Free Will

[Libby]

I was looking for something official on the LDS position, because I kind of thought they did not believe that God has foreknowledge, but as it turns out, most do believe that he does. I'm going to go to lds.org to look that up. In the meantime, I ran across this interesting discussion from FAIR.

Questions

In Sunday School today somebody said that Jesus Christ knew from the pre-existence who would return to Heavenly Father's presence. Some cl*** members disagreed with that opinion and we couldn't reach a final answer, and we were unable to find a scripture to confirm that comment. The person said that "Jesus knows everything, from the beginning to the end, and therefore he knows who will be returning to God's presence." Could you help me with this issue?

This is a doctrinal or theological topic about which there is no official Church doctrine of which FairMormon is aware. Leaders and members may have expressed a variety of opinions or positions. Like all material in FairMormon Answers, it reflects the best efforts of FairMormon volunteers, not an official Church position.

Absolute foreknowledge is the more common view held by members of the Church. Most who hold this view don't consider the theological problems it raises, but those who do claim that both absolute foreknowledge and omniscience are fully compatible with both human agency and genuine pe***ionary prayer.

A minority of Church members reject that view and believe that God knows all that is possible to know, but does not have a perfect knowledge of future events, since having such knowledge is not logically possible. In this view, God knows everything that it is possible to know, but agency leaves areas in which the outcome is not certain. Those who hold this view must conclude that God may occasionally be surprised at the way some things turn out, a conclusion which raises theological problems of its own.

In the lack of a revealed answer to the question, both positions appear to be acceptable alternatives for faithful, believing Latter-day Saints.

There is a detailed ****ysis, following this....

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_a.../Foreknowledge

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Libby

I was looking for something official on the LDS position, because I kind of thought they did not believe that God has foreknowledge, but as it turns out, most do believe that he does. I'm going to go to lds.org to look that up. In the meantime, I ran across this interesting discussion from FAIR.

Questions

In Sunday School today somebody said that Jesus Christ knew from the pre-existence who would return to Heavenly Father's presence. Some cl*** members disagreed with that opinion and we couldn't reach a final answer, and we were unable to find a scripture to confirm that comment. The person said that "Jesus knows everything, from the beginning to the end, and therefore he knows who will be returning to God's presence." Could you help me with this issue?

This is a doctrinal or theological topic about which there is no official Church doctrine of which FairMormon is aware. Leaders and members may have expressed a variety of opinions or positions. Like all material in FairMormon Answers, it reflects the best efforts of FairMormon volunteers, not an official Church position.

Absolute foreknowledge is the more common view held by members of the Church. Most who hold this view don't consider the theological problems it raises, but those who do claim that both absolute foreknowledge and omniscience are fully compatible with both human agency and genuine pe***ionary prayer.

A minority of Church members reject that view and believe that God knows all that is possible to know, but does not have a perfect knowledge of future events, since having such knowledge is not logically possible. In this view, God knows everything that it is possible to know, but agency leaves areas in which the outcome is not certain. Those who hold this view must conclude that God may occasionally be surprised at the way some things turn out, a conclusion which raises theological problems of its own.

In the lack of a revealed answer to the question, both positions appear to be acceptable alternatives for faithful, believing Latter-day Saints.

There is a detailed ****ysis, following this....

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_a.../Foreknowledge

Because there is no official doctrine that teaches that God knows the beginning from the end we can't say that the LDS church teaches that He does can we? That would be LYING. You wouldn't want to lie now would you? IHS jim

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I was looking for something official on the LDS position, because I kind of thought they did not believe that God has foreknowledge, but as it turns out, most do believe that he does. I'm going to go to lds.org to look that up. In the meantime, I ran across this interesting discussion from FAIR.

I would say that most lds believe that God is all knowing. But when you push them a little bit they believe that this is based on knowing a person so well that God can predict what will happen, in a similar way that you can predict things that you kids will do. But this is not ah absolute knowledge of the future but rather a highly educated guess. That is why some lds believe that God is not all knowing in the literal sense as noted in my prior post (the argument reposted below)

Footnotes #15

The valid, and I believe sound, argument to show that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will is as follows:

1. It has always been true that I will sin tomorrow. (***umption: Omnitemporality of Truth).
2. It is impossible that God should hold a false belief or fail to know any truth (***umption: Infallible Foreknowledge).
3. God has always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 1 and 2).
4. If God has always believed a certain thing, then it is not in anyone's power to do anything which entails that God has not always believed that thing (***umption: Fixed Past).
5. It is not in my power to do anything that entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 3 and 4).
6. That I refrain from sinning tomorrow entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (necessary truth and from 2; Principle of Transfer of Powerlessness).
7. Therefore, it is not in my power to refrain from sinning tomorrow (from 5 and 6).
8. If I act freely when I sin tomorrow, then I also have it within my power to refrain from sinning (***umption libertarian free will).
9. Therefore, I do not act freely when I sin tomorrow (from 7 and 8).

http://publications.maxwellins***ute...439&index=9ess

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

It's not really a matter of God's "belief"..IMO. It's a matter of knowledge and "seeing" what we will do, even before we do it. If we were going to change our minds about something, God would, of course, know that, as well.

I don't see the incapability with God knowing and our own "free will".

This knowledge of knowing every single thing that you would do every single day would have been known to God before he create the heavens and the earth and any human being and you will replay each and every event just as planned.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I would say that most lds believe that God is all knowing. But when you push them a little bit they believe that this is based on knowing a person so well that God can predict what will happen, in a similar way that you can predict things that you kids will do. But this is not ah absolute knowledge of the future but rather a highly educated guess. That is why some lds believe that God is not all knowing in the literal sense as noted in my prior post (the argument reposted below)

You could be right, Billy. I really don't know. But, it seems there is no "official doctrine" on this, so the belief is rather fluid. Would be nice to have some LDS input.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

This knowledge of knowing every single thing that you would do every single day would have been known to God before he create the heavens and the earth and any human being and you will replay each and every event just as planned.

Yes, that's true. But, unless God made all of the decisions about what our everyday life would be like, I still don't see a conflict between His knowing and our doing.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

That's a part of the problem with inserting God into time and space. By seeing God outside of time and space, it doesn't really matter "when" something happens...He sees it ALL, all at once.

Do you believe that God saw that the universe would come into existence or that God knew that the universe would come into existence because he brought it forth according to His own will?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes, that's true. But, unless God made all of the decisions about what our everyday life would be like, I still don't see a conflict between His knowing and our doing.

When the prophets wrote prophecy--as we have in the Bible--did God see them ahead of time writing down prophecy?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

When the prophets wrote prophecy--as we have in the Bible--did God see them ahead of time writing down prophecy?

Yes....but, again, for God, I don't think it's "ahead of time". He doesn't dwell in time and space, as we do.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Do you believe that God saw that the universe would come into existence or that God knew that the universe would come into existence because he brought it forth according to His own will?

His will. His Creation.

I think I see what you're getting at. God's hand is in everything, in a way...and he does have a plan for his people. He had a plan for Jesus. He had a plan for his prophets.

[Billyray]

Since this is the lds forum I will include another objection that lds bring up with respect to free will and absolute foreknowledge.

Absolute foreknowledge is the more common view held by members of the Church. Most who hold this view don't consider the theological problems it raises, but those who do claim that both absolute foreknowledge and omniscience are fully compatible with both human agency and genuine pe***ionary prayer. A minority of Church members reject that view and believe that God knows all that is possible to know, but does not have a perfect knowledge of future events, since having such knowledge is not logically possible. In this view, God knows everything that it is possible to know, but agency leaves areas in which the outcome is not certain. Those who hold this view must conclude that God may occasionally be surprised at the way some things turn out, a conclusion which raises theological problems of its own.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_a.../Foreknowledge

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

His will. His Creation.

I think I see what you're getting at. God's hand is in everything, in a way...and he does have a plan for his people. He had a plan for Jesus. He had a plan for his prophets.

Yes that is what I am getting at. It seems like the difference between the Calvinist and the Arminian point of view is that from the Calvinist point of view God knows what will happen because he brings it to p*** according to his will--in a way similar to the creation of the universe in that he brought it into existence according to his will (not that he foresaw that it would come into existence and he simply predicted it ahead of time)--whereas the Arminian point of view is that God has a preview of what has happened and predicted it based on what he has already seen.


John Calvin wrote, "[God] foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place." And Jacobus Arminius wrote, "[God] has known from eternity which persons should believe . . . and which should persevere through subsequent grace."
http://www.desiringgod.org/conferenc...-human-choices

[Billyray]

Romans 9

15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have comp***ion on whom I have comp***ion.”
16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

For example in Romans 9 God's role for the Pharaoh was to raise him up so he would carry out the role that he did in order to Glorify God's name and show His power. The Pharaoh made choices (and will be held responsible for those choices) but we also see that God further hardened his heart so that ultimately he would fulfill God's plan.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Yes that is what I am getting at. It seems like the difference between the Calvinist and the Arminian point of view is that from the Calvinist point of view God knows what will happen because he brings it to p*** according to his will--in a way similar to the creation of the universe in that he brought it into existence according to his will (not that he foresaw that it would come into existence and he simply predicted it ahead of time)--whereas the Arminian point of view is that God has a preview of what has happened and predicted it based on what he has already seen.


John Calvin wrote, "[God] foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place." And Jacobus Arminius wrote, "[God] has known from eternity which persons should believe . . . and which should persevere through subsequent grace."
http://www.desiringgod.org/conferenc...-human-choices

Yes...thanks for posting that.

When I talk about "free will", all I'm really saying is that, in order for us bear responsibility for our "unbelief", we have to have some kind of "real" choice to make....a choice that is made possible, by the grace of God.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Yes that is what I am getting at. It seems like the difference between the Calvinist and the Arminian point of view is that from the Calvinist point of view God knows what will happen because he brings it to p*** according to his will--in a way similar to the creation of the universe in that he brought it into existence according to his will (not that he foresaw that it would come into existence and he simply predicted it ahead of time)--whereas the Arminian point of view is that God has a preview of what has happened and predicted it based on what he has already seen.


John Calvin wrote, "[God] foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place." And Jacobus Arminius wrote, "[God] has known from eternity which persons should believe . . . and which should persevere through subsequent grace."
http://www.desiringgod.org/conferenc...-human-choices

But the even bigger difference, which I just reiterated in my last post is our responsibility and God's justness. I have read several Arminian articles, recently, and many of them comment on this and how Calvinism's "determinism" does harm to God's integrity.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Billyray

When the prophets wrote prophecy--as we have in the Bible--did God see them ahead of time writing down prophecy?

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes....but, again, for God, I don't think it's "ahead of time". He doesn't dwell in time and space, as we do.

God certainly knew but the prophets couldn't have known to write down prophecy. My point with this example is that if God simply looked into the future and saw what a person did then they couldn't have written down prophecy without intervention from God. So from an Arminian point of view--God was actively involved with humanity and future events--guiding them--before He even created a single person. This goes against the idea of simply peering into the future to see what a person will do.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

But the even bigger difference, which I just reiterated in my last post is our responsibility and God's justness.

But can't you make the same argument against the Arminian position as well? I see issues from a human perspective on both sides. Let's take a look at possible criticisms that some may raise with the Arminian position. For example in the post where I quoted the lds scholar about free will vs foreknowledge--he said if a person's future is locked in before that person is even born that person cannot have free will because he does not have the choice to change anything. And let me add that if that person can't change anything who is responsible?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

God certainly knew but the prophets couldn't have known to write down prophecy. My point with this example is that if God simply looked into the future and saw what a person did then they couldn't have written down prophecy without intervention from God. So from an Arminian point of view--God was actively involved with humanity and future events--guiding them--before He even created a single person. This goes against the idea of simply peering into the future to see what a person will do.

Strictly speaking, I believe that God interacts with all of us on a daily basis. Some take notice, others do not.

God would certainly have to interact with his prophets or they would have nothing to prophesy.

But, I think God does both...he interacts, but he also allows us our will, in all things.

I think God chose/chooses people he knows will be open to him (as prophets, etc, I mean). Calvinists probably believe that the prophets were left with no choice.

But, then, I think about Paul on the road to Damascus and it didn't appear (in the story) that he really had a choice. So, I donno...

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But can't you make the same argument against the Arminian position as well? I see issues from a human perspective on both sides. Let's take a look at possible criticisms that some may raise with the Arminian position. For example in the post where I quoted the lds scholar about free will vs foreknowledge--he said if a person's future is locked in before that person is even born that person cannot have free will because he does not have the choice to change anything. And let me add that if that person can't change anything who is responsible?

I just don't get the problem here. If God only knows what we will do with our "free will", then he is not locking anything in, by knowing.....he just already knows what we will do. Any possible changes are already "known". We are still doing whatever it is we would have done, whether He knew about it or not.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I just don't get the problem here. If God only knows what we will do with our "free will", then he is not locking anything in, by knowing.....he just already knows what we will do. Any possible changes are already "known". We are still doing whatever it is we would have done, whether He knew about it or not.

My point was that some would say that what you call free will is not really free will.

The valid, and I believe sound, argument to show that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will is as follows:

1. It has always been true that I will sin tomorrow. (***umption: Omnitemporality of Truth).
2. It is impossible that God should hold a false belief or fail to know any truth (***umption: Infallible Foreknowledge).
3. God has always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 1 and 2).
4. If God has always believed a certain thing, then it is not in anyone's power to do anything which entails that God has not always believed that thing (***umption: Fixed Past).
5. It is not in my power to do anything that entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 3 and 4).
6. That I refrain from sinning tomorrow entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (necessary truth and from 2; Principle of Transfer of Powerlessness).
7. Therefore, it is not in my power to refrain from sinning tomorrow (from 5 and 6).
8. If I act freely when I sin tomorrow, then I also have it within my power to refrain from sinning (***umption libertarian free will).
9. Therefore, I do not act freely when I sin tomorrow (from 7 and 8).

http://publications.maxwellins***ute...b=1439&index=9

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

My point was that some would say that what you call free will is not really free will.

Yes, I agree. I even admitted, awhile back, that what I was calling "free will" does not really fit the dictionary definition.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes, I agree. I even admitted, awhile back, that what I was calling "free will" does not really fit the dictionary definition.

Do you believe that God foresaw your life as you choose everything on your own or do you believe that God intervenes and guides not only your future but the future of all history to conform to His will?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Do you believe that God foresaw your life as you choose everything on your own or do you believe that God intervenes and guides not only your future but the future of all history to conform to His will?

I know that God does intervene in our lives and does guide us and, controls certain events (like the cruxificion and the Israelites leaving Egypt). I don't think He micro-manages everything, though. Do you?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

I know that God does intervene in our lives and does guide us and, controls certain events (like the cruxificion and the Israelites leaving Egypt). I don't think He micro-manages everything, though. Do you?

It sounds like we are in agreement for the most part if you believe that God intervenes and controls certain events. But I am sure you know that your position wouldn't line up with the idea that God simply saw what you did ahead of time. My position is probably best described in the following verse from Proverbs.

Proverbs 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.

[Billyray]

Acts 9
9 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. 4 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.


When you look at Paul (formerly Saul) do you think that these verses are characteristic of God seeing Paul coming to Christ on his own?