The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Free Will and Boasting

Theology Philosophical
#41

OK, so…

Roughly speaking, I understand ‘determinism’ (theological determinism) to be the belief that God unconditionally decrees all that occurs and then brings about what he has decreed by his power. That is, God decrees/decides what is to be and also decides the means by which his decrees are unfailingly brought to pass. It doesn’t say anything about ‘how’ God accomplishes this. It just posits the fact THAT God’s will alone and unconditionally determines what occurs in the world and the means by which his will is efficaciously accomplished.

Does that help?

Tom

#42

I think it does help and I’m not sure where the differences lie. I suppose in reading your understanding - though it lacks the mediums of how he accomplishes it - it’s acceptable to me.

But rather than going into a determinism debate, lets remain on this issue of LFW and boasting.

My next statement be a little shocking but I think it seals the deal and proves my point. I don’t think you’ll have a reasoble response to this. And Here is what I’m thinking:
Supercalafragalisticexpealadocious!

Blammo, the debate is over!

OK OK kidding aside, on a more serious note.

I’m thinking through your last two responses and I’m not ready to accept them. I can’t see why a christian theology can’t have unconditional love as part of it’s system and a call of salvation to works?

Consisder the following:

God unconditionally loves all men and he requires them to make proper choices.

How is that different than

God unconditionally loves all men and requires them to not only choose to do what is right, but also do that which is right, otherwise be damned.

I think both Bob and I are defining that there is more to us then just intellectual intelligence. That is, do you think Adam and Eve felt as though God hated them when he banished them from the Garden? Calvinists often point to scriptures which state that God hates those who love violence. In other words, I think there is alot of weight to the fact that LFW which grants a person the credit of making the self generated free choice reaches another part of us which causes us to boast. There may be more intelligences working and thus even if unconditional love is present in a theology, it does not cancel out all possibilities of arrogance within it’s own system. My point being, if there are more than one intelligences, then can different properties of our theology affect different parts or our intellects?

#43

Aug: Supercalafragalisticexpealadocious!

Tom: Humdiddle-liddle-liddle humdiddlie!

Aug: I’m thinking through your last two responses and I’m not ready to accept them. I can’t see why a christian theology can’t have unconditional love as part of it’s system and a call of salvation to works?

Tom: Oh, I thought you said both “unconditionally loved and valued by God” and “salvation BY works,” not “a call of salvation TO works.” I totally agree that rightly perceiving our worth and value in God entails a CALL to live (i.e. work) accordingly–i.e., to live in a ways that affirms and demonstrates our value and the value of others.

Aug: Consisder the following: God unconditionally loves all men and he requires them to make proper choices…

Tom: Sure.

Aug: How is that different than: God unconditionally loves all men and requires them to not only choose to do what is right, but also do that which is right, otherwise be damned.

Tom: Sounds good to me (provided “damned” doesn’t mean ECT). I must suck at communicating if I’ve led you to believe I’d disagree with this.

Aug: I think both Bob and I are defining that there is more to us then just intellectual intelligence. That is, do you think Adam and Eve felt as though God hated them when he banished them from the Garden?

Tom: They may have, but they had reason not to doubt that he loved them as well. They were capable of understanding that their banishment was a just consequence of their behavior and so not fall into the mistake of accusing God of wrongdoing or less than loving response. It does take a measure of FAITH to conclude, given a world of suffering, that God loves us, but it is possible.

Aug: Calvinists often point to scriptures which state that God hates those who love violence. In other words, I think there is alot of weight to the fact that LFW which grants a person the credit of making the self generated free choice reaches another part of us which causes us to boast. There may be more intelligences working and thus even if unconditional love is present in a theology, it does not cancel out all possibilities of arrogance within it’s own system.

Tom: Sure, there are probably plenty of ambiguous and uncertain places in any Christian belief system that could be misappropriated as a justification for seeing our worth and value in our own performance as opposed to being in God. But we all struggle with less than air-tight sytems. But more important question is–Do our systems of belief at their best and most consistently applied prevent us from viewing any of our beliefs as a basis for boasting?

Aug: My point being, if there are more than one intelligences, then can different properties of our theology affect different parts or our intellects?

Tom: I see your point. It’s hard to say. I don’t doubt that we have deep intuitions that often operate without ever being exposed and examine. And we have deeply embedded existential needs and drives that motivate our behavior as well. The best we can do is examine what we’re able to uncover and observe about our behavior. But once we’re able to identify a link between some belief we hold and some aspect of our life or additional “intelligence,” we can hammer away on things. In other words, we’re only given one “conscious” mode of reasoning with which to construct and harmonize things. We can’t delve into additional intelligencies in any rational way except by means of the one reasoning faculty we’ve got. In other words, in order to argue that LFW indeed does violate some “intelligence” (other than the conscious mind we think and reason with) or some dimension or order of our being other than our reason, you’d have to show how the influence moves FROM our conscious mind (where we “hold to” the belief in LFW) to this other “intelligence.” And if you can show THAT, I’m sure I can argue that OTHER beliefs like the belief that our worth and value are unconditionally grounded in God’s love and not based on our performance ought ALSO to assert their influence upon this other “intelligence.” So the whole debate is just relocated into this other intelligence.

Supercalafragilisticexpialadocious!

Tom

#44

Hi Tom! Here my sense and recap (man, at least up to noon today)!

Bob: Pride’s point is to focus on choices, the part that differentiates us (a concept LFW promotes).

Tom: But in divine love all are equal. So let’s drill into heads that no differences in what people do can count.

Bob: Good, but this premise has nothing to do with LFW, and seems a harder sell than other contested claims. Our whole (historically Christian) culture assumes that worth is mostly grounded in performance and choices. It’s even at the core of freedom of enterprise thinking.

Tom: But that logic must be wrong. For LFW’ers who believe in love are humble!

Bob: I’m amazed. My tradition affirmed love & free will at its’ apologetic core, but I perceive arrogance is as rampant there as in secular culture (and I agree Calvinists too proudly differentiate in another way). I think the tendency to look down on sinners rivals Jesus’ own opponents.

I suspect this is ‘logical’ because very few really believe in unconditional love or value. That can be coherent for you, since (as in Calvinism) love’s goal wins out (and with with you, for all equally)! But for non-universalists, it makes no sense to believe love secures our value. For, as in our culture, many will end up devalued, based on their choices. For ECT, theodicy drives the sense that a good God must fry others instead of me, because they must be much more morally deserving of it (more despicable) than I. Do those whom you say that you convince of God’s unconditional value still belive that He is going to discard many of these totally loved friends?

#45

I’ve often cited that the one thing liberals and conservatives united on at San Diego’s Pastor convention was that universalism makes a mockery of the Bible’s clear moral vision. So I suspect it may be easier to de-teach pride by rejecting both LFW and Calvinism’s bases for what differentiates us, and emphasize how similar we are. Not only that all are loved, but all have choices shaped in a way that the factors which God has engineered in our life get the glory for bringing us to the place of any truly virtuous choices.

On Gene & epistemic distance: do you mean that it’s disastrous if “we know enough information that we are left no rational basis for refusing God”? I take it that maintaining such a “rational recourse” means have a proper basis (enough ambiquity) to maintain a “delusion.” Where does the Bible celebrate that, or say that feeling “constraint” is necessarily bad? What is your interpretation of people who sing of feeling ‘constrained’ by grace, or about a hound of heaven who cornered me, such that I feel I could not make a choice to discount God?

Might it be ungracious to leave someone properly able to be convinced that he has a “rational basis” for rejecting what is actually True? (Unlike God, if I thought that a huge dose of additional information would enable someone to see it, I just might sucumb to carnal temptation and share it.)

#46

Bob: Pride’s point is to focus on choices, the part that differentiates us (a concept LFW promotes).

Tom: But so do thankfulness, gratitude, worship, and other virtues. These all require a true distinction and differentiation between persons (and their choices) in relation. True, pride and other vices require the same differentiation as well. My feeling is this is an unavoidable fact of a creation populated with diverse ‘wills’. But surely the answer to the ‘pride’ that mistakes the diversity of wills and choices is not to pretend such diversities don’t exist but rather to relate one’s self to the TRUTH about these diversities. It sounds a bit like you want to remove or eradicate EVERYTHING that might occasion an instance of sin. But that would mean annihilating all created ‘wills’. We’ll guarantee no pride, sure. But we’ll also guarantee no creaturely love and virtue.

So, I think we ARE different (differentiated from God and others). Your point here seems to be that if we each determine our choices in LFW fashion then we’re differentiated in a way that also occasions the possibility of pride and other vices; but if God determines our right choices we’re not so differentiated at this point. Am I misunderstanding you here?

Tom: But in divine love all are equal. So let’s drill into heads that no differences in what people do can count.

Bob: Good, but this premise has nothing to do with LFW…

Tom: On the contrary though. It means LFW cannot be the grounds for prideful boasting where one is aware of the truth regarding his value and significance in God.

Bob: …and seems a harder sell than other contested claims. Our whole (historically Christian) culture assumes that worth is mostly grounded in performance and choices.

Tom: I’m not getting the point here, Bob. You can’t be saying we ought to capitulate to all the ways secular fallen worldviews have infected the Church. So let’s get to work on our Christian culture. It’s in trouble if it’s selling a gospel that tells people they’re worth and value in the world are based on their performance. THAT has GOT to be far more important to us that competing theories of freedom.

Tom: But that logic must be wrong. For LFW’ers who believe in love are humble!

Bob: I’m amazed. My tradition affirmed love & free will at its’ apologetic core, but I perceive arrogance is as rampant there as in secular culture (and I agree Calvinists too proudly differentiate in another way). I think the tendency to look down on sinners rivals Jesus’ own opponents.

Tom: I said, “But that logic must be wrong for LFWers who believe in love are humble”? Gosh, I gotta find that. I think I’ve been trying to say that BOTH camps have their share of genuinely humble and genuinely arrogant people (who manage to maintain a boastful attitude in spite of their theological claims). My point was—you’ve got deniers and proponents of LFW who are arrogant and boastful. So should we throw out both the claim that LFW is true AND the claim that it’s not true because each occasion human pride? Obviously not.

Bob: I suspect this is ‘logical’ because very few really believe in unconditional love or value. That can be coherent for you, since (as in Calvinism) love’s goal wins out (and with you, for all equally)! But for non-universalists, it makes no sense to believe love secures our value.

Tom: One of the best arguments for UR that I’ve heard. But if UR is false and it’s impossible to coherently demonstrate that our worth is grounded in God’s unconditional love, this doesn’t falsify LFW. We may be free in the libertarian sense and God not love us. There’s no violation of logic there, though there would be incentive for people desperate to be loved to ground their worth and significance in something. But in that case we’re all screwed. In a world where no one’s worth and value can be guaranteed in God, pretty much ANY system of belief will be put to use to feed the existential despair we feel.

Bob: For, as in our culture, many will end up devalued, based on their choices. For ECT, theodicy drives the sense that a good God must fry others instead of me, because they must be much more morally deserving of it (more despicable) than I. Do those whom you say that you convince of God’s unconditional value still believe that He is going to discard many of these totally loved friends?

Tom: I don’t push the UR question, but it does seem to be the case that the more people embrace the unconditional love of God as source and ground of all created being, the light simply points them in that direction.

I see your point about epistemic distance, Bob. But let me come back to that. Gotta run out the door right now.

Hugs to all,
Tom

#47

Salvation is conditional in either scenario, right? Under your paradigm salvation is only given in co-operation of a choice. I would think your right if the conditions are immoral. For example, if a Christian theology stated: God loves all unconditionally and commands everyone to rape and murder else be lost forever. Then yes, I agree with you this would not follow.

But if the command is moral that is YOU MUST forgive, or it’s neutral such as you have to travel to Mecca 1 time in your life then would God’s unconditional love for people neutralize any room for boasting?

What I think I’m really getting at is that because LFW sees salvation as conditional and God’s love as unconditional then why is it that conditional salvation (so long as their not immoral) can’t be consistent with a system that includes Gods unconditional love. I understand you to say, “No! because salvation by works is a condition for God’s love”. But it’s not. It’s a condition for God’s salvation. And everyone, even Calvinists, seem to believe that salvation is conditional but it’s conditioned upon God’s unconditional election – they believe people must repent but the person is regenerated before they repent - so I’m not sure how they defend it. In other words – to put it more simply – I understand you to argue in the scenario that conditional salvation would mean God’s love is conditional. But even in LFW Salvation is conditional (upon the persons wise choice) and God’s love is unconditional.

This leads to the obvious question. Do you believe that a simple choice is all that is required to have “participation in the life of God”? Or is the work of repentance required in order to complete that choice (ala James 2)?

I know there is a lot to discuss so I’m all ears.

Aug

#48

Aug: Salvation is conditional in either scenario, right?

Tom: To some extent, yeah. In the case of a deterministic God who decrees who will believe and the exact circumstances by which God brings about their believing, salvation is conditional in the sense that God determines the ‘conditions’ that cause or bring about their believing. But a LFWer defines ‘conditional’ a bit differently. They mean that there are conditions to our being saved that are not “brought about” by any determining decree of God. So for a determinist, things are ‘conditional’ because they’re the determined conditions by which God brings about what he’s decreed. For me things are ‘conditional’ because WHETHER THEY HAPPEN OR NOT is partly up to ‘wills’ other than God’s will.

Aug: Under your paradigm salvation is only given in co-operation of a choice.

Tom: Well, as I see it salvation is a relationship that restores and heals and perfects human being and that relationship requires and is defined by a mutuality that (I think) determinism destroys.

Aug: But if the command is moral that is YOU MUST forgive, or it’s neutral such as you have to travel to Mecca 1 time in your life then would God’s unconditional love for people neutralize any room for boasting?

Tom: I’m not quite following. LFW doesn’t specify that God can’t command us. LFW has to do with the nature of our choice to obey or not.

Aug: What I think I’m really getting at is that because LFW sees salvation as conditional and God’s love as unconditional then why is it that conditional salvation (so long as they’re not immoral) can’t be consistent with a system that includes Gods unconditional love.

Tom: It (salvation) can be conditional upon our choice. What can’t be conditional upon our rightly choosing is our worth and value to God.

Aug: I understand you to say, “No! because salvation by works is a condition for God’s love”. But it’s not. It’s a condition for God’s salvation. And everyone, even Calvinists, seem to believe that salvation is conditional but it’s conditioned upon God’s unconditional election – they believe people must repent but the person is regenerated before they repent - so I’m not sure how they defend it. In other words – to put it more simply – I understand you to argue in the scenario that conditional salvation would mean God’s love is conditional. But even in LFW salvation is conditional (upon the persons wise choice) and God’s love is unconditional.

Tom: I’ll try to clarify where I’m coming from. Salvation is conditional for LFWers (conditional upon our agreeing to trust God, accept his estimate of us, and embrace his love for us in Christ). Because I think this saving sort of relationship consists in relating ourselves to God as the source of our being and value, I think experiencing THIS salvation (i.e. salvation seen as experiencing God’s love as the unconditional source of our being and value) can be conditional upon our acceptance of it. I don’t think our in fact having our source of being and value in God is conditional upon our acceptance of it. Not sure that helps. What I’m trying to say is that if God makes our WORTH and VALUE dependent upon our performance, then it’s difficult to see how God can also love us unconditionally. So when I say “salvation by works is a condition for God’s love” I mean to say that it seems to me that God’s asking us to save ourselves by overall good performance suggests that God’s looking to save those who prove to be worthy or valuable enough to God, and good performance grounds our worth to God. So God ends up loving (which is to value and cherish) those who perform well and not loving those who don’t perform well. I don’t want to say THAT. But that’s different that saying our experience and enjoying of God’s love is conditional (in part) upon our freely embracing it when it’s offered.

Aug: This leads to the obvious question. Do you believe that a simple choice is all that is required to have “participation in the life of God”? Or is the work of repentance required in order to complete that choice (ala James 2)?

Tom: I pretty sure participating in the life of God is a life (the perfection of loving relationship that we’re intended for) that we begin and then mature towards. In that sense, the final state of our perfect will involve MANY choices and a lot of discipline and learning and surrendering.

Does any of that help clarify things?

Tom

#49

TGB thanks for your patience. I’m one of those blind guys who’s got my hands on the elephant and am just trying to figure out what it is I believe about LFW and boasting.

you said

The question was: if a Christian theology endorses God’s unconditional love for all (he does not make our worth and value depenent upon our performance) but requires particular works (salvation is condition especially under LFW - to make a choice which is generated by the individual and NOT by God) then why is that not a logically possible?

So far I’m thinking it is.

That is God could provide salvation by works and love man unconditionally, so long as the works are not immoral.

#50

Tom, good responses!

Item 1: You got me right. Choices are vital, but putting emphasis on what differentiates us has a precarious down side. And seeing God’s actions as accounting for truly righteous responses can have a big & effective upside.

  1. Touche! Yes, we shouldn’t captitulate to seeing choices as making us superior. But to me, my approach undercuts it more effectively.

  2. I agree that both camps have pride. I just see less reasurring humility in either.

  3. I agree that U.R. could maintain LFW, and still encourage humility. But, short of selling churchmen on UR, I think seeing God’s strong hand in our choices is the most effective way to encourage it. I am supportive and glad about your efforts to teach that God loves people unconditionally (and agree that it leads toward UR). Godspeed! I just find enormous resistance to this basic among most who think that our differences are a key to understanding life.

One upshot I’m seeing here is that part of my preference here lies in just having less motivation to defend LFW (though I’ve already granted that the notion of ‘unforced’ wills bolsters some imporatant values). This gets back to how the classic pleas for epistemic distance seem logically problematic to me. And as a psych grad of the B. F. Skinner tradition, most accounts of ‘freedom’ honestly still seems like an an unteilligible concept to me. It appears to me that the factors in people’s religious choices are clearly not equal, or uncorrelated with the influences in their lives. ‘The nature of ‘free’ choice’ remains a mystery to me

#51

Aug: The question was: if a Christian theology endorses God’s unconditional love for all (he does not make our worth and value depenent upon our performance) but requires particular works (salvation is condition especially under LFW - to make a choice which is generated by the individual and NOT by God) then why is that not a logically possible?

Tom: I don’t see any logical problems. Like you said, God can command that we not eat from the fruit of the tree (or that we love our neighbors as ourselves, etc.) without it being the case that our worth and value to God are generated BY our obedience.

I suppose we’re getting into the nature of faith to godly behavior. And I’m not sure what to say. Is there a pitfall here somewhere we LFWers should be looking out for? ;o)

I’ll say this much though about divine commands. Assuming God loves us unconditionally, it follows that God’s commands are an expression OF that love and thus designed to guide and direct us into an experience of that love (or to define for us what loving another looks like or doesn’t look like). Doesn’t Jesus say all the law and prophets reduces to loving God and loving others? So there’s no conflict between God loving us (= valuing us) unconditionally and God telling us what loving and valuing others looks like by means of commands designed to direct and guide us, or even to protect society in general. Right?

But I don’t think the ‘condition’ of obeying God’s commands (which essentially mean loving God and loving others, right? which in turn simply means valuing ourselves and others as God values us and living in ways that affirm and maximize that value) ends up meaning salvation is BY WORKS in the illigitimate sense Paul talks about–so that we have a scheme in which God loves us unconditionally AND salvation is by works (or conditional). It’s important to make a distinction between salvation conditiond upon works (in the bad sense) and salvation conditioned upon a life that demonstrates that one has indeed rested by faith in the value and love that are his in Christ apart from other specific behavioral demands. In other words–not killing, not stealing, not coveting, etc., and not requirements we must fulfill in order to earn our way into the enjoyment of God’s unconditional love for us. I think not. Rather, not killing, stealing, and coveting is how people who have embraced their unconditional value and worth in Christ apart from those commands in fact end up living. Doing the right things and not doing the wrong things are the FRUITS of progressing into the truth of one’s unconditional acceptance in Christ and the captivating beauty of God who is worshipped.

It’s a bit like a fruit tree. In what sense is a tree an apple tree because it bears apples? Or, in what sense is ‘bearing apples’ a ‘condition’ for a tree to be an apple tree? Well, certainly NOT in the sense that the tree becomes an apple tree AFTER and BECAUSE it bears apples. Rather, an apple tree bears apples because it’s an apple tree. The fruit is a condition, perhaps, for us or others to know what kind of tree it is (by their fruit you’ll know them), but the fruit is not a condition upon which the tree constitutes its identity and nature as an apple tree. On the contrary, it’s identity and nature (its BEING an apple tree) is what constitutes the condition upon which it bears fruit.

My head hurts!
Tom

#52

A couple of things;

I think you’re right about that. The argument that LFW induces boasting is based on the premise that
a) If faith is generated by the person apart of God then the person has something of himself to boast about.

That is basically the question you are addressing, namely is a good (godly righteouss) choice produced prior to faith being present or is it produced afterward?

If a righteouss godly choice is to be made without faith, then how is that?

If the good choice requires faith in order for that choice to be made, then where did the faith come from?

LFW/Arminians seem to me to derive that Faith is not a gift, such as the discussion I have with William (at the link provided earlier) when he states:

He’s willing to make salvation the subject and recepient of the word “gift” but it seems that this is trouble to apply gift to “faith” because that must be of the person’s own creation.

And there I believe is where the conflict lies.

Where detereminists are inclined to claim that ALL good things (including the right to believe, the faith to believe, and the belief itself) are all souced and generated in and by him (Christ Jesus).

Now the second note:
Talking with dinner with Bob Wilson last night as he treated to Luciels bar-b-que (how luck am I to get a great meal and a great mind to dissect), we discussed this topic a bit. I’m wondering how you might respond to the notion that calvinism contains unconditional love and leaves no room for boasting yet you find plenty of determinsts who are arrogant.

If that is true then it must also follow that one’s belief in God’s unconditional love for them does not relieve all possibilities for boasting.

If you say Calvinists do not believe in unconditional love because they don’t believe it’s universal then you should know that I’ll respond: but they don’t know who are elect and therefore are only left to treat every individual as if they’re unconditionally loved (since they may be elect) - leaving no room for boasting.

I’ll let you answer those.

Also excellent discussion Tom, and I’m very sympathetic to what your saying. I just have to ask the hard questions in order to help shape my thinking.

Thanks again,

Gene

#53

Gene,

I’m glad for the continued conversation. Sorry I missed the BBQ!

Gene: The argument that LFW induces boasting is based on the premise that if faith is generated by the person apart of God then the person has something of himself to boast about.

Tom: As you probably know, LFW doesn’t have anything to do with religious faith per se. Many atheists are proponents of LFW. It’s just a theory on the nature of choice. But I see your point: if we freely determine our response to God’s offer, and if responding to this offer involves ‘faith’, then we must somehow be producing ‘faith’ on our own.

I see pretty much everything that exists as a ‘gift’, a ‘grace’ of God. All my capacities (of reasoning, of choice, of physical movement) are all gifts of God, and I see it this way for unbelievers as well. In other words, atheists are participating in the grace of God (on the fundamental level of being) when the walk, eat, think, and reason, even when they disbelieve. No created being exists without participating in a real way in the grace that sustains the rational and volitional capacities that define all human beings.

So…to step back into Eastern Christianity for a moment…viewing creation as a gift infused with God’s energies and grace means no human being is really ever absolutely divided or separated from God. We’re fallen and sinful, yes. We’re suffering the consequences of broken relationship, yes. But the capacities required of us to be restored to God—the capacity to believe God, to agree with the gospel, to welcome and trust his offer and invitation)—are not alien elements to human being per se which get downloaded to us ‘by faith’ (however determined) so that we THEN can respond to God. From an Eastern point of view, the question, Is ‘faith’ a gift of God which enables us to respond or a product of our own making? only arises because we’ve divided things up so absolutely and mistakenly. These capacities (to reason, to choose, to trust, to believe, etc.) are definitive of human being per se. Sinners don’t need to aquire them. They just need to exercise them obediently, which God designed them to do and which they CAN do, but only because God is present in the world, in love, gracing us with an existence that’s already hardwired for fellowship with him. To possess this hardwiring, these capacities, is to be a human being (if even a sinful one). Hence, sinners DO retain the capacity/ability to understand and respond to God. They CAN agree that their worth and value are a gift of God’s love for them, and they CAN choose to trust in God. That they do not when they have the opportunity to do so is what constitutes their greatest guilt.

Gene: I’m wondering how you might respond to the notion that calvinism contains unconditional love and leaves no room for boasting yet you find plenty of determinists who are arrogant.

Tom: I have to admit to only recently running into Calvinists who were also universalists. I think the few of you on this board who fit this description are the only such Calvinists I know. For the most part, all the Calvinists I’ve encountered have made it clear that God does NOT equally and unconditionally love all persons. I just finished a book by Don Carson not too long ago on this very subject. Several of the authors in that book (all Calvinists) made it clear: God does not equally and unconditionally love all. So it’s a bit of a surprise to run into Calvinists who disagree with the mainstream on that. I’m still wrapping my head around it.

Gene: If that is true then it must also follow that one’s belief in God’s unconditional love for them does not relieve all possibilities for boasting.

Tom: Right. But there are any number of reasons for why people would boast. What we want to do is judge a system of belief at its most consistent, right?

Gene: If you say Calvinists do not believe in unconditional love because they don’t believe it’s universal then you should know that I’ll respond: but they don’t know who are elect and therefore are only left to treat every individual as if they’re unconditionally loved (since they may be elect) - leaving no room for boasting.

Tom: I just don’t get this response by Calvinists who admit that God doesn’t love all equally and unconditionally. The point of love and valuing others is to TRULY love them. And to love is to believe a particular TRUTH about someone’s value and worth to God, NOT to act a certain way toward them because you don’t know what the truth is about them. One’s love for another is an assertion of what one believes to be the truth regarding that person’s value and worth to God. In short, you can’t pretend to love and really love. In my view, for Christian theism, we love someone because we believe they’re loved and valued by God. I can’t think of another way to ground Christian love for the lost and unbeliever. I literally wouldn’t know how to love an unbeliever while also admitting I don’t know if they’re loved by God because I don’t know how to ground my love for anyone outside of believing that it’s an expression and participation in God’s love for them.

Tom

#54

Hi Aug – you said

I had some initial impressions on first seeing that question then, by the time I got back the discussion had exploded! Which is cool (I’ve read about half of it) even though it drifted in a different direction than I might have imagined it would.

So, even though this might not be exactly pertinent to the current discussion, it did trigger and help solidify some thoughts and for that I thank you Aug!

First off it seems this is in the subheading of the bigger question which gets asked often here (and on many Christian forums) of the nature of salvation by “works vs faith”. My own latest wonderings on this topic were formulated in
Jesus, the unwrapped gift: a Christmas Meditation

It’s an incredibly interesting dynamic and one which we as Christians should be pondering all the time I think. But for me I found your question made me really uncomfortable and in wondering why I guess my response begins more like a testimony of sorts…

I thought back to my initial realization – as if for the first time! – of who God really was and where I fit in the picture. (Others call this the “born again” experience, “being saved”, “seeing the light” and many other descriptions. For me it was circa 1994…) And I can tell you with certainty that the very LAST sentiment I experienced was pride and arrogance or anything at all like “boasting”!

For me it was far more like shame, and embarrassment. My first reaction was along the lines of “My God! Here He has been all this while seeking me, and I respond only NOW? after all these years? I must be the stupidest dolt ever!” So I was overwhelmed by a sense of what I had been missing – and feeling incredibly sorrowful for all the missed years of Grace and peace! And not a little bit guilty for being so slow at missing it so long! Here I was, bathing in the presence of so many saints in my life (bathing being a metaphor you realize!) and it took ALL this time to “get it”??

So for me anyway, the premise of your question rests, in essence, on a view of God and salvation and how He brings it about that sees the endpoint, the “goal” of all this, as very self-centered and all about “me”. eg “I” am saved. I’m suggesting that our salvation is only a byproduct (hope I don’t offend by using that word) of the far far bigger thing going on which is the Revelation of who God actually is as revealed in the Christ. So instead of an instinct to “boast” about “my” achieving this lofty “status” of being saved, (as if it’s some trophy I can place on my mantle) it is, rather, a dawning awareness (which it turns out God has been working incredibly hard to show us for so very long…) that I am merely coming to grasp that I’m part of His family and now join many others who call Him Father. Pride that I finally “got it”? Hell no! Shame that it took me so long!

Now inevitably when these things come up it seems that there is an emphasis on how “undeserving” we are. Which misses an incredibly important point I think and I tried to share this here way long ago in an Essay titled “On Getting What we Deserve”

While the richly varied biblical descriptions of salvation employ a vast array of images (sometimes a frustratingly large and seemingly contradictory array) certainly the relational images weigh particularly for me. But this discovery of relationship and identity to which the Gospel brings us has only one proper response and that is gratefulness and humility; a veritable universe apart from any arrogance that this discovery was of my doing.

For me, this may well be substantiated by that seemingly troublesome text in Romans 11:32. Here we see that (this may or may not be a paraphrase you agree with…) maybe in some ways what we might see as our own cleverness at being “wise” enough to chose God is simple something like God removing the blinders from our eyes at a time of HIS choosing. So why on earth would I have reason to boast at having had the blinders removed? That image works for me because it’s obvious that the glory, and boasting if there is to be any, goes to God!

What I’m saying then is that any temptation to boast must necessarily recruit the dynamics of “works” to make sense at all. You hear boasting, you are hearing works. God of course loves good works; but only as fruit of hearts that have already seen the true nature of their salvation.

Lastly, it seems in the nature of the “saved” to feel keenly for their “lost” brethren who yet remain outside the safety of the fold. The “sheep” who remain safe in the enclosure in that dark and stormy night do not “boast” that they are safe and warm, but rather immerse themselves in the very sort of selfless attitude in which that Shepherd Himself goes out to rescue that lost one. None dream of gloating that they have been “wise” enough to find themselves safe inside the “fold”. Rather, those safe align themselves with the true heart of the true Shepherd and do not rest until ALL are safe in the fold; which is to say, they experience the very heart of God.

TotalVictory
Bobx3

#55

Well I certainly have my sympathies with much of what has been shared but I need to make another comment.

If unconditional love cancels out any form of boasting with a given theology and it is incompatible with salvation by works, then can’t it be said that unconditional love is incompatible with any given created creature has having produced godly measure outside of God sourcing that goodness?

In other words: I might make the same objection (such as):
Well of course unconditional love removes any form of boasting from TGB’s Universalism, but TGB has an inconsistency that he produces some form of righteousness which is incompatible with unconditional love. That is to say - Like Arminianism and Calvinism, (EDIT) his theology is prone to allow boasting due to inconsisticies in his theology - in this case it’s LFW.

I continue to remain in orbit around this notion:
If someone does something, then they deserve credit for it.
If a man produces faith or a godly decision outside of God generating that faith or thought, then the man deserves credit for it.

The humility you both (TGB and TV) express certainly is something I love to read, but I don’t necessarily find it to be a defense of the above statements. To say “Those who are truly saved will not boast of their salvation”, totally misses the mark of the question, of whether or not a person who creates faith deserves credit for that faith. If the person deserves credit then are they prone to taking credit. I think the answer is obviously yes. So saying “When someone TRULY comes to believe, that person will not boast”, simply does nothing to resolve the charge that LFW is prone to allowing boasting.

I see determinism or soft determinism (indirect determinism) as being the only way in which a person logically cannot take credit for the faith which is in them.

Aug

#56

Bob, I like your take. But crediting our saving choices to “God removing the blinders in HIS time” sounds to me like Auggy’s more reformed explanation for such a decision. Would that be accurate?

#57

Auggy: If unconditional love cancels out any form of boasting with a given theology and it is incompatible with salvation by works, then can’t it be said that unconditional love is incompatible with any given created creature having produced godly measure outside of God sourcing that goodness?

Tom: Yes, IF the sort of creaturely production you’re describing constitutes a “work” that God “pays” the wages of salvation to. But libertarian choice doesn’t equate (I don’t think) to the idea that we have a capacity to choose that is “outside of God’s sourcing it.” In my view, LFW is consistent with it being the case that nothing that exists exists and functions outside of God as source and sustainer.

But it seems to me, Aug, that for you God can only relate as ‘source’ to what God ‘determines’. And in that case, I’d disagree that unconditional love is incompatible with creaturely self-determination. You keep naming self-determining choice as ‘producing independent righteousness’ or ‘creating faith’ independently of God. But freely ‘agreeing’ with God that I can’t save myself can’t honestly be construed as having saved myself by an independent work of righteousness. That would be to say agreeing I can’t save myself independently of God in fact saves me independently of God. It doesn’t work. You can’t include the choice to agree and submit to the truth about one’s dependency upon God among those works of self-reliance and arrogance that are rightly rejected as work-righteousness.

Likewise, it doesn’t follow that choices we can take ‘responsibility for’ are also choices we can ‘boast about’. ‘Boasting’ requires more than merely ‘being responsible for’ a choice, so though justifiably boasting of a particular choice would require that the choice be libertarian, it would also require other things that libertarian choice doesn’t entail, so LFW itself can’t be blamed (I don’t think) for human boasting.

Tom

#58

But certainly, the root of my complaint is that in order to “freely agree” a righteousness has to first take place within the host. In order for anyone to conclude and thus choose to call upon the name of the Lord, he must first have a change of heart and of mind from evil to good. And what is it that changed his mind? I would conclude that like Lydia, God has to oepn our mind and our hearts to understand the unconditional love. Now I agree God has every means at his disposal to do such transformations; I don’t believe it has to be software nor strings which are pulled in order for God to bring us to our senses.

I’m thus still inclined to think that for TGB to freely agree with God, God must cause something in TGB to change in order for TGB to agree. Thus I don’t find your free will to be free in a Libertarian sense. I also believe scripture supports these very ideas such as Paul who states, they cannot obey God’s commands - due to the restriction caused by their sinful natures.

We keep skating along this edge of original sin and I’ll continue to stay away for now. I’m still curious however and will wait for you to respond to Bob’s epestemic distance post, if you don’t mind. He stated:

I want to hear you discuss more of this because it revolves around this notion of LFW.

Aug

#59

Auggy: the root of my complaint is that in order to “freely agree” a righteousness has to first take place within the host.

Tom: That’s what separates us, because I wouldn’t agree with this point.

Auggy: In order for anyone to conclude and thus choose to call upon the name of the Lord, he must first have a change of heart and of mind from evil to good. And what is it that changed his mind? I would conclude that like Lydia, God has to open our mind and our hearts to understand the unconditional love.

Tom: An Arminian would agree with you so far as this goes, BUT she’d add that the grace that opens one’s heart to understand and respond to the gospel can be refused. It’s not irresistible. But I would say that the capacities required to say yes to God at this fundamental level are given as a gift of natural capacity to human beings bearing the image of God and cannot be eradicated by sin. In a very real sense, Auggy, in our natural capacity to reason and choose (indeed, in our very existence) we already ARE the grace from God that makes it possible for us to say ‘yes’ to God.

Auggy: We keep skating along this edge of original sin and I’ll continue to stay away for now.

Tom: Eventually we all have to figure original sin into the equation and say how we think it impacts the exercise of God-given human capacities like reason and choice. I think our sin obviously impacts the exercise of these God-given capacities, but they are impaired and not abolished or annihilated.

So, about epistemic distance. Basically all ED means is that our reasoning and perceiving powers are finite. Not much to object to there. We’re not omniscient. But neither are we absolutely ignorant. We’re in between–and that’s just how it has to be for us to develop morally toward our perfection. Our natural capacities are capable of perceiving SOME things, even extremely important things of theological consequence (Rom 1). So we’re not absolutely void of relevant knowledge. But neither are we so knowledgeable that we perceive all mysteries. We fall “in the distance” between the two absolutes—being absolutely void of all knowledge and being absolutely knowledgeable of relevant truth.

Some libertarians (and I’ve run into this in a couple of the Fathers—forgive me for not knowing off hand which ones, Athanasius and Maximus the Confessor I think) argue that this ‘cognitive distance’ or wiggle room is necessary to the sort of character development and human perfection God intended us for. That is, we have to be sufficiently free to make responsible choices relevant to good and evil and THAT means understanding enough to say ‘yes’ and enough to say ‘no’. This is not an unkind or ungracious thing. It’s a great gift in fact, even though it entails the risk of our saying ‘no’. That risk is just the metaphysical price tag God had to pay to get beings who could develop morally into the kind of responsible partners that God wants us to be.

So epistemic distance just describes that amount light and truth needed in order for finite creatures like ourselves to freely develop morally. You can’t develop morally and responsibly without enough light to choose as you ‘ought’. But neither can you develop morally if you are absolutely overwhelmed by truth, for then the reason and will are left no ground upon which to responsibly reject God, for it cannot rationally (and so responsibly) say ‘no’ to God. I get the whole sin is a delusion thing, but it’s a responsibly chosen delusion. And I don’t know how to call it “responsible” if it’s not “minimally rational” GIVEN THE INFORMATION ONE HAS. But then I don’t know how a choice to reject God is minimally rational if the mind is absolutely overwhelmed at every turn with the obviousness of the truth, that is if God essentially doesn’t let people (or given them the cognitive space required to) say “no” to God. And to say “no” to God responsibly (i.e., rationally), it seems to me one’s got to be able to construct or sufficiently explain to one’s self WHY one is saying “no” to God.

Bob: Do you mean that it’s disastrous if “we know enough information that we are left no rational basis for refusing God”?

Tom: It’s not a disastrous state per se. In my view in heaven we shall be incapable of misrelation and sin because of the effects of the beatific vision—we shall “be like him” for…we shall “see” him as he is. The depth of perception that shall define heavenly existence will reduce our epistemic distance to zero. But we’re not there yet. And we weren’t created there originally either. So one has to wonder why. I think it’s because–metaphysically speaking–there is simply no way to get “created being” into a state of permanent loving partnership with God apart from endowing creatures with a measure of “say-do” appropriate to their freely participating in God’s purposes. God could not have STARTED with already perfect loving personal partners; he HAD to start out with beings who had to freely participate with God in arriving to that goal.

Bob: I take it that maintaining such a “rational recourse” means have a proper basis (enough ambiquity) to maintain a “delusion.” Where does the Bible celebrate that…

Tom: What does Eve do when tempted? How does she ‘reason’ her way (albeit falsely) into accepting the Serpent’s offer? That’s what I’m talking about. Nobody in a perfected/glorified state would be able to reason as she did because the epistemic distance just doesn’t obtain in a glorified state. But in our original state (and fallen state) we don’t perfectly perceive the truth about all things relevant to our moral development and perfection. We’re not CONSTRAINED to sin by this distance, for we are also given enough light and evidence to make choosing rightly POSSIBLE. And being in a place where choosing right and wrong are BOTH POSSIBLE is just what defines LFW.

Auggy: What is your interpretation of people who sing of feeling ‘constrained’ by grace, or about a hound of heaven who cornered me, such that I feel I could not make a choice to discount God?

Tom: The beauty of the gospel is a powerful thing. It’s even more powerful because our natural capacities are DESIGNED by God to respond to it. Believing and trusting God is our NATURAL state. Disbelief and sin are un-natural. But we get screwed up, I understand that. And I understand how psychologically powerful a revelation of God can be. I can’t stand inside of the experience of others and parse out just how free or constrained they ‘felt’. I can only say that as far as I understand how the divine-human relationship works, God never absolutely check-mates or determines human beings on decisions that matter to our ultimate destiny. As overwhelmed as one might feel, the rejection of God is nevertheless possible—as the original angelic fall suggests. Imagine what depth of perception and revelation Lucifer enjoyed, and yet he misrelated himself to it all. Of course, this may be just another reason for a determinist to conclude that God unconditionally determined that Lucifer reject the truth. I can’t say that.

Bob: Might it be ungracious to leave someone properly able to be convinced that he has a “rational basis” for rejecting what is actually true?

Tom: Not if the most loving purposes for them entail their freely determining themselves with respect to some relationship or what have you. THEN the gracious thing to do (if the purpose is truly loving and in their best interests) would be to grant them just the right amount of truth-content required to create the necessary ‘space’ for them to develop towards the perfection of those purposes.

Do all this mean that for me God’s choice to create entailed a certain risk (for creation especially, but also for himself)? I admit that that’s precisely what I think.

Now we’re chasing a hundred rabbits down a hundred rabbit holes!

Tom

#60

I recently offered up two issues to my Arminian friend William Birch. Actually it’s more of a reponse only to say all sides have issues.

His recent blog post was “Is God the Author of Sin?”
When he asked me if I believed God authors sin, I responded with:

  1. I believe God is no more tha author of sin then a rank sinner is the author of righteoussness.

and since this Arminian posits that God did harden Pharoah (like aaron37 used to endorse) because Pharoah was already a rank sinner, I posted:

Since God hardens rank sinners then he must be the author of some sins right?

Ok, I know I’m going to get blasted TGB :slight_smile: LOL! Go ahead fire away.