The beat of a person's heart is an involuntary action. It is not up to the person to will this action to happen; it happens no matter what. Now, a person could do something to stop the beat of the heart through some extreme means of self-destruction. For the most part, though, it is a given.
When a person bends the elbow, it is an intentional and voluntary action. It is used as needed and stays quiet when not needed. Now, there are situations in which the elbow just does whatever it wants to. A person with a disability may lose control, or perhaps someone recovering from a stroke. But for the most part, it is a given.
Then there is the type of action that goes both ways. Blinking is such an action. If I forget about blinking, I blink. If I try to blink, I blink. If I try not to blink, I don't blink for a good while.Of course, I pay a price for going too long without a blink. My eyes get talking to me.
For each of these three kinds of actions there are various levels of will required in order to put them into action. Each seems to fall on differnet spectrums of willfullness and are to some extent dynamic as it relates to where they will land on the scale at any given time. At the same time there is a typical place where they would land on such a spectrum.
Could it be that there are various levels of free will in different areas of a perosn's life? Could it be that some people have more free will than others?
Calvin (or more so his followers) would say that there is no free will as all is predetermined. God has absolute and total sovereignty over every single action ever taken and every one that will be taken. Deists would say there is total free will within the laws of physics. God's allowed sovereignty to rest with humans, or the strongest of all species. Neither of these extremes is attractive. Calvinism is depressing to me because my actions ahve no meaning since they can make no difference. Deism is depressing because I know I am incapable of doing enough good to make enough of a difference.
I wonder if God does not so much judge according to what you did on a flat scale in comparison to everyone else, but rather judges against your own unique scale.
Here is an example: will the humble and successful missionary who introduces 1000's to the Way of Jesus with many following be judged the same as the person who was abused badly as a child, abuse which left him emotionally and spiritually disabled who does his or her best to even believe that there is a God? Is their equal free will in this scenario? It is unlikely that there is an absolute either way, but to what extent?
Could the abused person exercise a greater expression of free will by praying, "God, if you even exist, I'm really pissed at you. I want better," than the missionary who tells the truth about Jesus to 50 people and convinces them? What if that prayer was a terrific leap of faith while the missionary felt more at ease and comfortable with the Jeus conversations and required no leap of faith?
Now, that might be an extreme example, but it does make the point that every person has what he has and none of these life packages is the same as any other. There is no real way for anyone to know for anyone else what was pleasing to God, or how pleasing it might have been.
If this relative free will concept holds any water at all, then judging people is completely arrogant. We suppose that we know something about that person and about God that we do not and can not.
5 comments:
Chris-
I really love what you've said here. Things that seem like virtually nothing on one person's scale of righteousness can be great acts of heroism for another. I seems to fit in with the parable of the talents-type teachings you find in the gospels. We're accountable for using the "material" we're given, economically, emotionally, socially. If we don't have much, thank God, we can be spiritual giants if we just have the courage to use what little we have.
Loaves and fishes.
Sorry, I may just be reflecting on the obvious, here, but I think you're making a really powerful point.
I think whatever scales we tend to use are human & therefore limiting to God's power. However, I am always drawn to what Jesus said about forgiveness: Whatever scale you use to forgive others will be used on you.
Calvin's position is interesting, but I'd like to know Hobbes', too.
Relative free will, I thought, would be the will that relatives feel to be free to drop in any time.
I know I shouldn't judge, but that's just wrong.
And it's probably arrogant to judge even if free will isn't relative ... but yours is an extraordinary posit, well-defended and cleverly exemplified.
(In my judgment. Which is arrogant.)
I'm not sure you've understood Calvin correctly (which is only a small point - I like the main thought of your post).
Everyone believes in limits to free will. No one believes we can do whatever we want (like teleport to another city by simply choosing). The idea of determinism seems to be an Arminian misunderstanding of a Reformed position.
The question is what are we able to will unaided, and if we can will true goodness without grace. Can we choose God without God choosing us? That is the theological debate of Pelagius & Augustine and Arminius & Calvin.
I think whatever scales we tend to use are human & therefore limiting to God's power. However, I am always drawn to what Jesus said about forgiveness: Whatever scale you use to forgive others will be used on you.
Post a Comment