I would take Lewis' side on much of the discussion because it seems to me from what little I've read of his, that he attempts to argue strongly from a position of reasoned thought with Biblical backing, and that is more how my mind works as well.
I'd agree with this:
But, first, to insure that we are not sliding by one another, could you define what you mean by “free will”? That is, your view seems to comport with CS Lewis’ view and he understood “free will” to be something close to the unaided, un-effected capacity of all men to make a decision without being manipulated or managed by God in any way.
Notice, this is not “un-affected”, which means God can still exert great pressure upon a man from the outside, but “un-effected” meaning that God does not reach inside a man and move his heart to do this or that. Nothing, according to Lewis, accomplishes a man’s decisions except that man’s own “chooser”.
To me, a world without true free will makes this a clockwork universe, without any real point. It presumes man to be a mere cog, or automaton within machinery that will execute its own pre-defined mechanistic way regardless of what we, as individuals do or do not do. Such a world would be devoid of any real meaning.
That is, if God is good, and everything done simply expressed God’s will (that is, He was managing it to be done) then everything done would have to be by definition good. Since it is patently obvious that everything in this world is NOT good, he argued something other than God must have caused all the things which went astray. Those “other things” must be beings in rebellion, beings free from God. This, he says, is common sense.
There is something about the above quote that doesn't quite ring true. This, I would disagree with in part. God is indeed good (for all values of same). The claim being that God could not create something evil or bad. I don't think it makes sense to say that evil itself stands alone. Bad choices can lead to bad (or evil) results. Acting in a way that is not God's will, will lead to all kinds of badness. Then there are other considerations. Is getting your home washed away by a hurricane "bad"? I'd say not in an evil sense, but more in a sense of "don't build on the shore unless you are prepated for the possible consequences".
So, man is the real culprit for all of this evil and this is precisely why Lewis says that it cannot derive from God. God is not like this, He would not fight against Himself, He would not create such deranged thinking. No rational God would create a thing that He hates, then make it war against Himself and then set out to destroy it.
I think it's dangerous to start saying the God would not, or could not do something. While I lean twards this in some ways, I also don't think that we actually know what's really going on in God's mind. We don't really have the big picture. I think we get bits and pieces of it, but not the whole kit. Taking a look into the Hubble Deep Field image is enough to show us how small and limited our minds are even when considering something as spatial distances in the universe. How can we possibly comprehend the mind of that which caused all of this to come into being with a spoken word?
Sin, Lewis says, just could not possibly be the product of a God in whom there is no darkness. It must be from something that He does not control. He simply created just the opportunity for it go awry.
Again, i think it's dangerous to make certain assumptions. I have a friend, who spends a lot of time in the Word, and we've discussed this a bit. He would say that Satan is ultimately doing God's will because he is necessary for God's plan (whatever that ultimately is - beyond the simple notions of salvation and such). This is similar to a discussion we had in a Bible study group about Judas and his actions. Judas had the choice whether or not to betray Jesus, but that very betrayal was deeply worked into the plan from the beginning. Jesus essentially told him at the last supper, to (paraphrasing) "go do what you must do". Did God force Judas to do what he did? I think not. If so, the action was beyond his control, and I don't see how guilt can be assigned to an automaton. Did the Lord allow Satan to whisper into Judas' ear? Almost certainly IMO, and the weakness of the man caused what was to follow.
Overall, I'd say that much of what you wrote in your post is an accurate description of my stance. Quibbles here and there, but not enough to really matter.
Sorry about the delay, but my wife is in the hospital at the moment, and I don't have much time for this level of discussion. Glad to do it though. I expect you'll next lay all those arguments to waste. :-)
I had ‘blockquotes’ in my response. I should have previewed, because when I looked at my post, I don’t see them. Hope my post makes sense without them for formatting.
A few comments to respond. Have not heard of Johann Arndt, but agree that the King’s English is a little thick. CS Lewis is a head full using 20th cent. English. But, he was a strong advocate for the “free will” position and seemed to articulate a number of the best arguments. Your comments along the way help me understand where you might differ (just slightly) with Lewis.
"To me, a world without true free will makes this a clockwork universe, without any real point. It presumes man to be a mere cog, or automaton within machinery that will execute its own pre-defined mechanistic way regardless of what we, as individuals do or do not do. Such a world would be devoid of any real meaning."
Good opening arguments here. They provide a number of opportunities for questions.
"If God is in fact guiding all of the activities of His universe (and we agree that He is a live, thinking being) does this necessarily mean that the universe is ‘mechanistic’?"
That is, does the active management by God require that He behave without any thought, feeling, planning?
"How did you arrive at the opinion that if God were actively directing all elements of His universe, this must mean there is no '…real point'?"
In your first post, you used the analogy of an author holding a book in his hands, being able to see it all played out at one time. Then you said this cannot be the situation since, "…the characters in the book and film are scripted. In our case, we have free will granted to us by His providence." Would the book or film have no "real point" since it is scripted?
"Can we assume that you are in a position to judge the author and decide that because you cannot see a point, there is not one?"
You noted, "I think it’s dangerous to start saying the (that) God would not, or could not do something." Yet, can we then assume that you believe you are in a position to determine that God could not create and manage every detail of a universe without it being, "…devoid of any real meaning."?
You mention that you have recently been reading the Bible regularly. Can you tell us where the Scriptures support your claim that a world without free will would be meaningless?
Your remarks about Judas are very interesting. In particular, the remark about him being, "…deeply worked into the plan from the beginning." This points up the edges of the description the Scriptures express about how subtle, how "deep" the control of God may be. More on Scriptural support later.
"If you are looking at deep space through Hubble’s imaging, and you are noticing the enormity of the mind containing this existence, just how big is the God of Israel, the God of heaven & earth?"
"If we agree that He speaks this into existence with a word, but further admit that, '…He upholds all things by the word of His power.' (Heb. 1), must the model we acquiesce to be wound up and thrown off while He goes fishing?"
"Could the upholding be a continual maintenance? Can you feel being maintained? Must I be able to sense it or therefore I am certain His maintenance does not exist? What exactly does the Scriptures say about “free will” vs. “divine determinism”? Is this not a crucial piece of the puzzle?
Whew! Okay, I'll sit tight till you get an opening.