Sunday, November 27, 2011

Implications of Free Will on the Doctrine of Chance


In recent discussions in other blogs on the teaching about "election", universalism and freewill the above comment was made as a response to statements I had made. Go here and here to view full discussions.

Christians in general trust God is as good as his word, what he promises gets done, as someone has said we are all Calvinists when we pray, meaning when we petition God we at least assume he is able to do what we ask even if he’s perhaps not willing. There is an inconsistency in the heading to this post that ought to be made manifest.The alternative to being a Calvinist in the context of this discussion is to be an Arminian. It matters not whether you have never heard of these labels, generally people fit broadly into one of these two ways of thinking. In contemporary Christian culture the latter is virtually endemic, it occurs naturally in our thinking.  The inconsistency lies in not seeing the consequence of trusting that a person who has been offered salvation in Christ may (because of what is believed about human nature) refuse that offer. The argument would look something like this:
1. God leaves nothing to chance.
2. God is omnipotent
3. God wills the salvation of all.
4. Therefore if he willed the salvation of all, then the salvation of all would occur.

There would be no "chance" of anything else. Therefore all talk of freewill in the libertarian sense would be "mere sound signifying nothing". Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.(Theopedia an Encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity, Emphasis mine.)

What is commonly believed about human nature is that we have "freewill" in the definition given above. Many are unaware and have never really thought about how to define that facet of human nature. Many may not be aware that theologians and philosophers have struggled to define the scope of this extraordinary condition of human nature for centuries.
And yet at the same time it is assumed at grassroots level almost universally. Augustine once said: "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asks, I know not." Freewill is a bit like that, easy to assume its existence- not so easy to define its limits (if any) with reference to God.

Even a cursory glance at the Scriptures affirms the existence of "will" in both God and humankind. Significant (to me at least) is the almost universal absence of the combined phrase "freewill" in the Bible. Where this term is used in the Old Testament it is (judging by its context) used to signify a special type of offering to God. A "freewill" offering is not the customary and obligatory "tithing" sort of offering, but is spontaneous and entirely voluntary, in the sense of free from the constraint of a command from God, free from direct moral imperative. You might even say that this offering is, by virtue of its spontaneity and that it isn't obligatory, a gift or favour given to God by a loving subject. But is that really possible in an absolute sense? One may think of all other types of offering as necessary for sins, necessary for the maintenance of the temple and so on, but not this one. 

But is it really true to think that we can do God a favour or, in a real sense give him a gift?

Consider this scripture:  “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?”  For from him and through him and to him are all things.To him be the glory forever! Amen.(Romans 11:35-36)

Who has ever given to God that He should feel obligation... That's an all-encompassing statement isn't it? In fact that is as universal as the following one: For from him and through him...are all things...

It is evident that when everything good you have, and everything good you are or do, is given by God- it is impossible to give something which would make him obligated to you. Nevertheless God is pleased with us about certain things: 

If it is universally true that we can give nothing good that didn't originally come from God, we can say that it is a rule, a law. Let's call it the "Law of Dependence".

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.(Hebrews 11:6) 

Since it's impossible to please God without faith it follows that "faith" is what pleases him, and that is evidently so from the preceding verse: By faith Enoch was translated ...for ...  he pleased God.(Hebrews 11:5 abridged)  

Now let's test this law with regard to faith. Let's test our "Law of Dependence" What does this law state?
No good we give or do, or any good state of existence is absolutely independent of God- The "Law of Dependence" 

Where then is the evidence for the truth of this "law" with regard to "faith"? Where are the scriptures which (provided they are understood correctly) cannot be broken? Where does it say or imply that our "faith" is dependent on God?

(John 6:29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

(1 Peter 1:21) Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

(Ephesians 2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (Ephesians 2:9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

(Ephesians 1:6) To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Here the gift of faith is implied in the grace by which he has made us accepted in the beloved.

Now if our faith is dependent on God, and faith is expressed when we choose Christ by the exercise of our will, how can it be said our will is free in the sense of "libertarian freewill"?

Now if you can think of any good thing that you enjoy (either material or immaterial) can you not see that you depend on it coming from God's good hand? How then, in an ultimate sense, do offerings that we are under obligation to give differ at all from freewill offerings? The difference is in our perception, we owe God everything because we are dependent on him for everything. With this in mind, how then is it possible to think of ourselves as entirely or absolutely independent from God? How then can "freewill" (in the sense it is used commonly) exist at all? The definition of "libertarian freewill" as understood and taught by Christians like Doctor Randal Rauser is that our will is totally independent particularly where salvation is concerned. Such that God may offer salvation but he cannot cause us to irresistibly accept the offer.Yet humanity is dependent on God under the universal "law of dependence" how then is it totally free? It is understandable that an atheist would try to prove this independence because our "law" is only validated by scripture, but ought Christians to follow the world in their appraisal of human nature?

(For a more complete discussion on the difference between offering eternal life and giving eternal life go here

Certain consequences must necessarily follow from believing that human will is independent of God in the sense of libertarian freewill. God is no longer the totality in whom we live and move and have our being something else must exist if we do not abide totally dependent on him for everything. He is no longer the ground of everything that we are or do. What is this usurper that makes room for our freewill in the face of our total "dependence" on God?  For humanity to have this independence of choice we must have a will which makes choices possible that is obvious, that is the faculty of will, the potential to make decisions. But is this will entirely and absolutely independent of God?

 If one who is declared "dead in trespasses and sins" is able to choose life over death independently of God then why do people bother to pray for her salvation? Every effort by Christians, should- by virtue of this "reality"- be directed straight to the person since that person is (on this basis) absolute in her determinate will. Prayer is a complete waste of time for the consistent Arminian, because on their view, God has already done all that is possible for the sinner. Every time a person, (who believes the human will is ultimate) prays for one to be saved they deny their own theology and affirm the truth of limitation in the human will.

The "environment" then which lies outside of both God and mankind is this thing, this entity called "chance"

 Chance is the necessary corollary of libertarian freewill. (Just as water is the necessary corollary of swimming fish) As I understand it “chance” (according to libertarian freewill) is an environment for want of a better word in which neither God nor man has control. Therefore for the libertarian "freewill" -chance is the entity outside of God where all possibilities exist. This is in contradistinction to what a Christian ought to believe who believes God is the ground of all existence both material and abstract. For the Christian she sees all possibilities only as they relate to God, not outside of God.When Christ said "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." He was looking to God and within God for the possibility. When the libertarian chooses Christ she imagines she chooses between the alternatives of atheism and faith irrespective of God and  her own nature because she is free in this absolute sense. She therefore looks to the realm of possibility and chance.

What that means is- in order for people to have freewill in the libertarian sense, (which entails that when a person makes a decision not to follow Christ for instance there is no guarantee that God or any one else can change that persons mind), in that sense her will is ultimate, sacrosanct, untouchable. It therefore means that the environment of “chance” is something outside of and beyond God’s control and hence in at least that sense greater than God.

Randal Rauser made mention (in the context of this discussion): “he”(God) “will bring the entire state of current affairs — everything in heaven and on earth — to reconcilation in Christ (Col. 1:20). And you think that means that we’re in the pole position?”

Right there is his reference to a promise from God but it seems to me in the interest of consistency our theology has to also regard and be consistent with how God works this out into concrete reality, So we have the end, what about the means to that end? According to Randall’s libertarian theology positing freewill within a universe of chance (to which God also is subject) leaves God’s promises no better than a person writing cheques knowing that there is not enough in the bank, and thereby putting libertarian mankind in “pole position” with regard to salvation.

This is in contradiction to what (I believe) the scripture teaches. The illustration below is the universe according to the consistent Christian worldview (1) in contrast to that which is influenced by the philosophy of the world in her Christianity (2). In effect he or she has simply tacked on Christian beliefs to an overarching worldview (libertarian ism) and is not consistent with a true Christian worldview. In one all possibility is encompassed within the nature of God. To the other because possibility is independent (outside) of God and man it encompasses both and heretically becomes greater than God.