This vexed problem has been the subject of much debate (and division) over many centuries throughout Christendom and in the hallowed halls of philosophy. The view that I propose here is historic Christianity. Augustine made reference to it in the third century A.D. and it is the hallmark of the birth of Protestantism and the Reformation. (In fact this view as far as orthodoxy is concerned has an impeccable history.)
In Martin Luther's Magnum Opus- "The Bondage of the Will " which is Luther's response to Erasmus of Rotterdam, Luther conceded that Erasmus was at least correct in identifying the principal point of difference between Roman Catholic theology and the Reformation (read protestant) manifesto.
What follows is by way of an analogy that I hope will make clear this relationship between freewill and God's sovereignty.
On the table is a glass. A glass of water. What can we say about this glass? It is a stationary glass, it isn't moving. Not rocket science is it? In fact what we can say about this glass, (in terms of motion) is that it is absolutely motionless. (Note I am not talking here in terms of the glass molecules or quantum mechanics)
The astounding thing is that an astrophysicist can come on the scene and argue that this same glass is right now in fact moving in at least four different ways at once! (Now I'm not going to be a stickler for exactly how many different ways, but nevertheless any movement at all would obviously seem to upset our absolute truth claim that it is stationary.) And when we ask her to explain- this is what she will say:
Astrophysicist:
"The glass is, in relationship to the pivot points of the earth- the poles, moving at a staggering speed of 1609 kilometers per hour (or 1000 miles per hour)" She then went on to qualify this further, by saying, "To keep it simple I assumed this glass was sitting on a table somewhere on the equator, where the surface speed in relation to the pole is at its greatest. If you were to hang above the surface of the Earth at the equator without moving, you would see 25,000 miles pass by in 24 hours, at a speed of 25000/24 or just over 1000 miles per hour."
Me:
"...Ohhhhkaaaay I can understand that, still not rocket science but definitely getting up there (pardon pun)...please continue..."
Astrophysicist:
" Well, the Earth is also moving around the Sun at about 107,826 k.p.h or 67,000 miles per hour. We are also moving with the Sun around the center of our galaxy and moving with our galaxy as well as it drifts through intergalactic space! So, there are at least four different directions it is moving and who knows how many more?
- Movement in relation to the table-none
- Movement in relation to the poles- 1609 k.p.h
- Movement in relation to the sun- 107,826 k.p.h
- Movement in relation to the solar system- ?
- Movement in relation to the galaxy-?
But that is not the same thing as saying what is an obvious contradiction in terms. The shattering truth is, each new direction as we move out of the kitchen, out off the surface of the earth into our solar system and our galaxy and so on- does not contradict the fact that an object (the glass) if it is to keep its property of being one object cannot even move in two different directions let alone four or more! Imagine- if you were able to step out of this universe onto a point that was absolutely fixed, it is possible that you could plot or represent mathematically the exact single complex way that glass was moving in relation to that absolutely fixed and immovable point. The importance of this observation is not to be understated."
(From Ask An Astrophysicist)
At this point what the astrophysicist is saying is that it is not possible for the glass to remain what we know as a glass if it was really moving in different directions at once. It would have to smash into various pieces in order to be going in different directions at the same time. But here we are expressing the different directions with regard to the various vantage points from which the observer occupies. So to one observer the glass is indeed stationary, to another it is whizzing by at a thousand miles an hour, to another- 67 thousand miles an hour depending on each ones perspective and none of these are wrong viewpoints but neither are any of them true in any absolute, total sense. But from an absolute standpoint there is an absolute position from which an observer could see the sum total of all the different effects of these movements referred to on that glass. This all encompassing totality of movement could only be observed by an observer if he himself were stationary in an absolute sense and from which vantage point all movement could be evaluated in an absolute sense.
In philosophical terms this is known as the ontic referrent. In theological terms we see God as the absolute ontic referrent with regard to all things. This is in contradistinction to- for instance- the atheist who believes man is the measure of all things.
At this point what the astrophysicist is saying is that it is not possible for the glass to remain what we know as a glass if it was really moving in different directions at once. It would have to smash into various pieces in order to be going in different directions at the same time. But here we are expressing the different directions with regard to the various vantage points from which the observer occupies. So to one observer the glass is indeed stationary, to another it is whizzing by at a thousand miles an hour, to another- 67 thousand miles an hour depending on each ones perspective and none of these are wrong viewpoints but neither are any of them true in any absolute, total sense. But from an absolute standpoint there is an absolute position from which an observer could see the sum total of all the different effects of these movements referred to on that glass. This all encompassing totality of movement could only be observed by an observer if he himself were stationary in an absolute sense and from which vantage point all movement could be evaluated in an absolute sense.
The absolute reference point.
In philosophical terms this is known as the ontic referrent. In theological terms we see God as the absolute ontic referrent with regard to all things. This is in contradistinction to- for instance- the atheist who believes man is the measure of all things.
"An ontic (real, vs. phenomenal) referent, is an actual reference point one uses as a standard with which to evaluate data." (From "Apologetics Workshop")
Me:
"In summary then, while it appears one thing, (stationary) it is actually moving at astronomical speeds. Completely the opposite of what it appears."
Astrophysicist:
"Well, it is not merely by appearance that the glass is stationary, like some sort of optical illusion. It is in reference to the table- or an observer in that room- actually not moving, there is objective reality attached to that statement but it is all relative to the terms of reference. To say 'the glass is stationary' is not an empty term, but neither is it an absolute. This might go along the same lines as one who said 'The sun rises at 6:15 am' when we all know in reality the sun does not rise at all, but rather it is the movement of the earth which gives rise to the appearance of the sun rising. But the reality is whether the sun rises or the earth moves to give the impression of it rising- one way or the other- the sun appears at that time. But we still refer to it in these terms of the sun rising as somewhat of a compromise to accommodate the minds of those who have no training in the cyclical movement of celestial bodies or who are too young to appreciate the nuances of these things."
Me:
"Hmmm...well in light of what you have just taught me does that mean I have to retract my statement, I mean is it not absolutely true that the glass is stationary, or may I still say: 'It is absolutely true?' "
Astrophysicist:
"To make a truth claim about the glass that better reflects reality, one ought to re-express the data. This is not just nit-picking, after all- your first attempt at expressing the movement (or lack thereof) of the glass was accurate enough at a certain level, - if you were simply thirsty. But if your glass was in fact a rocket sitting on the launchpad waiting to be fired into the cosmos to find new life in a distant galaxy you had better take these other things into consideration. You could say: 'It is absolutely true that in relation to the table, the room it is in, the house it is in and the garden in which the house sits- the glass is stationary. Then the whole statement is qualified. The problem with that is, it is a problem of human nature to read something different into what was intended. People will read that but interpret it as meaning 'it is absolutely true' full stop and then they haven't got the right idea at all. It is better to take away any sense of absolute, and just say it is 'true' rather than- absolutely true. People will still take that as more than what was intended but at least it gives room for discussion.
Now, barring seismic movement or even the passing of a large truck, this holds true and the important thing to notice is: this is objectively true within the terms of reference, that is within the frame of this photo, within the spacio-temporal parameter that the photo suggests. So it's still true but only in a qualified sense. If you use the word absolutely in an unqualified sense then that would not only be misleading but demonstrably untrue as I hope I have shown. When the word "absolutely" is used in an unqualified sense then this has to mean in all places and for all time, from any perspective- without exception- period.
Suppose your mother leaned out of the kitchen window and said: 'Ok you can all come for supper, its ready now' imagine the pandemonium if this invitation reverberated completely around the world and people came from everywhere for supper! So you can appreciate that "all" is sometimes used in an absolute sense but not "all" the time. It has to be within context. We have to be careful with absolutes."
Me:
"...Ohhhhkaaaay, that's got me thinking...you know up till now I have been pretty much a black and white sort of person. I mean to me, something is either true or not true and there's no more to be said. Now I'm not so sure...For instance I've been in conversations where someone would make a truth claim like: 'I believe in God' and another would say, 'Well I'm happy for you, that you have a faith to cling to, as for me I am an agnostic" It seems to me now, that I could accept both statements as true because for one- God was real, that was their truth, and for the other- the reality is- that you could not know one way or the other, for them that was their truth. I can step beyond both of their realities and know that they could both be true and therefore correct in their thinking."
Astrophysicist:
"Wait a minute, lets just back up a bit here. There are some important differences. Up until lately I might have agreed with you on that score but I recently attended a course on epistemology which is all about how we come to know what we know. The theory of knowledge. Firstly you have shifted the subject (the glass) from physics to metaphysics (that which is beyond the physical or transcends the physical)". And second..."
Me:
"So are you are you saying we have a different set of rules now?"
Astrophysicist:
"No, in some respects it is all the same search, it is the search for truth just in different realms. So as I was saying the first difference is, we are now talking metaphysics and secondly- you are confusing the difference between relative truth and relativism. But really to do justice to this subject I think we should meet again"
Me:
"Ok"
Now how does this imagined conversation relate to the subject at hand? I hope that at least some, if not all, are getting an insight into the analogy with regard to human free will. In very simple terms a will is the faculty of choosing and the Bible makes it quite clear that this faculty is part of human nature. In fact there is no explicit doctrine teaching it as such, it is simply assumed as a given. In this the scriptures are in agreement with what we learn by experience. Just as we assume the stationary glass at first blush. We also learn from the narratives in the Bible that God has a will, in fact it is by virtue of God's will that we have a will- being made in His image. But remember an image does not have the same reality as that which it represents. This ability to will could be said to be a distinguishing mark of personality.
The real problem arises when we attempt to ascribe to humanity this sense of absolutely freewill that many imagine when they hear the term "freewill". Even though "absolutely" may not be the word used, it is for most of evangelical Christianity the idea that is conveyed and believed when "free" will is referred to. Perhaps in secular thought the notion of absolute free will reaches it's zenith in existential philosophy and its polar extreme- that of complete and utter determinism- in strict materialism. And in many, some will believe in both- absolute freedom while clinging to a sense of determinism. What symptoms of ambivalence will that set up!
When free-will is understood in an unqualified sense then this has to mean in all places and for all time, from any perspective- without exception- period. To think of human freedom in this way is to make human freedom absolute. It is to elevate it to the level of God's freedom. And it follows from that, that if we "perfectly free" beings are to co-exist with the perfect freedom of God then there must be an environment big enough for both God and Humanity, which then, is greater than God! To see what this means in greater detail see the post: Implications of Free Will on the Doctrine of Chance
When free-will is understood in an unqualified sense then this has to mean in all places and for all time, from any perspective- without exception- period. To think of human freedom in this way is to make human freedom absolute. It is to elevate it to the level of God's freedom. And it follows from that, that if we "perfectly free" beings are to co-exist with the perfect freedom of God then there must be an environment big enough for both God and Humanity, which then, is greater than God! To see what this means in greater detail see the post: Implications of Free Will on the Doctrine of Chance
Libertarian free will is the philosophical term given to human autonomy when used in the sense of absolute freedom. If this doctrine were true how then could God, through Jesus, dare to promise what he could not deliver? For instance:
"As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him." John 17:2If we were absolutely free in the sense that many portray then it would necessarily make this promise null and void. It would be in direct contradiction of this as well:
"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:" Ephesians 1:11If we were free in the sense given below, how could God predetermine anything let alone claim to work all things after the counsel of his own will?
Libertarian freewill:
"means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God." (From Theopedia, an Encyclopedia of Christianity)
It is quite obvious to anyone giving a little thought to the matter that our "freedom" even in a physical sense cannot be absolute. Did you choose your parents? No. Your place and time of birth? No. Can a person, by choosing or "by taking thought ... add one cubit unto his stature?" No. Think of the freedom of God, does he require space in which to exist? No. Does he only exist in the dimension of time? No. Does he need air to breathe, food to eat, a bed to sleep on? No. If all of this is true in the strictly physical realm what of spiritual realities? This is especially true where it concerns spiritual truth. Can a dead person raise himself from death? No. Is it not true that mankind in his natural state is actually "dead in trespasses and sins"? Is that merely metaphor to be waved aside, or are we really spiritually dead to God? When Jesus called Lazarus from the tomb was this not a picture of what God has done for us in Christ that we could not do for ourselves?
If we take as true that God is greater than all in an absolute sense, and the scriptures affirm this, then it must necessarily follow that anything posing as greater than God is a usurper, an imposter. To speak of human will in terms of libertarian freewill means that we have to create an "environment", a state of affairs which is beyond the influence of God (and therefore greater) in order that we can thereby keep intact this idea of total independence of the will. This "space" we invented is called "chance".
It is not merely that God is now subject to the realm of "possibility" which poses itself as greater or outside of God's influence that is wrongheaded- but to put human freedom and autonomy on a level with God's freedom is to reduce God to the level of his created order. To think of human will in terms of "If I will not, then God cannot" is to subjugate God. All of a sudden the Lion of Judah is a domesticated cat! On appearance then, what may have started off as "splitting hairs" with how we understand human will becomes momentous and a paradigm shift of major proportions as to how we understand God and the implications are far reaching.
The very real and frightening consequences of thinking of human will in these terms that I have been speaking of is... well I think that will be another post. Suffice it to say that there is a tension between the sovereign will of God and the will of created beings. Well you may ask-where does the created will end and the perfect will begin? I like this: We are not so free that we can ever be beyond the reach of God, for:
Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: Isaiah 59:1and by the same token we are not so determined that our freedom is not real or that we are not responsible for our actions, for:
the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Ezekiel 18:4
Well known philosopher Iris Murdoch knew what she was talking about when she recognized in Kant's work a familiar theme regarding human nature. In fact as Ravi Zacharias has said the idea of mankind being free to determine his own reality goes back to the garden of Eden. Immanual Kant more than any other philosopher gave a "legitimate" framework to the idea of absolute human will, it was largely through his work that mankind was able to justify to himself absolute autonomy. He became self-consciously free in an absolute sense. And this attitude is now prevalent throughout all strata of Western civilization. Prior to this, human freedom was more or less assumed without conscious effort or justification.
From a truly biblical perspective human willingness is true, but only in a relative sense that we have a freewill, it is always placed within the parenthesis of the Will of God. In the wider framework of God's will whether we appear stationary or moving, or whether we appear totally free or not- can only be truly measured in the light of an absolute God and what He says about it.
Albert Einstein said this: 'New frameworks are like climbing a mountain - the larger view encompasses rather than rejects the more restricted view.'
When judged by appearances humanity seems to have an absolutely freewill, but in the light of God's Word we should see that our freedom to will is a derived rather than an absolute freedom, a freedom circumscribed by the perfect will of God. How then should we express this true (but not true in an absolute sense) phenomenon of human personality? Every thing about it is awkward! I believe the best way to express it is to take a cue from the scriptures themselves. You will notice "freewill" is a common expression- whether we are talking theology amongst other believers or in a totally secular conversation people almost always refer to it as 'freewill'. By constant repetition it is impressed in our hearts the idea that it is totally and absolutely free in the libertarian sense. No, the scriptures are much more accurate- in more than (I will hazard a guess) 99% of cases the scriptures simply refer to it as "will" and I am firmly convinced- so should we.
For it is God which works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Philippians 2:13
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; ...Acts 17:28
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. John 8:36
As a footnote to the above post about a year ago there was a lively debate on Associate Professor of Historical Theology- Randal Rauser's Blog in which he and I with various other pundits debated the cons and pros of the Calvinist stance on salvation. Concurrently this was also debated on Matt and Madeleine Flannagan's Blog. (Matt and Madeleine's Blog I think has had over 400,000 individual hits and is one of the most popular Christian/Philosophical blogs not only in New Zealand but internationally. Here is their Bio:
Matthew Flannagan
PhD – Analytic Theology (Thesis: Ethics)
MSocSci(Hons) – Philosophy of Religion (Thesis: Religious Epistemology)
BSocSci – Philosophy
DipTchg Sec – Religious Studies, Ethics, Philosophy, Critical Thinking
Madeleine Flannagan
LLB – Law
Masters Student – Legal Philosophy (Thesis: Religion in Public Life/Free Exercise)
In both of these blogs I attempted to distill an argument which equitably represented the "guts" of both viewpoints. I post it here also for the readers information. I have so far (and to the best of my knowledge) received no comment on this distillation . To be fair it came pretty much at the end of prolonged discussions and much impetus may have been lost by this stage. (flogging dead horses et al) But for what it's worth I repeat it here with some minor edits:
As a footnote to the above post about a year ago there was a lively debate on Associate Professor of Historical Theology- Randal Rauser's Blog in which he and I with various other pundits debated the cons and pros of the Calvinist stance on salvation. Concurrently this was also debated on Matt and Madeleine Flannagan's Blog. (Matt and Madeleine's Blog I think has had over 400,000 individual hits and is one of the most popular Christian/Philosophical blogs not only in New Zealand but internationally. Here is their Bio:
Matthew Flannagan
PhD – Analytic Theology (Thesis: Ethics)
MSocSci(Hons) – Philosophy of Religion (Thesis: Religious Epistemology)
BSocSci – Philosophy
DipTchg Sec – Religious Studies, Ethics, Philosophy, Critical Thinking
Madeleine Flannagan
LLB – Law
Masters Student – Legal Philosophy (Thesis: Religion in Public Life/Free Exercise)
In both of these blogs I attempted to distill an argument which equitably represented the "guts" of both viewpoints. I post it here also for the readers information. I have so far (and to the best of my knowledge) received no comment on this distillation . To be fair it came pretty much at the end of prolonged discussions and much impetus may have been lost by this stage. (flogging dead horses et al) But for what it's worth I repeat it here with some minor edits:
We are made in his image, the same realities that exist in God are evident in humankind but not to the same degree. Just as the word "image" suggests, an image has reality- but not the identical reality that it re-presents.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand” (there is no ambivalence in God) therefore in a perfect nature one facet of that nature cannot militate against another. His omnibenevolence (God is maximally loving) is in harmony with his omnipotence (God is maximally powerful).
This is how it is for the Arminian:
God is omnibenevolent by nature.
The laws of his own nature preclude God from choosing anything that would violate that nature.
Therefore “he would elect (choose) all in Christ such that none would be reprobate.”
Now let’s see how it is for the Calvinist:
God is omnipotent by nature.
The laws of his own nature preclude God from choosing anything that would violate that nature.
Therefore he would elect to create a being that could not violate his nature. Libertarian freewill does not exist.
If we concede a limitation in the nature of God with respect to power (so that men are able to refuse God) then it legitimately follows that:
we may concede a limitation in the nature of God with respect to love (so that God is able to refuse men)
If there are good grounds (like sin) to refuse men then God need not save all.
Mankind has a will – being made in the image of God we concede God has a will.
Man’s nature is imperfect- he is a creature subject to space and time with finite knowledge and limited power, therefore his will is imperfect (not to mention the fall)
God’s nature is perfect- he is not subject to his own nature in the same way we are because he is the ground of those perfections therefore his will his power and love is perfect.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation,
nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
- Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi
