(Response)
I wanted to write you back, but lacking the time to do justice to each question (which they undoubtedly deserve; they are fantastic) I am breaking them up into sections. Besides, the break seems somewhat natural anyway.
So, I'll start here:
(Question)
Firstly, in terms of Job, when God reveals Himself to Job in order to scold him for questioning Him, isn't that inhibiting Job's free will? Doesn't this show that Job didn't in fact remain faithful? Because instead of continuing to believe in God's judgement, Job questions His actions.
(Response)
Regarding Job, your question is a good one. But ultimately, when God reveals Himself, it is not an infringement upon Job's freewill because at the time of this revelation, it is not as if Job is questioning God's existence, he is more so questioning why he has had to suffer. If it was the former, then there might be a foundation for an argument, but there never seems to be any moment in those final chapters where the existence of God is ultimately in question. Job knows there is a God so His presence is not the surprising factor. Nor is that the intention of the book. We are not supposed to read the book of Job and consequently think to ourselves, "Whoa, there really is a God. He even came to Job to prove it." Rather, we should be focused on the fact that no matter how wise we believe we are, and no matter how much we think we understand about the workings of the world, our knowledge is but a fraction of God's. To quote, "Were we there when God laid the foundations of the earth?" (Job 38:1 author translation)
Two further comparisons are appropriate here in order to better illustrate this point. Throughout the entirety of the Gospels, people are constantly begging Jesus to perform a "sign". Their requests are frequently met with admonitions by Jesus. This is due to the fact that Jesus wants them to know with their hearts instead of simply their eyes. This is the case for an assortment of reasons, but namely because we have a tendency to explain away the things that we see. Yes, in the moment we may believe, but after the fact, we often seek out a number of excuses and justifications for what we previously thought to be miraculous. However, to know with one's heart is completely different. What we know there is much more resilient. What is to be gained from this is an understanding of Christ's intentions. He wants to leave our freewill intact. He want us to choose Him.
Additionally, as we look further into the Gospels and the miracles performed by Jesus (and those that happen everyday for that matter), we are again forced to ask the question: Is this miraculous intervention an infringement upon our free-will? And again the answer is no, but for a very interesting reason. When we examine the miracles performed in the Gospels, they all share a fascinating theme. Jesus declares each time that the person's faith has saved them. What this tells us is that the faith precedes the miracle. Christ does not perform the miracle without the individuals first knowing (in their hearts) that He is able to do so. The miracles do not convert them. They are already converted and the miracles follow. The same is true of many miracles today. People seek out God's intervention (and in doing so, their belief is already evident), so God is not taking away free-will, people are choosing to be in relationship with Him and to place their trust in His power.
With all of that said, Job certainly faltered in his trust in the Lord, but he never lost faith in Him. Job always knew the Lord was there, he simply wanted an explanation for his suffering, I think in this, we can relate a lot to Job. In many ways, we want to be privy to the plan.
(Question)
Additionally, you stated that souls are limited by the physical aspect of people which they are tied to. But how can a soul, which is the form of humanity be limited by that which is beneath it in terms of the divided line. To put this in perspective, wouldn't this mean that your hand could be limited by the shadow it casts?
(Response)
Hmmm... this a a very interesting philosophical inquiry. In short though, I think if we examine the relationship between the body and the soul vs. the relationship between a hand and its shadow, the difference becomes quite clear. Unlike the forms as they are portrayed in Plato's theory, the soul, as you mentioned above, is intimately tied to the body, whereas the forms are not tied or linked to the things of the visible world. This is an important distinction. Since we are composed of body and soul, there is often a struggle for control. That is a somewhat simplistic explanation of the dynamic, but nonetheless, it works in that it illustrates how sometimes we give way to the body (or the flesh) while other times we adhere to the will of the soul. A hand and its shadow do not "battle" in the same way for control. Whatever the hand does, the shadow follows. But as we know, and talked about in class today, even though we may know the desire of the soul (what is right) we constantly fail to act in accordance with it. As an aside though, you created an interesting link between Plato's theory and Peter Pan. He is constantly struggling with his shadow, and sometimes it even dictates where his physical form seems to go. The dynamic of soul and body is similar. Yes, the soul is the form of humanity, but it is not separate in the way that the forms are separate from the things of Plato's divided line.
(Question)
If God created the universe, He would have to do so with His omniscience allowing his insight into the actions that all people would take. Doesn't this mean that predestination is inevitable and so, free will is not actually real?
(Response)
First of all, I don't necessarily believe that the creation of the universe was dependent on the actions of the people who would occupy it. In fact, in our time, the universe existed for billions of years before there were even any people at all. Thus, while God did create the universe and He is omniscient and therefore knew the path that all things would take, His omniscience did not threaten to inhibit the freewill of the people who would eventually come to inhabit earth. This is namely due to the fact that God experiences time in a much different fashion than we do. As mentioned in class, God is atemporal. He is outside of time and space. Therefore, whereas we see time chronologically, God sees all time as if it is the present and only time. He knows all things, past, present and future as if they simply are, as opposed to "have happened" or "are going to happen". By understanding this notion, we can also come to understand that God can know what we will choose to do without impeding our ability to choose to do it. As an individual, you are still actively exercising your freewill, making decisions and so fourth, God simply knows what that decision will be. This does not mean it is determined, remember, you chose it, it simply shows that while we have yet to decide, God knows the beginning middle and end because to Him it is all simply the now.
To carry this point one step further, many theologians argue that we (in chronological time) are actually never in the present. Kind of like the notion that we can not truly know something in the visible world because it is constantly in flux, time (at least in the temporal realm) functions in a similar fashion. It is always passing. Therefore every moment is actually a past moment or future moment. With that said, God is the only thing that can exist in the present because for Him all time exists simultaneously. Outside the temporal realm, time simply is. Therefore God is actually the only true present.
Thanks for being patient with me and the fact that it took so long to reply. I hope you learned something interesting!
MRD
No comments:
Post a Comment