gstafleu

Since you are asking for a position in Biblical criticism, isn't it necessary for such to exist that the doctrine of free will is stated somewhere in the Bible? I thought it wasn't, but I could be wrong.

AFAIK, free will is just a by-fiat way of getting around the problem of evil: just say it ain't so and it will go away.

Gerard Stafleu

figuer

Good point.

But then, if it isn't stated in the Bible, whence then does it come from other than theological musings? Thus how could a Christian, specially a fundamentalist, subscribe to the concept of free will if it is not Biblically based? Of course, I know that in practice they are unconcerned with Biblical foundation for belief. They are concerned only with their Belief, regardless of origin, substance or logic.

Cheerful Charlie

Basically, if one does not have a good basis for revelation, one is limited to theoretical, a priori claims, metaphysical claims.

There is free will, there is no free will, God has free will, God has no free will. If we or God have no free will, claims of good, righteous, just and merciful are irrelevant and quite seriously nihilistically incoherent. If God has free will, and God is good et al, we have a serious problem of evil.
Why can we not have a God-like free will and a God-like good nature incapable of doing moral evil? Unless you say God is evil and all bets are off. Heaven and salvation may be malicious tricks.

Any way you look at it, a good, compassionate, righteous God is hard to square with either revelation or a priori definitions.

You always end up with question begging or special pleading. Maybe God is just inscrutible.

Being systematic with a priori assumptions is an interesting way to think about these things.

Revelation - no revelation
God has free will - God does not have free will as the future, including God's interactions with all reality are, not going to be, but are now.
Man has free will - man has no free will.

When I try stuff like this, God does not end up looking very likely.



CC

figuer

Certainly.

As an exercise in exegesis of Judeo-Christian mythology (Biblical criticism), are there verses in the Bible that directly sustain the concept of free will, or is it just posterior theology??

Gundulf

Correct, but point being that some have remained sinless. If God is omniscient enough to have known which would be which, he could have just made the angels that would not have sinned, right? Point being, similar to your other one - that if God COULD have made a population of sinless angels but didn't, and/or that if God COULD have initially made humans the way that they will be in heaven (free and sinless) but didn't....

The answer to the problem of evil does not lie in "he had to allow evil in order to give free will."


If you're interested - I find that a much more adequate solution lies along the 'higher purpose' road. There are certain things, logically, that God cannot do - such as demonstrate certain aspects of his character and allow humans to experience such in the absence of evil. God may be 'merciful' and 'forgiving', but humans cannot logically experience that in a universe that lacks evil. Whether one thinks that such purposes could justify the existence and amount of evil in the world is a separate question, but I find some consistency here - unlike the "free will defense" that figuer is (quite rightly) challenging here.

This is hinted at by speaking of angels 'longing to look into these things' in 1Peter, etc.

Gundulf

If you're looking for a verse that says, "Humans possess free will", sure, I doubt you'll find such.

The philosophical formulation of 'free will' is not found in the Bible per se, but for that matter, neither is 'determinism'. But I think it would be as wrong to conclude that the Bible does not teach 'free will', therefore - no less than trying to concluse that the Bible does not teach 'determinism.'

That humans are given choices for which they are responsible, however, is in the Bible. "Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve..." etc., (As, similarly, for that matter, is 'predestination.')

So, for what it is worth, the particular philosophical concept of free will as was developed after the vocabulary of the Bible was established, I think there can be made a case that what the term/concept 'free will' means is something that the Bible does embrace to some degree or another. Similarly, 'determinism' is a philosophical concept developed after the Bible was written, but it wouldn't be wrong to discuss the Bible's viewpoints as embracing 'determinism', either, I wouldn't think.

John Kesler

If that was your point, then why did you say "I point out the similar problem of angels being understood to have free will, but being sinless," a statement which seems to indicate that you thought that angels are incapable of sinning?

Correct. So why didn't he, especially since the comingling of angels and humans, brought about when angels "left their proper dwelling" (Jude 6), seems to be one the evils which dismayed God so much that he decided to send the Great Flood (Genesis 6:1-7)?

There are problems with the "higher purposes" explanation of evil, too, because it essentially argues that whether one does things which eliminate evil, or cause evil, either way good is achieved. If I see a building is on fire and I know that people are trapped inside, should I attempt to rescue them (thus eliminating some evil), or should I allow them to burn to death (allowing evil), knowing that, according to your theory, some "higher purpose" would be achieved? If you argue that eliminating evil is the "higher purpose," then this means that evil's purpose is its own elimination, which is illogical. Why is it necessary for humans to see God's merciful and forgiving side, since according to you, only by doing evil (i.e. sinning) can this occur, and the Bible says that sin is an offense to God--something that he doesn't want, and which Jesus came to save us from (Matthew 1:21)?

Do you really think that 1 Peter 1:12 is talking about the reason for evil in the world? :huh:

figuer

Higher purpose: In order for God to demonstrate his goodness towards men, he has first to demonstrate his evilness against men.

"In order to demonstrate that I am a noble hero, I have to first place men in great danger, then rescue them. For example, place them in a burning building, let them suffer heat and suffocation, let some burn, and then rescue the survivors. For I, God, am a theatrical showman."

This solution to the problem of Evil is: God is as Evil and twisted, as he is Good an noble- There would be no way around this (there has never been, of course).

Cheerful Charlie

Many. Supposedly God commands us to do this, do that, don't do this, which makes no sense if we have no free will. Hundreds of such commands from numbers, exodus et al, to the prophets, pslams and proverbs. Of course there are a few verses that point different ways.
But deteminism, predestination that is no free will is to be found mainly in Paul.

On the other hand, in the prophets, we see that God is represented as after his anger at Judah cools, and his peoples will return from captivity return, he will make their hearts such as they will never stray again from God's ways. This implies a lack of free will to sin further.

Of course Isaiah's closing chapters also claim God will soon create a new heaven and Earth and a new Judah. Where the idea in the gospels of a destruction of the old world and a new kingdom came from. And the idea that evil men shall be banished from the new kingdom as per Matthew 25.

It may be such things helped Paul create his ideas of an imminent coming and the "elect" such as the angels are to find scattered the winds of Matthew 24 from the prophets.

The first hints of a new eartly kingdom and hints of an elect, those with essentially constrained free will,sinless, are found in the prophets.

Gundulf

I don't know whether or not angels are incapable of sinning. Whether are not they are, they don't. Point remains, that capable of it or not, God can create a group of beings that are free, and who DO NOT sin. God could have, hypothetically, created a pair of humans who he knew would have freely chosen not to eat the fruit, I imagine. They probably would have been equally as capable as Adam and Eve, but who nonetheless chose differently.

Capable or not, point still remains, I think - 'God had to allow evil in order to give free will' is groundless, no?


No, I certainly wouldn't say that 'eliminating evil' would be the referenced 'higher purpose.' That would, in fact, be obviously contradictory.

The higher purpose is a 'greater good that is otherwise unattainable.'


It isn't 'necessary' for humans to see God's merciful and forgiving side. And I really don't think this is 'according to me' - I think this is a simple logical necessity. One logically cannot demonstrate mercy unless there is an offense to be merciful toward - correct me if you think I'm wrong.

Of course sin is an offense to God, and something he doesn't want. God doesn't want evil; that is the whole core of the 'problem of evil', after all.

The point is that there may have been something that God desired MORE than the non-existence of evil (for example, the existence of 'forgiveness') - and, if that thing (forgiveness) were mutually exclusive with the non-existence of evil, then perhaps God was willing to put up with, temporarily, something he didn't want, in order to get something else that he could not have otherwise had.



Not directly, no. I think it is talking about the fact that angels CANNOT experience certain things that humans can: Forgiveness, the salvation bought by God, the idea that the Christ would suffer to save them - things that angels can observe in a sense, but certainly can never experience - presumably, because they are not 'evil'.