Free-will is a myth

[Stefcui]

On a recent post it has been alleged that free-will is a myth. The view presented by some is that because God is sovereign, God has chosen the destiny of the saved and unsaved, it is not by free-will. The wicked did not choose the lake of fire (God’s disciplinary wrath), it was chosen for them by God. God did not “put” into these ones a need for “cosmic security”, therefore they are damned to receive corrective punishment. This teaching is generally known among Calvinist groups as “double-predestination”. This view has been presented as a normal model of universalism, which surprises me.

I wonder how normal this view is? Do all universalist’s hold that free-will does not exist? What is your view of double-predestination? Have sinners been predestined to God’s disciplinary wrath, as some have maintained?

For a background for this question, see More To It Than Love
[More To It Than Love)

Thanks
Steve

[maudib]

I’m ‘free enough’ to do what He asks of me, if I’m willing.
“Free enough” - not specific enough for philosophers, but plenty enough for us sinners.

[Stefcui]

Hi Maudib,

You seem to reject the myth attribution of free-will, as do I. A few references on the free-will topic are as follows:

The very first book on universalism I read has a section about this called “free will”. The book is called “Hope Beyond Hell” by Gerry Beauchemin. Says Gerry:

What has happened to GOD? Our tradition has pawned His power off to man in the myth of ―“free” will

Here’s another book that is for universalism called, “Hell And Eternity: It’s All Greek To Me”. Says the author:

Would it surprise you to know that this idea of free will is actually not very Biblical? In fact one can see how Calvinists (who believe in predestination, not free will) have a pretty good case Biblically.

Free will is a myth.

I do not have any problem with these views, I am just trying to understand how free-will and double-predestination fit within the theology of those here. Understandably, those who teach that God has destined some to be saved now and some to be saved later (through disciplinary punishments) still find it hard to understand that this is a soft version of Calvin’s double predestination.

Steve

[Bob_Wilson]

Steve,

I see that universalists exist across the spectrum on this, and for me the nature of our freedom remains mysterious. Indeed, I think intellectually that a great part of my attraction to universalism was that it seems to offer the best way of holding the classic tension together: that of the reality of our choices and being held responsible for them, and the hope and promises that God is ultimately victorious in his sovereign saving goals. This especially hit me through Talbott’s interpretation of Romans 9-11, a section which had left me so baffled that I avoided preaching it. He recognized a combination where God takes our freedom seriously, and does not ordinarily coerce it, while remaining the great and loving chess-player who is able to lead us to ultimately freely embrace the truths that our vital for our existence.

[Cole]

While I reject “free will” I believe in human responsibility. All humans are free agents in the sense that they make their own decisions about what they will do, choosing as they please according to their desires and thoughts. When humans make it to heaven they will have a completely new nature with all sin and sinful desires removed from their hearts. They will be free from sin. Because they have new natures they will be like God and it will be impossible for them to sin. They still choose what they want but because all sin is removed from their hearts they always want to do the right thing. This is true freedom. Since Christ is the propitiatiatory sacrifice for all then it follows all will be saved. As R.C. Sproul has said. If Christ died for all then universalism must be true. I go with the already/not yet. It was set in motion in Christ’s death and resurrection it just has to work itself out. The Bible says Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. The orthodox view of God is that He acts transtemporally. The effects of the cross stretch back in time and forward in time.

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19

It says all will be made righteous. Period.

Edit:

God permits the evil desires. He uses grace upon peoples hearts to do good. God doesn’t force people to do evil. He simply hands them over to their own desires and allows them to act according to their own will. When a good deed is done it’s by God’s grace. He gets the glory. God plants the desire in the heart by His miracle working grace. Performing a miracle isn’t the same thing as forcing.

[pilgrim]

While I reject “free will” I believe in human responsibility. All humans are free agents in the sense that they make their own decisions about what they will do, choosing as they please according to their desires and thoughts.

If God has forced those desires and thoughts on to them, then they are not responsible. If He hasn’t, then they have free will.

I am an Arminian Universalist Steve.

[Cole]

God permits the evil desires. He uses grace upon peoples hearts to do good. God doesn’t force people to do evil. He simply hands them over to their own desires and allows them to act according to their own will. When a good deed is done it’s by God’s grace. He gets the glory. God plants the desire in the heart by His miracle working grace. Performing a miracle isn’t the same thing as forcing.

[pilgrim]

Michael, I am familiar with the old Calvinistic arguments and you are entitled to them if you choose (or if your god chooses for you, whichever).
I do not share your theological bent.
From what I’ve read of your posts, rather than being a t.u.l.i.p. calvinist, you seem to be proposing t,u,u,i,p neo-calvinism. You have replaced the ‘limited atonement’ with ‘universal atonement’.
I apologise if I have misunderstood what you are trying to say but if I am correct then IMO you have invented a systematic theology which cannot hold water.
Either way, I have no interest in pursuing any discussion on the subject so I will leave you to it with my prayers that God bless us all as we endeavour to grow in grace.

[anon12438761]

I think, if someone came to me, really troubled by the question, I would go with the ‘free-will enough’ defense, which I feel pretty clever for thinking up just now, except I’m pretty sure it’s not my idea .
If the concern of that person was how to please his/her Creator and Father, if he/she is not concerned about philosophical purity and analytic precision for its own sake, I think the FWED is true enough and sufficient enough.
If precision is the goal, it is certainly an interesting discussion as well.

[Cole]

Pilgrim,

My theology focuses on God. Yours focuses on man. Mine holds water because it is Biblical and God centered.

[davo]

This specious notion that free-will somehow impugns the sovereignty of God is a joke. As children we all had freewill up to the point others deemed otherwise. THAT is STILL free-will. The fact that another’s freewill can contravene our own and leave us in angst proves the case.

[Stefcui]

I see that universalists exist across the spectrum on this, and for me the nature of our freedom remains mysterious. Indeed, I think intellectually that a great part of my attraction to universalism was that it seems to offer the best way of holding the classic tension together: that of the reality of our choices and being held responsible for them, and the hope and promises that God is ultimately victorious in his sovereign saving goals. This especially hit me through Talbott’s interpretation of Romans 9-11, a section which had left me so baffled that I avoided preaching it. He recognized a combination where God takes our freedom seriously, and does not ordinarily coerce it, while remaining the great and loving chess-player who is able to lead us to ultimately freely embrace the truths that our vital for our existence.

Great post, thanks.

God permits the evil desires. He uses grace upon peoples hearts to do good. God doesn’t force people to do evil. He simply hands them over to their own desires and allows them to act according to their own will. When a good deed is done it’s by God’s grace. He gets the glory. God plants the desire in the heart by His miracle working grace. Performing a miracle isn’t the same thing as forcing.

Michael, here is another example of your double-predestination at work, although you also seem to put a wager both ways. When you say “God doesn’t force people to do evil. He simply hands them over to their own desires and allows them to act according to their own will.”, it sounds like you are advocating free-will, which is not the case based on other words you have posted. When you say: “When a good deed is done it’s by God’s grace. He gets the glory. God plants the desire in the heart by His miracle working grace”, this is closer to your double-predestination position, because you have stated here and elsewhere that God “plants the desire” in some and not in others. This is choosing two sets of destinies by doing such. Are you new to Christianity, Michael? The problems may be due to you being only young? No worries either way.

I am an Arminian Universalist Steve.

Great to hear, John, you are also a great brother.

I would go with the ‘free-will enough’ defense, which I feel pretty clever for thinking up just now, except I’m pretty sure it’s not my idea.

Absolutely clever, Dave. Great to see you back again.

God bless
Steve

[Cole]

this is closer to your double-predestination position, because you have stated here and elsewhere that God “plants the desire” in some and not in others.

God doesn’t save everybody in this lifetime. The firstfruits are saved in this lifetime. The secondfruits are saved in the next. God plants the desire in some and not others in this lifetime.

[Stefcui]

God doesn’t save everybody in this lifetime. The firstfruits are saved in this lifetime. The secondfruits are saved in the next. God plants the desire in some and not others in this lifetime.

I understand Michael. While you do not see anything inconsistent with this thinking, I do. God cannot justify (IMO) “disciplinary wrath” in the lake of fire for those who were predestined to be unsaved in this life. Saying that God will eventually save everyone is really only a band-aid on nasty infected wound.

Steve

[Cole]

Steve,

Everybody is predestined to be with God.

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19

Everybody will be made righteous. First the firstfruits. Second the secondfruits. We all undergo discipline as Hebrews tells us. I don’t see how this is unjust on God’s part. Since Christ is the propitiatiatory sacrifice for all then it follows all will be saved. If Christ died for all then universalism must be true. I go with the already/not yet. It was set in motion in Christ’s death and resurrection it just has to work itself out. The Bible says Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. The orthodox view of God is that He acts transtemporally. The effects of the cross stretch back in time and forward in time.

[Stefcui]

Everybody will be made righteous. First the firstfruits. Second the secondfruits. We all undergo discipline as Hebrews tells us. I don’t see how this is unjust on God’s part. Since Christ is the propitiatiatory sacrifice for all then it follows all will be saved. If Christ died for all then universalism must be true. I go with the already/not yet. It was set in motion in Christ’s death and resurrection it just has to work itself out. The Bible says Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. The orthodox view of God is that He acts transtemporally. The effects of the cross stretch back in time and forward in time.

Michael, you have just been arguing the case (on other threads) that it is right that God punishes unbelievers with “disciplinary wrath”. They must be purged in the lake of fire because they did not repent and receive atonement and a place with God as first-fruits. In the next breath you say that unbelievers were incapable of believing in God because God “put” the desire for “cosmic security” in to some and not into others. Then you try to whitewash any offense by claiming that Christ died for everyone anyway, except those who were implanted with desire “cosmic security” now are considered as first-fruits, whereas those who were not implanted with the desire for “cosmic security” will be punished with disciplinary wrath, even though they had no choice because there is no thing, in your opinion, as free-will.

No offence, Michael, but I find this theology to be like a Picasso or M. C. Escher painting. You have constructed a picture, but the individual parts do not match each other. I am a bit more pragmatic in my logic. I know my thinking does not appeal to everyone either.

God Bless
Steve

[Cole]

Steve,

I think I made myself clear in the posts in this thread. You continually try to find fault where there is none. Are you still upset because I proved you wrong by showing you that there are universalists like me who don’t believe in free will?

God works through both mercy and discipline to bring about the salvation of the world.

[Stefcui]

I think I made myself clear in the posts in this thread. You continually try to find fault where there is none. Are you still upset because I proved you wrong by showing you that there are universalists like me who don’t believe in free will?

Hi Michael, I am not the slightest bit upset with you, so don’t worry about anything like that. I am very pleased with how you keep any personal attacks out of your responses. I am not worried that you don’t believe in free-will; I found it more of a curiosity. You (also Watchman and 1824) caught me by surprise, as I never figured that double-predestination would be compatible with universalism. You taught me something there…

I am sorry if you think I am trying to find fault with you. I am only pointing out that your views on this (for me) are incongruent. I see contradiction and flaws in the logic and use of scriptures. I am not worried that you believe this. I am very tolerant of others views, but I do like to have our views tested. Others don’t like to have their views tested, and they decide that I must have an issue with them simply for testing their views. It is not personal for me. I am very pragmatic about this.

Steve

[Cole]

I am only pointing out that your views on this (for me) are incongruent

They are not for me. God works through both mercy and discipline to bring about the salvation of the world.

[Paidion]

I believe in free will. To put it simply, “free will” is the ability to choose. But to nail this down a bit so that Compatibilists don’t accept this claim on their own terms, I will affirm the following definition:

A person P has free will, if P has chosen X in a given set of circumstances at time T, but P could have chosen not X in the same set of circumstances at time T.