How do Christians reconcile the problem of free will?

[crossnote]

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.

To be consistent, if man had no freedom of choice and God is absolutely sovereign, how will man be judged as guilty? Even our sinning was not done from free choice according to that view but by God's sovereignty.

 

[Albion]

To be consistent, if man had no freedom of choice and God is absolutely sovereign, how will man be judged as guilty?

We do commit sin, do we not? Predestinarians do not maintain that we are all simply marionettes moved in every action and thought by some divine sting-pulling. The belief is that we are selected, or not, to receive the grace that allows us to choose Christ and so be saved, and that we have not the ability to do that without his intervention. It does not assert that if you decide on the oliveburger at lunch instead of the double cheeseburger, God had to be making you order the oliveburger.

 

[crossnote]

We do commit sin, do we not? Predestinarians do not maintain that we are all simply marionettes moved in every action and thought by some divine sting-pulling. The belief is that we are selected, or not, to receive the grace that allows us to choose Christ and so be saved, and that we have not the ability to do that without his intervention. It does not assert that if you decide on the oliveburger at lunch instead of the double cheeseburger, God had to be making you order the oliveburger.

Yes, I hope eating oliveburgers is not a sin lol.
If we are moving to soteriology, then the same principle holds.
If certain ones are chosen and others are not, what answer is there to the question from the 'chosen nots', "the only reason I am damned and he is not is because you chose him and not me'.?

 

[Albion]

Yes, I hope eating oliveburgers is not a sin lol.

Certainly not. There is no more Manna, so God has provided oliveburgers in our own times.

If we are moving to soteriology, then the same principle holds.
If certain ones are chosen and others are not, what answer is there to the question from the 'chosen nots', "the only reason I am damned and he is not is because you chose him and not me'.?

But the issue doesn't turn on what the "nots" accuse God of. They still committed the sins. God did not force them to do that; he merely didn't provide the remedy to them that he provided to others.

 

[crossnote]

Certainly not. There is no more Manna, so God has provided this in our own times.


But the issue doesn't turn on what the "nots" accuse God of. They still committed the sins. God did not force them to do that; he merely didn't provide the remedy to them that he provided to others.

Well, there you have it. How would you answer the question? The 'chosen' ones committed the same sins and sometimes worse.

 

[Geralt]

if you are referring to Christians, you must understand God works "through" them not apart from them watching them make choices good or bad, X or Y.

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.

 

[bling]

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.

Who made man, so he would always sin?

If the robot is programmed to do bad and not good is that the robot’s fault?

When we sin can we not just say: “Will that is the way God made me”?

If God’s Love compelled Him to part with just a very small amount of sovereignty to allow some beings to be gifted with the greatest gift imaginable (Godly type Love allowing them to become like God himself) would that show God’s Love to be even greater than His need for total sovereignty? Would this display of Love even at the expense of a small amount of sovereignty diminish God’s glory or increase His glory?

 

[Albion]

Who made man, so he would always sin?

As we see in Genesis, God made man sinless and endowed him with much that he then forfeited by defying God.

If the robot is programmed to do bad and not good is that the robot’s fault?

The point there was that predestinarians do NOT think that we are robotic and unable to make any decisions in life whatsoever. That is what people opposed to election say, but it's not what those who believe it think or say.

When we sin can we not just say: “Will that is the way God made me”?

I suppose sinners will say almost anything in order to justify what they do. That has no bearing on the question we're discussing. And BTW, notice that God calls on everyone to do what is right, just because it is right. That applies to those who won't be saved no less than to those who will be. And this priniciple is accepted by Free Will Christians just as much as by predestinarians.

If God’s Love compelled Him to part with just a very small amount of sovereignty to allow some beings to be gifted with the greatest gift imaginable (Godly type Love allowing them to become like God himself) would that show God’s Love to be even greater than His need for total sovereignty? Would this display of Love even at the expense of a small amount of sovereignty diminish God’s glory or increase His glory?

People keep working at finding some way to argue that God can give up his sovereignty and yet remain sovereign. If it's not a temporary renunciation, they will say it's to a tiny degree. No, it's all or nothing. Sovereignty either is the fact or it's not.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

What problem? Before the Internet that allows this thread to be invented, before the Net was even a twinkle in the imagination of Al Gore, cough, there was Isaiah 55:8.

 

[crossnote]

What problem? Before the Internet that allows this thread to be invented, before the Net was even a twinkle in the imagination of Al Gore, cough, there was..
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
(Isa 55:8)

I like that. I like this too...

He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.
(Ecc 3:11)

 

[4x4toy]

Jesus came and showed us how to act and live perfectly . You either love every thing he did and stood for or you hate it , it's your free will choice to love or hate him .. See how perfect the plan is ? Who wants to spend eternity with God haters ? Not God .. God is not willing that any perish but he's done all he can do . Can you imagine the terror and crying the moment we pass over from those who make the wrong choice . Abandon hope all ye who enter .. Joshua 24:15

 

[jimmyjimmy]

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

Yes, with limitations. If a mother allows her child to play in the backyard, the child is free to choose from many activities, but not limitless activities, and not in limitless areas. He can't make a nuclear bomb in the neighbors yard, for example.

"Compatableism" allows for God to be sovereign while man is free to act. The story of Joseph is a good example. Who is responsible for throwing Joseph in a ditch, leaving him to die? His brothers are; however, Joseph's famous line to his brothers was: "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good."

 

[crossnote]

Yes, with limitations. If a mother allows her child to play in the backyard, the child is free to choose from many activities, but not limitless activities, and not in limitless areas. He can't make a nuclear bomb in the neighbors yard, for example.

"Compatableism" allows for God to be sovereign while man is free to act. The story of Joseph is a good example. Who is responsible for throwing Joseph in a ditch, leaving him to die? His brothers are; however, Joseph's famous line to his brothers was: "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good."

We seem to see a similar thing here...

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Act 2:23)

 

[jimmyjimmy]

We seem to see a similar thing here...

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Act 2:23)

Yes.

Who is responsible for Jesus' death? Judas, the Pharisees, Pontus Pilate. . . And, Jesus said He laid down His own life. The Father gave the Son.

Man remains responsible for his actions, while God works His plan without forcing them to act. Judas freely did what he did, yet God is fully in control. Christ called Judas a disciple knowing that Judas would betray Him.

 

[bling]

As we see in Genesis, God made man sinless and endowed him with much that he then forfeited by defying God.


The point there was that predestinarians do NOT think that we are robotic and unable to make any decisions in life whatsoever. That is what people opposed to election say, but it's not what those who believe it think or say.


I suppose sinners will say almost anything in order to justify what they do. That has no bearing on the question we're discussing. And BTW, notice that God calls on everyone to do what is right, just because it is right. That applies to those who won't be saved no less than to those who will be. And this priniciple is accepted by Free Will Christians just as much as by predestinarians.


People keep working at finding some way to argue that God can give up his sovereignty and yet remain sovereign. If it's not a temporary renunciation, they will say it's to a tiny degree. No, it's all or nothing. Sovereignty either is the fact or it's not.

The “all or nothing” idea is from man’s philosophical conclusion that does not see God as being Loving (the epitome of Love/totally unselfish) first and foremost.

Why is “allowing” others to make some very limited sovereign free will choices result in a “weaker” God, when at the same time He is demonstrating His unbelievable Love in a way that cannot be done otherwise. A very limited degree of sovereignty would not make; man = God, but it would allow some to become like God in that they too could have Godly type love.

Under your scenario: God could just as easily save all the sinners in the burning house, but only saves a few, which makes Him out to be a monster. The doctrine and God of scripture is: God is fully willing and wanting to get everyone out of the pigsty of live before they starve to death (like the prodigal son story), but God is not going to kidnap them away and since they are fully able to walk away or stay, God allows them that free will choice. They may be macho enough to stay (pay the piper) and take their deserved punishment, but some will wimp out and turn to God.

 

[crossnote]

I'm not even sure why this topic is in "STRUGGLES FOR NON CHRISTIANS".

This sort of thing never entered my mind as a non Christian...at least not as a 'struggle'.
This topic seems better suited for young Christians when they come across the perplexing dilemma of man's choice vs God's sovereignty.

Non Christian philosophical scholars may debate this but they do it more as a sophist rather than a 'struggling' seeker.

 

[Albion]

The “all or nothing” idea is from man’s philosophical conclusion that does not see God as being Loving (the epitome of Love/totally unselfish) first and foremost.

I see nothing to support that theory. And I simply find no merit to the idea that Christians don't see God as loving.

Why is “allowing” others to make some very limited sovereign free will choices result in a “weaker” God, when at the same time He is demonstrating His unbelievable Love in a way that cannot be done otherwise. A very limited degree of sovereignty would not make; man = God, but it would allow some to become like God in that they too could have Godly type love.

Under your scenario: God could just as easily save all the sinners in the burning house, but only saves a few, which makes Him out to be a monster.

All you're doing with this is demanding that God be what you have decided you'll accept...and if here's any suggestion that God doesn't conform to the ideas that appeal to his creatures, then they/you are going to wash their/your hands of him and call him ugly names too boot. I can't go with that line of thinking.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

I like that. I like this too...

He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.
(Ecc 3:11)

Excellent scriptural reference for this discussion.

 

[crossnote]

Excellent scriptural reference for this discussion.

Thanks VS. I was just wondering on your signature pic it shows 1st John 2:19-17...is that reading the verses backwards?

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

Thanks VS. I was just wondering on your signature pic it shows 1st John 2:19-17...is that reading the verses backwards?

Good catch.
That's what happens when I transpose making my first gif.