[net.religion] Free Will vs. Omnipotence

david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (02/20/84)

Jon White, explaining how free will and omnipotence relate (or don't relate):

>Let me see if I can explain this a little better.  It should be obvious that an
> omnipotent and omniscient being would not be constrained by "our" time.  
> Therefore, God, by definition, is in a constant state of being everywhere 
>(past, present, and future) at once.  Because God exists in the future (as well
> as everywhere else), it stands to reason that there must be a future out there
> for Him to exist in.  That is why I claimed that God must have created the
> entire lifetime of the universe at the moment of creation.  And, of course, if
> the entire lifetime of the universe already exists, all of our individual
> destinies are preordainded by God.  Is this clear?

No.  Are you saying that none of us have free will, or that God (as Christians
think of Him) doesn't exist because we have free will? 

>>   ...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...

> I have never been impressed by arguments such as this.  What you are basically
> saying is that God is so far beyond our understanding, that it is pointless to
> even try.  

(Whoops, gag, choke) Let me get those words out of my mouth!  No, I never said
that (although I do believe God is far above our understanding).   

Perhaps you have not put your view plain enough.  It seems you are offering us
a choice:  A) None of us have free will, or B) God is not as omnipotent as
we (Christians) make Him out to be.  Is that right?  I'll wait for a response
before "knocking down any strawmen", as we are all fond of saying. 

	-- David Norris        :-)
	-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david

bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (02/21/84)

While I can't pretend to speak for Jon White, I think I understand what
he is trying to say.  It isn't really free will vs. omniscience, but
rather than given omniscience, free will becomes somewhat irrelevent.
Incidentally, this isn't a new problem for christianity.  The Calvinists
hit it dead-on and came up with a rather unique perception of grace
and salvation that is still held by some flavors of Baptists today.

First, let's take the theology out and merely hypothesize a being that
is omniscient with respect to time and space -- that is to say that
its perceptions are such that all things at all times and places are
seen haas happening in the 'here' and 'now.'  (This is a bit confusing,
but such a being would have presumably found a way to adapt to it.)

Given a sufficiently large viewpoint, such a creature might see a
human life as a human being might see a piece of yarn on the floor:
birth a death are events connected by something which is either
straight or tangled but have no other implied relationship (Please!
do not read any symbolism into that analogy, it is only a convenience.)

To this being, the beginning is the beginning and the end is the end.
The endpoints of the yarn are not so much determined as they simply
are in a state of existence.  It really doesn't matter much whether
the yarn knows where it is coming from or where it is going to.  That
is largely immutable.  

The Calvinists, seeing this, allowed that any individuals state of
grace had been determined and was unchangeable.  To question one's
status, however, tantamount to blasphemy -- challenging G-d.  One
worked as hard as one could, however, do *demonstrate* one's status
in this world as material possessions were seen to be a sign of
grace along with success.  Needless to say, Calvinism did not enjoy
extreme popularity among the poor.

In this sense, the notion of predestination exists irrespective of
free will.  It isn't that G-d has set people down and wound them
up like little automatons to make preset choices, but that the outcome
of the choices -- in fact the choices themselves -- are seen as are
the knots and tangles of a string of yarn.  

I hope this helps and I welcome corrections to the Calvinist notion
of grace described above as it has been a while since I studied it.
-- 

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

					Byron Howes
					UNC - Chapel Hill
					(decvax!mcnc!unc!bch)

cng@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (02/22/84)

<>

From Byron Howes:

>> Incidentally, this isn't a new problem for christianity.  The Calvinists
>> hit it dead-on and came up with a rather unique perception of grace
>> and salvation that is still held by some flavors of Baptists today.
...
>> 
>> The Calvinists, seeing this, allowed that any individuals state of
>> grace had been determined and was unchangeable.  To question one's
>> status, however, tantamount to blasphemy -- challenging G-d.  One
>> worked as hard as one could, however, do *demonstrate* one's status
>> in this world as material possessions were seen to be a sign of
>> grace along with success.  Needless to say, Calvinism did not enjoy
>> extreme popularity among the poor.
>> 
>> In this sense, the notion of predestination exists irrespective of
>> free will.  It isn't that G-d has set people down and wound them
>> up like little automatons to make preset choices, but that the outcome
>> of the choices -- in fact the choices themselves -- are seen as are
>> the knots and tangles of a string of yarn.  
>> 
>> I hope this helps and I welcome corrections to the Calvinist notion
>> of grace described above as it has been a while since I studied it.

Calvinism is also the view of salvation held by most flavors of Presbyterians.
The central theme of Calvinism is that God is sovereign over all His
creation including salvation, i.e. because man is dead in his
trespasses and sin, God must resurrect him from the dead in order that man
may have a new relationship with God.  Since man is spiritually dead he can
do nothing to affect his own salvation, therefore God must choose to save
some and pass by others.  If God chooses those Whom He will save, then it
follows logically that Christ need only have died for those Whom the Father has
chosen and the Spirit need only quicken or make alive those who are chosen
and for whom Christ has died.  It should be noted that most of the
objections to Calvinism have come from within the Christian community, not
because it doesn't make sense (logically), but because many Christians just
don't care for these doctrines.  The Anabaptists in Europe made the
strongest stand against Calvinism.

Calvinism develops the doctrine of predestination found in the Bible.
Concerning predestination, the Westminster Confession of Faith (the
expression biblical truth used by most Presbyterian and Reformed churches)
says:

	God from all eternity did by the most wise counsel of His own will,
	freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so
	as thereby neither is God the author of sin nor is violence
	offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or
	contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

Calvin had the following to say:

	Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He has
	determined in Himself what He would have to become of every
	individual of mankind.

Regarding Byron's observations concerning Calvinism and the poor, I have been
a student of the teachings of Calvin and other Reformers for a
number of years I was not aware that material goods were a sign of
divine blessing.  In fact most of the Reformers, including Calvin, lived
very simple lives and lashed out at the gaudy opulence of the Roman
Catholic church.  In fact, history shows that in those instances where
the tyranny of the Roman church was thrown off the populace flocked to the
Reformed churches.  This was true in Switzerland and also in Germany and
Scotland.

It is true that Calvinism teaches ones condition here on earth should
reflect the eternal relationship which God has provided, however, this
condition is not judged in terms of one of material wealth, but of spiritual
wealth.  Doing good to others is the sign that one has been justified and
is being sanctified by God.  Calvinist see the acquisition of material goods
as a means to helping others.  We do not acquire things just to have them, but
that we might provide for the needs of others and show God grace to all.

For more information on the teachings of Calvinism and its practical side I
suggest:

	"The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Loraine Boettner
	 Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phila., PA


Tom Albrecht
-- 
	Burroughs Corp.		...{presby|psuvax|sdcrdcf|bpa}!burdvax!cng
	P.O. Box 235		(215) 269-1100
	Downingtown, PA  19335