Question- God must allow evil to exist in order to allow free will to exist

[Timmay]

Help me work through why this statement can't be.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jNX2rS7K4A

Ravi Zacharias shows how God must allow evil to exist in order to allow free will to exist. Free will must exist in order for us to Love.

 

[MW]

I haven't watched the video, so I can't speak to that; but the point itself, if I have read it correctly, is a commonplace in theodicy. It brings out the fact that God has higher reasons for permitting sin; and one of the more obvious ones is that it gives man the freedom of his choices and traces the nature of sin back to its source in the will of man.

Love can be considered as an act of the will. With benevolence the will chooses to do good for the sake of profiting another. With complacence the will rests with delight in its like object.

 

[Afterthought]

I haven't watched the video, so I can't speak to that; but the point itself, if I have read it correctly, is a commonplace in theodicy. It brings out the fact that God has higher reasons for permitting sin; and one of the more obvious ones is that it gives man the freedom of his choices and traces the nature of sin back to its source in the will of man.

Couldn't God have created a world where free will existed and evil was not permitted to occur (i.e., man simply never chose evil, rather than God intervening prior to evil being chosen)? So strictly speaking, it is not that evil must be allowed for free will to exist, but rather, the possibility of evil must be allowed for free will to exist?

 

[MW]

I haven't watched the video, so I can't speak to that; but the point itself, if I have read it correctly, is a commonplace in theodicy. It brings out the fact that God has higher reasons for permitting sin; and one of the more obvious ones is that it gives man the freedom of his choices and traces the nature of sin back to its source in the will of man.

Couldn't God have created a world where free will existed and evil was not permitted to occur (i.e., man simply never chose evil, rather than God intervening prior to evil being chosen)? So strictly speaking, it is not that evil must be allowed for free will to exist, but rather, the possibility of evil must be allowed for free will to exist?

Point taken. We need to be careful not to import necessarian ideas into God's purposes. At the same time, redemptive history affords an insight into the manifold wisdom of God, and in light of that we can see numerous advantages which follow because God has chosen to manifest His grace in a fallen world.

 

[Timmay]

So is Ravi's answer an adequate one? Or does it place conditions upon God?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MW]

So is Ravi's answer an adequate one? Or does it place conditions upon God?

God has placed conditions on Himself. He chose a specific plan to manifest His glory. And from our viewpoint history cannot be changed. We look at it as something which was necessary to our present position. If all this is understood in terms of the freedom of God who has decreed all things, the point about freedom of will has its place. If one denies the exhaustive decree, then the argument would place conditions on God, which would effectively deny His independence and freedom.

 

[Timmay]

So was Adam originally disposed towards good and evil equally?
(posse peccare, posse non peccare)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MW]

So was Adam originally disposed towards good and evil equally?
(posse peccare, posse non peccare)

Ontologically the will as such is an inclination to good. Indifference is not possible because man owes God perfect obedience. Adam's will was unfallen, which means it was only inclined to good. But eschatologically Adam was placed in a state of probation with the possibility to be deceived and choose otherwise. His will was free in this respect. He was able not to sin and created with an inclination not to sin, but also with the possibility of change which included the possibility of inclining towards sin.

 

[Taylor]

Free will must exist in order for us to Love.

I've thought about this statement for a while. If (libertarian) free will is necessary for genuine love to take place, then it seems to me that the New Heavens and New Earth, where we will not be able to sin, will be the most loveless epoch in redemptive history.

 

[KGP]

Free will must exist in order for us to Love.

I've thought about this statement for a while. Is (libertarian) free will is necessary for genuine love to take place, then it seems to me that the New Heavens and New Earth, where we will not be able to sin, will be the most loveless epoch in redemptive history.

I am with you on that point.

It is a step short to say that God permitted evil so that we might truly have free will; that possibility of evil exists is necessary for there to be truly free will. I think statements like this fall short because they place the freedom of man at the forefront of God's concern or aim in creation; which I don't believe to be the case. Taylor Sexton touched on another reason I don't like that statement; it supposes that freedom of the will is realized ultimately by having all options or choices (sinful or not) equally available.

I think that the real connection between sin and free will is always negative. Free will is diminished, restricted, and forfeited; to whatever extent the possibility or presence of sin is active in the will.

Sin never makes the reality of free will possible; it is always a force undermining and assaulting true spiritual freedom. The freest will then is the one entirely uninfluenced by sin.

This yields a proper perspective on our full redemption at the return of Christ and our glorification: we need not fear any lack of freedom in the absence of every trace of sin, we will in fact be finally and perfectly free at last in the deepest core of our being; our wills. It is a thought worth cherishing!

The view I've explained also produces a proper perspective on obedience, at least it has in my life; it is very tempting I find with the view that Ravi mentions to applaud ourselves at the choice of good rather than evil; and to even seek reward or blessing for turning away from what is wrong. 'I freely chose to do it; I could have done a lot worse you know!'

Instead; I lament that there was even a choice for me to do bad; I'm humbled that there is still such a preference and affection for sin within me; even though I know enough not to act upon it.

The freest will is the one whose will is tight bound to God. Jesus was more free than any; yet he never deviated to the left or the right. For him, freedom was a dead straight path; hemmed in on every side, constrained to perfect obedience and love. That's what true freedom looks like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MW]

The freest will then is the one entirely uninfluenced by sin.

Holiness is not mere absence of sin. There must be positive embracing of the good.

The prohibition placed Adam in a situation where he should abstain from evil by choosing the goodness of being subject to God. He was righteous, but not yet confirmed in righteousness.

The view I've explained also produces a proper perspective on obedience, at least it has in my life; it is very tempting I find with the view that Ravi mentions to applaud ourselves at the choice of good rather than evil; and to even seek reward or blessing for turning away from what is wrong. 'I freely chose to do it; I could have done a lot worse you know!'

Holy Scripture teaches us to seek the reward or recompense of grace. It leads us to depend upon grace for ability to will and do of God's good pleasure, and gives us hope of a reward for the work of God's grace -- grace for grace.

The freest will is the one whose will is tight bound to God. Jesus was more free than any; yet he never deviated to the left or the right. For him, freedom was a dead straight path; hemmed in on every side, constrained to perfect obedience and love. That's what true freedom looks like.

Our Lord was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. He chose and embraced subjection to the will and work of the Father. He overcame when He was tempted.

 

[KGP]

Thank you Rev. Winzer for engaging with my response, you've made some good points I need to think on further. My view may not be correct; I haven't really ever subjected it to closer examination, so I appreciate your engagement with me on it.

The freest will then is the one entirely uninfluenced by sin.

Holiness is not mere absence of sin. There must be positive embracing of the good.

The prohibition placed Adam in a situation where he should abstain from evil by choosing the goodness of being subject to God. He was righteous, but not yet confirmed in righteousness.

You mentioned holiness. I'll make note here that I wasn't speaking of holiness, I was referring specifically to the will and in regard to it's freedom. I view possibility for sin in the will as a form of bondage in that will; and any inclination toward sin in the will I regard as evidence of a real bondage in the will. A will that experiences zero affection or inclination toward sin is a free will, and the will that has no possibility of experiencing any such tendencies toward sin is the only will that I consider to be a 'free will' in the purest sense.


But as bondage relates to sin, so freedom relates to holiness; and so I don't see much problem with substituting freedom and holiness in the discussion. They are not synonymous, of course, but I think they have much in common or at least in connection. I view holiness in relation to sin in much the same way I view freedom in relation to sin; in that both holiness and freedom require and absence of sin.

Holiness is not mere absence of sin. There must be positive embracing of the good.

I see where you are coming from, but I have to ask then; does not a failure or even a hesitancy to embrace the good constitute sin? Surely it does.
The absence of sin includes the absence of every failure toward everything that is good; and leaves us with only a perpetual and flawless embrace and execution of all that is good at every point.

So I think that it is true to say that holiness is the absence of sin; and that true freedom of the will can only be realized in the absence of the influence of sin upon it.

The view I've explained also produces a proper perspective on obedience, at least it has in my life; it is very tempting I find with the view that Ravi mentions to applaud ourselves at the choice of good rather than evil; and to even seek reward or blessing for turning away from what is wrong. 'I freely chose to do it; I could have done a lot worse you know!'

Holy Scripture teaches us to seek the reward or recompense of grace. It leads us to depend upon grace for ability to will and do of God's good pleasure, and gives us hope of a reward for the work of God's grace -- grace for grace.

You have a very valid point here. Makes me reflect; I don't actually do a good job of enjoying or rejoicing in the grace by which I do my good works. And I have received much, much grace in my recent years. I know it is only by grace that I do these works, but perhaps I still fixate too much on the weakness that my deeds are done in. As I read it, I agree with your statement entirely; perhaps on a personal level I need to think more about the reward of his grace.

It probably would have been more accurate to say of myself that in the past I have attempted to 'earn' reward or blessing from turning away from what is evil (obedience in the flesh); or to use my obedience as a platform for pride or as an excuse for selfishness in other areas of my life. Realizing that my will is still in bondage to many worldly and fleshly affections helps me keep a proper perspective on the good deeds and actions I do produce.

The freest will is the one whose will is tight bound to God. Jesus was more free than any; yet he never deviated to the left or the right. For him, freedom was a dead straight path; hemmed in on every side, constrained to perfect obedience and love. That's what true freedom looks like.

Our Lord was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. He chose and embraced subjection to the will and work of the Father. He overcame when He was tempted.

I agree with you in your statements here; I am wondering if you are offering these as corrective of something I wrote? If so, expand upon what you take exception with, I'd like to know.

Thanks MW.

 

[MW]

I agree with you in your statements here; I am wondering if you are offering these as corrective of something I wrote? If so, expand upon what you take exception with, I'd like to know.

I gave these statements merely to bring out the point that there is wisdom in the fact that God placed man in a state of probation with the ultimate purpose of redeeming man by Christ's voluntary subjection. The freedom of the will in both the first and second Adam is a faultless provision of the divine government. Humanity fell by an exercise of human free will, and redemption was accomplished by an exercise of human free will. There are depths of wisdom here which we ought to admire.

 

[KGP]

I agree with you in your statements here; I am wondering if you are offering these as corrective of something I wrote? If so, expand upon what you take exception with, I'd like to know.

I gave these statements merely to bring out the point that there is wisdom in the fact that God placed man in a state of probation with the ultimate purpose of redeeming man by Christ's voluntary subjection. The freedom of the will in both the first and second Adam is a faultless provision of the divine government. Humanity fell by an exercise of human free will, and redemption was accomplished by an exercise of human free will. There are depths of wisdom here which we ought to admire.

Right; I understand. Another good truth to dwell on. The incarnation and hypostatic Union are fascinating realities to consider, so much depth and breadth to their truth.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk