Justin Taylor's blog has an interesting post on (roughly) the oddness of intercessory prayer given (libertarian) free will. I'll give a brief response here, since I don't want to hog up too much comment space over there (and since there are already a couple of free will theists there offering good insights). A couple of preliminary remarks are in order:
First of all, though I can't claim to speak for every free will theists everywhere, I certainly think most of them would agree that libertarian free will (LFW) isn't necessarily valuable in and of itself. Rather, it is the necessary prerequisite for something else (genuine love, or something of the sort)--this is why people like Greg Boyd can argue that there will be no LFW after the consummation of the Kingdom (LFW as a tool to character-formation will have become obsolete). All this to say, LFW isn't something holy which must never be violated or anything like that (though I would argue that talk of God 'overriding free will' is linguistically awkward given my second point below).
Second, and this is perhaps more of a minority viewpoint within the free will camp (though I don't think it should be), I personally don't think it's helpful to speak of LFW as something which people 'have' (as if it were an merely accidental feature of human beings). Rather, something like LFW is entailed by the sheer fact of human existence. We are (among other things of course) centers of consciousness, others, both to our fellow humans and to God. Our very existence assumes a certain level of autonomy (within predetermined boundaries, of course). We are by our very nature agents capable of choosing between alternatives.
This having been said, what can way put forward by way of reply to Feinberg's take on the Arminian's prayer paradox? Well quite simply, I don't think Christians who pray for someone to have a change of heart want God to coerce this change. Theirs is an appeal to God's creativity rather than an appeal to God's power. If I pray for Bob to have a change of heart, I don't want God to 'possess' him and make him merely behave in a certain way (though at times that might seem like a nice thing). Rather, I want Bob to have a change of heart, and God to do whatever can be done to facilitate this change (with the full realization that this may not happen). Notice that this is also an appeal to God's omniscience since we (as limited humans) don't know what it would take (or if it's even possible) for Bob to become kinder or gentler (but God does).
Any questions?
Friday, August 31, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
FYI-I linked your blog for my other Reformed guys on our blog.
Daniel,
How can people have a change of heart unless God works in their hearts? To what extent can He work in their hearts? I just don't see a lot of Scripture, either here or anywhere else, that supports your thinking. It sounds very intelligent and rational, but not Biblical. Can you help me to see from the Bible what you mean?
Mark (or Maki?),
I hope I didn't say that God doesn't work in people's hearts! Surely he does, or we'd all be lost!
But realize that to "work in someone's heart" is a metaphor. Emotions and thoughts are neural firing patterns established in the brain, whereas the heart just pumps blood (to the best of my knowledge).
And so it's worth asking what the Calvinist means when he or she says that God worked in someone's heart. I, as a free will theist, simply mean that God woos rather than coerces the change--this is why he sometimes fails to get his way (people can be stubborn).
If he coerced the change (as he must under a Calvinist worldview), you wouldn't have books like Hosea, passages like Mark 6:5-6, or stories like God's regret over the state of humankind in Genesis 6. These are all cases where God clearly wills one thing, but gets another.
Hope this is helpful.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Daniel,
I'm glad to see you working with metaphorical language so well. I hope you will begin to let that type of thinking into other aspects of your theology.
Maybe you could consider the metaphorical meanings of other cliche' phrases in Christianity like:
dying to self
dying with Christ
Jesus being one with God
resurrection
kingdom of God
and many more!
I'm sure your calvanist friends here would want to know why you assume that the word "heart" is a metaphor for brain activity rather than a metaphor for the "ghost in the machine" or "soul" that lives on after death of a body in either heaven or hell. I would also like to get your answer for that one.
Daniel,
It's good to know that you also live in the Milwaukee area. I'd like to contribute come resonating thoughts.
With regard to the issue of God working in the the hearts of people in order for them to believe, there are few schools of theology that would attempt to deny the need for it. Rather, the issue usually revolves around the existence of LFW or non-LFW reality.If the latter is true, the ability to believe always results in belief, hence the Reformed position.
The issue for me is clearly demonstrated in Matthew 11, where Christ denounces Korazin and Bethsaida, commenting that "If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes" Matthew 11:21). Of course, given that I'm writing to a community that generally agrees that God's activity in the hearts of men and women to believe is required for them to believe, I believe we can all agree that God was active in the hearts of Tyre and Sidon, otherwise it would be very foolish to say that they could have repented/believed. The same goes for Sodom (11:23).
In support of much of what you've said, I would say that it's God's continued patience (Romans 2:4) in his continued activity that is the heart of every prayer. God's kindness leads to repentance.
Jake (arminian@aol.com)
Post a Comment