Free will, it seems, is the real issue. Does Man have free will? It is a genuine question. The philosophical libertarian (as opposed to the political libertarian) would argue that for Man to have meaningful free will, he must be able to have genuine options from which to choose. That is, at any given time, genuine free will "requires the individual to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances." There are, of course, disagreements. Theological Determinists argue that God "determines all that humans will do, either by knowing their actions in advance, via some form of omniscience or by decreeing their actions in advance." This, others protest, eliminates free will. Compatibilists, such as Thomas Hobbes, argue that free will and determinism are compatible. (Thus the clever name "compatibilists".) Incompatibilists may either reject determinism or free will because, well, they believe that each is ... wait for it ... incompatible with the other. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts the two together this way:
God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established (Chapter III:I).This statement includes both "determined" and "free will". The answer they offer as to how that could be is what is termed "second causes".
The basic definition of "free will" is something like this: "The ability to make choices that are not externally determined." An alternate definition is along these lines: "The ability to make a choice without coercion." The question, it seems, comes down to "determined". If God is omniscient (considering only that singular aspect), then God knows all that will happen. That would require that He knows (without error) every choice every human will make in every circumstance. If He knows that without error, then it is not possible for any human to make a different choice than the choice God already knows he or she will make. Thus, from the perspective of omniscience, all choices are already "determined" and, therefore, there is no free will ... right?
I subscribe to the second definition rather than the first because I think it is clearer and more consistent with reality. You see, to me "determined" is a bit unclear. If "determined" includes a causal "set in place", then it would make sense. But if "determined" simply means "knows perfectly in advance" (in the case of omniscience), then there isn't any causal sense. Here, let me use a human (and therefore imperfect) illustration. A mother knows that her children love freshly baked chocolate chip cookies. She cooks up a batch, goes into their room with a plate of the warm delights, and asks, "Does anyone want cookies?" The response is a given. There is no doubt. She knew when she made them what the answer to the question would be. She did not coerce them, but the outcome was "predetermined". Did those children have free will? I would say that, without a doubt, they did even though Mom knew what their answer would be.
The biblical record does include a times that God contravenes Man's free will. He prevented Abimelech from going in to Sarah (Gen 20). He certainly prevents some choices from ever coming up by natural means. There are second causes. And I think it is biblically undeniable that God knows everything and knows it perfectly. Still, knowing "from the beginning" (John 6:64) who would believe and who would betray Jesus didn't absolve Judas Iscariot of his own, uncoerced choice to betray Him (Luke 22:22). Even though God used Joseph's brothers' sinful choices for His good purposes, He didn't coerce the choices and they were not absolved for making them. I think that it is entirely reasonable for Man's free will (lowercase and limited) to coexist with God's omniscience and sovereignty as long as we properly define free will as choice without coercion and clearly understand that there is, in the final analysis, only one Sovereign. Of course, it must be understood that Man's free will is limited in all cases, but that should be blatantly obvious.
So, there you go ... a lesson in philosophy and a defense of God's Sovereignty and Man's free will, all in one. No charge. You're welcome.
7 comments:
"The entire point of this exercise is to free God from culpability and to affirm Man's Free Will."
I think that is incorrect. Firstly it assumes that you know the motivations of Open Theism Theologians. Could it not simply be that they were more convinced that scripture lead them to the view that the future was made up of possibilities?
I think it is important there is no confusion between classical theology and orthodox theology. The former doesn't believe in Open Theism, but the latter encompases a breath of expression eg the differing views on Baptism. No early creed on the Christian church eg Nicene Creed or the apostles creed has anything about God having comprehensive fixed knowledge of the future.
According to their website, the point is "free will theism". They openly deny the sovereignty of God ("the only Sovereign") and claim, instead, that "God has, in sovereign freedom, decided to make some of His actions contingent upon our requests and actions." They specify that "God has chosen to exercise general rather than meticulous providence." They affirm His omniscience by saying, "The omniscient God knows all that can be known given the sort of world he created," but limit what can be known to what is, not what will be. They are not reticent about overtly rejecting God's "divine timelessness". God has not predetermined the future. The first motivation, according to the Open Theists, is to argue that God has given us real freedom to respond to Him relationally. The second motivation, according to the Open Theists, is to absolve God. Greg Boyd's Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy is exactly on that subject. In other words, I haven't attributed to them anything that they haven't claimed for themselves.
Regardless of Church history or creeds, in so doing, they openly limit omniscience when the Bible affirms things like "In Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them" (Psa 139:16). The Bible repeatedly attributes to God foreknowledge (even from before the creation of the world), but Open Theism denies the possibility. They fundamentally deny the biblical proposition of predestination. (See Acts 2:23 as a prime example of both.) Jesus claimed in Matthew 28 that "all authority" was given to Him. Open theists claim that God has given His authority to humans.
Is it in the Nicene or Apostles' Creed? No. Those creeds addressed, as all creeds do, the error of the day. They were not intended to be comprehensive theological statements. They were intended to provide an answer to a heresy of the day. If we made a creed today, it would have to address Open Theism, because once Open Theism (I am addressing the ideas without reference to those who are presenting them) is done, the God of the Bible is finished.
Those who would have a problem with man's limited free will have never fully acknowledged the fact that the vast majority of life is completely beyond man's control. It is in seeking that (nonexistent) control that man wages a continual losing battle, but that is the very essence of sin, isn't it? "I want to be like God, and know everything like He does." With finite minds and bodies, we seek in sinfulness that which is impossible. Elevating man's free will above the sovereignty of God is just another way of trying to co-opt a small slice of sovereignty for ourselves.
It seems as if all our problems are based on the premise of "my importance", aren't they? Doesn't matter if you're a believer or not. Oddly, there is a term in philosophy for this concept. It's "humanism", the basic philosophy that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth. Even among Christians.
Excellent post.
Psalm 139 can be viewed in a number of ways, for example:-
http://www.gregboyd.org/qa/open-theism/responses-to-objections/how-do-you-respond-to-psalm-13916/
Anonymous,
You would argue, then, that God is not Omniscient, then? (I know, I know, the Open Theism side would simply redefine "omniscient", but I'm talking about actually knowing everything including the future -- specifically denied by the Open Theism view.)
Greg Boyd would have to alter the plain understanding of Psalm 139 to maintain his position. That doesn't help the problem of the repeated assurance that God has foreknowledge -- by definition knowledge of what will happen before it happens.
Greg argues that Psalm 139 is hyperbole, that when David says, "In Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them", he doesn't actually mean that every day was written down. He means ... well ... that God has a general idea of how long David will live. David writes it to celebrate the care God takes of him ... and we are supposed to believe that this actually means that God has a general idea of what might happen and is ultimately at a loss to actually know particulars. He'll work it out as He goes.
And here's where it gets the most sticky. According to Peter, God planned in advance the crucifixion of His Son. "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:23). They did it according to "whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place" (Acts 4:28). Judas betrayed Christ "as it has been determined" (Luke 22:22). But if Boyd and Open Theism has its way, none of this is true. God laid out a possible course, hoping that things would work out, but not actually according to any plan, foreknowledge, or predestination. Boyd may find that a relief. I find it a horrible concept. Nor can I have any confidence in a god who has so little knowledge or control.
Post a Comment