need help with freewill

[jakelo]

Hey everyone,

Im sure that many of you might have seen a topic like this so if you know a related topic, i'd be happy with a simple link to that discussion. Here is my problem. I was discussing the concept of freewill with an agnostic, basically i told her we have the freewill to deny God or to accept Him and those that don't accept Him don't get to experience heaven. But she told me that there is no such thing as freewill if believing a certain way has a price or a consequence. Could anyone help me with this? I'd really appreciate it.

Jake

[Jbuza]

Hey everyone,

Im sure that many of you might have seen a topic like this so if you know a related topic, i'd be happy with a simple link to that discussion. Here is my problem. I was discussing the concept of freewill with an agnostic, basically i told her we have the freewill to deny God or to accept Him and those that don't accept Him don't get to experience heaven. But she told me that there is no such thing as freewill if believing a certain way has a price or a consequence. Could anyone help me with this? I'd really appreciate it.

Jake

Sure tell her that the consequences need to be weighed so she can make an informed decision as which way to exercise her will. Free will doesn't mean freedom from consequences of choices. You have the freedom to step off the curb into traffic anyday, but you don't exercise that choice becasue of the consequences.

[ryo dokomi]

the statement that i heard in my class was this:
'you have the right to choose, but you dont have the right not to choose, and you dont have the right to choose the consequences of your choice'.

for example, you choose Christ, your consequence is going to heaven. (consequences are not always bad)
you dont choose Christ, by defalt you have chosen the devil, the consequence being hell...

jbuza is right.

[jakelo]

Thanks Jbuza and Ryo, that really cleared things up.

[Forge]

In reponse to that agnostic's assertion, calmly tell her that she obviously has no choice either, since she does not break U.S. laws.

[Religious Fanatic]

Sure tell her that the consequences need to be weighed so she can make an informed decision as which way to exercise her will. Free will doesn't mean freedom from consequences of choices. You have the freedom to step off the curb into traffic anyday, but you don't exercise that choice becasue of the consequences.

Tell her that she must become a partial preterist in order to exercise her free will as well.

If you want to read a good challenging article about free will read about it here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1674

[Jbuza]

Sure tell her that the consequences need to be weighed so she can make an informed decision as which way to exercise her will. Free will doesn't mean freedom from consequences of choices. You have the freedom to step off the curb into traffic anyday, but you don't exercise that choice becasue of the consequences.

I'm sorry but this can't provide evidence for free will, this is totally ignorant. The fact is that the outcome of her decision will be affected not by a free will but by pre-existing knowledges and emotionalisms which will naturally cause her to either initiate her actions or prohibit them.

How illogical can you get?
If you want to read more about free will actually is, read about naturalistic salvation here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1674

Well I don't think anyone was saying that free-will must be like a role of the dice. Of course we examine past experiences and emotional responses to similar situations in making choices. Are you saying We don't have free will because we think about how our choices will make us feel?

[Kurieuo]

Hey everyone,

Im sure that many of you might have seen a topic like this so if you know a related topic, i'd be happy with a simple link to that discussion. Here is my problem. I was discussing the concept of freewill with an agnostic, basically i told her we have the freewill to deny God or to accept Him and those that don't accept Him don't get to experience heaven. But she told me that there is no such thing as freewill if believing a certain way has a price or a consequence. Could anyone help me with this? I'd really appreciate it.

Jake

She's essentially defined "free will" as something impossible. No rational person would accept such a definition of "free will" only being possible when there are no consequences for one's action. For the very nature of willing something brings about a consequence. Thus, to say that free will doesn't exist if there is a consequence, is to say free will doesn't exist if one can exercise free will. Kind of circular.

But maybe she wants to define "consequence" as punishment or something bad. Well despite the obvious prejudice, many still appear to freely perform criminal acts despite punishments being in place. If it were me I'd politely leave the discussion as I wouldn't really see any point debating such a person.

Kurieuo

[Religious Fanatic]

She's essentially defined "free will" as something impossible. No rational person would accept such a definition of "free will" only being possible when there are no consequences for one's action. For the very nature of willing something brings about a consequence. Thus, to say that free will doesn't exist if there is a consequence, is to say free will doesn't exist if one can exercise free will. Kind of circular.

But maybe she wants to define "consequence" as punishment or something bad. Well despite the obvious prejudice, many still appear to freely perform criminal acts despite punishments being in place. If it were me I'd politely leave the discussion as I wouldn't really see any point debating such a person.

I've seen Kurieuo banging his head on the keyboard trying to figure out a workable solution to a slide-puzzle while browsing the forums. He was trying to exercise his free will. There is also a new aerobics DVD out called "Free Will exercise". Check it out!

BTW, Kurieuo, you should also examine the post that I linked to a little bit more, it's a good challenging article.

[Christian2]

Sure tell her that the consequences need to be weighed so she can make an informed decision as which way to exercise her will. Free will doesn't mean freedom from consequences of choices. You have the freedom to step off the curb into traffic anyday, but you don't exercise that choice becasue of the consequences.

Tell her that she must become a partial preterist in order to exercise her free will as well.

If you want to read a good challenging article about free will read about it here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=1674

When I tried to access your link I was informed that it did not exist.

[Jac3510]

He deleted the article a while back. Don't worry, you didn't miss anything.

[Christian2]

Thanks Jac3510. One less thing to read!! lol

I am having a somewhat similar conversation on another discussion board about freewill and predestination. I'm going to post some of it here for comments.

First thought from a Jesus Seminar/Crossan follower Christian:

In my view, God doesn't know what I am going to do. He knows me, knows what I'm capable of, but like me, He doesn't know what I'll eventually do.

If He knew it all, He wouldn't have to pay attention. why wouldn't He just pull up stakes, because we wouldn't require God to pray to, as it is already written.

I then posted the thoughts of CS Lewis:

This is what CS Lewis says in his book "Mere Christianity" about God and time.

Our life comes to us moment by moment. One moment disappears before the next comes along: and there is room for very little in each. That is what Time is like. And of course you and I tend to take it for granted that this Time series—this arrangement of past, present and future—is not simply the way life comes to us but the way all things really exist. We tend to assume that the whole universe and God Himself are always moving on from past to future just as we do. But many learned men do not agree with that. It was the Theologians who first started the idea that some things are not in Time at all: later the Philosophers took it over: and now some of the scientists are doing the same.

Almost certainly God is not in Time. His life does not consist of moments following one another. If a million people are praying to Him at ten-thirty tonight, He need not listen to them all in that one little snippet which we call ten-thirty. Ten-thirty—and every other moment from the beginning of the world—is always the Present for Him. If you like to put it that way, He has all eternity in which to listen to the split second of prayer put up by a pilot as his plane crashes in flames.

(Lewis makes an illustration using a novel and its author which I am not including.)

If you picture Time as a straight line along which we have to travel, then you must picture God as the whole page on which the line is drawn. We come to the parts of the line one by one: we have to leave A behind before we get to B, and cannot reach C until we leave B behind. God, from above or outside or all round, contains the whole line, and sees it all.

Another difficulty we get if we believe God to be in time is this. Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call 'tomorrow' is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call 'today.' All the days are 'Now' for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing the, because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not 'foresee' you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already 'Now' for Him.

******
Then an agnostic joined in with comments:

According to you God is all powerful; not just the most powerful, but all powerful, but not really all powerful because man has the power of free will (a pretty powerful power), but God remains all powerful, anyway.

Expressed as a mathematical formula: 100% - 1% = 100%.

God knows everything. Not just most things, or a lot of things, but everything. Every time a bird falls( or has ever fallen, or ever will fall), and everything else, without exception, isn't just known to God, but was known by him since the nanosecond He created everything.

But God chooses to do nothing about it, because it might affect our free will.
Except God DOES intervene. He created floods that wiped out everything on Earth except a boatload of creatures, he ordered the genocide of entire groups of people, parted seas, and nuked cities (this last apparently because the citizens weren't playing in a manner in which He approved of), just to mention some of His more memorable interventions.

He sent a part of himself directly to Earth and walked on water, raised the dead, moved a boulder and flew back to heaven.

And yet He allowed Hitler to murder millions of people, Pol Pot to do the same, and Stalin to starve and torture even more innocent humans because that would affect our free will, oblivious to the fact that the free will of all those millions was affected when they were variously starved, shot, thrown into ovens, etc.

So God intervenes in our affairs, but doesn't intervene in our affairs, except when He intervenes in our affairs.

Temporal semantics aside, did I get that right?

******
I think the Agnostic has some legitmate questions.

This from the Christian has me stumped:

He wouldn't have to pay attention. why wouldn't He just pull up stakes, because we wouldn't require God to pray to, as it is already written.

God knows we will pray to Him and knows already how He will respond?

Isaiah 46:8-11

"Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, 'My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,'
calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.

Any comments?

[Jac3510]

There's plenty to comment on, as much for the sake of clarification as for explanation . . .

As for Crossan's view, it's standard Open Theism. It's totally rejected by the Bible. If someone holds to it, you just point out that the Bible teaches that God knows everything, including our future actions. If they don't like that, then they don't like the Bible. If they don't like the Bible, then there is no need to have the debate, because you believe the Bible.

Now, if they accept for argument's sake the Bible's authority, we can then move on to examine the accuracy of its claims. I think the Lewis quote was a pretty good place to start. Do note, though, that there are very different positions among Christians as how this is to be dealt with. I would agree with Lewis' position. Scholars like William Lane Craig advocate what is called "Middle Knowledge", which is the belief that God knows every possibility that every possible scenario could create. Therefore, God not only knows all actualities, but He also knows all possibilities. He, then, knows our choices because He sees all of that . . . Still, others take a more mystical approach to God's foreknowledge and simply say, "Knowledge itself is inherent within God. Therefore, anything that is knowledge must reside with Him. As future events fall within the realm of knowledge, they reside within God." In other words, God knows the future because God knows the future! We don't have to explain it because He's God.

I say all that only to point out that there are several approaches you can take in all this. I like yours the best, because it happens to be the one I hold to. Just don't be surprised when some Christians disagree.

As for the agnostic's comments, he's just falling into a standard misconception of Christianity. He's thinking entirely in either/or terms, rather than both/and. Some of that is due to his apparent Western upbringing. That's just the way we are taught to think! But, that's not the Hebrew mindset at all . . . consider a few things: was Jesus God or Man? Answer: both. Is God sovereign or does Man have free will? Answer: both. Is God just or merciful? Answer: both. There are, of course, some either/or's, but this he's being too exclusivisitic in his thinking.

To apply this thought to his argument, then, we might say that he is placing God's sovereignty against man's free will. First, we challenge his notion of omnipotence. Can God do whatever He wants? Absolutely! But, that doesn't mean God can do that which is self-contradictory. He can't remember a time when He didn't know everything. He can't create a God more powerful than Himself. You know those old games . . .

So, let's ask this: Can God decree a man's future? Of course. Can God decree a man's future without there being any consequences (i.e., the man having the future God decreed)? Obviously, no. Now, your friend is assuming that God's "all-powerfulness" can never, in any circumstances, be limited, even by that which is logically impossible. Thus, the fallacy. God can decree to whatever He wants. It so happens that God has decreed to give man the relatively free will to choose to accept or reject His free gift of salvation. Ask the question this way: Can God decree to give me the free choice and then decree the choice for me? The answer is no, but does that mean that God's decree to give me a free choice limit God's power? Again, the obvious answer is no. To say it does is to think, again, in the either/or scheme rather than the both/and.

The other point he brought out is just blathering on his part . . . he wants to judge God's actions. There are so many ways to deal with this. You could, of course, justify what God did in each case, which isn't hard . . . it does, though, require a case-by-case discussion. You could also ask him by what standard he knows what is right or what is wrong. Or, you can take it a step further and ask why that standard that he apparently understands is binding on anyone other than himself. What is the authority behind it? You easily demonstrate he is arguing from ignorance. Obviously, murder is wrong. So, when we see someone shoot someone else, we immediately rush to condemn their actions. However, if upon investigation we discover the man was shooting in self-defense, now the action was no longer "wrong." Question: is the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the shooter dependant on our knowledge of his circumstances? Obviously not! Rather, our ability to correctly judge is dependent on our knowledge of his circumstances. So, unless we are in possession of all the same facts that God is, we are in no place to render a judgement!

Like I said . . . lot's of ways to take that . . .

As for the question by the Christian, I didn't really understand his point. There is little doubt, for me, that God knows what we will pray, when we will pray, why we will pray, and how He will respond. But that doesn't change the fact that He is responding to our prayers. It just doesn't make sense to say, "Well, that means there is no use in praying," because then you are removing the thing that God is responding to . . . how is God to respond to something that doesn't exist? Someone may argue that God will provide for what He wants to provide for, and therefore we don't need to pray, but that's also a silly argument, so far as this conversation goes. It assumes too much. For instance, it assumes that God does not, nor can, respond to humans, but that He must always be the first mover. But that's not necessarily true. What if God wants us to pray? Has the thought not occurred to this person that perhaps there is more reason to pray than to simply present a wish-list to God? It is rather like worship in that it brings you to a proper place before God. On our knees we're the strongest, right?

Anyway, there is yet an easier way to handle all of this. Get them to specifically state their argument, as right now, all of this is implicit. Once they make an assertion, they are required to prove it. They will find that their position is untenable if you ask them enough questions. Just chip at the foundations of their thinking . . . what is it based on? Eventually, you'll come to some unsupported philosophical assumption that isn't at all necessary.

Hope this helps,

God bless

[Christian2]

Yes, you have helped, Jac3510, as you always do.

I am not so concerned with the Agnostic. I think he is a lost cause, but for some reason he keeps engaging me in conversations. One was on the Da Vinci Code and lasted a long time, but he became abusive and I ended it.

However, I am concerned for the Christian. She has herself tangled up in the beliefs of Robert Funk, Crossan and Elaine Pagels. I've known her for about 3 years. I keep encouraging her to read the rebuttals to the Seminar and Crossan and Pagels, but she is not taking my advice.

I have been reading some book rebuttals for the past few weeks in order challenge her and ask questions that may make her think on her own. But I have to be very careful. I don't want to hurt her feelings or tick her off to the point that she will end the conversations.

Sometimes she'll say something that makes me think she doesn't want to discuss any further, but then she comes right back. This leads me to believe that she is not sure what she believes and still values what I have to say.

I do appreciate your comments. Thank you.

I have another question and it is based on an allegation from this same Christian:

Were early Christian writings destroyed by Church Fathers in order for the Church to assert its version of the Christian message to the exclusion of all others?

This Christian said that Irenaeus "and other church leaders" destroyed as many early Christian writings as they could, including the Gnostic "Gospels," but she is unable to document the historical evidence.

Do you know of any historical evidence concerning this allegation?

BTW: How is your education coming along? Have you graduated Seminary? Been ordained?

God bless you, Jac.

[Jac3510]

Just keep doing what you are doing with this girl. Also, take as much directly to Scripture as you can, that way, she knows its not you so much as it is the Bible that she has to deal with.

In answer to the specific question, "Were early Christian writings destroyed by Church Fathers in order for the Church to assert its version of the Christian message to the exclusion of all others?" the short answer is "no." But, with a qualifer, let me look a little bit into the root of the allegations. I've heard the claim before, but I've never examined its source materials. I will talk to my Church History prof. about it this week and get back to you on it.

As far as my education goes, I'm still plugging away at the Bach. of Arts in Religion and Master of Ministry with an emphasis on Christian Studies. I'll be getting both at the same time, or, worst case, the MAM a semester after the BAR. May '08 needs to get here soon :p

Glad I can be of help

God bless