Francis Berger's Blog, page 19

The Limits of Created Freedom

If one follows the tenets of classical theism to their logical conclusions, it quickly becomes evident that God is the only authentically free being in the cosmos. On top of that, he will forever remain the only authentically free being in the cosmos.

Immutable, impassible, and entirely self-sufficient, God does not need anything or any other being. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, God is also not constrained or limited by anything or any other being.

God is so free that his essence and existence are indistinguishable, making him utterly distinct from all other beings, all of which he created from nothing, none of which he needs.

Put another way, God is perfectly free to be God, and there is nothing in the cosmos that does or can interfere with or influence his godly freedom, not even his Creation, which he transcends.

The only limits or constraints God experiences are the ones he sets for himself. More specifically, those that do not contradict his nature—his perfect wisdom and character.

One notable limit God sets himself is the inability to create another god.

Omnigod is also a mono-god. He does not want or need other gods. And even if he did, he couldn’t create any.

As free as God is, he is not free to create other gods.

Try as he might, God could never raise any of his creatures to his level because it is logically impossible for him to do so.

Moreover, God’s “free” actual creatures could never utilize their freedom to become god-like or attain godhood.

Thus, the freedom inherent in God’s created “actual” beings cannot and never will contain any seed of godhood.

Any created freedom that contained even a hint of godhood would not only contradict but also serve as a direct assault against God’s freedom, which is the only uncreated freedom in existence.

Of course, classical theism incorporates all of the above into its assumptions concerning God’s overarching divine purposes for Creation.

I don't know about you, but those assumptions come off as awfully limiting, for both God and man. 
​
All I can say is this -- God's overarching divine purposes become much “freer” and perhaps even more logical when one entertains the simple assumption that all freedom --not just God's--is uncreated. 

Note added: I used impassable when I mean impassible. H/T to Bruce Charlton for catching that and bringing it to my attention. 

Focusing on the Work, Not the Corrections

If I had to define the Christianity I have pursued over the past decade or so—yes, pursue, not practice or follow—I would say that I do my utmost to focus on Jesus’ work rather than the corrections to his work.
 
By focusing on the work, I am referring to discerning the true nature of Jesus’ teaching, how we can align with it, and what we can do and think to be in harmony with it. 

As for the corrections, I count virtually everything and anything that dilutes, weakens, adulterates, laces, misinterprets, denatures, taints, or corrupts the work and its essence. 

Detecting the corrections and distinguishing it from the work is not always easy, but it is always worth the effort.

Night Travellers at a Cross, Again

I posted this painting about five years ago, but I happened to revisit it the other day and thought it deserved a repost.  László Mednyánszky - 1880

Lesser Evil Is Never Good

Let’s focus on this—a conscious, uncoerced choice for lesser evil reveals an awareness that one is indeed choosing evil; hence, the matter boils down to qualifying evil to avoid the choice perceived as greater evil. 

In the end, one has still chosen evil rather than good. 

I don’t believe God places anyone in circumstances that prevent alignment with good over evil. 

Individual failure to recognize or discover a good choice does not absolve one of choosing lesser evil.

The responsibility for the choice remains. Part of that responsibility entails acknowledging the choice for lesser evil as an authentic choice for evil and repenting it.
​ 
Rationalizing a choice for lesser evil as good only exacerbates the evil inherent in the choice—to the point that it perhaps even exceeds the “greater evil” choice one shunned.

Real Freedom is Knowing, Not Choosing

Homer enjoying his God-created freedom. The biggest challenge facing Christians is the seeming nebulousness of Christian values and principles.

Freedom. Love. Faith.

Christians like to believe that they have nailed these down at the personal level, but real-world experience indicates that this is very far from true. Most Christians have no direct knowledge of these values and principles and rely instead on external, secondary sources for knowledge and guidance.

Sometimes these external secondary sources originate from Christian traditions; however, they are often merely echoes of the materialist totalitarianism currently dominating the world.

Of all purported Christian values, none is as ill-defined as freedom. Everyone appears to know what freedom is, but very few genuinely know it. The conventional Christian attitude toward freedom assumes the existence of something termed “necessary freedom.”

Necessary freedom implies that when God created man from nothing, he simultaneously made man an actual being; that is, created him with the inherent freedom and agency to act, think, and make moral decisions and choices.

In this sense, man’s freedom and agency are created in the same way man’s skeleton and hair are created. They all originate from nothing, which God then somehow made into something. Man has no say in the skeleton God created for him and can do very little to alter his created skeleton. Yet he is completely “free” to utilize the freedom God gave him because freedom is not the same thing as a set of bones.

And what is this freedom God gave man? Moral choice? The freedom to choose between the tempting demon on one shoulder and the consoling angel on the other?

Depictions of such choices usually involve a subject agonizing over which to choose—the demon or the angel. The dilemma usually involves some externally imposed circumstance in which the individual must choose. Is such torturous deliberation the essence of freedom? Moreover, is God’s gift of created freedom to make such choices gift at all?

Everyone appears to know what freedom is but very few directly know it, let alone experience it. Choosing what to have for lunch or which car to buy represents a scant definition of freedom. Moreover, the act of choosing itself is often tiring and burdensome, and doubt usually mars the brief liberation we experience after having made our choice.

Maybe I should have had the fish? Perhaps the Corolla was the better option?

FOMO. FOBO. Multi-billion-dollar advertising and marketing firms pummel and manipulate you and your supposed created free will choices incessantly, day in, day out with this stuff. 

Let’s kick up the moral implication a few notches. Maybe I should have cheated on my wife with that hot secretary? Perhaps getting the peck during the birdemic was not the best decision after all?

None of this is true freedom.

The above does not imply that such externally imposed moral choices are avoidable in mortal life. All I am saying is that racking one’s brain over the demon and angel presents an extremely limited understanding of what freedom comprises. Freedom is bigger and deeper than that.

To begin to address what I mean, I turn to Dr. Charlton, who recently posted some interesting observations concerning Jesus and the Second Creation:

Jesus Christ's work came naturally to him - he was not acting upon instructions.

When he awoke to his divine creativity, Jesus knew what needed to be done - because he was a Man (as well as perfectly aligned-with God's creation); and he spontaneously realized that what Men needed to live wholly by, for and from Love; was eternal Heavenly life - that is, to be saved from evil, entropy and death.

Jesus knew this for himself, and from himself.

Jesus knew what needed to be done. He knew this for himself, and from himself. In other words, Jesus knew what he needed to think and do directly. His alignment with God and Creation elevated him far above the level of “created freedom” and its free-will choosing.
 
To put it another way, do you think Jesus knowing what needed to be done involved a prolonged deliberation with himself about choices? Do you think he agonized over angels and demons on his shoulders before committing to the Second Creation?

No, as Berdyaev observed, Christ was a free man, the freest of the sons of men. He was free from the world; He was bound only by love. Christ spoke as one having authority, but He did not have the will to authority, and He was not a master.

Jesus exemplified an entirely distinct level of freedom that I have often referred to as spiritual freedom.

The essence of spiritual freedom lies not in making the right choices among externals; the essence of spiritual freedom lies in not having to choose at all.

The essence of spiritual freedom involves knowing exactly what to think and do for yourself, from yourself. The business of choice based primarily on external factors or secondary sources never enters the equation.

Jesus was the freest of the sons of men because he liberated himself from the “necessity” of choosing between externally imposed, worldly factors. No angel or demon dared perch on his shoulders.

Of course, we are not Jesus, yet he did call upon us to be free. As the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov notes, Jesus sought to increase man’s freedom.

How?

By following his example and striving toward spiritual freedom, the sort of freedom that should come naturally once one accepts that Heaven and eternal resurrected life are possible. The old inquisitor considers this Christ’s folly. He accuses Jesus of expecting too much of man because the last thing man yearns for is freedom, to say nothing of increased freedom.

In other words, the last thing men want is direct knowledge. The last thing men seek is to know good and evil for themselves, from themselves, using Christ’s image only as a guide.

The last thing men desire is to be free of the world, assured of the knowledge of eternal, resurrected life. Such freedom is far too burdensome, and they will avoid it all costs in favor of submission to externally imposed choices and angel/demon wrangling.

The last thing men want is to know that their freedom is inherently theirs. That it is uncreated. That they brought it with them when God formed them into Creation. That they are ultimately responsible for that freedom.

That the whole point of Creation and Jesus’ Second Creation is the authentic spiritual operation and alignment of that freedom via direct knowing, not free will choosing.

This is difficult to achieve consistently in mortal life, yet not impossible, at least intermittently.

We should strive for spiritual freedom at all times, motivated by the knowledge that every experience of direct knowing not only "sets us free" but also provides a small, feint glimpse of the overarching purpose of Creation and Heaven.

Direct knowing is spiritual freedom and there should be nothing nebulous about any of that.  

Charlton's Best Post This Year (So Far)

I encourage those who have not yet read Dr. Charlton's recent post concerning Jesus and the Second Creation to do so at their earliest convenience. 

The post begins with the sentence: 

Jesus Christ's work came naturally to him - he was not acting upon instructions.

Those who understand what Dr. Charlton is implying here are likely to comprehend or at least somewhat grasp some of the themes Romantic Christian blogs regularly address -- themes like aligning with God, spiritual freedom, agency,  love, creativity, and Heaven. 

Those who do not understand or resist the implications in the sentence above (and the post as a whole) would be well served by contemplating Dr. Charlton's post from a perspective that willingly moves beyond ingrained, inculcated metaphysical assumptions. 

The very essence of what Christianity is -- or should be -- may just come to light, at least at the personal level.  

Created Freedom is a Burden

If God created our freedom, our freedom is of God . The best we can aspire to under such an assumption is to use this of God freedom be free for God .

Of God freedom is free will freedom—the freedom the choose between good and evil.

Of God freedom defines good as God’s law and evil as the rejection of this law. It is an imposed freedom. A necessary freedom. A natural freedom.

Put another way, of God freedom is determined freedom; that is, freedom determined by God, who not only creates the specific nature of human freedom, but also stipulates the uses and limits of such freedom.

Created freedom always boils down to the enslaving, burdensome matter of having to choose based upon naturalistic metaphysics. It reduces freedom to exterior-givens between choices. This weighs man down spiritually and makes life heavy and oppressive. Created freedom buries man in the external world and perpetually presses him to choose!

Of God freedom leaves no space for genuine spiritual creativity, nor does it value it. Obedience and fulfillment of predetermined expectations are the highest values to which created freedom can aspire. The essence of created freedom is God seeking a response to himself, from himself.

If God created man’s freedom, then man is just an instrument in the fulfillment—or rejection—of God’s law.

Very few modern people care about using God’s created freedom for God and choose instead to utilize of God freedom to free themselves of God and the burden of created freedom entirely.

Thus, the highest modern value is to be free from God and created freedom.

Nevertheless, the freedom modern people experience is basically of the same quality as of God freedom, albeit without the burden of having to worry about God at all.
​
So much for God creating human freedom to seek a response to himself, from himself. 

The Heat; It Hindered

I had planned to complete three projects this summer:

1) a 3x4 meter tool shed
2) concrete steps with a concrete brick barrier wall for the main entrance of the house.
3) a full renovation of the old, dilapidated pig barn that juts out from the back of the house

I managed to complete the first two projects, but the third, the pig barn, remains a work in progress.

To quote Meatloaf, I "don't feel bad because two out three ain't bad."

I’d say the pig barn conversion is about 40% complete at this point. I gutted the old building, poured a new concrete floor, added two wood frame back walls, and the new roof rafters are all in place.

Here’s what I still need to do:Install the OSB sheathing and shingles for the roofFit the windows and doorPlaster the external and internal wallsHang drywall inside on parts that won’t be plasteredHave the electrician do the wiring and install the lighting fixturesPut in some kind of flooring
I knew I wouldn’t complete the whole thing in the summer, but I had hoped that I would at least have the roof and shingles up, which means I am about a week or two behind my estimated schedule.

I normally don’t like to affixblame to externals for my shortcomings, but as I reflect over my progress this summer, I can’t ignore how much the prolonged, excessive heat this season hindered my work. Even today it was 32 degrees centigrade!

Thankfully, slightly cooler weather is on the horizon; however, I recently returned to my job, which means this project will become a strictly weekend warrior affair going forward.

In all honesty, I’m not too bothered by that. Once I have the roof in place, I can alternate between internal and external work as weather and time allows. If all goes well, I might have the whole thing done in the next couple of months.

Created Freedom Cannot Be True Freedom

Kristor from the Orthosphere has posted a well-mannered rebuttal to my post from yesterday.

I respect Kristor. He’s a brilliant and well-read individual whose dogged pursuit of philosophical and theological matters deserves admiration. Having said that, Kristor also has a penchant for side-stepping or strategically working around assumptions he discerns as problematic. 

My main point from yesterday’s post was straightforward. If God created my freedom, then my freedom is not really mine, nor is it really free. Freedom can only be truly free if it is uncreated — that is, not from God. 

Kristor responded by citing actuality and claiming that actuality and freedom are mutually implicate.

I agree with that, but it doesn’t address the issue of where freedom originated. 

When Kristor uses the term actual, he means beings who possess agency. Hammers are created and exist, but they are not actual because they cannot act and must be acted upon. Hence, hammers possess no freedom. 

People, on the other hand, are actual beings because they can and do act from their freedom and agency. Thus, Kristor argues that it would be impossible for God to create an actual being that was not free. It’s a sort of two-in-one, can’t-have-one-without-the-other package deal. And since God creates actual beings, he also creates the freedom actual beings possess.

Okay, but this is precisely the assumption that I am contesting, backed by the simple premise that if God automatically made me free when he created me as an actual being, then my freedom is entirely of God — ergo, not really mine, not really free. 

For clarity's sake, I will briefly outline a few of my basic metaphysical assumptions.

I assume that I existed before my present form. I possessed some degree of freedom and agency before God created me into His Creation, and I brought this freedom and agency with me into Creation as a being. God created my present form, but He did not create my freedom because my freedom was already there, uncreated in my prior form as a being. 

The existence of this uncreated freedom in Creation is what makes beings in Creation truly free. Moreover, it also coherently absolves God from being regarded as the ultimate source of evil.     

God is the Creator, and this is His Creation. Yet His Creation contains features He did not create, primarily, the inherent freedom and agency of eternally existing beings.

I understand the above will strike Kristor as anathema because he views freedom from within the framework of a different set of assumptions, including belief in creatio ex nihilo and the Omnigod, which I reject.   

Created Freedom Is God's Square Circle

Everyone is likely familiar with the square circle paradox — the idea that God cannot create a square circle because to do so would be to go against His nature and, in essence, deny Himself. 

Of course, this is the same God most Christians assume to be omni-everything—capable of doing anything and everything He pleases, except go against His nature. 

Hence, God can, in theory, create a square circle, but the very act of doing so would rend asunder the very fabric of Creation, the Logos; hence, God either refuses to or cannot break the laws of logic, which are the essence of God Himself.

Put another way, God cannot do anything that usurps Himself as God; he cannot do the logically impossible. 

Yet, for reasons I still find inexplicable, God can create freedom from nothing, pass that freedom onto all the beings in Creation, and claim that that freedom is truly free.

If my freedom is nothing more than the freedom God created for me, then my freedom is not free.

Full stop.

The same goes for agency. If God created agency in me, then my agency is God’s agency, not mine. 

Freedom is a square circle God cannot create. The only logical freedom is uncreated freedom.

God created all the Beings in Creation, but He did not create their freedom and agency.

The Beings in Creation brought that uncreated freedom into Creation when God made them, meaning that God created from "existing something" rather than from absolutely nothing.

Uncreated freedom is the source of good and evil. Beings in Creation can freely align themselves with God or against God. God has very limited or no influence over this freedom. Nor does he desire to impose upon this freedom because to do so would be to go against His nature and deny Himself.

God is God because He mastered uncreated freedom and is wholly Good. God is God because He yearns for other Beings to do the same. 

God is not the source of evil in Creation because it arises from something He did not create. 

Which begs the following question -- why did God allow uncreated freedom in Creation? Why didn’t He strip all beings of that freedom before creating them? 
​
The answer to that question lies in the limits of God’s powers and, more significantly, in the overarching divine purposes of God’s Creation.