Greek philosophy originates from and reflects the ancient Greek beliefs in multiple gods and semi-gods, and the world created and ruled by these entities or forces. Some eastern philosophies may also have affected the development of the Greek philosophy, for example beliefs that became later expressed more strongly in the Gnostic teachings. An example was the strong division between the ‘bad’ mortal flesh and ‘good’ eternal spark called the ‘soul’.
The worldviews of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek philosophy presented differing and competing explanations about the reality. If we chose one, we necessarily exclude much of the worldview told by the other alternative.
is it any less Christian to look at the world as if God had no direct influence other than to start it off? Or to limit Him to processes that we can define or understand?
To all intents and purposes the doctrine of free will does not derive from Scripture, in fact it almost denies it. It is centered in Greek Philosophy, however.
Could we proverbially be throwing out the baby with the bath water?
That is not the picture obtained from the biblical scriptures as I interpret them. That does not exclude the fact that some believe so.
In this, I disagree. The guiding messages in the biblical scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the NT, would be pointless if humans would not have at least some amount of free will.
I do not deny that Christ seemed to think that sin was a choice, but the overall view of God is that He is both sustaining and controlling it. When Christ taught that god listens to prayer it was seen as outrageous. Scripture talks of God hardening hearts and Paul talks about discipleship in terms of slavery. Voluntary slavery but slavery nonetheless.
Ecclesiastes 3 is a complaint not a blessing.
As soon as you claim that God will judge against a choice or action you are denying free will. A gun to the head, be it in this life or the next is not a free choice.
Your definition of free will seems to be different than mine.
I would say that free will and responsibility for our actions belong together. Responsibility includes bearing the consequences of our acts, like ending in prison for breaking the local laws or facing the judgement of God for rebelling against His will.
Now this causes me a dilemma, as one who is reluctant to declare an absolute and encourages personal belief.
Can we redefine freedom? We can clarify it within physical constraints, as in I cannot physically just fly, but does that also apply to moral or religious constraints?
If I deliberately put my hand into a flame, knowing the consequences, but am prepared for them, it is still a free choice, but what if I either do not recognise or do not realise the consequences? Why should ignorance be fatal (unless it is a physical reality or unchangeable consequence)
Do we have the authority or knowledge to claim that our religious beliefs are such unchangeable or inevitable consequences?
Should such things be a factor in freedom of choice?
Richard
Edit.
What it boils down to is this:
If God claims that we are free to choose Him or not (Big if)
Then there can be no penalty (Hell) if people do not choose Him.
If, on the other hand there is a penalty for not choosing Him
Not only is the choice not free, but God becomes Narcistic, demanding that we worship Him (or else)
However,
If God is so insistent on our following Him and obeying Him why would He offer forgiveness to those who do falter or fail?
And
If that forgiveness is a safety net why would God limit it to only those who have made the first step towards Him, especially when Christianity claims that it is God who makes the first step towards us.
Nope. The point is that their existence doesn’t change the fact that it was not in the OT or in the words of Jesus. Its one use in the gospel of John does not warrant giving the Greek philosophy connected to the word a part in Christian theology.
To be sure, just because it was from Greek philosophy doesn’t make it wrong. But the teachings of Plato and the Gnostics of an evil Demiurge creator and humans as divine sparks of reason trapped in an evil material world – that was certainly wrong.
Some of Greek philosophy was very theological and quite incompatible with Christian teaching. This is what Gnosticism was all about – all straight from the Plato playbook, and these teachings were very much opposed by the writers of the NT.
AND just because you fail to understand the difference between the rhetoric of religion/philosophy and the methodology of science doesn’t make them the same.
Based on the use of the word in Greek philosophy, I would define Logos as the underlying order and purpose behind the universe. Jesus is identified with Logos, but that isn’t necessarily evidence of inconsistency of confused thought since there are a lot of examples of abstract concepts that were also personified as deities in the Greek pantheon, for example Arete, personal excellence as well as a minor deity.
I said that philosophy is no more a religious study than science. It neither means that there is no religion in philosophy or that science has any connection to philosophy. In fact science seems to reject philosophical arguments.
So, if you are going to contest what I say, kindly get your facts straight.
I certainly didn’t say being Hellenized was somehow heretical. But unlike you, I answered the implied question – that except for the teachings of Plato and the Gnostics, it is not heretical.
Science takes its information from the world God created to help us understand it and (according to Romans 1:20) to understand something of the God who created it.
The use and value of philosophy is something quite different. Here is an AI overview…
Philosophy’s value lies in its ability to cultivate critical thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills, as well as to broaden perspectives and encourage self-reflection. It provides a framework for examining fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, and reason, ultimately contributing to a more informed and meaningful life.
My summary is philosophy helps in learning how to use our mind more effectively.
lol yep. At the very least, I think it would imply the topics are important to us, as well as with enough complexity and subtlety that we feel it needs to be explained correctly. Then again, maybe to some degree, we just like arguing. Though… we often reach the point where we wonder if the other person likes arguing too much. LOL
Richard, I am near 100% certain that God wants me to love Him, not to bow down in fear and panic, and try to just do what He wants so I don’t go to hell. But love is my choice, my reason for doing something, and cannot be controlled by another.
To me, if we cannot have free will, we cannot really love. To me, that is the core belief on which my understanding of God rests.
I believe that God is love, and God wants us to learn to love, to learn what it means to love. And if anyone loves God, that is a choice that that person makes. And no other human can really know with absolute certainty if any other person loves him or her, or is just saying it.
If I really can choose explicitly to not love God, then why would there not be some consequence from that choice? And what is hell really, if not a separation from God? If this is what is real about choices to accept God or reject Him, namely, that God will (I believe, reluctantly) grant you your wish, and send you off out of His presence, if that is what you choose, I can’t see a problem.
Another good aspect of this viewpoint I have come to take is that God’s forgiveness, and the willingness of God to send Jesus to show us how much He is willing to give up for us, how much He loves us, all makes good sense in this context. Bottom line, as I see it, for everything, is that God loves me (and everyone else), and wants me to love Him, and my neighbors, not fear or fight Him, or my neighbors. God most certainly does not demand that I worship Him.
Indeed. John was either picking up the Greek concept of a rational principle that guides and shapes the universe, or the Jewish concept of the same thing but holding that the logos is God’s word(s). That’s about as simple as it gets.
This is only true if the situation is neutral and we have equal standing with God. The prophets tend to portray the situation as people needing a rescue and if they reject it they’re stuck. The Messiah is portrayed as a Deliverer, which implies something to be delivered from, and a Rescuer, which implies something to be rescued from. So the “penalties” are just the consquences of refusing rescue/deliverance.
No, but it does suggest (yet another) link with second-Temple Jewish thought; a writer who used the term the way John did would expect that association to be made by Jewish readers at the least.
Or both. Words and expressions may be used intentionally so that they include more than one viewpoint.
‘Logos’ is a relatively simple case because both the Greek and Hebrew/Aramean words and concepts may be translated so that little is lost in the translation: the ‘word’ [of God].
Many other cases are trickier because any translation needs to pick one of several possible meanings, which leaves much hidden from those that do not understand the original language and culture.
Because that must be a valid choice otherwise it is nit free. If that choice means punishment or detriment then it is coercion not freedom.
That would only apply if you knew what it was to be with God.
And it is not the Scriptural view of Hell (although it is mine)
No arguments.
But, many Christians try to scare or cajole people into Christianity instead of promoting the intrinsic values of aligning ourselves with God. Those values are nether selfish, nor completely selfless. There is balance that Christianity does not easily show and Scripture can seem to deny completely. Black & white, all or nothing, theology is still the norm, it seems.
If this were true in all cases, there could be no consequences for any choice, because consequences include unexpected and/or uncertain detrimental results. If the full understanding of the choice is not possible, then the choice might still have to be made, based on incomplete, or even inaccurate, information. This is a common occurrence in many real activities, such as business or government. (Note that uncertainty is a very real aspect of this world into which God has placed us.) And it is also true that many individuals choose to do something for which they will be punished, if they believe what they have been told, and yet do the thing because of conflicting desires, or because they view the punishment as uncertain, or they veiw the punishment as worth the reward from doing the “forbidden” action…
Are you saying that people don’t really ever do that, or are you saying that the rules under which God operates, and the rules governing our relationship with God, are different from the rules under which we operate in this world, the rules by which we interact with each other?