The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Calvinism & free will

If ANYTHING you do was known before you did it, then you did NOT act out of free will. For if it was known before you did it, you could not have done otherwise.

Steve. How do you balance free will choices with God’s omniscience? Do you advocate, for example:

Middle Knowledge?
Some form of open theism, like Paidion and I embrace? But I add the Eastern Orthodox position of synergy (synergeia) (i.e. The Free Will of Man According to the Holy Orthodox Christian Church))
There is no free will, like some on this forum embrace?
Etc.

I’m sure if you brought up your objection to Matt Slick, he could answer it - from a Calvinist perspective. Same goes for Paidion’s objection. I just can’t guess, what his answer would be.

And I further balance open theism and synergy, against the premise - that thoughts and feelings can influence reality. A position that folks like Mary Baker Eddy, Joel Goldsmith and Emmet Fox, have demonstrated in their lives. I just don’t buy into their explanations.

Steve. How do you balance free will choices with God’s omniscience? Do you advocate, for example:

Middle Knowledge?
Some form of open theism, like Paidion and I embrace?
There is no free will, like some on this forum embrace?

To me it seems clear we can make choices so if that’s how we define free will then i think we have it. Of course our will is not literally free as a million things influence it, but we can make choices.
If Open Theism is true how did Jesus predict Peter would deny him three times? But as i said before even if God has foreknowledge of the future , it’s a passive connection and does not impact our ability to make choices IMO.

I’m sure if you brought up your objection to Matt Slick, he could answer it - from a Calvinist perspective. Same goes for Paidion’s objection. I just can’t guess, what his answer would be.

Slick would say examples of God intervening disclose his pattern of meticulous control for everything but i think these are specific instances of God intervening to steer the ship where he wants it to go, but the passengers can still make choices on the ship.

I think you will find experts responding, to every theological objection…According to their unique, theological and philosophical perspective. Like Greg Boyd (a open theism “expert”) does, at How do you respond to Matthew 26:36?. As I said earlier, my position is a hybrid of the Protestant open theism and Eastern Orthodox synergy (synergeia) (i.e. The Free Will of Man According to the Holy Orthodox Christian Church)) positions.

It reminds me of a joke at math-fail.com/2013/06/mathematicians-vs-engineers.html

But you will be (and it’s my position, on theological and philosophical positions)

Then you can describe your position, in a logical and coherent manner. And respond to objections well. Whether your position is right or wrong - accord to God’s final revelation.

The “gospels” were written long after Jesus’ death. Jesus may have said, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me.” Knowing Peter’s character, Jesus reasonably could have made this prediction. But because Peter did, in fact, deny Him three times, the gospel writers may have “remembered” it that way years later.

How many times did the rooster crow before Peter denied Him three times? Mark wrote that it was twice (Mark 14:72) and also wrote that Jesus predicted, “Before the rooster crows twice… etc.” (Mark 14:30). The other three writers have Jesus simply saying “Before the rooster crows…”
The same when the rooster actually crowed, according to their accounts. It was just once. Somebody had to have had it wrong!

It doesn’t matter who has the foreknowledge. If a future event is known before it happens, then that event MUST occur. If someone knows that you will eat porridge for breakfast tomorrow morning, then it will come to pass. When tomorrow morning comes, there is no way you can refrain from eating porridge. Therefore you have no free will.

If you COULD refrain from eating porridge tomorrow morning, then it was not true that someone knew that you would eat porridge tomorrow morning.

If ANYTHING you do was known before you did it, then you did NOT act out of free will. For if it was known before you did it, you could not have done otherwise.

To me the point is whether God or anyone knows what you will do is unimportant, what matters is that the doer had the choice of choosing A,B or C and if he chose C on his own then he had free will according to the general definition. The foreknowledge God may have is a passive knowledge with no impact on the subject.

How many times did the rooster crow before Peter denied Him three times? Mark wrote that it was twice (Mark 14:72) and also wrote that Jesus predicted, “Before the rooster crows twice… etc.” (Mark 14:30). The other three writers have Jesus simply saying “Before the rooster crows…”
The same when the rooster actually crowed, according to their accounts. It was just once. Somebody had to have had it wrong!

But the main point is that i think in all the accounts Peter denied Christ 3 times which Jesus predicted.

The “gospels” were written long after Jesus’ death

BTW i think Mark was written very early because of little details about people that would have been hard to recall decades later.

I’d like to see Paidon & Matt Slick discuss this topic.

While, on the one hand, Matt Slick affirms a belief in freewill, he takes it away with the other hand:

calvinistcorner.com/error-of … e-will.htm

In this discussion a Calvinist replies to the following comment saying it is not what Calvinism teaches:

“In Calvinism those not “given to the Son” have no chance of avoiding eternal hell, since that is what God predestined them to & God is fully responsible for. It is His fault & His alone that they spend eternity being punished. These people that the Calvinistic God forces to “go to hell” are just as undeserving of their fate in fatalistic Calvinism as the babies Calvin thought would end up there.”

christianforums.com/threads … 211/page-9

In this thread Calvinists agree that God did “foreordain (predestinate)” the events of Jer 7:31, 19:5, 32:35:

“Yes…God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, or He would not be God. However, His “ordination” does not mean that God “causes” anyone to sin, that we are all more than capable of doing w/o any help from Him.”

“…if God issued such commands and “caused” people to sin, then He would be the undoubted Author of sin/moral evil. Thankfully, we know that He would never do such a thing, rather, those who worship idols (and those who sin against Him in every other way) do so because they have been swept away by their own lusts and have chosen to do so.”

"… God ordains whatsoever comes to pass both actively (IOW, He causes things to happen*), and passively (IOW, He allows things to happen). In both cases He is absolutely sovereign.

*(Just to be clear, God never “causes” anyone to sin, but He does “allow” us to do so. If He did not, no one would be able to sin, nor would our wills be free!)"

“…God allows us to sin, but He does not cause us to sin. That’s what Calvinism teaches. There is the separate belief of a few that is referred to as “Hyper-Calvinism”, but it is neither Calvinism (nor did it spring out of Calvinism), nor is it Biblical or Christian.”

"…Did God know what our progenitors were going to do in the Garden? Of course.

“If He stopped them from disobeying Him, and if He continued to do so throughout their lives, what would that mean concerning their free will?”

christianforums.com/threads … s.8010429/

Origen, the concept of “predestination” in the sense that God’s actions or power make a thing happen in a human life is a different matter. Though I don’t believe that God predestines people or their actions, I don’t see the idea as illogical. For God would know future actions just because He intends to make them happen.

What I see as illogical is that, without God causing my future actions, they are nevertheless “set in stone” because they are known before I do them. Therefore I cannot choose in the future to do otherwise.

The idea that my future actions are now established through present knowledge and yet I have the freedom to choose contrary to those established actions, is illogical.

I see no reason to doubt that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the actual authors of the memoirs of Christ (now called “gospels”). But they didn’t write them until much later.

I presume you mean that God has simple foreknowledge of all future events. I just can’t make any logical sense out of this if we have the ability to choose.

If God (or anyone else) KNOWS (in the absolute sense of “knows”) that you will raise your hand at 2 P.M. tomorrow, then you will raise your hand at 2 P.M. tomorrow. It’s inevitable. When 2 P.M arrives you CANNOT keep your hand down! If you do succeed in keeping it down, then it would not be the case that God (or anyone else) KNEW that your would raise it.

Yes, I believe that the accounts are correct in stating that Peter denied Christ 3 times. However, I think that in remembering that Peter did this, the “gospel” writers THOUGHT they remembered that Christ had said “3 times” in His prediction. But He may not have done so. I think that Jesus, knowing Peter’s character, was in a good position to correctly predict that he would deny Him. My theory is that Jesus actually said, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny me.” This theory is consistent with my belief that future events cannot be known before they happen.

God Himself sometimes made predictions that did not occur. Here are two:

  1. Through Jonah, God prophesied, "“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jonah 3:4). Nineveh was not overthrown in 40 days.

  2. God’s words in Jeremiah 3:7 “I thought, ‘After she [Israel] has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return…”
    What God thought would happen didn’t happen. Some translations have “I said” rather than “I thought” and that seems to be correct. However, that makes no difference. For if God said that Israel would return, then He thought that she would return. God does not lie. The point is that what God thought or said would happen did not happen. If God knows the future, how could He think something was going to happen, if it didn’t happen?

In the link Zombie posted Matt Slick explains his position:

carm.org/if-god-knows-our-free- … -free-will

Slick asks: “If God knows our free will choices, do we still have free will?” His answer is, Yes.

Paidon says this is illogical.

Slick says, no, God can travel through time & see what we choose before we choose it.

Paidon would be in agreement with the Vulcan T’Pol who said “The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.”

Slick OTOH would agree with Captain Archer who did some time travelling himself.

chakoteya.net/Enterprise/26.htm

Is it logical that God always existed in eternity past? I find that idea mind boggling.

Here is the end of the article by Matt Slick:

“1. This is called Libertarian free will, that a person is equally able to make choices between options independent of pressures or constraints from external or internal causes. Compatibilist free will holds that a person can choose only that which is consistent with his nature. Therefore, for example, a person who is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20) and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14) would not be able to choose God of his own free will because his free will doesn’t have the capacity to contradict his nature. There is much debate on these issues and, depending on which side you lean, your interpretation of scripture will be affected.”

carm.org/if-god-knows-our-free- … -free-will

In Calvinism since a person cannot choose God, then why does God punish him for rejecting Him? How do Calvinists answer that?

Can the Calvinist God justly punish those who reject Christ if they could not do otherwise?

Or is there something about their “free will” choices that make them worthy of being damned?

In Calvinism what do these “freewill” choices allow a person to do? Choose between good & evil, but not God? Choose chocolate instead of vanilla?

Here’s where I shared a personal, expanded perspective at [The physical resurrection and our five senses.)

Here’s also an article at Dialogue on Free Will & Determinism. It’s essentially a dialogue, between an Eastern Orthodox priest and some Calvinists - regarding free will and determinism. Very interesting. :exclamation:

  1. This is called Libertarian free will, that a person is equally able to make choices between options independent of pressures or constraints from external or internal causes. Compatibilist free will holds that a person can choose only that which is consistent with his nature. Therefore, for example, a person who is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20) and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14) would not be able to choose God of his own free will because his free will doesn’t have the capacity to contradict his nature. There is much debate on these issues and, depending on which side you lean, your interpretation of scripture will be affected."

Seems to me we tend to gravitate toward extremes so that Libertarian free will is a fantasy as we being human and not robots are influenced by many things yet although we tend to do things consistent with our natures we are not incapable of changing with enough motivation. Also the scriptures quoted while true i think have a bit of hyperbole in them to emphasize their points as Jesus used hyperbole too and Paul could have, it was and is a typical Middle Eastern method of speaking.

Since this is a Calvinist thread, we should include a definition and critical response, from the Calvinists. Or since Steve is quoting Matt Slick - a Calvinist…Then see what other Calvinists (AKA Got Questions) - are saying. : :smiley:

What is libertarian free will?

And how does Matt define it - and respond?

What is libertarian free will?

Please note: I have to read Matt’s original context, on Libertarian free will. But in the article just cited, he has a section entitled Objections to Libertarian Free Will.

Acutally, what was cited by Oregin, was a footnote of Matt - attributed to Open Theism. And he is right, as the article from the Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy on Open Theism mentions at iep.utm.edu/o-theism/

Well, I would hold both a “compatibilist” and a “libertarian” view, in conjunction with Open Theism.

And I further balance open theism and synergy, against the premise - that thoughts and feelings can influence reality. A position that folks like Mary Baker Eddy, Joel Goldsmith and Emmet Fox, have demonstrated in their lives. Or as health and prosperity Gospel evangelists - like Joel Osteen - elaborate on. I just don’t buy into their explanations.

But something is constricting it. Let’s look at a vision, by contemporary, Old Catholic Church mystic Tiffany Snow. See The Third Secret ‘The Secret’ Didn’t Tell You. It says this:

Now we have a constriction. Mind you, it’s a hypothesis. But a guardian angel, looking after our best interest, brings in a compatibilist view. Which might explain why things don’t work all the time, like the health and prosperity gospel preachers envision. Or folks like Mary Baker Eddy, Joel Goldsmith and Emmet Fox envision.

In case you think, I’m the only one - with these weird ideas. See:

The Link Between Open Theism and the Prosperity Gospel

There, instead of a guardian angel, the author looks at the devil - as the constricting factor. Hum :exclamation: Perhaps both the devil and the guardian angel - are constricting factors :question:

This is all so confusing :exclamation: :confused:

Time travel is just as illogical as knowing in advance what a free-will agent will choose. Suppose I travel back in time 70 years. Will I meet my 9-year-old self? And which will be the real me? He or I?

The idea that God exists outside of time is unintelligible. If He exists outside of time, how could He do anything within time? Also “time” is not some sort of substance in which we all live, while God lives outside it. Time is the measure of the temporal “distance” between events.