Free will, moral evil, and the penal system

[David Hayward]

I don't think I expressed my question very clearly. Here's a quote from "Is God to Blame?" by Gregory A. Boyd:
When God decided to create a world in which agents are capable of love, he also created one where agents are free not to love. Love involves choice. This means that God can't revoke agents' freedom when they act in unloving ways. If God were to revoke our freedom every time we used it in evil ways, we wouldn't be truly free (pg, 115).

Do we interfere with God's purpose for creation by incarcerating individuals who use their freedom in evil ways? God doesn't revoke freedom, so should we really incarcerate persons who use their God-given freedom in harmful ways?
Thanks.

The Bible is full of consequences for evil-doing. Under the Covenant there is freedom within boundaries; the Covenant includes a blessing and a curse.

David

[theblueprint_Ni]

OK. It seems to me that Boyd has an arbitrary definition of "choice" when he says that "love involves choice." As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, the saints in heaven do not sin and will not sin. They will never choose to sin. I do not see this as a limitation on their choices; I see them as free in a way that we should all wish to be free-- free to serve and love God perfectly. We are the ones who are not free, because we are unable to love God perfectly. I believe that Americans have adopted an unhealthy attitude that true freedom is found in autonomy, whereas Biblical freedom involves becoming a slave (the Greek word is doulos) of Christ, which in the ancient world was a status more akin to being incarcerated than it resembles what Americans think of as "freedom." The oldest trick in Satan's book is the offer that we can "be like God." Boyd's view of Libertarian Free Will is a modern example of the same impulse, and Christians must stand against it.

I agree and disagree. Although, you'd have to expound a little more before I took a formal position for or against what you're saying.

For the first part, even though the saints in heaven are sealed in righteousness, it could still be said that they have already made the choice during their lifetime. It would be redundant to have to make it again. So that fact isn't totally against choice being an expression of God's love.

For the second part, I think your response is very much entrenched in the OP so it's a little tricky for me to accurately dissect what you're saying, so I'll do my best to interpret it: Boyd's idea of love involves the kind of freedom that allows one to choose between good and evil, and to have that choice taken away would not be an expression of love. In contrast to this, the Bible's concept of freedom is understood within the pretext of bondage, viz. that only when we are in bondage to Christ are we free (released) from sin, becoming slaves of righteousness instead (Rom. 6:18). You then comment that Satan continually tries to convince us of the lie that "to be like God" is to "know good and evil", meaning that Boyd's view is really an extension of Satan's false philosophy because he is promoting perpetual intimacy with moral liberty. Is that about right?

If so, then I agree with you that God's love is not perfected in our perpetual moral liberty, but rather the opposite. We can only be truly free when we can do nothing less than worship God in all righteousness. God doesn't want us to be free in Boyd's sense, but free in the Biblical sense. But I disagree in that I believe that God can only reach that perfection of love by first giving human beings the initial choice of selecting to whom/what we would be in bondage; be it sin or righteousness, Satan or Christ, heaven or hell. The fact that he intentionally created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as a "good" thing before he even created Adam and Eve is strong support for this.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts if you get a chance to respond. I'm curious about your views on the "original", pre-fall condition of man in the area of choice and how that choice has been (a tentative expression depending on your answer) forfeited in accordance with your theology.

[Bobby Lewis]

As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, the saints in heaven do not sin and will not sin. They will never choose to sin. I do not see this as a limitation on their choices; I see them as free in a way that we should all wish to be free-- free to serve and love God perfectly.

Maybe the saints in heaven are capable of sinning but will not because of new ethical orientation? Saints in heaven and believers on earth both have the freedom to choose to sin, but their decisions are a function of their nature. Whether on earth or in heaven, we are not pre-programmed robots. This seems consistent with Boyd's notion that love depends on choice.

We

are the ones who are not free, because we are unable to love God perfectly. I believe that Americans have adopted an unhealthy attitude that true freedom is found in autonomy, whereas Biblical freedom involves becoming a slave (the Greek word is doulos) of Christ, which in the ancient world was a status more akin to being incarcerated than it resembles what Americans think of as "freedom." .

Can't freedom include autonomy and bondage? Can't we autonomously choose to submit to God? If we were unable to choose, then God's relationships with people would be coerced. Could that really be "love"?

[RBerman]

Maybe the saints in heaven are capable of sinning but will not because of new ethical orientation? Saints in heaven and believers on earth both have the freedom to choose to sin, but their decisions are a function of their nature. Whether on earth or in heaven, we are not pre-programmed robots. This seems consistent with Boyd's notion that love depends on choice.

The problem is not that Boyd says we choose to love. Of course we choose. The question is how we choose. Our decisions are a function of our nature, just as with the saints in heaven. You are correct to suppose that they have a nature by which they freely choose never to sin. Yet this does not make their choice meaningless to God. For that matter, God's decisions flow from his nature too. But the "robot" comparison is highly misleading. Who progammed God? No one; his nature is eternal and unchanging. Take "robot" and "programming" out of your vocabulary for this discussion. Those are not Biblical terms, and analogies along those lines do not apply.

Can't freedom include autonomy and bondage? Can't we autonomously choose to submit to God? If we were unable to choose, then God's relationships with people would be coerced. Could that really be "love"?

You need to define "coercion" more carefully. I would define it as "Use of an external threat to force you to do something you really don't want to do." That's not what God does. He doesn't hold a gun to our heads and force us to act like we love him, when we really don't love him. Rather, he changes our hearts so that we have a new nature which desires to love him and freely does love him. This is another instance of Boyd misframing the question, manipulating his readers and listeners.