The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Eric Reitan's "coins in a box" and universalism

Evangelical Universalism
#1

I’ve been recently thinking about ER’s analogy of human free will and “coins in a box.” If anyone is unfamiliar with it, he claims that, even if we think that God cannot bring people into a relationship with him in the highest way he wants unless they freely come to him, given enough time and enough chances, it is practically impossible to think that anyone would freely resist God forever. Imagine a box, he says, with glue on the top inside and a bunch of coins within it. Now imagine someone shaking the box for all eternity. Whenever a coin touches the top, it’s forever stuck.

I think its possible to press this analogy further for a stronger effect.

Lets imagine that “shaking the box” is equivalent to one “grace” given by God of degree 0.1 over the course of 30 seconds. In other words, God “speaks” in the person’s conscience in almost a whisper (hence the “degree” of 0.1), over a period of 30 seconds as we measure the time. Lets say that the person who he’s speaking to manages to successfully ignore him until the “offer” of grace passes, and so God is in this case “defeated.”

But surely God is not limited to only shaking the box in this one way? Look at all the variables to play with here. There are two that stick out to me that can make the analogy particularly viable.

a) Is it not possible to think that the degree of grace that God confers can increase many times over? Let’s suppose that grace the level of 1 is such that the epistemic distance is closed from the creature and hence it has no more power to “freely” choose. So lets say God would never give a grace with a degree of 1. But God could infinitely approach 1, all the while increasing in degree. In other words, God could infinitely “turn up the heat” without ever actually closing the epistemic gap.

b) The “time” in which the grace is granted need not be “eternity” in the sense of our measure of time. We experience time relatively. What “seems” a really long time to me may seem short to someone else under similar circumstances. Now, is it not possible that God could alter our perception of time such that, in the eyes of someone else or even in “objective” time or by measure of the speed of light, the above proposition a) could be extended quite differently than what we normally imagine by “eternity”? Suppose two points of time - say right now and 24 hours from now. That time itself is infinitely divisible. Like a line that can be infinitely halved - it’s 10 feet, now 5, now 2.5, etc. Is it not possible then for God to confer graces that infinitely approach degree 1 an infinite number of times over the course of limited/measured objective time? Could he not offer an infinite number of graces which infinitely approach degree 1 all within the measure of 1 second according to the speed of light? In other words, could not God, as it were, approach the free being at an infinite speed?

If we grant that this is possible - that God’s acts can approach infinity at an infinite rate - could we not practically guarantee that God could assure the free response of every creature to come to him?

#2

Hi Chris

An interesting idea. But does analysis of Zeno’s paradox not demonstrate that time is not infinitely divisible?

I’m with you on the idea that God is able to order things such that all unrepentant unbelievers will, eventually, repent and believe, of their own free will. I just don’t understand how he’ll do it :smiley: .

#3

Hi Chris,

Nice work! I certainly think God could do something like this to get someone to freely come to him. What you said here:

…got me thinking about another way God could use epistemic distance. He could paradoxically increase epistemic distance, withdraw himself and all good things (which come from God) to the point where a being is left alone with his self, in the “outer darkness” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth”. Obviously God cannot entirely withdraw or the being would not exist as God is the ground of his being, but this type of withdrawal, would provide a contrast making a decision to come to God make even more sense. (See GMacD’s “Wise Woman” story)

Steve

#4

Suppose I want to quit smoking, but can’t quite manage. Part of me wants to quit; part of me doesn’t. Two conflicting “free” wills are in operation in my brain. One morning, I take a magic pill that makes me violently ill every time I light up. Not only will I stop smoking really fast, once I am cured I know I will never smoke again.

Does this magic pill violate my free will? Yes and no. It kills stone dead my will to smoke. At the same time, it liberates my will to not smoke. The price I must pay to be set free from tobacco are a few bouts of violent illness.

Why can’t God do the same: A magic pill that makes me violently ill whenever I desire to sin. It would kill the evil self, but liberate the good self. While it lasted, the treatment would feel like hell.

#5

I’m not sure how Zeno’s paradox proves time isn’t infinitely divisible. It seems to me to rather suggest that, if you are going to divide something, every time you divide it the divisible part is smaller and smaller. The amount of time between graces would infinitely shrink, but they could still all be there, no?

If we imagine God as simply acting very very quickly, could we not say he could always act quicker? Suppose he gave 1 grace every 10 seconds. Could he not give 1 every 5 seconds? 1 every second? 1 every millisecond, etc.? Or if we think of God as somehow being the metaphysical force that “pushes” time forward, or if we think of “moments” of time as created things that God is constantly making, could we not say that the way in which he causes this particular part of his creation (time) to interact/reach/effect our consciousness is such that it can be experienced in a variety of ways?

#6

Could we say, Allan, that the person in this situation has become good, or rather been made good?

If we say that God could “make” a person do good, why does he not always? The central problem is, if free will is given only temporarily, then why was it given at all?

#7

The part of me that doesn’t want to sin must be good by nature. It’s good because God made it good when he created me, not because I make it good by will-power. Darkness cannot magically transform into light, but it can be filled with light, and destroyed.

The part of me that desires to do good, once liberated from the part that wants to do evil, will be free to do any of an infinite number of good things. This freedom will be everlasting. Losing the desire to sin will not be losing freedom, but gaining freedom.

#8

I think of grace being like gravity. You can fight gravity for awhile, but one will eventually give up and rest. God’s grace is constant, our “rebellion” is passing. I believe that we were all created for relationship with God and ultimately God will reconcile us all into right relationship with him.

#9

I am not convinced of this. Would losing our appetite for food be gaining freedom?

What is “sin” anyway? Is it not any action which harms others or ourselves? Is it not when we come to truly see how we are harming others and/or ourselves by such behaviour, that we gain the desire to quit behaving in this fashion and therefore gain freedom from committing such acts?

It seems to me, Allan, that your method is to inflict such pain in committing sinful acts, that the pain outweighs the pleasure. But will that really set us free? For if we come to the place that we no longer experience the pain, will we not participate in the acts for the pleasure we derive from them? Won’t we need to truly become aware of the ramifications of our wrongdoing in order to become free from it?