Does God have free will?

[mindlight]

If God knows all, including his own future, is it possible for him to have free will?

Thoughts?

The concept of future for an eternal being is I suppose different than for a human being for whom the direction of time has a beginning and important transition stages. Also Gods freedom is qualitatively superior to that of a mortal creature as being Almighty, Omnipresent, eternal, all wise, all knowing does add a few extra options to the table! Knowing in advance the kind of options you will choose is a different kind of integrity and honesty. If your choices are perfect why would you change them just to demonstrate that you were not bound to them. Gods creativity means that few us are going to exactly anticipate how he will love, give life, give light in this or that situation but there is nothing limiting in that or debilitating.

 

[ViaCrucis]

But it is not the knowing as we are doing it, but the knowing before we do it.

When there's no before, after, past, or future with God, as He is outside of time; then God is present at all moments simultaneously. We do not need to speak of God as peering into the future like a mortal seer, but as the One who is present at all times.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Free will is in the choosing not in the doing.

The point is that knowing what you're doing as you do it doesn't negate your choice to have done it. It's not about peering into the future, it's about God being simultaneously present at all points in time.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Golfing Gator]

When there's no before, after, past, or future with God, as He is outside of time; then God is present at all moments simultaneously. We do not need to speak of God as peering into the future like a mortal seer, but as the One who is present at all times.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree, but I was not speaking of God, I was referring to this post..

"Does your knowing what you're doing as you do it mean you have no free will?"

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Summary of ~90% of the thread--
Q: If God knows all, including his own future, is it possible for him to have free will?
1. God is outside of time
2. We can't understand His ways
3. Logic doesn't always apply to God

These comments masquerade as wisdom but are defense mechanisms for when the problem becomes to difficult. As soon as something incoherent about someones understanding of God pops up, one of the previous three statements arise so they don't have to delve any further and perhaps change their mind about something.

For the record:
1. God is outside of time - but He interacts in time
2. We can't understand His ways - but we've been given the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16), are encouraged to "know him better" (Ephesians 1:17), and it is plain to see His "divine nature" (Romans 1:20) - note also Colossians 2:2 encourages one to "understand the mystery of God"
3. Logic doesn't always apply to God - I completely agree and disagree

Alternatively, we can change our understanding of Who God is so that there are at least less logical problems, until we arrive at the truth, where there are no logical problems. Then skepticism has no foothold and God is logically defendable.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Logic doesn't always apply to God

Nobody ever said that. On the contrary, God is himself logic, for he is a God of order. Rather, what we are saying that our finite minds, being corrupted, fallen, and broken, might not always be able to understand how God works everything out. After all, there is a realm of reality that we cannot even see, much less understand.

These comments masquerade as wisdom but are defense mechanisms for when the problem becomes to difficult.

"Masquerading as wisdom"? You shouldn't be so uncharitable. I, for one (and I am sure I speak for @ViaCrucis in this area, as well), am merely believing God when he says, "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa. 55:9). Surely you wouldn't accuse Paul's words of "masquerading as wisdom" when, after trying to explain the mystery of the Jewish rejection of Christ in light of God's great and sovereign plan of redemption, he says, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 'For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?'" (Rom. 11:33-34)? I certainly would hope not.

There is a big, big difference between feigning wisdom and resigning to the fact that God is far greater, wiser, and unfathomable beyond our wildest finite comprehension. The former is deceit, but the latter is entirely biblical, and protects us puny humans from the sacrilege of presumption to knowledge which we have not been granted.

Confessing God's unfathomable-ness is not feigning wisdom, friend; it is wisdom.

Alternatively, we can change our understanding of Who God is so that there are at least less logical problems, until we arrive at the truth, where there are no logical problems.

You see, though, I hope, that this method becomes a problem when it leads us to think things of God that are contrary to his self-revelation found in Scripture. That is the problem with approaching God like a rationalist, expecting God to conform to our fallen logic. Our logic is not altogether broken, but it is certainly marred and imperfect. Therefore, if we expect God to entirely conform to our own logic, we of necessity have to create for ourselves an imperfect God—a God who, for example, does not know the future, as the open theists have erroneously concluded.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Some fair points. But about logic not applying to God you replied:

Nobody ever said that.

but later you say:

the problem with approaching God like a rationalist, expecting God to conform to our fallen logic. Our logic is not altogether broken, but it is certainly marred and imperfect.

and this is the gist of what I mean. I would say to approach God with a rational mindset should lead us to true logical conclusions, not false ones, such as FW and D being compatible.

There is a big, big difference between feigning wisdom and resigning to the fact that God is far greater, wiser, and unfathomable beyond our wildest finite comprehension.

Fair enough, and I agree with you, but this point of "God is beyond our understanding" often comes up when a question is to difficult; it is a deflection and equates basically to "I don't know and couldn't be bothered continuing to explore".

I appreciate your gentle response by the way, I realise my post is provocative

 

[ViaCrucis]

I agree, but I was not speaking of God, I was referring to this post..

"Does your knowing what you're doing as you do it mean you have no free will?"

Look at the post I was responding to.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TaylorSexton]

I would say to approach God with a rational mindset should lead us to true logical conclusions...

I would completely agree...if only we were not fallen. Our reason, I hope you would agree, is fallen, and thus imperfect. Sure, it leads us to right conclusions and truth a fair portion of the time, but certainly not all the time. If we would believe that our reason leads us to the truth all the time, then we deny our need for revelation, because there would simply be no need or it; our reason could simply arrive at it, and thus salvation. However, God, seeing that our reason was fallen (and thus incapable of guiding any of us to divine truth), saw fit to reveal himself through Scripture.

I appreciate your gentle response by the way, I realise my post is provocative.

It is very difficult for me, I admit. So I appreciate your affirmation, friend. Yes, your post is provocative, but when theological discussion is kept gentle, everyone learns (most certainly me).

 

[Everybodyknows]

With all respect to you, you have not read what I have posted correctly. Allow me to make a few comments:

You are correct in saying that "God's choices precede his acts and that they aren't connected by necessity." However, you err when you conclude from that, therefore, "God transitions from a state of not having made a choice, through a process of decision, to a state of having made a choice."God is eternal—atemporal. I know you do not seem to grant it, but Scripture very clear that God is outside of time. Time is a necessary concomitant of finitude—created-ness. But God is infinite, and therefore by definition cannot be constrained in any way by time. Notice the Berkhof quote I posted immediately after the Ames quote, in which he says that, although we speak of God's decision and his consequent action, these are only logical categories, not temporal. Therefore, that God's "decision" logically precedes his "action" is not to say that it is temporally prior.

If this is taken into consideration, your issue with us claiming that God is outside of time is resolved. You are right, for a choice to be a choice, it must precede action, which necessitates time—for creatures. God is no creature. When we speak of God making choices, we are using, essentially, anthropomorphisms to describe his ways. This is fine. However, as I said earlier, the moment we try to move from describing to understanding or comprehension, we are dangerously close to error simply because God, being "wholly other," is entirely unlike us. I would argue that even his "mode of being" (for lack of a better phrase) is entirely different, because he exists of himself, and creatures exist contingently.

So, to conclude, God is outside of time. (I really do think Scripture does not equivocate on this.) In the end, your thesis (i.e., that if God knows his own future, he must therefore be constrained by it) is sorely begging the question—the question being whether or not God is constrained by time. God has no future to know; he just is (Exod. 3:14). Everything that he knows he knows by virtue of his own action, otherwise we must conclude that God learns, which would not only be unbiblical—even sacrilegious—but it would make God really no different than us, just a good bit smarter and wiser.

I understand your thought, and I really appreciate it when I see someone thinking about these things. It is good to do, I think. But, as I said before, in the end, we simply must confess with the Apostle that "his ways" are "past finding out" (Rom. 11:33). What we are talking abut here is like the doctrine of the Trinity. We have no idea how it is possible that the one God can eternally exist as three Persons, each possessing the fullness of the one deity, yet each one not being the other. We cannot understand that, but we must confess it. I believe that is true with this. If God is outside of time, how can he be said to act? I am not sure how that works, but many statements in Scripture require me to believe both, and one day, in eternity, perhaps I will be able to understand.

Thank you! This is exactly the kind of reasoned response I was hoping for from this thread. Thank you also @Radagast for your very informative post #56.

I have no problem with God being outside of time as such. If I appeared to deny it, it was because I was pushing for a better response of how his timelessness resolves the paradox rather than a simple assertion that it does.

Good point there about things in a timeless state being logically sequential, without having to be temporally sequential. Am I right to use analogy of a ball resting on a cushion in a timeless state. We could say that the ball is causing an indent in the cushion, and as such we could establish a causal relationship without the need of temporal succession.

The part I'm still struggling is how we approach necessity in a timeless state. For example is it necessary that the ball causes the effect of the indent in the cushion? Wouldn't it be wrong to say that the ball doesn't rest on the cushion necessarily? Could, alternatively, the cushion have been on the ball? When dealing with timelessness it's difficult to say that there are alternative possibilities. It just is what it is, and that's all it can be. But existence of alternative possibilities is essential for the concept of choice and by extension free will.

Now let's say we have a timeless state where it's God sitting on the cushion. Even though we can establish some casual relationship, I don't see how we can say that God doesn't sit on the cushion necessarily. Did he will himself to be sitting on the cushion? Wouldn't that be akin to saying God willed his own nature, or God willed himself to exist? Can we even say that God chose to sit on the cushion? It just is the way it is and it can't be any other way.

 

[TaylorSexton]

The part I'm still struggling is how we approach necessity in a timeless state. For example is it necessary that the ball causes the effect of the indent in the cushion? Wouldn't it be wrong to say that the ball doesn't rest on the cushion necessarily? Could, alternatively, the cushion have been on the ball? When dealing with timelessness it's difficult to say that there are alternative possibilities. It just is what it is, and that's all it can be. But existence of alternative possibilities is essential for the concept of choice and by extension free will.

Now let's say we have a timeless state where it's God sitting on the cushion. Even though we can establish some casual relationship, I don't see how we can say that God doesn't sit on the cushion necessarily. Did he will himself to be sitting on the cushion? Wouldn't that be akin to saying God willed his own nature, or God willed himself to exist? Can we even say that God chose to sit on the cushion? It just is the way it is and it can't be any other way.

You ask very good questions and formulate very thoughtful analogies. I do not claim to be a philosopher, though, so these things are, at the moment, far above my pay grade. I would encourage you to keep pondering these things, and as soon as you find an answer, to please let me know! These things, I often feel, are too wonderful for me to consider.

Best Wishes in Christ, friend!

 

[Everybodyknows]

You ask very good questions and formulate very thoughtful analogies. I do not claim to be a philosopher, though, so these things are, at the moment, far above my pay grade. I would encourage you to keep pondering these things, and as soon as you find an answer, to please let me know! These things, I often feel, are too wonderful for me to consider.

Best Wishes in Christ, friend!

Thank you. I have learned much from you in this discussion.

Blessings

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Now let's say we have a timeless state where it's God sitting on the cushion. Even though we can establish some casual relationship, I don't see how we can say that God doesn't sit on the cushion necessarily. Did he will himself to be sitting on the cushion? Wouldn't that be akin to saying God willed his own nature, or God willed himself to exist? Can we even say that God chose to sit on the cushion? It just is the way it is and it can't be any other way.

Placing God outside of time is like dividing by zero. You come up with all kinds of crazy conclusions that are just plain strange.

For example:

a/a=1 therefore, 0/0=1 ...(1)

But
0/0=(0*0)/0
0/0=0*(0/0)
0/0=0 ...(2)

Combining (1) and (2):
0/0=1
0/0=0
∴0=1

Placing God outside of time has the same effect. How do we have a relationship with such a timeless being? He becomes more of an object or an "energy" than a actual Person we can interact with. It's not in the bible either. Perhaps this is for another thread though...

 

[Everybodyknows]

Placing God outside of time is like dividing by zero. You come up with all kinds of crazy conclusions that are just plain strange.

I'm not sure I agree, although I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm not seeing that God being outside of time is necessary illogical, but I haven't given the issue too much thought. What are some examples of logical absurdities/contradictions that you think arise from God being outside of time?

Placing God outside of time has the same effect. How do we have a relationship with such a timeless being? He becomes more of an object or an "energy" than a actual Person we can interact with. It's not in the bible either. Perhaps this is for another thread though...

Non of these are examples of illogical conclusions such as 1=0. Sure, God being outside of time may lead to some conclusions that you don't like, find challenging or that you find unscriptural, but this doesn't mean they are in violation of the laws of logic.

 

[thesunisout]

If God knows all, including his own future, is it possible for him to have free will?

Thoughts?

God only does what is perfect so why would He change anything? He is free to do as He wills and He only wills to do what is perfect.

 

[Everybodyknows]

He is free to do as He wills and He only wills to do what is perfect.

Is he free to will what he wills?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I'm not seeing that God being outside of time is necessary illogical, but I haven't given the issue too much thought. What are some examples of logical absurdities/contradictions that you think arise from God being outside of time?

If God exists outside of time then He is a constant, unchanging Being Who has no thoughts i.e. mental changes over time. Choices require changes in mental states over time. If God created time He cannot have changes in mental states and therefore cannot have free will. If He doesn't have free-will what is He? He's more like the Star Wars "force", a non-thinking emotionless unchanging photo. Yet God does change His mind and make choices for example Genesis 6:6 "The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain." Another, Exodus 32:14 "Then the LORD relented and did not bring on His people the disaster He had threatened."

A logical contradiction of being outside of time found at Divine Immutability | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy :

Here is a truth that I know: that it is now 2:23pm. That is something I couldn’t know a minute ago, and it is something that I won’t know in a minute. At that time, I’ll know a different truth: that it is now 2:24pm. Either God knows such temporally indexed truths—truths that include reference to particular times at which they are true—or not. If God does not know such truths, then he is not omniscient, since there is something to be known—something a lowly creature like me does, in fact, know—of which God is ignorant. Since very few theists, especially of a traditional stripe, are willing to give up divine omniscience, very few will be willing to claim that God is ignorant of temporally changing truths like truths about what time it is.

If God is omniscient, then God knows such temporally changing truths. If God does know such temporally changing truths, then God changes, since God goes from knowing that it is now 2:23pm to knowing that it is now 2:24pm. And worse, God changes with much more frequency, since there are more fine-grained truths to know about time than which minute it is (for instance, what second it is, what millisecond it is, etc.) If God knows such truths at some times but not at others, God changes. And if God changes, divine immutability is false. So if God is omniscient, he is not immutable. Therefore, God is either not immutable or not omniscient. And since both views are explicitly held by traditional Christianity (and other monotheisms) there is a problem here for the traditional proponent of divine immutability.​

 

[TaylorSexton]

If God exists outside of time then He is a constant, unchanging Being Who has no thoughts i.e. mental changes over time. Choices require changes in mental states over time. If God created time He cannot have changes in mental states and therefore cannot have free will. If He doesn't have free-will what is He? He's more like the Star Wars "force", a non-thinking emotionless unchanging photo. Yet God does change His mind and make choices for example Genesis 6:6 "The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain." Another, Exodus 32:14 "Then the LORD relented and did not bring on His people the disaster He had threatened."

The problem, though, is that Scripture in many places says God is eternal (e.g., Gen. 21:33; Isa. 26:4; Jer. 10:10; Rom. 16:26; 1 Tim. 1:16). "Eternal" is not merely a long duration, but an entirely different mode of existence altogether. Eternity by definition is not measurable. Furthermore, you are assuming that the language of God "changing his mind" is a literal statement and not an anthropomorphism. After all, what are we to do when the Bible says in one place, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" (Numb. 23:19), and then says in another place, "And the LORD repented" (Exod. 32:14). Those are entirely contradictory statements, unless we understand the first one to be an absolute statement and the second one to be an anthropomorphism—describing God in a human way in order to communicate his ways in an understandable way. Otherwise, we have to conclude that Scripture is in error and self-contradictory.

This is what I am talking about. We simply cannot approach God like rationalists. Our reason is fallen and imperfect. Therefore, if we expect God to satisfy our imperfect reason, we must create for ourselves an imperfect God. Sure, we don't understand how God can interact in time yet himself not be "inside" of time (although many, many pages have been written on this), but the fact that our fallen logic cannot comprehend God (which om. 11:33-36 clearly confesses) does not permit us to conclude things about him that are unscriptural. We must confess many things about God that we cannot comprehend, yet they are true—like his Triune nature.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The problem, though, is that Scripture in many places says God is eternal (e.g., Gen. 21:33; Isa. 26:4; Jer. 10:10; Rom. 16:26; 1 Tim. 1:16). "Eternal" is not merely a long duration, but an entirely different mode of existence altogether. Eternity by definition is not measurable.

How does the eternity of God remove Him from time entirely? Is it not also possible that time is eternal just as God is eternal? Is it not possible the I Am is always and ever present, living in the present eternally?

Take Genesis 18:20-21 for example:

And the LORD said, "The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. "I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know."​

If we think of God as timeless, we have to ask: Why would God come down in the form of the Angel of the Lord, along with two angels, to investigate? Shouldn't He already know? It doesn't fit with the idea of Him being outside of time. Following this Abraham bargains with God. From a timeless perspective, God was playing a game with Abraham - He knew exactly what would happen and behaved in a way that would help Abraham feel better about the destruction of Sodom. In this picture we are essentially pawns in His plan; our conversations with Him are not meaningful on His part, rather they are in a negative sense manipulative. Importantly, in the passage God does not appear to know the future, nor be outside of time.

Note also that God abides in heaven and that heaven exists in time as Revelation 8:1 says "there was silence in heaven for about half an hour". Also Daniel 10:12-13 tells us an angel fought in the spirit realm for twenty-one days. When we admit the spiritual realm experiences time (i.e. there are future events to take place and things have occurred in the past) we can see that God also experiences time.

Furthermore, you are assuming that the language of God "changing his mind" is a literal statement and not an anthropomorphism. After all, what are we to do when the Bible says in one place, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" (Numb. 23:19), and then says in another place, "And the LORD repented" (Exod. 32:14). Those are entirely contradictory statements, unless we understand the first one to be an absolute statement and the second one to be an anthropomorphism—describing God in a human way in order to communicate his ways in an understandable way. Otherwise, we have to conclude that Scripture is in error and self-contradictory.

The problem with interpreting passages where God changes His mind as anthropomorphic is that it renders their meaning unclear. If God doesn’t actually change His mind, then what do the passages that explicitly declare that He does change His mind really mean? Anthropomorphisms must still communicate something accurate about God. If God changes his mind what do we learn about Him if He doesn’t change his mind?

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" (Numb. 23:19)

This verse is in reference to prophesying truthfully - God is not like false prophets who just say what the king wants to hear; and He doesn't say one thing then change and say something else later. I don't think we can take from this a hard and fast rule: God never changes His mind.

 

[TaylorSexton]

How does the eternity of God remove Him from time entirely? Is it not also possible that time is eternal just as God is eternal? Is it not possible the I Am is always and ever present, living in the present eternally?

Time is measurable. Eternity by definition is not measurable. Time by definition cannot be eternal, because it would then not be time, because we could not measure it.

If we think of God as timeless, we have to ask: Why would God come down in the form of the Angel of the Lord, along with two angels, to investigate? Shouldn't He already know? It doesn't fit with the idea of Him being outside of time. Following this Abraham bargains with God. From a timeless perspective, God was playing a game with Abraham - He knew exactly what would happen and behaved in a way that would help Abraham feel better about the destruction of Sodom. In this picture we are essentially pawns in His plan; our conversations with Him are not meaningful on His part, rather they are in a negative sense manipulative. Importantly, in the passage God does not appear to know the future, nor be outside of time.

To say that because God in Scripture comes down in the form of an angel that he therefore exists inside time is a non sequitur; it simply is not a necessary logical entailment. Even so, you are still assuming that God, in doing this, is not simply condescending to our understanding (as he does by the very nature of Scripture).

The problem with interpreting passages where God changes His mind as anthropomorphic is that it renders their meaning unclear. If God doesn’t actually change His mind, then what do the passages that explicitly declare that He does change His mind really mean? Anthropomorphisms must still communicate something accurate about God. If God changes his mind what do we learn about Him if He doesn’t change his mind?

Well, then you still have to deal with conflicting Scriptures. Regardless, the meaning is not at all unclear; God was going to do something, and then he didn't. It was then inscripturated in way in which fallen man can understand. In the end, the problem you raise doesn't really exist because we do not form a theology about anything from just one statement, but from the "whole counsel of God."

This verse is in reference to prophesying truthfully - God is not like false prophets who just say what the king wants to hear; and He doesn't say one thing then change and say something else later. I don't think we can take from this a hard and fast rule: God never changes His mind.

Sure, it is in the context of prophecy, but it it is entirely reasonable that the statement still stands, especially in light of the entire canon of Scripture. (Otherwise his statement here in regard to prophecy makes so sense, because if God can change at all, then his prophets can; indeed, truth itself can change on a whim). Still, as I said earlier, if we do not find this specific passage satisfactory (which I frankly find illegitimate), there is a host of other passages that teach the same truth. Take, for instance, James when he says rather unequivocally that with God "there is no variation or shadow due to change" (Jas. 1:17).