Predestined or Free Will?

[Nessa]

I guess what im saying is if God said to john 'you can marry who ever you want' and then just before john proposes to sally, God is like no wait you cant do that!

Can God do that? Really? Some would say yes of course.. But would that really be giving john free will? So no, I don't think its a simple matter that God can just use his free will totally the way he pleases.

He doesnt stop every rape and murder.. Can he tho, really? In a world that has true free will?

I think there are times God cant just choose to have free will. Its not a mere matter of him putting down and taking up his free will everytime he desires to.

Edit: I dont think I have explained what I mean well. Will leave it til another time.

[Philip]

Yes, I realise that God is using free will to limit his free will

No! God does not limit His free will. What he does is eliminate ALL evil CHOICES and ACTIONS that He COULD make/take, but that He will not due to His Holy character. There is a difference between limiting decisions and actions (freely made) to only good, and in limiting free will that allows God to always choose to do good (and "limited" free will is not truly free - plus, it's an oxymoron!). In fact, there is no difference between God's Holy character and the morality of His choices - that is, as to what He chooses amongst all available options. Also, God's choices, His Holy Character, Mind and Heart are all ONE in unison. God never does evil because He desires to do only good.

God is not like a man, as His choices are ALL, already made, because there has never been a choice or a thing He has not fully known about, or a situation or thing which He has not known what He would do. He sees ALL things, across ALL history, on the very same page, all at once. So, we sometimes use human references of time sequence, knowledge and choices made, when referencing God. God also doesn't change His mind, from one response to another - at least, in the sense that He didn't know about every previous response and then every subsequent one. But He does respond to man in real-time/our time/earth time. So, we do A, His response is first B. And depending upon His purpose - and often our actions - He will subsequently respond differently, with a response of C - all the while perfectly knowing the sequence of His responses as well as the precises sequence of what we will do or how He will respond. God cannot surprise Himself. He can never have an original thought - why? Because He has no limitations of knowledge of the future things He will one day do. God simply IS - He's the Great I AM!

[Jac3510]

ITT: Joke turns into impossible debate!

Let me try one: a woman is looking at herself in the mirror and says to her husband, "I feel like I look tired, old, and fat. I need a compliment." The man replied, "Your eyesight is perfect!"

[hmmm . . . we could ask if he had freewill in that impossible situation . . . ]

---------------------

Good post above, Phil. And to nessa, I'd just say that I think you are operating on an incorrect understanding of free will. If you take your thinking to its logical conclusion, you literally have the person making his "free choices" independently of God's power. And that creates some very severe problems that maybe you can imagine. In my view it is better to say, as one school of thought has traditionally said, that God causes all things, even your free choices. It's just that precisely because your choices are free choices, God causes them to come about in a free (voluntary) manner.

But regardless, phil is right. You can't talk about God limiting Himself. If He did that, then by definition He would not be unlimited. He would be limited. But an unlimited being can't be limited! Then you would have an unlimited-limited God, which is a self-contradiction.

[Nessa]

ITT: Joke turns into impossible debate!

Let me try one: a woman is looking at herself in the mirror and says to her husband, "I feel like I look tired, old, and fat. I need a compliment." The man replied, "Your eyesight is perfect!"

[hmmm . . . we could ask if he had freewill in that impossible situation . . . ]

---------------------

Good post above, Phil. And to nessa, I'd just say that I think you are operating on an incorrect understanding of free will. If you take your thinking to its logical conclusion, you literally have the person making his "free choices" independently of God's power. And that creates some very severe problems that maybe you can imagine. In my view it is better to say, as one school of thought has traditionally said, that God causes all things, even your free choices. It's just that precisely because your choices are free choices, God causes them to come about in a free (voluntary) manner.

But regardless, phil is right. You can't talk about God limiting Himself. If He did that, then by definition He would not be unlimited. He would be limited. But an unlimited being can't be limited! Then you would have an unlimited-limited God, which is a self-contradiction.

I rememberTricky Ricky saying that joke

I'm not great at explaining myself so please bear with me
Maybe it would have been more accurate of me to say 'God stops himself
rather than He limits himself'

E.G.. A guy is about to rape a girl and God stops himself from interferring with his free will'

Jac, it sounds to me like you are saying God causes all things even our free choices? Are you saying God causes us to have free choices? Surely you don't mean God literally causes all things e.g causes us to comitte evil? Cos to me. causing all thing means just that. Causing all things.

[Jac3510]

Yes, I am saying God causes everything, even our free choices. To suggest otherwise is to say that something happened without God causing, and that means that the thing came into existence without God bringing it into existence, and that means quite literally it came into existence from nothing and that there is a part of reality that did not come from God, that He did not create, and therefore that is independent of Him.

The key, though, is to recognize that God causes our free choices. By causing them, He does not take away their voluntary nature. That's what a free choice is. Since it exists, God brought it about (as God causes everything that exists to come about). Since it is free, that means that God causes it to be free.

In other words, I'm saying that to suggest that God somehow interferes with or limits free will is a category error. You're asking what blue smells like or how heavy the number seven is. The question imagines God as a being--one of many--alongside of and interacting with us. But that's not what God is. God is that by which we do all that we do. He is that which causes all that is. As Phil said, He just is. We are because He is. If we act freely, it is because God acts. If a rock falls, it is because God acts. The very fact that something exists and the way in which it exists--whether it exists as a fact (e.g., the rock exits) or as a determined act (e.g., the rock is falling) or a voluntary act (e.g., I am typing this)--is nothing more or less than God bring it about. To say otherwise is, again, to say that something exists apart from God's creative power, that He did not bring it about, and that it is therefore independent of God. And therefore, God is not infinite and not perfect, because since that thing is independent of Him, it has something He does not have. Pretty heavy price to pay in my view for claiming that God isn't involved in bringing about our choices!

[Nessa]

Yes, I am saying God causes everything, even our free choices. To suggest otherwise is to say that something happened without God causing, and that means that the thing came into existence without God bringing it into existence, and that means quite literally it came into existence from nothing and that there is a part of reality that did not come from God, that He did not create, and therefore that is independent of Him.

The key, though, is to recognize that God causes our free choices. By causing them, He does not take away their voluntary nature. That's what a free choice is. Since it exists, God brought it about (as God causes everything that exists to come about). Since it is free, that means that God causes it to be free.

In other words, I'm saying that to suggest that God somehow interferes with or limits free will is a category error. You're asking what blue smells like or how heavy the number seven is. The question imagines God as a being--one of many--alongside of and interacting with us. But that's not what God is. God is that by which we do all that we do. He is that which causes all that is. As Phil said, He just is. We are because He is. If we act freely, it is because God acts. If a rock falls, it is because God acts. The very fact that something exists and the way in which it exists--whether it exists as a fact (e.g., the rock exits) or as a determined act (e.g., the rock is falling) or a voluntary act (e.g., I am typing this)--is nothing more or less than God bring it about. To say otherwise is, again, to say that something exists apart from God's creative power, that He did not bring it about, and that it is therefore independent of God. And therefore, God is not infinite and not perfect, because since that thing is independent of Him, it has something He does not have. Pretty heavy price to pay in my view for claiming that God isn't involved in bringing about our choices!

I can see what you are saying (I think) but essentially it sounds like God creates evil? Or creates it by default since he gave us the ability to choose evil?

Because to say nothing happens without God causing it sounds almost like hes responsible for causing evil.

[Jac3510]

Things start to get technical here, but let me try to keep it simple (and note that I'm going to gloss over some important distinctions--you can see some of then here if you are so inclined). God brings my choices about, but it does not therefore follow that He is the author of sin, mine or anyone else's. Evil isn't actually a thing. It is a lack-of a thing, a privation. Therefore, strictly, evil is not something that can, in principle, be created. It is a defect. All defects are just non-being, and since it is impossible to create non-being, not even God can create a defect. So when I choose sin, God is certainly bringing about my choice, but He is not bringing about the defect per se. To the extent I am choosing anything, I am doing something good. Every single sin--absolutely all of them, even Satan's desire to be like God or Eve's taking the fruit--has a measure of good insofar as it is an attempt to attain a good. And that is what God brings about--the choice for good. The problem is that we are defective, and so we (freely) make bad choices. That is, we make choices that lack some goodness. If they did not lack that goodness, then they would be good choices, and God would have brought about that added goodness. The choice would have been "better." But as we make a bad choice, we make a choice that lacks a goodness. Therefore, what is brought about is less than good--which is to say, it is evil.

God is not responsible, then, for that evil. He simply brings about our choices. We are responsible for the lack of goodness in our own choices. You may, of course, ask why God does not just supply the extra goodness needed to make the choice better. And I would argue that He does. In fact, He offers to do so in every choice we ever make. That's what James 1 is about. When we abide in Christ, He gives us the grace of adding a goodness to us so that our choices are not evil. If, then, we choose something less than good, it is because we are not abiding in Christ, and not abiding in Him, we are not supplied with that extra measure of goodness. We, then, are doubly responsible for our sin: first, because we ourselves are at fault in the defective choice and second because we refuse to take advantage of the provision God has made freely available so that we make the right choice. And that, also, by the way, goes a long way in explaining the eternal state of both the believer and the unbeliever. The glorified saint is confirmed in righteousness such that she forever abides in Christ and He forever supplies her with the goodness to truly and mostly freely choose the good for all eternity. But the damned is cut off from Christ by his own choice, abides only in himself and his own corruption, and therefore never chooses any good for all of eternity. But now I'm getting off track, so I'll stop there.

[Nessa]

Maybe God causes the possibility of evil then. But is that the same as saying God caused this bad thing?

So I guess you are distinguishing between God creating the possiblity of evil and God creating evil.

But if God does create everything as you say, then wouldnt that mean him creating the evil acts themselves?

EDIT: Posted this before seeing Jac's last post

[Byblos]

Yes, I am saying God causes everything, even our free choices. To suggest otherwise is to say that something happened without God causing, and that means that the thing came into existence without God bringing it into existence, and that means quite literally it came into existence from nothing and that there is a part of reality that did not come from God, that He did not create, and therefore that is independent of Him.

The key, though, is to recognize that God causes our free choices. By causing them, He does not take away their voluntary nature. That's what a free choice is. Since it exists, God brought it about (as God causes everything that exists to come about). Since it is free, that means that God causes it to be free.

In other words, I'm saying that to suggest that God somehow interferes with or limits free will is a category error. You're asking what blue smells like or how heavy the number seven is. The question imagines God as a being--one of many--alongside of and interacting with us. But that's not what God is. God is that by which we do all that we do. He is that which causes all that is. As Phil said, He just is. We are because He is. If we act freely, it is because God acts. If a rock falls, it is because God acts. The very fact that something exists and the way in which it exists--whether it exists as a fact (e.g., the rock exits) or as a determined act (e.g., the rock is falling) or a voluntary act (e.g., I am typing this)--is nothing more or less than God bring it about. To say otherwise is, again, to say that something exists apart from God's creative power, that He did not bring it about, and that it is therefore independent of God. And therefore, God is not infinite and not perfect, because since that thing is independent of Him, it has something He does not have. Pretty heavy price to pay in my view for claiming that God isn't involved in bringing about our choices!

I can see what you are saying (I think) but essentially it sounds like God creates evil? Or creates it by default since he gave us the ability to choose evil?

Because to say nothing happens without God causing it sounds almost like hes responsible for causing evil.

That's where the misconception usually lies Nessa. For evil to be caused implies that evil is a 'thing' to begin with but it's not. Evil is a privation, the absence of something (rather than being a 'thing'). Evil is the absence of love (in various degrees). So pure evil (or hell if you wish) is the total absence of pure love (God). God no more causes evil than light causing darkness.

[Nessa]

My poor blonde brain

What you both have said makes sense, I guess I have been thinking of evil as a thing.

[B. W.]

Since this a the humor section:

A Calvinist walks into Fluffies Bar...
-
-
-

[Philip]

Why do presidential campaigns make Calvinists so nervous?

They like the idea of an election but just can’t get past the voting part!

[Audacity]

That's where the misconception usually lies Nessa. For evil to be caused implies that evil is a 'thing' to begin with but it's not. Evil is a privation, the absence of something (rather than being a 'thing'). Evil is the absence of love (in various degrees). So pure evil (or hell if you wish) is the total absence of pure love (God). God no more causes evil than light causing darkness.

Why can't love not be a thing, but rather a privation: an absence of evil (in various degrees)? So pure love (or heaven if you wish) is the total absence of pure evil (Satan). Satan no more causes love than darkness causing light.


.

[RickD]

That's where the misconception usually lies Nessa. For evil to be caused implies that evil is a 'thing' to begin with but it's not. Evil is a privation, the absence of something (rather than being a 'thing'). Evil is the absence of love (in various degrees). So pure evil (or hell if you wish) is the total absence of pure love (God). God no more causes evil than light causing darkness.

Why can't love not be a thing, but rather a privation: an absence of evil (in various degrees)? So pure love (or heaven if you wish) is the total absence of pure evil (Satan). Satan no more causes love than darkness causing light.


.

Audacity,

It's long, but well worth the time. It explains the answer to your question, and much more. Explained in laymans terms.
https://cmmorrison.files.wordpress.com/ ... imple1.pdf

[Audacity]

That's where the misconception usually lies Nessa. For evil to be caused implies that evil is a 'thing' to begin with but it's not. Evil is a privation, the absence of something (rather than being a 'thing'). Evil is the absence of love (in various degrees). So pure evil (or hell if you wish) is the total absence of pure love (God). God no more causes evil than light causing darkness.

Why can't love not be a thing, but rather a privation: an absence of evil (in various degrees)? So pure love (or heaven if you wish) is the total absence of pure evil (Satan). Satan no more causes love than darkness causing light.


.

Audacity,

It's long, but well worth the time. It explains the answer to your question, and much more. Explained in laymans terms.
https://cmmorrison.files.wordpress.com/ ... imple1.pdf

Thanks for the heads up, but it's far, far too long.



.