The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Free Willism or God's Soeveignty in Salvation of All

Evangelical Universalism
#22

First of all my dear fellow, you floated this freewill/sovereignty idea. I happened to be reading that particular part of Michaels book. Providence perhaps? Or maybe a mathematical probability? :laughing:

Point being, I quoted him cause the idea was interesting. As to your claim of validity being questionable with out a bible verse, I can only say for the most part that a singular proof text rarely is sufficient to make a cohesive argument.

Any time we offer an opinion about biblical understanding, it is just that… An opinion. There aren’t tens of thousands of denominations out there for nothing :smiley:

Just my humble opinion.

#23

.

The early Christian writers from the beginning believed in free will (which means simply “the ability to choose”)

They chose men. Their will to chose those particular men did not arise from “the flesh”.

Unless we coöperate with the grace of God by choosing to work together with Him, any grace of God received will be in vain—will not deliver us from wrongdoing.

#24

Good question. Education, Greek/Hebrew expertise/ theological training etc. is no assurance of knowing the truth or being able to give it out.
There are so many sects out there, even within Universalist groups, how is one to know who is correct and who is not? If one’s theological construct does not contradict another, that is a good start. For instance, my one brother got degreed via a couple well-known Bible colleges. Yet some of his theology contradicts other parts of Biblical theology. For instance, he can’t believe “God will have all mankind to be saved” because he uses as his major premise the idea that “hell” is eternal.
I come from a large family of 15 altogether. Only one, my twin brother, believes God will save all. Some of the Catholics in the family have a hard time believing in eternal hell. The Protestants seem to relish it. So I have to deal with major sets of theological underpinnings. Just this morning I explained to my youngest brother that he and my degreed brother hold to the Jehovah’s Witnesses take on 1 Timothy 2:4-6 that it comes down to just “all sorts of men.” He blew it off like I said nothing. My Catholics brothers and sisters are easier to talk to. How can any of them know I have the truth or how can I know if they have the truth in any given matter of the Scriptures? I believe it is possible to know the truth and that that truth can set one free. Pilate asked Christ “What is truth?” Christ didn’t go into a well through out response. He just stood there. He was letting Pilate know “You are looking at it.”
So that is a beginning of how one can know if a scriptural matter is true or not. Does it contradict other scriptures?

Will: form a decision, choice or purpose. Idiomatically “want” or “would.” (As will is also used to indicate the future, and as it cannot stand before an infinitive, and “willing” denotes compliance, the rendering of “will” must be highly idiomatic.) (Keyword Concordance in the Concordant Literal New Testament).

Will is not an illusion. We see mankind exercise their will every day. But that will is not free from causality. Einstein actually said God does not play dice with the universe. In other words, the universe is under His control. Nothing in His universe is by chance according to Einstein.

For instance, suppose one is addicted to cigarettes. He enjoys smoking. He sees a commercial on the effects of smoking. Due to that commercial he quits smoking. Was his choice free? No. The threat of bad things happening to him due to smoking were greater than his enjoyment of smoking. So he did not make a free will choice to quit. He was forced to quit by a greater force than the enjoyment of smoking.

1 Like
#25

Back to my full examples (look at the highlighted questions). Yes, I’m familiar with Albert and he did use not before my quote.

If will is not free, is God - in Einstein’s words (referring to other scientists and philosophers),

[list]***So if I was born to Donald Trump, Mr. Putin, Kim Jong-un, some Middle Eastern family or into Povery in India - this is God’s will? *** Why? **What purpose is served? **All of this is “causality” - right?. I can become a spoiled rich kid (i.e. Trump), a Russian tyrant (i.e. Putin), an atheist (Kim Jong-un), a Muslim (where I can be killed, if I wish to become Christian) or born into an Indian untouchable class (where I am scorned by society). ***And nothing I do can change this - right? ***[/list:u]

Now the novelist Ayn Rand, lives in Russian - during the cold war. She graduates from a Russian university and visits the US - under the guise of visiting relatives. She wants to become a famous writer. She eventually goes on to write Hollywood screenplays - in perfect English (with no help from anyone). She then goes on to write the famous novels **the Fountainhead **and Atlas Shrugged. [list] **Since free will doesn’t exist, how did she fulfill her lifelong ambition? **
][/list:u]

#26

But the Holy Spirit caused them to choose whom they would. Just like the choosing of Matthias due to Judas hanging himself, the lot fell on Matthias because God chose him to replace Judas. It may seem like a roll of the dice but “the lot is cast into the lap but the whole disposing thereof is of Yahweh.”

The only way one cooperates with the grace of God is if God gives the grace in the first place to be cooperative. Nothing is uncaused. God is the great cause.

Hi Paidion,
We all make choices. But no choice is uncaused. Therefore no choice is free in the greatest sense of the word.
I can find verses in the Bible which counter these quotes above. “God chose us before the disruption of the world.” “All who are set for life eonian believe.” “It is not of him who is willing nor of him who is racing but of God the Merciful.” “not begotten by the will of the flesh nor the will of man but by [the will of] God.”

I think the Bible is of much more importance and should be what we fall back on for truth rather than the fallible men you quoted, would you not say?

1 Like
#27

Are the above scriptures just teasing us in a deceitful way and we really are not free to choose or respond?

#28

Their choice was not free from cause. If they chose not to do the law they would be destroyed. If they did covenant with God to do the law, they were then under the curse of the law. Either way, God was going to prove to them they could not do the law. So no matter how much they CHOOSE this day Whom they will serve, their choice could not help them actually serve the Lord. And in fact Joshua told them right afterward that they cannot serve the Lord!

They may have chosen life but that is not what they got. They came under the curse of the law. Paul said the law is death chiseled in stone. Their choice to have life was voided by coming under the law. Their choice could not get them what they wanted therefore their choice was null.

First of all one needs to know that the above verses, including Revelation 3:20 are not given with the idea that mankind has a free will to choose to come to God or Christ. Rather they should be read with the understanding that should one open the door to Christ that they were chosen by God to do such. Boasting is excluded. Why? Because it is God Who saves. “What have you got but what you’ve received and why boast as if not receiving it?”

We all make choices. The question though is: are they free from causality? What causes someone to choose A over B? Something has to. The choice is not free. It is caused.

2 Likes
#29

The trouble is that we keep bouncing around the term “causality”. But you first have to establish that it exists. Not everyone believes in it. Or if they believe in God, they might view the deity, as Deism does. He starts up the universe and let’s it continue - without intervention. Let’s survey some forum talks.

Quora - Does causality exist?
Science Philosophy Chat Forums - Does causality exist?

Suppose Eusebius read a paper on his position, at the next Evangelical conference on Universalism. And three disquingished scientists were at the conference. After a few drinks, they went to hear his talk - just for fun. Afterwards, each approached and said this:

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution, at The University of Chicago. He liked the talk and shared his interest in brain research. He said that the illusion of free will, is caused by neural transmitters in the brain. And he presents him with a layman’s article from USA Today article at Column: Why you don’t really have free will. To illustate this, see Do we have Free Will :

Professor Rupus T Firefly from Standard, says that while causality is operating in this world, it’s not at the level of Quantum physics. The Uncertainty principle and Quantum indeterminacy. really determines all reality. And he can show experiments to correlate it to free will. See the **Scientific American **article The Quantum Physics of Free Will. Here are 4 points that will be addressed, in the article:

Professor Elmer J Fudd from Oxford, is a neo-behaviorist. He agrees with the paper. But says people just need the right reinforcement, from stimulus-response research in psychology, in order to make the proper choices. He gives him a copy of Walden II by B.F. Skinner. Let’s watch his assistant, Dr. Sheldon Cooper, demonstrate this.

So how would Eusebius respond, to these 3 distinguished professors? What is presented in the 3 previous scientific examples are facts. They are current scientific positions that many scientists hold. They would say that:

Free will illusion is caused by neural brain transmitters, according to current brain research
At the level of Quantum physics, the Uncertainty principle and Quantum indeterminacy, would undermine or neutralize the principle of causality.
You can get people to respond via operand conditioning or behavior modification

Or let’s take the case of spiritual healing. A person is told by the medical specialists and medical tests, that their disease is incurable. But they go to some spiritual healing modality - perhaps:

The Catholic site Lourdes
A Charismatic healer
An Indigenous Native American ceremony
A Christian Science practitioner
A meeting of the Bruno Groening Circle of Friends
Etc.

In keeping with what I know, they might have:

No healing
A partial healing
A complete healing

So how would Eusebius respond? I have spend a lifetime investigating spiritual healing. And I have observed all that I have described. These are not “make-believe scenarios”.

This cartoon illustrates correlation variables. Eusebius believes everything is a causality variable. But that raises many questions:

How many causality variables are there, that influence a given decision?
What statistical percentage does each one represent (something that experiments in psychology, social psychology, etc., can give you)?
How do you know each person will respond to a given causality variable, in the same way? And if not, how do you explain the difference?
How do you know something you think is a causality variable, is not a correlation variable?
Etc.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTivwlBykIH_8pMaKCTJRr-KZb5vRUOR2m8NpdRFZbX2yDhzrkKHA

Or I could say that since I am subject to causality and the will of God, it is my destiny to embrace Holy Fool theology and P-Zombie philosophy. So no one here, can fault me for that. :exclamation: :laughing:

#30

Asking if causality exists is like asking if air exists. The entire universe is built on cause and effect. Something caused you to write your response. It was not a causeless response. You didn’t just write a response due to no cause whatsoever.

Suppose we don’t go by supposes and just stick with facts?

I don’t really like dealing with make-believe scenarios. Either something is or it isn’t. We are all the products of cause. Something caused your mother and father to get together and produce you. You didn’t come about due to something causeless.

If our will is free than humanity is not responsible since nothing caused them to do what they do.
If our will is not free than humanity is not responsible since their wills were caused to do what they had to do and they could not do otherwise.
In both cases above, mankind is not responsible in the ultimate sense.
Sure we have relative responsibilities such as taking care of our children. But even then our wills/choices are made by a greater force than to not take care of them.

#31

What is presented in the 3 previous scientific examples are facts. They are current scientific positions that many scientists hold. They would say that:

Free will illusion is caused by neural brain transmitters, according to current brain research
At the level of Quantum physics, the Uncertainty principle and Quantum indeterminacy, would undermine or neutralize the principle of causality.
You can get people to respond via operand conditioning or behavior modification

I have spend a lifetime investigating spiritual healing. And I have observed all that I have described. These are not “make-believe scenarios”.

#32

Okay, thank you.

#33

Oooops! :open_mouth: :blush: :unamused:

Of course humanity has FREEWILL… we just don’t all get to taste of it equally as we would like, BUT it is FREEWILL nonetheless, i.e., another’s (free) will may be stronger than ours… no one trumps God’s FREEWILL.

There are certain laws in place that impinge on man’s freewill, however to the degree that man’s freewill can triumph over said laws man’s freewill will, up until whatever enables man’s freewill to defy said laws, and thus the greater standing law prevails.

Eusebius… I know you don’t like “make-believe scenarios” apparently, although when convenient you use them yourself; but man for example, by his freewill can choose to defy the law of gravity and will do so up the point he can maintain that which causes him do to so. However, that ability unlike the law of gravity is not limitless and in the end will triumph over the act of man’s freewill.

God has given humanity FREEWILL within the bounds of His choosing… to the degree man moves within those pre-set boundaries he has FREEWILL. When my children were small they had freewill to move wherever they so freely chose in my back yard… they did not have the same freewill beyond the markers I set. IF they of the OWN FREEWILL chose to defy said boundaries certain consequences could come into play.

Given that no one is an auto-bot it is only natural and normal for one/some to push the bounds and limits and experience said consequences… it’s the NATURE of God-given freewill, which to varying degrees can be exercised.

#35

The most obvious answer I can give to that… “what does the evidence suggest?” :mrgreen:

#36

If to sin is to miss the mark, then it is true that men sin, regardless of whether they have free will, or not.

If men do not have free will, then there are other forces and or wills at work causing them to do what they do, just as with animals and trees.

God made Nebuchadnezzar like a beast of the field for seven years till He restored him to sanity.

#38

Re the last sentence above, i’d say if you tried to get a demon possessed person to respond as you wish, you may have extreme
difficulties or even complete failure.

I think perhaps we all have the feeling (or illusion) that we have free will.

What is an illusion? The impression that as we look out over an ocean or miles of farmlands in the country that the earth is flat?
Or as we observe the sun it appears to be moving & the earth standing still?

Freewill is an illusion if the inerrant inspired Scriptures say it is.

#39

That’s the funniest post I’ve read on this site! :laughing:

#40

Martin Zender offers some Scriptures that he sees as refuting free will:

martinzender.com/Zenderature … _creed.htm

#41

Logic would suggest this could be a reasonable assumption… what have you concluded from this?

#42

Zender makes the all too oft mistake, yourself included, of universalising what can be attributable and thus limited to certain specifics.

#43

Denying free will is like denying the existence of humanity.

Humanity itself is founded on the ability to choose.

I know you were addressing someone else, but I will respond as if it were addressed to me.
Yes, there was a cause of my written response. I, myself, was the cause. You might claim that your statements were the cause. But that is not the case. I could have refrained from responding to your statements. And that is free will—the ability to choose between alternatives.