Putting my finger on something
I am close to putting my finger on something. Here's my problem. I think that libertarian free-will has problems with the effects of original sin. Wesley's doctrine of prevenient grace helps make sense of our perception of freedom, while taking seriously original sin. Wesley says that one's freedom is restored in certain moments of hearing the gospel so that one may respond to the message at these times. But this person is not untethered and in complete control of their will all the time. Still, the emphasis on "choice" and "response" seems to be the true sentiment of many Wesleyans--they were free to make the choice even at the time they decided. This takes seriously neither original sin nor God's role in the initial moment of faith.
However, if repentance is prior to belief, then I think compatibilist freedom becomes incoherent vis-a-vis repentance. This is because repentance requires *agency* and I do not know what sense it makes to say that a person "repents" if they could not have willed otherwise. In a compatibilist framework, it could be said that a compatibilistically free person is the object of repentance, but not the subject (they were 'turned' but did not 'turn').
Here's my problem (as it will become clear): The best vision of freedom is eschatological. In having a conversation with some friends about people who have been harmed and have a subsequently skewed vision of God, I said that anyone who ultimately rejects God does so with "eyes wide open." In other words, the person who rejects God cannot do so out of misunderstanding who He is and what He is like.
The vision Scripture gives of justice is the communal worship of God. This is not a cosmic balancing of scales, but mutual and free worship--the saving relationship. Such worship is "communicative"--it involves give and take relationships between people and between God and people. It seems to me that the quasi-Wesleyan view of brute freedom (completely individual; my decision; my choice) and the incoherent compatibilist view find their weakness here: The freedom is not completely individual, nor is it God working through secondary agents. It is mutual participation in community; mutually free individuals eternally conditioned by the prior free acts of others (the free acts of whom are eternally conditioned, as well, and so on). This is neither libertarian nor compatibilist because free acts are not self-caused, nor are they simply the follow through of always and only doing what you want (as any meaningful relationship testifies to).
In thinking about this freedom in terms of the eschatological rejection of God, I realized something. If God is consistently wooing persons to Himself, then his influence is to the good. The ultimate rejection of God, then, must be contrary to His loving will. If freedom means 'unhindered,' and completely individualized without outside factors, then the decision to reject God is the *only* truly free act. Alternatively, it can be said that entering into covenant with God is far from a free act--because of the wooing and drawing of his Spirit (and, hopefully, loving relationships with the church).
Thoughts?
However, if repentance is prior to belief, then I think compatibilist freedom becomes incoherent vis-a-vis repentance. This is because repentance requires *agency* and I do not know what sense it makes to say that a person "repents" if they could not have willed otherwise. In a compatibilist framework, it could be said that a compatibilistically free person is the object of repentance, but not the subject (they were 'turned' but did not 'turn').
Here's my problem (as it will become clear): The best vision of freedom is eschatological. In having a conversation with some friends about people who have been harmed and have a subsequently skewed vision of God, I said that anyone who ultimately rejects God does so with "eyes wide open." In other words, the person who rejects God cannot do so out of misunderstanding who He is and what He is like.
The vision Scripture gives of justice is the communal worship of God. This is not a cosmic balancing of scales, but mutual and free worship--the saving relationship. Such worship is "communicative"--it involves give and take relationships between people and between God and people. It seems to me that the quasi-Wesleyan view of brute freedom (completely individual; my decision; my choice) and the incoherent compatibilist view find their weakness here: The freedom is not completely individual, nor is it God working through secondary agents. It is mutual participation in community; mutually free individuals eternally conditioned by the prior free acts of others (the free acts of whom are eternally conditioned, as well, and so on). This is neither libertarian nor compatibilist because free acts are not self-caused, nor are they simply the follow through of always and only doing what you want (as any meaningful relationship testifies to).
In thinking about this freedom in terms of the eschatological rejection of God, I realized something. If God is consistently wooing persons to Himself, then his influence is to the good. The ultimate rejection of God, then, must be contrary to His loving will. If freedom means 'unhindered,' and completely individualized without outside factors, then the decision to reject God is the *only* truly free act. Alternatively, it can be said that entering into covenant with God is far from a free act--because of the wooing and drawing of his Spirit (and, hopefully, loving relationships with the church).
Thoughts?
posted by Aaron Perry at
11:21 AM
9 Comments:
i got a little bogged down in the theological jargon (i'm not much of a theology student-in that i'm not very widely read and don't know all the big words), but i liked your conclusion. i think it helps bring balance to the both/and of our ability to choose and the reality of how easily things affect our ability to choose (as in how a skewed view of God affects our choice to follow or not, thus affecting our ability to choose).
i find myself often thinking of original sin, or the sin nature, as an inclination toward selfishness. as in, my first response is always to do the thing that will bring me the greatest benefit or reward. there may be factors that help me choose differently (such as love for a person), but the easiest and most natural thing is always centered on my own well being and pleasure.
i liked the model you touched on of freedom being eschatalogical (i'm guessing this word is referring to the issue of ultimate redemption?) and relational. it made sense to me.
so, you're saying that rejection of God is the only free act because it is the only decision that comes completely from the self?
is there not a place for some sort of sympathy for negative events/misperceptions that may have *helped to* induce or influence the person into making that rejection choice?
have you read seamand's book about healing for damaged emotions? (which in turn strongly influences a person's ability to see 'reality of God'/logical choice) thus, taking into account the (sometimes) strong influence of infirmities over our ability to choose "purely."
and how does prevenient grace restore freedom at certain moments? (it is the HOW that concerns me) does that "grace from God" squelch our human-ness? (even for a moment?) because if God has to "push aside/down" any part of our self so that we will choose to come to him---if we do not come to God with all of ourselves---in our fully damaged state--during the exact moment of choice---is he not then surpressing us--even if he is supressing our infirmities caused by original sin? and if he is supressing us--any part of us, even the sin part, then is that coersion? and if it is coersive, then can it still be called "God not forcing himself upon anyone"?
so, a person 'cannot misunderstand who God is' when he is making the choice of rejection. that sort of absolute statement makes me uncomfortable. for, who are we to know whether or not anothers experience is or is not a misunderstanding?
them's my half-baked thoughts.
hey brando.. glad you're back. eschatological referring to ultimate redemption: yes.
jo... a few things:
1. the choice to refuse God with eyes wide open is the only choice that can completely from the self and is the only free (if by free you mean unhindered) choice. yes. but this is an eschatological decision. the state being eschatological and the choice being with 'eyes wide open' should address your concerns about sympathy and references to seamands.
2. how does prevenient grace work? your reference to "pushing down" sin, i think, is incorrect. i think it is more accurate to say it "raises us up." this does not destroy humanness, but sustains and recreates it. only in relationship does humanity find itself. it almost feels you're emphasizing the rugged individuality of personness (which i expect you don't like).
3. is God drawing us to himself coercive? in a sense, yes. we would never have decided to follow him without his drawing and enabling. in a sense, no. in the moment he enables us, there is still the agency of the individual.
4. if a person can misunderstand God in their ultimate eschatological rejection, then a mistake can determine one's covenant relationship with God. seems rather unGodlike to me.
I'm not gonna claim to completely understand everything that has been said. I'm still trying to figure out who keeps stealing my socks out of the dryer.
Perhaps the greatest thing I've ever drawn out of Bonhoeffer's Ethic is his "idea" that orginal sin broke us away from our true selves.
In my mind it would make sense that if we are not born our true selves, then we are not free to act as we would truly desire because sin has separated us from our selves.
If I understand him correctly, Bonhoeffer states, our conscious, is actually our spirits longing to be reunited to self.
With this in mind, I make the logical jump that if we are not free to be self, and our spirit longs to be reunited, then prevenient grace would be opportunities where the slavery of sin is removed for us to make a choice our true self desires. Salvation being the time our true self ceases the opportunity.
How far off am I?!
i must have blinked over the sentence stating eschatological freedom. it makes a lot more sense now. ;)
about previenient grace: ok, yes.
hey dancin',
i haven't read Bonhoeffer's _Ethics_ and i think it unwise to comment on something you haven't read...though i do it often enough ;)
still, it strikes me that there is some truth to it. i think that putting it in terms of community helps, as well. i wonder if someone were born into and raised in a perfect community (say, e.g., that there is procreation in God's Eschatological Kingdom), would that child suffer any effects of original sin? i'm not sure they would. i can put this in your language by saying that we are only our true selves when in perfect relations to others.
Last week I spoke on Relationship and how sin destroyed our relationship with God, each other, and our selves.
This is to say I agree with your community comment.
I'm definitely not academic or theologically smart enough to get even 70% of what you're saying. BUT, what you say about rejecting God being the only true act of free will and that we reject him weith eyes wide open...thats...very very interesting. and strikes a chord in me...a good one. (I'm a feeler, ya know ;)) the only thing is ...that I've tried to reject God before as you know...and well..obviously it didn't work. Umm...I have never felt like I have free will to reject Him..I have tried, but its like hell on earth...cause I have knowledge of God. And no matter how many times I told God to leave me alone ...so I could live in sin and not feel pursued it never happened. I'm sure you have an answer to this.. ;)...
Excellent thoughts AP...
hey rach,
part of the issue is final and ultimate rejection. part of the reason for your hell-on-earth experience is his faithfulness in spite of our faithlessness. in fact, i think it could influence our thinking on what hell truly is: the infinite and final rejection of a God who refuses to be absent.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home