Posted on 09/04/2013 8:05:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Some atheists say that if God exists, He should show Himself to everyone so they can believe in Him and not go to Hell. Should a good God do this?
I've heard atheists say that the best thing God could do would be to reveal Himself openly so that everyone could believe in Him, do what He wants, and not go to Hell. Since God does not do this, we know that either He does not exist or He is not good.
When this comes up with your atheist friends, try exploring the question of what would happen if God were to unequivocally prove His existence to an atheist. What would come of this? Would God's sudden appearance change the atheist's heart such that he would desire to devote himself to God?
Atheists aren't idiots. An open display of powerful glory by the God of the universe would likely drive former atheists to serve Him out of fear, but what would this accomplish from God's perspective? God doesn't desire eternal slaves—i.e., those who work to fulfill His requirements out of a desire to escape punishment or to gain something they want. As God reminds the Israelites throughout the Old Testament, it's not the acts of worship He's after, but the hearts of children who adore their Father and want to be with Him.
I submit to you this illustration from The Gulag Archipelago, a book about the communist, totalitarian Soviet Union in the first half of the 20th century. This is the kind of scenario God has no interest in creating:
At the conclusion of the conference, a tribute to Comrade Stalin was called for. Of course, everyone stood up (just as everyone had leaped to his feet during the conference at every mention of his name). The small hall echoed with "stormy applause, rising to an ovation." For three minutes, four minutes, five minutes.... But palms were getting sore and raised arms were already aching. And the older people were panting from exhaustion. It was becoming insufferably silly.... However, who would dare be the first to stop? The secretary of the District Party Committee could have done it.... But he was a newcomer. He had taken the place of a man who'd been arrested. He was afraid!....
The director of the local paper factory, an independent and strong-minded man, stood with the presidium. Aware of all the falsity and all the impossibility of the situation, he still kept on applauding! Nine minutes! Ten! In anguish he watched the secretary of the District Party Committee, but the latter dared not stop. Insanity! To the last man! With make-believe enthusiasm on their faces, looking at each other with faint hope, the district leaders were just going to go on and on applauding till they fell where they stood....
Stalin had made himself known to his people in all his power, and this was the result—forced worship given to avoid punishment. Yes, the standing ovation occurred, but it was not done out of love—it was not truthful. And for the atheist who sees God as a Stalinesque dictator, the result would be the same. This kind of "worship" does not please God; in fact, the hypocrisy of it angers Him.
A person who faults God for not openly showing His power in order to ensure that atheists will have the chance to do what they need to do to avoid Hell has missed the very purpose of God's revelation of Himself. We exist to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever," not to grudgingly follow His orders. How would cowing the atheist into submission by His presence further this goal for the atheist? The atheist has misdiagnosed his situation: uncertainty about God's existence is not his main problem, so certainty would not solve his problem. God is available with evidence enough to give confidence and trust to those whose hearts have been changed to desire Him. But if one hates the idea of the biblical God even in theory, one would be unlikely to love Him if He suddenly appeared in person.
The major difference between atheists and Christians is not that Christians believe God exists, but that they love Him for who He is and delight in pleasing Him, worshiping Him, and being with Him. This is why it's a good idea to ask the atheist who blames God's lack of appearance for his unbelief, "If I were to prove without a doubt that God exists, would you then love Him?” This question gets to the heart of the real issue for the atheist.
Yeah. Seems to be the way it's always been. If I could do a better job being the Christian I know I ought to be, I'd be happy with that. Trying to figure out what His will is, is enough of a challenge than attempting to tell Him how to run the universe. Job was a better man than I, and we know the Lord's response to him.
He already did this and they still don't believe Him, as this opinion demonstrates.
There is nothing left for Him to do.
When these people ask “Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift?”
The reply is “He already did. We call it the Earth”
The biggest problem with this is the implied existence of a standard of what's "good" or "best" that is separate from & superior to God.
Bingo.
They are starting with the false premise of *IF God can do anything (He wants to).....
Instead of debating that argument, the better way to defuse it is to point out the false premise.
God cannot do anything He wants. He cannot lie and He cannot change.
So that blows apart their premise to begin with.
Obviously, this is much more than two cents worth. You have brought up a number of very good issues. I don't align with those, and don't have the time right now to address them. But, we'll discuss this more.
cool. I’ll get back to you when I can. Gonna be busy offline most of the night, I suspect.
Agreed. Ultimately it is just an excuse for willful unbelief. The Creation around us shouts out "Creator!" - yet we cover our eyes, and plug up our ears...I know it is a repeat, but Paul bares repeating:
Romans 1:19-22 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...
First off, allow me to apologize for a typo. It should read: "Free will is evil until adoption."
It is not until we have been regenerated that our "free will" can choose Jesus. Before our hearts have turned to flesh our free will will ALWAYS choose to reject Jesus.
Hope you are doing well.
“I believe this is a very common misperception of scripture. The situation you describe virtually eliminates the concept of free will.”
Aye, and what a vile and worthy thing to crush beneath our feet! For a will that is the servant of sin, is nothing more than a voluntary slave. How can you call our will free, in the sense that we could do either good or evil as if our will stands neutral, when you sin every day, and will continue to sin until your death? As the scripture saith, “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Again, “for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Again, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” and again, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Gen 6:5, 8:21, Ps 51:5, Jer 17:6). Does this sound like we have “free” will, that is free to do good of our own desire? And if it is free-will, what good is it that we should protect it, like some new golden calf, when with our “freedom” our corrupt wills plunge headlong into sin? And how can a person who is dead in sin, walking in the corruption of the flesh and of the mind, be sensible in any way to the things of God? (Eph 2:3-5). Nay, rather, that which is carnal cannot know or understand anything of God (Rom 8:7, 1 Co 2:14), and since we were all “children of wrath” who walked according to our perverted desires before salvation, so it follows that unless God appears to all us atheists, none of us can ever believe. Unless He quickens our spirit, and opens our eyes, and gives to us faith, we cannot believe with our own “free-will,” for until God plucks us out of the fire, our will is so corrupted it is free only to commit evil.
1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
“The best way I can describe my take on it, is that God is outside of time and space. He sees all of creation, from the beginning to end at once, much like you would hold a book or DVD in your hand.”
A mere foreknowledge as the basis of election does not account for what the scripture actually teaches. For it does not say that God foreknew that we would have faith, but rather says that He foreknew what He Himself would do before the foundation of the world. My favorite example of this is in John 6, wherein Christ explains to the unbelievers the reason why they do not believe. Not because He foreknew they would not believe, but because He foreknew what He would and wouldn’t do.
“But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
(Joh 6:64-65)
Okay, I have a few minutes so let’s jump in.
If I were to characterize the matter you noted coming out of my post (to which you object), I would say you are suggesting that the Bible teaches “free will” rather than “divine determinism”. It seems that you allow authority to the Scriptures and thus are seeking to represent what it teaches rather than just one opinion vs. another.
You certainly correctly noticed that I am on the side of “divine determinism”. To clarify, I should say I believe the Bible is on the side of “divine determinism” and I wish to side with the Bible. If it is not what the Bible represents, then I wish to change.
But, first, to insure that we are not sliding by one another, could you define what you mean by “free will”? That is, your view seems to comport with CS Lewis’ view and he understood “free will” to be something close to the unaided, un-effected capacity of all men to make a decision without being manipulated or managed by God in any way.
Notice, this is not “un-affected”, which means God can still exert great pressure upon a man from the outside, but “un-effected” meaning that God does not reach inside a man and move his heart to do this or that. Nothing, according to Lewis, accomplishes a man’s decisions except that man’s own “chooser”.
Lewis recognized coercion or brainwashing as realities, but said they did not mitigate “free will”. Ultimately, the victim simply realized the utility in acquiescing to the perpetrator’s pressure…by his “free will”. In any event, according to Lewis, the only internal factors which move a man to decide something (whether to sin, to love someone, to turn to Christ, etc.) are those which belong to the man, alone.
Early in his books, The Problem with Pain and Mere Christianity, Lewis alludes to why the doctrine of free will is “necessarily true”: A world in which free will did not exist would render wrong actions impossible. That is, if God is good, and everything done simply expressed God’s will (that is, He was managing it to be done) then everything done would have to be by definition good. Since it is patently obvious that everything in this world is NOT good, he argued something other than God must have caused all the things which went astray. Those “other things” must be beings in rebellion, beings free from God. This, he says, is common sense.
Lewis goes on to notice God calls men everywhere to repent. Here he does refer to directly to the Bible and not just common sense. He argues such a call would be meaningless if men were being driven by God to sin and were not free to obey or refuse. Such, “…freedom of the creature must mean freedom to choose;…“.
There is a related argument I have heard from folks other than Lewis: Why would God ask us to do anything (obey, trust, follow, love, pray etc.) if it were not possible for us to do it in and of our own free will. Lewis didn’t say it exactly this way, but he implied it throughout his writings. This kind of thinking drives most people to say, “Of course free will exists.”
In Mere Christianity Lewis continues to argue that logically since God’s desire is for us to love Him, love extracted from a creature simply compelled to love back would be neither desirable, nor real love. Such a situation would, according to Lewis, be nothing short of a sick form of manipulation. God, he says, is not like that. Instead, the very nature of God is opposed to such control & manipulation.
Lewis points out that God is the ultimate, loving, “food” for mankind, the only true food the universe has to offer. God wants us to seek Him and by Him live. But, while God calls us repeatedly, we by our own volition alone disassociate ourselves from Him. While God continuously offers us Himself, we continuously refuse and use our free will to instead “…become very bad.” The result is a sort of spiritual starvation, a sickness of every man.
But he continues. According to Lewis, every man actually knows that he is sick with this starvation. Man intuitively senses failure before God but compounds his guilt with an extra effort to mask the awareness. Lewis claims that even the ancient pagan rites and Epicurean philosophy strained to eliminate the guilt and fear of punishment that every man knows is due from God. We are broken by our own choice, we know it, we hate the thought, so we hide from it. Lewis believes man is ultimately and only responsible for this situation…sort of.
He also saw modern society making matters worse. Society, along with the professions of psychology/psychiatry, encourages us to deflect this correct self-perception. Between our bad thinking and these other folks, we have morphed clear understanding of guilt into simple nuisance. Rather than allowing our psyches to be informed with the shame and guilt we bear for willfully turning from God (and refusing to turn back to Him), we redefined our evil as “natural” behaviors/thoughts. We have now refashioned our feelings of guilt into impulses which should be expressed rather than suppressed or repressed. If there remains any thought of a god, it is that he is simply stodgy and angry all the time; a good reason to jettison thoughts of a god, altogether. And, in this we take yet another willful step away from our healing.
So, man is the real culprit for all of this evil and this is precisely why Lewis says that it cannot derive from God. God is not like this, He would not fight against Himself, He would not create such deranged thinking. No rational God would create a thing that He hates, then make it war against Himself and then set out to destroy it.
Sin, Lewis says, just could not possibly be the product of a God in whom there is no darkness. It must be from something that He does not control. He simply created just the opportunity for it go awry.
This is how I have understood those to hold the “free will” view to define the situation. But, I am interested in your definition. Please elaborate.
I would take Lewis' side on much of the discussion because it seems to me from what little I've read of his, that he attempts to argue strongly from a position of reasoned thought with Biblical backing, and that is more how my mind works as well.
I'd agree with this:
But, first, to insure that we are not sliding by one another, could you define what you mean by “free will”? That is, your view seems to comport with CS Lewis’ view and he understood “free will” to be something close to the unaided, un-effected capacity of all men to make a decision without being manipulated or managed by God in any way.
Notice, this is not “un-affected”, which means God can still exert great pressure upon a man from the outside, but “un-effected” meaning that God does not reach inside a man and move his heart to do this or that. Nothing, according to Lewis, accomplishes a man’s decisions except that man’s own “chooser”.
To me, a world without true free will makes this a clockwork universe, without any real point. It presumes man to be a mere cog, or automaton within machinery that will execute its own pre-defined mechanistic way regardless of what we, as individuals do or do not do. Such a world would be devoid of any real meaning.
That is, if God is good, and everything done simply expressed God’s will (that is, He was managing it to be done) then everything done would have to be by definition good. Since it is patently obvious that everything in this world is NOT good, he argued something other than God must have caused all the things which went astray. Those “other things” must be beings in rebellion, beings free from God. This, he says, is common sense.
There is something about the above quote that doesn't quite ring true. This, I would disagree with in part. God is indeed good (for all values of same). The claim being that God could not create something evil or bad. I don't think it makes sense to say that evil itself stands alone. Bad choices can lead to bad (or evil) results. Acting in a way that is not God's will, will lead to all kinds of badness. Then there are other considerations. Is getting your home washed away by a hurricane "bad"? I'd say not in an evil sense, but more in a sense of "don't build on the shore unless you are prepated for the possible consequences".
So, man is the real culprit for all of this evil and this is precisely why Lewis says that it cannot derive from God. God is not like this, He would not fight against Himself, He would not create such deranged thinking. No rational God would create a thing that He hates, then make it war against Himself and then set out to destroy it.
I think it's dangerous to start saying the God would not, or could not do something. While I lean twards this in some ways, I also don't think that we actually know what's really going on in God's mind. We don't really have the big picture. I think we get bits and pieces of it, but not the whole kit. Taking a look into the Hubble Deep Field image is enough to show us how small and limited our minds are even when considering something as spatial distances in the universe. How can we possibly comprehend the mind of that which caused all of this to come into being with a spoken word?
Sin, Lewis says, just could not possibly be the product of a God in whom there is no darkness. It must be from something that He does not control. He simply created just the opportunity for it go awry.
Again, i think it's dangerous to make certain assumptions. I have a friend, who spends a lot of time in the Word, and we've discussed this a bit. He would say that Satan is ultimately doing God's will because he is necessary for God's plan (whatever that ultimately is - beyond the simple notions of salvation and such). This is similar to a discussion we had in a Bible study group about Judas and his actions. Judas had the choice whether or not to betray Jesus, but that very betrayal was deeply worked into the plan from the beginning. Jesus essentially told him at the last supper, to (paraphrasing) "go do what you must do". Did God force Judas to do what he did? I think not. If so, the action was beyond his control, and I don't see how guilt can be assigned to an automaton. Did the Lord allow Satan to whisper into Judas' ear? Almost certainly IMO, and the weakness of the man caused what was to follow.
Overall, I'd say that much of what you wrote in your post is an accurate description of my stance. Quibbles here and there, but not enough to really matter.
Sorry about the delay, but my wife is in the hospital at the moment, and I don't have much time for this level of discussion. Glad to do it though. I expect you'll next lay all those arguments to waste. :-)
I had ‘blockquotes’ in my response. I should have previewed, because when I looked at my post, I don’t see them. Hope my post makes sense without them for formatting.
They may get their wish soon.
A few comments to respond. Have not heard of Johann Arndt, but agree that the King’s English is a little thick. CS Lewis is a head full using 20th cent. English. But, he was a strong advocate for the “free will” position and seemed to articulate a number of the best arguments. Your comments along the way help me understand where you might differ (just slightly) with Lewis.
"To me, a world without true free will makes this a clockwork universe, without any real point. It presumes man to be a mere cog, or automaton within machinery that will execute its own pre-defined mechanistic way regardless of what we, as individuals do or do not do. Such a world would be devoid of any real meaning."
Good opening arguments here. They provide a number of opportunities for questions.
"If God is in fact guiding all of the activities of His universe (and we agree that He is a live, thinking being) does this necessarily mean that the universe is ‘mechanistic’?"
That is, does the active management by God require that He behave without any thought, feeling, planning?
"How did you arrive at the opinion that if God were actively directing all elements of His universe, this must mean there is no '…real point'?"
In your first post, you used the analogy of an author holding a book in his hands, being able to see it all played out at one time. Then you said this cannot be the situation since, "…the characters in the book and film are scripted. In our case, we have free will granted to us by His providence." Would the book or film have no "real point" since it is scripted?
"Can we assume that you are in a position to judge the author and decide that because you cannot see a point, there is not one?"
You noted, "I think it’s dangerous to start saying the (that) God would not, or could not do something." Yet, can we then assume that you believe you are in a position to determine that God could not create and manage every detail of a universe without it being, "…devoid of any real meaning."?
You mention that you have recently been reading the Bible regularly. Can you tell us where the Scriptures support your claim that a world without free will would be meaningless?
Your remarks about Judas are very interesting. In particular, the remark about him being, "…deeply worked into the plan from the beginning." This points up the edges of the description the Scriptures express about how subtle, how "deep" the control of God may be. More on Scriptural support later.
"If you are looking at deep space through Hubble’s imaging, and you are noticing the enormity of the mind containing this existence, just how big is the God of Israel, the God of heaven & earth?"
"If we agree that He speaks this into existence with a word, but further admit that, '…He upholds all things by the word of His power.' (Heb. 1), must the model we acquiesce to be wound up and thrown off while He goes fishing?"
"Could the upholding be a continual maintenance? Can you feel being maintained? Must I be able to sense it or therefore I am certain His maintenance does not exist? What exactly does the Scriptures say about “free will” vs. “divine determinism”? Is this not a crucial piece of the puzzle?
Whew! Okay, I'll sit tight till you get an opening.
"How did you arrive at the opinion that if God were actively directing all elements of His universe, this must mean there is no '…real point'?"
In your first post, you used the analogy of an author holding a book in his hands, being able to see it all played out at one time. Then you said this cannot be the situation since, "…the characters in the book and film are scripted. In our case, we have free will granted to us by His providence." Would the book or film have no "real point" since it is scripted?
I'll take the second point first, what I was saying that the example given is a metaphor to assist us in envisioning the manner in which God, being outside of time/space could observe the entirety of creation from beginning to end. I said the metaphor breaks down, as almost all metaphors do, and was anticipating objection of the case set forth because actors in a film, or characters in a book are scripted. I do not believe we are scripted in that way, I was pointing out that the metaphor was an imperfect one, and obviously a gross simplification of the universe and our place in it. I don't think we can really fully conceptualize what it would be like without duration, cause or effect.
As to the first, I'd think it was pretty self-explanatory. What would be the purpose of our existence if we had no input or control over our actions? What purpose to you see in a life where you have no control over your actions? Is the Lord bound by this determinism?
I didn't say that I never do dangerous things. I simply can find no meaning or purpose in a deterministic universe. If I must do A, B, and C, then what does it matter that I did A, B, and C?
"If you are looking at deep space through Hubble’s imaging, and you are noticing the enormity of the mind containing this existence, just how big is the God of Israel, the God of heaven & earth?"
Bigger than anything we can possibly imagine.
"Could the upholding be a continual maintenance? Can you feel being maintained? Must I be able to sense it or therefore I am certain His maintenance does not exist? What exactly does the Scriptures say about “free will” vs. “divine determinism”? Is this not a crucial piece of the puzzle?
I'm interested in your answer to these questions.
"I'm interested in your answer to these questions.
What exactly does the Scriptures say about “free will” vs. “divine determinism”? Is this not a crucial piece of the puzzle?"
I assume that you meant the questions just preceding your remark, so I will address those.
The Scriptures set out a complete and total divine determinism. I can find no argument in it that allows for beings (or any other occurance) to be free from the direct influence of God's control.
But, here there seems to be a very interesting treatment of the Scriptures among believers. If the Bible said something like, "God does absolutely everything." and then followed it up with, "You need to follow Him.", the majority seem to understand the second statement as "softening" the first. That is, while they may acknowledge that there is a statement of complete control, the fact that God requests something from them counteracts the first statement and changes their view to a place where He is NOT controlling everything. They take the second statement to mean something like, "I know He said He controls everything, but now I see that He allows some areas of no control."
I believe this is a misunderstanding. Perhaps more strongly, it is essentially poor hermeneutics (interpretive principles). We may need to discuss this further, but let me give you an example.
Proverbs 16:33
"The lot (singular for dice) is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord."
Now, is Solomon disclosing as Scriptural truth that there is no such thing as a "random" event? Is he getting at the fact that the most chance-appearing activity (rolling dice) has God controlling the outcome? It seems that he is.
Proverbs 21:1
"The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes."
Is Solomon (the king) noticing that his own heart has been being maneuvered by God to take him wherever God wants? It seems so.
Proverbs 20:24
"Man's steps are ordained (planned and directed) by the Lord. How then can man understand his way?"
Is Solomon identifying the fact that while he cannot feel God forming the thoughts of his plans in his mind, he realizes that God is maneuvering him. And the idea of this is inscrutible to Solomon. It is baffling, yet he sees it is true.
Here are just a few more which seem to address the massive control God is exercising over the activities, thoughts, behaviors of man (and the enviornment):
Job 37 – 41
Job 42:2
Jer. 32:17
Prov. 16:9
Is. 45:1
Prov. 16:4
Dan 4:35
Job 14:5
Phil 3:12
Eph. 2:10 Ex 4:11
Ex. 35:35
James 4:13-15
Lam. 3:37-38
Is. 53:10
Acts 4:27-28
I Kings 22:19-23
I Sam 16:14-23
I Sam 18:10
I Sam 19:9
II Sam 24:1
1 Chronicles 21:1
I Cor. 14:33
Ex 14:24
Ex 23:27
Deut 7:23
Deut 28:20
II Thess 2:11
Rom 11:8
II Chron 34:24
Is 37:26
Amos 3:5
John 6:44
John 6:65
Isaiah 43:6-7
Rom 14:4
Jude 24, 25
Ephesians 1:11-12
Jeremiah 31:34ff
Phil 1:6
There are, of course, many more Scriptural situations where God is seen as moving hearts, changing minds, directing the men/women to act/think/believe.
But, here is sort of the big question: Where in Scripture does it tell us that we have "free will"? The word appears only once in Philemon (Where Paul asks Philemon to take his believing slave back of his own free will, but this is really about Paul not demanding that he do so. Paul does not address what God may be doing in the heart of Phil. to cause him to cooperate). A single word (freewill) is also used in the OT to describe some offerings to be made. But, here again, they only refer to offerings which are not prescribed on certain days, not what might cause a man to decide to make them.
As you can probably notice, the concept of "free will" is intimately associated with whether "predestination" and "foreknowledge". In Acts 2:22ff, Peter describes the most heinous sin of all time being directed specifically, precisely, completely by God. "...this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to the cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death."
Probably the greatest objection to "divine determinism" is that there seems to be no way to say that a man is actually guilty unless he acted without being manipulated by God. Hmmmmmm. Did we make that rule up? Where does God say, you can only be found guilty if you acted with "free will"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.