The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Free Willism or God's Soeveignty in Salvation of All

Evangelical Universalism
#393

Paul, the Jew, said there was no law from Adam to Moses (Romans 5:13). Maybe one could call the time of Cain’s day a time of conscience rather than law. If there was a law against murder in Cain’s day he would have had to be put to death for what he did. I think Lamech killed someone too.
The serpent in the garden communicated with Eve. Most likely through Satan who is also known as a serpent.

Genesis is an historic account of beginnings; the beginning of the heavens and earth, beginning of life, beginning of sin, beginning of genealogies, beginning of the Hebrew people.

Eve was the mother of all living beings. I doubt she went around the earth at that time instructing each of the possibly millions of people about God.

1 Like
#394

I am kind of curious, how is the argument as to whether or not what occurred in Genesis pertinent to Free Will or God’s Sovereignty in the Salvation of all?

#395

That all started when you brought up “Eve”… :laughing:

#396

Actually, I run with the P-Zombie, theological position of Universalism at P-Zombies and Universalism. Which means it would fit in well, with the Gerald Schroeder “P-Zombie”, Genesis position :exclamation: :laughing:

#397

While the early chapters of Genesis are heavily freighted with myth, this does not mean that they are not thoroughly historical. They are myths that actually happened. In other words, these historical events have deep meaning for every person who will ever descend from Adam and Eve.

The Holy Fool’s appellation of my account as “Geoffrey’s sugar daddy theory” gives me a chuckle, but I think it cloaks a misapprehension that I hope to clear-up. Just glancing at the numbers, it looks as though the pre-Flood peoples lived about 12 times longer than we do today. I do NOT think that that means that they were infants in diapers for 12 years, and that they entered puberty at age 150, or that they became legal adults at age 215. No. I suspect that their minority was as short as ours, becoming fully-developed adults by age 20. (On the other end, I suspect that their old age similarly didn’t last much longer than a couple of decades.) In other words, I think these people had upwards of 900 years of healthy, fertile adulthood. As such, a 200-year-old marrying a 40-year-old has nothing of the sugar daddy about it. In both cases it would have been adults in their (very long!) prime marrying each other.

#398

I’ve always found the combination of ‘free will’ and universal salvation to be a curious combination of thought. My great hope that all mankind will be finally saved is because God has willed and promised to accomplish the salvation of all mankind in his Word. We can have great confidence that it will happen because God has willed it. Further, we also know that the sinful will of mankind does not want to be saved, but instead to be our own god. In fact we want to run and hide, just as our mother Eve did so many thousands of years ago.

So then to have confidence that all mankind will be saved while trying to defend man’s ‘free will’ seems curious. So do proponents of ‘free will’ believe that all mankind will be saved because everyone’s ‘free will’ will eventually cave in? Is time the savior or is Jesus the savior? Are we like clams that ultimately cannot resist the gentle pull of the star fish? But then again even that illustration support my understanding. For God’s pull may be gentle or it may be firm, but it is God’s gracious pull that wins the battle over our stubborn wills. And if God were to not pull at all and leave the final decision up to us? No one would open up to God for our pride would keep our sin locked up and hidden inside the clam shell, away from saving grace. We would still be hiding with fig leaves trying to be our own god. In fact that is just what a non-Christian is doing. A Christian however is praising God for pulling us out of darkness into the light.

Here are two articles I’ve written to promote discussion on the subject…

dgjc.org/optimism/is-free-will-faith-saving-faith
dgjc.org/optimism/universalism-free-will-one-very-strange-bird

Also there has been another forum post started discussing this subject over here

[Universalism + Free Will = One Very Strange Bird)

2 Likes
#399

Actually, Jeff, both Eusebius’ total deterministic, theological Universalism model and my P-Zombie Universalism, theological model, both solve the problem of free will and universalism - quite easily and nicely. Problem solved :exclamation: :laughing:

#400

Thanks Geoffrey, this similar to my view also!

Consider that Genesis Chapter 1 is BOTH an outline to the Pentateuch as well as a record of the creation week. Why argue that it can only be one of the other. God because he is both omnipotent and omniscient when he acts in one dimension also creates all the interconnected relationships to his other events. So when God creates the world he does it in a way that is also the introductory outline to the Pentateuch :slight_smile: Consider…

Day 1 - Light and darkness / Adam and Eve’s fall into the sin
Day 2 - Expanse between waters / Noah’s flood
Day 3 - Dry ground / Abraham’s land promise
Day 4 - Heavenly lights / Joseph’s grand dream
Day 5 - Fish and Birds / God’s provision in the desert
Day 6 - Man / Joshua is deliverer!

Moses’ Pentateuch tells the story of mankind waiting for the promised deliverer to come in a most amazing way. Adam and Eve, mankind, were promised a deliverer from Eve’s offspring to reverse the works of the Devil. She and looked and waited for the deliverer and believers after her looked and waited as well! She says in Genesis 4:1 ‘with the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man!’ This could be the deliverer? Yet she and we learned that Abel was only a type of the promised Messiah as highlighted in the book of Hebrews. Other types appeared, but each time the question was raised…is this the promised deliverer? Noah? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob? Joseph? Moses? But Moses knew he was not the promised deliverer for he himself writes that ‘another prophet’ is coming! So then is Joshua the deliverer? His name means savior! Genesis 1 outlines the history of God’s people from creation to the fall to the promise of a deliverer to the man Joshua and entrance in the Promised land. Yet Joshua also knew that he was not the deliverer and so believers understand that this real and actual history is also a living metaphor of the true deliverer of the same name, Jesus, and the true promised land that awaits is in Heaven!

So if our Sovereign God can write the foundational pages of history itself as a metaphor of the final pages of history then what can stop this God from his promised purpose to finally save every human being? Nothing can ever or will ever stop or stand in the way of God’s conquering will, especially not the will of man! Folks enough of this silly talk about man’s ‘free will’. Let’s praise the unconquerable will of our Sovereign God of love who has determined to save us!

#401

What I understand to be the Calvinist and Arminian positions both appear to me to be nonsensical. Consider the following simplification:

A man unknowingly drops $100 out of his pocket. Mr. Peabody sees this happen.

If Mr. Peabody lived in the universe as imagined by Arminian theory, then he could freely choose to do one of two things:

  1. He could freely choose to pocket the $100, one of his many steps to the never-ending Hell that he is freely choosing.
    or
  2. He could freely choose to hand the $100 to the man, one of his many steps to the never-ending Heaven that he is freely choosing.

If Mr.Peabody lived in the universe as imagined by Calvinist theory, then he could be predestined to do one of two things:

  1. He could be predestined to pocket the $100, one of the many signs that God has predestined him to never-ending Hell.
    or
  2. He could be predestined to hand the $100 to the man, one of the many signs that God has predestined him to never-ending Heaven.

Neither makes any sense.

Now let’s look at what I take to be the real, Orthodox universe:

  1. He could acquiesce to the wicked passions that war to enslave his soul and pocket the $100.
    or
  2. He could cooperate with the Holy Trinity’s Uncreated Energies and hand the $100 to the man.

In Arminian Land, Mr. Peabody is free no matter what he does.
In Calvinist Land, Mr. Peabody is not free no matter what he does.
In Orthodox Land, Mr. Peabody is not free if he steals the money, but he is free if he returns the money.

When we obey Christ, we are free. When we disobey Christ, we are slaves to sin.

In this fallen world, we all too often wallow in our sinful chains. When our bodies die and our souls find themselves in the immediate presence of the risen and enthroned Christ, His very presence obliterates any further possibility of slavery. Freedom reigns.

#402

The weakness in your argument is easily shown. Salvation is not $100 laying on the sidewalk. Instead, mankind is guilty and justice apart from Christ demands eternal separation from Holy God. The perfect holiness of God cannot endure the tiniest blemish. No sin can stand in his presence. However, the good news is that there is no apart from Christ and so justice because of Christ instead demands our eternal salvation. The sacrifice of Christ endured all on our behalf removing our every blemish. The argument of this thread is that man’s will, free or not, has nothing whatsoever so do with the absolution of sin at the cross. The supposed accepting or rejecting the cross with a ‘free will’ or a ‘bound will’ has no impact on whether we are eternally forgiven. Instead all mankind is already forgiven at the cross apart from our will. Of course the gospel also adds that no one will believe this happy news apart from a super natural rebirth initiated by the Holy Spirit in the individual’s life.

1 Like
#403

I remember Mister Peabody. He’s the smart cartoon dog, who invented time travel, via the “wayback machine.” I never thought he would show up - on this forum. Now I just gave some potential troll, a new avatar name. :exclamation: :laughing:

Perhaps I should share the Wiki summary. :smiley:

#404

Virtually the entirety of the free will vs. predestination debate takes place within the theological system of Augustine of Hippo (A. D. 354-430), of which Roman Catholicism and classical Protestantism (i. e., Lutheranism and Calvinism) are variants. This system is outside of Orthodoxy.

I agree with Orthodox archpriest Sergius Bulgakov (A. D. 1871-1944) that the salvation of the entirety of God’s creation is ontologically necessary. That is, it cannot be otherwise. We are not merely lucky to have a deity that happened to decide on universalism from amongst various options. No. Instead, we worship the Holy Trinity, and the Trinity’s very essence makes universalism necessary.

I also state with certainty that (for example) if a man unknowingly drops $100, I can either give the money to him or I can keep it for myself. Either course of action is entirely possible. God did not predestine me to give the money back, nor did God predestine me to keep the money.

The above two paragraphs do not contradict one another.

#405

I likewise agree with this statement. In fact to agree with this statement is to also agree that man does not have the ‘free will’ to resist final salvation. For the heart of the ‘free will’ debate has nothing to do with $100 fallen on the ground, but concerning man’s final destiny. Is an individual human being’s final destiny a function of their free will choice or a function of God’s sovereign choice? Afterall ‘free will’ is merely an ugly misguided theological invention by those who believe in eternal damnation to explain why some are saved and some are not.

#406

Good points Jeff. Also, Catholics such as St. Thomas Aquinas believe in predestination. But they also believe in the paradox of free will. God doesn’t predestine anyone to hell. Those that hold to the certainty of hell like Tomas Aquinas believe God permits people to go to hell with their own free choice. God is in complete control but he permits evil and suffering. These views of providence and predestination were held by Thomas Aquinas and St. John of The Cross (The mystical Doctor of Catholicism). They lay the foundation for contemplation and Christian perfection. For with God in control and my future in His hands I have hope. This leads to union with Christ. You can read more about this in the books, “Predestination”, “Providence”, and “Christian Perfection and Contemplation” by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. He was the teacher of Pope John Paul II and expert on Thomas Aquinas. Moreover, in the Catholic Handbook of Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli it states:

It’s the Eastern Orthodox who are off. As G.K. Chesterton says on the issue of predestination and free will:

#407

“I agree with Orthodox archpriest Sergius Bulgakov (A. D. 1871-1944) that the salvation of the entirety of God’s creation is ontologically necessary. That is, it cannot be otherwise. We are not merely lucky to have a deity that happened to decide on universalism from amongst various options. No. Instead, we worship the Holy Trinity, and the Trinity’s very essence makes universalism necessary.”

I think the good Bulgakov is rowing against some heavy seas with those statements. The term ‘ontologically necessary’ would take a heap of explaining, unless it is meant as a mystical statement. And the relation between the trinity and necessary universalism just doesn’t hold.

Yes, of course this all imo, Randy! :smiley:

#408

Hardly!

One does not even need to be a careful Bible student to observe that every mention of mystery in the New Testament is not a mystery introduced, but instead a mystery revealed or explained by the advent of Christ. Christ does not bring question marks, but instead answers. Why would one cling to mystery when answer has been provided? I can only figure it is because they do not like the answers.

I have written at length about the ‘mystery’ strategy of the unbelieving to dodge the bullet of sovereign grace.

dgjc.org/optimism/mystery-in-the-middle

dgjc.org/optimism/real-or-apparent-paradox

#409

Well, Jeff, the whole history of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions, have produced some outstanding mystics.

As to whether they are sane or not, one need only consult the classics - on the topic. Which would be Mysticism: A Study in the Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness by Evelyn Underhill and **The Varieties of Religious Experience ** by William James.

Among my favorite Christian mystics are:

The desert fathers of Eastern Orthodox, Hesychasm and the theological concept of Theosis
The Roman Catholic mystics Meister Eckhart, Hildegard of Bingen, Julian of Norwich and Thomas Merton
In the Protestant tradition, George Fox and Jakob Böhme. Which includes the Quaker tradition, of the inner light. And if you can get through the terse language of Böhme and understand him, you can get through most written works.

One can find the books on Amazon. And in the US, can obtain them (though your local, public library, adult reference librarian).

One can put the mystics I referenced, into Google or Bing. There’s a Wiki article on each.

Of course, if one is both a Christian mystic and member of the Holy Fools tradition, the question of “sanity” is blurred. But I would say it’s more a “staged” insanity. Much like the “comic relief”, in a serious Shakespeare play. :exclamation: :laughing:

#410

I am sorry to hear that, but happy to notice that you did not include Jesus or Apostle Paul on your list. You will not find a mystical statement from them.

#411

Another point I would make, is that not all Christian (and non Christian) mystics, prosued the path of mysticism. Mysticism pursued them. For example:

George Fox was trying to asking obtain answers. This is related in his Quaker journal:

Then he had a vision of Christ, as the inner light. What’s little known, is that George Fox, also had the gift of healing.

Jakob Böhme was a shoe cobbler and a Lutheran. He didn’t pursue mystical experiences. But as Wiki Mentions:

#412

Setting aside man’s final destiny for a moment:

I have before me a red Lego brick and a yellow Lego brick. I am going to snap them together. I can either A) put the yellow brick on top of the red, or B) put the red brick on top of the yellow.

snap

I put the yellow brick on top of the red.

Now the question: Is it possible that I could have put the red brick on top instead of the yellow brick on top? Or was I predestined to put the yellow brick on top, thereby making it impossible that I could have put the red brick on top?