Posted on 04/21/2005 6:40:51 AM PDT by logos
One of the central themes of this book has been the insistence upon maintaining a self-consistent, comprehensive, livable vision of reality that does justice to the character of God and the significance of humans. This means there is no escaping the reality that apologetics is tightly connected to systematic theology. In fact, apologetic activity should emerge naturally from one's theological assumptions and commitments. That is why we have devoted so much space in this study to issues like soteriology, free will and determinism, divine election, and biblical inspiration. These are not peripheral matters that can be easily brushed aside, for our views on these subjects form our bedrock perceptions of reality and will invariably influence our approach to the apologetic task. To put it another way, apologetics is not a theologically neutral enterprise. If one is to maintain intellectual integrity, the arguments marshaled and methods employed must cohere with one's espoused worldview.
On of the most important theological lessons we can learn from both Lewis and Schaeffer is the necessity of insisting upon a libertarian form of freedom. If we are to offer a self-consistent, comprehensive, livable worldview that accounts for God's impeccable character and human dignity, then libertarian freedom must be an essential part of the equation. As we have clearly seen, compatibilism simply will not do. This view of freedom is riddled with problems. It undermines God's justice, glory and goodness and fails to offer a satisfying account for the enigmatic mixture of nobility and wretchedness in the human heart.
Arguably, the most damaging strike against compatibilism is its utter inability to explain why God has not predestined everyone to freely choose him if freedom is really compatible with determinism. In our estimation, this is the mortal blow to the compatibilist. If this question cannot be answered convincingly, then compatibilists can hardly expect their position to be taken seriously by those who firmly believe in a profoundly loving and richly relational God.
Lewis and Schaeffer both recognized the need for a libertarian form of freedom to advance many of their apologetic arguments. But it is critical to note here that the success of such arguments does not hinge upon human effort. As indicated earlier, a commitment to libertarian freedom is not an endorsement of works-righteousness or sinful self-autonomy. Scripture makes it clear that we can do nothing in our own strength. We cannot emphasize too strongly the necessity of divine grace, the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, the importance of prayer and a clear understanding of dual agency in the apologetic endeavor. We affirm that God is always the primary agent and the sole initiator in calling his sheep back to the fold. The job of the apologist and potential convert is to simply cooperate with the grace of God and rely on the resources that only he can provide.
.
IMHO, one must first have an understanding of "all that there is" before his thoughts - theological, ideological or otherwise - will be coherent and consistent to himself much less to others.
The question "what is 'all that there is'?" involves what one thinks of the physical and the non-physical, of time and causality and must especially, of God.
The above article went right to the second tier issue - the seemingly neverending debate of predestination v "free will" which is argued on this religion forum as well as on philosophy and science threads.
For Lurkers interested in a brief introduction to the "isms" here are a few links:
I don't consider myself to be a "compatibilist" but I do not see "free will" and predestination as mutually exclusive either. My worldview is based on Romans 8 which asserts both, and is confirmed not so much by philosophy but by the mathematics and physics, which includes cosmology.
The split in worldviews stems from the notion of physical causality, cause/effect relationship. But F-theory (Vafa, an extra time dimension) and 5D/2 Time theory both dispute the notion of physical causality per se.
In sum, because vision and mind are limited to four dimensions (3 spatial, 1 time) from within space/time - we mortals have a sense of physical causality (cause/effect) that we often presume to be the "truth" of the matter, probably because we rely on our physical senses. And we look to the second law of thermodynamics - physical entropy - as evidence of the same.
But that is like flying by the "seat of one's pants" rather than using the avionics on the aircraft. When a pilot enters a vicious storm and does not rely on the instruments, he will crash and burn.
Thus I look to the "instruments" which in science, is the mathematics. In this case, the structure of space/time itself (gravity, positive and negative), the violation of Bell's inequalities at distance, superposition and the ilk suggest there are more than 4 dimensions, including a second dimension of time.
The mathematics of an extra time dimension suggests that our perception of an arrow of time is false, an illusion, that what we think is a timeline is actually a plane. Thus, cause/effect could also be effect/cause or not related at all - and past, present and future are all accessible and malleable at least from outside the time dimension we perceive.
Since we can mathematically determine this within a dimensional structure of space/time - I assert that we must not presume any causal restriction on God who is both "beyond" space/time and transcends space/time.
From His aspect, timelessness, everything is on the table. Therefore since He has already confirmed predestination by fulfilled prophesies and "free will" by commandments and promises - I accept both as His objective Truth on the subject.
Surprisingly, the authors of this book, who both teach at Asbury Theological Seminary (an evangelical institution), appreciate Lewis in areas that many evangelicals (such as myself) do not. They prefer Lewis over Schaeffer in several key areas.[snip]The authors also seem to imply that their view of free will leads to a rejection of biblical inerrancy, since the biblical writers were not completely controlled by God in the process of inspiration. In this, they prefer Lewis to Schaeffer, who affirmed the sovereignty of God in salvation and in the inspiration of Scripture. They accuse Schaeffer of two fundamental errors of apologetics in this regard.
First, they claim that a strong view of God's sovereignty is unjustifiable philosophically and makes for bad apologetics, since it denies humans real moral responsibility and makes God the author of evil.
Second, they charge Schaeffer himself with not being theologically consistent on the relationship of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. In his apologetic writings, they write, Schaeffer argued for libertarian freedom, opposing the naturalistic worldview of B.F. Skinner and others who reduced humans to machines. Yet in his teachings on the Westminster Confession of Faith (the controlling creed of his denomination), Schaeffer affirmed God's absolute control over all events, including human will.
Settling these matters requires a longer essay than this one, so a few points must suffice. First, Schaeffer may not have affirmed a libertarian view in his apologetic against naturalism. To claim we are not machines totally controlled by impersonal factors is not the same as arguing that the human will is autonomous of God's sovereign plan for humanity. Schaeffer often claimed that humans are not "programmed" by nature. They are moral agents. We live in an "open system of cause and effect" (Christian theism) as opposed to a "closed system of cause and effect" (naturalism). God may intervene supernaturally, and humans have significant moral responsibility within the order and plan of God's creation.
Schaeffer should be granted some rhetorical slack in his apologetic writings. He is not addressing trained theologians as much as modern people looking for significance and meaning in a world that so often denies it to them on the basis of bogus worldviews, whether atheistic or pantheism, both of which reduce persons to components of the impersonal matrix of being.
When Schaeffer argued that humans make significant choices, I believe his emphasis was not on a radical self-determination (libertarianism), but on the fact that we live in a personal universe. God, the supremely personal being, has given persons moral agency and responsibility that would be impossible within either naturalism (which reduces humans to impersonal material factors) or pantheism (which reduces humans to being manifestations of an impersonal deity).
It is interesting and troubling that Burson and Walls do not appeal directly to Scripture to support their views of libertarian free will, the transformational view of salvation or the rejection of biblical inerrancy. They argue this philosophically, but often fail to adequately encounter philosophical arguments (outside of Schaeffer's own writings) to the contrary.
Review
Although Groothuis goes on to praise these authors for their contribution to the continuing discussion of Christian apologetics I think it does cause concern that these writers would so slant Schaefer's actual beliefs to match their own that it leads to questions about their crediblity. I'm not aware of any quality scholarship that has come out of Asbury.
Thanks for taking the time to posts these articles.
....Lewis and Schaeffer both recognized the need for a libertarian form of freedom to advance many of their apologetic arguments....
....As we have clearly seen, compatibilism simply will not do....
I have to defend Schaeffer, and take issue with the authors' claims that Schaeffer believed in a libertarian form of freedom, or that he fought against "compatibilism". I'm convinced that the authors misread Schaeffer, due to their own theological leanings (that, and because I've read more than two dozen of Schaeffer's books, with the notable exception of his posthumously published The Finished Work of Christ [I just discovered it yesterday, so sue me :D ]). As a Reformed/Calvinist author, Schaeffer believed in the Biblical teaching that God is both sovereign over men, and in man's responsibility for his own actions. In saying
If we are to offer a self-consistent, comprehensive, livable worldview that accounts for God's impeccable character and human dignity, then libertarian freedom must be an essential part of the equation.the authors do not appeal to what Scripture demands, but rather to what a "self-consistent, comprehensive, livable worldview" demands, as if those two are mututally exclusive concepts, and the latter is more authoritative than the former. In an otherwise good treatment of Schaeffer and Lewis, I find the authors making a glaring error in this area. It's great material for debate, but the authors presume too much if they think Schaeffer was actually agreeing with their preconceptions.
To give a small sample of what Schaeffer actually believed about man's "free will", in his own words, I refer the reader to my "Letters of Francis Schaeffer" devotional threads. Today's entry included the following statements by Schaeffer:
--[When the Bible speaks of seeking the things which are above, it is simply saying that we should see] everything from the perspective of God's existence and what is taught in Scripture, rather than seeing things as though man were autonomous; or seeing things as though life consisted only of physical life and death...[without taking into account] the totality of reality, which of course includes above all the existence of God.--Worldliness is seeing anything in life from a materialistic perspective - that is, from a perspective which makes the material world the final reality, and in which man's finite wisdom (rather than Scripture) is everything. In other words, worldliness is removing any area of life or culture from under the judgment of Scripture.
We are "stuck" with the arrow of Time; but God is not. Ronald L. Conte, Jr., writes:
“God dwells in Eternity. God is unbounded by Time, unlimited by Time, beyond the restrictions of Time and Place. From Eternity, beyond Time, God sees what we call the future just the same as He sees the past and the present. The past, present and future are all the same to God.
“From our point of view, within Time, we have not yet made our future decisions. We know not what we ourselves will decide to do. We can decide as we see fit and our free will remains free. Yet from the point of view of Eternity (outside of Time) these future events and future free will decisions have already occurred. And the past cannot be changed. You can know the past free will decisions that you made and yet cannot change these once they are past. And so it is with the future. God knows with certainty the decisions and events of our future without compromising freewill in the least because these future events are to God as the past is to us.
“Allow me to phrase this same teaching in a different way. God is not confined within Today, remembering what happened Yesterday and using some special power to figure out what will happen Tomorrow. God does not stand within one point of Time. God is present throughout all of Time and all of Creation all in one single timeless Act, for God is One. God knows with certainty what will happen in the future because God exists beyond Time and throughout Time. God encompasses all things – all times, all places, all events – in One Eternal Act. Therefore God can reveal future events through Sacred Scriptures, through visions of the Virgin Mary, or through any other means He chooses, and these events can be known with certainty and without compromising freewill in the least.” – The Bible and the Future of the World [itals added]
This is the foundation of the truth of scripturally-based prophecy. And it also tells us that there is no conflict between predestination and freewill. This is a persistent illusion we have, seemingly "enclosed" as we are by 4D space-time: We are "points" within that construct, and do not see what is from a position outside of it.
Yet God comprises all of Creation in all its dimensions in One single Timeless Act. Thus, He is "outside" of Creation, outside of Time, outside of Space. Yet in His Eternal Act or Action, all the elements and members of Creation are born, nurtured, and sustained.
Thank you so much, logos, for today's installment. And thank you, Alamo-Girl, for your ever-astute observations!
One more quickie for the math geeks:
In the face of Einstein's relativity, very many people have taken up a view of space/time as 3 spatial dimensions evolving over time.
This view is wrong, however.
The accurate view in relativity (and geometric physics) is that time is a dimension. From there, the rest of the math/physics makes more sense.
I'll respond; just not sure when.
First things; second tier; ultimate; penultimate ... isn't that where we most often go wrong? It's even possible the authors got it all muddled whilst trying to figure it all out. I'll get back to you.
Thank you for your defense of a correct reading of Schaeffer.
...if God is timeless and if all of his acts are for him timeless acts, then we can have no true and certain knowledge of anything except perhaps pure mathematics.
Unless the authors are using the phrase "libertarian form of freedom" with a radically different definition than the one I understand, I'm absolutely sure either a) the authors misread Schaeffer because they are not familiar with Reformed Theology and terminology, b) the authors selectively read some of Schaeffer's books and ignored others or c) the authors are trying to force a predetermined theological conclusion onto the reader, either believing that Schaeffer was "honest, but mistaken" on this point, or discounting his Reformed convictions as the logical underpinnings of Schaeffer's faith, apologetics, and writings. To suggest that the Reformed doctrines are contrary or hypocritical to upholding human dignity and human freedom is to openly challenge and contradict Schaeffer's witness, life and ministry. Any perusal of his letters alone will attest to that.
Schaeffer himself consistently spoke of Jesus' lordship over all of life and creation, i.e. the Reformed understanding of God's Sovereignty, in virtually all of his works. It was a unifying theme to his ministry, and I learned it from Schaeffer long before I ever learned it was basic Reformed theology. To suggest that Schaeffer preached a "libertarian form of freedom" contrary to his acceptance of the Westminster Confession of Faith, his schooling at Westminster Theological Seminary (and his courses under Cornelius Van Til), his ordination and church memberships in the Presbyterian Churches of that day, his 22 published books, and countless other articles, pamphlets, tapes, newsletters, and films that he produced or was featured in.
Forgive me for the impassioned response. It's not my intention to come off combatant or belligerent, but I simply cannot agree with the author's mischaracterisation of Schaeffer's ministry. I do hope it was an accidental one on their part.
To say I was perplexed to see these guys claim such a thing is an understatement. I have read a few of Schaefer's books and understood him to be well within Reformed orthodoxy.
That said, I haven't read this book and so am content to wait for logos to spell out their fuller argument. I will say that if Groothuis is correct regarding their stand on inerrancy that sends up big warning signs.
I totally agree, Alamo-Girl. What is the sense of speaking of 3 spatial dimensions “evolving,” if in their several evolutions time weren’t already implicitly present? How could we even get the idea of a line (1D), if not as a serial progression of points – which requires a time context? Taking the line into 2D, we obtain a plane; add the 3D, and (ideally) you get a sphere, or cube, or any other 3D type of body.
The point we may readily concede is that three spatial dimensions evolve in Time. What seems to be less appreciated is that each of the spatial dimensions depends for its own intelligibility on the idea of its own unique unfoldment in Time. For any singular spatial dimension, Time is implicit in its own constitution, so to speak.
Therefore, I think it may be profitable to regard Space and Time as mutually transforming complementarities, like particle/wave, and in the Lorenz sense. Certainly you cannot have Space without extension in Time. And you can’t have Time without Space in which to manifest something.
You and I both strongly conjecture on grounds of evidence, insight, and reasoning, that additional dimensions above (or below or beyond) the 4D are required to explain what we observe. The string theorists have come to the same conjecture. FWIW, it seems to me that Einstein’s special relativity points to the Lorenz-transformability of Space and Time. If this is actually so, then there must be a deeper level of integration to account for this phenomenon.
Thinking over this problem, I realized something startling: No matter how many dimensions there are in nature, in the Universe, the human being participates directly in each and every one of them. For no matter how many X dimensions are ultimately discovered, I imagine they severally and all together contribute to the manifestation of ourselves as living beings, at all the required levels (i.e., physico-chemical and spiritual).
The really interesting part is that, no matter how many dimensions there may prove to be, we humans only directly perceive four of them. And it can be a real struggle to get past this habit.
Better leave off for now. Thank you so much, Alamo-Girl, for your excellent observations.
Thank you for your reply, suzyjaruki!
The really interesting part is that, no matter how many dimensions there may prove to be, we humans only directly perceive four of them. And it can be a real struggle to get past this habit.
A metaphor occurs to me, what beings who can only see and think of reality in two spatial dimensions - a plane - could possibly understand of the four dimensions we perceive. How could we speak to them, to help them understand?
Likewise, what can man possibly understand of what God has prepared for him?
Certainly we cannot know this from what we see in 4D! OTOH, the Holy Scriptures "capture" a timeless realm -- or I should say a realm beyond the 4D of ordinary experience/existence. God inerrantly speaks to us from Eternity in the Scriptures, and there tells us truly (but not exhaustively) of what He has prepared for man through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
It seems to me the best way to try to work beyond the constraints of 4D perception is to contemplate God, in one's mind and heart. And the Holy Scriptures are indispensable helps for this.
Thank you so much for writing, Alamo-Girl, and for your kind words of encouragement!
While recognizing the deterministic nature of much of reality, this second model (Note: their first model of freedom was "hard determinism") seeks to take the intuitive sense of freedom and moral responsibility seriously. This position (libertarian freedom) does not ignore the reality of the natural law of causation in the physical world but insists that it does not account for all events, particularly the actions of humans and other agents. Libertarianism therefore can be defined "as the view that some human actions are chosen and performed by the agent without there being any sufficient condition or cause of the action prior to the action itself." Free agents perform actions for reasons, and it is these that explain why the agent acts one way rather than another. Reasons explain actions but do not cause or determine them.The libertarian readily admits that some events in life might be necessitated but rejects the claim that every decision is the result of a prior sufficient condition or cause. An example should bring this position into sharper focus. Let us return to the opening vignette in chapter two. According to our story, Lewis offers a cup of tea and you accept. The offer is certainly a condition of your accepting it, and Lewis's polite overture is considered a factor in that acceptance. Indeed, other reasons and factors certainly might have contributed to your affirmative response as well, including the degree of your thirst, a weakness for caffeine or curiosity about the inside of the manor. All these factors might have played a role in that decision, but according to the libertarian, none are considered a sufficient cause, for ultimately you decided which factors to attend to and you actually could have rejected Lewis's offer. Instead of pursuing a hot beverage with a new acquaintance, you could have politely refused (or rudely refused for that matter) and opted to continue your evening walk. There were reasons for doing as you did, though these did not cause your decision. The decision to enter the house and drink tea was not a matter of necessity - neither Lewis's offer nor any other factor determined your will. The ability to resist the overture was a live option.
The libertarian, then, acknowledges the principle of causation in the physical world at large but believes human actions should be explained in terms of inner states, motives or reasons. Actions are free precisely because it is the individual who deliberates and decides what weight to give these factors. So a free act in this paradigm cannot be reduced to anything beyond the choice of the agent. In other words, outside factors might contribute to the decision, but ultimately it is up to the person to make a true choice between two or more live options.
Note: The authors go on to discuss "soft determinism" (compatibilism), but you will just have to read some of this book for yourselves... :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.