I Knew That I Was Going To Like This Guy

[dales]

LOVE, baby.

[Andrew D]

Trivial example: you pawn grandpa's watch. You can never get enough cash to redeem it. Your best friend pays the price to the pawnbroker but can't take the watch because you have the pawn ticket. He brings back a receipt to show you (the watch is redeemed). You must take the pawn ticket and go get the watch yourself. You must decide whether or not to take advantage of your friend's generosity (the redemption is complete). The pawn-price has been paid but you must go complete what was begun - or not. Analogies are always perilous but the sense is conveyed I think.

Which is it? If the redemption is not complete until I take the pawn ticket and get the watch, then it is not true that when my friend pays the price to the pawnbroker (and brings me a receipt), the watch is redeemed. The watch had already been redeemed before I took the pawn ticket and got the watch.

The watch may be redeemed when my friend pays the price. The watch may be redeemed only when I take the pawn ticket and get the watch. But it cannot be true both that (1) the watch is redeemed when my friend pays the price and (2) the watch is redeemed only when I take the pawn ticket and get the watch.

[Andrew D]

And then there is the free-will problem. (1) God is omniscient. (2) God is omnipotent. (3) God created everything. (4) Human beings have free will. No one has ever logically reconciled those four propositions for the straightforward reason that no such reconciliation is logically possible.

An interesting thing is that the first three statements have no connection to the [fourth] - three truths about God followed by one debatable statement about humans. It's possible that Humans do not have Free Will. It's possible that Humans do. In the great scheme of things, this is only relevant to obscure Christian scholastics and people who deny that the first three are true anyway.

On the contrary, the existence of free will is essential to every Christian moral imperative. (For that matter, it is essential to every moral imperative, but we are on the subject of Christianity at the moment.)

"Thou shalt not murder."

That commandment makes sense only if I have free will with respect to whether I do or do not murder. If I do not have free will in that respect, then the commandment amounts either to "Thou shalt not do what thou hast no choice but to do" or to "Thou shalt not do what thou hast no choice but not to do".

If the commandment is "Thou shalt not do what thou hast no choice but to do," then no one could possibly follow that commandment. One might has well hold up a stone, command it not to fall, and then release it.

If the commandment is "Thou shalt not do what thou hast no choice but not to do," then it is no commandment at all. One might as well place a stone on the ground and then command it not to fly.

Only if the commandment is "Thou shalt not do what thou couldst do or not do" does it make any sense. And that reading -- the only sensible reading -- of the commandment is entirely dependent upon the commanded person's having free will.

[MajGenl.Meade]

In the great scheme of things, this is only relevant to obscure Christian scholastics and people who deny that the first three are true and knowable (ed.) anyway.

Fixed and it remains my position. If you believe it is relevant, you are in one of the two classes mentioned.

But (sigh) let's say we all have free will - that will make you happy. God remains omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of all things. He is able to do anything that is not a contradiction (i.e. He cannot "make" a square circle; He cannot lie etc). He knows all things at least partly because He is not bound in time and lives in the eternal now for which there is no future. We do not - for us there is a future. He knew all the consequences of His creation from the beginning (as we would call it) - He knew that you would choose not to believe but also would choose not to murder (unless you have, in which case He knew that too).

I will not argue it but state it as a fact: for God, knowing that something will occur is not at all the same as saying that there was no choice in the occurring. Mind you, it helps to remember that the knowing is in fact knowing-what-will happen/is happening/already has happened - all three.

Let's say we don't have free will - that should make you happy too. All atheists will get exactly what they want - no God. All agnostics will get the same but won't know it for sure. All people will have the compelling illusion of free will and remain content that they are in charge of their own destiny.

As I said. Not relevant. Believe what you like. That's the entire point, isn't it? Believe what you like and you'll end up getting it.

Meade

PS on redemption, don't be silly. To the pawnbroker the watch has been redeemed when it is paid for - he can no longer sell it or demand money for its return to the owner. To the owner, who knows that the payment of the debt has occurred, it is not finally redeemed until he goes and fetches it. As I said, all analogies are fraught with difficulty and you may out-pedant me as much as you wish - the fact is that God's Word says Christ died once for all, paying for all sins, and the sinner may accept that or not. The pawn-ticket's in your hand Andrew - what will you do with it? Argue that it hasn't been "redeemed" oh dear?

[Andrew D]

In the great scheme of things, this is only relevant to obscure Christian scholastics and people who deny that the first three are true and knowable (ed.) anyway.

Fixed and it remains my position. If you believe it is relevant, you are in one of the two classes mentioned.

Human free will remains essential to any moral imperative, Christian or otherwise.

But (sigh) let's say we all have free will - that will make you happy. God remains omnipotent, omniscient and the creator of all things. He is able to do anything that is not a contradiction (i.e. He cannot "make" a square circle; He cannot lie etc). He knows all things at least partly because He is not bound in time and lives in the eternal now for which there is no future. We do not - for us there is a future. He knew all the consequences of His creation from the beginning (as we would call it) - He knew that you would choose not to believe but also would choose not to murder (unless you have, in which case He knew that too).

I will not argue it but state it as a fact: for God, knowing that something will occur is not at all the same as saying that there was no choice in the occurring. Mind you, it helps to remember that the knowing is in fact knowing-what-will happen/is happening/already has happened - all three.

I am not amazed by your choice not to defend the claim that human beings have free will even if God is omniscient, God is omnipotent, and God created everything. After all, that position is logically indefensible.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sorry - not clear which position you mean? I happily defend free will even if etc etc. In fact, isn't that what I did - posited the hypothetical free will and argued that God is anyway etc etc.?

I could as easily defend the opposite - hyper Calvinism I suppose..double dog dare predestination or some such. But I'm not in favour of it most of the time - sometimes it's convenient though.

The constant is that God is omniscient, omnipotent and created everything. The variable is free will, yes or no. I still don't see why "God created everything" or "God is omnipotent" militates against human free will even in the slightest. But I do understand that some people argue the incompatibility of God's omniscience and human free will. I simply disagree that the first rules out the second.

I apologise for not putting a smiley in this, which I now add:

Let's say we don't have free will - that should make you happy too. All atheists will get exactly what they want - no God. All agnostics will get the same but won't know it for sure All people will have the compelling illusion of free will and remain content that they are in charge of their own destiny.

Meade

[Andrew D]

Person P has free will with respect to choosing to do X or choosing not to do X if at time T:

It is possible that person P chooses (or will choose or has chosen) to do X; and

It is possible that person P chooses (or will choose or has chosen) not to do X.

(And, for nitpickers, person P cannot choose both to do X and not to do X, and person P cannot choose neither to do X nor not to do X.)

If God knows that at time T, person P will choose (or is choosing or has chosen) to do X, then it is absolutely impossible that person P will choose (or is choosing or has chosen) not to do X.

There is not, there never has been, and there never will be any possibility that person P will choose (or is choosing or has chosen) not to do X.

It is absolutely impossible for P to choose not to do X. It always was absolutely impossible for person P to have chosen not to do X. It always will be absolutely impossible for person P to choose not to do X. It is simply, utterly, absolutely -- including eternally (extratemporally) -- impossible.

A fact essential to person P's having free will with respect to choosing to do X or choosing not to do X is that it is possible for person P to choose not to do X. If God knows that person P will choose (or is choosing or has chosen) to do X, then it is impossible for person P to choose (or to have chosen) not to do X. Therefore, person P does not have free will with respect to choosing to do X or choosing not to do X.

Because God is omnipotent and created everything, he necessarily created person P for the purpose (or, at least, for one of various purposes) of having P choose to do X. Therefore, any blame for person P's choosing to do X falls squarely on God, not on person P.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well you and I shall disagree about this for all time. You say tomato and I say tomahto. Free will is not negated by God's knowing which choice a person will freely make. God foreknows (now) what He has known by observing it (then) since time is not discrete (to Him) but merely the eternal now which is Him (in a way though not at all pantheistic or panentheistic).

To me, you are only saying that after a person has made a choice, that choice is inevitable. But you will not see it that way. We are both of us bound by words and how we choose to assign meaning to them.

That person P will choose X rather than Y (or vice versa) is of course not a function of random choice but of (presumably) rational will. In fact, you have already posited a person with only two choices in order to make your point about restrictive choice! How many choices would you like to restrict person P to - an infinite number? Given rational will, it is theoretically possible for humans (or computers) to predict with great accuracy what a person is most likely to do under given circumstances X or Y (or infinite choices which of course is impossible). Given perfect knowledge of that person P and all circumstances, it is also theoretically possible to predict exacly what they will do. God however does not predict but knows what P willdo/isdoing/hasdone.

To me that's quite straightforward and unobjectionable. We are both attempting to explain the supernatural through natural reason which is bound to be inadequate in both our cases.

Another thought for you - what's your opinion? Assuming arbitrary choices. Suppose each decision was based on a throw of six sided dice (thanks to George Cockcroft)? Is that random choice - or, if God foreknows which number will come up, does that mean not only free will but also the result of throwing a dice is not at all random either?

Meade

PS Lamentatons 3:38 "Out of the mouth of the Most High, cometh not both good and evil?" And cross ref to Job 2:10; Psa 75:7; Pro 29:26; Isa 45:7 and Amos 3:6. If I was arguing predestination, that's where I'd start.

[RayThom]

I implore you -- don't give up so quickly. You're obviously on yet another roll -- you can't stop now. Besides, my eyes haven't even glazed over yet. As a Fundamentalist christian it's your duty to spread your faith -- and at all costs. Remember, no heaven for you if you fail the mission bestowed upon you by God. Now get back in the ring and give 'em hell.

[dales]

comment redacted

[MajGenl.Meade]

Ah a little Ray of sunshine in my shrivelled life of didactic dictatorialism. Not to mention dogmatic digressions (picture appended)



Meade

[Andrew D]

Free will is not negated by God's knowing which choice a person will freely make.

True, it does not. But that is not the problem. The problem is that God's knowing what "choice" a person will make negates the possibility that that person will make that "choice" "freely".

God foreknows (now) what He has known by observing it (then) since time is not discrete (to Him) but merely the eternal now which is Him (in a way though not at all pantheistic or panentheistic).

How does that make any significant difference?

People act in discrete time. For people, there is the past, there is the present, and there is the future.

God might be extratemporal. God might be omnitemporal. God might be both.

But the fact remains that when -- when -- P chooses either to do X or not to do X, P makes that choice in time. If, at that moment, there is absolutely no possibility that P will choose to do X, then P's choice is not free. It is predetermined, and P is merely an automaton whose behavior is not the product of P's own choice at all. (And the same is true if, at that moment, there is absolutely no possibility that P will choose not to do X.)

[MajGenl.Meade]

The problem is that God's knowing what "choice" a person will make negates the possibility that that person will make that "choice" "freely".

So we disagree utterly. You're wrong and that's after checking my privilege and giving it a good dry clean. I wonder if we'd agree that (actually) there is no "free" choice anyway? All choices are conditioned - only a truly random decision can be "free". Hence my dice analogy previously - unless (I ask again) you believe that God foreknowing which number will be rolled on the dice actually means the dice roll is not at all random in the first place.

Do you believe in God or do you not believe in God?

If you say "no" then of course there is no God to know you would choose that (according to non-belief). Unless you are arguing that even if you say "No" you actually had no choice because the God you do not believe exists knew you would say "no". But that means you do believe in Him which makes you a fibber. Except you couldn't possibly have told the truth because God knew you would say "no" so your lie was against your will.

If you say "yes" then do you feel you had no choice? Or was God waiting around wondering what you'd do? (Not a very reliable God that one if He doesn't know what's going on - not my kind of God at all - and not the one who inspired the Bible etc.).

And if you say "I don't know" then you also don't know whether or not God is omniscient. Hence you cannot possibly declare that the God you don't know exists or not "knew" you wouldn't know and therefore you had no choice but to remain in ignorance (old sense of the word - "not having knowledge")

Sorry - doesn't work. God is omniscient. AND. You have free will and choose according to your own preconditions (age, bowel condition, knowledge, inclination, weather, finances, marital status and so on. All the things that bend and shape our "free" choices, so-called)


Meade

PS I sure hope Ray lets us play in the pen and doesn't toss our toys out! Do we need a note?

[Rick]

Why not finish Galatians 3:13 and tell us exactly what we were redeemed from.

We were redeemed from the Law, that does not equate to salvation...

[Big RR]

Andrew--let me posit a question; assume first that someone has the ability to see, but not to control, the future. If that person is throwing dice, and they know what the outcome of the roll will be (even though they cannot influence the roll result in any way), is the roll any less random than if the person did not have that ability? What about if the person did not use the ability to predict a roll, would the result be anymore random than if he did use the ability? I would think the randomness derives from the outcome at the moment, at which time it could be any result, even though a fraction of a second later, it can be no other result.

In the same way, while god can potentially foresee the outcome in the future, he cannot (or does not) influence it, hence the choice is free at the time it is made. At least that is the way I can conceive of it

[MajGenl.Meade]

Why not finish Galatians 3:13 and tell us exactly what we were redeemed from. We were redeemed from the Law, that does not equate to salvation...

I'm not sure who you were speaking to? But if me, then I'd say 3:13 tells us we have been redeemed from the "curse of the law". Galatians 3 in the entirety explains the Law is a prison holding us captive until Christ should come (3:22-23) and in fact guards us until that time when justification shall be by faith (3:24) rather than by works of Law. Now that faith has come, we no longer need that guardian, that prison, and we have been removed from labouring under the Law and have been justified by faith (3:25-26).

Paul's argument is addressed to Christians, not to unbelievers and not to followers of Judaism. His point is not that Christians no longer have to obey the Law - meaning that the curse has simply been removed and replaced by nothing at all. That would be an incitement to anarchy at worst and a non-theology at best.

He is showing that the Law is insufficient for righteousness, insufficient for salvation, insufficient for anything other than showing us that we are sinners and we are cursed by being unable to "work" sufficiently for justification to be achieved. Justification came only through the work of Christ Jesus on the cross. Redemption, however we use the word, is a change from one status to another - and Paul says that change is from condemnation to salvation.

That's the way I see it
Meade

[Rick]

Meade it wasn't actually addressed to you but that will do. I agree that he was addressing those that were already Christian, most of what Paul wrote ended up addressing those judaizing Christians at one point or another.

I must say the redemtion as mentioned in 3:13 did not lead to automatic salvation. Salvation is conditional. From reading redemption never lead to automatic salvation.

Soooo from the OP I don't know if Andrew has stated that the Pope has forgiven him of his sins or not. But I can say with certainty that unless he has done that which is required for salvation God hasn't...

[Joe Guy]

Free will is not negated by God's knowing which choice a person will freely make.

True, it does not. But that is not the problem. The problem is that God's knowing what "choice" a person will make negates the possibility that that person will make that "choice" "freely".

Please explain how you are not contradicting yourself, Andrew D.

What is the difference between "freely making a choice" or "making that 'choice' 'freely'"?

In regards to your argument with Meade, this is how I see it;

I created a slot machine that I programmed to randomly pay only 100 jackpots and then stop working. Someone played it and won a jackpot and thanked the lucky machine he found.

Someone else says to the winner that the creator of the slot machine is responsible for your winnings. After all, he programmed it to pay people jackpots. He also knew ahead of time that it would pay 100 jackpots. You should thank its creator.

The man who won the jackpot says the creator of the slot machine should not be thanked. The slot machine paid me and I should be thankful to it.

The man who believes the creator is responsible says that the slot machine paid you because the creator made it able to pay you a jackpot.

The man who won the jackpot says "No way! The slot machine is responsible. If it was not responsible it wouldn't be a random jackpot. Further, nothing it does would be random if the creator knew exactly what it was going to do.

The creator's advocate says, "Actually, it's very simple. The slot machine has the ability to pay you randomly but the creator is responsible for you getting the payment."

The jackpot winner says, "But... but... if the creator knew what the slot machine would do, it would know the slot machine was going to pay me and it's not possible for the creator to know it will pay me and for the machine to also pay randomly."

The advocate says, "But... but... the creator of the slot machine knew what would eventually happen and it did happen. That's how his creation works."

Who is right?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I must say the redemtion as mentioned in 3:13 did not lead to automatic salvation. Salvation is conditional. From reading redemption never lead to automatic salvation

We seem to be viewing it slightly differently although I agree that redemption as you use the term does not lead to automatic salvation.

I feel confident that Paul is saying that there is no redemption from the curse of the Law without justification (i.e. salvation from the penalty of sin). Freedom from the curse of the Law is only applicable to those who are saved - everyone else remains under the curse of the Law, trying to earn points to get on God's good side (or ignoring Him). Isn't that it?

Both redemption and salvation are effects which must go together. Neither one is a cause. The cause is the act of redemption (Christ's death on the cross) which is applicable to all persons who appropriate it - but as you say not all are saved, not by a long chalk. You're right - it's not automatic.

But then we get into all those struggles about whether or not "belief" is an act of ours (a work) that contributes to our justification - must we 'cooperate' as the Roman church (I think) regards it? Is grace irresistible, as Calvinists would have it?

The conditional element of "belief" certainly seems to be a clear requirement but I've tended to see it as the same kind of "belief" as is involved in my learning that 2+2=4 (in base 10 arithmetic).

Once it has been seen that 2+2=4 it's a question more of "knowing" that to be true than "believing" it - although one does of course believe it - but the belief is inevitable. One can hardly choose (sensibly) to disbelieve that 2+2=4. Perhaps I lean more toward Calvinism in that.

Perhaps also that ties in to AGD's difficulty with "free choice" and God's omniscience! In one sense, when I came to faith I felt that although I chose to believe I also had no choice BUT to believe - because to disbelieve would be nonsense once the truth was known. I do understand that others would argue that I don't "know" in the same sense as one "knows" that 2+2=4.

Meade

[Rick]

I have no time for Calvinism.

As far as knowledge is concerned foreknowledge or otherwise.

Knowledge in and of itself is NOT causal...