Tom, are you modifying…?

“It seems to fit best both with the idea that God creates and works with natural laws and the idea that God can act dramatically – miraculously – without squashing creaturely freedom and agency entirely.”

So do you now affirm that God at least can ‘limit’ or ‘impeded’ creaturely freedom in some fashion, just not entirely?  And how far toward ‘entirely’ can God move?  I will have to look this up again in your book, but that last phrase sounds like you are backing down from your earlier positions in which God ‘by necessity’ could not impair ‘creaturely freedom’.  Curious if you are backing down from you position in the text which seems to suggest ‘necessity’ does not allow for ‘creaturely freedom’ to be altered… 

Interesting…

To be honest, I find myself rather attracted to the position on the far right, which doesn’t seem to belong on the far right or anywhere in the continuum, and is at least somewhat related to the position you take when you employ the word “vary”.  I understand your concern about absolute mystery negating the possibility of faith, but some mystery as to how God acts is inevitable, I think.  Furthermore, this position also has the advantage of respecting God’s freedom in God’s actions.  I find myself grounding my faith more in what God has done, not what God will do, so I’m not sure I accept your critique of that position.

I read the table carefully, and thought, “that Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism seems vague compared to the others, since it seems both consistent with a few of them, and entailed by at least one other position.”  Naturally, therefore, you WOULD say it was the one you like…..

We’ve had an interesting situation occur here in Florida yesterday evening. An armed assailant opened fire in a Panama City school board meeting. The whole thing was caught on tape. The would be killer, methodically raised his weapon, leveled it at the Superintendent of the school board, fired two rounds from about 8 feet away, and missed! The superintendent claimed that, “God stopped the bullets.” However, the bullets weren’t stopped; they found two bullet holes in the wall behind where the superintendent had been sitting.
  When I heard the comments of the superintendent, I wondered, “Did God really stop the bullets, or was the man just a terrible shot?” It is certainly possible to miss from 8 feet, but does that mean I should discount the superintendent’s claim of divine intervention? What if the outcome was a product of both the deranged man’s terrible aim, and God’s intervention?
  This has made me think of Samuel L. Jackson in the movie Pulp Fiction. To paraphrase, he said it didn’t matter if an event was a “miracle” as we define them. What matters most is that God get’s involved, and we feel the touch of God through certain events.
  Is it possible that God “hides” himself within the normal events of our lives, at times making his presence more detectable than at others? At those times when God makes his presence more “detectable,” we invoke the words miracle, or intervention. However, perhaps intervention, and miracle are not the best words. I suggest that revelation is a better word.
  What I am ultimately getting at is this: God reveals his love to us by working within, through, and in cooperation with the natural order he created. His actions are, at times very mysterious, and at other times not so mysterious. Sometimes things happen right before our eyes that we can’t seem to grasp or explain. Other times a neighbor shows up on the doorstep with extra groceries in our time of need.
  If I am understanding the chart correctly, I think this puts me somewhere in the middle of Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism, and Steady State Divine Influence. In the end, we won’t nail down this issue, but it is healthy to contemplate, and discuss. Thanks, Dr. Oord for provoking thought on this subject.

I have been deeply embedded in Christianity all my life. I have been the company apologist when I was in engineering. I was the focused student when I returned to school to prepare for ministry, I pastored and proclaimed Wesleyan-Armenian theology as the only sound approach to God. I taught college Bible and Theology for 18 years.

I had a second life. I was deeply interested in science, Astronomy in particular. I am widely read and have lectured on science and Astronomy.

A few years ago, when I was taking a class from Tom Oord I decided to pull out all the stops. I pondered what I knew about science and what it told me about God. The result was a paper I titled, “The Theology of Freedom.” I really thought I had come on a way to reconcile what I observed vs. what I read in theology. Then I read “The Most Moved Mover.”  Lo and behold Pinnock had come to the same conclusions I had!  I wrote him and he gave me a list of writers who felt as I did, Hought, Peacocke, Polkinghorne, and Edwards to mention a few. I read their works. I was disappointed that I had not been the first to come up with what I found to be called “Open Theology.” However, I was struck that me, my insignificant self, and come to the same conclusion as these great scholars. This validated my own finding. If I, a common person, could come to the same conclusions just by observations and reason there must be something to this.

Reading about Essential Kenosis Theology in Dr Oord’s book validated many of the things I came to conclude. The tension that remained was, “What do we do about miracles?” This is the sticking point for Christians. If the cosmos is free, any direct intervention by God would not only make him the cause of all things Good, but all things bad, if not by action then by inaction.

Reading Tom’s works shows that his objective is to remove God from any culpability. However this can lead to the concept of the “Unmoved mover.”  I do not find God to be unmoved (Jesus wept).  I see that in my work with the dying that God’s greatest role is helping us cope with the cruelty of a cosmos that creates suffering and the call upon humanity to provide comfort to those suffering from the consequences is living (Love you neighbor as yourself). But what about miracles?  If God can do miracles he is responsible for the people I serve in hospice, They all die! 

Looking at the issue of miracles I find that most evidence is anecdotal, redefined, or interpretative. Testimonies of miracles are usually “Faith statements.”  Add to this that healing is not limited to Christianity we find that miracles are not reliable as a source of evidence of God’s extra-natural interventions. (I knew a nurse who saw “miracles” all the time in her patients and she did not believe in God.)

I can see how Dr. Oord has come to conclude that God will not force miracles. They must include the willingness of the individual. Therefore, miracles can happen but not without the consent of the recipient.

I am left with my own questions. What about miracles that involve “inanimate” objects? (A dead body). I am coming to accept the idea that the higher the life form the more spirituality is possible. This goes in reverse as well. Animals (pets) demonstrate affection and love.  Is that not spiritual? Test mice and rats make judgments of what is a threat and what is not. If we keep going can we carry this into matter itself? Genesis says “Let there be…” This is permission, not command. 

Therefore, I am leaning more toward Essential Kenosis at this time. I still have to work out some old paradigms but this approach comes closest to reconciling the concept of a loving God and what is observed and experience in real life.

Any comments to my tome are welcome.

I must admit that exploring these concepts is certainly stretching my mind even as I look at the intricacies of the same.  As we explore various theological ideologies it is important to possess a solid understanding pertaining to God’s action in the Universe.  Thanks you Thomas for helping to highlight some of these concepts.  However, it is necessary that every concept and or ideology must align itself to God’s Word as much as Divine revelation affords.  In observing the various concepts that seek to reveal God’s action in the Universe I am inclined like you Thomas to lean towards the Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism.  I am inclined to lean towards this concept because it validates the freedom that God allows humanity in the relationship as opposed to a totally externally motivated position.  Essential Freewill Theism also confirms man as a free moral agent.  Additionally Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism makes prayer meaningful thus enabling relationship between God and humanity. 
Dexter

I really enjoyed this brief summary on the different options regarding divine action.  This discussion is very closely related to some of the questions I had this week regarding the events surounding the shooting at the Panama City, Florida School Board meeting.  Many of those present felt like God definately protected them from the harm that was intended toward them.

While I believe that the gunman acted freely and intentionally pulled the trigger with the intent of doing harm, I do not believe that it is beyond reason that God would step in and intervene.  I believe that your “Essential Kenosis Free-will Theism” theory offers a good explanation.  You wrote, “The option I currently like most is Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism. It says God necessarily gives freedom and/or agency to others. But the forms of God’s causal influence vary. And the effectiveness of God’s activity depends in part on creaturely responses. It seems to fit best both with the idea that God creates and works with natural laws and the idea that God can act dramatically – miraculously – without squashing creaturely freedom and agency entirely.”

The question this obviously leads us to is, “If God intervened in this situation to prevent harm, then why not in a billion others?”  I think that is something that we will never know, but I don’t think that we rule out the possibility of God’s intervention and hand of protection in all circumstances simply becuase we can’t explain God’s reasoning.

This will be something I continue to ponder.

Brandin Melton

I have enjoyed reading your brief synopsis, as well as your book The Nature of Love.  As I am processing through the parable of the Talents for a message after the New Year, I am enjoying thinking through the lens of Essential Kenosis. 
The master gave the talents to the servants, but did not force them to do anything with them.  While they understood their responsibility, and two of them sought to invest as they knew they should, the third wasn’t forced into action.  The Master allowed the third servant to go completely against the desired action.  There is a day of accounting, but the actions leading up to that day are based on our own free will. 
This reminds us of the awesome responsibilities that we have, if we choose to accept them!

You certainly have defined the different ways in which people see God interacting/or not interacting in this world.  I too have problems with those on the left and right of the chart that you have above.  I also certainly understand the disagreement you have with “Steady State Diving Influence.” 

This idea of Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism, coupled with the Traditional Freewill Theism, is something that I am continuing to explore.  The Essential Kenosis process is truly, as you say a turbo charge to Wesley’s thought on prevenient grace.  However, I still lean towards some coercion at times and am able to see this fit into the character of God’s love.  Just because someone “makes” you do something, does that mean it has to be “unloving?”  Is it right in our thinking to limit God and say that he cannot “coerce?”  I would say that experience, and the Bible, would prove the two ends of your spectrum are not true.  In looking at freewill we must be careful to not wrap the box around God so tight that he is no longer God.

Ultimately, as you say, we are to live by faith with the realization that God’s ways are higher than our own.  Therefore, my comments are my thoughts with the realization that they will develop further as the future becomes reality.  Thanks for the graph and dialogue.

Jason

The one element in the language with which I struggle is that God “necessarily” acts in a certain way. I would suggest that God does act in certain ways but I cannot think that he NEEDS or is mandated to do so unless He limits his own freedom. It would be difficult to consider that God limits his own freedom when granting freedom to humanity. The freedom to love must continue to exist on both accounts. For this reason and many other, I like that idea that God operates in mystery because we are so limited in our capability of understanding and grasping what it is to be divine.

Tom,
After reading this book i feel i have a better understanding of this option. I agree with your statements that both alternatives on the far left and far right pose major problems. Your favored option, essential kenosis, is a good balance between traditional and steady state. I find my self between these two options. I believe we are free, necessarily free, however i also know God does act in creation, how this happens without effecting free will is the issue and this is where i lean toward essential kenosis yet also still feel some mystery is necessary for the times unexplainable miracles take place such as a lady in our church diagnosed with terminal cancer after several scans and biopsies they called her in for a new procedure as they had done nothing yet not even chemo. She went in for surgery and there was nothing it was totally gone. These situation i do not see how we can eliminate God from directly stepping in.

Tom
Well, rereading this short synopsis of your book reminds me of how much I wrestled and am wrestling with the Essential Kenosis.  I have a hard time not feeling that God has/is using coercion for the good of all things.  I think it falls within reason that God needs to work coercively because of the sin of humanity and the inability to do what is necessary for the good of all things because of blindness to, can I say, “righteous good”.  Also I still hold to my thoughts on the needs of humanity, that which is the need to be controlled.  We pray for it, we ask God to move us guide us, lead us.  Divine coercion for the good of humanity and salvation for creation still makes some sense.  (Maybe I’ll work at Essential Kinosis Freedom Divinely Coerced by a Miracle Working God through Utter Mystery)
Thanks again for the very thought provoking material.
Phil

Where is God when disaster strikes? How does one see God working in illness or suffering?
This blog talks about God in a positive way when it comes to freewill, mystery, laws of nature and love. Yet I do not think God forces anything on humankind. I also think God is still working in and through individuals and creation to bring others into the fold.
If God’s actions are for love, does that mean sometimes that looks like “tough-love”?
Is it a love that has strings attached if human kind does not work with God?
I would agree that we all have to live by faith even when situations come up that we ponder where God is in the situation. Sometimes we may not see it or understand it until sometime later.
I would rather come to God then be a robot who responds to every command.
Experiences move us and help us to grow with a deeper reflection of where God is alive and working in our lives. Sometimes that is found in search the Scriptures while other times it is being guided by the Holy Spirit.
I believe when we get to heaven or the new earth that we will not need our questions answered because there will be a knowing beyond what our human minds could have even pondered.

Tom I agree with you that in that I am uncomfortable with the idea of the world being completely controlled and humanity simply being robots.  It seems much more plausible to me that out of his love for us he has given us a choice in the decisions that we face in life.  When it comes to the idea of God intervening through the form of miracles certainly there are different times that I have witnessed the intervention of God and the only way to explain the things that happened was something greater than the situation at hand stepped in and took over.  I suppose for me the challenge in taking the view that God has given freewill to his creation is that in some ways it limits God knowledge of what is ahead and I struggle with putting different limits on what God can do.  I would rather hold that God may be limited on his knowledge of the decisions that I am going to make and he discovers the future with me rather than believing that everything is already set in place which would include God’s forced decisions that some of his humanity would be separate from him and forever lost due to a life of sin.

Tom,

I enjoyed reading this blog. The table format makes it easier to understand various views on God’s actions. While the word “love” is not in any of these views, love should be central to our theology.  The 2 coercion views and Deism leave no room for love. Mysterious Divine Action makes God too different from us for a true relationship. The others could include love, but more secondary. Essential Kenosis is the only one that places love at the center.

I’m not sure that Essential Kenosis is the ONLY one that places love at the center.  Traditional freewill theism’s definition on the chart is not quite complete.  The focus on the “exceptions” in freewill theism is NOT that God sometimes coerces “creatures.”  Rather, it is that God sometimes directly intervenes in events in what some may call a coercive manner (although it is not “coercive” in the popular definition of the word, necessarily).  Traditional freewill theism also emphasizes God’s provision of actual choices based upon God’s desire for love as the key concept or ultimate focus.  There are ways to love that do involve intervention that Tom would consider coercive, and if a child were running out into the street and he or someone were nearby and he or someone grabbed the child and forced them back onto the curb, this would be a loving act, even if it caused temporary discomfort.  This happens in Scripture as far as I can tell.  The fact that we cannot always see why it does not ALWAYS happen does not give us the leeway to suddenly invoke absolute limitations upon God in all cases….

Having said that, I think that Essential Kenosis gives us a good reminder that God would rather love convincingly than coercively….

Charles

Divine agency needs to steer clear of “interventionism”  Funny, I myself used to think of divine acts (apart from creation) as an “intervention,” i.e., a disruption of natural causation.  Surely God is greater than needing to “suspend” or interrupt what God has made.

I wonder if you just like getting us riled up.  After all the frustration and stretching of your minds, here you are showing yourself in a moderate position!  I think I’m in complete agreement with you.  You are obviously in a slightly different position than the Clayton reading that we have covered.  I believe Clayton would fall more in the Steady State realm, if I understand what I read.  This class, along with all of the readings, has truly stretched me.  This particular reading, seems rather tame in comparison!

I agree with your last two paragraphs.  There will always be a speculative element to our thoughts about God and His actions.  We cannot understand or grasp the entirety of who He is.  In terms of the idea that God will never coerce His creation, but will only persuade, I do not necessarily disagree, but I have questions.

Would we not consider it coercive to swallow up Dathan and Korah in response to their desire not to play second fiddle to Moses? Not only do I not see Dathan and Korah cooperating with the miraculous event, but wouldn’t we consider it somewhat coercive to the people who remained?  If you think about any situation in which people are threatened with death if they don’t comply, wouldn’t we say they are being coerced? 

I do not have answers to these questions, but they cause me to consider carefully whether I can say that God never works coercively.

Out of these options, I would have to say that as of today I agree most with Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism.  The most attractive of essential kenosis is that it puts a responsibility upon the created that the others do not.  Meaning, God has to love at all times, what limits this love is the recipients of this love.  When Jesus says it is your faith that has healed you, He is saying because you received fully my love right now, you are healed.  I must be daily in relationship with God, less of me - more of Him, in order to receive the love God has for me now

A scientific view:  It was a little difficult for me to compare the eight options as they were written.  I got the sense of the amount of freedom people have and God’s level of ‘control’ and ‘coersion,’ but I tend to want to see things compared by the same ‘criteria’ (sorry) and categorized that way.  So I re-wrote these to have standard comparisons. Here is what I think these mean.  Correction to my understanding is definitely requested!
1.  Incessant Divine Coercion:  God controls all that occurs with His creation, people simply respond to His command and are predestined in their activities, miracles are not necessary as all things work the way God has ordained.
2.  Frequent Divine Coercion: God controls what happens with His creation with the exception of when He decides to provide opportunities of choice/freedom for creatures within His creation.  People may choose to cooperate in such opportunities with their activities, miracles may be necessary to reverse extremely poor choices by creation.
3.  Freewill Theism: God is not controlling, rather He provides freedom to His creation.  People choose to cooperate (or not) though some of their decisions are based on characteristics of people predetermined by God.  Miracles are seen as interventions by God.
4.  Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism:  God is not controlling as He must provide freedom to His creation.  People choose to cooperate or not.  Cooperation is required for intervention via miracles.
5.  Steady State Divine Influence:  God is not controlling as He has creatures of free choice, yet He stays connected to creation.  People (creation too) must choose and live with the consequences.  Thus, miracles do not occur.
6.  Natural and Supernatural action:  God is partially controlling in that He creates situations specifically so that creation will be persuaded to cooperate with Him.  People are affected by this Divine persuasion.  Situations and persuasion reduce and perhaps eliminate the need for miracles.
7.  Deism:  God’s control was in the initial creation of the world and its natural laws and is no longer connected to creation.  People were created to be able to make choices.  Whatever happens is the consequence of choices and natural laws.  Miracles do not happen.
8.  Mysterious Divine Action:  God has control, but the connection He has with His creation is unknown.  People do not know how to cooperate as choosing God’s way is unknown.  Miracles may or may not happen (or be recognized)

Thanks Dr. Oord for this great summary of Divine Action.  I was raised in an environment that celebrated what you call Traditional Freewill Theism. It seems to me to be the most consistent with Wesleyan Theology. I still struggle a bit with some of the implications of kenosis which suggests that God cannot control certain events, but the more I process your work and some of the other readings I have done, I am gaining a higher level of comfort with it. It certainly does make perfect sense that God, due to his infinite love, empowers his creation with the privilege to accept or reject him. To think that he would be coercive in making us respond to his prevenient grace clearly is in conflict with his nature. Thanks for helping me consider new and exciting ways of thinking about God that do not necessarily undermine pronouncements of his power, character and glory described in the Bible.

For today’s reading, I have to say that I am nearer the Traditional Freewill Theism, but somewhere between that and Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism.  It comes down to semantics and word definitions.  The word coerces is a bit of a problem for me.  Is it really coercion or is it just influence to make the right decision.  I can say that as a parent and a supervisor of military troops that I have not coerced, but strongly advised and highlighted the consequences for wrong decisions even the consequences for the right decisions.  I haven’t experienced God using this method in my life.  I have felt the uneasiness in my gut and even the regret after the fact, but I still made the decision I felt was right.

Dennis

So it finally all comes down to a necessary and required element of faith.  The last paragraph says “But some divine action options make better sense of what we find in Scripture, in our own experience, and contemporary science. And some do a better job of consistently affirming God’s love.” I have faith in a God that is more than I can comprehend.  If nothing else this class has taught me that. I get that not everything we think we understand about God fits into a perfect mold. I do not think that affirming Gods love is really at doubt in any “Christian” theology and our ever expanding experience and knowledge of the sciences has made it harder to have a simple faith in God so I guess my biggest concern with all of this is do we still believe we live in a universe that was created by an amazing God or are we trying to redefine a god that fits in our universe without creating too much disruption to what we think we understand?

As I read through the different “choices” I find myself leaning toward a mix.  I still feel I need to say that God created at some point in time in isolation, so for the first half of the statements I choose to go with Deism.  For the second half my best choice is the Essential Kenosis choice.  I agree that the effectiveness and forms of God’s activity would vary depending on the situation and the co-creators, probably us, who are working with God as well as God providing agency.

I really appreciate this blog and found it very helpful for what I am currently thinking about as I gain a greater understanding who God is and how I interact with Him. One of the main areas that I found helpful pertained to free will and especially eEssential kenosis freewill theism. It really places the emphasis on love being the center of who God is and why we have the freedom to do things we do. Professor Oord states, ““To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.” This is something I’ve felt all along the moment I gave my life to Christ many years ago. Once we understand what love is and that it comes from God, we are able to act in accordance to God’s will for us and we do it freely.

As I look at these various options in divine action I tend to deviate from the far left and far right. I don’t believe that God wants to be in such a state of absolute control that we become like puppets on a string. Nor do I believe that God is so mysterious to the point that we don’t even feel like we know anything about him.

I agree that the center makes the most sense to me. I would probably say that Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism seems most appealing to me and I would agree most with that.

God creates and has influence but at the same time creatures have freewill and the ability to choose. God is able to still act but doesn’t interfere with our choices and ability to exercise freewill.

I particularly like some of the practical implications of the essential kenosis freewill theism option, myself. To begin with, it rings true with biblical witness—that God has been portrayed as seeking out our cooperation—and with the witness of our own experiences as well. As a minister, more often than not I find that my counseling situations inevitably come to a point that people are simply afraid to step out and respond. They have no problem accepting that God acts, and that God has a will for the world, and they have plenty of faith in God. Usually what is lacking is the response that is left up to them!
I also think this gives us a much more satisfying way to look at scripture. That is, I am much more comfortable with the understanding that it is a product of divine AND human action, which I think makes many passages that are usually extremely troubling a little less so (not much, but a little).

I think for the standard Christian in today’s typical church, many of them might affirm a number of these descriptions of God’s actions within the universe. Descriptions of God’s activity and interaction with His creation is so commonplace and routine within church these days, no one seems convicted to render a description of His activity that is philosophically consistent.

For example, many people have been taught and truly believe that God is sovereign. In this descirption of God, they seem to find comfort that God has a ‘big plan’ and will redeem even the worst of atrocities experienced on earth today, implying one of the coercions listed to the far left of the chart.

That same person might also affirm a sense of ‘free will’ that man choose his own fate, make her own decisions and has true freedom. This tends to lean toward the two actions described as ‘theisms’ or Steady State Divine Influence.

In other instances, the same person might simply fall back into a “God’s ways are not our ways,” which seems to lean back toward the right end of the chart.

The burden of consistency is felt particularly by philosophers and theologians who wish to develop a framework that works for many or most or all instances. Thanks for helping to clearly define some separation between the existing descriptions that are commonly used.

I subscribe to the traditional freewill theism and believe that it is evident in creation that we have freewill. I read in the biblical texts that God does override the freewill of creation on occasions for a particular purpose. The problem with this view comes from the conversation about evil. If God has the ability to override freewill and is an all loving God then he would want to stop all evil acts. But since evil still occurs we cannot answer why God allows bad things to happen.
I do not like the notion that God had to give freewill because I believe that the most loving act God could have chosen was not freewill. With freewill comes the potential to choose wrong and to choose evil things. I believe the most loving act from God would have been to not give freewill based on the fact that without freewill we would not choose evil.

I have to agree that Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism seems like the best option. If God was a God who controlled every aspect, the world being how it is today, I wouldn’t want to serve that God. He would not be loving if He caused all the pain and suffering. This would also take away all hope, if we had no choice we would never know if we truly were saved, or if at the end of our life living for God, he would simply say, I never planned for you to join me for eternity. If different events were controlled by different forces, as in Natural and/or supernatural action, there would be no consistency. We would not know how to determine if something was miraculous or not. We believe in a loving God who has a plan for our lives, but allows us to make our own decisions.

I find this question very difficult to answer due to the consequences each side has. On the far left side, which I find extremely unappealing, we have no freewill. On the right side, God may not have control which is kind of frightening when thinking about the future and eschatology issues. The two that I most agree with are Natural and/or Supernatural Action and Essential Kenosis. I believe that God does interact with our world but does not coerce ever and thus, works through persuasion with creaturely cooperation.

I agree with what Brandon said and also agree with Dr. Oord as well. I believe between traditional freewill theism and essential kenosis freewill theism. I believe we do have some freewill otherwise there would not be evil in the world. Some people take advantage of the freewill that God has given us. But I have a hard time in believing that God is all-knowing and all-loving because if he were all-knowing why doesn’t he stop people from doing what they plan to do (sin)? If he is all-loving then why does he let evil happen to innocent children? It seems like these aspects contradict one another. They are hard questions to answer.

I personally find myself on the line of essential kenosis and traditional freewill if there is such a line. I do not think that God created this world to just sit back and not participate in it. To me this is not possible. Instead I would like to consider God to be a God that created the world, mankind, and creation and then gave us free will. For human beings I believe that God gave us the gift of free will so that we could have the ability to consciously make a choice of whether or not we are going to accept or reject him (if that makes any sense).

Essential kenosis is the theory that I most associate myself with. The theories on the far left do not support the loving God of the Bible, and the belief that we have free will is fundamental in Christian tradition. If we didn’t have freedom, then we really don’t have the choice to follow God or not, and the whole concept of salvation becomes irrelevant. On the other side, I believe that God acts on creation and in our lives in ways that we can see. God doesn’t just sit back and leave us to our own ways. He gives us freedom but is present in our daily lives.

I have two main questions:
The first: is if the chart above ordered on some kind of continuum? Several of the comments have suggested that a middle line or a varying degree of some of the options is how they believe God acts. Sliding the scale down a bit from Essential Kenosis Freewill Theism (EKFT) toward Traditional Freewill Theism is a little more difficult than tuning up or down the degree of certain beliefs. An important part of EKFT is that God cannot take away freewill and determine any sort of action. God can or God can’t, I don’t see a middle line.
The second: If the chart is a continuum, what two extremes are being put in opposition? Pursuing Aristotle’s golden mean is a practice that I value and I think Dr. Oord does as well. Putting the “best” views in the middle seems to suggest they are a balance between two extremes. The scale is not Determinism-Freewill because then EKFT would be on the far right. It is also not level of God’s action because all the views except the two farthest to the right have God acting in similar amounts, just different places.

When between two extremes it’s difficult to associate with a perfect medium - a combination of the two extremes that fits.  Personally, I believe that God set up the universe and let it operate with minimal interaction.  It is hard to say that a God is in control of everything when terrible occurrences happen frequently that seem to be out of anyone’s control.  Additionally, it is not easy saying that God is not involved at all in human interaction, or else there would not be a real relationship between God and His creation.  I feel that humans are given freewill to the extent that there are multiple routes in which God knows are present, however he does not know exactly where we will go.

I agree with the theistic approach to kenosis and freedom. I do not believe that God actively coerces us, however I do believe he does take action in our lives as such to benefit and guide us along the most favorable pat and we have that option to follow or to reject, mostly because the other theories (several of them) lack to include free will in their explanation.

I agree with the essential Kenosis is what I agree with. Those on the far left side with a very contorting. The idea of free will is the basis of Christian theology. If we have no freewill then the chose we make are not our own and our entire life has already been predestined. God then would not be surprised when someone rejects him and Jesus would not have had to come and die for the redemption of our sins. Because if we do not have free will then do sins even exsit anymore if such actions were predestined?

We live in a world in which we seem to be able to have a dynamic relationship with each other and with God.  This relationship involves choices and actions whose origins lay in contemplation about individuals’ lives and projected presupposed outcomes of the actions.  Then these actions seem to affect others sometimes in what appears to be positive and sometimes negative ways.  And then in other certain events, individuals seem to experience a force, beyond us acting in assistance, promoting the Divine attributes.  When the reality of dynamic relationship and divine forces in our lives are identified in our lives, it becomes extremely difficult to hold either pole of this discussion as probable descriptions of God and creation.

I am a fan of the Steady State Divine Influence because I do not believe that God’s activity breaks the laws of nature. I believe this because who is to say what is natural to God? If God necessarily exists, then wouldn’t God be technically all natural? I mean all natural as in God ought to be. What is natural for him is not necessarily natural for us.

I associate myself with the essential kenosis theory as well. In general I don’t believe that God coerces his creation because he created us with freedom out of love. That being said there are some aspects of the traditional free-will theism that makes sense to me. Essential kenosis theory doesn’t seem to give God the ability to make drastic changes on earth in an instant. When it comes to miracles and certain aspects of eschatology I wonder if essential kenosis theory makes complete sense.

I think I will have to also fit in the essential kenosis theory. Freedom is something that everybody has. Especially here in the United States we are blessed to have laws to say that we are free to do whatever we want. I think being a Christian the word free is a little bit different then people who arent Christian. I know as a Christian that my main goals is to follow the ten commandments and to respect those. By the end of the day we defiantly we live by faith.