 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 3:31 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message
GregBoyd
11/04/00 11:08 PM
Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far most of the dialogue on this website has been around the Open View of the future. I love it and think it is helpful. Without in any way diminishing this, I'd like to "float another balloon" for discussion. I'm wondering what people think of my 5th warfare thesis (see Spiritual Warfare: Six Theses). This thesis is that freedom must, within limits, be irrevocable. If God truly GIVES creatures self-determination, he can't unilaterally revoke it when its going to be misused. This is controversial, but I think it is necessary to render intelligible the warfare worldview of Scripture. It means that, given the kind of world God sovereignly choose to create, he can't now do anything he wants, any time he wants. He has limited himself. If God could do anything he wanted, any time he wanted, we'd have to accept that the ultimate reason why anything occurs -- including child kidnappings and rapes -- is because God specifically willed not to stop it. Any feedback?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
11/05/00 2:21 AM
RE: Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Boyd and Room:
It was said:
"If God could do anything he wanted, any time he wanted, we'd have to accept that the ultimate reason why anything occurs -- including child kidnappings and rapes -- is because God specifically willed not to stop it."
Mephi:
There's an problem more intense than that, actually. If we say that God sovereignly chose to actualize a reality where any child could be raped by any given "free" agents by their own volition, isn't that choice by God unjustifiable, no matter what the reason? In other words, the is NO good thing or act that can outweigh the violation of ONE child's right to not being sexually assaulted. Not human agency. Not any "greater good". Nothing. Now multiply this by how many children that HAVE been the victims of child molestation. For God to allow the POSSIBILITY for child raping to exist when he could have sovereignly chosen otherwise at the beginning is for God to be, in some way, evil. Surely, no all-good being would ever actualize a reality where He KNEW child raping could be a geniune possibility. Talking about the "character of God", Jesus would NEVER justify child molestation, right? After all, he's the one who talked about putting the millstone around the neck of any who would cause any of the "little ones" to sin.
If this is the case, God's self-limitation and allowance of irrevocable human agency is still no true justification for God's sovereign creative decision. And the problem of radical evil still lies squarely on God's shoulders.
Counterquestion: Is the "genuine" human capacity to freely love God worth even the POSSIBILITY of an innocent child (not to mention MANY children) being raped? If we say yes, then the ends obviously justify the means in this case for our "all-good", utilitarian God. If we say no, then God is definitely an evil being for allowing this horrible possibility to be a geniune reality in our existence.
What do you think? Looking forward to some replies.
Your respectful compatriot,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
11/05/00 10:42 AM
The Riddler meets "Irrevocable Freedom"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Boyd:
I have some more stuff here, sir. Sorry if I'm raising more questions that I'm answering.
First Part:
I would agree about God sovereignly choosing to limit himself according to the world he has created. I would also agree that the self-determination thing is not going to be revoked, as it is an integral part of human nature and what it MEANS to be human. But I have some questions. What are the "limitations" that are upon our freedom? Are they temporal, such that near the end of this thing God takes over, as it were? Or are they psychological such that there are some acts that we just can't even think about? I thought freedom meant no limits. And if there ARE limits under the rubric of God's sovereignty, does this still somehow make God at least indirectly responsible for evil? Thesis 6 seems to point that way. From Thesis 6:
"Although their freedom cannot be revoked, it can be thought of as “probational.” The scope and duration of their freedom is conditioned by many variables and ULTIMATELY determined by God’s will." (emphasis mine)
"Probational" freedom? Again, what is this "scope and duration" of which you speak. I think I have some indication, but I'd ask you to make this completely explicit.
Second Part:
Statements from "What is the Warfare Worldview":
"The warfare worldview is based on the conviction that our world is engaged in a COSMIC WAR between a myriad of AGENTS, both human and angelic, that have aligned themselves with either God or Satan. We believe this worldview best reflects the response to evil depicted throughout the Bible. For example, Jesus unequivocally opposed evils such as disease, demonization, and even natural disaster (i.e. Jesus rebuked the storm) as originating in the wills of Satan, fallen angels, and sinful people, rather than of God."
"This view is NOT ontologically dualistic, because while the Bible clearly articulates war between good and evil, it also CLEARLY articulates God’s sovereignty. The battle that is currently raging is not everlasting, and when it ends, we are assured of God’s victory. In fact, the victory has already been won in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (Col. 2:13–14), but the demise of evil has not yet been fully realized. Christians are called to wage spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10–17) against evil through prayer, evangelism, and social action." (Emphases mine)
From what I said about "Redemptive History":
"My view of God's overarching plan for His creation is best termed "redemptive history." Redemptive history is the panoramic view of all existence in general, and human history in particular, in which God has actualized a reality that would be conducive to His progressive self-revelation to creation. This reality takes the form of a redemptive plan to reconcile all things under his ultimate and universally recognized control after a time of misused delegated authority and cosmic rebellion. The instigator of the rebellion is the Satan (adversary). The apex of the creative event and delegated authority figure is humanity. Lastly, the climax of the redemptive history is Jesus Christ, the culmination of God's progressive revelation to mankind as well as the means of the salvific experience. God actualized this timeline, according to his own will, fully and exhaustively aware of all the consequences that would emerge (sin, death, etc.), but also knowing what tremendous reconciliation and exaltation would exist at the consummation of his plan."
"In this course, we are to work for good and oppose the evil. Jesus is the epiphany of God, as it were, that gives us not only the perfect model, but also the perfect MEANS through which to oppose the cosmic mutiny. We are to use our POWER OF CHOICE [agency] to work for against Satan and recognize God's supreme rule, according to my view of redemptive history." (emphases mine)
Mephi:
In looking at both ideas, they seem remarkably similar to one another. What seems to be the chief difference? You propose "free will" somehow, where God can't exhaustively know the future. I propose agency where God CAN exhaustively know the future. That's about it. We BOTH say that even the "misused authority" is under the rubric of God's ultimate control. But that's the sticking point! I take this thought to its logical conclusion and say that God is the one ultimately responsible for all evil. But you don't seem to take it that far. Why not? We can easily see that God's lack of exhaustive knowledge of the future still doesn't really cause a dent in the problem of evil. It just EXPLAINS it. It in no way truly absolves God from being the "man behind the scenes" of it all, as it were.
Jonathon Edwards something to say on this. He had a thought called "God Both Is and Is Not the Author of Evil"...and he made the direct links that you and I seem to be saying. In Edwards's radical view of divine sovereignty, God does bear responsibility for ordering the world in such a way to permit evil. But it is still human beings who bear moral responsibility for the evil which they choose. From Jonathon Edwards' "Freedom of the Will":
"Again, if it will follow at all, that God is the author of sin, from what has been supposed of a sure and infallible connection between antecedents and consequents, it will follow because of this, viz. that for God to be the author or orderer of those things which he knows beforehand, will infallibly be attended with such a consequence, is the same thing in effect, as for him to be the author of that consequence."
"They who object, that this doctrine makes God the author of sin, ought distinctly to explain what they mean by that phrase, "the author of sin." I know, the phrase, as it is commonly used, signifies something very ill. If by "the author of sin," be meant the sinner, the agent, or actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy, to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin, rejecting such an imputation on the most High, as what is infinitely to be abhorred; and deny any such thing to be the consequence of what I have laid down. But if by "the author of sin," is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin; and at the same time, A DISPOSER OF THE STATE OF EVENTS, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow: I say, if this be all that is meant, by being the author of sin, I don't deny that God is the author of sin (though I dislike and reject the phrase, as that which by use and custom is apt to carry another sense), it is no reproach for the most High to be thus the author of sin. This is not to be the actor of sin, but on the contrary, of holiness. What God doth herein, is holy; and a glorious exercise of the infinite excellency of his nature." (emphasis mine)
What is Edwards saying? He is saying that God is not a micromanager and thus the effectual author of sin. Notice how he marvelous dismisses the notion of solely necessary causation. Brilliance! And he is right that we CANNOT deny that God being the sovereign "orderer" of reality makes him the virtual "author of that consequence", even though it was not necessary.
Having said all this, I have these questions:
1) If are views are not all that different about cosmic warfare, the CERTAINTY of God's ultimate victory at the end, and God's sovereignty over all human decisions (even in the form of "limitations"), how can you not say that God is ultimately responsible for evil?
2) I don't posit a Classical view of God. Since our views are so similar, if someone has a problem with my view of God somehow sovereignly orchestrating, as it were, the emergence of evil, shouldn't they have a problem with YOUR view as well?
3) Isn't irrevocable freedom really a non-issue with respect to the problem of evil, IF everything stated here has validity?
Sorry so long, sir. Gotta hit the church Peace out...
Warmest regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Prov31
11/06/00 8:01 AM
RE: Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i am new to this, so hi everyone. i've been reading this list for some time now. all of you have such intersting thoughts. i was wondering is anyone going to answer mephs questions? i see that he's gone, but the questions have got me thinking. can someone, especialy Greg Boyd, give a reply please. i'd realy like to see what you have to say.
Prov 31
John 3:16...always
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
11/06/00 8:38 AM
RE: RE: Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome Prov 31. No one's addressed Mephi's questions under this topic yet (irrevocable freedom). But check out Boyd's last entry (11/5) under "ain't noth'n changed" topic heading. Me and Modes of Thought and Ghost dog girl offer replies to some of Meph's other questions. Whether they're adequate or not is up to you to decide. Jump in and tell us which ones you think are inadequate and/or unanswered. Meph will be back, I think. He seemed to enjoy himself too much to stay away for long.
* just curious about your name. What is it in Prov31 you find so distinctive?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
11/06/00 10:27 AM
RE: RE: Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Prov31. I'm curious about your name too. Great chapter! I'm a fan of vs. 8-9: "Speak out for those who cannot speak, for the rights of all the destitute. Speak out, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy." Also, as a young Christian woman, vs. 10-31 have been an inspiration to me as a biblical example of a godly woman involved in ministry, family, and career.
I must defer to the rest of the crew and of course, Greg Boyd, to answer Mephi's questions, because I got lost somewhere along the way. Is there something he said in particular that you want to see addressed?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Prov31
11/06/00 5:54 PM
RE: Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'm sorry i wasnt more specific. i meant the questions here about the evil and warfare stuff. i am a Christian wife and mother, so I like Proverbs 31. i try to live it out.
Prov31
John 3:16...always
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Prov31
11/09/00 5:57 PM
RE: Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is anyone going to address the child raping thing? i'd really liek to see some answers from openness people. i'm seeking the truth and the question is bugging me, personally and i'd like some help with it.
Prov31
John 3:16...always
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
11/10/00 5:27 PM
RE: RE: Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Prov31. I was hoping someone else would answer you, because 1) I always ending up talking about the problem of evil and 2) because I don't think I've got it solved quite yet. Mephi's question about the end (i.e. love relationship with God) justifying the means (giving creatures genuine freedom which may lead to the suffering of innocent children when misused) is one that particularly troubles me.
That said, I think that the open view's perspective on the problem of evil is less problematic than a more classical view. In the classical view, God ordains and/or determines every particular evil that happens for a good reason.
Open theists believe that God works to bring good out of every particular evil event, but the Bible clearly teaches that sin and evil are against God's will. They conclude idea that God ordains and/or determines evil is unbiblical and contrary to our experience of gratuitous (i.e. unredeemptive) suffering.
Mephi is correct that in the open view, God created a world in which innocent children could suffer horribly due to the free choices of creatures who rebel against him. God is as grieved by their suffering as we are (if not more). He works to bring good out of their suffering. He took our suffering upon himself in the incarnation. He made a way for us to heal from the wrongs we have suffered and to be forgiven for the wrongs we have done to others.
I will try to say more later. Hopefully others will join in. Blessings to you.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
11/10/00 6:26 PM
RE: RE: Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI Prov 31. Sorry its taken me awhile to answer your question, but my schedule tends to be INSANE.
Mephi argued that neither the Open View nor the classical view provides a reason why God would allow a little child to be raped. NOTHING could account for this, he alleges. If he really believes this, then he must concede that believing in an all good and all powerful God is inherently irrational. I do not believe that faith in God is irrational. From an Open view perspective, the reason why God risked creating a world where evil was possible is because the alternative is not worth creating. God COULD have created a world that was devoid of risk, and thus in which everything went perfectly. But the price he would have to pay is that this world could not have free agents, and thus could not have love. Loving BEHAVIOR can be programed -- the kind of "love" the Stepford wives showed their husbands, for example. Be GENUINE LOVE must be chosen. If love is the goal, freedom must be the means. And freedom means RISK. Thus, God can only be held responsible for creating a world in which children can be abused if we assume that it would be better to have a depersonalized, robot world without free agents. The fact that WE continue to bring children into this risky world indicates that we all believe that the risk of evil is "worth it." And if WE think it is worth it, we can hardly blame God for thinking this kind of world is "worth it." In short, Prov 31, the risk of evil is the metaphysical price that has to be paid for the hope of love. They're two sides of the same coin. You can only ensure the first can't occur by ensuring that the first won't occur. If people can love little kids, they can also harm them. But when they do harm them, its THEY'RE fault, not God's. Hope this helps a bit.
Blessings.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Luther
11/26/00 11:19 PM
RE: RE: RE: Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its been a while since anything has been discussed on this thread, but I think its interesting so I'll throw in a couple of cents and see if anyone else wants to continue.
Dr. Boyd:
I think you make a good point about Mephi, it would be illogical for him to believe in an all-good God. Right now I am down to two options on the view of God: Either its the Open view, or its the Reformed view. I strongly believe the Reformed view has a better graps of and is more consistent with Scripture.
In any discussion on free will a factor always seems to be neglected: the sin factor. What is my freedom in relation to God since I am born as a child of wrath? I DO believe in freedom, and I believe in God's sovereignty. So this brings up the issue of: what is freedom? Is freedom something where God gives us multiple "options" where we could either be good or evil? Or is freedom the ability to make decisions which are done WILLINGLY? I don't believe that our freedom is something only based on possibilities of options, it is acting according to one's highest inclination (as Jonathan Edward's has proposed this idea). You could place one thousand options before me, but HOW do I make my decision? Especially in light of man's inherent sinfulness. If we are in bondage to sin (which we WILLINGLY and FREELY choose, since we love it), how is it we COULD make a good decision? I think that Scripture has shown that it is by the Spirit of God that we are able to make a righteous, godly decision. After Peter proclaimed Jesus as the Son of God, what did Christ say? He told Peter he was blessed because God the Father REVEALED it to him. Had God not revealed Christ's identitiy to him, would Peter have proclaimed this faith in Him? No. Would he have disbelieved in Him freely? Yes. In his state of sinfullness he would be inclined to disbelieve WILLINGLY in Christ. I do agree with you , Dr. Boyd that true love is willing, but is it only love if one had the "option" of not loving, or is it love because of the inclination of the individual's will toward God? I would also like to know (if anyone even checks out this thread again!)HOW a person exercises his will to love God.
I disagree with you on the idea that if someone can love, they can rape a person too. I disagree because the ability to love doesn't mean there is an ability to sin; that would be like saying since good exists, evil must exist when it is really evil that depends on the existence of good to have its own existence. That is a small point, perhaps, but the underlying assumption, it seems to me, is that the open view thinks man must have options of evil in order to really love God. I think that is a fallacy because it could imply a spiritual birth as a result of sin since it is the sin that causes a person to then be able to love God. I agree that there are options, but I see that the decisions about those options are made through a will which is determined by sin, or by God's Grace.
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Soli Deo Gloria
Luther
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Luther
11/29/00 2:16 AM
RE: Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any takers on my previous post?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Misevac
11/29/00 9:00 AM
RE: Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone! I am new to this discussion and have been fascinated by the conversations. Greg has an incredible way to get us thinking doesn't he? I don't want my posting to detract from Luther's questions so please don't forget to answer him! I have a question that is in reference to something Greg stated in his first question about freedom, but would like to make it clear that this is a just a question of mine; not yet a belief. Greg writes, "...given the kind of world God sovereignly choose to create, he can't now do anything he wants, any time he wants,"
I would like to take that one step further by asking this question: Is it, as Greg stated, a matter of God limiting himself for whatever sovereign reason or could it be that God is limited, not by his own choice, but by his own nature? If God did not create himself, then is it possible that there are aspects about him that are impossible to change; therefore he is limited by them (even though if he could choose to change them, he may not want to)? Is that heretical for me to say that? I am not sure.
Example: If God is love and always was love, then isn't it impossible for God to be anything that is opposite of love? And if he did not create himself, then he is limited by his own nature, which in my understanding is the nature of love. Now, I don't know what the limitations of the nature of love would be, but let's just say for the sake of the discussion that the nature of love requires freedom, like I think Greg would say. Wouldn't it then, given that, be impossible for God to create a world in any other way but the way he created it? So when Greg says "God sovereignly chose to create" this kind of a world, I almost want to take it further and ask: Was it even possible for him to create another kind of world, (a world without choice and therefore without suffering) because love requires freedom and doing it another way would be going against his own nature?
Another example that makes me question this is Christ's death. Is there something in the essence of sin that requires bloodshed for atonement? I can't imagine God soverignly choosing bloodshed, especially that of his own son, if there were another way.
The only way I can make sense of that (until all of you help me with it) is that there is something in the nature of God that even he cannot go against, not because of choice but because He cannot become what He is not in essence. Can God go against holiness? Maybe holiness requires bloodshed as love requires freedom?
So my question is, Is God limited by his own character vs. sovereignly deciding to create the world in a certain way? Maybe it is only a matter of semantics. When I hear the word soveirgn, I think of God creating and choosing things for no apparent reason, but just because he can. I appreciate any feedback to help me sort this out!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
11/29/00 12:59 PM
RE: RE: Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misevac said:
Greg writes, "...given the kind of world God sovereignly choose to create, he can't now do anything he wants, any time he wants," I would like to take that one step further by asking this question: Is it, as Greg stated, a matter of God limiting himself for whatever sovereign reason or could it be that God is limited, not by his own choice, but by his own nature? If God did not create himself, then is it possible that there are aspects about him that are impossible to change; therefore he is limited by them (even though if he could choose to change them, he may not want to)?
Greg answers by saying:
"From an Open view perspective, the reason why God risked creating a world where evil was possible is BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE is not worth creating. God COULD have created a world that was devoid of risk, and thus in which everything went perfectly. But the price he would have to pay is that this world could not have free agents, and thus could not have love."
In other words, God could have created something different according to Greg. He is not limited to creating just this reality. I think it is a good question. Is God limited to creating one out of two alternatives or was God "forced" to create a certain kind of reality because his nature does not "allow" him to create otherwise? Is God "bound" by his nature much like he can't make a circle a square?
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
BBBCanada
11/29/00 1:46 PM
RE: RE: RE: Is Freedom Irrevocable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg said:
"Mephi argued that neither the Open View nor the classical view provides a reason why God would allow a little child to be raped. NOTHING could account for this, he alleges."
he then said:
"Thus, God can only be held responsible for creating a world in which children can be abused if we assume that it would be better to have a depersonalized, robot world without free agents. The fact that WE continue to bring children into this risky world indicates that we all believe that the risk of evil is "worth it." And if WE think it is worth it, we can hardly blame God for thinking this kind of world is "worth it."
I really liked the exchange between Greg and Mephi. But I think there is also another point that should be added that could have some bearing on this question, especially that nothing could account for God taking the risk of creating a world where there COULD BE (the possibility of) so much pain. That is, THAT GOD HIMSELF GOT INVOLVED IN THIS RISKY WORLD!! INCARNATION!! In otherwords, the risk was not something where the creator sits back and says, " Well, I had the option of creating a world full of robots and without freedom and therefore there would be no love (for me [like almost as if God had a need for it, a co-dependent God]) or one where I will risk there being freedom and love (for me) but this could mean evil. Oh, and by the way, I'm am just the guy calling the shots that's all (almost or mostly deistic)." God risked having that much pain, evil, etc, but then he involves HIMSELF IN it. He involves Himself in the pain, which doesn't do much to account for the evil itself, (as I think the Open view does and the classical view tries to do) but goes a long way to say the risk WAS worth it. Much like someone who gets involved in the blood sweat and tears of building something they think is worth while.
Brandon
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/03/00 5:15 PM
Response to Luther
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry its taken me so long to respond to Luther's question. Luther questioned my "Principle of Proportionality" -- the thesis that the scope of a person's capacity for good is also the scope of their capacity for evil. He suggested that this might lead to a sort of dualism (where evil is a necessary concomitant of good). He also suggested that people could have the capacity to freely love God without having the capacity to NOT love God. Freedom, he suggested, was the ability to act on your strongest inclination, not the power to choose between options. Have I understood you correctly, Luther?
I have NINE points to make in response.
1) If "freedom" means only the ability to act on our greatest inclination, is this all the freedom GOD has? You admit to having trouble conceptualizing freedom to choose between possibilities (what is usually called Libertarian freedom), but do you not want to ascribe this kind of freedom to God when he created the world and became incarnate? To NOT ascribe this to God is to admit that the world was created and Jesus was incarnated necessarilly, given the character of God. If you DO ascribe libertarian freedom to God, however, it means that you affirm that it IS meaningful. Hence it can't be unintelligible to ascribe to humans. Indeed, it MUST be intelligible to ascribe to humans, otherwise we'd have no analogical foundation from which we could ascribe it to God!
2) You say that freedom is only the freedom to act on our greatest inclination, but then add that we can't choose God's love on our own because of our sin. Question: was our original choice to sin itself simply the result of acting on our greatest inclination? Or could we have done otherwise? If Adam and Eve were just acting on their strongest inclination, then we'd have to ascribe this inclination to God, would we not (esp. if God's "free" choice to create this world was itself simply the acting out of HIS strongest inclination)? How can then avoid ascribing evil to God?
3) Related to this, if freedom is simply the ability to act on your strongest inclination, then our inclination must be given to us by God. We end up with an infinite regress if we suppose otherwise (the inclination to choose an inclination was based on our strongest inclination which was itself choosen according to our strongest inclination, etc. ad infinitum). So our "free" choice to sin was necessitated given God's choice to create us with sinful inclinations. This represents what I consider to be one of the most signficant flaws in Reformed theology: there is NO WAY to render intelligible the idea that WE are responsible for things that GOD has predestined us to do. I have asked for analogies that might render this supposition intelligible for five years and have yet to receive one.
4) If freedom is simply the ability to act on our strongest inclination, how is our "freedom" different from the "freedom" of cows? If freedom is simply the ability to act on our strongest inclination, then must you not admit that NO AMOUNT of freedom is lost when a person acts by auto-suggestion received during hypnosis? If I could implant a microchip that would control my wife's nuerons and make her WANT to act just as I programmed her, wouldn't you have to say that she has lost NONE of her freedom? She STILL "gets to" act on her strongest inclination -- its just that I control her inclinations. Isn't this absurd, Luther? If so, it demonstrates that your definition of freedom is insufficient to capture what we normally mean by freedom.
5) If our choice to love God comes from God -- he controls our strongest inclinations -- then one must wonder why God didn't place this inclination in everyone... esp. since he tells us he WANTS everyone to be saved (2 Pet 3:9-10).
6) The Bible's teaching about human's ability to choose AGAINST God makes no sense if God himself gives us the inclinations that determine our activity. The Bible's teaching about God facing a partly open future (e.g. changing his mind in response to us, etc.) makes no sense if God himself gives the inclinations that determine our behavior.
7) The evil in this world is unintelligible unless there are wills operative other than that of an all good and all powerful God. Therefore there must be wills who can choose AGAINST God... which means their "strongest inclination" doesn't come FROM God. The Bible teaches this with its view of Satan, demons and evil people.
8) One can still affirm that we are saved TOTALLY by God's grace without implying that God picks and chooses who will and will not be saved. No one would choose God on their own. Were it not for God's mercy on the cross and the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, no one would choose God. Still, given that the Holy Spirit is at work in our hearts, it doesn't follow that we MUST believe. The Holy Spirit is the necessary, but not the "sufficient" condition for our salvation. We cannot believe without the Holy Spirit, but we CAN resist the Holy Spirit, as Scripture repeatedly teaches.
9. Saying that the potential to choose love implies the potential to choose evil does NOT imply that evil is a necessary part of the world where love would be possible. What it means is that THE POSSIBILITY of evil was a necessary feature of any world where love was possible. Evil never needs to happen. The possibility of evil, however, needs to be present whereever morally significant freedom is present -- for the simple reason that this is what morally signficant freedom MEANS. You can make good or evil choices.
Hope this helps communicate where I coming from Luther. I wrote this fast, so forgive the typos.
Blessings
GREG BOYD
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Luther
12/04/00 12:40 AM
Response to Dr. Boyd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for such a thorough, yet concise reply Dr. Boyd! This makes it much easier to address your points the way you laid them out.
You ask if this is what my definition of Free will is:
“Freedom, he suggested, was the ability to act on your strongest inclination, not the power to choose between options. Have I understood you correctly, Luther?”
This is accurate! I also want to make it sound less “animalistic” if some are thrown off by how it is stated. To act according to one’s highest inclination merely means to act in the way one chooses as best. Best, not meaning morally, or even wise: one deems a decision best because that is what they desire the most and can act on. I add the last part because many may have a great inclination to a billion dollars, yet never get it! But they demonstrate this inclination in selfish ways. Ephesians 2:13 should explain how “free” our will is when we are born “children of wrath”, 2 Peter 2 is good,2 Cor. 4:1-7 describes our hearts a being veiled by the god of this world, and being dark. It is by God’s shining the light and putting life in our earthen vessels that we are able to choose Him. Indeed, God must regenerate us before we believe. For while we were still dead in our sins, God made us ALIVE together…While we were still DEAD, God regenerates, then we believe. So we can see, hopefully, that our inclinations are inclined only to spiritual unproductivity while we are in sins, and it is when God regenerates us that our will can pursue spiritual things.
Here are your points:
“1) If "freedom" means only the ability to act on our greatest inclination, is this all the freedom GOD has? You admit to having trouble conceptualizing freedom to choose between possibilities (what is usually called Libertarian freedom), but do you not want to ascribe this kind of freedom to God when he created the world and became incarnate? To NOT ascribe this to God is to admit that the world was created and Jesus was incarnated necessarilly, given the character of God. If you DO ascribe libertarian freedom to God, however, it means that you affirm that it IS meaningful. Hence it can't be unintelligible to ascribe to humans. Indeed, it MUST be intelligible to ascribe to humans, otherwise we'd have no analogical foundation from which we could ascribe it to God!”
God has perfect freedom. He is who is, and acts in accordance with His Deity. Does God have the ability to do evil? If not, I don’t think He freely chooses His righteous acts, He has a chip in His anthropomorphic brain, or so this is how I am interpreting your reasoning. Did God necessarily incarnate in Christ? No. No, because this could mean we caused Him to “have to”, but He chose to do it out of love, which is in His character. He could have not done it and been justified because we do deserve wrath, and wrath is an attribute of God. I can only say that He chose for the reason that He loved, that love of His compelled Him for our sakes.
I do not get how you reason that if God has libertarian free will that we do too, perhaps you did not say this, I did have a little trouble understanding. Tell me, is it love to leave out a fully loaded M16 for your child to come across? You tell your child no, but leave it out anyway because you want your child to love you and obey you? I would gather you would say, “No way!” Do you not have the freedom to in the situation, and yet do you not deny this freedom from your child? God has communicable and incommunicable attributes, you’ll have to prove a libertarian freedom is communicable to get anywhere. Although, I think I would prefer the term “perfect freedom” to libertarian. God can only be who He is, an none other. But that is good and perfect, so it is the ideal.
Your second point:
“2) You say that freedom is only the freedom to act on our greatest inclination, but then add that we can't choose God's love on our own because of our sin. Question: was our original choice to sin itself simply the result of acting on our greatest inclination? Or could we have done otherwise? If Adam and Eve were just acting on their strongest inclination, then we'd have to ascribe this inclination to God, would we not (esp. if God's "free" choice to create this world was itself simply the acting out of HIS strongest inclination)? How can then avoid ascribing evil to God?”
I have already addressed the bondage we our in to our free choice to sin. So I will move on to what comes after that first sentence. I have my “own” theory on how man sinned originally. I say my “own” because I can’t remember reading about it, but find it hard to think I came up with this on my own, maybe you will know where I got it from!
At the beginning of man, before sin, man’s will was wholly inclined to good, but there was the possibility of evil. Man was mutably good (this I know I got from R.C. Sproul). So how did he sin? Since God is not obligated to man, indeed He is self-sufficient, in His perfect plan He allowed for man to sin. I know, you’re going to ask me how a man inclined to good chose evil. We see through the story of Job that God has a “hedge” that He keeps around His people, and we also see that God removed this from Job. What if God were to remove His Grace to let man reason within his mutably good mind, what would happen? I think it would be quite easy to reason in a faulty manner, especially with Satan helping him. This caused a sort of snow ball effect, and yes, Adam did desire evil, but by his own heart, not by God’s creating. You may ask me how Satan fell. Well, I will keep it short, because you might not care! I believe God had His plan, which would work together for when He would later create man. He allowed Satan to fall. Lucifer was also mutably good, and being the most powerful and beautiful of all creatures, it would be easy to reason in a faulty manner where God removed His Grace and so think he could usurp God’s throne.
Your third point:
“3) Related to this, if freedom is simply the ability to act on your strongest inclination, then our inclination must be given to us by God. We end up with an infinite regress if we suppose otherwise (the inclination to choose an inclination was based on our strongest inclination which was itself choosen according to our strongest inclination, etc. ad infinitum). So our "free" choice to sin was necessitated given God's choice to create us with sinful inclinations. This represents what I consider to be one of the most signficant flaws in Reformed theology: there is NO WAY to render intelligible the idea that WE are responsible for things that GOD has predestined us to do. I have asked for analogies that might render this supposition intelligible for five years and have yet to receive one.”
I think I have already dealt with the origination of our evil inclination on point 2. God didn’t create sinful inclinations, that was created by Lucifer in his own will, and man in his own will by way of God’s permissiveness. We are RESPONSIBLE to act righteously, but it is by God’s Grace alone we accomplish this. So when God took away His sustaining hand, man was responsible to act righteously, which he failed, and we continue to fail miserably! I can’t believe I will be the first to attempt an analogy, and if it is true, I am sure it is quite weak! I am only 21, and an English major at Huntington College, but I will try!
If I am a math student, and I am working out some type of equation, I am certainly obligated to get the right answer. Lets say I have a teacher explaining to me the process, she is guiding me at every point, it makes perfect sense because it is the perfect way of performing the equation (ignore the idea that there are multiple ways of working equations, that won’t be used as an illustration in my situation here, there is only one way, and it is what she tells me). Each equation we go over makes perfect sense, my will is in accordance with hers because she is sustaining me through the processes. Things are great, I love math, I love my teacher, and I know I can work these problems as long as I want and can do any equation perfectly. The teacher then leaves the room (this is not to mean God’s favor, her leaving is to take away her sustaining). She is not doing wrong by leaving, she has equipped me for all things, she hasn’t made me ignorant. While she is gone I am to continue with my equations. Someone else enters the room. He tells me that I am a robot and that the pleasure I am taking in these equations is stupid, and for naught. He assures me that these equations I am given are meant to blind me, that the answers are correct, but I can make up my own equations with my own answers. Suddenly, I don’t have to listen to the teacher, I can be creative and make up my own equations with my own answers. It’s a “free for all”. I am only a student and don’t understand the situation fully, that my teacher is right, and this fellow is wrong, but the prospect of this ability becomes tempting. It is at that point of reasoning that the temptation became real. One faulty line of thought throws it all out of whack. It was my fault, every action of the teacher was good and right. Now I am no longer doing the math as the teacher, I used to resemble her in my actions, but now its all changed.
If you look at Genesis it is interesting to see that Adam and Eve were said to be created in the image of God. If you look at what Scripture says of their offspring, you see that it says that they were in the likeness of God. It is stated in Genesis 1, and also in 5:… “in the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God……When Adam had lived 130 years, he became the father of a son IN HIS OWN LIKENESS, ACCORDING TO HIS IMAGE…Genesis 5:1,3. Man’s perfect freedom was to know good and act in accordance with God’s will. This is when his image resembled God. But man sinned, and chose evil. His bondage, which is evil freedom, is to sin and be lawless and seek to glorify himself and gratify himself. His image bearing of God is severely twisted, distorted, shattered.
We are responsible. We failed at the beginning and are in bondage to sin. God is still Holy, and so demands perfection, which we cannot do. We are evil, we choose it because we love it, and are rightly condemned.
Your fourth point:
“4) If freedom is simply the ability to act on our strongest inclination, how is our "freedom" different from the "freedom" of cows? If freedom is simply the ability to act on our strongest inclination, then must you not admit that NO AMOUNT of freedom is lost when a person acts by auto-suggestion received during hypnosis? If I could implant a microchip that would control my wife's nuerons and make her WANT to act just as I programmed her, wouldn't you have to say that she has lost NONE of her freedom? She STILL "gets to" act on her strongest inclination -- its just that I control her inclinations. Isn't this absurd, Luther? If so, it demonstrates that your definition of freedom is insufficient to capture what we normally mean by freedom.”
That is not a valid argument, for to suggest an implanted chip is to suggest God implanted sin, which is not what I am arguing. God controls our actions by either showing or withholding Grace. We act out of our evil hearts to perform evil, it is by God’s Gracious will which He performs that ANY good is performed. Without it, I surely would never desire spiritually good things, for the natural man does not accept spiritual things, and neither is he able to. So yes, your suggestion is absurd.
Your fifth point:
“5) If our choice to love God comes from God -- he controls our strongest inclinations -- then one must wonder why God didn't place this inclination in everyone... esp. since he tells us he WANTS everyone to be saved (2 Pet 3:9-10).”
You are going to have to prove God wants all to be saved. I am sure you will bring up “for God so loved the WORLD” and what not. But you will have to prove world means every last person on this earth, and not men from every nation. For is it not written that a decree was sent out by Ceasar Augustus that a census should be taken of the WORLD? Am I to think Aboriginees showed up for the census? World is spoken us in many different ways. Isaiah 53 says that the suffering Servant would take away the sins of MANY. Jesus, before He died, prayed only for His disciples, and those who would come to believe in Him. He specifically said He prayed NOT FOR THE WORLD. If He did want all to be saved, why did He not intercede for the whole world?
Your sixth point:
“6) The Bible's teaching about human's ability to choose AGAINST God makes no sense if God himself gives us the inclinations that determine our activity. The Bible's teaching about God facing a partly open future (e.g. changing his mind in response to us, etc.) makes no sense if God himself gives the inclinations that determine our behavior.”
I think I have dealt with this extensively, if not, ask me to clarify. Also, I take God’s repenting as anthropomorphic, you can look at what I have written under Abraham if you desire, or have the time, for I know you must be busy.
Your seventh point:
“7) The evil in this world is unintelligible unless there are wills operative other than that of an all good and all powerful God. Therefore there must be wills who can choose AGAINST God... which means their "strongest inclination" doesn't come FROM God. The Bible teaches this with its view of Satan, demons and evil people.”
I agree! There are wills at work, but what is the nature of their freedom in light of Scripture?
Your eighth point:
“8) One can still affirm that we are saved TOTALLY by God's grace without implying that God picks and chooses who will and will not be saved. No one would choose God on their own. Were it not for God's mercy on the cross and the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, no one would choose God. Still, given that the Holy Spirit is at work in our hearts, it doesn't follow that we MUST believe. The Holy Spirit is the necessary, but not the "sufficient" condition for our salvation. We cannot believe without the Holy Spirit, but we CAN resist the Holy Spirit, as Scripture repeatedly teaches.”
I agree, and disagree. Open Theists who trust in Christ are saved by Grace, but they deny Grace alone. How does one choose God? Am I to assume that Grace is given to every man that he should have the ability to choose God? If so, why do you or I choose Jesus Christ, while Jo Shmoe doesn’t? Are we more wise? Perhaps we aren’t so steeped in sin that we are more able to believe Christ. Belief becomes a work, and I can boast.
Your ninth point:
“9. Saying that the potential to choose love implies the potential to choose evil does NOT imply that evil is a necessary part of the world where love would be possible. What it means is that THE POSSIBILITY of evil was a necessary feature of any world where love was possible. Evil never needs to happen. The possibility of evil, however, needs to be present whereever morally significant freedom is present -- for the simple reason that this is what morally signficant freedom MEANS. You can make good or evil choices.”
I still see a yin-yang in this statement. Before the world was created was there the possibility of evil? If God is love, I assume He was love before the world was created, does that mean God has the ability to sin?
I hope that this post has been intelligible enough! I recognize that my illustration of the math teacher is probably weak, I am sorry if another Reformed believer has failed to make a good analogy! God’s Peace be with you
Sola Gratia, Soli Deo Gloria
Luther
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Craig
12/07/00 4:01 PM
Dr. Boyd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps another thing to consider while looking at my previous points (I am not going by Luther anymore) is not whether freedom is irrevocable, but what was the nature of freedom before the fall, and what is the nature of freedom because of it?
Sola Fide, Sola Gratia
Craig
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:12 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|