We are responsible human beings, not blind automatons; persons, not puppets. By endowing us with freedom, God relinquished a measure of his own sovereignty and imposed certain limitations upon himself. - Martin Luther King Jr.
If this is true, what does it mean for us and for our understanding of our position before God? If it is true, does it mean that God has chosen to be less than completely sovereign? If it is not true, then do we truly have free will? Is there really a contradiction between the two? I don't think there is a contradiction.
Now, against the sacrilegious and impious darings of reason, we assert both that God knows all things before they come to pass and that we do by our free will whatsoever we know and feel to be done by us only because we will it. - Saint Augustine
In granting free will to people, God made it possible for us to resist, oppose, or ignore His will. This does not mean that God is not any longer omnipotent. It means that God granted us free will in order that we might choose to have a relationship with Him. Think about this: A God that is so great that he cannot in any way limit himself is really not that great.
When I think of greatness, I think of something dynamic that grows ultimately to a point of being ineffable or indescribable. That is how I think of God. Mighty, yet tender. Just, yet merciful. Righteous, yet forgiving. Incomprehensible, yet accommodating. Unknowable, yet relational. Transcendent, yet intimate. Defender of the weak, yet redeemer of the offender. Possessing irrepressible will, yet granting free will. The God I believe in is a God of mysteries that can not be fully understood by the mind of humanity.
All that said, I would like to encourage you to be thoughtful, purposeful, and responsible in your choices and actions. Whether you agree with my view of God and free will or not, we all have a responsibility to fully weigh the effects our our actions. If we don't, the world will descend into utter chaos. Selfishness will only bring about destruction. Selflessness (love) will bring about peace. Grace and peace to you my friends!
3 comments:
Cool. As you know, this "subject" has been on my mind quite a bit lately. Thankfully, I've had peace about it since high school. Back then, I went to a Christian school, so of course this subject came up in classes and such. I remember everyone offering their arguments for this or that direction. As if an answer - at least for myself - a realization occurred to me that made both views (though not all the dogmatic details) make sense in cooperation, not in competition.
More recent events have triggered memories of these former thoughts... and I feel I've learned even more - especially how these two seemingly "opposite" views (calvinism vs. arminianism) don't really stand in opposition.
My realization sounds similar to what you are describing here. I haven't particularly shared it openly or anything - no particular reason (maybe an unspoken fear in me that it would provoke a fruitless argument from both sides? - I don't really like arguing). It's cool to hear someone else who has also found a way to bring the two together without sacrificing truth. Maybe one of these days I'll also try to put my thoughts into words - or not. I have too much to write about already :)
Thanks for the encouragement. Your insights are highly valued.
Argument. Now, there is a great topic for a blog post!
Personally, I don't mind using the word contradiction. I think it is the word that best describes the relationship between sovereignty and freewill, especially with regard to salvation. Either God chooses for himself who will be saved, or He lets us choose for ourselves. From a literalistic perspective, both views are well supported by scripture (in fact, the quantity and clarity of scripture references supporting human freewill with regard to ultimate salvation are far outweighed by those supporting sovereignty, predestination, and foreordination). In any case, a contradiction exists. And I'm fine with that. I don't think it is necessary to reinterpret one set of scripture to match the other. Let's be intellectually honest and admit that there are prima facie contradictions. What is there to be afraid of?
Well, the fear of many is that admitting textual contradictions in scripture defeats literal hermeneutics. However, it is literalism and the systematizing of Biblical theology to begin with that creates these contradictions (and attempts their explanation). Sure the Bible is full of contradictions if you interpret it literally. That's why I prefer narrative hermeneutics for the most part.
Post a Comment