Thursday, August 28, 2008

Why Pharaoh Falls Squarely Into the Calvinist/Arminianist Camp(s)

I just read Wink's post entitled, I'm Sorting It Out, on the topic of Our Free Will vs. God's Sovereignty.  I was going to add a reply there when I realized that what I'd really like to post is my "Pharaoh list" (which is in the form of a jpg). But I generally try to avoid adding html to other people's blogs (off Multiply, that is) because more often than not it's either rejected or causes the reply to get held for moderation.  So I decided to post it here along with an excerpt from the essay I wrote on the "Pharaoh list".  This excerpt was originally written in January 2002.


- - - - -


At some point, in reading the story of Moses, I realized a little detail that comes up several times, but that had never jumped out at me before.  In fact, I’ve never heard this preached on nor have I ever heard anyone bring it up in discussion.  Its one of those little details that you don’t tend to notice when you break a story down into chunks to study and its one of those items that you tend to notice one side of more than the other (depending on your doctrinal leanings). The problem is this, when Moses asks Pharaoh to let his people go, at times the text says that Pharaoh hardened his heart and at other times it says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.  Here’s a chart showing the flipping flopping back and forth in the assigning of responsibility (as in, who made Pharaoh’s heart hard):



So, which is it?  Does Pharaoh have free will?  Is he able to decide when he is going to harden his heart and when he is not?  Or is he just a puppet and God can pull the right strings to make him harden his heart?


Perhaps both may be true.


First of all, let me point out that in Exodus 9:34 it not only states that Pharaoh (and his officials) hardened his heart, but the statement was also made that Pharaoh “sinned again.”  Very clearly Pharaoh is responsible for his actions.  He had the choice, he made it, he sinned, and he is therefore guilty.  If he had no say in what path he had chosen, then it would be unfair for him to bear guilt.  Pharaoh had the free will to choose whether he would harden his heart or not.  


But note that just a few verses later, in Exodus 10:1, God claims responsibility for what the text just got done saying was Pharaoh’s responsibility.  


But how can it be both that God has acted and that Pharaoh has acted in the very same situation (in the same act!)?  And how can one be responsible for what the other has done?  The Bible makes it very clear that both God and Pharaoh are fully responsible for the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.  Now if that doesn’t give you a headache, you’re probably not getting it yet.


Those that say that people have free will are absolutely correct.  And those that say that God predestines our lives are absolutely correct.  Here, in one story, both sides are shown to be true.


Perhaps you could try thinking about it this way.  The Pointillists were known for painting pictures using only primary colors.  They would paint by using very short brush strokes (or points) and when the completed painting was viewed from a distance, the eye blended the colors bringing out a plethora of colors beyond the simple few that the artist used.  Imagine that any one of us is an ant and we are viewing the picture from several different parts of the room.  The ant on the far side of the room might see a spot of orange, whereas the ants that are crawling across that section of painting might instead see either only red, or only yellow.  Now imagine that red is predestined acts and that acts done of our own free will are yellow. The ant that sees the orange is the one that sees things most clearly, though really, its still a bit fuzzy.  Orange indicates that both colors are present. The ant standing on the red dot has a skewed view, as does the one standing on the yellow dot.


The analogy is certainly not perfect.  It might be more accurate to imagine an artist mixing both red and yellow paint together to create orange.  What is created is now predestination and free-will combined so seamlessly that they have formed a new color, or a new status of predestination and freedom of choice.  In orange, one could say that red is fully there and yellow is fully there.  And yet neither can be seen because they have become a third color.  Predestination can be “true” and free-will can be “true” but neither one is fully accurate on its own because they are only describing components of a more full reality.

29 comments:

  1. I wrote up an article a while back on how you can't have both omniscience/predestination and free will: the two concepts are mutually exclusive. I'll have to dig it up, but it is posted here on Multiply.

    (edit)

    Shoot, thought it was here. Found this link to where I had posted the argument by analog in triangle.general:

    http://tinyurl.com/558egu

    ReplyDelete
  2. i remember reading that before so i do think you posted it on multiply somewhere.

    i disagree that the two are mutually exclusive. there are jillions of time each week when i know exactly what my husband is going to do. i can often even describe how he's going to do it. i'm not omniscient, yet in these cases i believe i have "foreknowledge." but just because i know what he's about to do doesn't inhibit him in any way from making the choice to do exactly what i knew he would do.

    but i think it goes even beyond that with God. as i explained, i believe God can be fully red while we're fully yellow and the truth of the matter is that we live in an orange world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But, the difference is that you really don't know what he's going to do. You have a good knowledge of his behaviors and his decision patterns, but that's a far cry from omniscience/precognition. What is described as a godlike ability is not an educated guess or one based on experience: it's one of absolute knowledge. See, Robb could still surprise you by choosing something you hadn't anticipated: the xtian god can't.

    I was thinking about this tonight before seeing your response, and came up with a way to think about this whole issue: when was the decision made? In the case of precognition/omniscience, it was made when that knowledge becamed fixed; i.e., when it became known as fact. And if anybody other than the person making the "choice" knew it would occur then it was no longer a choice: the person then was forced to make that choice.

    Like in my analogy: if I cannot choose other than what was written on that piece of paper, then I don't have free will. And if that piece of paper can't be shown until after the choice was made then it's not omniscience/precognition. The two are just not logically compatible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. but i just don't think this "knowing beforehand obliterates choice" thing works when you realize that it's not that God knew before it happened. God is outside of time. he knows before/during/after in a way that we simply can't understand because we're linear beings.

    it's the same problem the 2-D creatures had in understanding the 3-D creatures in Flatland. you're attributing a human characteristic to God, that of being in time in a linear fashion, and using it to prove a point. i'm no pro at logic, but i believe that would mean that you've started with an inaccurate supposition (or something like that... an invalid premise?).

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the "outside of time" argument is special pleading to get around the issue. If he's outside of time then he's not omniscient.

    The question is, though, can god tell me which shirt I'm going to wear today now? And, can I then pick a different shirt? If I can't then I don't have free will. If I can then he doesn't have omniscience. And I can't see a third scenario anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  6. But I'm not, am I. Logic isn't a human characteristic, nor is consistency.

    I would counter that I'm not starting with an inaccurate supposition or premise, because I am working with what is known and can be demonstrated; i.e., that free will involves my being able to choose from any number of possible options at the time the choice is made.

    I would say that you're the one being in an unsupported assertion as the foundation for your argument by saying god is "outside of time". That's an invalid premise because it's being assumed without any supporting evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. well, i suppose the only way i can support it is with the Bible. the bible makes it fairly clear that before the "let there be" there wasn't a context in which to even have time.

    hmmm, interesting aside wondering. if time is a dimension that God created, as would be the 3 dimensions in which we traverse (which i'd never considered before) then was there any such thing as dimension before creation? or, to put it into secular terms, (removing the time part, just to make it easier, and looking only at up, down and sideways), did dimension exist before the big bang?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Where does it do that? I never read where it explicitly talked about something orthogonal to time.

    did dimension exist before the big bang?

    (not to sound too much like Clinton) But it depends on your definitions for "dimension", "exist" and "before".

    Since time as we reference is began with the Big Bang, there's not meaningful concept of "before" regarding it. It's like asking "what's north of the North Pole".

    Current (as in the last 20+ years or so) understanding is that our three spatial dimensional universe (time isn't a dimension in that sense) came into when an unstable 10- or 26-dimensional universe collapses from a false vacuum state[1]. Our three spatial dimensions fell into a more stable matrix that we have today, while the remaining 7- or 23- dimensions curled up on themselves. So from that perspective, yes, our three dimensions existed as a part of that other universe.

    [1] - an example of a false vacuum state is the water behind a natural or artificial dam; it is at a higher potential energy state than if the dam were to burst and allow the water to flow toward a lower energy state.

    ReplyDelete
  9. this is exactly what i was trying to articulate regarding creation. time began with creation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. i'll try to dig up some verses tomorrow while i'm at the cafe.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If it's supposed to be the origin of time, then there can't be a "before". Since "before" is a concept of time itself, you can't really describe such a thing outside of time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, it's difficult to describe God as being outside of time, for that reason, and indeed we can't do it without contradicting ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That's why I find any argument that tries to circumvent contradictions as specious.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I quite agree, but the problem with Meg's argument is that the logic she depends on to show that God is outside of time, also depends on the contradiction that before time nothing can happen (by definition of what time is).

    So I don't think the Bible really can say those things because they can't be said.

    Of course that doesn't make them untrue.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think if anything that makes it less likely that free choice can occur.

    I think I can prove this with a little game.

    Lets say I have 3 cups turned face down on a table and I put a ball under one. Let us assume that at the time I do that (being God) I know which one you will pick later. So when I place my ball under the cup I know whether you will choose correctly or not. Therefore, whichever one you chose later I had already determined whether or not you would succeed. Therefore you had no choice but to choose the ball (or not).

    ReplyDelete
  16. isn't this exactly what darryl is saying?

    ReplyDelete
  17. if something is "outside" then that wouldn't place it before or after, yes?

    if you're a 2-D creature and there's a 3-D creature that is hovering over you, you can't say it's before, behind, or beside you because in your 2-D world those are the only directions you have to choose from and none describe where the 3-D creature is. the 3-D creature is above, but a 2-D creature has no word for that. the best way they might describe where that creature is would be to say "outside," yes?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sort of, except that I argued from the perspective that free will exists and omniscience can't. Fourcheeze's argument is that omniscience exists and you have no free will. :D

    ReplyDelete
  19. The problem with your thought experiment is that the 2D creatures are embedded within the 3D world: they only access two of the three dimensions. So the 3D'ers aren't outside, they're just able to more in orthogonal directions WRT to the 2D'ers on that third plane. If time is like that, then even a god is bound by the restrictions of time in that it can't go forward and backward but gets pull along as well by time.

    ReplyDelete
  20. One model could be if God sees our time as we would see time in a computer simulation - so he could play that forwards, backwards speed up, slow down or whatever, but it doesn't change reality in the simulation.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Except that this god also is supposed to directly interact with it, therefore breaking the "viewer only" mode of what you describe.

    ReplyDelete
  22. In this kind of instance there's no real difference between starting up the simulation with all the parameters chosen by you, and interacting with it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I still reject as ad hoc that kind of an argument. I've had discussions with a few people who sneak that in as an escape hatch when the omniscience/free will contradictions can't be overcome otherwise.

    One such flaw in the view you're describing is that, as soon as this god interacts with the universe, all futures within that universe are now altered; i.e., the future was based on the past and that god's interaction just changed it. So, again, there can't be omniscience since all of that knowledge the god had is now incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I don't think so.

    If time in the sub-universe (can we call it that?) can run backwards or forwards or vary speed (i.e. God can intervene arbitrarily in any point or pause the simulation while he looks) while time in God's universe plods on normally, then I don't see how he could be anything other than omniscient.

    So by changing the laws in the sub-universe he could be changing the future and the past but still able to see both.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Omniscience isn't the same as prescience. What you're describing is a being who can look into our future, then go back and make statements about those viewed events. But, by mentioning them or even going back to previous times, that being is altering the past and changing the future, nullifying that "knowledge". Once the being interacts with the past, it is altering that future.

    Unless, and here's a key point, the being who is interacting has no free will. In this case, the being (here what's referred to as "god") can only see the future and then interact with the past without altering that future if, and only if, its interactions are themselves predetermined and the being cannot choose to act in any other way. Otherwise, that being's actions in the past will change the future.

    Let's put some elements so we can talk in more concrete terms.

    T0 = Past moment
    T1 = Future moment
    A0 = Action
    A1 = Action
    P0 = Actor within the time stream
    P1 = Actor outside the time stream (call it "god")

    P0 makes a choice at T0. The result of that choice is A0 at time T1. P1, from outside, observers the event at T1 and interacts with P0 at a moment prior to T0.

    Question: Can P0 change his mind and perform A1 instead of A0?

    If the answer is "Yes", then P1 does not have omniscience but a flawed prescience only. Its foreknowledge is flawed since the action it "knew" would occur did not and a different outcome resulted.

    If the answer is "No", then P0 does not have free will but is instead acting out a script. While he may think he's making choices, when the time comes he could not do anything other than what was scripted for him. This makes no statement about the source of the script, just that the actor himself had no free will.

    Or, put another way: if I were to watch the end of a film first, then go back and interact with the characters in the film itself and tell them the outcome, would that make me omniscient as well? Don't get distracted by the red herring of appearing to be omniscient: I'm asking about true omniscience, which is "complete knowledge" (Merriam-Webster).

    ReplyDelete
  26. did God interact in time? or has God already interacted in all of time so though it hasn't happened yet for us, it's already been done by him? if the latter is the case, then the simulation doesn't change.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The assumption being made is that the god in question is on a time path that, while orthogonal to ours, has its own sequence of events. So, in that case, he did the interfering after (in his time stream) he viewed the future (in our time stream).

    However, the point remains that if he alters an event then he can't know the outcome of it if free will exists: the moment the path is locked from within the timeline via omniscience (which requires that the future be fixed, otherwise it's not "perfect knowledge") it occurs to only one outcome then free will is gone. Throwing multiple other time streams to overcome that doesn't change things.

    ReplyDelete