If we think carefully about what we really mean by freedom, we have to admit that it can’t refer to absolute and arbitrary freedom. All of us, whether we realise it or not, have innumerable limitations placed upon our freedom. This is true of God as well. His nature defines the boundaries of what he can do. Now some people might think, ‘Wait a minute, isn’t God infinite and omnipotent? Can’t God do anything?’ No, he can’t. For example, there are some things that we can do that God can’t. We can lie â?? God can’t (Titus 1:2). We can die â?? God can’t. So there are some things that we can do that He can’t. However, the reason why God can’t do any of those things is that God cannot be less than perfect. Perfection means always telling the truth. God can’t be less then perfect, so He can’t lie. Perfection means always living. Since God can’t be less than perfect, He can’t die. This means that God is limited by His nature. He has no limits in being who He is as God, but He must always be God.1
Is not Jesus God, and did he not die? But perhaps you mean what some analytic philosophers mean when they say that there are no possible worlds in which God does not exist. God is a necessary being — the only necessary being. It is impossible, metaphysically, that He not exist. And yet our savior Jesus Christ truly died. How merciful is our God!
If God cannot lie, how can he be praiseworthy for never lie-ing? But perhaps you mean what we read in Titus — that is it not within Gods nature to lie; indeed, His Word is truth. God will never lie; His nature is true Truth. And you are quite correct to say that there are things God cannot do — but do we not find better examples in these: God cannot make a 5-sided square, or a 4-sided triangle; nor can He make rape morally good; nor can He make 2 + 2 = 7 (and I do not mean the tokens I used there, but the meaning behind them) â?? nor would He want to, it seems, for that matter â?? after all, this is His created world â?? squares have 4 sides, and 2 + 2 = 4.
Some people are very upset when a person says that God, in some sense, can lie; they take it as an attack on Godâ??s perfection, and specifically his omnibenevolence (and Calvinists often find a way to take it as an attack on His sovereignty). But this is to take it wrongly; for I (I will speak for myself) would never dare to even come close to suggesting that God is limited in perfection (no such thing as a limitation in perfection), in His omnibenevolence, or in His sovereignty. I simply mean to understand that, in a weak sense, it seems to me that God is â??capableâ? of lie-ing, given that He has a will â?? which is rooted in His nature (which is perfect) â?? upon which He acts truly â?? He truly acts (makes decisions, which are truly decisions). And this is not to say that there is ever anything even approaching a beginning of a spark of a danger that God might choose wrongly â?? of course â?? given that He is God, the Most High, the Holy of Holies, and the Righteous One.
Nevertheless, what makes His righteousness Righteousness is the very fact that it is always True â?? but true not to some simple divine-command theory of morality, but true to Truth itself. And here we venture into territory explored by Plato all that time ago â?? in asking the question of Euthyphroâ??s dilemma. Is good Good because God says it is, or is it Good for some other reason? And does God do good because it is good, or is it that whatever God does defines whatever is good? And here I urge anyone reading who is interested in these important matters (and especially the one who feels very strongly that he has the right answers to these questions) to read â??Does God Have a Nature?â? by Alvin Plantinga (a self-professed Calvinist).
Very interesting blog, friend. I am glad to have come across it.
Interesting thoughts. Chris, I enjoyed hearing your lecture on open theism. I found it from a different site though. It’s getting around.
I agree that God always acts in a manner consistent with His character. However, I think that it is dangerous to say that God’s actions are determined by His character as Ware implies. This means that ultimately even God’s actions are free. Everything He does is then out of necessity. That means that God couldn’t have acted otherwise. This does severe damage to God’s sovereignty. If God does not have libertarian free will, then because of His character He had to create His world. He had to show us grace. He had to send His Son. All of God’s decisions are no longer free.
In order for God to be sovereign, He must have libertarian free will. In response to Ware, I would say that God’s actions are always consistent with His character, but they are not determined by His character.
I’m sorry. I needed to proof my comment better. I meant to say in the second paragraph, “say that Godâ??s actions are determined by His character as Ware implies. This means that ultimately even Godâ??s actions are not free.” Sorry about the error.
First, it needs to be stated that I do not view your premise that God can lie as an attack on His sovereignty as much as an attack on His character. The problem is that your view that God can lie is not based on Scriptural backing but assumptions about His character. As in Titus, Pau is literally saying that God cannot lie.
Why Open Theism is dangerous is because the system attributes characteristics to God that He does not posesse. God does not repent (Numbers 23:19) and He does not change His mind (1 Samuel 15:29) to name a few. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that God cannot lie due to His nature?
Also, Daniel, to say that God’s actions are determined by His character is the prevailing theme of Scripture. Even if God does have LFW, that in no way “proves” that we have the same level of freedom. In fact, it should do something to show that we can never have LFW, because we cannot in this life attain the same degree of freedom He has.
Lastly this issue (God’s traits as a result of His character) does fall within communicable/in-communicable attributes. Further study needed by me (note to self).
Chris,
You wrote, “Godâ??s actions are determined by His character is the prevailing theme of Scripture.” If you’re using the word “determined” in a philosophical sense as it’s used in soft determinism, you’re going to have to demonstrate that from Scripture.
The whole doctrine of the sovereignty of God implies that God’s will is free in a libertarian sense. If we say that God is determined, then there are things that God must do. Based on His inner states, His decisions were necessary. He had to create this world. He had show us grace. He had to send His Son. But if grace is going to grace, God’s decisions couldn’t have been determined. Determinism undermines God’s sovereignty. God’s actions are always consistent with His character, but they are not determined by His character.
Chris, you didn’t really address any of the questions I asked — but I wasn’t asking them rhetorically. Maybe you’re just thinking about them.
As for my question as to whether or not God can lie, and my answer that in a weak sense He can — this is not an attack on His character; in fact, I spoke of Gods character as being perfect, and I explicitly stated that I know it is not within His nature to lie. You did read that right? :)
As for your statement that my thoughts are not from reading the scripture.. I want to encourage you to choose your words carefully when talking with people about these issues (especialy your brothers and sisters in Christ). If I take the best of the spirit of what you mean here, you ought to have said something like, “I do not find in scripture what you are suggesting; perhaps you can show me if you think you do see it in scripture.” That way you have not leveled a charge against me that I am shirking my responsibility and blessing of reading the scripture and receiving the truth He speaks, AND you will have accomplished what I think is important that you want to accomplish here: namely, searching for a biblical basis for my thoughts on this issue.
I agree with you that Open Theism is dangerous — and for the reason you cited. This is part of why I am not an Open Theist.
Ok then (didn’t mean to attack you).
Simon:
“I do not find in scripture what you are suggesting; perhaps you can show me if you think you do see it in scripture.”
Whether God had to make this world or not is not revealed to us. I don’t know if He had to create this world or not but I do believe God must be God. You will notice that Ware is wise and stays within Scripture. I think we should do likewise. If God has libertarian free will then explain why He cannot lie. It specifically says in Scripture He cannot lie. It doesn’t say that He could lie but He won’t. If God must be faithful to His promises and His name this does not undermine His sovereignty but it upholds His other attributes. If we say God can lie we are arguing with God, not people.
I disagree with Simon here on some stuff. I think that there are some things that God cannot do simply because He is God. He cannot lie for if He did so He would cease to be God. God cannot make me God, cause if He did so, then He would cease to be God. It’s the old theology 101 question, “Can God make a rock so big that He can’t move it?” Of course, not! This is what CS Lewis called an “intrinstic impossibility” in his book The Problem of Pain. Plantinga’s free will defense is built on this sort of reasoning.
I’m raising a different sort of objection to Ware’s article. As creatures, we can only make choices within the limitations of our nature. For instance, no matter how much I will, I cannot fly. This is simply because I do not have the ability to fly. Even if I should choose to fly, I can’t because this decision is inconsistent with my nature. However, I can make several LFW decisions that are consistent with my nature. To use the example from Ware’s article, I am free to choose between several different types of ice cream. That sort of decision is consistent with my nature and it can be free in a libertarian sense.
The same thing is true with God. God cannot do things that are inconsistent with His nature. He can’t lie. He can’t sin. He can’t make four-sided triangles, etc. However, God can make plenty of LFW choices that are consistent with His character. For instance, He can choose to show mercy. He can choose to create this world. He can choose to interact with His creatures. These choices are consistent with His character; however, they are not determined by His character. Otherwise, everything that God does is necessity and He could not have chosen otherwise. Determinism does severe damage to God’s sovereignty.
“As creatures, we can only make choices within the limitations of our nature”.….… “The same thing is true with God.”.….….… “However, God can make plenty of LFW choices that are consistent with His character.”
This is the exact same thing Ware is saying except that it is not called LFW. With what you have said you must admit that what God chooses to do MUST be consistent within His nature. These are not LFW choices because they are limited. They are perfect choices and can be no less. LFW requires no limitation at all.
Daniel:
â??I do not find in scripture what you are suggesting; perhaps you can show me if you think you do see it in scripture.â?
John made an interesting comment when he said, “LFW requires no limitation at all.” I disagree. If this is your definition of LFW, then I can see why you would disagree. What gave you this impression? Have you seen this definition of LFW somewhere? I would be interested in seeing it. I’m sure that this isn’t what LFWer Alvin Plantinga means by the term, since what I’m saying plays pretty well with His “free will” defense of the problem of evil. CS Lewis also believed in LFW and from his book The Problem of Pain, we can tell that he would disagree with your statement that “LFW requires no limitation at all.”
LFW does not mean that our choices are not limited some ways. I used the illustration of flying earlier. I cannot choose to fly because that’s not within my nature. However, I can make plenty of choices that are consistent with my nature. Determinism teaches that each of our choices were determined in such a way that things could not have happened in any other way. I disagree with this idea. This means that God could not have chosen otherwise. His decisions were necessary.
Chris, why do you think that God does not have LFW? By this term, I mean a will by that is consistent with His character, but not determined by character. What leads to you asking this question? I think that Romans 9 pretty well points to the LFW of God. He does not have to choose to have mercy on anyone. I believe that doctrine of God’s self-existence leads me to think that God did not have to create this world (Ex. 3:13). There wasn’t some hidden need in His being that made it a necessity that God created man.
Daniel: well said.
Chris: my reply regarding *where in scripture do I infer that God, in a weak sense, can lie* is getting too long to be a comment here. I will make it a post that I will post on thinkingdeeply.com and I will let you know when I have finished it.
Libertarian free will — Free will is affected by human nature but retains ability to choose contrary to our nature and desires
Compatibilist free will — Free will is affected by human nature but cannot choose contrary to our nature and desires
“By contrast, compatibilist free will holds that a person can choose only that which is consistent with his nature and that there are constraints and influences upon his ability to choose. In libertarian free will, a sinner is equally able to choose God or reject God regardless of his sinful condition. In compatibilist free will, a sinner can only choose to do that which is consistent with his sinful nature.”
God can only choose that which is consistent with His nature right? This is what I meant by limit. Libertarian free will does not have this limit.
http://www.carm.org/open/free_will.htm
Carm isn’t a good source of information imho. And in any case, that’s a pretty lousy definition of libertarian free will (and compatibilism). :)
I was just trying to keep it simple. Any source is going to give you a similiar defintion though.
“What is Libertarian Free Will?
Freedom as understood in the libertarian sense means that a person is fully able to perform some other action in place of the one that is actually done, and this is not predetermined by any prior circumstances, our desires or even our affections. In other words, our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature. All free will theists hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called our decision or free choice. Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires.”
“What is Compatibilism?
Compatibilism is the belief that we make choices for a reason, that the will is not independent of the person and we will always choose what we want (Deut 30:16,17,19; Matt 17:12; James 1:14). It means that we can act freely (without coercion), not independent from God or free from our desires, but free to act according to our desires and nature. In other words, a self-determining will (to chose to act as we please) is compatible with determinism.”
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/libertarian.html
Simple is good.
These last definitions you quoted are closer to the correct understandings, I think.
However, our natures are often in conflict; in other words, it isn’t as simple as our choosing strawberry ice-cream because that is our favorite. For even though it is a part of our nature to be selfish (who would argue with this?), there are moments when our desire to please others supercedes our selfish desires — as seen in the case that I choose mint ice-cream instead of strawberry because I only have enough money for one ice-cream and my wife likes mint. In that case, it is true that I did what I wanted most (in this case what I wanted most was to please my wife) — but you can see how this is in conflict with my nature as a human being.
The definitions you quoted are from monogerism.com â?? a site run by and written by Compatibilists. These Compatibilists are seeking to frame the debate in a specific way: a way that gives them a rhetorical and perhaps another kind of advantage. Notice in the definition of Libertarian Free Will, we read, â??Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires.â? But this is an oversimplification done with the intent to frame the debate in such a way as the Libertarian is made to look as if he is proposing something that seems obviously false: namely, that we can act in ways we do not want to. (Ironically, this seems to be precisely what we do as Christians when we sin â?? see my latest post on thinkingdeeply.com)
With the core definition of LFW as â??the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires,â? the Compatibilist then defines his understanding of freedom as not that; in other words, compatibilism is said to be â??the freedom to act within our nature, wants and greatest desires,â? as if LFW does not present us with this freedom. But some Compatibilists go further and say condescending things like, â??Compatibilism is the belief that we make choices for a reason,â? as if Libertarians do not believe that they make choices for a reason. Really, this is rhetorical game that some Compatibilists play. Theyâ??re hinting at a deeper philosophical concern â?? one that deserves our attention, but theyâ??re using silly tactics to pretend to root it out. Ironically, in this process, students of Compatibilists end up stuck in ignorance of the real issues because they are never really broached; instead, they learn catch phrases and intelligent sounding (and simple) lines like, â??Compatibilism is the belief that we make choices for a reason.â?
I think a big misunderstanding for lay-Compatibilists is that they think what Compatibilism means to reconcile is the compatibility between Godâ??s sovereignty and manâ??s freedom, but really Compatibilism proposes that determinism and freedom are compatible. Understanding the philosophical definition of determinism is something that lay-Calvinists seem to me to be weak in (Iâ??m speaking in generalities).
As far as I understand, one of the biggest differences between soft determinism and LFW concerns the ability to do otherwise. Both positions hold that in order for there to be moral responsibility, the agent must have the ability to do otherwise. However, the positions greatly differ on what that looks like. LFW holds that this ability is actual, while soft determinism holds that it is only hypothetical.
Let’s take the ice cream illustration for example. Let’s say that yesterday I went to an ice cream parlor. The attendent asks me whether I want, vanilla or chocolate. I pick vanilla. LFW holds that I actually had the ability to otherwise. I could have actually refrained from picking vanilla ice cream. Soft determinism holds that I only could have hypothetically refrained from picking vanilla. This answer seems kinda weak to me. Hard determinists seem to agree. How can you say that you have the ability to otherwise when in actually that ability is only hypothetical?
In order to understand this correctly, we must remember that we’re not discussing whether the human will is morally free (I think that Scripture points against this); rather, the focus of the discussion is whether it is metaphysically free. In the case of God, I believe that we have good reasons from Scripture for holding that God has LFW.