Tony Jones calls into question Rob Bell\u2019s belief in human freedom<\/strong><\/a>. Rob\u2019s idea is often called libertarian free will, and for Rob\u2019s title \u2014 love wins \u2014 to work, it requires that God grants humans the freedom to choose to do what they want, turn to God or turn into themselves. Tony Jones contends for a more deterministic mindset and less human freedom.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the question: Are we, are all humans, free to choose God? And does Rob Bell\u2019s theory of freedom require a de-determinizing of the human condition after death?<\/strong><\/p>\n This is from Tony (link above):<\/p>\n I haven\u2019t read the book yet, but I\u2019ve watched the videos and I\u2019ve read reviews, and I read a post this week by Greg Boyd<\/strong><\/a> which attempted to show the logical inconsistencies of moral determinism.<\/p>\n Greg\u2019s post is entirely theological in its reasoning. He does not seem to take into account sociological or anthropological rationale. And neither does Rob Bell when, in interviews, he repeatedly insists on human freedom. In fact, Rob\u2019s commitment to total human freedom, even after death, seems thoroughgoing.<\/p>\n This is called \u201crational actor theory\u201d by social theorists, and it posits that human beings are free and conscious actors who independently determine their behavior. Notre Dame sociologist, Christian Smith, for example, subscribes to a version of this theory (see his books, Moral Believing Animals and What Is a Person?).<\/p>\n I am not. I subscribe to a type of post-Marxist theory called \u201cpost-structuralism.\u201d We are, each of us, bound up in structures and super-structures of sociality that determine and even dictate a large percentage of our behavior. In fact, much of our lives are spent in the self-deluded state that we\u2019re choosing what we do. We don\u2019t actually have much freedom at all, and our choices in life are strikingly limited.<\/p>\n Rob has been talking a lot about freedom, stating that love requires freedom and using anecdotes that corroborate that. How could a God who gives us so much freedom, Rob asks, not give us unlimited choices for heaven over hell?<\/p>\n But how much freedom do you really have? You weren\u2019t free to choose the family into which you were born, or the society in which you were reared. By the time you\u2019d reached late adolescence and your moral and religious proclivities were set, you\u2019d had virtually no freedom.<\/p>\n Further, Rob\u2019s claims of near absolute human freedom betray his status as a human being of enormous privilege. I doubt that a woman living in rural Afghanistan or a man living in the slums of Juarez experience much freedom.<\/p>\n If our lives are, as I suspect, largely dictated by unseen social structures, it may not have much to do with our eternal destinies, but it does seem to undermine Rob\u2019s primary thesis.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But Greg Boyd supports Rob Bell\u2019s theory of human freedom<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n The Incoherence of Ordained Morality. <\/strong>I would argue that the association of moral responsibility and free will is not only deeply intuitive, as the article suggests, it is also logically necessary. That is, I would argue that\u00a0denying<\/em> the association of moral responsibility and free will results in incoherence. For example, when a Calvinist asserts something like: \u201cGod ordains that Satan does evil\u00a0in such a way <\/em>that God remains morally holy<\/em> for ordaining Satan to do evil while Satan becomes\u00a0morally evil <\/em>for doing what the all-holy God ordained him to do,\u201d I submit they are asserting something that is beyond counter-intuitive; it is\u00a0utterly incoherent.<\/em> For a concept to have meaning it must have some rooting in our experience, at least by analogy. A concept for which there is no analogy in our experience is a vacuous concept. Yet, after decades of asking, I have yet to find anyone who can provide an analogy by which we might give meaning to the concept of an agent being morally responsible for what God ordained them to do. (I develop this argument at length in response to Paul Helseth in\u00a0Four Views of Divine Providence<\/em><\/a>).<\/p>\n Determinism is Self-Refuting.<\/strong> If free will is an illusion and everything is predetermined, then the ultimate cause of\u00a0 why a person believes that free will is an illusion and everything is predetermined is that they were predetermined to do so. But it\u2019s hard to see how a belief can be considered \u201ctrue\u201d or \u201cfalse\u201d when it is, ultimately, simply a predetermined event.\u00a0\u00a0 The snow falling outside my window right now is due to the fact that preexisting conditions determined it to be so. But we wouldn\u2019t say that the snowfall is \u201ctrue\u201d or \u201cfalse.\u201d<\/p>\n Refuting Determinism By Action.<\/strong> You know what a person truly believes by how they act <\/em>more than by what they\u00a0say<\/em>, for we often think we believe something when in fact we don\u2019t. (E.g. the husband who convinces himself he loves his wife even though he mistreats her, cheats on her, etc.). On this basis I\u2019d like to suggest that everyone who deliberates believes in free will, even if they think they do not, for its impossible to deliberate without acting on the conviction that the decision is\u00a0up to you <\/em>to resolve.<\/p>\n For example, I am this moment deliberating about what to work on when I finish this blog. Should I work on a peace essay for a book collection that is due at the end of this week or should I finish reading a book by Andrew Sullivan that I started two days ago? As I weigh the pros and cons of both possibilities, I cannot help but manifest my conviction that I genuinely\u00a0could <\/em>opt for either one of these alternatives and that it is\u00a0up to me<\/em> to decide which I will choose. In other words, I reveal a deep rooted conviction that I am free as I deliberate, and the same holds true for every deliberation anyone engages in. There simply is no other way to deliberate.<\/p>\n People may sincerely\u00a0think<\/em> they believe in determinism, but they act otherwise, and must act otherwise, every time they deliberate.\u00a0 The great American philosopher Charles Pierce argued that a belief that cannot be consistently acted on cannot be true. If he\u2019s right about this \u2013 and I believe he is \u2013 then determinism must be false.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n For further discussion of the Rob Bell book at Patheos, see:<\/em><\/p>\n Part 1<\/a> and Part 2<\/a> of Ben Witherington\u2019s chapter-by-chapter review at Bible and Culture.<\/em><\/p>\n Jeff Cook, here at Jesus Creed, \u201cRob Bell and CS Lewis<\/a>\u201c<\/em><\/p>\n Timothy Dalrymple, \u201cA Framework for Understanding the Rob Bell Controversy<\/a>\u201c<\/em><\/p>\n Thomas F. Kidd, \u201cFor Whom the Bell Tolls: The Audacity of Love Wins<\/a>\u201c<\/em><\/p>\n