How do Christians reconcile the problem of free will?

[teryebir]

I've often wondered how Christians reconcile the problem of free will. This article shows how it is logically impossible for a god (or anyone) to have infallible knowledge of yet-to-be-made choices of a free will agent.

Perhaps the reconciliation is due to not thinking about it.
Perhaps the reconciliation is due to believing in a god that doesn't really know what our future choices are
Perhaps there is some other reconciliation to it


Christians often make the claim that God knows everything. If asked for specifics, they’ll say this includes knowledge about the future (foreknowledge) and that such knowledge is infallible. Christians also often make the claim that man has free will. Upon being asked for specifics, they’ll agree that free will entails the ability to freely make a choice and that up until the time an option is chosen, a different option could have been chosen. At quick glance, these claims may not appear to be in conflict. However, if we dig a little deeper into each of these claims, we’ll see that they are.

Let’s say Pete is faced with a free choice of A or B. He is due to make this choice on Tuesday (day 2). We’ll call Pete’s day 2 A/B choice variable Y - meaning if Pete chooses A, then variable Y gets a value of A and if Pete chooses B, then variable Y gets a value of B. This also means prior to day 2, variable Y has no value (or the choice lies in an unmade state), and on day 2, variable Y will acquire a value of either A or B – to be decided freely by Pete.

Given the Christian claim that God has infallible foreknowledge, this would mean God knows infallibly what A/B choice Pete will make when the choice still lies in an unmade state. To gain further clarity on this, it can be asked, “if it were asked on day 1 does God know infallibly what Pete’s day 2 A/B choice will be, would the answer be YES?”. Christians would typically agree.

So we’ll call God’s day 1 knowledge of Pete’s day 2 A/B choice variable X. If as of day 1, God knows Pete will choose A, then variable X has a value of A - and if as of day 1, God knows Pete will choose B, then variable X has a value of B. If God knows infallibly on day 1 what Pete’s day 2 A/B choice will be, then it follows that X has a static or fixed value of either A or B as of day 1.

If asked for further specifics, such as what if Pete chooses something in conflict with what God knows he will choose, Christians will respond with the assertion that Pete will choose whatever God knows he will choose. This means that if variable X is equal to A, then variable Y must be equal to A; if variable Y is equal to B, then variable X must be equal to B, etc.

We now have three conditions:

1) X (or God's knowledge as of day 1 of Pete's day 2 A/B choice) has a value of either A or B on day 1 and this value is fixed and cannot change. If it is A, it will remain A. If it is B, it will remain B. This follows the assertion that God has infallible knowledge of future events.

2) Y (or Pete’s day 2 A/B choice) receives its value on day 2. Once Y receives its value, it becomes locked. Prior to receiving its value, it could potentially become A or B, as Pete freely chooses A or B. This follows the assertion that Pete has free will or can freely make choices.

3) X is equal to Y. This follows the assertion that whatever Pete chooses is precisely the same as what God knew he would choose.

Not all three of these conditions can be true.

If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can’t be true, as X wouldn’t necessarily be equal to Y, nor would Y necessarily be equal to X. Not only would X receive a value at a different point in time than Y, but Y could be assigned a value in conflict with the static value of X.

If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can’t be true. Pete wouldn’t be able to freely choose A or B, as variable Y would already be defined as being equal to variable X. Christians will often argue that God's knowledge of Pete’s future choice is a function of Pete’s day 2 choice. But this doesn’t hold true if the answer to the question “if asked on day 1, does God know what Pete’s day 2 A/B choice will be?” is YES.

If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can’t be true. What this means is if variable Y gets its value on day 2, then variable X also gets its value on day 2 and gets the same value as variable Y. It then follows that God can’t have infallible knowledge on day 1 of Pete’s day 2 A/B choice.

Therefore, it is logically impossible for God (or anyone) to have infallible foreknowledge of a yet to be made free choice.

At a high level, what's going on is some people have made claims. These claims are equivalent to:

1) X has a value of A or B on day 1, meaning it must be equal to A or equal to B as of day 1. This is derived from the Christian claim that if asked on day 1, "does God know what Pete will choose tomorrow", they would say "yes".

2) Y gets a value of A or B on day 2, meaning Y has no value prior to day 2 and could be either A or B. This is derived from the Christian claim that Pete freely can choose either A or B and that up until the time he freely chooses either A or B, he could choose the other option.

3) X is always equal to Y and vice versa. This is derived from the Christian claim that whatever God knows Pete will choose is what Pete will choose and whatever Pete chooses is what God knew he would choose.

Since 1, 2 and 3 can't all be true, we can conclude - provided we're responding to the aforementioned claims - that the God described here can't have infallible knowledge of Pete's freely made choices.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've often wondered how Christians reconcile the problem of free will. This article shows how it is logically impossible for a god (or anyone) to have infallible knowledge of yet-to-be-made choices of a free will agent.

Perhaps the reconciliation is due to not thinking about it.
Perhaps the reconciliation is due to believing in a god that doesn't really know what our future choices are
Perhaps there is some other reconciliation to it


Christians often make the claim that God knows everything. If asked for specifics, they’ll say this includes knowledge about the future (foreknowledge) and that such knowledge is infallible. Christians also often make the claim that man has free will. Upon being asked for specifics, they’ll agree that free will entails the ability to freely make a choice and that up until the time an option is chosen, a different option could have been chosen. At quick glance, these claims may not appear to be in conflict. However, if we dig a little deeper into each of these claims, we’ll see that they are.

Let’s say Pete is faced with a free choice of A or B. He is due to make this choice on Tuesday (day 2). We’ll call Pete’s day 2 A/B choice variable Y - meaning if Pete chooses A, then variable Y gets a value of A and if Pete chooses B, then variable Y gets a value of B. This also means prior to day 2, variable Y has no value (or the choice lies in an unmade state), and on day 2, variable Y will acquire a value of either A or B – to be decided freely by Pete.

Given the Christian claim that God has infallible foreknowledge, this would mean God knows infallibly what A/B choice Pete will make when the choice still lies in an unmade state. To gain further clarity on this, it can be asked, “if it were asked on day 1 does God know infallibly what Pete’s day 2 A/B choice will be, would the answer be YES?”. Christians would typically agree.

So we’ll call God’s day 1 knowledge of Pete’s day 2 A/B choice variable X. If as of day 1, God knows Pete will choose A, then variable X has a value of A - and if as of day 1, God knows Pete will choose B, then variable X has a value of B. If God knows infallibly on day 1 what Pete’s day 2 A/B choice will be, then it follows that X has a static or fixed value of either A or B as of day 1.

If asked for further specifics, such as what if Pete chooses something in conflict with what God knows he will choose, Christians will respond with the assertion that Pete will choose whatever God knows he will choose. This means that if variable X is equal to A, then variable Y must be equal to A; if variable Y is equal to B, then variable X must be equal to B, etc.

We now have three conditions:

1) X (or God's knowledge as of day 1 of Pete's day 2 A/B choice) has a value of either A or B on day 1 and this value is fixed and cannot change. If it is A, it will remain A. If it is B, it will remain B. This follows the assertion that God has infallible knowledge of future events.

2) Y (or Pete’s day 2 A/B choice) receives its value on day 2. Once Y receives its value, it becomes locked. Prior to receiving its value, it could potentially become A or B, as Pete freely chooses A or B. This follows the assertion that Pete has free will or can freely make choices.

3) X is equal to Y. This follows the assertion that whatever Pete chooses is precisely the same as what God knew he would choose.

Not all three of these conditions can be true.

If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can’t be true, as X wouldn’t necessarily be equal to Y, nor would Y necessarily be equal to X. Not only would X receive a value at a different point in time than Y, but Y could be assigned a value in conflict with the static value of X.

If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can’t be true. Pete wouldn’t be able to freely choose A or B, as variable Y would already be defined as being equal to variable X. Christians will often argue that God's knowledge of Pete’s future choice is a function of Pete’s day 2 choice. But this doesn’t hold true if the answer to the question “if asked on day 1, does God know what Pete’s day 2 A/B choice will be?” is YES.

If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can’t be true. What this means is if variable Y gets its value on day 2, then variable X also gets its value on day 2 and gets the same value as variable Y. It then follows that God can’t have infallible knowledge on day 1 of Pete’s day 2 A/B choice.

Therefore, it is logically impossible for God (or anyone) to have infallible foreknowledge of a yet to be made free choice.

At a high level, what's going on is some people have made claims. These claims are equivalent to:

1) X has a value of A or B on day 1, meaning it must be equal to A or equal to B as of day 1. This is derived from the Christian claim that if asked on day 1, "does God know what Pete will choose tomorrow", they would say "yes".

2) Y gets a value of A or B on day 2, meaning Y has no value prior to day 2 and could be either A or B. This is derived from the Christian claim that Pete freely can choose either A or B and that up until the time he freely chooses either A or B, he could choose the other option.

3) X is always equal to Y and vice versa. This is derived from the Christian claim that whatever God knows Pete will choose is what Pete will choose and whatever Pete chooses is what God knew he would choose.

Since 1, 2 and 3 can't all be true, we can conclude - provided we're responding to the aforementioned claims - that the God described here can't have infallible knowledge of Pete's freely made choices.

The problem here is in our preliminary assumptions, one of which is: we (Christians) don't really know or understand how much God knows or how such a thing as Omniscience plays a part in preempting or casting human decisions.

In fact, I'd say no one really knows or has ever known. Of course, we can pull out our deductions and start our calculations and processes of analysis, but this doesn't help us clarify what Omniscience is exactly, or how it works, and neither does it clarify what 'free will' is in its fullest and truest essence as it relates to each distinct individual human being. We're just playing with ambiguous concepts here ... What is a 'will'? What is 'freedom'? What is 'Omniscience' other than a word without content that human beings can fully relate?

Or, am I wrong, teryebir?

2PhiloVoid

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

With Eternal Indebtedness to Yhwh, TODAY, and for ALL TIME,and FOREVER afterwards,
we
rejoice that Yhwh is neither restrained nor confined in or by time,
except when or if He Takes Pleasure in doing so.

i.e. He Perfectly knows and always knew what was going to happen every day , TODAY, and tomorrow, and forever.

Before the world was even , at all, created yet, He had scheduled all the days of our lives.

Good thing, too - He wouldn't be Who He Is if He wasn't absolutely present throughout all time and perfect in all He does.

 

[bling]

You are making a huge assumption about time and God being limited by man’s time frame.

As soon as you talk about in the future for God, you are placing God in man’s time frame.

Christians talk about: “God being outside of time”, which is not beyond the thinking of the atheist or agnostic since:

For the last 100 years people have been trying to disprove “The Theory of Relativity” and yet nothing has disagreed with the theory and all experiments have supported relativity. If time is relative how relative would time be for God, who possible even created “time”?

If God is not outside of time and there is an infinite amount of time before man is created, then man has not been created, since an infinite amount of time has not finished? (This suggests God would be outside of time.)

There has also been hypothesizes with nothing being shown yet that if time is “warped”, there could be possible “wormholes” or something like a wormhole going between two different times.

God could have his own sequencing of events, but God would not be limited by human time.

It is difficult to think about God being “outside of our time” with no before or after for God, but this subject requires us to think.

It should not be hard for you to imagine time being relative and warped since that is what science has been showing, so one way God could “know” everything is by God at the end of man’s time sending back the whole history of man (which includes all the free will choices man made [it is historic at that point]) to Himself at the beginning of time, so the God at the beginning of man’s time knows all man’s free will choices throughout time as purely historical events and not even God can change history.

If God is outside of time He can know all there is to know, but that does not mean God knows that which cannot be known. As this would relate to man: At the same instant, God decides to make a human, for God; that being was born lived made some very limited sovereign free will choices, died and went to in heaven or hell (it is all history for God). If God does not decide to make a being (there is an infinite number of these) then God does not know what this non-ever to exist being did, since it did not do anything.

So how does God know for certainty what man will do in the future and still allow man to make free will choices; seems to be a dilemma, since the “future” is set by God knowing the future? The “future” is only “future” as far as man is concerned, since the future is set by being pure “history” as far as God is concerned. God is not forcing or setting man’s “future” free will choices, but it is man himself setting the man’s future, by the free will choices man “did make” in the future (which is history for God).

Try playing God for a minute: If you got information sent back to you in a wormhole from the future that told you perfectly the free will choice a person will make in China one hour from now and you had no way of contacting that person in the next hour, would that mean they did not make a free will choice because you perfectly knew their choice ahead of time?

God operates in a similar fashion, but He could contact the person, but since He always does the best thing there is to do; there is no changing what He does/did.

 

[aiki]

See Molinism.

 

[Ronald]

Bling has it right. Time is a physical dimension and can be altered by speed and gravity. Since God created physical reality, time is part of the creation.
Let's use an ant for example. If an ant had a job to travel long distances to search for food, it would take time. He can't see where the food is. Maybe he can smell it, maybe not, but let's say it takes hours to find it. However, humans are giants to ants and can see from above where the food is already. Like man's ability over an ant's, God has that ability over us, he is not confined to time or distances. He knows the beginning from the end. He has to, since He has a perfect plan that man's apparent "free will" can't mess up. If we could, then He would have to reconfigure it constantly. Either He is God who is all knowing, all powerful and omnipresent or He's not God.
Another point is that God allows evil for a purpose. He weaves His fabric of history using good and evil. He factors in our faults and failures into the story. The significant events are what is important. What you decide to eat or clothes you wear, and little insignificant moves of your life will not mess up His plan for you or anyone else. When you look back and see the significant moves in your life whether good or bad, the forks in life you came to and decisions you made to go this way or that way, the people who came into your life that impacted you one way or another -- those are the moves that are significant in your life -- not burgers instead of chicken sandwiches or sneakers instead of sandals. But let say you decide to drink too much for years -- that's significant. Well He has a plan years down the road for that. Of course He could also see a person that is self destructive and decides to eventually let him do it. And we see people destroy their lives and God allows this as well. Yes, He let's them go after offering so much help and alternatives throughout the persons life that were rejected. His rebellious attitude that never changed. Countless invitations from people to get help and go to church were answered with: No thank you ... that's a myth ... there's no god ... bla, bla, bla.
Now back to "free will". Our will is not as free as you think. We are either slaves to God or slaves to Satan. There is no middle ground. Your actions have consequences right? Free would imply that you could do anything at anytime without having to ever pay for it. The wages of sin is death. And so we are not free at all. We must either pay for all that we've done bad or someone else has to pay for it. It's not free. Well, Jesus did pay for your sins. That was a cost. If only you believe in Him. Otherwise you will have to pay. Again, if free will was free than when you died you wouldn't have to suffer a penalty, you wouldn't have to answer to any God or Satan, you would just freely drift off into Nirvana of some other realm of your free choice. So be careful with your free will, it's an illusion that many take for granted.

 

[crossnote]

God is fully sovereign, yet in an inexplicable way that our freedom to choose remains intact.
It is best illustrated by Jesus being fully human yet remaining fully God...a seeming contradiction or impossibility but not with God.

 

[aiki]

See Molinism. It doesn't require the same appeal to "mystery" to which Calvinists must inevitably resort. Instead of emphasizing God's sovereignty in the matter of our free will, Molinism focuses on God's omniscience. Makes a big difference.

Selah.

 

[crossnote]

"Calvinists claim that holding to human free will denies God’s absolute sovereignty."

But doesn't this also deny God's omniscience and omnipotence on the Calvinist's part?
Is God so limited that He can't work His will in and through man's freedom of choice?

 

[Albion]

"Calvinists claim that holding to human free will denies God’s absolute sovereignty."

But doesn't this also deny God's omniscience and omnipotence on the Calvinist's part?

Why would it?

Is God so limited that He can't work His will in and through man's freedom of choice?

That's the $64,000 question. IMO it's like asking if God, who is believed to be all-powerful, can make a square circle. Well, no, he cannot. Similarly, he cannot surrender his sovereignty and still be sovereign.

 

[crossnote]

Why would it?


That's the $64,000 question. IMO it's like asking if God, who is believed to be all-powerful, can make a square circle. Well, no, he cannot. Similarly, he cannot surrender his sovereignty and still be sovereign.

But can't He allow for human freedom of choice while retaining His sovereignty?
God became fully man while retaining His full Deity.

 

[Albion]

But can't He allow for human freedom of choice while retaining His sovereignty?

It is argued that he cannot--and I think that's a reasonable POV. It's asked, if God surrenders his sovereignty in this matter and Satan and God vie for men's souls as a result, and the Devil wins over God 9 times out of 10 (as everything we know about salvation suggests is the case)...what does that say about God being sovereign? Not much, huh?

But we don't have to use such an illustration. If God surrenders his sovereignty, it is undeniable that he isn't sovereign any longer. He might be entitled to BE sovereign, but he isn't sovereign if that is his decision. It's clear cut.

 

[crossnote]

It is argued that he cannot--and I think that's a reasonable POV. It's asked, if God surrenders his sovereignty in this matter and Satan and God vie for men's souls as a result, and the Devil wins over God 9 times out of 10 (as everything we know about salvation suggests is the case)...what does that say about God being sovereign? Not much, huh?

But we don't have to use such an illustration. If God surrenders his sovereignty, it is undeniable that he isn't sovereign any longer. He might be entitled to BE sovereign, but he isn't sovereign if that is his decision. It's clear cut.

Your scenario says God surrenders His sovereignty. I never said such. I said He is able to retain 100% of His sovereignty all the while keeping man's freedom of choice 100% intact.

 

[Albion]

Your scenario says God surrenders His sovereignty. I never said such.

Nor did I say you did. But that is what the idea of freewill asserts. By definition.

I said He is able to retain 100% of His sovereignty all the while keeping man's freedom of choice 100% intact.

And as I tried to point out before, that's a contradiction. Either he is in charge or he is not.

 

[crossnote]

Nor did I say you did. But that is what the idea of freewill asserts. By definition.


And as I tried to point out before, that's a contradiction. Either he is in charge or he is not.

He is in charge if man's free will is sacrificed to God's sovereignty.
Yet His sovereignty shines brightest when man's freedom of choice is kept intact through God's Sovereign actions

 

[Albion]

He is in charge if man's free will is sacrificed to God's sovereignty.
Yet His sovereignty shines brightest when man's freedom of choice is kept intact through God's Sovereign actions

As I was saying, a lot of otherwise serious Christians don't understand what God's sovereignty implies.

But let me put it to you this way...

You said:

He is in charge if man's free will is sacrificed to God's sovereignty.

So, what if man or men, having free will, choose NOT to sacrifice anything to God?

What does that say about God's sovereignty? Of course it means that he is NOT sovereign.

You might continue to insist that he's the sovereign, but it would be something in name only, not in reality.

 

[crossnote]

As I was saying, a lot of otherwise serious Christians don't understand what God's sovereignty implies.

But let me put it to you this way...

You said:

So, what if man or men, having free will, choose NOT to sacrifice anything to God?

What does that say about God's sovereignty? Of course it means that he is NOT sovereign.

You might continue to insist that he's the sovereign, but it would be something in name only, not in reality.

I wasn't speaking from the perspective that man has a choice of whether or not to sacrifice his free will (he doesn't) but rather in theory if we postulate that man has no free will then God's sovereignty remains intact...no big deal.

But how much greater His sovereignty is if man gets to keep his freedom of choice while God sovereignly works all things out to His purpose.

 

[Albion]

But how much greater His sovereignty is if man gets to keep his freedom of choice while God sovereignly works all things out to His purpose.

That seems to mean only that God would be allowing Man to act and think AS THOUGH he had freewill but actually did not.

 

[crossnote]

That seems to mean only that God would be allowing Man to act and think AS THOUGH he had freewill but actually did not.

However you may perceive it, man would be held accountable for the choices he made and could not blame it on God's sovereign actions over him.

 

[Albion]

However you may perceive it, man would be held accountable for the choices he made and could not blame it on God's sovereign actions over him.

He can't blame it on God anyway. Men are sinners. All men commit sin. God does not force any of us to commit those sins. Whether God's way is predestination or if it's freewill, this would remain the same and all of us would deserve plenty enough blame.