Chris,
I again see advantages in the view you are supporting. But when supporting it leads you to contend that sin is “not inevitable” in humanity’s experience, it’s hard for me to interpret our experience that way. Those emphasizing our freedom understandably appeal to their subjective sensation that they are able to choose any option presented to them. On the other hand, I subjectively perceive our experience as being that choices to sin are universal and inevitable, and this leads me to perceive great limits on our contrary choice ability to get it right.
Hi Chris, 
I agree, these theological questions are largely academic and I think you do agree with me on these issues more than most. 
I hope none of us get overly emotional in regards to these questions we are speculating about! I certainly didn’t think you were being disagreeable but was just confused, I think. This post of yours clarifies things tremendously.
I agree with this by and large. I think the difference between us is that I am viewing thing through the perspective of someone who believes God knows the future and you are viewing things through an Open Theist perspective. Recent reading of mine about the nature of time-space from a physicist viewpoint makes “Open Theism” less likely to me. That being said, I don’t view evil acts by humans as necessary, just an inevitable “by-product” of beings exercising their will freely in this individuation process. This is, of course, me looking at things in hind-site where every human does things outside the will of God (and likely some evil as well) Is what I’m calling “necessary” evil justified? Well that’s a different story better addressed on a different thread.
I actually agree with this Chris and I suspect Dr Talbott does too. The process I’m describing “corners” the individual, (or “checkmates” him") through the consequences of his own “free” choices with the result that he then turns to God and submits to His will. It may take an awfully long time, but is inevitable, I think. I think this process allows the change in a person’s desires and will to be part of their character—similar to the way life itself changes our character. If it’s a trump card, it’s one that is very slowly laid down.
What was it you read about the nature of space-time, Steve?
Hi Cindy,
It was an essay called “God in and beyond Space and Time” by physicist (and Christian) Russell Stannard in In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being eds. Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke. Here is a link to the essay on Google Books (I think just 2 pages are not shown): books.google.com/books?id=TJWGVEPdY0gC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=russell+stannard+god+in+and+beyond+space+and+time&source=bl&ots=lKrMqYTP7J&sig=3aVGAtKFl4uWEdFgRsbI5QYOozM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PtI2U57TJcW42wWgk4CgBQ&ved=0CGkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=russell%20stannard%20god%20in%20and%20beyond%20space%20and%20time&f=false The “Block Universe” theory of time-space he presents is fascinating and, though still a theory, the majority of physicists subscribe to the block universe idea. If true, the theory totally changes the discussion of God and time. The essay linked to is well worth reading and is written so that non-physicists can understand it pretty well. (Even me )
Edit: It appears this is a different version of the essay in the book I have, unfortunately 
, which addresses things like “free-will” and prayer in the block universe model. I’ll provide a long quote or two from that section in a later post.
I’ll start a thread for that, Steve, unless you’d like to. This is a topic I’d dearly love to know more about.
Is it worth buying the book, do you think?
Hmmm… 
It was for me just wanting to know about different forms of panentheism and origins of panentheism in theology and philosophy as well as potential ways a panentheist view can dovetail into what we know from science. Having said that, unless someone has a real interest in exploring these areas, it probably isn’t worth buying. Many of the “Process Theology” views are far from orthodox, and though I think there are ideas there that can be incorporated into an ortho-trin view, many of the authors are not coming from that perspective. The quality of the writing is variable as well…
As far as a new thread goes, this may fit well under the ongoing open-theism thread. I could move some of these posts over there or we could start a new thread…
Hmm . . . I dunno . . . I’m mainly interested in discussing and learning about the science part of this and how it shows us what God is like. I think I’ll go ahead and start a new thread in the science section. I do think this relates to open theism, but it’s about other things too. God is so amazing, and the more we learn about the universe, the more I appreciate how very, very great and vast and magnificent He IS – I don’t quite know how to say it. Maybe that’s because language is so inadequate, you know? I don’t have time to start it right now, so if you want to, feel free. Otherwise I’ll get it going tonight. 
Hi Cindy,
I started a new thread in “Philosophy” but will move it to “Science.” Does Allan have a physics background, I can’t remember… I’ll tag him anyway as he might be interested in this.
Here’s the new thread…[God and the “Block Universe” model of time-space)
All
Appreciating the out-loud thinking we are all doing here, and especially Chrisguy’s worry that our theorizing sidesteps the reality of evil too often…
a few comments… questions actually…
- First, The concern with evil seems to be that it must not be seen as emanating from God; God must not be blamed for it’s existence. (except only in the sense that He created everything, it’s here, therefore He created it…) Thus freedom it is said, must be real if responsibility for evil can legitimately be assigned to us. This results in a scenario where we have 2 choices; good, and evil. Being the rebel contrarians that we are, evil was chosen. So off we go on the sin track compliments of Adam! (and Eve too just to keep things equal here…)
Except how can we be sure that first choice was free in the first place?? We’ve been assuming it was sure; but was it really free? What if THAT choice was not free at all! What if it was poorly informed, lacked any context, and was made in a milieu of ambiguity and uncertainty?
Free will Christians have worried that our choice of Good (eg to love God) is somehow illegitimate (ie because it’s determined) if it doesn’t possess the chance (possibility) of being otherwise (ie not good; evil; hate God). Well, why don’t we say the same thing going the other direction? ie My “choice” for bad (evil) is illegitimate unless it possess the chance, the possibility of being Good? In other words, what if Romans 11:32 is really to be taken literally and we’re incapable of choosing good??
What if goodness only becomes possible after Freedom has been realized? That is, the act of God giving freedom didn’t lead to sin; rather, it leads to goodness.
Very difficult to think of this way – it’s so far from how I’ve always thought of freedom…
- Second, and perhaps related, and this will sound heretical I’m sure, but I’m questioning if responsibility for sin is everything we think it is. Why? because it seems God has taken, in His rescue operation of us, full and complete responsibility for sin. Further, if there is some responsibility for sin, then that same responsibility should be able to extract me from this predicament! Except that’d mean we save ourselves and so that can’t be right… I’m just thinking here that God is not so concerned with our taking responsibility as it is so obvious we are in a doomed and desperate and hopeless condition without Him.
To say this means that I now have an “excuse” is not the point I’m trying to make here. Besides, doesn’t it sure LOOK like we have an excuse?? Born sinners through no choice of our own? Why not worry more about Adam “determining” us to sin and less about God “determining” us to freedom??
-
Third, it seems true that our condition – ie the condition of all we sinners is, in fact, much different from Adam and Eve in that we now have something they didn’t: Context. And Experience. Does it follow then that sin (evil) was necessary for God to achieve His purposes? That’s a much harder question to answer, but is much closer to the one which troubles you Chrisguy I think.
-
Fourth, Eons hence, looking back, how will we process and understand evil? Will we be thankful for it – in the sense that one might be thankful for the darkness because it provided the contrast against which light might be more appreciated? I don’t know… That seems odd though doesn’t it; thank God for sin – for now I see more starkly the contrast and His Glory thereby shines even greater?? At the same time though, how can we deny that God’s glory shines even more brightly against the backdrop of sin?
No, I certainly don’t like those implications; chills me to say it – even though I realize it’s true…
- When all is said and done, (maybe not for a very long time!!) I suggest our concept of freedom will grasp that…
–it’s not all or nothing, that it comes in degrees; perhaps very tiny degrees…
–that the capacity to choose GOOD is the hallmark of freedom, not the capacity to choose evil. That, is something else; bondage. ie the very thing from which freedom releases us.
still pondering…
Bobx3
There is so much here to think about, Bobx3!
I think I’m coming around more and more to what you’re describing, to tell the truth. I think there are some differences–i.e. our view of the Adam story, perhaps, but nothing major.
I think you’re on to something, here, Bob. I want to explore a moral choice and really try and see what that means, how will is involved and how moral culpability fits in (or doesn’t).
Let’s imagine a student “Ned” taking a college exam. He is a fairly average fellow psychologically (i.e. not schizophrenic, a psychopath or anything where we might consider his mind “broken”) He has his own underlying genetic and environmental influences, but nothing out of the ordinary. He is an ambitious student and wants to do well on the exam but the material is difficult for him and he’s worried his results will be poor and significantly affect his future success. The student in front of him, “Cheryl”, has been acing the class and her test (which is exactly the same as his) is in plain sight. He is tempted to cheat and copy her answers and has to make a “choice” whether to do his own work or copy hers.
There are a number of desires factoring into this choice and I’ll lay out some of those which are perhaps more limited than in real life.
A.Desires/Factors in favor of cheating:
- Desire for a good grade to help his academic future
- Desire for a good grade to receive praise/acclaim
- Desire not to disappoint his parents
- Desire not to look stupid to other students and the professor
- The friends he hangs with often laugh about their own cheating on exams
B.Desires/Factors against cheating:
- Fear that he would be expelled if caught
- Fear that he would disappoint his parents/cause them pain if caught
- The fact that he would now be seen as “dishonest” by everyone who knows him with the resultant blow to his esteem/self-worth
- The feeling/knowledge that cheating would be “wrong” —against God–that his conscience/innate moral sense gives him
So these are the two sides to the choice. It seems like if A > B, then he cheats, if B > A, then he doesn’t cheat. I wonder how standard libertarian free-will enters into it? Perhaps even if A > B he could “randomly” choose not to cheat? It doesn’t make sense. Can he influence the strength of factor B4, his conscience, at the time of the decision? It doesn’t seem likely…
Now, is he **morally culpable **if he decides to cheat despite the fact that he couldn’t have chosen otherwise based on the balance of desires/factors at the time of the decision? Perhaps a series of previous choices led to weakening or “hardening” of his conscience, but each of those decisions would have the same constraints as this one.
If we say he is culpable for a decision to cheat and therefore worthy of blame does that mean if he makes the decision not to cheat he is praiseworthy? Furthermore, does that mean we are responsible for and praiseworthy if we develop a “good” character with God having apparently nothing to do with it? And how do we go about developing a good character by our own efforts?
What if he decides not to cheat not so much because of his desire to obey his conscience, but because he wants only to be able to still think highly of himself–for reasons of pride?
I’m wondering if any of the “free will” Christians can outline a moral decision (as above) and explain what a libertarian free-will decision would look like and how culpability fits in?
One more thing, the consequences of a moral decision like this will inevitably change the factors involved in future moral decisions. Might the embarrassment and scorn of being caught cheating and the blow to his pride lead to a humbler, wiser Ned who is more likely to follow his conscience? Also, if he doesn’t cheat, but muddles through the course with no major repercussions, he would see less advantage to the possibility of cheating in the future.
However, if he gets away with cheating and is not caught, the damage could be great with a higher likelihood of cheating and other dishonesty in the future. Perhaps seeing people as culpable for their bad decisions and the resultant scorn/punishment serves a purpose as one of the consequences of a “bad” choice even if they couldn’t have chosen otherwise at the time.
Just some thoughts…
Good post, Steve – I’d already written this, so I’ll go with it, not ignoring your contribution here. Some very valid points and a difficult question to come to terms with. It’s so tricky to balance predisposition with any concept of freedom . . . . .
Here’s something of my current state of belief regarding “free will.”
That’s my theodicy for God regarding the PoE, written for people who know how to understand it. If I were presenting it to the world, or even to a typical churchman, it would of course have to be MUCH longer.
Hi Cindy,
I’ve been contemplating your post and, though we may have different views about the origin of our fallenness,I think I agree with the last part …
This is a key point, what gives us hope of finally being free from sin—the example of Christ–the “firstborn among many brethren.” But not just his example and teaching—the work he accomplished in his death and resurrection (however we may understand that.)
Yes! We have to **learn the consequences **of following our own will (or, as you said, see the bad consequences of others who followed their own wills) before we will submit to follow the Will of God and walk in freedom and life.
Hi all,
I’ve been thinking more about “Will” and our acts/choices and thought I’d post some more here to keep from cluttering up Tom’s thread. I compared using our will to make a choice to a mathematical equation of sorts with the “Will” serving to “weigh” both sides of the equation and decide the choice based on the desires/influence etc going into the equation. It makes little sense to me (at least if this model is anything like reality) to think that we can have “the power of contrary choice” at the moment of making the decision. This type of decision would not then be considered “free” by many definitions.
It seems to me, though, that** the crucial part is the “desires” and “influences” that go into the equation that might make it a “free” choice—i.e. the “input”. Here’s an example. If a young man has been around a woman he comes to admire, like, and be attracted to and who also has expressed similar thoughts and feelings toward him, it seems natural that he might make a decision to ask her to marry him. (I won’t say a decision to love her as I’m not sure that’s actually a choice at all) We could consider this choice to marry her a “free” choice as the input (desires etc) are all natural and his own** desires. If, however, he was given a “love potion” of some sort which gave him artificial feelings for the woman and based on those “artificial” desires he made a choice to marry her, then it would not be a “free” choice. Does that make sense?
Now if the crucial part is the desires/influences that go into a decision, then that would also be where the idea of determinism would come in or not. Are all our desires, feelings, priorities predetermined by our environment or genetics or prior events? Or, do we have some control over our likes/dislikes, priorities and values? Perhaps we make a morally “bad” decision—one we’re ashamed of after making it. Might we then seek to grow the good and noble part of our nature by study, meditating on the good, avoiding immoral companions etc? Might any pleasure in the “bad” immoral actions be lessened? I’m not sure if this is just a contingent response to our previous “bad” act (and thus causally determined) or not, though…. Perhaps the lack of an attempt to change is what is culpable?
Also, the idea Bobx3 presented of a change in disposition would seem at its root to involve a change in desires, priorities etc and thus affect our choices. (We could discuss whether God changes dispositions directly or if the change is a response to God in some way, as I think there are implications for freedom here.) It seems to me that in the case of the honest banker being presented as a bribe and not being tempted or the loving mother caring for her child, the fact that there is really no “choice” (at least consciously) is because there is a “zero” on one side of the equation. In other words there is no desire, priority or influence on the “bad” side of the equation. These types of decisions then are not qualitatively different than the “moral battle” type choices, it’s just that the equation is not as “balanced” on both sides.
What do you think?
Here’s a quote from MacDonald which echoes many of the ideas I’ve presented in this thread (I’d never read it till today).
“God does not, by the instant gift of his Spirit, make us always feel right, desire good, love purity, aspire after him and his will. Therefore either he will not, or he cannot. If he will not, it must be because it would not be well to do so. If he cannot, then he would not if he could; else a better condition than God’s is conceivable to the mind of God–a condition in which he could save the creatures whom he has made, better than he can save them. The truth is this: He wants to make us in his own image, choosing the good, refusing the evil. How should he effect this if he were always moving us from within, as he does at divine intervals, towards the beauty of holiness? God gives us room to be; does not oppress us with his will; “stands away from us,” that we may act from ourselves, that we may exercise the pure will for good. Do not, therefore, imagine me to mean that we can do anything of ourselves without God. If we choose the right at last, it is all God’s doing, and only the more his that it is ours, only in a far more marvellous way his than if he had kept us filled with all holy impulses precluding the need of choice. For up to this very point, for this very point, he has been educating us, leading us, pushing us, driving us, enticing us, that we may choose him and his will, and so be tenfold more his children, of his own best making, in the freedom of the will found our own first in its loving sacrifice to him, for which in his grand fatherhood he has been thus working from the foundations of the earth, than we could be in the most ecstatic worship flowing from the divinest impulse, without this willing sacrifice. For God made our individuality as well as, and a greater marvel than, our dependence; made our apartness from himself, that freedom should bind us divinely dearer to himself, with a new and inscrutable marvel of love; for the Godhead is still at the root, is the making root of our individuality, and the freer the man, the stronger the bond that binds him to him who made his freedom. He made our wills, and is striving to make them free; for only in the perfection of our individuality and the freedom of our wills call we be altogether his children. This is full of mystery, but can we not see enough in it to make us very glad and very peaceful?”
-The Eloi
That’s perfect Chris!
I hadn’t read that before but if we believe MacDonald when he says this:
and this:
then we have a good answer to this from my last post:
That is an excellent and as always, a beautiful sermon by GMac, isn’t it? I love the way reading either his sermons or his fiction so often makes my heart seem to soar. When we are most in our Father’s hand we are the freest and when we are the most out of ourselves then are we the most truly who we are. I’m sure I don’t understand free will, but I know that in Him, I continually come to understand freedom more and more.
I believe I have free will to an extent. The emotions and desires can be powerful for me sometimes but I can still resist harming myself or others. I’ve never been in trouble with the law once for harming anybody. It takes time and work but the more I get use to doing something the eaiser it becomes.
I agree, Cindy.
I may be more and more uncertain about “free-will” but I am starting to understand even better that “true freedom” is found only in God. It’s amazing how much theology and philosophy is packed into that short extract from MacDonald that Chris posted. All these concepts of desires, disposition, individuality/personhood, epistemic distance, not to mention “free-will”, and implications for theodicy…Amazing!!!
MacDonald’s words make my heart soar as well, Cindy. I feel as if he’s seen or felt the reality of what I can only imagine intellectually at times. I am always comforted by his “voice” in whatever he writes…