1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Is there really a conflict between Freedom and Sovereignty, if rightly defined?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Jun 28, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    1
    Unbelievable brother, unbelievable. LOL

    LOADED QUESTION FALLACY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

    Also:

    (Philosophy / Logic) Logic the rhetorical trick of asking a question that cannot be answered without admitting a presupposition that may be false, as have you stopped beating your wife? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Have+you+stopped+beating+your+wife
     
  2. jonathanD

    jonathanD New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    The people will decide your fate inspector Javert! (Sorry, couldn't resist).


    Would you say creation is causally prior to these contra-causal decisions?
     
  3. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Calvinism cannot explain how exhaustive determinism and God being the cause of sin does not make God the author of sin. To make the assertion is irrational, incoherent, and unbiblical. Rather than shuck and jive, why not admit same?
     
  4. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    Here is a decent article written in terms of the "non-scientist"



    Do you believe in free will?

    Some physicists and neuroscientists believe in the opposite proposition: determinism. The mathematics of quantum mechanics have a say in this argument: Determinism is impossible unless you are willing to make an even greater philosophical sacrifice.



    RECEIVE NEWS ALERTS

    SIGN UP
    Tom Hartsfield RealClearScience
    quantum mechanics free will
    [+] More
    A determinist point of view says, "If I precisely know the complete workings of a system -- i.e., the position of every particle and how the laws of the universe operate -- I can tell you exactly what it will do in all future situations." For example, by measuring the sun's gravity and the motion of solar system bodies, we can calculate whether an asteroid will hit us or how to position a satellite in a complex orbit above the Earth.

    Obviously, humanity has been fairly successful at this: Science and technology underpin the modern world because we largely can understand and anticipate the actions of inanimate objects.

    But are you prepared to accept that your mind follows these same rules? That it is a machine which can be completely predicted, like pool balls on a felt table or comets circling a star? That you don't make choices: the choices are already made by the wiring patterns in your brain, and you just carry them out like a colossally complex adding machine? This is the philosophical endgame of classical physics (i.e., Newtonian physics) taken to its logical conclusion.

    Those who accept this philosophy simply apply physics to the human brain: If we could know all the molecules and cells and what they were doing, we could predict human thought perfectly. In practice, of course, this is nearly impossible, but it is philosophically possible. And chilling.

    Then along came quantum mechanics. When physicists observed that behavior at the atomic level was fundamentally indeterminate, the universal validity of classical physics, as well as philosophical determinism came into question. Physicists recoiled at the idea that their science could no longer claim to predict all things with infinite precision. But, that's what quantum mechanics teaches us. We absolutely cannot know exactly how something will turn out before it happens.

    Most physicists eventually accepted this idea as an empirical fact of measurement, but assumed that a flaw in quantum mechanics created the uncertainty. Perhaps, with further insight, some "hidden variable" could allow them to predict things with perfect certainty again.

    But that never happened.

    John Bell, in a famous 1964 paper, forced everyone to reconsider, both scientifically and philosophically, their support for determinism. His famous theorem, Bell's inequality, is an incredibly profound statement. This relatively simple mathematical proof, when applied to experimental results, gives us a choice: We must either give up determinism or give up the existence of an objective reality explained by science and measurable by humans with instruments. (You can read the gory details about the experiments here.)

    So if experiments on quantum phenomena are reliable, then Bell concludes that determinism is false. Most physicists agree.

    Essentially, quantum mechanics tells us that there are things which we cannot know about the future, things which are not predetermined but happen with some factor of chance or randomness. Although many things in the world may be predicted, everything is not predetermined, and our actions do not unfold mechanically in a manner predetermined since the very moment of the Big Bang. Free will is preserved.

    http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/04/03/quantum_mechanics_supports_free_will_106499.html
     
  5. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
  6. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi Agedman,

    The issue is not what the bible says, I was presenting what Calvinism teaches.

    There is no need for God to cause anyone to sin, but there is a need for God to allow someone to choose to glorify God or go his or her own way, that is necessary to fulfill God's purpose of creation.

    If everything is predestined by God, everything includes sin. You cannot get around that fact using mumbo jumbo.

    First, my post demonstrated that exhaustive determinism teaches God causes everything including sin. Not the Bible, but Calvinism's assertion that God predestines whatsoever comes to pass. Calvinism in the WCF then says, irrationally, God is not the author of sin. But if God causes everything, then to assert God is not the author of sin is an absurdity.

    What did Calvin say? "God's grace is illustrated by the fact that He does not give away salvation indiscriminately, but gives to some what He denies to others. Ignorance of this great truth detracts from God's glory and prevents true humility." Taken together, God causes us to sin (whatsoever comes to pass) and yet denies salvation to those He caused to sin. Calvin said if you are ignorant of this, you detract from God's glory.

    As I said, this is Calvinism 101.
     
    #66 Van, Jun 29, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2013
  7. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    Not to cast dirt on a surely respected physicist, but the article does not:

    1. Approach the physical world from a theistic stand point (or at least it is not stated).
    2. Fails to call attention to continued human discovery in science (we do not know all that we can know. Ergo we lack perfect knowledge).

    I think the latter point is more important than the former. If we understood science perfectly than we may be able to see order or planning that are shrouded in our imperfect observations.
     
  8. jonathanD

    jonathanD New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does that mean you can't (or won't) answer the question? I'm not talking about isms and systems...I'm asking you. Inspector Javert answered the question (quite well IMO), but you and Doc refuse to. Do you agree with Javert's answer?
     
  9. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    I do not think that Van understands that Calvinists do not believe in exhaustive determinism. Since Calvinists do not believe it there is nothing to explain.
     
  10. Inspector Javert

    Inspector Javert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Jonathan :)

    Interesting question. I think I would prefer you to re-phrase it differently; since I am not sure precisely what you mean....but, if I understand where you are coming from, my instinct is to say no.

    I don't think that creation itself stands in any causal relationship other than to say that (since I am a free-willer) God's creative act allowed for contra-causally free decisions. Personally, I believe free-decisions were taken into account in God's choice to create.
    If LFW exists....it does so only because God chose to permit it.
    His foreknowledge of the results of those decisions is incidental to them.

    I would say it is the results of the decisions which decide the content of what God foreknows, not the other way around.

    I believe your view comes from a common error in understanding necessity and contingency:
    If I understand where you are coming from, you see the problem like this:

    1.) Necessarily, if God foreknows x then x will happen. (this is true)
    2.)God foreknows x <----(a future decision)
    The conclusion I think you make is this:
    3.) Therefore x will necessarily happen.

    This is a common fallacy of transference of necessity.........
    The necessity of the first premise is not sufficient to transfer to the conclusion. In order for the above conclusion to be true, BOTH the premises must be necessarily true. But they are not. Consider a similar argument:

    1.) Necessarily if Jones is a bachelor, then he is unmarried
    2.) Jones is a bachelor
    3.) Therefore necessarily Jones is unmarried.
    [These first two arguments I bogarted from W. L. Craig's book The Only Wise God]

    But, Jones is NOT necessarily unmarried. He just IS unmarried. He is only unmarried contingently. Presumably, Jones could be married. Premise one is only true, because it is true by definition. Thus, as in our first example, God necessarily foreknows what will happen, because his exhaustive foreknowledge follows by definition of his Omniscience. An Omni-________ being is what we mean when we say "God".

    Thus, in order to understand the right way to illustrate how God's foreknowledge would work:

    1.) If Jones mows the lawn tomorrow, then necessarily, God foreknows it.
    2.) If Jones does NOT mow the lawn then necessarily, God foreknows it.
    3.) Jones mowed the lawn the next day
    4.) Therefore, God necessarily foreknew that Jones mowed the lawn the next day.
    5.) If Jones had NOT mowed the lawn, then necessarily God would have known that Jones would NOT mow the lawn.

    The CONTENT of what God knows about Jones's lawn-mowing practices follow from what Jones will actually do . However, what Jones will actually do......does not follow from what God knows.
    "Shoot me now for all I care.....if you let me go, BEWARE!!
    You'll still answer to.......JAVERT!" :eek:
     
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Got to stop you there Luke. I never said that man should make decisions 'without cause.' That is not what we believe. We believe God is the cause of his decisions and has created men to be the cause of their decisions. Choosers make choices. Determiners make determinations. The agent is the cause of his choices and actions, which is why he is responsible for them.
     
  12. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thank you for you contribution to this thread. I believe you have great insight on these matters. :thumbs:

    Ironically, the determinist should be thanking you as well, because if they are correct then you are doing what you have done by God's determined will so as to accomplish His greatest glory. Why aren't they thanking you too? Hmmmm? :smilewinkgrin:
     
  13. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well put. :thumbs:

    I pray people will objectively and thoroughly grapple with this post. Kudos.
     
  14. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Folks, JonathanD answers a question with a question, then asserts his opponent is unable to answer the question. Shuck and jive, folks, that is all they have.

    How can Calvinism teach God predestines everything, which includes sin because of His exhaustive foreknowledge and then claim God is not the author of sin? No Calvinist will answer that question, they will ask a different question, answer a different question, and otherwise evade the question.

    No one on this forum seems willing to answer my question and so the subject is shifted to my views. Shuck and jive folks, shuck and jive.
     
  15. Gorship

    Gorship Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2013
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    50
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    erm.. ok :)

    They Reject God and Reject His gift of eternal life though His son Jesus Christ

    May I ask you - if your a Calvinist. Does God not desire all to be saved? If you agree with that, would you be willing to agree that your attributes of God and those attributes that are inferred from posts from our Brothers like Winman, and DrJames and Benjamin are describing are different... I cant help but sometimes feel like the tension goes deeper than the surface level we just read about... perhaps its just me though.

    Perhaps I misspoke or mistyped (not as smart as you guys remember). At the 'conception' of faith if you will, there is no doubt some kind of 2-fold action that takes place. Whilst man must decide on if He will serve God or not - Christ promises to stand at the door of our hearts and knock (Rev 3:20). Thus the tension of God wishing men to be saved - and our ability to Reject Him by not opening that door is at our own peril is substantiated.
     
  16. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,913
    Likes Received:
    1,017
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Let me chime in with Skandelon, this is a very fine effort at showing exhaustive determinism is flawed. One nit pick, my version says God declares the end from the beginning, but it is an assumption to read it as saying God declares everything in between creation and Revelation 20. The final outcome, the end, Christ is victorious, and we become more than conquerors, but Satan and his cohorts go into the lake of fire has certainly been declared from the beginning when scripture says Eve's seed will crush the serpent.

    I have copy and pasted it into my files, and expect me to steal ... no pay homage to... these demonstrations of evidence in the future. :)
     
    #76 Van, Jun 29, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2013
  17. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    Why? because you SAY so?

    No. Its not that simple. First of all, gravity is the power of God pulling things where God wants them.

    It is not some independent force God instituted and left to do it's thing.

    In God we live AND MOVE and have our being.

    By Him all things consist.

    Deism teaches that God made natural powers, set them in motion and left them to function by their own powers- not Christianity.

    There is no power but God's. Nothing moves but by God's power.

    Secondly, God has always known all there is to ever know about everything.

    So if God did not intend for there to be a universe in which that rock would fall, then God would have made the universe differently.

    Gravity is only ever doing to any object in the universe at any given time EXACTLY what God always knew it would do to that object before he built the universe.

    God built the universe to do exactly what it does because he knew exactly what it would do before he built it and if he did not want it to do something he could have built it differently.

    To deny this is to embrace a Christianized form of Deism.
     
    #77 Luke2427, Jun 29, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2013
  18. DrJamesAch

    DrJamesAch New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,427
    Likes Received:
    1
    NO, it is NOT the same situation that David was in. The angel did not tell Joseph in a dream, "Herod WILL kill baby Jesus", he said that Herod sought for his life, he didn't say Herod would succeed.

    Really? What part of God said "HE WILL COME DOWN" and then Saul NOT COMING DOWN is so hard to understand? I understand that throws such a monkey wrench into your theology that you want to ignore, but it's right there in black and white. David asked the Lord if Saul will come down, the Lord said he WILL. 1 Samuel 23:14-HE DID NOT COME DOWN, but FORBARE.

    That is hardly the same scenario as Joseph. Not to mention you didn't address the other Scriptures I gave.
     
  19. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    It's not about having or not having a "choice."

    Nobody denies that people have choices.

    The problem is that Arminians REFUSE, absolutely REFUSE, to ask WHY people choose what they choose.

    Why did Jack choose to refuse Christ when John chose to receive Christ?

    The Arminian answer- Because they CHOSE- THAT'S WHY!!!

    But WHY did they choose what they chose?

    Then they basically jam their fingers in their ears and start screaming and gnashing on their opponents with their teeth.

    Those who don't do that introduce a fabricated, nonsensical, illogical term (as if that settles the matter)- CONTRA-CAUSAL FREE WILL!!

    OH! Well that settles it!

    Now if we say, "There are REASONS why people choose the things they choose," they cry, "NO! NO!! That's begging the question!!"

    And they think they've won by doing nothing more than killing the debate while they had the last word.

    But contra-causal anything is utter nonsense unless it is God himself.

    Only GOD has no cause.

    Just picking something (like free will) and claiming it has an attribute that only eternal God could have is not an argument.

    It is ILLOGICAL to claim that choices do not have reasons.

    It is UNREASONABLE0 and, as such, to be dismissed.
     
  20. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Replace the word "choice" with its given definition and there is no doubt in my mind that you deny that people have choices. Here allow me:

    "People are able to 'select between two or more possibilities.'" You, as a determinists, deny that there even are two or more possibilities, much less that people are able to willingly select other than what God has predetermined for them to select. The only Choice being made is Gods, and even that is incoherent because according to that same logic God can't select between possibilities either.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...