Does God Have Free Will?

[aiki]

I know you didn't say that it was the only reason, but it would need to be the only reason to prove my argument wrong that God's actions are dictated by his nature of goodness. His nature can be creative too, or any number of other things (except evil of course) but my argument is about the goodness of his nature and how that affects what decisions he might make. You can add more dimensions to what might affect his choices, but you need to somehow take away the good nature's effect on whether he creates or not. It seems like creating us was a morally good thing though, since you admit we are better off.

I think in an effort to prove your hypothesis you're giving short shrift to the concept of perfection. You want to argue that God was compelled by His moral nature, by His goodness and love, to make the universe and we humans so that you can contend that God cannot freely choose, but is just the puppet of His nature. But if God is perfect, which means He can obtain to no higher state in any respect than He is presently occupying, that He is utterly without need, without shortcoming of any kind, then, if He has always existed in this condition of perfection, He had no compelling reason to create the universe. God was perfect before He acted to create us and the universe in which we live, which means He was in a state that could not be improved by anything. Existing in a state of perfection, God could not, by creating the universe, have been in any way elevated, or expanded, or more fully satisfied, than He already was.

Can God be truly perfect alone? Can He be fully and genuinely satisfied in all respects in and of Himself? Well, yes! That is what His divine perfection necessarily requires! But this means He did not need to move from His solitary condition to make us and the universe so that He could have a fuller, more perfect, experience or expression of His perfect nature. There is no such thing as "more perfect"! Only perfect or not. And God has always been perfect.

I didn't, by the way, "admit" that we were better off being created than not. I merely pointed out that the phrase "better off" has no meaning in relation to a non-existent entity. One can only be "better off" if one exists. So, saying one is better off existing than not is a bit nonsensical. It is comparing two incomparable things to each other - like saying hard is better than purple.

Maybe "need" is the wrong word. I can't think of a better one that isn't going to cause a disagreement though. Let's look at something we do agree on. God cannot lie. So it could be phrased "God needs to tell the truth". Now you would have a problem with that, or if I used a word like "compelled" or anything of that nature. So what word can we use instead of "need"? It has to be stronger than "want" though because then it would be possible for him to lie.

Well, this is an example of how tricky language can be. I would agree that God is truthful. That is essential to being the God we know Him to be. But His truthfulness is like His perfection: it just is. Does God need to be perfect? Does He get a cramp, or a headache if He is not? No, it seems to me He simply is perfect - like a rock is hard, or water is wet, or the sun is hot. In the same way, I think, God is simply truthful. Now, I am speaking as a human being and must confess that I can understand God only from my own enormously limited human frame of reference, which necessarily must fail to properly comprehend God. I can no more understand God by extrapolating to Him from what He has created, than I can understand a potter by extrapolating to him from the pots he makes. Such efforts are bound to be highly limited in their value and very prone to going wrong. Nonetheless, I can make an attempt, at least, to push out the boundaries of my thinking about God. So, it can be said, I suppose, that God must be truthful, like a rock must be hard, but this, it seems to me, is to do no more than offer a partial definition of what I mean when I use the term "God."

God Loves All Humans Here's a link to an article that talks about all the reasons we should likely believe that God loves everybody. It isn't the article that made me think so, I had to look it up just now. I always got the impression that God was supposed to love everybody, but I suppose the Bible doesn't explicitly state it. Basically the article talks about how Jesus loves everyone (even his enemies), we are supposed to love everyone (even our enemies), and so God must love them too (particularly because Jesus was God). So I'm still pretty sure God loves everyone, even if they are his enemy. And he wouldn't want to do harm to people he loves unless it was ultimately a morally good decision.

As an avowed Reform theologian, MacArthur is not at the top of my list of admired teachers. His Calvinistic beliefs make his teaching about loving everyone rather grotesque. Imagine a prison guard at Auschwitz being kind to all the inmates at the prison, giving them clothing, and food, and medicine but knowing and approving of the fact that most of the prisoners he helps are going to end up in the ovens very shortly. His "kindness" rather shrivels and sours in the light of his approval of them being both prisoners and doomed to death. But this is much like what a Calvinist does - especially a hyper-Calvinist like MacArthur - who goes about "loving" people most of whom he believes are prisoners to God's un-election, never genuinely free to choose their eternal destiny, and who approves of their predetermined, eternal consignment to Hell.

Tell me, does God love the unrepentant sinner He casts into Hell? Does He show them love by the execution of His wrath upon them through the eternal torment of Hell? Where is the love in such a terrible and unending punishment?

Sometimes when people talk about God's sovereignty, it sounds like God could just do terrible things on a whim, but then he wouldn't be righteous would he?

God has done many terrible things! But He has never done an evil thing. If He did, you'd be quite right that He couldn't then be righteous.

If you consider the butterfly effect of the things that God did in the Bible on the billions and billions of people that would live in the aftermath of whatever decision it was that he made, is it really possible for there to be more than one totally, equally perfect decision?

Aren't you assuming the Butterfly Effect looks the same to God as it does to us? I very much doubt that, however.

Selah.

 

[Moral Orel]

God has done many terrible things! But He has never done an evil thing. If He did, you'd be quite right that He couldn't then be righteous.

I would contend that doing a terrible thing on a whim, and without a greater good being achieved, is evil. Do you disagree?

Tell me, does God love the unrepentant sinner He casts into Hell? Does He show them love by the execution of His wrath upon them through the eternal torment of Hell? Where is the love in such a terrible and unending punishment?

I think a lot of people seem to think so. There are a lot of different takes on what Hell is, exactly. Some think it is the destruction of the soul, so that you really would cease to exist. Some think that it is a temporary punishment to "clean" the soul before going to Heaven. Albeit, that last one came from a Jewish Rabbi. And sure, some think that unrepentant sinners go to a fiery Hell forever. However, in all of those theories that I have heard, most people view it as a choice humans make to separate themselves from God, and not as God saying, "You were bad, be punished for your sins!" and then casting them in there. And in all of those cases God loves them anyways, but he must be "separated" from them because of the human's choice.

Aren't you assuming the Butterfly Effect looks the same to God as it does to us? I very much doubt that, however.

I can only assume it is more complicated than what we may see. There may well be numerous other dimensions that need measured than just our sense of morality which only makes the odds that any two decisions match up perfectly to be perfectly the best that much more unlikely. God sees more than us, so there is more for him to measure. But that doesn't mean that seeing more would mean there are less consequences to each action that he might do, only more consequences which further complicates any action he chooses to take.

God was perfect before He acted to create us and the universe in which we live, which means He was in a state that could not be improved by anything. Existing in a state of perfection, God could not, by creating the universe, have been in any way elevated, or expanded, or more fully satisfied, than He already was.

Then why would the Bible say he created for "his pleasure" if his pleasure couldn't be increased? You make it sound as though God said, "meh, here's a universe". I think that we have a simplified understanding of "infinite" and we can't really understand that something that has an infinite supply of something could actually increase. Sure it doesn't make sense to us and our understanding of math, but why would God do anything then if it didn't increase something for him? He would need to have some emotions of some kind to be motivated to do something. But if he was already perfect and perfectly content and perfect contentedness can't be increased, then there is no reason for him to do anything at all. Not morality, not to increase his glory, no reason at all.

 

[Moral Orel]

I didn't, by the way, "admit" that we were better off being created than not. I merely pointed out that the phrase "better off" has no meaning in relation to a non-existent entity. One can only be "better off" if one exists. So, saying one is better off existing than not is a bit nonsensical. It is comparing two incomparable things to each other - like saying hard is better than purple.

Are we better off existing than not? "Better off" describes a state of being. There is no "better off" when one does not exist; for if one does not exist, one has no being. Necessarily, then, we are better off when existing than when we do not exist. But this is a matter of the nature of existence versus non-existence; it is not really a moral question.

I wanted to talk about this a bit too, because it seems to me that it is fairly easy to compare existence and non-existence. It is just a difference of experiencing and not experiencing really.

Consider two events, Event A and Event B. Event A is good, and Event B is bad. For the sake of argument, we'll say that neither event has any effect on any other event that will ever be. If Event A happens to you, you would say that you are better off for experiencing that event. If Event B happens to you, you would say that you are worse off for experiencing that event. So if a person begins to exist and only has Event A happen throughout their life, then they are better off existing because they had a good event happen, whereas not existing would not allow them to experience that event.

I disagree that everyone is better off for existing though. Some people only have Event B happen to them throughout their life, and then they die. If they had not existed, then they would be better off because Event B couldn't have happened to them. And then of course we can make things more complicated by saying Event A happens X times, and Event B happens Y times, etc. But we can easily compare existence and non-existence by comparing the experience of good events and bad events.

So it isn't as difficult as comparing "hard" and "purple" as there are things that can be compared between existence and non existence. It would really be like saying we can't compare good and evil when they are polar opposites of each other.

 

[Faithfulandtrue]

In everyway yes God DOES have free will. The idea of NOT having free will means the person has someone or something in control of their actions. God is the one and only Creator who was is and will be and NO ONE AND NOTHING CREATED THE CREATOR. He was from the beginning and always will be. Saying you don't believe God has free will is simply blaspheme because that is saying you don't believe God is God and that you don't believe Him when He says He is in control of all things.
God is in control of all things past present and future. Only He and He alone decides what is going to happen. God is not bound by limits but limits are bound by God. There isn't any other force that "makes" God do anything He doesn't want to do because He is God. Also it isn't that God CAN'T do certain things but that He doesn't WANT certain things to happen and it is all for a greater good in the end. God's personality is that He is a good God. Also keep in mind that we are just humans who are we to argue with God:
"8For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
9For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven
and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout,
giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
11so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it."
Isaiah 55:8-11

…20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22
-Romans 9:21

9"Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker-- An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making say, 'He has no hands '?
-Isaiah 45:9

 

[aiki]

I would contend that doing a terrible thing on a whim, and without a greater good being achieved, is evil. Do you disagree?

I'm using the term "terrible" in an older sense of the word, meaning fear-inspiring. A thing can be fear-inspiring without being evil. This is the way at least the KJV often uses the word in connection to God. You, though, I think, are using the term in its more modern sense: rotten, awful, really unpleasant. In any case, if we are speaking of God who has done a "terrible" thing, how are we to judge if it was done on a whim? Our not understanding God's actions does not necessarily mean He has acted whimsically. And perhaps the good that God is pursuing will not manifest until many years later in a way we will not see.

I think a lot of people seem to think so. There are a lot of different takes on what Hell is, exactly. Some think it is the destruction of the soul, so that you really would cease to exist. Some think that it is a temporary punishment to "clean" the soul before going to Heaven. Albeit, that last one came from a Jewish Rabbi. And sure, some think that unrepentant sinners go to a fiery Hell forever. However, in all of those theories that I have heard, most people view it as a choice humans make to separate themselves from God, and not as God saying, "You were bad, be punished for your sins!" and then casting them in there. And in all of those cases God loves them anyways, but he must be "separated" from them because of the human's choice.

You know, it doesn't really matter what theories are floating around about Hell. What matters is what God's Word, the Bible, says. And it is very clear about the nature and purpose of Hell. Hell is not remedial or corrective; it is punishment. (Matt. 25:46; 2Thess. 1:9) Hell is not temporary but eternal. Hell expresses God's wrathful vengeance upon the unrepentant evildoer (Jn. 3:36; Ro. 1:18; Ro. 2:25; 12:19; Col. 3:6; He. 10: 30, 31; Rev. 14:10; 19:15); it is not merely the passive concession of God to the rebelliousness of determined sinners who wish to be separate from Him.

I can only assume it is more complicated than what we may see. There may well be numerous other dimensions that need measured than just our sense of morality which only makes the odds that any two decisions match up perfectly to be perfectly the best that much more unlikely. God sees more than us, so there is more for him to measure. But that doesn't mean that seeing more would mean there are less consequences to each action that he might do, only more consequences which further complicates any action he chooses to take.

But where the Butterfly Effect may make the end result of our actions impossible for us to fully predict, God, being God, has no trouble at all seeing the final product of his actions (and ours) before He does them.

Then why would the Bible say he created for "his pleasure" if his pleasure couldn't be increased? You make it sound as though God said, "meh, here's a universe". I think that we have a simplified understanding of "infinite" and we can't really understand that something that has an infinite supply of something could actually increase. Sure it doesn't make sense to us and our understanding of math, but why would God do anything then if it didn't increase something for him? He would need to have some emotions of some kind to be motivated to do something. But if he was already perfect and perfectly content and perfect contentedness can't be increased, then there is no reason for him to do anything at all. Not morality, not to increase his glory, no reason at all.

And this is precisely why we must say that God's act of Creation was entirely gratuitous. Yes, He certainly has purposes He is working out in His creation, but none of them are necessary for Him to fulfill. An artist may paint a picture purely on a whim. He may have done so simply for the pleasure of it. As an artist myself, I have often drawn pictures "just because." Why could God not have had a similar motive for making the universe? Certainly, if God is perfect, this is the inevitable conclusion at which I must arrive. It makes us less vital, less important, than we are prone to thinking ourselves to be but this is not a bad thing, I think. We humans are in desperate need of humbling.

Selah.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm using the term "terrible" in an older sense of the word, meaning fear-inspiring. A thing can be fear-inspiring without being evil. This is the way at least the KJV often uses the word in connection to God. You, though, I think, are using the term in its more modern sense: rotten, awful, really unpleasant. In any case, if we are speaking of God who has done a "terrible" thing, how are we to judge if it was done on a whim? Our not understanding God's actions does not necessarily mean He has acted whimsically. And perhaps the good that God is pursuing will not manifest until many years later in a way we will not see.

I'm using it the exact same way you are. You're missing the key point that God would only do one of these terrible things if there was a greater good. I am conceding that whatever he did in the Bible that seems awful was done for a greater good. But if he did a "terrible" thing because he wanted a good laugh, and it ultimately ended in evil, then he couldn't do such a thing.

You know, it doesn't really matter what theories are floating around about Hell. What matters is what God's Word, the Bible, says. And it is very clear about the nature and purpose of Hell. Hell is not remedial or corrective; it is punishment. (Matt. 25:46; 2Thess. 1:9) Hell is not temporary but eternal. Hell expresses God's wrathful vengeance upon the unrepentant evildoer (Jn. 3:36; Ro. 1:18; Ro. 2:25; 12:19; Col. 3:6; He. 10: 30, 31; Rev. 14:10; 19:15); it is not merely the passive concession of God to the rebelliousness of determined sinners who wish to be separate from Him.

None of that means he doesn't love even the people that go to Hell. And Hell being eternal can still be considered the eternal destruction of the soul, not eternal anguish.

But where the Butterfly Effect may make the end result of our actions impossible for us to fully predict, God, being God, has no trouble at all seeing the final product of his actions (and ours) before He does them.

Sure, I've said that a bunch of times now. God can see the myriad of effects that his actions have and choose an action accordingly. But whatever results of his actions add up to more good than bad.

And this is precisely why we must say that God's act of Creation was entirely gratuitous. Yes, He certainly has purposes He is working out in His creation, but none of them are necessary for Him to fulfill. An artist may paint a picture purely on a whim. He may have done so simply for the pleasure of it. As an artist myself, I have often drawn pictures "just because." Why could God not have had a similar motive for making the universe? Certainly, if God is perfect, this is the inevitable conclusion at which I must arrive. It makes us less vital, less important, than we are prone to thinking ourselves to be but this is not a bad thing, I think. We humans are in desperate need of humbling.

When you draw a picture, do you derive pleasure from it? I mean, does your level of pleasure increase as a result of drawing the picture, or would it remain completely static and unchanging whether you drew the picture or not? That is how you are describing God. That he didn't derive anything from creating because he already had perfection.

 

[zippy2006]

That's true, we didn't fulfill some need of God, but that doesn't mean that he didn't need to create us. There are more reasons to do something than just a need that has to be fulfilled. You would agree that God created everything out of grace right? Like, "here's a bunch of awesome stuff for you humans I thought you might like". Now just because he didn't have a need that had to be fulfilled doesn't mean that his nature doesn't dictate that he will do good things and that he will create because he is creative by nature.

I think a lot to myself. I have a job that doesn't require a lot of thinking to perform, so my mind is free to wonder and wander all day. I don't think to myself because if I don't I will feel bad, I just do because that is my nature. I'm no super-genius, and a lot my thoughts are stupid, and terrible, and unfunny, and pointless, but every once in a while I think of something clever. Either way, whether it is productive or not, it isn't my nature to sit around with an empty head. It is just something that I do because it is who I am and I don't have a choice. I may have a choice as to what I think about, but I can't not think and ponder (double negative totally intentional).

Then thinking fulfills a need for you. Or more properly, as I said before, it fulfills a lack. If you abstained from thinking you would feel a lack, an emptiness. But no such thing is true with God. God's nature does not necessitate creation.

Take a look at the example I gave Aiki. In a situation where everyone has enough, I should still give some money away. It doesn't have to do with an even distribution, it has everything to do with not sharing at all. To more directly compare the situation, we are supposed to love God first, but we are also supposed to love our neighbor as well. God loves himself and the trinity and however that works to whomever, but then he should love more than himself shouldn't he? You don't think it's selfish to only love yourself? Even if you have to create more persons, shouldn't you in order to not keep the greatest thing ever all to yourself? I think that if God is love, as it says in the Bible, he would be compelled to love as much as possible, not just himself, but even stuff he would need to create just to love even more.

I suppose you may be right that such a being would be content to be alone with himself though and wouldn't feel compelled to make more persons. But then what after that? If you're right, which I still won't concede to as of yet, does that mean any other part of my argument is wrong? When he decides to create the universe, does it not have to be a certain way like I proposed in order for there to be that cosmic balance of perfection? Could God really make another totally different universe and plan for life that somehow comes to an exact balance of good/evil as we have now? Isn't there a "best" and only one "best"?

Sorry for the short reply, but I think a lot of it comes back to creatio ex nihilo. God created us out of love, but he did not need to create. Justice presupposes the existence of the things that are owed justice, but "when" nothing existed God did not owe justice to anything, precisely because nothing existed.

Some would answer the "best" question in the same way. God created x beings out of nothing. He could have created x+1 and it would have been "better." Yet what is truly required is a clear definition of "better/best."