We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
The Risk of Love
The most basic and yet most profound teaching of the Bible is that “God is love” (1 Jn 4:8; 16). He is revealed to be a God who is triune—Father, Son and Holy Spirit (See Mt 3:16; 28:19, Jn 14:26; 15:26)—who’s very essence is an eternal, loving relationship. He created the world out of love and for the purpose of expanding his love.
God the Father desires that we dwell in Christ and Christ dwell in us, just as Christ dwells in the Father and he in Christ (John 17:21-26). The Father wants us to participate in and reflect the loving union that he has with Christ. The goal, in other words, is for the perfect triune love of God to be manifested to people, replicated in people and reflected back from people. This is why God created the world. The whole of creation is meant to express and embody the eternal triune love that God is. It exists to glorify God.
Humans are to glorify God by expressing his love and authority as we rule the earth. God wants to be Lord over all creation, but because he is the triune God of love, he doesn’t want to do this unilaterally. Of course he could have created a world where we have to do his will, but it would have been a creation devoid of love. Instead, God wants to rule creation through coregents, free agents who through love apply his sovereign will to the earth. God therefore created us “in his image” that we might “have dominion” and “subdue” the earth (Gen 1:26-28).
In such a world, there is risk because love must be chosen. Unless people can choose not to love, they can’t genuinely choose to love. The possibility of the one is built into the possibility of the other. Love simply cannot be coerced or programmed into people.
A creation in which love is the goal must incorporate risk. Creation doesn’t have to have actual evil, but it must allow for the possibility of evil—if the possibility of genuine love is to exist.
This is why God commanded humans to have dominion over the world in the creation story. If we weren’t free to disobey God, a command would be unnecessary; we would do what God created us to do automatically. Because God wants his will carried out in love, he empowers humans to carry out his command freely. And this, of course, means we can refuse to carry out his command if we choose.
God gave Adam and Eve free will in the Garden. The purpose of this freedom was that they might choose to remain in loving union with God. But because it was a union of love, it had to be possible for Adam and Eve to reject it. Tragically, the first couple chose to disobey God, thereby bringing judgment on themselves and their descendants (Gen 3:1-19). This disobedience was not part of God’s original plan; it was a rejection of God’s plan. Yet the possibility of this rejection had to exist if God’s original plan was to be possible. His plan is for people to administrate his creation as they receive, replicate and reflect back God’s triune love.
—Adapted from Is God to Blame?, pages 62-65
Related Reading
Revelation 13:8 refers to “everyone whose names have not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life.” How does that square with open theism?
Three possibilities exist in terms of reconciling Revelation 13:8 with open theism. 1) First, the “from the foundation of the world” clause can attach to either “everyone whose names have not been written” or to “the lamb that was slain.” For example, the TNIV translates this passage “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the…
How do you respond to Acts 2:23 and 4:28?
Question: Acts 2:23 and 4:28 tell us that wicked people crucified Jesus just as God predestined them to do. If this wicked act could be predestined, why couldn’t every other wicked act be predestined? Doesn’t this refute your theory that human acts can’t be free if they are either predestined or foreknown? Answer: In Acts…
Responding to Von Balthasar on the Trinity and Suffering
Recently in his blog, The Dish, Andrew Sullivan pointed to an interesting article from The Other Journal called “Evil, the New Atheism, and the God of the Trinity,” written by Jacob H. Friesenhahn. One of the reasons I love Sullivan’s blog is that he dares to include meaty theological pieces like this right alongside of…
What is the difference between “libertarian” and “compatibilistic” freedom?
Question: I often hear philosophers and theologians talk about “libertarian” and “compatibilistic” freedom. What do these terms mean? Answer: A person who holds to “libertarian” freedom believes that an agent (human or angelic) is truly free and morally responsible for their choices only if it resides in an agent’s power to determine his or her own choices. Their…
What Hinders Answers to Prayer
Prayer is powerful and effective, but it’s not magic. There is no automatic guarantee that what we’re praying for is going to come to pass, even when we’re praying with faith and in accordance with God’s will. Prayer is a form of co-laboring with God to change the world in a Kingdom direction. Yet, it’s…