 |
| Venice via Ernest Hepnar |
2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University
MPhil
Statements nine, ten and eleven: These statements dealt with the issue of human free will.
Number nine stated: God created human beings with free will.
Here 92% of Anglicans agreed, while 4% were not certain, and 4% disagreed. With the Baptists, 98% agreed, while 2% disagreed.
Statement ten stated: Human free will means that people have the option to choose either good or evil.
Here 80% of Anglicans agreed, with 4% not certain, and 16% in disagreement. The Baptists responders consisted of 94% of the people agreeing, with 4% not certain, and 2% disagreeing.
The eleventh statement read: Free will itself is not the main factor in the human rejection of God.
Here 40% of Anglicans agreed, while 30% were not certain, and 30% disagreed. With Baptists, 62% agreed, 8% being not certain, and 30% being in disagreement with the statement.
Regarding the ninth statement, I agree that God made human beings with free will, although its nature is limited as human beings can only choose to do things which their finite nature allows (human beings can freely desire to fly unaided, but this is not within their physical nature to accomplish).
I do believe the fall of Adam and Eve occurred by their own choice without coercion by God.
I agree with the tenth statement in a pre fall context, but after the fall I think that the human will was no longer able to truly please God by choosing to do good things, or to have a right standing before God. For a person to do good in God’s sight would require a spirit of purity which is impossible to possess for those with a sinful nature, but to even approach purity would require complete reliance upon the Holy Spirit.
I do not think this means that God desires robots which he directs, rather he wants thinking people who are open to his guidance. However, clearly human beings, even those without Christ, still have some freedom of choice as to what sins they will commit and to what level they commit these acts. They cannot commit good acts that are pleasing to God in the context of merit. Paul mentions in Romans 3:23, that all people have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.
The eleventh statement discusses an issue I have already mentioned I disagreed.
September 21, 2019
Statement ten stated: Human free will means that people have the option to choose either good or evil.
I reason that the choice of Adam and Eve to disobey God, demonstrated their by then tainted human nature in the fall (Genesis 3, Romans 5, as examples). Prior to the fall they were finitely perfect and at the fall they became finitely imperfect.
From both theological and philosophical perspectives, I researched and wrote in more depth, and with increased understanding in regard to compatibilistic freedom within my PhD thesis.
That being compatibilism, also known as soft determinism, views human freedom as leading to desires, thoughts, will, acts and actions, as a secondary cause. Human beings are secondary agents. This is compatible with the simultaneous cause of these human desires, thoughts, will, acts and actions by a primary cause. From a theistic, biblical, Christian view, this primary or first cause is the triune God.
God's motives remain pure, unlike any secondary cause that is in a fallen, corrupted state. God's loyal angels can also have pure motives, as finite entities and secondary agents.
For academic balance, a non-theistic view could reason the primary cause as naturalistic and scientific. Perhaps even as fate.
Incompatibilism and forms of libertarian free will, deny compatibilism.
As I am not a hard determinist (things are determined by one cause). I reason moral accountability from secondary agents (causes) requires that these entities are not forced or coerced in regard to desires, thoughts, will, acts and actions, but are embraced with limited free will.
The finite nature of humanity is always subject to the infinite nature of God; this with whatever God directly or indirectly causes.
Got Questions
Referencing
PACKER, J.I. (1973) Knowing God, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
In Hebrew, the title "God Almighty" is written as El Shaddai and probably means “God, the All-powerful One” or “The Mighty One of Jacob” (Genesis 49:24; Psalm 132:2,5), although there is a question among most Bible scholars as to its precise meaning. The title speaks to God’s ultimate power over all. He has all might and power. We are first introduced to this name in Genesis 17:1, when God appeared to Abram and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless.”
2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter
This website has several PhD related articles in the archives.
AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.
PACKER, J.I. (1973) Knowing God, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library.
MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
