Foreknowledge “versus” free will

My good friend Jason linked, among other things, to this article today.

I’ve heard this opinion before, that foreknowledge of man’s free will means that man doesn’t have free will, and I must object strenuously. While I’m still debating where I stand on predestination versus free will, this is one opinion that I think builds a straw man of the free will position.

First, I want to make clear what argument I think he’s making. Then, I will give reasons that I think it is flatly incorrect. Here’s the argument, with the reasons he gives for each logical step:

1. God, in eternity past, knew who would and wouldn’t believe in Christ (given, according to the free will position)
2. Those people must come to the conclusions He knew about in eternity past (because God’s knowledge is perfect)
3. These decisions are deterministic (my term, but I think a little more precise than his ‘determined’). (because of point 2)
4. These decisions are not determined by God (given, according to the free will position)
5. Thus, they must be determined by some impersonal force (because….???)
6. That would be awful, so it can’t be right.

Ok, a number of objections, in no particular order:

• My first objection is pretty obvious: he gives no reason for point 5. He is looking for a determining factor for man’s “free will” choices. But this doesn’t make sense – if it’s free will, then there is no “determining factor”. Man’s human will itself is the determining factor. So to go off and pull in some “impersonal force” to explain it makes no sense.
• My second objection is also pretty obvious, based on point 6. He pretty much concludes by saying that this can’t be right, because we don’t like it. This is a very dangerous place to go. Right or wrong is to be determined by logical examination of Scripture, not what we like or don’t like. So while I agree with his conclusion, that this would be an awful thing, and in fact I don’t believe it, those two facts are not really connected.
• A more subtle objection: I think there’s a flawed assumption about the connection between God’s foreknowledge about our decisions and the determination of those decisions. He seems to think that either 1.) God’s foreknowledge of our decisions sets them in stone, or 2.) God’s foreknowledge is based on something which will ultimately determine our decision, like genetics, environment, etc. But either way, this is not what I would call free will or foreknowledge! I would say that circumstances have an effect on man’s decisions, but that he ultimately still has to make a decision himself. And God’s knowledge is not based on knowing the factors which will ultimately determine the decision the man makes, but is simply pure, supernatural knowledge. This deterministic view of time and events seems inherently contradictory to the very idea he’s trying to debunk – free will.
• Finally, let’s assume for a moment that the world is deterministic. An all-knowing God could look at the world as it was, thousands of years ago, and determine, based strictly on that, all of the future events and choices. The argument still doesn’t work! The reason it doesn’t work is that even if man is deterministic, God is not! Saying that God foreknew what would happen isn’t entirely accurate: He did know it, He knows it now, and He will always know it. God is outside of time, and exists equally in the past, present and future. He could easily flip forward to the time a decision is made, flip back and change the circumstances eons in advance, flip forward again, and so on. Thus, man’s decisions are not determined purely by circumstances. Now some of you are screaming at me: yes, the Bible says that God foreknew and predestined us. But there is no way of describing actions taken outside of time. This isn’t a flaw in what the Bible says, it’s a flaw in our ability to even communicate or comprehend what God does. Saying that He saved us “before time” (which doesn’t even make sense) is the best we can do.

Being good because it’s good for business

I have my google reader sucking down blog posts from all over the place. It’s got to be one of the most eclectic collections of mathematical, programming, web design, spiritual, and other random blogs out there.

Anyway, I like the writing style of a guy named Paul Graham. Paul apparently used to actually write about programming, but now he mostly writes about his startup-consulting firm called Y-Combinator. He wrote this very fascinating article this week: See it here

Essentially, the article argues that “being good” “works”. That is, by trying to do what will help the most people, your business will profit. He gives a number of interesting arguments to back this up. Maybe the most interesting is that “being good” and “doing what’s right” act as a compass, guiding you through what would otherwise be murky decisions.

I’m not sure I even want to comment on this a whole lot, except maybe to ask some questions, that this has been raising in my brain:

• Does this principle match up with Scripture?
• If so, why is it still sometimes hard to determine what is right?
• Also if so, why aren’t Christians the most decisive and least confused people you ever meet? After all, don’t we have the ultimate Moral Compass?
• Is it wrong, as believers, to think like this?

I have some thoughts on this, but I’d love to hear some other viewpoints, or even other blog entries (hint, hint)!

On -isms and -ists

I want to take a minute tonight to respond to a comment from a previous entry. I suspect that this won’t be the norm, to write an entire post in response to a comment, but I think this one is worth it. Bruce H. made this recommendation today:

Avoid talking about “ism’s” or categorizing people as “ist’s”

Now Bruce H is an extremely smart guy, and knows Scripture better than I ever will. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, so this definitely caught my attention, and this is a particularly interesting comment, so I thought I’d take a few minutes to respond.

I suspect I’ve lacked a little bit in this area, so let me just clarify a bit. Since I’m no theologian, I could well be mis-using the term ‘Calvinism’. In fact, let me just re-define it. For the purposes of this blog, here’s the definition I’ll use for Calvinism from now on: Calvinism is the belief that an individual man can come to God only because that particular man has been elected by God. This definition is intended to be in contrast to the belief that man chooses with a will separate from God’s action to accept God’s salvation, which is freely offered by God’s grace to all.

As for -isms and -ists as a rule: here’s what I’ve come to believe. When doctrinal issues come up, I have an obligation to hold them up to Scripture, prayerfully, regardless of whether they come from my pastor, a saved brother, my wife, or a Muslim co-worker. I have this same obligation whether the idea comes from any -ism, or is suggested to me by any -ist. God’s Word never changes, His standard never changes, and far be it from me to shy away from it.

So, to anyone who would call themselves a “Calvinist”, or a believer in “Calvinism”, or if my use of the term makes you feel somehow lumped into some category to which you don’t belong, I apologize. I merely borrow the word so that I don’t have to give the same complicated definition all the time.

One last thing on this. There was a time when I was struggling with a particular doctrinal issue (I won’t discuss it in this particular post, as it would take much too long). I sat down with someone whom I highly respect, who is way smarter than me, and way wiser than me in the things of Scripture. I knew what his view would be of this issue, and took the opposing view. We went around and around, and, no surprise, he poked all kinds of holes in my logic. Then I went and did the exact same thing with someone who had the opposite view. Now what? Here I have two men whom I highly respect, strong believers, telling me that God’s Word says two very different thing. Both of them have sound arguments, and both of them can out-discuss it with me any day of the week.

Here’s what I came away with the situation with: there will always be someone smarter than me. My responsibility is to sort through God’s Word, and come to the best conclusion I can. As long as I am doing that, and relying on the leading of the Spirit as best I can, He will bless my efforts. And that’s what this discussion is meant to be. I’m not bashing anyone on either side, I’m not trying to show off some intellectual muscle, I’m just a humble computer geek, trying my best to muddle through, and sharing my thoughts as I go.

Oh, and Bruce, thanks so much for the thought-provoking comments!

God choosing man, Part 1

So here we go, embarking on this quest of settling Calvinism in my brain. If you recall, I proposed to tackle the question in four parts: Looking at God’s choice of man, man’s choice of God, what it means for one choice to be the basis of another, and then which is the basis of which. So, here, I am beginning part 1. My first step for each part will be to gather relevant Scripture. Below are the passages I’ve scraped together that seem to be relevant. Please feel free to add any others that you can recommend.

Isaiah 65:11-12
Matthew 24:22-31
Mark 13:20-27
Luke 18:7
John 3
John 6:37-65
John 15:16
John 17:6
Acts 2:23
Acts 13:48
Romans 1
Romans 8
Romans 9
Romans 11
1Corinthians 2:7
Ephesians 1
Ephesians 2
Colossians 1
1Thessalonians 1:4
2Thessalonians 2:13
Hebrews 9:12
1Peter 1
1Peter 2:8
2Peter 1:10

As promised

Last week I promised a diagram on Ephesians 1 and 2. I finally tackled it again tonight. After much pain and grunting, trying to figure out a good way to get my notes from my own (silly) format to something WordPress would treat sanely, Emacs came to my rescue again. It’ll be quite anti-climactic, and it definitely needs a lot of work, but here it is. Let me know what you think!

• Paul,
  • an apostle
    • of Jesus Christ
    • by the will of God,
• To the saints
  • who are in Ephesus,
• and faithful
  • in Christ Jesus:
• Grace and peace
  • to you,
  • from God
    • our Father
  • and the Lord Jesus Christ.
• Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
  • who has blessed us
    • with every spiritual blessing
  • just as He chose us
    • in Him
    • before the foundation of the world,
    • that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,
  • having predestined us
    • to adoption
    • as sons
    • by Jesus Christ
    • to Himself,
    • according to the good pleasure of His will,
    • to the praise of the glory of His grace,
• In Him we have redemption
  • through His blood,
  • the forgiveness of sins,
  • according to the riches of His grace
    • which He made to abound toward us
• having made known to us the mystery of His will,
  • according to His good pleasure
    • which He purposed in Himself,
    • that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ,
• In Him also we have obtained an inheritance,
  • being predestined
    • according to the purpose of Him
    • that we
    • should be to the praise of His glory.
• In Him you also trusted,
  • after you heard the word of truth,
    • the gospel of your salvation;
• in whom also, you were sealed
  • having believed,
    • with the Holy Spirit of promise,
• Therefore I also,
  • after I heard of
    • your faith in the Lord Jesus
    • and your love for all the saints,
• do not cease to give thanks for you,
  • making mention of you in my prayers:
    • that the God
• As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,
  • in which you used to live
    • when you followed the ways
  • All of us also lived among them at one time,
    • gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature
    • and following its desires and thoughts.
  • we were by nature objects of wrath,
    • Like the rest.
• But, God, made us alive
  • because of his great love for us
  • who is rich in mercy,
  • with Christ
  • even when we were dead in transgressions
  • it is by grace you have been saved.
• And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him
  • in the heavenly realms
  • in Christ Jesus,
• in order that he might show the incomparable riches of his grace,
  • • in the coming ages
    • expressed in his kindness
• For it is by grace you have been saved,
  • through faith
  • and this not from yourselves,
  • it is the gift of God
    • not by works,
    • so that no one can boast.
• Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth
  • and called “uncircumcised”
    • by those who call themselves “the circumcision”
    • (that done in the body by the hands of men)
• were separate from Christ,
  • excluded from citizenship in Israel
  • and foreigners to the covenants of the promise,
  • without hope and without God in the world.
• But now you have been brought near
  • in Christ Jesus
  • who once were far away
  • through the blood of Christ.
• For he himself is our peace,
  • who has made the two one
  • and has destroyed the barrier,
    • the dividing wall of hostility,
  • by abolishing in his flesh the law
    • with its commandments and regulations.
  • His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two,
    • thus making peace,
  • and
    • in this one body
  • to reconcile both of them to God
    • through the cross,
  • He came and preached peace
    • to you who were far away
    • and peace to those who were near.
• For through him we both have access to the Father
  • by one Spirit.
• Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens,
  • but fellow citizens
    • with God’s people
    • and members of God’s household,
• In him the whole building is joined together
  • and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
  • And in him you too are being built together
    • to become a dwelling

Emacs and the Bible

So one thing I’ve been thinking a lot about lately is using the power of technology for Bible study. I have many ideas for this, which I’m not going to expound on right this minute. However, I am going to wax uber-geeky and tell a bit about how I used Emacs to re-format a text-version of the Bible. I won’t be offended if you don’t read this post, particularly if you’ve never heard of Emacs or XML, because you won’t get it anyway.

My desired end result was a Bible in a very simple XML language. So I found a plain-text version of the Bible on http://www.o-bible.com/dlb.html (I grabbed the KJV, but now that I know what I’m doing, I’ll probably do the BBE too.

Each verse of the Bible is in a format like the following:

Ge1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

What I wanted was a format like the following:

<book name="Genesis">
<chapter>
<verse>
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
</verse>
</chapter>
</book>

(for the record, escaping markup in wordpress is exhausting.)

So, first thing was to at least wrap each line in a verse tag. There are 31000+ verses in the Bible. There’s no way I was going to manually try to do that 31000 times. Not a chance. That’s where Emacs came in! Emacs has awesome macro-recording and -playback capabilities. All I did was wrap a line in <verse>…</verse> tags, and then say “oh, could you do that 31000 times for me please? Thanks. Done.

Next we need book tags. The macros get a little trickier here. Now we need to do a search for “1:1 “, parse out the book abbreviation with a regular expression, go to the beginning of the line, insert a blank line, and put “<book name=’book_abbreviation’>” in it. Oh, and repeat it 66 times or so.

Now come the chapter tags. By this time, we’ve got the hang of it though, we just grab all the “:1 ” occurrences, back up, and stick a chapter tag in. And repeat 1200 times. This does introduce a small issue with the first chapter of each book, but another little macro cleans that up easily.

Finally, we write one more little macro to find each verse and strip off the little prefix at the beginning. And repeat 32000 times.

This was a fun little process for me, and it got me quite adept at emacs macros. I’m not encouraging anyway to learn Emacs just for this purpose (unless you’re using vim), just recording for posterity…

Addendum to my notes on Ephesians

It’s unusual for me to comment on my own entry, especially so quickly, but I just wanted to attach an outline of the first two chapters I was playing around with. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to retro-fit nested HTML lists on type of my notes correctly at the moment, so I’ll just have to say “coming soon” on that one. I also wanted to link to my good friend Jason’s comments on Ephesians (including a much cooler diagram) here and here.

Some thoughts on Ephesians

Ephesians has, for nearly as long as I can remember, been my favorite book of the Bible. Studying some of the first 3 chapters this morning has reminded me why.

The description Paul gives of the incredible blessings that God has lavished on us, His children, is amazing. He blessed us with every spiritual blessing, He chose us, He predestined us, He adopted us, He made us accepted, He sealed us, He guaranteed our inheritance, He gave us hope, riches in glory, and His own power, He raised us up with Christ, He seated us with Him in Heaven.

And He did this when we were dead, in trespasses and sins, following the ways of the devil, gratifying our own cravings, as objects of wrath.

As a result, we believers are all built carefully together, in one body, at peace with each other, a unified building, in which God Himself dwells, to the praise of His glory.

Paul makes it clear in his first prayer for the Ephesians (1:15-23), that his desire is that they would really know this. In fact, this is the whole basis of his prayer: see the “therefore” in verse 15, and the wisdom, knowledge, understanding, enlightenment, and more knowledge that he prays for in verses 17-18.

Oh that this knowledge would transform our lives! It certainly has the power to (1:19). If only we would appropriate that power in our own lives.

Feeling sanity slip through my fingers

No, this isn’t a post about Calvinism (though by the title you might think so).

It’s been 3 weeks since my last blog entry. Strangely, none of you have said anything to me about it…slackers! Just kidding. Anyway, life in the real world has been, in a word, insane. I have now moved into my new apartment (check out pictures on our wedding site), and Melissa and I are scheduled to pack all her things up this coming weekend to ship them back here, to re-unpack. It’s just one more exciting step toward our future life together, and I can’t wait!

In addition, today, most of the work I’ve been doing at my job has culminated in the release of a beta version of our website: check it out – http://beta.zadby.com . Suffice it to say, it was a long weekend, and there is still a lot of work yet to be done. But anyway, definitely check it out. Zadby is a service that connects users of sites like youtube with advertisers who are willing to pay them for their videos. I’m very excited to be a part of launching this patent-pending business model. Let me know what you think!

Some random thoughts

Unfortunately, all I have this week to share with you are a few random thoughts that are rolling around my head with regard to Calvinism. Between work and my move, I’ve had very little time to do any studying. But, for what it’s worth, here’s what I have been thinking:

• I did steal a few minutes yesterday to poke at the book of Romans. I’m trying to both get a feel for the overall flow of the book, and understand how certain passages fit into that flow. In particular, I spent some time yesterday looking at Romans 9. The weight of what it seems to be saying certainly caught my attention. This one in particular raised my eyebrow: “So then [God's mercy] depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” (vs.16, ESV).
• My brother-in-law sent me a link to this interesting article. Piper summarizes the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism this way: “God has chosen from before the foundation of the world whom he will save from sin. Since not all people are saved we must choose whether we believe (with the Arminians) that God’s will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to human self-determination or whether we believe (with the Calvinists) that God’s will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to the glorification of his sovereign grace“. An interesting definition when compared to the one I mentioned previously.
• It seems to me that Calvinism and Arminianism offer two different views of the relationship between God and man, which the above quote hints strongly at. In the Arminian view, God’s desire for the relationship is that we choose Him. The last thing He wants to do is to override our free will, because our free choice to serve Him is what sets us apart from animals or the rest of creation. However, in the Calvinistic view, He calls us with an irresistible grace, yet still finds glory in our choice to follow Him. The second still seems to be a contradiction to me, but I’m still pondering.