
In Ephesians, Paul wrote, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (2:8-9)
Your statement is partially untrue. General salvation is already guaranteed to (most) everyone. You can marry anyone . . . there's just certain covenants that you can't participate in, covenants required for exaltation and the celestial kingdom.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: As far as Mormons go, we believe that marriage in the temple is a necessary step towards eternal salvation.
In Ephesians, Paul wrote, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." (2:8-9)
Your statement is partially untrue. General salvation is already guaranteed to (most) everyone. You can marry anyone . . . there's just certain covenants that you can't participate in, covenants required for exaltation and the celestial kingdom.
Depends on what you mean by "eternal", I think, Aros. I've heard some members say that eternal means something is of the nature of God. So "eternal salvation" would mean exaltation.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My coworker suggested that God knows everything you are going to do before you do it, to which I responded "Doesn't that negate free will?" He said it didn't, but I argued that the two cannot co-exist.
God being able to exist outside the causal system we inhabit and observe the past and future simultaneously is one explanation, as people have mentioned. However, I think this is just handwaving. It's the type of explanation you come up with if you decide to accept two premises that would otherwise be contradictory. No one can describe how this works; it's just assumed that God is mysterious and grand in ways we are not meant to understand.
I personally think there is no inherent contradiction for a different reason: because the concept of "free will" breaks down when you examine it closely. People are free to express their preferences; this does not mean that there is something meaningfully non-deterministic about those choices. Choices are made for reasons which, I would argue, amounts to a system just as deterministic as anything else, even though it can be incredibly complex and subtle.
To the extent that free choices are not determined through the application of preferences and other inputs, I think the only alternative explanation is randomness (that is, I think results [choices] that do NOT express a predictable algorithmic result of all the inputs are no more meaningful than the way a merge sort will place different records with the same sort rank).
So if you're like me and you think "free will" essentially means that we are able to express our preferences but not that there is anything meaningfully acausal about how we make choices, there's no free-will-limiting problem with someone being able to predict the future.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Jeff, For the knowledge versus free will, I see it as a function of time. If God is not limited by time, then (in a way over simplified way) everything has already happened for him. So, similarly to how, just because we can look back at actions that people took in the past doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't freely choose those actions, God knowing what, from his perspective, you have already done doesn't mean that it wasn't your freely chosen action.
What about if God interjects into somebody's life, thereby altering that life? Doesn't that negate that person's freedom of choice?
If a person prays to God for something, like they're praying for God to help them with their marriage, and God listens and changes their wife's mind or whatever, doesn't that negate free will?
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given, God created everything. Hence, God created Time-its beginning, its middle, and its end.
The simplest solution is that God knows what your choice will be, but that does not mean he made that choice for you.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the simplest solution is that free will is purely an illusion. Because the idea that God knows what your choice is, can and does act with perfect knowledge and unlimited power to occasionally influence people's decisions and the outcomes of those decisions, and yet you still have free will, is blatantly paradoxical. In order to resolve that paradox, you either have to limit God's powers or limit His knowledge.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think free will is nonsensical even in theory, but in the world where I've accepted Free Will at face value I don't see anything inherently paradoxical about an omniscient being predicting you anyway.
(I DO see a problem when people make a big deal about Free Will, but still say things like "God is testing you" or "God is helping you" when circumstances are clearly taking place *because of other people.*)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe God makes available to each person a path they can follow to ultimate happiness if they make the right choices. However, we are under no compulsion to make those choices and follow that path, nor are we expected to always make the right choices. As we make wrong choices we expose ourselves to the consequences and punishments attached to those choices, and our freedom of choice can be increasingly limited. Eventually, through the choices we’ve made, we can end up with little to no power to choose for ourselves anymore. God cannot withhold justice when it is due. If he did, he would cease to be God.
However, God will also act to maximize freedom of choice whenever he can. The Christian belief in Christ is that of God having mercy as well as justice; if a person repents, then by the grace of Christ he or she can be restored to a point of being free to choose correctly and progress once more. The Bible has plenty of instances of prophets giving the ultimatum to repent or face destruction; in the story of Jonah, Ninevah unexpectedly repented and was spared destruction, thus preserving the peoples’ freedom of choice.
My point is that God knows us very well and knows what’s in store for us based on the choices we make. He has the power and authority to bless us as we make the right choices and execute just punishment as we make the wrong ones. He doesn’t withhold the consequences of our choices but he always preserves our right to choose for ourselves.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No, the simplest solution is that free will is purely an illusion. Because the idea that God knows what your choice is, can and does act with perfect knowledge and unlimited power to occasionally influence people's decisions and the outcomes of those decisions, and yet you still have free will, is blatantly paradoxical. In order to resolve that paradox, you either have to limit God's powers or limit His knowledge.
Or stop thinking of God as a finite entity that we can get our head around. Hmmm...maybe that doesn't resolve the paradox so much as make it not matter.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really now, this is not difficult. If I know you so well that I can predict in advance what you will choose in any given situation, you're still choosing. Your choice is not invalidated by my knowledge of what it will be.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your choice is not invalidated by my knowledge of what it will be.
As long as you do not act, that is true. But if you can act in a way that changes the environment in which I make my choice, or the consequences of my choice, my free will is illusory.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I leave the Halloween candy out on the counter, I know that my 3-year-old will eat some. Even if I tell her not to.
She has free will to do what she wants, but I know what she will choose. Does my knowledge negate her free will?
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you leave the candy on the counter, knowing that she will eat it, yes. The consequence of putting the candy out is that it will be eaten by your daughter, and you put that candy out in full awareness of that result.
But you, unlike God, do not have that perfect knowledge.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If you leave the candy on the counter, knowing that she will eat it, yes. The consequence of putting the candy out is that it will be eaten by your daughter, and you put that candy out in full awareness of that result.
The result is known but without any coercion or influence or knowledge of consequence on the part of his daughter, this example still holds with your previous statement:
quote:As long as you do not act, that is true. But if you can act in a way that changes the environment in which I make my choice, or the consequences of my choice, my free will is illusory.
posted
Your choice to put the candy out there has altered the environment. Your daughter would not have eaten candy had you not made the choice to give her candy to eat.
If someone else puts the candy out there, I have no objection.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Your choice to put the candy out there has altered the environment. Your daughter would not have eaten candy had you not made the choice to give her candy to eat.
If someone else puts the candy out there, I have no objection.
I don't understand your distinction. It doesn't matter why the candy is on the table or who put it there. Her actions will be the same 99% of the time. Yet she still has the choice of whether or not to eat the candy.
My understanding of three-year-olds and my knowledge of what she will choose are independent of her choice.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet she still has the choice of whether or not to eat the candy.
But it's not a meaningful choice. If you know she will eat the candy if you put it out on the table, and you put it out on the table, you are creating a universe in which she eats the candy. Her "choice" in this scenario is imaginary, assuming you do indeed have perfect knowledge of her decision.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
You know your daughter will not eat the candy if you put it out for her, but you do it anyway, so that she has the option to do so.
She doesn't eat it. You put it out another time, having perfect knowledge that she will not eat it, but you still put it out there anyway, to give her the option to eat it.
In fact, in your omniscience, you think of every possible way to get her to eat the candy, without violating her free will, and she still chooses not to eat it ever. In essence, as part of honoring free will, you provide opportunities for certain choices, even when you know that they will not be taken advantage of.
Does this mean her choice to not eat the candy is meaningless, just because you knew she wouldn't, even though you created conditions where eating it was a more emotionally likely outcome?
This whole idea of it being a meaningless choice seems like a meaningless distinction. If I make the choice, it is meaningful to me, regardless of whether or not someone with omniscience knew I was going to make that choice. I find it hard to believe that it is logically impossible to have a universe where there is both the presence of an omniscient being and at least one other being with genuine free will.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does this mean her choice to not eat the candy is meaningless, just because you knew she wouldn't...
Yes.
quote:If I make the choice, it is meaningful to me...
As long as you believe it is meaningful. In fact, it turns out that this is true regardless of whether or not you made a choice, and whether or not your choice had any meaning. If you believe you chose something, you ascribe meaning to it internally and thus perceive value.
quote:I find it hard to believe that it is logically impossible to have a universe where there is both the presence of an omniscient being and at least one other being with genuine free will.
Again, it is logically impossible to have an omniscient, omnipotent being who acts upon choices and/or their results and a being with genuine free will. You can have omniscience and not omnipotence and still preserve the free will of the people around you; you can have omnipotence and not omniscience and still preserve free will; you can have omniscience and omnipotence and not do anything and still preserve free will. But once you have demonstrated the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being with a willingness to act, you have eliminated free will except within the context of a given individual's perception.
(Note: omnipotence is only necessary insofar as we assume that the being actually has the ability to control the boundaries and results of a decision. You do not need to be omnipotent in order to force your daughter to eat candy, but you do need to be able to put candy out. And, arguably, to predispose her to enjoy the taste of candy in the first place, but that gets into a broader question.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:at least one other being with genuine free will.
What do you mean by free will?
quote:Does this mean her choice to not eat the candy is meaningless?
I think free will doesn't exist (that is, I think it's a label that houses a fundamentally meaningless concept - since I think agents cannot be defined except as cause-and-effect machines or randomness generators). I still think choices are subjectively meaningful to people who experience them, and there's intersubjective meaning associated with those choices as well.
But let's not forget the concept of accountability. If you know that X will do Z if you do Y, and Z is bad, and Y is not necessary, then it's not very useful* to say that X is accountable for Z. You are, since you chose to do Y even though you knew a bad result would happen.
(That is, unless the benefit is that you are part of a machine for sorting people into bins, and you can't sort people into the "would do Z" bin unless they first do Z, but then your own power and accountability in this system is rather suspect.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Step 1: God exists outside of time. Step 2: God probably observes all time, future and past as happening simultaneously. Step 3: God knows what you are going to do, because at a point in the future, you have already made your decision. Step 4: Does becoming aware of a decision and the subsequent capacity to choose imply a lack of free will before one realized that a decision was available to be made?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
