Free Will and Biblical Prophecy: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

I agree.I am not claiming that the Free Will I'm describing that can exist with immutable prophecy is some sort of universal generality. I'm quite explicitly stating that it's an extreme special case.All I'm saying is that it's not strictly impossible for such a person and such a situation to exist in a universe that has Free Will. Why would a "yes" answer imply that God could be wrong or the future can change?If the immutable prophecy exactly matches that which the person truly desires to choose... without any outside interference from any entity (including the one making the immutable prophecy). How could the prophecy be wrong, or the future change?If the future would change... then this "change" would be what the person truly desires to choose... and therefore this is what the immutable prophecy would reflect.In the situation I'm talking about, the future has a static course of events. But not because people can't choose differently... it's because people can't choose to do two things at once. They have to choose something... and the prophecy simply reflects their choice.Granted... I don't even like pushing my arguement into a world where everything is predicted with immutable prophecy... I prefer to think of my "special case" situation as a single prophecy about a single person in the world.But... I'm finding it difficult to identify what would prevent an omnipotent God (especially one who knows the future...) from being able to predict exactly what everyone truly wants from all decisions ever made....but I don't want to start arguing that since I still haven't been able to get people to accept my single-person, single-immutable prophecy situation yet. Perhaps I am wrong... and then there's no point in considering an entire world of prophecy anyway.If I am wrong, I am sure that someone here will be capable of showing me that I am wrong. Perhaps I am willfully ignoring something though? I hope not... I just don't think anyone's refuted what I'm attempting to present yet.

Hi, ICANT. No, I'm not actually saying that, either; although that's a possibility that my argument allows. I'm saying that prophecy and free will cannot coexist (at least until Stile corrects my error). There are several possible scenarios that are consistent with my statement:

1. We do not have free will.
2. God's prophecies are not immutable.
3. There is no God.

There might be others. If you paid attention in other discussions with me, you will remember that my personal belief is that we have free will, and God is not necessarily perfect. I have not thought clearly what my personal position on prophecy is, but, if I wish to be consistent, I will have to reject the inerrancy of God's prophecies or rethink the basic premises of my theology altogether.But, that's not the purpose of this thread, so I'll do that on my own time, and refrain from posting it here.

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

Hi, Stile. I would argue that this definition has now gone too far the other way: it now allows you to win every sweepstakes you enter and shake every defender on the football field. I think the scope of available options needs to be addressed, as well. Maybe this wording is a bit more precise: This definition could be argued to still incorporate some minor element of determinism: availability of options is beyond the individual's immediate control, but the final selection of options is the individual's choice.So, perhaps a prophecy could be manipulated to its own ends by adjusting the availability of options that the individual is allowed to select from. Thus, God could still filter the future towards His ultimate ends without totally removing our free will.But, I get the feeling that my definition isn't saying exactly what you intended to say with your definition, so feel free to explain to me what I might have missed.----- But, how can such a prophecy be immutable? A prophecy doesn't become immutable simply by virtue of being correct: a lucky guess has the same result, and, indeed even sounds like the exact same phenomenon to me..For example, what if the person's wants change between the time of the prophecy and the time of the prophesied event? Wouldn't that change the dynamic of the prophecy?If there is nothing to stop the person's wants from changing, then the prophecy must incorporate some sort of margin of error to account for the possibility of a want-change, and thereby lose its "immutable" status. But, if there is something to stop the person's wants from changing, then the person cannot be said to have free will by any definition except your old one.I don't think your argument resolves this conundrum.

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

quote:

---

I am not claiming that the Free Will I'm describing that can exist with immutable prophecy is some sort of universal generality. I'm quite explicitly stating that it's an extreme special case.

---

The issue here is that the theological and apologetic uses of free will pretty much require us all to have free will, not just a special few.

quote:

---

Why would a "yes" answer imply that God could be wrong or the future can change?

---

If the future is fixed and God is always right it is impossible that anyone could do other than God predicted they would. A "yes" answer denies that.

No, I think you're starting to understand what I'm trying to say. Which makes me feel good... it's been difficult trying to describe the phenomenon I'm thinking of.I did intend for my definition to work as you're describing, without the additional qualifier included. When I said "situation presented" to the person making a decision, I'm attempting to imply that the situation itself is beyond control of the decision-maker. That is, they can't "get what they want" in an absolute sense, only from the options available to them... options that are available while no entity at all is interfering. The point I'm trying to make is exactly how you started this question. "What if..." And I completely agree. IF the person's true desires change from that of the prophecy... then Free Will is removed.What I'm trying to say is the other side of this "if". That is, IF, AND ONLY IF, the prophecy exactly matches the true desires of the one making the decision... at the point of the actual decision... then Free Will is still intact.I certainly agree that if the person is unable to change their mind (if they actually want to change their mind... given no outside interference) then Free Will is removed. Why do you think it would be impossible for an omnipotent God, who can see the future, to know what someone will truly want at the point of the decision? Why can't an omnipotent God say what someone truly wants 10 years before that person knows that they truly want it? Why can't an omnipotent God take into account how many times a person will truly change their mind before making their decision? Why can't an omnipotent God take into account how a person will react to the knoweldge of a prophecy and still see what they truly want on their own?These are the questions I am unable to answer "An omnipotent God can't do that" to.I don't see what would prevent an omnipotent God from being able to foresee a person's true desires... in all circumstances.I do, however, fully admit that if any control by God is included, or any restrictions on choices are made by God... then Free Will is removed.I would like to point out that even Straggler's definition of Free Will does not incorporate this.Straggler's definition of Free Will: "The ability to choose between alternate future paths" (or something equivalent).So let's say there are choices A, B, C and D. And God prevents the person from choosing "D". The person still has the choice between A, B, and C.By my (new and improved) definition... since there is outside control influence by God... I say that Free Will is removed. But the person still has "the ability to choose between alternate future paths" (A, B or C). So, strictly going by Straggler's definition... Free Will is still present even though God is making restrictions on the situation and has forced control....just something to keep in mind. I'm not trying to put the focus of the discussion on "you're wrong" instead of proving my own case. I'm just trying to point out that it seems you're forcing a lot of explicit qualifiers on my definition that you simply "assumed" were in the basic one. All these assumptions are also in my definition.

But I am providing a definition of Free Will that is for all of us. You're taking the special case that my definition accounts for and then trying to say that should be a generality. This isn't how it works.My general definition of Free Will:Free Will: The ability to get what you want from the situation presented with absolutely no interference from any external entity.Where "the situation presented" includes mundane forces at work. Like you can't choose Mint ice-cream when only Chocolate and Vanilla are available. That doesn't remove Free Will, it's just the situation that's presented.The special case this definition allows for is that an immutable prophecy may be in place and it is still possible for Free Will to be intact. The caveat is that the prophecy must exactly match the true free desires of the decision maker, at the point of the decision, given absolutely no interference from any external entity.The special case is not required to be "for all of us to have Free Will". That's what the general definition is for. The special case is only there for certain situations... as implied by the term "special case". It's point is to say that the absolute statement "immutable prophecy cannot co-exist with Free Will" is false.

Yes OK Yes it has. All other possibilities have been removed.For choice to exist there has to be more than one possibility.
For free-will to be demonstrated there has to be choice.If only one predermined outcome is possible, whether you phrase it in terms of "choice", or not eliminates genuine choice and therefore free-will. How can we ever know what they "would have made anyway"?What you seem to be saying, for example, is that in "choosing" to inhabit Earth rather than Mars I am demonstrating my freewill.Now all things being equal I may well choose to live on Earth rather than Mars but given the current impossibility of me living on Mars to say that I have "chosen" to live on Earth rather than Mars is stretching the definition of the term "choice" to breaking point. Prediction and immutable prohecy are not the same.
If I tell you as an immutable truth that you will eat chocolate ice-cream at midday tomorrow then I have removed the possibility that anything else can even possibly happen.No alternatives = no choice
No choice = no free-willHow can there be free-will in the absence of choice? How do we know what person A wants anyway? If they have been told as an immutable choice what they will want at that specific time how could they possibly want anything else? No alternative exists.The point is that whether you phrase it in terms of wants or actions ALL possible alternatives have been removed.No alternatives = no choice
No choice = no free-willHow can there be free-will in the absence of choice? It is not a question of "force". It is a question of removing all possible alternatives. There is nothing else to do or want other than that prophecised. All other possible future outcomes have been eliminated. In the face of an immutable truth there is no "just happen". All other possibilities have been eliminated. Because this just takes the problem one step further back.
Now rather than just being unable to exert free-will regarding your actions you are now unable to exhibit free-will regarding your wants and desires.Thus making any notions of free-will illusory. Because there are no alternatives.
No alternatives = no choice
No choice = no free-will.How can there be free-will in the absence of choice? It cannot be "just coincide" because all other possibilities and alternatives have been eliminated.Lets try a specific exampe and see where it is we actually differ in practise.IMMUTABLE PROPHECY:
At noon tomorrow EvC member Stile will decide that he wants to don a pink tutu and perform an acapello version of Blue Suede Shoes in the middle of the street outside his house. He undertakes this action. (Let's assume that you have a pink tutu to hand)This is an immutable truth. It will happen. There is no possibility of this not occurring.Now can you explain to me the possibilities, various alterntives, choices and decisions that you think you can make at noon tomorrow such that your free-will (rather than just the illusion of free-will) can be demonstrated?I don't think it can be done in the absence of any possible alternative futures existing.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So whilst on Earth Jesus remained eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, infallible etc. etc. etc. etc.In short you are saying that he was "man" only in the most trivial and superficial of senses. Namely physically.So are you saying that at one month old the baby Jesus was all knowing omniscience personified? Including knowing of his intended fate?If not at what point in his life as a human did he become aware of this fate?

But the immutable truth that has been revealed to you and/or others IS all the interference required from an external entity to eliminate free-will.All your points stand if we are considering an eternal God siting there passivley observing all-time and therefore knowing what people choose of their own free-will as time progresses from their point of view.However as soon as this eternal being starts telling the non-eternal beings (i.e. us) supposedly making decisions in realtime what they will and will not decide to do in the future the nature of the game changes.If I already know what decision I will make before I have to make it then there has already been interference. All alternatives have been eliminated and with them all choice and free-will regarding that action (or even the wants and desires that lead to that action).Do you see the difference?

quote:

---

But I am providing a definition of Free Will that is for all of us. You're taking the special case that my definition accounts for and then trying to say that should be a generality. This isn't how it works.

---

No, I am not. You claim that only a few people have the capability to go against prophecy - and you also agreed that the lack of this capability indicated a lack of free will.

quote:

---

Free Will: The ability to get what you want from the situation presented with absolutely no interference from any external entity.

---

Therefore if I am given a prediction I will do something I should in principle have the ability to do otherwise - if I have free will. If I want to invalidate the prophecy then I should be able to do it by your own definition. But you suggest that only a few special people can do it.

quote:

---

The special case this definition allows for is that an immutable prophecy may be in place and it is still possible for Free Will to be intact. The caveat is that the prophecy must exactly match the true free desires of the decision maker, at the point of the decision, given absolutely no interference from any external entity.

---

What you are ignoring is the possibility that being given the prophecy may change the "true free desires" of the subject by the time the predicted decision is made.I'm disappointed that my invitation to think more deeply has lead to such a shallow defence - one that ignores the basic point that it all depends on HOW prophecy and time work.

Everyone who would listen knew that Jesus would be killed centuries before Jesus was even born. Right?This was immutably and infallibly true. Right?So at what point did Jesus the man freely decide to take this path?
How could he have possibly made any other decision given the immutable prophecy already in place long before the decision actually had to be made?What alternatives were available to him at the point of making that decision?Do you see the problem here?

ICANT you are failing to see the problem.I am not even disputing that an eternal God with an eternal perspective can know such things. That is not the issue.The problem arises when the prophecy is revealed to the non-eternal agents of free-will (i.e. us)If you know what you will decide to do as an immutable truth before you have even encountered the decision in question then you also know that you will be unable to make any alternative decisions at that time.If there is no alternative there is no choice.
If there is no choice there is no freewill.The problem regarding freewill and prophecy is not related to what God knows. It is solely related to what those making decisions in real-time as we perceive it know about the limitations of their own future choices.At what point in Jesus's life as a man could he have exerted his free-will and avoided crucifixion?

​

How could this even be possible without allowing for the prophecy to be false?Do you see the problem now?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, He was God, limited only by whatever limitations He put on Himself. The physical body Jesus had was limited just as our body is. It got tired and hungry. It felt pain just as we do.The Spirit was 100% God.The mind was 100% God. He was always God in a flesh body. Jesus was never a human. He was God in a human flesh body.Jesus, God in the flesh knew his fate before the universe and the earth was created.He exercised His free will to take on a body of flesh and come to earth and die to buy man back out of bodage to the devil which the first man sold him into when he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Straggler, OK so God could know such things. There is no such thing as a non-eternal being, or agent as you call man.But just who is the us you are talking about? The only things I know that I can't change are:I will die.
I will face judgment.
I will spend eternity in the new heaven and new earth with God.But why would I want to change any of them? Well the only two things you can't change is you will die and then face the judgment.There has never been an option for these.Anything else you can change. As I said before Jesus was never a man.He was God in the flesh.You said "I am not even disputing that an eternal God with an eternal perspective can know such things."So why do you have a problem because God took on a flesh body and came to earth to die for the sins of mankind.Now as far as God in the flesh changing His mind, He could have struck everybody dead while on the cross and ended the entire project.But He chose to willingly give His life and suffer separation from God the Spirit and God the Father (mind) for 3 hours so I could spend eternity in heaven.And also anyone else who would believe in and trust God for salvation.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Barely man at all in all the most important respects then......? So whilst incontinent, unable to walk and unable to talk (presumably just like every other human infant?) the baby Jesus apparently posessed omniscience and an eternal frame of reference regarding timeless knowledge...........??Are you serious?
Does the bible actually support this view? Or are you making it up? So he was born in a human body fully cognisant of his fate and posessing all other knowledge derived from his eternal omniscience?Thus his mind was no more developed at birth than as a fully grown adult. Is that what you are saying???That must have been one annoyingly precocious kid! I would not have wanted to be his teacher. Well if you are willing to consider a 2 year old Jesus who is as mentally mature as a 30 year old Jesus by virtue of being eternal and omniscient at all times then I suppose you can get around the issue of him having to make a conscious decision at any point in his human life.But that is hardly "walking the Earth as one of us" in any meaningful sense and, as far as I am aware, is totally unsupported by any scriptural source.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.