The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Free Willism or God's Soeveignty in Salvation of All

Evangelical Universalism
#107

Freewill involves an inner choice of the will, even if the person cannot fulfill what His freewill has chosen. For example OJ Simpson makes a freewill decision that he would not stay in prison but walk out & be free. The fact that he cannot do this does not violate His making the freewill choice that he would leave if he could, it only stops him from physicly walking out.

So if God were to send an angel to stop every sadist from slowly torturing to death his victims, it would not be violating that inner freewill choice that they had already made. It would only be stopping them from carrying out the horror show of sufferings that were about to begin.

So i am not buying this pro freewill argument that God was forced to sit and watch while all the horror shows on earth throughout history occurred because it would violate man’s freewill. Because it wouldn’t and never could violate their freewill.

The only thing that could violate freewill, if it existed, was if God took it away (e.g. Nebuchadnezzar turned into an animal).

Neither would stopping a sadist with an angel requiring changing any “laws of nature” as you claim.

Disclaimer: That’s just my opinion of the moment. I could be wrong & decide to change it (repent of it) tomorrow. It wouldn’t be the first time.

God the determinist requires the temporary existence of evil, sin and suffering because it humbles man & gives him contrast for the appreciation of the good, unto endless salvation through Christ & Him crucified.

1 Like
#108

I imagine that ones who believe in “free-will” think God just gave Nebuchadnezzar the opportunity to express his free will to be turned into an animal until his sanity returned.

In reality Nebuchadnezzar pompously said it was he himself who built his great kingdom. Yet God said He is the One. But how could God have built it if humans, by their free-will built it? It is because God made the humans build Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom without them realizing it. It was not until God opened Nebu’s eyes to see reality. Today we have a bunch of Nebuchadnezzar’s walking around in Christian garb whose eyes have not been opened yet to perceive God’s sovereignty.

2 Likes
#109

Do you think when God resurrects all mankind to stand before the Great White Throne that that will violate their free -will? especially the ones who, through their lives wanted nothing to do with God?

2 Likes
#110

Just an observation here. I have spent time with diverse Christian and non-Christian groups. Take Christian Scientists, for example. They appear about as strange as anyone. Yet, one of my best friends from Australia, is a Christian Science practitioner. Christian Scientists know their Bible very well, but you won’t easily get them to give up Christian Science. But if you really investigate their healings, it echos the words of this song:

But we have this Bible verse:

Or the parable of the good Samaritan. How do they implement that in life?

They did it very well in the Lakota.multi-tribal Two Feathers Medicine Clan, where I hung around for several years and taking part in their ceremonies. That is, until the leader passed away. Then they disbanded. But they accepted both me and my now deceased Protestant mom (with the gift of prophesy), as extended family.

And the leader, Duke Big Feather, did adopt children from crack families, drug dealers, etc. He took them off the street, gave them a home, and taught them purpose, respect and morality, in the Native American way of life.

For everyone’s info, the Two Feathers Medicine Clan was a group of Lakota Medicine men and women (i.e. healers). And if you doubt they existed, read another version here at Family Union. It should be noted that in The Pipe and Christ: A Christian-Sioux Dialogue, by Roman Catholic priest William Stolzman (available from Amazon), he distinguish that there are spirits of Heaven, Hell and the Earth. So if I hung around:

With a Roman Catholic priest, with the gift of healing and hearing God speak
the Two Feathers Medicine Clan
A Christian Scientist practitioner
Bruno Gröning Circle of Friends (i.e. after a German healer)
The Sufis
Etc.

I certainly had the opportunity, to observe how they followed the Golden rule. So if Someone presents:

A Full Deterministic view
A Full Pretestist view
A Christian Science view
A Roman Catholic View
An Eastern Orthodox View
Etc.

As long as they try to embrace the Golden Rule, that is OK with me. And yes. I do play Devils Advocate occasionally, in order to see where someone is coming from and how well their defenses hold up.

Here someone is presenting a totally deterministic view of Christianity. This is all contracted against Christian free will advocates. Me thinks me call their totally deterministic view of Christianity “Puppets on the String”, where God is the puppet-master. :laughing:

#111

Can I get by with at least a silver rule? LOL.

I am kind of curious though, forgive me for being ignorant, but what does the above have to do with free will? Do you mean that as long as people follow the golden rule that they can believe in free will or determinism as far as you are concerned?

What I look forward to is that in the resurrection, there won’t be any “Catholic view” or “Protestant view” or etc. etc. for then we will all be brought fully into a realization of the truth. No more factions! No more sects! breathes a sigh of relief. The really harmful thing to the body of Christ is that it is so fractured with “I’m of Cephas,” I’m of Paul," “I’m of Apollos,” I’m of Christ." Rather than saying “I’m of” they should all recognice we are ALL IN CHRIST.

1 Like
#112

It has nothing to do with free will, but more with the Golden Rule. Unless it illustrates (as Origen suggested earlier, in his advocacy for determinism) that some can be “lucky” (or “appear lucky”), during the earthly phase of life. Yes, follow the Golden Rule (as best as you can), and I’ll accept you for believing in determinism. After all, free will vs determinism is still being debated today. And to be truthful, all the physiological brain studies (Neuroscience of free will, not the psychological studies) on the subject, along with the corresponding professional criticisms - are ambiguous. And if I can recall the names correctly, famous names like John Calvin, Augustine of Hippo and Spinoza, all believed in some form of determinism.

My response:

#113

Either I have not made myself clear, or you don’t understand the difference.

Some people may indeed have an inner desire to do something that they cannot do. I may have a desire to flap my arms and fly up into the sky. The fact is that the laws of gravity combined with the structure of my body makes it impossible for me to do so. So it is impossible for me to make the free-will decision to flap my arms and fly, since I know such a decision cannot be realized. This inability does not affect my ability to make free-will decisions in other areas and carry them out. For example, I still have the ability to choose to eat blueberry pie tomorrow and carry out that decision.

However, if God prevented all evil acts from taking place, no one could commit an evil act. Therefore no one could make an “inner decision” to do evil, any more than I can make an “inner decision” to fly. Thus they could not appropriate Christ’s sacrifice to save them from sin, since there would be no sinful acts. You may say that God could save them from their inner desire to commit evil—or could He? None of them may acknowledge, even to themselves, that they have such a desire, since, after all, they haven’t done anything wrong, and consequently such a desire would seldom, if ever, occur—just as an inner desire to flap my arms and fly never occurs in my own life, as I know it can never happen.

God wants people to acknowledge both their own wrongdoing, and their inner desires for wrong doing, so that they can repent of these things (have a change of heart and mind about them), and submit to Him and receive His enabling grace to overcome, both inwardly and outwardly. This is not possible if God prevents all wrongdoing from occurring. That would be forced righteousness. However, God never forces righteousness; He wants people to choose righteousness of their own free will.

#114

I like your response Randy.

My son and I once had an e-mail debate about providence vs mathematical probability. I took the providence, he the other. Good debate and there were good arguments to both positions. All good lawyers learn all they can about the opponents position before they present their own. :smiley:

#115

Did you get into anything as deep as subjective probability :question: :bulb:

Thanks, Chad. I had taken many philosophy and literature courses, both at Aurora University and the College of Dupage. I remember taking a business ethics class, at the College of DuPage. The professor has some projects for us to work on, in conjunction with a partner. My partner and I found the one on the porn industry fascinating. Then I went on to defend the position of a porn producer and my partner took the position of a TV interviewer. The professor said he can envision me as a porn producer - something that would go against every ethical grain in my fiber. The professor was very intelligent and actually had 2 PhD degrees (he must be a bored academic). He thought we did a great job and couldn’t stop thinking about the presentation - especially our costumes and disguises. He said he thought we were both from another planet. :unamused:

But my favorite part, is this week Decades TV is featuring the Three Stooges. I find this broadens my horizons, expands my learning, stimulates my brain cells and teaches me much about historical art forms. And Curly is a good role model, for the Holy Fools tradition. :laughing: .

Move over, everyone. Are these the two new debating teams :question: :laughing:

But here is what really happened. God was determined to create aliens and they were determined to conduct a scientific experiment. After the alien experiment ended, along with all its aftereffects, God was determined to create man instead (for better or for worse) :exclamation: :laughing:

#116

Randy, thanks a bunch. I remember about ten -twelve years ago, a cable station we received on our cable package, every (I Think I’m right on this) labor day, they would run a three day stooges marathon. Three days of nothing but the stooges. Big fun was had by all. Also the same station (it might have been TBS or something) would run a Laurel and Hardy marathon. Absolutely classic, laugh your hinder off stuff.

I especially enjoy the episodes that are focused on the Halloween season. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

#117

Randy said:

I am just wondering about the costumes and disguises :exclamation: :laughing:

#118

It would be interesting to see what the free-willy-ists here or elsewhere [as in Arminianists] have to say about KIng Neb. So far, though, not a peep out of them here. Likewise my comment re God bringing “evil” upon Job. And you saw how Noah’s flood was answered - Moses was wrong. Also ditto for several other scripture passages you have brought to their attention. I expect Arminianist Christians would try to explain away these things in accord with Sola Scriptura, but perhaps we are seeing something different here from some Christian URists, no?

But as far as minority vs majority is concerned, if majority is the will of God [or the will of the RCC/EOC] this is a lost cause. LOL ;
After all, all the extant (existing) writings of the early church fathers are clearly against us, no? ;

However, bottom line, or most important, the brothers here are with us on the efficacy of Christ, Him crucified for ALL, [not some and ECT for the most] and what that ultimately means. Yes?

#119

[The above quote was actually from me, Origen, not Eusebius. In any case, you said , & my replies follow according to the numbers]:

  1. However, if God prevented all evil acts from taking place, no one could commit an evil act.

  2. Therefore no one could make an “inner decision” to do evil, any more than I can make an “inner decision” to fly.

  3. Thus they could not appropriate Christ’s sacrifice to save them from sin, since there would be no sinful acts.

  4. You may say that God could save them from their inner desire to commit evil—or could He? None of them may
    acknowledge, even to themselves, that they have such a desire, since, after all, they haven’t done anything wrong,
    and consequently such a desire would seldom, if ever, occur—just as an inner desire to flap my arms and fly never
    occurs in my own life, as I know it can never happen.

  5. God wants people to acknowledge both their own wrongdoing, and their inner desires for wrong doing, so that they can
    repent of these things (have a change of heart and mind about them), and submit to Him and receive His enabling grace
    to overcome, both inwardly and outwardly. This is not possible if God prevents all wrongdoing from occurring. That
    would be forced righteousness. However, God never forces righteousness; He wants people to choose righteousness of
    their own free will.

  1. Cleary. Yet they could still make inner freewill choices about who to hate or love, who they would
    surely slowly torture to death or not, if they had the ability.

  2. I think my comment re 1. above already proved that wrong.

  3. There would still be freewill and sin, so still a need of salvation and a Saviour from sin. Sin is not just
    sinful acts, but sins of the heart as well. Jesus spoke of looking upon a woman lustfully as having already
    committed adultery without doing it physicly. [Arguably, sin has nothing to do with acts and is never an act,
    but an issue of the heart.]

  4. We are not talking here about simply a “desire” or temptation, but a freewill choice, * to prefer or reject evil or sin.

  5. You say “None of them may acknowlege, even to themselves, that they have such a desire…”? What is stopping
    an Almighty Omnipotent God from revealing it to them directly by His Spirit or through angels, other humans, etc?
    Instead you argue He had to allow all the horrific acts of history He could have easily stopped, because it was
    a necessary evil for the sake of freewill.

  6. I don’t see why it’s impossible for God to reveal the truth to a person whom He prevents from carrying out His
    evil freewill intentions. If that were true, then He couldn’t reveal himself to a person in bed who was unable to
    move (i.e. unable to carry out any evil horrific acts). But God is fully capable of revealing Himself to such people
    while both allowing them inner freewill decisions and keeping them from committing unspeakably horrible acts.
    Horrible acts which God is responsible for if He can easily stop them without denying Himself or the greater good.

In stoppping the most horrific acts, or even all evil acts no matter how minor, God doesn’t violate the
evil person’s inner freewill choice, if such existed, that the evil person already preferred or chose. And it keeps
God from being responsible (sin of ommission) for the most evil acts [or all evil acts] which the Almighty could so
easily stop in various ways.

Therefore, my conclusion is against the theory that God the free willyist allows [thus making Himself responsible for]
all the horrific evil events of history because of an assumed greater good, called freewill. OTOH is the theory that He allows,
rather determines, all, because evil is a momentary necessity, to humble man & gives him necessary contrast for the
appreciation of the good, for the endless experience of peace, joy and love and reconciliation of all through Christ &
Him crucified.*

#120

This book is enlightrening. My comments in this thread are largely influenced by it.

I wonder how many here have read it with an open mind.

#121

So evil is either allowed by or caused by God, and is for the greater good, just not the greater good of free will?

#122

" I applied my heart to inquiring and exploring by wisdom
concerning all that is done under the heavens:
It is an experience of evil Elohim has given to the sons of humanity
to humble them by it." (Eccl.:13, CLV)

theheraldofgodsgrace.org/Hou … 02dhh.html

google.ca/#q=evil+experience+of+elohim

#123

I’ve been toying with a phrase that came to me in the bathtub the other day: (perhaps too much information? :smiley: )

“God allows us to be responsible for the evil we do”
That phrase gives me - at least seems to , at this point in time - the correct distance and perspective on the problem.

If so, I cannot find a way from that phrase to: ‘therefore God is responsible for the evil we do’. WE DO do the evil, I don’t think there is any question of that. God doesn’t do it - though of course He does bring trials, challenges, hardships, tragedies - and we know why, for the most part - He is acting as Father correcting/training/enlarging/perfecting His kids.
I can’t really call those things ‘evils’, though of course we can call them what we will.

But there is a big gap methinks, twixt those things He brings into our lives for His purposes, and the evil that men do.
The term ‘evil’ is multivocal and ambiguous. Trials and hardships etc - if brought by God for His good purposes - are not Him being all Evil; quite the contrary.

And that brings me to the thought that we know more about God, because of Jesus, than the O.T. saints. We certainly understand Fatherhood much better; we see agape love clearer; we don’t measure God’s goodness to us in terms of possessions and status, which were more important, it seems, to OT people, as a gauge of how well they were favored by God.

Okay, starting to ramble. The whole thing is much larger, the questions go in so many directions, that I may be reduced to just trusting and obeying!

#124

So I can understand this discussion regarding evil and help to side with the determinist position, I wonder how you respond to the CARM theologian Matt Slick? We are looking at English translations of the Bible, translated from ancient Greek and Hebrew. Anyway, I await someones’s reply, so I can better serve this determinism cause. Especially since folks here like all answers from scripture. :slight_smile:

I’m here to help you guys. I just need to know these things myself, since Holy Fool theologians and P-Zombie philosophers, can get confused at times. :laughing:

Does God create evil?

#125

I am thankful that God’s good will determined to save me, while my sinful will was determining to run away and hide with Adam behind fig leaves. I am also thinking that everyone should be praising God for this good news because Christ didn’t just forgive me, but he forgave all mankind at the cross.

1 Like
#126

Excellent thoughts Origen. If God did not create evil as He said He did

Isa_45:7 Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil. I, Yahweh Elohim, made all of these things."

then who did? If evil slipped in accidentally into God’s universe without His okay, how can we be assured He can rid the universe of evil once it has done its salutary work?

If God stopped all the evil acts of all mankind with the snap of His finger, thousands of years ago, why would we need Christ to save us?

Since God created mankind flesh and since God knew the flesh is at enmity to God, how can man have a free will to not be at enmity to God?
And why would God create mankind as flesh if He knew in so doing that they would be at enmity to Him if it wasn’t for their overall good?

God is working all together for good. God planted the tree of the knowledge of good AND EVIL. God therefore wants mankind to have a knowledge of evil and not just good. God created evil for eventual good.
God subjected the entire universe to vanity. Why? In expectation that the universe will be FREED into the glorious freedom of the children of God. Right now the universe is not FREED. Their wills are in bondage to vanity. Their wills are not free to be pleasing to God. “All avoid Him.” This is God’s will. But we need to look at the end God has in view for it all: GOOD.

2 Likes