In 1986 (as I was graduating from high school) Prof. Robert Hann published one of the most lucid discussions of election you will ever read. This paper delves into the Reformed understanding of election, but using the machinery of Alvin Plantinga's many-worlds formalism. He does this using, as a sort of test case, Jesus' own election.
I had never thought of Jesus' election as a test bed for understanding the doctrine of election, and found it a very interesting discussion. And I think the many-worlds interpretation does a nice job of retaining the free will both of God and of humanity. What do you think? Add your thoughts ideas--any at all--as comments to this post!
1 comment:
Okay, I know I am writing something only I will read, but I can't resist.
I think the problem Bob's addressing in his article is: If God knows ahead of time what free choices we will make, are they really free? (I take this from the last paragraph of Section I.)
He avoids the question by imagining a host of worlds in which we make free decisions, and having God choose one of them, the one he likes.
But the question is only troubling if you think that free will is violated by foreknowledge.
I think for this Jesus is a really good test case, because we can say (1) Jesus will always freely choose not to sin
(2) God, and all orthodox Christians know this.
Our knowing it doesn't make it not so, not in anyone's mind. So if God's and our knowledge of Jesus' sinlessness doesn't deprive him of free will, then surely God's knowledge of the decisions our individual natures mandate doesn't deprive us of free will either.
Typical of philosophy, it all boils down to definition of terms: What does it mean to have free will. If your definition of free will allows foreknowledge, you are done before you start.
Post a Comment