Oct
27
2009
Can God Know Everything and Still Give us Free Will?
Permit me a little exercise in theological philosophy and logic.
Almost every Christian believes that God knows everything. Many Christians believe human beings have free will. Some Christians affirm free will but deny traditional omniscience (e.g., open theists). Some Christians affirm omniscience but deny free will (Calvinists). Other Christians try to affirm both (Arminians). It’s no secret that I’m a Calvinist so it will surprise no one that I agree with the middle sentence. I think open theism is a grave error. But given that it is very much a minority position among Christians, I am not concerned about it in this post. My reflections are focused on the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians.
Of course, I’m not going to settle such a long standing debate with a single blog post, but I do want to think for a few moments about whether divine omniscience and free will are compatible. That is, can the Arminian have it both ways and affirm that God knows everything and that we free wills?
Definitions
Let me define a few terms I’ll be using. By omniscience I mean that God knows everything. A related term (that can also be used as a synonym for omniscience) is foreknowledge. By foreknowledge I mean that God knows everything that is yet to happen in the future. By free will I mean free will as Arminians define it. Arminians argue that we have a libertarian free will, which simply put means that we have the power of contrary choice; or to put it another way, that our choices can be otherwise than they are.
What’s for Breakfast?
Let’s put these terms in a typical scenario. Tomorrow morning I will open my freezer and choose whether to have Eggo waffles for breakfast or Eggo french toast. Arminians and Calvinists (although not Openness theologians) believe that an omniscient God has foreknowledge of what choice I will make. That is, God knows with certainty that tomorrow morning I will choose the waffles and not the french toast. Arminians go on to argue that libertarian free will is consistent with divine foreknowledge. I have libertarian free will to choose the waffles or the french toast. I have power of contrary choice. I may choose the waffles; I may choose the french toast. The outcome of my choice is not fixed. It is up to my free will to decide. Nevertheless, God, who knows all things, knows for certain that I will choose the waffles tomorrow morning.
By this understanding, we are led to believe that divine omniscience, or foreknowledge in this case, is wholly compatible with libertarian free will. God’s knowing what I will choose is simply a knowledge based on foreseen evidence, and this knowledge in no way determines my choice of waffles. God simply looked into the future and saw what my choice would be. It is as if he put into his cosmic VCR the tape marked “Kevin’s Breakfast October 27.” He saw that I would choose waffles and therefore he knows for certain what my free choice will be. But when I wake up tomorrow and look in the freezer I will have the power of contrary choice. God’s knowledge is certain, but my choice is in no way necessary or fixed; it is free and can be otherwise. Thus, according to the Arminian, foreknowledge co-exists just fine with free will.
But this is not so. Here’s why. If an omniscient God has foreknowledge as to my choice of waffles, than this knowledge must be of an event that is fixed and necessary. For if God’s knowledge is always correct, that is, infallible and certain, then what he knows of the future will certainly and infallibly come to pass. Take our Eggo example. Suppose God knows for certain that tomorrow morning I will choose the waffles. Then if I were to ask you, “What will I choose, the waffles or the french toast?” All of you would say, with certainty, “You will choose the waffles.” My choice cannot be otherwise. If it could be otherwise, then the possibility exists that God in his foreknowledge is mistaken. But if God’s foreknowledge is infallible, then what he knows will certainly come to pass. So when I open the freezer tomorrow morning, although the choice may seem very free to me, in reality my choice cannot be other than waffles. It is a fixed and necessary consequence that I will eat waffles and not french toast. I can possess no libertarian free will (with the power of contrary choice) where God has a sure and certain knowledge of the future.
What About After-Knowledge?
You may object that foreknowledge of an event has no more influence on the necessity of that event than after-knowledge. If you can look into the future and see that I will choose waffles tomorrow, all you have done is seen the future. Your knowing the future, you may argue, has no bearing on my choice of Eggos tomorrow. It’s no different than after-knowledge you may say. If you read in my journal entry for today: “Yesterday, ate waffles for breakfast” you simply know that I had waffles yesterday. Thus, as the reasoning goes, just as your after-knowledge of my choice did not make my choice necessary, neither does your foreknowledge of my choice make it necessary.
To which I would respond, that this misses the point. You are quite right to argue that knowledge of an event does not make that event necessary. Knowing something ahead of or before its occurrence does not cause the necessity of the occurrence, but it does prove that it cannot be otherwise. If you have after-knowledge of my breakfast choice because you read my journal from today, you can have certain knowledge that I ate waffles. Your knowledge of this did not cause my choice, but your infallible certainty about the waffles proves that yesterday’s breakfast cannot be other than waffles. Any certain knowledge of a choice proves that the choice itself is fixed and cannot be otherwise.
In other words, foreknowledge does not affect future certainty; it assumes it. We see this plainly with after-knowledge. What you know for certain about the past does not cause the past event but it does assume that it is fixed, or else your knowledge would not be certain. So when it comes to foreknowledge the same applies. For all certain knowledge of a choice (before, after, or during) demonstrates that the choice is necessary, fixed, and cannot be otherwise than it is. And if my choice cannot be otherwise, then I have no free will in the libertarian sense.
A Middle Ground?
Someone at this point may raise the question “What about middle knowledge?” According to middle knowledge, God does not determine human choices but he does create the circumstances necessary to actualize these choices. God knows all things actual and potential, hence he knows what I would do in any given circumstances. God knows that if I wake up tomorrow morning and find the box of waffles in front of the french toast I will choose the waffles. Since God’s perfect plan is for me to choose the waffles he manages the circumstance such that I will choose the waffles (i.e. having the box of waffles in front of the french toast). By this knowledge of all possible decisions and outcomes (middle knowledge) God can direct the future and know for certain what my decisions will be.
Middle knowledge is an attractive “middle” ground, but it fails on two accounts. First, if God never violates human free will how can he effectively and consistently create the circumstances necessary to actualize my decision? God may try to arrange the situation such that the waffles are in front of the french toast, but he can’t prevent my wife from getting up before me, eating the french toast and putting the french toast box in front of the waffles. My wife is free to do as she chooses and her choice may disrupt God’s intended circumstance.
The second problem is that in the middle knowledge system where humans have libertarian free will, how can God know even my potential decisions? Can God really know for certain what I would do in any given situation? What makes God so sure that I will choose the waffles just because they are in front of the french toast? That may be a good hunch on his part, but as long as I have the power of contrary choice God has no way of knowing for sure that I will not reach behind the waffles and grab the french toast. So any middle knowledge that is certain undermines free will just like any other certain kind of knowledge.
God’s Timelessness?
There is one other objection that may be raised: What about God’s timelessness? God does not look into the future per se because all of history past, present, and future happens for God in the eternal now. He does not need to put in a tape of “Kevin’s Breakfast October 27″ because he is there right now. If we make the analogy fit a God who stands outside of time and can experience the past, present, and future simultaneously, we can imagine that God is watching (and experiencing) on his cosmic VCR all my breakfasts from eternity to eternity. There is no before or after for God; he is outside of time and experiences all of our time all the time. Therefore, since there is no succession of time for God, the argument runs, he simply knows all our free choices because he is right there with us. God knows what I will eat for breakfast tomorrow because he is already there.
But arguing for God’s timelessness (which is a proper thing to argue) does nothing to help secure libertarian free will. The same issue still surfaces. If God has certain knowledge of an event, whether that knowledge is a foreknowledge or strictly speaking a timeless knowledge, what matters is that God’s knowledge is certain. Because if it is certain, by whatever means, then the event will come to pass as it has been certainly known. If God knows that fifty years from now Canada will invade the United States, it matters not (for our discussion) if God knows it because the event, 50 years away for us, is present to God. What matters is that God knows the event with infallible certainty. Since God knows that in 50 years Canada will invade the United States, in 50 years it cannot be otherwise than that the United States will be invaded by Canada. If this were not so fixed, God, in 50 years may prove to be mistaken in his knowledge.
Hence, free will (as Arminians understand it) does not exist even if it be argued that God’s knowledge is timeless. In fact, that God’s knowledge has no succession of time points to a more important inference, namely, that God’s knowledge never increases. God has a perfect and never-failing knowledge. Nothing can occur other than how God knows it to be. All events must come to pass as God knows them because they are to a timeless God if they had already been. Therefore, the timelessness of God actually strengthens the argument against libertarian free will.
Conclusion
It is true, that none of this proves that God is the determiner of all things. What it does show is that the determination and necessity of future events is really no greater for the Calvinist than for the Arminian. The Arminian objects to the Calvinist God because God’s predetermination of all things does not allow for libertarian free will. But by my reckoning the Arminian scheme does not allow for libertarian free will either. For if God certainly knows the future, then the future must for certainty come to pass as God knows it. And if future choices are fixed and necessary, there is no place for the power of contrary choice.
54 Comments
Psst… One of God’s VCR tapes is still mislabeled “Kevin’s Breakfast July 23.”
If it’s God’s will that we be conformed to the image of Christ.Then how do you explain sin in the life of a believer? 1 John 1:9
Your early statement of finding compatablism is not even looked at. It would appear that you are advocating total determinism, which is certainly one side of Calvinism. But, just as you argue against liberterian free will on choices, you would need to also admit that your feelings, thoughts, expectations, literally everything about you is not your own either. Your love for God, your wife, your kids, is not yours, but given to you by God, because otherwise his omniscience would be askew. So, you really dont feel guilty or happy, unless God yanks your strings. This is exactly what leads to hyper-calvinism. In your effort to always paint in boxes of Calvinism or Arminianism, your discussion of God’s timelessness is only used to rebut Arminianism, not to evaluate its worth of consideration.
I am in flux with this situation. I wish you had used salvation as an example because that’s the only thing I’m concerned with. I don’t necessarily care if God knows that I will choose waffles or not. However, since I’m overweight, it is sad that God has foreknowledge that I will overeat and yet doesn’t stop me. Would that mean that God has ordained my obesity? If there is no free will, then is my sin also ordained from the beginning? Again, since this isn’t about salvation, it is a secondary discussion and one which I believe we can be in flux about.
I suppose I’m Armenian, as I understand it from this post, and I don’t see how it is contradictory for God to give me free will and yet know what I’m going to do with it.
If an omniscient God has foreknowledge as to my choice of waffles, than this knowledge must be of an event that is fixed and necessary.
That’s where you go wrong. Though God’s knowledge is fixed it does not follow that what he knows is necessary. What you commit here is a modal fallacy. Essentially, your argument goes like this:
1) Necessarily, if God foreknows X, then X will happen
2) God foreknows X
3) Therefore, X will necessarily happen
But this is fallacious. The correct conclusion should be
3′) Therefore, x will happen.
The premises do not contain anything about how X MUST happen, only that it SHALL happen. If Y were to happen then God would know that instead. This indeterminism in no way is incompatible with God’s infallible foreknowledge.
William Lane Craig notes that that this fallacy stems from conflating certainty with necessity. For more, see Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views (esp. pgs 126-127)
Nathan,
Feelings, thoughts, expectations, love for God, wife, kids – which of these would you take credit for? Wouldn’t you rather look to God as the source of these than to yourself? They come from God–and like everything else in creation, they belong to him–but that doesn’t mean they’re not here for us to enjoy. The Calvinist doesn’t argue against agency but against a will operating independently of its creator.
God’s word is true: Every good and perfect gift is from above. (Js 1:17)
Thank you Kevin for this excellent summary of the logical arguments.
Brad,
My point was more that you cannot stop with just “what do I want to eat for breakfast.” I agree with you in that sense. That also means that your lusts, your hatred, your envying; those would also have to come from God under the auspices of the commentary. You can’t simply separate the things you want to ascribe from God. The argument is that there is nothing that you do, all your decisions come from God. It is an argument of total determinism. Everything is God’s doing. Yet we are created in the image of God. Why then did God need to post cheribum at the entrances of the garden of Eden. He could have just caused man to never go back. Was that not in His control? Or was that just a visual reminder? Scriptre though says that it because he doesn’t want man to go back and continue to eat from the Tree of Life.
Kevin, I’m a Calvinist and my understanding of Calvinism is that we do not deny free will, just libertarian free will or free will that contradicts God’s Sovereignty. It is clear in many scriptures we are held accountable for our own choices, and to deny any form of free will would mean God makes us sin, which cannot be so.
I prefer Grudem’s explanation of “concurrence” on this issue…
http://tinyurl.com/ykm9d3x
The key, everyone, is the KIND of free will that Calvinists do and do not believe in. We certainly believe our decisions matter and have consequences. The issue is, was that decision not known and/or ordered by God. The Bible continually appeals to the will, so it obviously matters. Kevin is arguing against, (and I believe, rightly so) an autonomous free will that God may or may not be in charge of. (which is the logical conclusion of an autonomous position)
Maybe I missed it, but I don’t see one quotation from scripture here. Maybe because the scriptures are troublesome on this topic because they affirm both free will and absolute sovereignty. They also include narrative examples of people changing God’s mind (which I know we don’t build theological systems from). I think we too often rely on logic to settle this debate, as evidenced here. Logic plays a part, but if we can define God and His ways with logic, then we no longer serve a God bigger than logic, and thus logic becomes our God (the irony is I just used logic. Damn.)
Kevin:
You say “If an omniscient God has foreknowledge as to my choice of waffles, than this knowledge must be of an event that is fixed and necessary. For if God’s knowledge is always correct, that is, infallible and certain, then what he knows of the future will certainly and infallibly come to pass.”
My point exactly made about 2 weeks ago at http://inchristus.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/why-i-dont-believe-in-free-will/
Kevin,
I, like Calvin, do not like the phrase, “free will”. I prefer “nature”. Our will is subject to our total disposition, our inner bent in life. We act freely in accordance with that disposition, whether under the grip of Adamic nature (“by nature children of wrath…”), or in the grip of Christ (“free from the law of sin and death”).
Just a clarification.
Regarding Christians and “Free Will” . . . Due to recent economic changes the price of Free Will, has been raised to $2.45. We are doing our best to make free will affordable for everyone but, all in all, free will, as in the past, eventually costs you everything.
Hi Kevin,
I think you did a pretty good job explaining the philosophical weakness of Arminianism. This weakness is why Open Theists are sometimes referred to as “consistent Arminians”.
So, it appears Calvinism or OT are the only two logical options worth considering.
Of course, Calvinisms greatest weakness (at least in IMHO) is compatibilism. Meaning, the view that mans action can be free and determined at the same time. This breaks every imaginable law of logic. This is like saying that 2+2 equals 5 just because we add the words “God can” to the sentence.
Just at there are no square circles in heaven neither are there free moral agents on earth who’s actions are predetermined by God.
Now, (just in case you don’t know how to play the game) this is your cue to jump in and accuse me of evil “rationalism” and to point out that the scriptures are full of references to this “mystery” and if I don’t believe you I am a heretic that rejects the Word of God. Oh, yeah baby!
Anyway… the above were just a side note. I wanted to point out that I, as an Open Theist, would take an issue with this statement. Yrite:
“First, if God never violates human free will how can he effectively and consistently create the circumstances necessary to actualize my decision?”
I do indeed think that God can, and does, overrule the actions of free moral agents from time to time. However, this is not something He does ordinarily and never with regards to someone’s salvation. Obviously this could be expanded upon but I just wanted to make the point that I disagree with the statement “God never…”.
This is not to say that this view is shared amongst all those that in a general sense would describe themselves as Open Theist. I’ve not come across this view in much of the literature even though it is definitely mentioned by some who hold OT views.
I think it’s helpful to understand this point in order to correctly understand God’s actions in human history in the OT perspective. He can certainly make prophesies come true and He can overrule someones free will. The difference between my/this view and Calvinism is that the “overrule” part happens only occasionally/rarely from my OT perspective as compared to ALWAYS from a Calvinistic perceptive.
Calvinists loves to portray the OT God as completely helpless and drifting aimlessly through human history. This is a false portrait of God.
Again, thanks for a great outline. I enjoyed reading it.
- Leo
Leo,
The Trinity breaks “every imaginable law of logic”, so we should reject it? You put God in the dock friend.
Psalm 131:1 — O LORD, my heart is not proud, nor my eyes haughty; Nor do I involve myself in great matters, Or in things too difficult for me.
Leo,
BTW- Calvin never asserted that man’s will is free and determined at the same time. This is a straw-man. After the fall there are no “free moral agents”, just men either trapped in Adamic nature, or gripped by the Holy Spirit. Neither are totally free. Man in Adam is “dead”, man in Christ is “alive to God”. Both are slaves to their natures.
Autonomous free-will is nonexistent. Men are either one of two things: Slaves of sin, or slaves of righteousness; condemned or saved; of the flesh or of the Spirit. Romans 8:7-8 says, “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
Scripture is clear here. When we are of the flesh (that is, prior to being born again), we are condemned and slaves of sin and therefore we cannot submit to God; indeed we cannot. It is impossible for a person of the flesh to submit to God. Yet, autonomous free-willers think that they, in their flesh, have the ability to choose God. That is a fallacy at best, and robs Christ and the atonement of glory at worst.
“Choice” is limited by what is offered. Scripture repeatedly tells us that while in the flesh we cannot choose God. We must be born-again; and as Jesus tells Nicodemous, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8).
It is God from start to finish.
As for sin, Jonathan Edwards writes: “But if, by the author of sin, is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin, and, at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted, or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow;—I say, if this be all that is meant by being the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of sin, (though I dislike and reject the phrase, as that which by use and custom is apt to carry another sense), it is no reproach for the Most High to be thus the author of sin. This is not to be the actor of sin, but on the contrary, of holiness.” (Freedom of the Will, Vol 1. p399).
One cannot escape that the crucifixion of Jesus, the worst sin in all of history, was ordained by God from before the foundation of the world. Same with Joseph being sold into slavery. Morally the actions of Joseph’s brothers were reprehensible; but God’s predetermined purpose of it (as told in Gen 50:20) was Holy and Righteous.
It is God who works, and He does so for the purpose to bring Glory and Praise to His Name. I fear Arminians and the like spend too much time trying to defend God from spurious charges; when we don’t need to defend Him from who He is.
We don’t determine what is righteous. We don’t determine the definition of love. Many are offended at God when He doesn’t fit their own sensitivities. We must not forget who is the Creator and who the created are. We are not God. We don’t set the rules.
Kevin,
I agree with pretty much everything you say here, but is it not the case that if everything is foreordained (as I believe it to be, even the waffles that you may or may not eat tomorrow) and God is timeless, then foreknowledge is meaningless? As far as my understanding goes, God has ordained my every action, from me being born to dying, including my sin. For Him not to have control over every aspect of my life is, for me, to deny His Sovereignty. However, I don’t go day-to-day without thinking about my decisions or the consequences of them, because I don’t know what God has already ordained, so I must still go about living. I think you really helpfully outline that more specifically in “Just Do Something”.
Anyway, thanks for the post, very helpful. I’ve just been examining these ideas in my Doctrine of God class, and it’s helpful to re-examine the various issues.
[...] De Young, whose blog I heartily recommend you bookmarking, takes a few moments to summarize (with greater alacrity than I did last week) how God exercises sovereign control over a reality in [...]
Eat both the Waffles and the French Toast! You can have both my brothers and sisters. You just need mo’ faith! Kidding =0 )
I am not nearly as thoughtful and/or asture as most who have commented, but I do have something I would like to share.
I once had a seminary professor tell a class of his I was in the following: “When we use words to describe salvation that the Scriputres themselves don’t use to describe salvation we get into trouble.” (That statement, it seems to me, is profound. And it has been with me ever since.)
I think that statement might apply to any doctrine in Scripture.
There are many “seeming contradictions” in Scripture. IMHO, we might need to learn to live with those “seeming contradictions.”
It appears to me there are truths in both Calvinism and Arminianism. Why do we have to pick one or the other? Maybe we should learn to live with the tension of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will.
The Scriptures, in and of themselves, are sufficent!
“we must constantly remind ourselves of this, that God is God – that is to say, that He is an infinite mind whose wisdom is marvellously diverse and inexhaustible, whose will is impossible to examine thoroughly, and whose majesty is to be reverenced with an extreme admiration and submission. So that, as for the things revealed unto us, we should receive them, embrace them, and with all our affection, reduce them to the practice of piety and sanctification. And, as for those things of which He has willed that we would be ignorant (and, Lord Almighty! how many and how great are these?), that we would not inquire about them with too much curiosity. In these matters, no matter to what opinion we would attach our spirits and sentiments, there will always remain this great abyss whose breadth and length and depth and height will immeasureably surpass our understanding. It is not necessary that we, wretched little men as we are, be ashamed that we do not know everything.”
Moyse Amyraut, Defense de la doctrine de Calvin, translated and cited by Armstrong, B G, in Calvinism and the Amyraut heresy, Wipf and Stock, 1969, p. 165
It seems to me that the Arminian position is to opt for “seeming contradictions” without examining the Scriptures and then tap out.
What about… John 6 or Ephesians 1 or the book of Romans or God’s Chosen People, Israel or Abraham’s calling or Paul’s for that matter.
I guess the Potter only has certain rights to do what He will to the Clay.
Nathan-
I suggest you listen to a sermon by John Piper called “the Reason for our Creation”. Also a good chapter In the Pleasures of God entitled “Is God less glorious because he ordained that evil be?”
My answer to your question about God’s control of sin is this: Yes.
Sin exists because God wills it to exist. He is more glorified in the redemption of man from sin, than if man had never sinned at all. The bible is clear at various points that people sin because God ordains it to take place.
In comes Piper, “In willing that sin exist, God does not thereby sin. If you can’t handle that statement, you can’t handle the Cross. The Cross was horific evil, and totally planned by the Almighty.”
I would love to hear your thoughts!
Jon
[...] Can God Know Everything and Still Give Us Free Will? PUBLICATION: DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed (Kevin [...]
One additional input that should be made is the fact that the gospel is asymmetrical. In other words, free will does apply in terms of condemnation. It does NOT apply in terms of justification. “For the WAGES of sin is death; the FREE GIFT of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” Rom 6:23. Wages are earned by our willful rejection of the gospel and sin. A free gift is given without any contributions from the receiver.
The scriptures affirm both….You just need to keep both (free will and prederminism) on the correct side of the equation. That’s an oversimplification of an antinomy but hopefully you get my point.
Kevin,
Thanks for writing this. This is an issue I have been working through again recently. Unfortunately, I did not find your explanation all that satisfying or sufficient.
You have put logical and philosophical chains on God. As if there is no reality that is larger than our own logical devices. (Not that we should disgard logic…we obviously can’t (I logically conclude))
As Adam O. pointed out, there is nothing about foreknowledge of a choice that necessitates that choice. It only means that, whatever happens and irrespective of the criteria or circumstances that prompted it, God knows what *will* and does happen.
And, similarly, there is only one timeline (as far as we can know); there is only one version of what will happen. So, choices aside, ultimately all of us only make one choice in any given situation. To say God knows what that choice will be does not devalue that choice anymore than saying “You will only make one choice” does. It’s the nature of the beast.
Even with true libertarian free will, the choices we choose against in retrospect exist only in theory. They have no impact on what actually happens.
Additionally, you speak of Arminianism in a context which it rarely exists. I don’t know any people who follow an Arminian tradition who would claim that God can’t violate our free will. And if they do, then they need stop praying that God will “remove all obstacles” to their friend’s salvation and “bring them to Himself”. It is a question of degrees. Does God determine all events before hand? Maybe not. Does God determine some of them? Definitely.
This post leaves no room for any legitimate free will. If you are not completely in the camp of determinism, it is very difficult to see why.
In “Just Do Something” you call God’s will of decree “Everything that happens”. I like that. It implicates God’s Sovereignty in what happens, it makes His foreknowledge unmistakable, and it doesn’t attempt to resolve the severity of our role within that umbrella.
There are tensions within scripture. Logical incongruities. Scripture doesn’t attempt to resolve them. It seems to me our job is to live within them, not to resolve them definitively.
Clif
@Leo
“This is like saying that 2+2 equals 5″
It does, for extremely large values of 2.
/me laughs
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/generic/60f5/
Also,
“..and never in regards to a person’s salvation.” Really? Ever? Never ever ever never?
I think that these are some excellent verses to consider when discussing the topic of libertarian free will…
“Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her.”
Genesis 20:6
“If the Lord delights in a man’s way, he makes his steps firm; though he stumble, he will not fall, for the Lord upholds him with his hand.” Psalm 37:23-24
“A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps.” Proverbs 14:15
“In his heart a man plans his course, but the Lord determines his steps.” Proverbs 16:9
“A man’s steps are directed by the Lord. How then can anyone understand his own way?” Proverbs 20:24
“I know, O Lord, that a man’s life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps.” Jeremiah 10:23
“For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,and, “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message-which is also what they were destined for.”
1 Peter 2:6-8
“From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.”
Acts 17:26-27
There really is a lot of Scripture to consult in regards to God being sovereign over our will. Our will is clearly not independent of God’s sovereignty.
Great post. Solidified by decision to put you on the Reclaiming the Mind Theological Toolbar: http://reclaimingthemind.ourtoolbar.com/
Predestination – Free Will – Hmmm?
A topic that has caused problems and divisions for believers.
Can’t we find scriptures that point to both?
…Choose you this day who you will serve. Joshua 24:15
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: John 6:44
Doesn’t it seem that those who believe it’s “either – or,”
and only see one option, have some questions to overcome?
1 – If “Predestination” is the only correct option
and an adversary believes in, defends and teaches “Free Will:”
Then did God “Predestine” them to believe in “Free Will?”
For how else could they believe in “Free Will”
unless God “Predestined” them to believe in “Free Will?”
2 – If “Free Will” is the only correct option
and an adversary believes in, defends and teaches “Predestination:”
Then did God give them “Free Will” to choose “Predestination?”
For how else could they believe in “Predestination”
unless God gave them a “Free Will” to choose “Predestination?”
So why the argument?
When Wesley preached, people realized, they could choose to follow Christ.
When Calvin preached, people realized, they were chosen to follow Christ.
Peace…
I have noticed counter-arguments that are similar to Adam Omeilancuk’s (previous comment), but no one ever seems to want to address them.
I corresponded by email with one of William Lane Craig’s staffers about this issue, and he responded with the same argument as Adam, accusing me of committing a modal fallacy (scope fallacy).
Since Kevin’s post attempts to argue against libertarian free will logically and philosophically, it would be nice to hear someone more able than me address this scope fallacy…because it actually makes a lot of sense to me, along with middle knowledge.
Gavin
[...] DeYoung certainly got me thinking through determinism and free will again. And he follows up [...]
As I looked through the comments I also noticed that no one addressed Adam Omelianchuk’s comments. It seems to me that he completely dismantles Kevin’s argument rather simply and quickly.
If an omniscient God has foreknowledge as to my choice of waffles, than this knowledge must be of an event that is fixed and necessary
If God is truly omniscient then His knowledge is not limited to what must or shall happen, but would also include what might happen. Furthermore, foreknowledge should as causally prior knowledge not chronologically prior. God isn’t sitting at the beginning of time and looking into the future, He is looking at the end of time and anywhere He wants. Foreknowledge is God knowing all of the possibilities, including our possible choices, and making calculated decisions prior to our moments of decision that interact with our decision making processes. Foreknowledge affirms the Sovereignty of God and relative human free will.
Ok, So I’m young and have not really delved into this area of study but I have certainly questioned many teachings and beliefs of many churches so that I could better understand and accept the truth. This is going to sound like a strange analogy and it may be way off base to some of you but it is the best way I have come up with to explain to people how I feel on the subject…
If you look at life as a game and God as it’s designer and programmer then you can see that God would know all possible outcomes and choices and also which choices we will need to make later down the line. He would know every possible scenario and how it could play out. By this reasoning you see that he knows all but still allows us to choose how we play and whether or not we will follow the rules and guidelines given us. By also knowing our hearts and minds he can follow the paths of our choosing and know our outcomes. Just as a programmer could watch you play and see what would happen based on the pattern you use God too would know except he would not be surprised if we changed tactics because he not only knows our patterns but our thoughts and hearts as well!
As I looked through the comments I also noticed that no one addressed Adam Omelianchuk’s comments. It seems to me that he completely dismantles Kevin’s argument rather simply and quickly.
Exactly. The only way this argument works is to make foreknowledge causative and conflate certainty with necessity. Will happen is not the same as must happen. Will choose is not the same as must choose. Will be is not the same as must be, regardless of how often Calvinists assert otherwise. If a choice is free, then it is free whether God foreknows it or not. God’s foreknowledge has no causal bearing on free choice, and no Calvinist has ever proven that it does. What is interesting is that Kevin seems to understand the vital distinction between certainty and necessity, but then ignores the distinction and conflates them to make his point, seemingly hoping that no one will notice the slight of hand. Kudos to Adam for pointing this out.
God Bless,
Ben
sure, Adam’s point is greatly applied…if God was merely a fortune teller.
But God is not…hands off, when in regards to anything that we can experience with the five senses, and unless we are going to argue that there is another driving force in life besides the almighty God…yes…one can say that it will necessarily happen.
Now does it happen because God says it will happen, or because He knows it will? Erm…i don’t pretend to know that much. I’m graciously learning bit by bit.
This article helped bunches.
oh…i should quote who I’m speaking of. Sorry.
i was responding to this
ADAM O says, “That’s where you go wrong. Though God’s knowledge is fixed it does not follow that what he knows is necessary. What you commit here is a modal fallacy. Essentially, your argument goes like this:
1) Necessarily, if God foreknows X, then X will happen
2) God foreknows X
3) Therefore, X will necessarily happen
But this is fallacious. The correct conclusion should be
3′) Therefore, x will happen.
The premises do not contain anything about how X MUST happen, only that it SHALL happen. If Y were to happen then God would know that instead. This indeterminism in no way is incompatible with God’s infallible foreknowledge. “
mzsoulll said: “sure, Adam’s point is greatly applied…if God was merely a fortune teller.
But God is not…hands off, when in regards to anything that we can experience with the five senses,”
**** It is not clear at all how this has any bearing on what is being discussed, unless by “not being hands off”, you mean “irresistibly causes”, in which case you would simply be begging the question.
mzsoulll said: “and unless we are going to argue that there is another driving force in life besides the almighty God…yes…one can say that it will necessarily happen.”
**** So are you saying that God is the only force in the universe? When you sin, is it God driving you by force to sin? Is there any other being in the universe other than God? It is this type of thinking that draws the critcisim sometimes that Calvinism collapses into pantheism or panentheism.
mzsoulll said: “Now does it happen because God says it will happen, or because He knows it will?”
**** That’s a false dichotomy. Surely many things happen because God says they will. But many things happen that go against his will and so not because he says they will and not because he knows they will. Rather he knows many things will happen because they will happen, and he would prefer that they not happen, though he allows them to happen because he has sovereignly decided to grant man free will.
what if omniscience assumes knowledge of each potential outcome?
that is, choices made within libertarian conception of free will amend and re-amend the outcome, with omniscient God foreknowing all.
…
i should have read the previous posting’s first. i seem to be in agreement with Adam O.
Hey arminian,
1. Can you provide any scripture that trumps my statements? This is not a strawman. I’m sincerely asking. Force may not have been the correct word, however, I’m almost positive we don’t learn of any other root for anything existing besides God. If you can provide enlightenment with scripture on that, it would be greatly appreciated.
2. As for your last statement, I don’t see anywhere in scripture that completely allows what you are saying. You are letting God off the hook where He does not want to be let off. I will provide all the scriptures I have pertaining to this truth when I get the chance.
[...] if future choices are fixed and necessary, there is no place for the power of contrary choice. (Online Source) Interesting? Share [...]
I agree with A. Amos Love above…
I’m glad you academic types enjoy discussing this, but for me, it doesn’t matter much. I know that I once was blind, but now I see and whether I choose waffles, french toast, Cheerios, or bacon and eggs, God will love me indefinitely, unimaginably, and deeper than I could ever ask or imagine. Because of his great love for me, I will love him and obey him.
Gene,
All of that is true, but we do not debate these issues just for the sake of mindless speculation. If free will is totally denied that would seem to nonsense of much of Scripture, and I am sure you do not want to make nonsense of Scripture, do you? Also, if free will is totally denied, it can easily lead to the logical implication that God is the author and cause of every evil thought, choice and action of his creatures. That may not trouble you much, but it does trouble me.
God Bless,
Ben
Should be “seem to make nonsense of…” in the first sentence above.
mzsoulll said: “1. Can you provide any scripture that trumps my statements? This is not a strawman. I’m sincerely asking. Force may not have been the correct word, however, I’m almost positive we don’t learn of any other root for anything existing besides God. If you can provide enlightenment with scripture on that, it would be greatly appreciated.”
**** Well, you have now changed the essence of what you said. I am not contending that there is any other root for anything existing besides God. So I wouldn’t attempt to give you Scripture to the contrary. But God being the creator of the universe does not mean that he irresistibly causes all that happens. All beings owe their existence to God. But that does not in the least imply thats he then irresistibly predetermines every act they do.
However, I suspect that if we were to delve deeper into what each means, there is probably a fundamental disagreement that we could address with Scripture.
mzsoulll said: “2. As for your last statement, I don’t see anywhere in scripture that completely allows what you are saying. You are letting God off the hook where He does not want to be let off. I will provide all the scriptures I have pertaining to this truth when I get the chance.”
**** I see many places in Scripture that not only allow for what I am saying, but demand it, like the many reference to freewill, the many references to human choice, and the fact that there are many things that go against God’s will for starters. Kangaroodort linked to a great article on the reality of genuine free will in Scripture. Here is the link again: http://evangelicalarminians.org/Henshaw-Determinism-Free-Will-The-Reality-of-Choice-and-the-Testimony-of-Scripture. It does seem strange to me that you think God wants to be considered responsible for our sin when Scripture makes it clear that he is too pure to even look upon evil and would never tempt anyone to sin (he would never tempt anyone to sin, but he would irresitibly cause each person to sin every sin he or she ever commits?). Do you deny that many things go against God’s will?
As I study the bible, I see free will as the sin nature according to Gen 3 where mannow has the knowledge of good and evil.
My Brother,
I agree with the way in which the problem is defined and all your conclusions. I think, however, that a thinking Molinist would have is way with what you wrote. We must *argue* why a metaphysically free choice defies an eternal truth value. It’s not enough to *assert* that God can’t know a LFW choice in advance.
Please allow me to link you to a post of mine from a while back that explains what I am getting at.
http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com/2007/12/molinists-and-calvinists-agree-in.html
Pax,
Ron