Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Looking on this site in many answers involving the problem of evil I see affirmations of belief in free-will.

According to Calvinist Mark Hausam, who presented a paper at a conference on Mormonism, the assertion that God gave us free-will and that God created everything ex-nihilo, beliefs that he asserts are held by many evangelicals, are incompatible. He argues:

Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian thought. In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism.

Hausam continues to argue that Arminian thought is not all that dissimilar from Mormonism. Mormonism explicitly rejects the notion of creation ex-nihilo and as such resolves the problem of evil as well as the paradox: If God created everything, how is our will independent of him? He argues that Arminians, in order to believe in our having free-will, must reject the concept of ex-nihilo creation as well.

My question is directed to those who hold both these views. I am not entirely convinced that these views are irreconcilable as argued, but I cannot produce a good counter-argument. How do you resolve the paradox presented here by Hausam?

Note: I recognize one way to argue this is that God, being all-powerful, created our free wills out of nothing, but this is still the same paradox. How can God determine (create) something that is undetermined? (free-will). If you could present a logical argument for this view, I would gladly hear it.

share|improve this question
1  
Please if you choose to downvote, suggest how I could improve the question or why the question is not appropriate, otherwise nothing improves. –  Dougvj Aug 31 '12 at 14:03
    
Hausam's argument is not quite that free will is incompatible with creation ex nihilo. Rather, he argues that free will is incompatible with creation ex nihilo by an all powerful God that wishes salvation for all of his creations. Anyway, I just thought this distinction is important enough to clarify. –  amcnabb Aug 31 '12 at 14:33
    
@amcnabb You could be right, but I don't follow. Let us assume that God doesn't wish salvation for all of his creations; in that case the argument is still that free will can't exist; our wills are ultimately a manifistation of God's. –  Dougvj Aug 31 '12 at 15:00
    
Yeah, you're right. –  amcnabb Aug 31 '12 at 16:24
    
Hmmm. In his goodness God wills salvation for all his human creatures; but in his justice God wills that the propitiation must be paid according to the spiritual laws he's established. With the consequence that God does not will that evil, corrupted free-willed beings enter his eternal kingdom, only those who's wills are submitted to his, and whom he can therefore justly impart his incorruptible nature so that they can stay submitted in agape love for all eternity. –  Lawrence Dol Feb 6 at 4:56

2 Answers 2

With all due respect to Mark Hausam, the logic just doesn't hold water. That sounds like a category error.

Category Errors

These fallacies occur because the author mistakenly assumes that the whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts. However, things joined together may have different properties as a whole than any of them do separately. The following fallacies are category errors:

  • Composition (Because the parts have a property, the whole is said to have that property)
  • Division (Because the whole has a property, the parts are said to have that property)

Free will is not dependent on our origins. To illustrate this, we can look at a polar opposite theory of origins and show that the same argument can be stated, and it's equally nonsensical.

Creationism implies a first cause, which is God. It deals with the origin of everything. Ex-nihilo creationism claims God as a first cause, leaving the question "where did God come from?"

Current Atheistic Naturalism also assumes a first cause - the Big Bang, and question "what existed before it? Where did the energy, which eventually became matter, come from?"

Both claim either a first cause, or a first known cause, leaving the question of whether or not this known first cause is truly first... But I'm getting off the subject.

Let's rephrase the question attempting to tie free will to this alternate theory of origins:

The Big Bang theory implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon energy and matter.

To which we can only reply "duh."

If the Big Bang is true, and we have a metaphysical dependence on matter and energy, that has nothing to do with whether or not we have free will.

The existence of free will has nothing to do with origins. It doesn't matter if the proposed theory of origins is the Big Bang, or Ex-nihilo Creationism, or the idea that a Turtle god barfed up the universe. (Sorry. I've been reading some odd legends lately.)

share|improve this answer
    
Very interesting, especially the part about first cause. Thank you. –  Dougvj Aug 31 '12 at 14:14
1  
I'm not sure the Big Bang is the most convincing argument. A lot of (or most) people who believe that the Big Bang is the first cause (in a deterministic universe) believe that free will is an illusion. The following article argues that free will is compatible with determinism, but I don't think this particular would be applicable to creation ex nihilo by God: opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/… –  amcnabb Aug 31 '12 at 14:47
1  
@amcnabb: Not necessarily. A lot of Christians agree that the Big Bang could have happened, it just was set in motion by God, but this fact does not have any connection to the presence or absence of free will. –  vsz Sep 2 '12 at 7:56
2  
@vsz: These Christians believe that the Big Bang happened but not that it is the first cause. –  amcnabb Sep 2 '12 at 16:05
    
The article doesn't say free will is an illusion, but rather that the idea that it's some mystical thing apart from how the brain works is an illusion. It states that free will is a result of how our brains work, which again, is separate from origins. Whether the brains evolved to allow free will, or were designed to allow it is a moot point. My assertion that the two are unrelated are strengthened in light of that article, which gives a more reasonable definition of free will... –  David Stratton Sep 2 '12 at 18:44

Suppose a person sits down with a deck of cards, shuffles them, and then commences a game of Klondike Solitaire. In one sense, the player's rule over the cards is essentially absolute; the tableau (arrangement of cards) only exists because the player created it, and the cards have no physical ability to prevent the player from doing whatever he wants with them. On the other hand, the cards have the ability to "surprise" the player or absolutely prevent him from achieving a victory consistent with the rules of Klondike Solitaire. No solitaire police would break down the door of someone who broke the rules, but any "victory" by a player who broke the rules would, by definition, not be consistent with the rules of Klondike Solitaire.

The wills of God and Man exist in a similar balance. On a microscopic scale, humans can thwart the will of God; God generally won't like it, but is willing to accept that as a consequence of having given mankind free will. On a larger scale, however, there are generally enough people that are willing to do God's will that if someone refuses, someone else can take his place.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.