Free Will?
So Shelley went to her friend's wedding in Colorado this weekend. Now I'm roughing it without her. I guess that I'll probably end up eating more junk food than normal. Hopefully I'll have more time to finish priming our house...and post about free will. Hehehehe.
In an earlier post, Micah pointed out the importance of defining the term "free will." This term is often used and abused that people can say the same word and be referring to entirely different things. When discussing the possible solutions to the problem of evil, I said that free will should play an important part of any theodicy. Here's where most Calvinists start cringing in agony.
What do I mean when I use this oft-abused term? I understand that fallen man's will is not morally free. I agree here with Calvinism. I completely believe that Scripture teachs the total depravity of fallen man. As I much as I loath prooftexting, it's not very hard to find this concept in the Bible. In Genesis 8:21, after vowing that He would never destroy the earth with water again, God says, "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood." The Apostle Paul concurs with this sendiment by writing, "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God" (Rom. 3:10-11).
Ever since Adam's sin, every human being has a will bent toward rejecting God. Romans 8:7 says, "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit God's law, nor can it do so. Those in the flesh cannot please God." But notice that I said "Ever since Adam's sin." Did Adam have a morally free will? There's no reason to think that he didn't. If Adam indeed had a free will, then this supplies the philosophical dynamite needed to answer the problem of evil.
Now a second question that I need to address concerns whether Adam had a libertarian free will? I believe so. Why? LFW teaches that in order for moral responsibility, the human agent must have the geniune ability to do otherwise, or to refrain from action. LFW cannot be held consistently with determinism. This is why I hold to the Molinist view of God's providence. Molinism holds that in middle knowledge God knew before His decree to create the world what Adam would freely do in the garden. And yet, He created this world.
Why? Well, part of the reason is to reveal His glory. He wanted to demonstrate all aspects of His character as Micah pointed out with that quote from Jonathan Edwards. Another reason is that geniune love must be uncoerced. Ravi Zacharias writes, "In a world where love is the supreme ethic, freedom must be built in. A love that is programmed or compelled is not love; it is merely a conditioned response or self-serving" (Jesus Among Other Gods 118). Then he quotes Jean Paul Sarte in saying:
In an earlier post, Micah pointed out the importance of defining the term "free will." This term is often used and abused that people can say the same word and be referring to entirely different things. When discussing the possible solutions to the problem of evil, I said that free will should play an important part of any theodicy. Here's where most Calvinists start cringing in agony.
What do I mean when I use this oft-abused term? I understand that fallen man's will is not morally free. I agree here with Calvinism. I completely believe that Scripture teachs the total depravity of fallen man. As I much as I loath prooftexting, it's not very hard to find this concept in the Bible. In Genesis 8:21, after vowing that He would never destroy the earth with water again, God says, "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood." The Apostle Paul concurs with this sendiment by writing, "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God" (Rom. 3:10-11).
Ever since Adam's sin, every human being has a will bent toward rejecting God. Romans 8:7 says, "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit God's law, nor can it do so. Those in the flesh cannot please God." But notice that I said "Ever since Adam's sin." Did Adam have a morally free will? There's no reason to think that he didn't. If Adam indeed had a free will, then this supplies the philosophical dynamite needed to answer the problem of evil.
Now a second question that I need to address concerns whether Adam had a libertarian free will? I believe so. Why? LFW teaches that in order for moral responsibility, the human agent must have the geniune ability to do otherwise, or to refrain from action. LFW cannot be held consistently with determinism. This is why I hold to the Molinist view of God's providence. Molinism holds that in middle knowledge God knew before His decree to create the world what Adam would freely do in the garden. And yet, He created this world.
Why? Well, part of the reason is to reveal His glory. He wanted to demonstrate all aspects of His character as Micah pointed out with that quote from Jonathan Edwards. Another reason is that geniune love must be uncoerced. Ravi Zacharias writes, "In a world where love is the supreme ethic, freedom must be built in. A love that is programmed or compelled is not love; it is merely a conditioned response or self-serving" (Jesus Among Other Gods 118). Then he quotes Jean Paul Sarte in saying:
"The man who wants to be loved does not desire the enslavement of the beloved. He is not bent on becoming the object of passion, which flows forth mechanically. he does not want to posess an automaton, and if we want to humiliate him, we need try only persuade him that the beloved's passion is the result of a psycho-logical determinism. The lover will then feel that both his love and his being are cheapened....If the beloved is transformed into an automaton, the lover finds himself alone"(Jesus Among Other Gods 118).
posted by Daniel | 6:44 PM
6 Comments:
I posted some of my thoughts on free will back on April 9th on my blog so I'll just point you there instead of leaving a lengthy response. http://micah.typepad.com/dogears_wrinkles/2005/04/thoughts_on_fre.html
I do appreciate the exchange of thoughts. But I must say, every one of the objections you've brought up so far is covered by Edwards so the best thing I can do is just point you there.
Micah,
Does God have LFW?
Chris,
Thanks for visiting my blog. I've really enjoyed reading yours. How is it inconsistent to hold in total depravity and still hold to LFW?
As I stated on your blog, I believe that the will of an agent always acts in a manner that is consistent with the agent's nature. However, this does not mean that an agent's will is determined by his nature. Determinism speaks of necessity. In determinism, things could not have actually happened in any other way.
I agree with Calvin that man cannot choose to obey God in anyway apart from the grace of God. However, unlike Calvin, I believe in pre-regenerating grace that enables the bent human will.
Chris,
"Doesn't LFW say that we are free from all constraints including our nature?"
I believe that the answer to this question is "No." I'm not free to fly like a bird. I can't no matter how much I want or desire to. If you're interested in studying the difference between LFW and soft determinism, I recommend reading the chapter on that subject in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by JP Moreland and William Lane Craig. It's a great resource to have around anyway, even if you end up disagreeing with their conclusions.
I'll make some comments about pre-regenerating grace in the general section of my blog. Thanks for questions and comments. I appreciate hearing your thoughts.
Douknowme,
Thanks for visiting my blog. Shelley isn't as interested in philosophy and theology as I am. I admit it. I'm a nerd. :)
I don't believe that evil is a direct creation of God since that would be contrary to His nature.
I do believe that God by decree allows evil by giving humanity moral responsibility.
I seriously doubt that Isaiah is saying in 45:7 that God is directly responsible for moral evil since this would run in direct opposition with Isaiah's earlier vision in ch. 6 of God's complete holiness.
The Hebrew word that the KJV translates "evil" here should be translated "disaster." Compare Amos 3:6. The same word is in Amos to talk about God bringing judgment upon the nation of Israel. Thus, I believe that Isaiah is indicating that God brings disasters/calamity upon nations as a result of disobedience to His holy character. On the flip side, God also brings blessing upon nations that obey Him.
So in the context, Isaiah foresees the situation of the Babylonian exiles and reminds them that the LORD is the only God that can bless nations with peace or punish them with disaster.
Post a Comment
<< Home