If so, why? What does truth have to fear from an open dialogue within a loving community of people who, by the way, love Jesus as much as you do?

Perplexed,

qb

The majority of the elders of the captivity came to Ezekiel and said, “peace, peace.”

And the full weight of the Church at the time told Galileo that he and Copernicus were full of the devil.

Wilberforce stood squarely behind his contention that ALL men are created equal before God, much to the chagrin of the entrenched ecclesium.

*****

It’s at least *possible* that today’s heresy is tomorrow’s orthodoxy, if we are sober-minded and wise. Labeling something as heresy is a far cry from subjecting its claims to thoughtful critique and reason. The former is ideological snobbery at best; the latter is the substance of true discipleship, as in, come, let us reason together.

To borrow from Bercot, will the real heretics please stand up?

qb

Uh oh.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2001OpenTheism.htm

This medium ain’t perfect, but short of a Skype conference call every mornin’, it’s all we got.

Peace up from A-town,

qb

It does teach us of our frailty and our deep need to seek righteousness from God … both to will and to work according to His purpose.

Simplistically,

qb

I have always struggled with the notion of time. People tend to get wrapped up in whether God knows the future but that question assumes that God is bound by a dimension (time). However, we never assume that God is bound by any other dimension. Is it possible that time itself is merely a construct of creation. Something that points to this are the typical creation questions of what happened before God created Earth or what is going to happen after the rapture? These may seem somewhat unimportant, but if time is part of creation, then it makes no sense that God’s nature would be ruled by his creation.

In fact, I’ve decided in response to this exchange, that the most important dimension of the kingdom of God is free moral will.

(Smiling . . . and enjoying the exchange.)

I, too, believe that “moral luck” demands a central place in the discussion. It’s why Ecclesiastes is in my own personal inner canon. But Ecclesiastes — which is the voice that seems most aware of the unfairnesses — also sees the need for wise choices to be made.

I doubt that I hear you saying what I thought: that since the free will-determinism debate has raged for centuries and since there is no clear winner, we ought to drop the debate. Could it be that the discussion has gone on because it’s important?

My hunch is that the further you press into the bowels of the “losing side” of moral luck the more you’ll find people who are devoted to the idea of free will. Perhaps start with twelve-step meetings.

Mike said “It really does matter whether humans have free will or not.” It is clear that we have a will. We make choices all the time. From a theological stand point it seems that does not will well. Ever since the fall man has willed very poorly, even to the extant every single one of has repeatedly chooses unrighteousness over Godliness. I think this is the reason Jesus became a man, lived without sin and was crucified.

Scripture speaks of man being in bondage to sin. When he comes to faith in Christ he is set free from his bondage to sin to become a slave of Christ – at least people like Peter and Paul described themselves that way.

Scripture describes the natural man as being spiritually blind, deaf, dead and the enemy of God. Perhaps some hyperbole is involved here but the language is still pretty harsh. In Corinthians we are told the natural man cannot understand things of the spirit.

So even though man has a will and exercises it all the time, in what way is his will “free”? He makes choices consistent with his fallen nature i.e. poor/evil choices. As God has enabled me I have begun to make better choices, but I give him the credit for that. It is my desire then he would reign in my heart and control my will as I trust him and not myself. Is this what is meant by “free will”?

1. I think we can and should shelve the free will vs. determinism conversation. It hasn’t been solved in centuries and I don’t think it ever will. So I say let’s give it a pass.

2. On a related note, I don’t think a meaningful life is rooted in metaphysical free will. Immediately, meaning is related to caring, not volition. My life is meaningful if my projects are endeavors I find intrinsically rewarding. Ultimately, meaning comes from having those projects find culmination in the life of God. This is true regardless of human volitional capabilities. God, not volition, yields meaning.

3. Regardless of the status of a “free” will, I think it beyond dispute that moral luck is in play in human affairs. That is, we all begin life at different “starting places.” Some of us are raised in America, in the Church of Christ, and by loving parents. We lucky few have quite a head start on virtue and salvation. But some of us are born Catholic and are sexually abused by a priest. Some of us were born in Iraq and had our parents and baby sister killed by American soldiers. And on and on.

Now we add to this mix the fact that death is random. Some of us live long lives with plenty of time to contemplate our pains, poor choices, and the appeals of the gospel. Others die by accident and life ends prematurely.

Looking over all these lives I really don’t think the “free will versus determinism debate” is even relevant. The crucial issue is the role of fortune and luck in moral development, even if the human will were “free.”

In short, my sour attitude about free will isn’t because I love determinism or nihilism. No, I’m sour because “free will” glides too easily over the issue of moral luck. In the end, I’ll believe in free will (shoot, I’d believe in unicorns) if the theological system espousing free will directly and justly confronted the issue of moral luck. If the theological system skirts moral luck then I’m just not interested. And I get sour.

Why? Because few people lose their faith due to the determinism versus free will debate. But people do lose their faith over moral luck. They see the vast unfairness in life and can’t worship a God who has nothing to say about this. Nor will they attend churches that systematically ignore the issue. And an appeal to mystery and hope just won’t cut it.

So, in the end Mike, I don’t really give a hoot about free will. But I care deeply about moral luck and what God is doing, will do, or has done about it. That’s the root issue for me. And, to be honest, this is probably not Boyd’s issue. I’m piling my baggage onto his project. But for me, any book about the future’s “blueprint” (or lack thereof) had better deal with moral luck, without sweeping it under the carpet of free will.

If Boyd does that, he’s got my vote.
Richard

Regarding your 7:30 comment:
Again, point taken. Welcome to the free will problem! I’m not suggesting that I have answers. Far from it. Free will guts virtue and determinism guts meaning. So, yes, it’s a problem. But, again, this makes my point: Don’t go there. Don’t try to use such a snarly and speculative notion in positive theological projects.