Featured The End of Faith According to Atheist: “Proof” There is No Free Will

Tom Butler · May 29, 2012

I have always been intrigued by how hardening is treated in the book of Exodus.
On more than one occasion, it says God hardened Pharoah's heart
On more than one occasion, it says Pharoah hardened his own heart.

Add to that, Paul's writing in Romans 9:17-18

“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.”
Click to expand...

One of the natural questions is why does God harden someone, then punish the one he has hardened?

The implication of that statement is that Pharaoh didn't deserve that kind of judgment. But we know that he was an evil person, well deserving of God's punishment for a number of reasons.

So, since all of us deserve justice instead of mercy, it ill behooves us to say God is unfair or unjust. We don't want God to be just. We want him to be merciful.

I, for one, am grateful that he showed me mercy, for reasons I could never fathom.

Tom Butler · May 29, 2012

Tom Butler said:

But once we acknowledge that God can and has arranged circumstances to accomplish his will, we've opened a door that we can't ever close. For if God can do it once, he can do it every time.[/QUOTE]

quantumfaith replies:
Tom, I definitely feel this way, but I don't think it necessarily means that God "arranges" everything, not that He is incapable of such, I just don't think that is HOW he operates.
Click to expand...

I think all agree that God can do what he wants to do and accomplish what he wants to accomplish. The question we'll debate until He comes again is how can God be sovereign and man be free.

How can we have prophecy fulfilled if God just sits there and watches things happen?

How does he determine which things he will make happen and which things he'll just let happen?

In the meantime, I'll trust the God of Daniel 4:35

All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,But He does according to His will in the host of heaven
And among the inhabitants of earth;
And no one can ward off His hand
Or say to Him, ‘ What have You done?’
Click to expand...

We'll know someday, Lord willing.
Click to expand...

humblethinker · May 29, 2012

Tom Butler said: ↑

How can we have prophecy fulfilled if God just sits there and watches things happen?
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that the only alternative to your view of God fulfilling prophecy is that God has to "just sit there and watch things happen"? It sounds like you are falling to a false dilemma.

Tom Butler said: ↑

How does he determine which things he will make happen and which things he'll just let happen?
Click to expand...

What does it matter to us whether he causes, or does himself, or allows the free actions of men to fulfill prophecy? He is omni -resourceful, -intelligent, -potent, all wise, etc. Being all that is more than enough to ensure his purposes and prophecies. Why would He have to rely on His direct determination or foreknowledge to accomplish such? In fact, I think it brings more glory to Him that He is able to accomplish such without using determinism or foreknowledge.

Benjamin · May 29, 2012

humblethinker said: ↑

It seems to me that the idea of free will can only be defended behind the idea of a God. As I said here, if we were to suppose that Christianity were untrue, I would be a naturalistic determinist.
Click to expand...

Yes, in a way, being that He created us with a spirit. Free will can also be defended by the existence of the human spirit. Of course, psychologists are out to prove that all our decisions are based on an evolutionary natural process in our brains that predictively insured our survival through natural selection. They teach the ways these processes can be discovered is through developing scientific experiments which are designed to limit errors in the data by “proving” it was the best possible choice for the survival of a species. The game then turns into you either prove how their scientific data doesn’t add up or they must in fact be on to something.

Psychologists have no regard for the spirit of a man being behind his decisions because this can not be proved scientifically, plus their agenda is to discount creation and spiritual guidance. My psychology professor would get so frustrated with me in that I would discount and/or completely dismiss these long drawn out efforts of her to show how science has proved why we behave in a certain way with a simple statement from the wisdom of God’s word which would show the spirit was blessed for doing things God’s way, under God’s Spiritual guidance, because it was His plan to bring about love and good into the world from the beginning of creation. I really think in a way they think of themselves as little gods when they come up with these intellectual experiments that seem to prove natural selection and would justify immoral behavior; this became very evident to me in the way they “praise” each other, which is very apparent in the text books as an experiment is being addressed, in the way they will hold one another in the highest regard of wisdom for coming up with something that seems to explain natural selection rather than spiritual morality.

I once got such a good laugh in class on my psychology professor that I couldn’t breath after she spent three days explaining that this monkey-in-a-box experiment about him being raised without any contact did not develop normally and how that this “proved” a human child needs their natural parents. LOL, I mean, the class is all quiet and intently listening to the conclusion and I go “Duh”! LOL. God describes Himself as our Father from creation and tells us how to bring up our children in the “spirit” of love. Ah, you would have had to been there, she was a pretty blond from California that was extremely liberal and was a great example of the stereotypical aspects proving why we have jokes along that line. LOL. She raised her son in special “gender neutral school” that dressed him up in pink and encouraged him to play with dolls so that he wouldn’t be predisposed to selecting a gender role that might not best suite him, I kid you not!

Funny, how the Atheist believe things are "naturally" determined by cause and effect rather than by "spritual" influence and response and is so dead set to prove it.

Tom Butler · May 29, 2012

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
How can we have prophecy fulfilled if God just sits there and watches things happen?

humblethinker said: ↑

Why do you assume that the only alternative to your view of God fulfilling prophecy is that God has to "just sit there and watch things happen"? It sounds like you are falling to a false dilemma.
Click to expand...

In all the discussions on this subject on this board, the debate has been over two options: God's decree vs. his foreknowledge.

It it is either/or then either God makes it happen and actively is involved in causing it to be so; or knows it'll happen and doesn't need to cause it to happen.

You're question suggests that there's another option. If so, what is it?

What does it matter to us whether he causes, or does himself, or allows the free actions of men to fulfill prophecy? He is omni -resourceful, -intelligent, -potent, all wise, etc. Being all that is more than enough to ensure his purposes and prophecies. Why would He have to rely on His direct determination or foreknowledge to accomplish such? In fact, I think it brings more glory to Him that He is able to accomplish such without using determinism or foreknowledge.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

So, if he uses neither determinism nor foreknowledge, how does that work?

Again, what are the other options?

humblethinker · May 29, 2012

Tom Butler said: ↑

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
How can we have prophecy fulfilled if God just sits there and watches things happen?

In all the discussions on this subject on this board, the debate has been over two options: God's decree vs. his foreknowledge.

It it is either/or then either God makes it happen and actively is involved in causing it to be so; or knows it'll happen and doesn't need to cause it to happen.

You're question suggests that there's another option. If so, what is it?

Agreed. He's omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

So, if he uses neither determinism nor foreknowledge, how does that work?

Again, what are the other options?
Click to expand...

I listed some of the other options already:

God has ultimate intelligence. He could use his intelligence to combine possibilities with their probabilities and with His other attributes strategically ensure his purposes.

God is omni-resourceful. He can focus on each possible situation with all of his attributes as though that each possibility were the only possibility.

God is creative. He can create and transform material things so as to ensure his purposes.

God is Almighty. His ability to harness weather, manipulate matter, make light to shine when there was no sun, 'hold the sun' in the sky to lengthen the day, etc. He is able to do mighty things to ensure his purposes.

God can redirect the malicious actions of evil people to bring about goodness to others.

There is no need of any other attribute if one can predetermine all means and outcomes simply based on his predetermination prior to the act of creation. Is he to be praised for being strong, wise, resourceful, redeemer, etc. when it is all actually due to his predetermining before the outset? It seems logical that it is the act of predetermination that would be what is praiseworthy.

What Glory does God get when all His ways, achievements and works are ascribed to His exhaustive pre-determination before the outset of creation? How small would my thoughts of God have to be for me claim that His glory is all due to Him 'loading the dice'... no, more than that, completely rigging every atom and thought ever to exist in creation all under his manipulative action even before he creates? Is he a God who expects to be loved by his creation but yet predetermines his creatures actions thereby allowing no risk of being rejected by some and at the same time pre-scripting rejection by others. People reject him because he has predetermined it to be so? People love him because he predetermined it to be so? He experiences no risk in relationships because he is the great manipulator and the relationships are what they are solely due to his predetermination. All of this to ensure that he achieves his purposes? How is this love? How is this relationship? Is he not a God that acts out of a genuine relationship to his beloved? What is it about this idea of exhaustive predetermination that is praiseworthy? It seems one could reasonably argue that this would be the basest means conceivable for a God to ensure His purposes. Yet this is what calvinists claim first and foremost.

Benjamin · May 30, 2012

humblethinker said: ↑

I listed some of the other options already:

God has ultimate intelligence. He could use his intelligence to combine possibilities with their probabilities and with His other attributes strategically ensure his purposes.

God is omni-resourceful. He can focus on each possible situation with all of his attributes as though that each possibility were the only possibility.

God is creative. He can create and transform material things so as to ensure his purposes.

God is Almighty. His ability to harness weather, manipulate matter, make light to shine when there was no sun, 'hold the sun' in the sky to lengthen the day, etc. He is able to do mighty things to ensure his purposes.

God can redirect the malicious actions of evil people to bring about goodness to others.

There is no need of any other attribute if one can predetermine all means and outcomes simply based on his predetermination prior to the act of creation. Is he to be praised for being strong, wise, resourceful, redeemer, etc. when it is all actually due to his predetermining before the outset? It seems logical that it is the act of predetermination that would be what is praiseworthy.

What Glory does God get when all His ways, achievements and works are ascribed to His exhaustive pre-determination before the outset of creation? How small would my thoughts of God have to be for me claim that His glory is all due to Him 'loading the dice'... no, more than that, completely rigging every atom and thought ever to exist in creation all under his manipulative action even before he creates? Is he a God who expects to be loved by his creation but yet predetermines his creatures actions thereby allowing no risk of being rejected by some and at the same time pre-scripting rejection by others. People reject him because he has predetermined it to be so? People love him because he predetermined it to be so? He experiences no risk in relationships because he is the great manipulator and the relationships are what they are solely due to his predetermination. All of this to ensure that he achieves his purposes? How is this love? How is this relationship? Is he not a God that acts out of a genuine relationship to his beloved? What is it about this idea of exhaustive predetermination that is praiseworthy? It seems one could reasonably argue that this would be the basest means conceivable for a God to ensure His purposes. Yet this is what calvinists claim first and foremost.
Click to expand...

As you can see the Atheist does indeed have a great ally in the Calvinist who will stand on their side and will argue that free will does not exist even at the expense of disregarding God’s other attributes which are logically mutually exclusive to Him having a deterministic nature.

Great post, full of rational reasoning, logic and valid questions concerning divine attributes that the Calvinist cannot answer with a good conscience other than by avoiding the issues and holding to a single misguided presumption about only one divine attribute while screaming “God is Sovereign”; not that I would agree such a reply is in good conscience, but in reality why should that matter to him since the tread is about one’s “true” ability to have conscience of his own because of free will in the first place.

Unfortunately, not only do I seriously doubt you will get a practical reasoned response that addresses the relevant points of the argument which you have made but the person will come back later on another tread using the same type of tactics, the same arguments, use the same scriptures to suggest free will does not exist that have been rationally addressed, and continue with the same avoidances which have been confronted here and now until the next time someone cuts him off at the knees by trapping and breaking down his argument.

This becomes very frustrating to me because the format here allows people to escape accountability and wastes time for those trying to get to the bottom of the issues, but I guess they have an “excuse” for that which is in agreement with the philosophical principles and arguments of the Atheist that free will does not exist and thereby “real” faith would have to be an illusion as the opening premise of this tread has been demonstrated that such an alliance is unfortunately true.

quantumfaith · May 30, 2012

Tom Butler said: ↑

Tom Butler said:

But once we acknowledge that God can and has arranged circumstances to accomplish his will, we've opened a door that we can't ever close. For if God can do it once, he can do it every time.[/QUOTE]

:applause: Excellent questions, and yes, I completely agree, one day, much, if not all of this mystery for both of our theological perspectives will be revealed to us.

I rather like and respect RZ perspective on this "tension".

The question you have raised has to do with an issue that theologians have been wrestling with for centuries. The Calvinistic and the Arminian position highlight their own views in attempting to answer this question. The passage you have referred to in Romans is taken out of Paul’s letter in which he is dealing with the privileged position that Israel has as being the mouthpiece to the nations of the world, and the passage in Peter, of course, is referring to the fact that God is not desiring that anyone should perish. If I may rephrase your question, you are wrestling with the dialectic of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Let me try and give you a couple of illustrations before dealing with it theologically and in a mild philosophical manner.

The sovereignty and responsibility issue should really be seen as two opposite poles of the same position. Light, for example, is viewed from some vantage points as particles. From other vantage points it is viewed as waves. Scientists are aware that light could not be both particles and waves, so they have coined a term for it, a kind of a construct, and they call it a “photon.” All they have done is create a word and a category that accommodates both perspectives which are real. I think you should view the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man as a kind of a precious stone with two facets to it. When it catches the light from one direction, you see one color; when it catches the light from the other direction you see the other color. Our propensity in the Western world to put God into a box and to systematize everything sometimes violates a fundamental precept in philosophy. It is not possible for a finite person to infinitely understand the infinite. If a finite person can fully understand the infinite, the very category of infinity is destroyed. So my proposal to you is to see both of these perspectives and hold them in balance.

For example, the biblical writers held these in tension. When you look at Acts 2:23, Peter is addressing the people. After the crucifixion of Jesus, he says, “That which God hath ordained from before the foundation of the world, you with wicked hands have taken and crucified.” What is he talking about? “That which God hath foreordained (the sovereignty of God) you with wicked hands have taken and crucified (the responsibility of man).” Peter holds it in tension. The apostle Paul in Philippians 2:12 does the same thing. He says, “Work out your own salvation (the responsibility of man), for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure (the sovereignty of God).” So Paul holds it in tension. Jesus also in Matthew 18:7 says, “Offenses must come, but woe unto him through whom they come”--the sovereignty of God and responsibility of man. So in an attempt to try to clearly highlight either of these two extremes, you will do violence to the other.

In your example of Romans 9, it is imperative that you understand the context. In Romans, chapters 9, 10 and 11, Paul is primarily writing to the Jewish church in order to get them to understand that the chosenness that God had given to them was a privilege with concomitant responsibilities. He goes on to show that their privileged position was given to them because someone had to be a mouthpiece to the world and God chose the least of all the nations. He did not choose the philosophers in Greece; He did not choose the imperial might of Rome; He did not choose the splendor of Babylon. He chose a tiny little nation with whom and through whom He was going to pronounce the oracles to the rest of the world. Now, with that great privilege came a proportionate responsibility. So that chosenness was one of instrumentality, and to whom much was given much was also required. In the same way, I believe this principle applies to preachers. Just because we are called upon to stand in front of people and proclaim, it does not necessarily mean we have a better deal going for us. The fact is that our lives must be proportionate to the privilege and responsibility.

The passage in Peter expresses God’s desire for all mankind. Of course, He is not willing that any should perish. Now, what you need to do is recognize that foreknowledge and foreordination are not the same thing. I may know, for example, that as I see my child about to lift something heavy that he is not going to be able to lift it, but there are times when I stand back and watch in an attempt to teach this individual the fact that there are some loads too heavy for a smaller body to handle. Now when you are looking at the sovereignty of God, it is undeniable that God is sovereign in history. He is even able to take the evil intents of people and turn them around to good benefits. But isn’t that true of all life? There are some things in life that are givens--you and I

have no control over them, but we do have options as to how we are going to deal with those givens, and that is where our responsibility comes in.

When you think of the mystery of sovereignty and responsibility, the very incarnation of Christ carries this enigma. Here is the sovereign God dwelling in a finite body with all of its limitations. So in my initial answer to you, may I suggest that you look at these two points as opposite poles of a dialectic; we cannot take God and put Him in a box as absolutely free. Somewhere the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man meet. The picture I have in mind is not of overlapping circles, as if each circle represented one extreme of the pole, but of conjoining circles. At some spot the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man meet. To try to answer it and explain it away would require infinite knowledge. The challenge you and I face, therefore, in life is to see how we can responsibly operate within the parameters that are so clear--God is sovereign, and yet I have the freedom and reserve the right to say yes or to say no. You see, God has given to every man the fundamental privilege of trusting Him or refusing to trust Him. You know, the old illustration used to be the sign outside of Heaven saying “Whosoever will may come,” and once you enter in, you see the sign that says, “Chosen before the foundation of the world.” A person who is truly born again recognizes that it was really the grace of God that brought him there because he could ever have come this way himself. It does not in any way mitigate or violate the choice that he made. The choice man makes is to trust God’s provision. Frankly, the tendency we may sometimes have is to complain that there is only one door to Heaven. Rather than complaining about it, we ought to thank God that there is at least one door by which we may enter.

There have been Calvinists and Arminians, giants of the faith, on both sides of the fence. I believe what John Calvin says holds very true: “Where God has closed His holy mouth let us learn not to open ours.” My own perspective on this is that God’s assurance of sovereignty is given to the person who wonders whatever caused him to merit the salvation, and God’s challenge of free will is to the person who tends to blame God for having even brought him into this world and that he has nothing to do to control his destiny. When you look at the encounter between Pharaoh and Moses, you see the constant availability of data given to Pharaoh, and the hardening process is really not a predestined one. It is a description after the fact that God was going to reveal the face that this man’s heart was already hardened. Remember, God operates in the eternal now.

So to sum up once again, the chapters of Romans 9, 10 and 11 are Paul’s theological treatise to the Jews to alert them to the fact that this great privilege does not let them get away scot-free. They have an enormous and a proportionate responsibility. He goes on to alert other nations that, rather than complaining about it, they should be glad that a privilege was given to someone, and through that someone this message has come to them also. In fact, if you read Romans 1, 2 and 3, you will find out that the privilege that the Jew had, in many ways, for many of them, turned out to be a disadvantage. If you read Romans 5, you will find out that even though God called Abraham, it was the faith of Abraham that justified him. Once again you see the sovereignty and responsibility. Why don’t we leave this enigma within the divine mind and just be grateful for the privilege that we have heard His voice and we can turn and follow Him?
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

quantumfaith · May 30, 2012

continued

May I strongly recommend that you pick up the book written by J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. His introductory comments alone, dealing with the difference between a contradiction and a paradox, are well done. If God were absolutely sovereign, then it would be a contradiction to say that man is absolutely free. God is not absolutely sovereign to the point that He can call something that is not as if it actually were. For example, God cannot make squares into circles. That would be a contradiction. So absolute sovereignty is really not what is being talked about here. God, therefore, has chosen to give us the option and, within that framework, He cannot call us free while absolutely violating that freedom. Both poles exist--His sovereignty and our responsibility. We rest on the fact that God is just, that God is love, that God is good, and He woos us enough so that we may trust Him and yet gives us enough freedom so that we might know that this freedom cannot be transformed into coercion.
Ravi K. Zacharias/ 1987

quantumfaith · May 30, 2012

humblethinker said: ↑

I listed some of the other options already:

God has ultimate intelligence. He could use his intelligence to combine possibilities with their probabilities and with His other attributes strategically ensure his purposes.

God is omni-resourceful. He can focus on each possible situation with all of his attributes as though that each possibility were the only possibility.

God is creative. He can create and transform material things so as to ensure his purposes.

God is Almighty. His ability to harness weather, manipulate matter, make light to shine when there was no sun, 'hold the sun' in the sky to lengthen the day, etc. He is able to do mighty things to ensure his purposes.

God can redirect the malicious actions of evil people to bring about goodness to others.

There is no need of any other attribute if one can predetermine all means and outcomes simply based on his predetermination prior to the act of creation. Is he to be praised for being strong, wise, resourceful, redeemer, etc. when it is all actually due to his predetermining before the outset? It seems logical that it is the act of predetermination that would be what is praiseworthy.

What Glory does God get when all His ways, achievements and works are ascribed to His exhaustive pre-determination before the outset of creation? How small would my thoughts of God have to be for me claim that His glory is all due to Him 'loading the dice'... no, more than that, completely rigging every atom and thought ever to exist in creation all under his manipulative action even before he creates? Is he a God who expects to be loved by his creation but yet predetermines his creatures actions thereby allowing no risk of being rejected by some and at the same time pre-scripting rejection by others. People reject him because he has predetermined it to be so? People love him because he predetermined it to be so? He experiences no risk in relationships because he is the great manipulator and the relationships are what they are solely due to his predetermination. All of this to ensure that he achieves his purposes? How is this love? How is this relationship? Is he not a God that acts out of a genuine relationship to his beloved? What is it about this idea of exhaustive predetermination that is praiseworthy? It seems one could reasonably argue that this would be the basest means conceivable for a God to ensure His purposes. Yet this is what calvinists claim first and foremost.
Click to expand...

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

This has often been a position of mine, though I could never have stated it so eloquently. I often seen the fundamentals of the discussion be simplified down to the attempt to ascertain God'd motive. Whereas I posit his primary motivation is LOVE, many of fellow DoG brothers are convinced it is "His Glory". As I see it, God's asiety causes itself a tension in the "His Glory" position. Let me be clear (famous political words), I do not feel it is either/or, but rather a mathematical "or" (set union).

Iconoclast · May 30, 2012

Sad to see so many who do not trust that God always does what is right.Gen 18:25. This lack of trust is unbelief.

Benjamin · May 31, 2012

Indeed. Sad to see so many that do not believe that He is a God of Truth in His way of judgment (Deut 32:4) and that no man will have an excuse not to respond to His genuine influences (Rom 1:20) and that lack of belief in trusting in the loving power of God to create every man with the ability to respond to the genuine influence and offer of grace from their Creator (Rom 10:9,10) leads the Determinist into an alliance with the Atheists in that they both profess that free will doesn’t exist and conclude that man’s volition is a mere illusion thereby rendering that God’s creatures are part of a puppet show for His enjoyment at best or that He does not exist in truth at worst.

Skandelon · May 31, 2012

Tom Butler said: ↑

I didn't appeal to Calvinism regarding people's accountability. I cited Acts 2:23.
Click to expand...

But I presume you interpreted that verse "Calvinistically" which is why I rebutted that interpretation.

So, you are agreeing that there are at least some circumstances in which God uses some means to accomplish his will.
Click to expand...

Of course. Those are uniquely divine events of God's active and effectual working. To suggest EVERY event is likewise determined by God only serves to undermine these uniquely divine ones.

I don't suppose we'll ever know until we see the Lord Jesus how God was able to make prophecies come true, without causing some events to happen and moving men to take certain actions--and take them of their own volition. Or, stopping men from taking certain actions.
Click to expand...

I agree, so tell your deterministic friends to stop speculating that God MUST be deterministic in order to accomplish His purposes, okay? :thumbs:

But once we acknowledge that God can and has arranged circumstances to accomplish his will, we've opened a door that we can't ever close. For if God can do it once, he can do it every time.
Click to expand...

So proof that God actively intervenes to ensure one thing proves He actively intervenes to ensure all things? How do you figure?

Featured The End of Faith According to Atheist: “Proof” There is No Free Will

Tom Butler New Member

Tom Butler New Member

humblethinker Active Member

Benjamin Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Tom Butler New Member

humblethinker Active Member

Benjamin Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

quantumfaith Active Member

quantumfaith Active Member

quantumfaith Active Member

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Benjamin Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Useful Searches

Featured The End of Faith According to Atheist: “Proof” There is No Free Will

Tom Butler New Member

Tom Butler New Member

humblethinker Active Member

Benjamin Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Tom Butler New Member

humblethinker Active Member

Benjamin Well-Known Member Site Supporter

quantumfaith Active Member

quantumfaith Active Member

quantumfaith Active Member

Iconoclast Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Benjamin Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Benjamin Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Benjamin Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Iconoclast Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Benjamin Well-Known Member
Site Supporter