cng (04/14/83)
"The will is that faculty by which we determine to do something
which we conceive to be in our power."
Charles Hodge
Systematic Theology
The problem that many have in discussing the concept of free will and
foreknowledge is that they define their words in a vacuum. I content that
the notion of free will, as defined by most people, is contrary to both
reason and the Bible. If by free will we mean the ability to do anything
which we can conceive, then I believe this is false. If on the other hand
we view humans as having free agency (they can do anything that is within
their power) we are on much safer ground. Man cannot do anything that
goes against his nature. Just as a fish cannot live out of water because it
is by nature a creature of the water, man cannot do that which he does not
have the power to do.
Man is a free agent and responsible for his actions, however, that does not
mean that his will is free. Since the fall of man, his will has been under
bondage to sin. Man acts according to his nature and because his nature is
sinful he cannot affect his relationship with God.
Christians believe that the acts of a free agent may be rendered inevitably
certain without destroying their liberty or responsibility. The concept of
free agency and responsibility is not contrary to believing that God can
both foreknow and predetermine whatever comes about.
Tom Albrecht
... {psuvax | presby} ! burdvax ! cngdavid@ssc-vax.UUCP (02/17/84)
Jon White, in response to Gary Samualson: >If God is truly "outside of time," and capable of travelling into the future to > observe our actions, He must have created the entire lifetime of the universe > at the moment of creation. If He can observe the future, there must be a > future out there for Him to observe. Of course, this means that we are merely > puppets playing out our roles. I don't see how this follows. Watching somebody do something is not the same as making them do it. Personally, I believe that God is not constrained by time; but that is a personal (and not well substantiated) belief. It helps me to get by, and has the advantage that it is not provable (or disprovable). Of course, we are always going to run into the trouble of finite man trying to explain infinite God, but it seems to me that any proof that God has some limit to his power is going to be flawed because it is based on finite reasoning. I often wonder if proponents of such arguments are themselves unaware of the limits that time imposes on their thinking; Jon may demonstrate my point when he said "capable of travelling...". This implies that God can't be in both places at once, and perhaps hints at a personal view of what God is like. No offense intended toward Jon; but I can't help believing God has a few good laughs at some of our conceptions of Him (including, I'm sure, some of my own). But I hope that we agree that the day will come when the Truth will be revealed to us, and we can cast personal prejudices aside. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/15/85)
_________________________________________________________________
The idea of free will has been raised several times in this news-
group, so I will deal with it:
The concept of "free will", quite obviously, describes the abili-
ty to determine action without any external influence. This im-
plies, of course, that the determination is dependent solely upon
internal influences. This also implies that there is some cri-
terion, likely to be some boundary that allow the definitions of
"internal" and "external" to make sense. Here is problem number
one: Just what is this criterion, likely a boundary, that
separates that which are internal and that which are external? I
do not see any justification for selecting anything for such a
boundary, unless one gets into the idea of a "soul" or something
like it; if any of you should decide to go into this, please de-
fine what you want to discuss (ie. a soul). The concept, in its
purest sense, can not exist in a strictly material universe, as
no part of the human body is uninfluenced by other parts, not to
mention, the outside environment.
The concept, however, may be described in a probabilistic sense,
using the same ideas as tossing dice. When one tosses a die, the
significant characteristics that determine the outcome are so
numerous that it is ridiculous to even begin to take all of them
into account. Therefore, one can say that the outcome is strict-
ly random, because its prediction is near impossible. If one can
take all of the conditions into account, then one can predict the
outcome. Using the same idea, since we cannot take into account
everything that influences the operations of our brain and body,
we can say that we "essentially" have free will, as our choices
"seem" to have no corrolation to natural factors/events.
_________________________________________________________________
"Free will is a state of mind." -- Keebler's First Law of
Spiritual Enlightenment
O O
o
\___/
Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }rap@oliven.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (03/24/85)
. >_________________________________________________________________ > >"Free will is a state of mind." -- Keebler's First Law of > Spiritual Enlightenment > O O > o > \___/ > Hey, I was wondering, does anyone have a complete set of Keebler's Laws of Spiritual Enlightenment? I ran across a set in the San Jose bookstore last November and couldn't get them back then. When I went back, they had been sold and the owner said she couldn't get them from the publisher any more. Anyone got any ideas why? Could they be out of print by any chance? As always, all replys welcome. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap