Recently Paul Molnar and I debated a bit about the nature of divine freedom. I think Alan Lewis puts the issue perfectly in his amazing book, Between Cross and Resurrection:
“God is free, not as one who could do otherwise, but as the one above all who can do no other. Self-bound to one sole way of being, God is committed, necessarily but thus freely, to the cognate course of action. God’s lordship in bowing to the contradiction of the godless cross and godforsaken grace does not reside, as Barth occasionally and illogically asserts, in a prior self-sufficiency and secure immutability, but — as he more often understood and later followers more emphatically underscored — in the uncoerced impulse to self-consistency: love’s determination not to be deflected from its purposes but to flourish and perfect itself through willing self-surrender. What judges us as burdensome imperative illuminates God as free but binding indicative: the truth — for our Creator and therefore for ourselves — that only one who gives up life discovers and fulfills it. On such a basis alone can we understand how the cross and grave truly reveal God’s inmost triune life.” (p. 211-12)
God’s freedom consists not in an abyss of infinite potentiality, in an endless array of unconstrained options that are open to God. No, God’s freedom simply is what we behold in the event of Jesus’ apocalypse: his cross, burial, and resurrection. God is not free in that God could have done other than this. God is free in that God did in fact do this thing. The resurrection is God’s freedom. Any definition other than this must, inevitably find its source of theological knowledge somewhere other than in God in Christ.