Monday, May 18, 2009

Free will

I just read Wayne Grudem's section on the concept of 'free will' in 'Systematic Theology' and wanted to post it as I found it so helpful:

'Scripture nowhere says that we are "free" in the sense of being outside of God's control... But we are nonetheless free in the greatest sense that any creature of God could be free- we make willing choices, choices that have real effects. We are aware of no restraints on our will from God when we make decisions. We must insist that we have the power of willing choice; otherwise we will fall into the error of fatalism or determinism and thus conclude that choices do not matter, or that we cannot really make willing choices. On the other hand, the kind of freedom that is demanded by those who deny God's providential control of all things, a freedom to be outside of God's sustaining and controlling activity, would be impossible is Jesus Christ is indeed 'continually carrying along things by his word of power' (Heb 1:3)... An absolute "freedom", totally free of God's control, is simply not possible in a world providentially sustained and directed by God himself.' p331

1 comment:

Phil said...

Aha- interesting, however!:

Part I of post:

Christ is perfect human, perfect God.
Christ had the choice to proclaim he was the Son of God and ultimately give Himself up as the perfect sacrifice. Look at the Temptation of Christ:

At the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4, “Jesus was hungry. Then the Devil came to him and said, “If you are God’s Son, order these stones to turn into bread”. But Jesus answered, “The scripture says, ‘Human beings cannot live on bread alone, but need every word that God speaks’”. Jesus is never said to be tempted by the Devil, “ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν” “He answered saying”, using a ‘perfect’ tense, that is one that shows completion, and responds immediately. This is not, however, a manifestation of Divine Providence, as the act is completely worthless if Christ did not have it in his power to sin.

Christ must have had the power to sin - after all He is God! The important thing is that He chose not to sin, and being God would always do so, but that is in many ways besides the point, as it is still a choice.

An active rejection of evil is always going to be more significant than a passive one - 'no greater thing can a man do than this, to lay down his life for his friends' - there has to be a choice in this!


Part II
Free will does not imply that we are outside God's control, or perhaps more potently, outside of Creation. To say that our free will denies God's Providence is to put God into a human plane. We are not outside God's Creation when we live.

Consider this facetious analogy:
I put a thousand monkeys in a room; they are never going to type the Works of Shakespeare. I put a thousand monkeys in a room with a typewriter; they may type the Works of Shakespeare. Just because I know where the monkeys are going to end up doesn’t mean to say that I control it, just that I allow for it to happen.
God has allowed for humans, and ultimately He knows exactly what will happen, as God is not constrained by time!
To say that Free Will is against the Providence of God is to put God within time: if we put God in time, why would He allow humans to fall? Why would He allow evil?
Consider the fallacy of Evil often spouted: How could an all loving, all powerful God allow for Evil to exist? The simplest answer is for a good reason. No explanation necessary.
God allows for humans to act for a good reason, whatever that may be.
Ultimately, yes, an omnipotent God must be in full knowledge and nothing is outside his knowledge, but that has no bearing on whether humans are free, as that is to collapse dimensions of space into lower dimensions (keep reading, I will explain...)

When we see a picture of a cube, we know that it is representative of a three dimensional object in two dimensions. We see what could be termed a shadow.

When we act, we must see a shadow of Him as He is omnipresent, but we are still free to act - what if God wants us to be free?

As you know, I am often criticised for being worried about semantics and rational arguments, but shouldn't we be considering that God might want us to be free to act, the more amazing thing it is if we act for Him? This is a valid argument, and yes it is not necessary explicitally scriptural, but actually, I think it must be accepted - Christ died for us; He was human; He was God. We cannot separate this dichotomy - He was not an exception, but exemplary. If Christ was not willing to die for us and our sins, as we see scripturally in Gethsemene and on the Cross, why did it make any difference? A sacrifice cannot be made for one's own sake! This would reduce Christ to a mere symbol without actually looking at the scale of what He did!

"No greater thing can a man do than to lay down his life for his friends" - if God is in full control and humans have no freedom of their actions this is completely worthless. God may allow us to choose, that is a different argument, but ultimately the choice has to be ours.
P