Freedom and Suffering

Posted by Adam

Aug 12

“How can an all-loving God allow a girl to get raped and mutilated by a sicko? The fact that God gave this sicko free will doesn’t sit well with us because this explanation doesn’t take into consideration the violated free will of the girl.”

If God is going to give free wills to His creatures, He has to allow for the possibility of them misusing that freedom, even if this means hurting others. To be significantly free is to be morally responsible, and to be morally responsible means being morally responsible to each other. What is the freedom to love or not love unless it is the freedom to enrich or harm another? God structured things this way because the alternative would be to have a race of robots who can’t genuinely love – but that’s hardly worth creating, is it?

So why doesn’t God intervene every time someone is going to misuse his freedom and hurt another person? The answer is found in the nature of freedom itself. A freedom which was prevented from being exercised whenever it was going to be misused simply wouldn’t be freedom. If you give pocket money/an allowance to a child and then step in every time they are about to spend this money unwisely (according to your judgement), completely controlling the way they spend it, is it really their money? Did you really give them anything? Is it not rather still your money which you are indirectly spending through them?

If God really gives us freedom, it must be, at least to a large extent, irrevocable. He must have, within limits, a “hands off” attitude toward it. God creates free people who can do as they please, not determined instruments who always end up doing what He pleases.

The horrendous evil we see people inflicting on each other in this world is a necessary possibility if this is to be the kind of world where love is possible. Even God couldn’t have it any other way.

Reference
Dr. Gregory A. Boyd, Letters from a Skeptic

Disclaimer
While the above post is the work of Greg Boyd (a confessed Open Theist), the Aristophrenium in no way endorses Open Theism. This post was intended to provoke thoughts and discussion on the topic of freedom and suffering, and not to promote a misleading or heretical doctrine.

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Filed under: Religion

http://epagonizesthai.blogspot.com/ Fisher

Actually, God can and does restrain people from doing evil things. We find that He does this all the time in the book of Genesis.

That being said, why on earth would you use a quote from Greg Boyd? You know that his position on human freedom stems from his open theism, right?
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

Greg Boyd, Adam? Really?

Greg Boyd says that "to be morally responsible means being morally responsible to each other." According to godless Humanism, but not according to Scriptures. Christians appeal to the holy Scriptures as the final authority upon which our arguments rest—unlike Boyd, who has been taken "captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" (Col. 2:8, in whom "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," v. 3). From Scriptures we know that moral responsibility means being subject to the righteous and sovereign Judge of all creation, against whom alone we have sinned and to whom alone we must give an account. We know that 'responsible' means being accountable for one's actions and decisions, but to whom? According to Boyd? Each other. According to Scriptures? God.
Adam

I don't really know much about Greg Boyd. I just though it might be a good discussion starter. What's wrong with his point of view?
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

Boyd is an admitted heretic who denies the God of Scriptures. He professes Open Theism, which denies practically every biblical doctrine of God.
http://epagonizesthai.blogspot.com/ Fisher

This is the heresy that Greg Boyd holds to:
http://www.theopedia.com/Open_theism
Adam

Learn something new everyday huh.

So whats the best way to view freedom and suffering problem?
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

"It is true that according to the open view things can happen in our lives that God didn't plan or even foreknow with certainty (though he always foreknew they were possible). This means that in the open view things can happen to us that have no overarching divine purpose. In this view, 'trusting in God' provides no assurance that everything that happens to us will reflect his divine purposes, for there are other agents who also have power to affect us, just as we have power to affect others. This, it must be admitted, can for some be a scary thought." (God of the Possible, p. 153)
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

In light of the gospel. That's the immediate and clearest answer.

But I think the Christian should also go further, by standing on the authoritative Word of God and questioning the assumption that there is a "problem." There is only a "freedom and suffering problem" if we approach the question with unbiblical ideas that depend on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ—which becomes abundantly clear the moment we begin trying to articulate it as a "problem."
Adam

I definitely don't agree with open theism, but I just didnt see it in the above post. Not that I knew much about open theism as a formal position anyway.

I am constantly realising how much I don't know and how much more there is to learn.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

Boyd's open theism is not in the above post explicitly, but it certainly is found all over that book you pulled it from. Have you read the entire thing?
Marc Kay

Well, I hope that expends evryone's annual supply of the ad hominem.

Adam, don't be put off by what the others have said but read something like 'The Grace of God, the Will of man'. It's an anthology and puts some good ideas forward, not all I necessarily agree with.

Notice no one in the above replies gave 2 hoots about the young girl? Throw mud on someone's attempts to grapple with problem and miss the whole problem. (BTW, Fisher, how many times in the Bible does God restrain evil?)

Adam (and the rest?), if God knows everything about the future, why did he change his mind at Exodus 32:14? And let's not just unscripturally claim anthropomorphism!
Adam

Ages ago… shortly after becoming a Christian.
tavarish

Can someone explain to me how this article isn't just a vague assertion and rationalization?

By the same points in the article, one could make the case that God is an apathetic character – leaving his creation to its own devices, for better or worse.

Adam, I have a question.

When you say "He must have, within limits, a “hands off” attitude toward it.", what limits are you talking about? – When does God step in?
Marc Kay

Adam,

This is just the style of argument that is not conducive to understanding. What here appears as insight or defending God is really just another example of Calvinism Vs anything or anyone who disagrees with our particular take on Scripture.

While I don't necessarily agree with evrything the Open Theists have to say, they do, nevertheless, clearly love the Lord and deal with important Scripture verses that Calvinists typically refuse to address, give ad hoc explanations for or special plead away e.g. Exodus 34:14.

No man has all the answers and even Boyd doesn't assert he has, but what he and the others have tried to do is face up to the extraordinary problems that Calvinism has when it is actually contrasted against what the scriptures actually say, not what you want them to say.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

“I hope that expends everyone's annual supply of ad hominem.”

As clever rhetoric, that works well. But with respect to accuracy, it faceplants with a vapid thud. Dr. Gary Curtis of The Fallacy Files aptly notes about this fallacy that it is “one of the most frequently misidentified fallacies” insofar as “many people seem to think that any personal criticism, attack, or insult counts as an ad hominem fallacy.” But as the student of logic knows, the issue of relevance determines this fallacy; i.e., an ad hominem is committed only when someone “introduces irrelevant personal premises about his opponent” (whether a personal quality or circumstance). Informal logical fallacies pertain to relevance, sir, and identifying his Open Theism as heresy is directly relevant (for the nature of God has everything to do with the problem of evil).

“Notice no one in the above replies gave two hoots about the young girl?”

Could you point to anything that either myself or Luis said which demonstrates that we didn’t care about the young girl? Of course not. The only thing you can point to is that we didn’t say anything at all about her—which I would respond to by indicating the egregious error of drawing a conclusion from what we didn’t say (argumentum ex silentio). At any rate, I did respond to the question; note where I said to Adam that the best way to view the problem is in light of the gospel and Scriptures, where there is a “freedom and suffering problem” only if we approach the question with unbiblical ideas borne on human tradition and worldly principles rather than on Christ. What such arguments succeed at doing above all else is exposing our sinfully idolatrous attitudes, confirming the indictment from Scriptures about the reality and scope of our sinful natures, such that we all too easily remove God from his position of priority in our reasoning, emotions, and desires.

“[This] is really just another example of Calvinism versus …”

Notice that I went to Scriptures, while you went to eponyms. This has nothing to do with Calvinism, sir. That is something you alone injected into the discussion. This has to do with the priority and authority of Scriptures in speaking to these issues; corresponding to our Statement of Faith, we maintain that “the inerrant Holy Scripture is the sole and infallible source of written divine revelation which reveals the nature and character of God.” If you disagree with our answers, make your case on the hermeneutic of textual exegesis, not on the hermeneutic of eponymous sectarianism.

“If God knows everything about the future, why did he change his mind at Exodus 32:14?”

If God knows everything about the present, why did he not know where Adam was at Genesis 3:9?

But like Genesis 3:9, so to Exodus 32:14 was an invitation for repentance. Rather than promoting a theology which sees God as “responding to the whims of man, being won over by a good argument, or surprised by something which had not yet entered his mind,” the text shows that God “acted in accordance with principles which Moses understood: forgiveness for repentance, and substitutionary punishment,” maintaining the consistency of the ancient foreshadowing in types of the message of the gospel in Christ (q.v. Jonathan Master, “Exodus 32 as an argument for traditional theism.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2002).
http://epagonizesthai.blogspot.com/ Fisher

(BTW, Fisher, how many times in the Bible does God restrain evil?)

Here's some passages that appear off the top of my head:

First of all, remember the time when Abimelech was tricked into believing that Sarah was Abraham's sister? Well, it was in God's special providence that Abimelech would be kept from touching her, as God explains in a dream:

Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.
(Genesis 20:6)

Also, we see in Genesis 37:18-24 that Joseph's brothers originally planned to kill him until Reuben's timely intervention wherein he convinced them to just toss him into a well. We find out later on that this whole affair was orchestrated by God when Joseph said,

"As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today"
(Genesis 50:20, ESV)

Also, remember when it says God would harden Pharaoh's heart in Exodus 4:21? Well, both of us would agree that God does not cause people to sin (though He can and certainly does use sin to accomplish His plans). Thus, when God said He would harden Pharaoh's heart, this means that God was lifting His common grace (which is what enables people to do good in the first place) from Pharaoh in order that Pharaoh's heart would take its natural course.

I'm sure there are other examples aside from these, but I'm just pointing out the ones that most readily come to mind. If anybody knows any more examples, feel free to contribute.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

There are loads of other examples, yes. For example, about Sennacherib boasting of his conquests the LORD said, "Have you not heard? Long ago I ordained it. In days of old I planned it; now I have brought it to pass, that you have turned fortified cities into piles of stone" (2 Kings 19, whole chapter).
Adam

So, in trying to wrap my head around this, you’re saying Ryft that the Biblical response from the Christian to a young girl being raped and murdered is: “These things happen sometimes. This was not part of Gods plan, nor did He know it would happen. Just that it was a possibility given the nature of mankind and the freedom to follow this nature. God can choose to intervene according to his will at times to remove some possibilities of evil taking place, but this would not then make God obliged to do the same for all” Is that a fair representation?
Adam

I remember Greg Koukl once saying "I know that there are some things that I teach which I know are wrong. I just don't know which ones they are."

So I agree that no-one has it all 100% correct and this should not effect their salvation or that they love the Lord.

So I'm still open to hearing from all sides.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

Adam,

First, as Greg Koukl and so many others have noted, (a) responding from a biblical perspective is distinct from responding from a pastoral perspective, (b) a biblical perspective should be the foundation of a pastoral perspective, and (c) speaking to a rape victim calls for compassionate pastoral care, not scholarly theological analysis. In other words, how you respond to the spiritual trauma of a rape victim differs categorically from how you respond to the theological questions of a critic or student of Scriptures; the former calls for pastoral compassion, the latter calls for theological scholarship.

Second, no that is not a biblically accurate response. To suggest that X was not part of God's plan (or that X was an unordained possibility) implies that God is incompetent, ignorant, or powerless, etc., all of which contradict Scriptures. And to suggest that God did not know X would happen implies that God is ignorant, which contradicts Scriptures. And to suggest that God periodically intervenes to remove some possibilities of evil taking place implies that man can be good without the grace of God, which contradicts Scriptures (i.e., the grace of God is engaged full-time in restraining the evil men would otherwise commit).
Adam

1) My wording was perhaps not so clear. I was not aiming at an answer for the victim of evil but rather someone who watches the news.

2) I thought that was what you were saying by quoting from "God of the possible" as the biblical response to this issue. I was just trying to re-word your reply in order to better my understanding of your view.
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

I was quoting from Boyd's God of the Possible to show how blatantly heretical his Open Theism is (bolding the relevant points). His answer to the problem of evil or suffering is that God cannot do anything about it, pointing to a deity people have little reason to worship or trust.
Adam

Ahhh…my mistake. Yeah it didn't come across as something I thought you would hold to.

So, if I may be so bold, what is your biblical perspective then?
taco

“Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.

“Listen to me, you stubborn of heart,
you who are far from righteousness:
I bring near my righteousness; it is not far off,
and my salvation will not delay;
I will put salvation in Zion,
for Israel my glory.”
(Isaiah 46:8-13 ESV)

How can a contingent god even attempt to say such a contradictory thing if Open Theism is the case? The problem is when people start messing with the Doctrine of God it inevitably affects all other doctrines as shown here with Greg and his assumption of the ultimacy of man's free will.

As for the problem of evil, maybe this would help: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa105.htm
Adam

I think we seem to be getting a bit off topic with all these "open theism" comments. Like Ryft said, Boyd's open theism is not found explicitly in his above comment, so perhaps some response on how he deals with the issue would be more in line with our comments policy. Anyhow, I dont think his open theism suddenly makes everything else he has to say heretical does it? I still listen to Greg Koukl even though he is an old earther.

So whats wrong with his treatment of freedom and suffering? Ryft has already pointed out the moral responsibility flaw in his treatment but what about the rest? How do we all view freedom given that God can restrain evil?
taco

Open Theism necessarily touches every doctrine and poisons it as one's view of God and Scripture is where we build every doctrine. The first problem Greg has is he fails to submit to the Creator/Creature distinction. This entails that Greg fails to understand that the God of this universe is sovereign, therefore he must make the same mistake as that of the church of Rome and try to make man's will the ultimate will upon which his god reacts. There is NO god like the Christian God and Greg Boyd's god is not the God of Scripture. The god of Greg's paragraph above is merely a reactionary being lower than man, Greg's god is subservient to the whims of man's actions. Greg's god cannot say, without lying, the verse I quoted above.

Now that Greg's god is understood in these terms it is plain to see how it affects how he answers the problem of evil. Hope that helps. A helpful book in this area may be "Christian Apologetics" by Dr. C. Van Til. and also the link I provided above from cmfnow directly concerning the problem of evil.
Marc Kay

Taco,

The verses you quote are, principally, a particular prophecy – Read them again!

To extrapolate from this to 'God must know everything about the future (and causes them?)' is unscriptural.

How come no one comments about Ex 34:14 and what it says about God's omniscience?
http://aristophrenium.com Ryft

I did.
http://epagonizesthai.blogspot.com/ Fisher

Your eisegesis of Exodus 32:14 would make it contradictory with other parts of scripture, such as Isaiah 46:10, or Psalm 139:16.

Also, see Ryft’s response.
Marc

Fisher,

Both Isaiah and the Psalm passages you quote are poetry.

(i) Do you always take every line in poetry literally?
(ii) Routinely ignore poetic techniques and devices?
(iii) Is your hermeneutical rule 'historical narrative must first and foremost be understood through poetry'?
http://epagonizesthai.blogspot.com/ Fisher

Isaiah 46:10 isn't strictly poetry (although it does contain poetic elements to it). It's a prophetic statement about God's sovereignty over Creation (as opposed to the utter helplessness of the pagan idols). There isn't anything wrong about my exegesis of the verse.

And Psalm 139:16 is poetic, of course. But that doesn't change the fact that David meant exactly what he said. Would you object to the idea that God has written all the days of our lives before any of them ever occurred?
Marc

Fisher,

You didn't answer my questions.

Isaiah 46 is about a specific prophecy (v. 11). You've extrapolated from this to the Calvinist claim that every particular event is fixed because God foreknows it.

God is clearly contrasting the non-ability of the pagan gods' to know the future with the Lord's ability to execute his plans.

In any case, Exodus 32:14 says God changed his mind about what he was going to do i.e. at some point in the past he thought he was going to do X but later on decided to do ~X.
Marc

Fisher,

Re Psalm 139:16, if you believe that our futures are all pre-planned by God, then yes I disagree. Hardly makes room for a beautiful relationship of Father to son. Maybe your dad was controlling like that but I don't see God's character, particularly revealed in Jesus', is at all like that. Christians have this uncanny propensity to transfer their own fathers' personalities onto God.

Poets often utilise hyperbole and other literary devices to highlight something. If we are to take this literally then there are beds in hell (v. 8) and the morning has wings.

If God has fashioned every detail of our days then he fashioned Adam and Eve to sin rather than not fashioning them to. That is, God is ultimately the author of evil.
http://epagonizesthai.blogspot.com/ Fisher

Isaiah 46 is about a specific prophecy (v. 11). You've extrapolated from this to the Calvinist claim that every particular event is fixed because God foreknows it.

God is clearly contrasting the non-ability of the pagan gods' to know the future with the Lord's ability to execute his plans.

God's ability to ordain events is wrapped up in His argument that He is totally unlike the idols. This is shown not just in Isaiah but also in another parallel passage from the Psalms which says, "Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases" (Psalm 115:2-3, ESV). That aside, it's worth taking a look at the verse in question:

…declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
(Isaiah 46:10, ESV)

The structure of the verse rules out the possibility of this referring to only one event, since God talks about "things (note the plural) not yet done." Now, the event described in verse 11 is one particular example of those things that He has purposed, but that does not mean that it is the only instance that God "declar[es] the end from the beginning."

Maybe your dad was controlling like that but I don't see God's character, particularly revealed in Jesus', is at all like that. Christians have this uncanny propensity to transfer their own fathers' personalities onto God.

First of all, I take offense at you trying to presume to know anything about my family life. Second, your argument is based purely on emotion and evasion. Thus far, you haven't really presented an alternative exegesis of Psalm 139:16. All you've said thus far basically amounts to "Well, it can't mean what it seems to say!"

If God has fashioned every detail of our days then he fashioned Adam and Eve to sin rather than not fashioning them to. That is, God is ultimately the author of evil.

God is not directly the author of evil per se. However, I am constrained to affirm that scripture does nonetheless teach that evil has its role in God's plans for the world (cf. Proverbs 16:4 and Lamentations 3:37-39). For more information, see this article from Pyromaniacs:
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/06/is-god-arbit…

Sorry if I lack time to do a proper response to your claims. However, I did decide to look up pre-existing responses to your argument regarding Exodus 32:14. Perhaps this article from CARM might answer your queries:
http://www.carm.org/exodus-3214-lord-changed-his-…

"Whatever has happened was foreordained,
and what happens to a person was also foreknown.
It is useless for him to argue with God about his fate
because God is more powerful than he is."
(Ecclesiastes 6:10, NET)

Grace and peace.

Fisher.