The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Free Willism or God's Soeveignty in Salvation of All


#1241

I just happened upon the quote while searching for a known Origen reference in De Principiis to aionios punishment (Mt.25:46) being corrective, remedial and finite. It quite shocked me, since Origen appears to be referring to a very large number of Christians within the church who rejected the doctrine of libertarian free will. How long this had been the case is not stated in the bit i posted & i haven’t read the entire page.

Reading & researching the church fathers on this topic has not been of great interest to me & something i’ve left to others who have already done the work, or those who will. So i won’t be providing a half dozen names today, but if you look into it you may very well find them yourself via the references i’ve provided at the linked post below.

At face value the out of context English language quotes may seem to support a belief in freewill by some of the early church fathers. Ideally one would read the remarks in their original languages - usually Latin or Koine Greek - to see if there is any merit to the English translations you’ve provided. And read everything alleged to be written by all ECF to see if they are consistent or contradict themselves & each other re freewill. That’s beyond my capabilities & an endeavor that could take a lifetime.

I would guess that “very many” opponents of freewill would be a number much greater than the small number of 14 different authors you have quoted English renderings of. And therefore would include many of your typical laymen of the day, possibly a church majority.

The church had centuries to delete any references by church fathers to doctrines it didn’t approve of. As it is said, the conquerors write history. Although does not number two on your list refer to one such rejecter of freewill & at roughly about the same time as Clement of Alexandria?

AFAIK Origen’s concern was that a denial of freewill would lead to sin. Perhaps he would have had a different attitude living in the 21st century after comparing the churches that believe in freewill & those that deny freewill.

See also my previous response to you on this same topic here:

Re: Poll: Can I be a Calvinist and a Universalist?
by Origen; » Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:12 am

by Paidion » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:52 am


#1242

If you want to prove free will doesn’t exist, just prove that zombies are theologically and scientifically possible :wink:

And let me share this article I’ve share previously, from the Patheos evangelical newsletter:

What Should Christians Think about Satan, Demons, and Zombies?

Please. This is important! Watch the 15 minute video - by the seminary trained minister. :exclamation:

Let me quote a bit - from the accompanying article

P.S. Some folks here might not like the “Hollywood make-believe”, zombie GIF images. So if I can substitute a “cartoon” variation instead, I will do so. :laughing:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/plantsvszombies/images/c/c8/Zombiedance2.gif/revision/latest?cb=20150625181857


#1243

christianforums.com/threads … t-72216582


#1244

I also believe in complete sovereignity. And God working all things according to His will. Including evil (Ra) Isaiah 45:7.

Furthermore the very idea that God will not let someone simply die but be raised and reconciled is against the notion of “free” will. As well as many other theosiphical arguments and verses of scripture that show who is in control.


#1245

Ive always been a big zombie fan. I’ve seen even the worst B rated zombie movies and played some od the worst zombie games ever. I used to think “man I’d be prepared” but the more I thought about it I will like “nah probably not” the real threat wouldn’t be the dead, itd be who is still left alive and their intentions! A man with nothing left to lose is scarier than the biggest horde of zombies.


#1246

Thanks for relating that story about F and Kathryn Kuhlman. Here’s another true story.

A non-Christian doctor had three health conditions—one of them being deaf in the right ear. When Kathryn Kuhlman came to the area, his wife wanted him to go on the supposition that he might be healed. The man didn’t want to go, believing it was a waste of time, but his wife bugged him until he finally consented to go. At one point in the meeting Kathryn announced that someone with a deaf right ear and (she named the other two conditions) was being healed, and asked him to come up to the front. “That’s you, Dear!” his wife exclaimed. “Nah, that’s nonsense,” and the man didn’t go forward. On the trip home in their car, at one point, the wife said, “Have you noticed that you haven’t turned your left ear toward me as usual, when I talk?” The man was astonished. “That’s right!” When he arrived home, he checked himself for the other two conditions. To his amazement, he found that he didn’t have them.

The couple returned, attending the meeting the next night. The doctor apologized to Kathryn for not believing her. The miracle of his healing softened his heart, and He was led to trust in Christ that second evening.


#1247

Theosophical or theological?

Depends on how one defines “free will”. A man bound by chains to a wall & locked inside of a prison cell is free to move about, but within limits. He is not free to fly to the moon. Although a man may be a slave of sin (bound by its chains), this does not necessarily rule out him having a libertarian free will (LFW) to be able to cry to God for deliverance when God enlightens & empowers him to do so.

Determinists have their definition of “free will” which is not the same as Libertarian “free will”. Both sides offer many arguments & scriptures (“proof texts”) allegedly in support of their view. How these scriptures are best harmonized is a matter of opinion, debate or discussion. Some others don’t try to harmonize them but accept both as true & call it a Divine mystery.


#1248

You can’t call a determinist a blasphemer when you, yourself, aren’t a trinitarian. From my understanding, even by the traditions and creeds of men, determinism was never deemed heresy but non-trinitarianism was.

You have also called me a “blashpemer” and charged me with “attacking the character of God” for attributing Him with comeplete control of His universe. Usually, in our past conversations, you’ve been patient,probably even more so than me, but you should avoid calling people a blasphemer when your views could be called the same.


#1249

I was reading a few replies here,to about two hundred, and it seemed you were also leaning towards God be and actively completely sovereign but youve already advocated free will. Is it more so playing advocate for both sides? Or is it something you still aren’t sure 100% on either account? Either or is fine. Im just curious as some of your past posts on this thread definitely makes a good argument from the viewpoint of God working through His creation.


#1250

I was rather shocked to read this. I have no memory of having called you a blasphemer. I looked through the posts in this thread and couldn’t find it. Was it in a different thread? At any rate, whether I did nor not, clearly you feel that I did, and I wish to express my sincere regrets.

As for non-Trinitarianism being a heresy, it is true that it is considered such by many people, and was considered such by many in the past. However, no Christians considered it such, prior to the fourth century when it was invented.


#1251

Well, to be fair to Paidion…This forum has a search function (it’s the magnifying glass, folks)…And I did search for the word “blasphemer”. And NOTHING came up, except for the post - where Paidion is accused by you. Perhaps he used another word and you thought he said “blasphemer”. Can you please link to (or quote), the exact post in question?

In legal cases, the judge often asks counsel - to lay some foundation. Luckily, the non-denominational site - Got Questions - does this.


#1252

I was leaning against LFW at that time. Now i’m leaning a bit the other way. If you will recall i posted to you & referred in another thread to Robin Parry’s comment in “The Evangelical Universalist” re the issue in reconciling the BOL with UR, etc.


#1253

On another post. When we were talking about this same subject. You asked if God determines evil in which i responded saying “yes for a purpose of greater good” and cited Isaiah 45:7 when you then said I was “attacking the character of God”. Which to me is a more round about way of calling me a blasphemer. As well as the original poster saying the same thing here and you called it blasphemy.

No worriss though. I mean it did kinda upset me because I truly love God with all my being. But I’m actually quite used to being called a blasphemer now, believing in the salvation of all and such lol.

I was more so, not saying it to condemn you, but just to make you realize all of us here have views that could be considered blasphemy. so we should be kind and not accuse one another of such things as blasphemy and attacking the character of God.

I’m actually stepping away from debating for a little bit. I don’t think im ready yet, for more reasons than one. But i felt this needed further explaination.

Ill be reading, liking, and consoling those with doubts and fears but, apart from wrapping up my last post with daveB, im mainy going to keep my faith to myself for the time being.


#1255

here it is.


#1256

In making that statement, I didn’t call YOU a blasphemer. I made the general statement that it is blasphemy to affirm that God causes any evil. Why? Because evil is that which harms people, whereas all of God’s acts are act of LOVE. He always does what is the very best for people. That is His character!


#1257

Blashemer is someone who blasphemes. By definition if you say that whatever someone’s saying is blasphemy, then by default, they are a blasphemer…


#1258

I see your words to Paidion. I guess some could say the same thing…when I present my theory…that the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE…is the most probable, end-times tribulation scenario.


#1259

Reconciliation, are you the same person as AllThingsReconciled?


#1260

Yes. I asked that question before, on another forum thread here. I believe one is used on his phone. And the other on his computer. I wonder what he thinks…regarding the presentation, of this original poster…in trying to present the theology, of A.E. Knoch? Or what he thinks (i almost did a typo. I was about to type in “stinks” instead of “thinks”) about the theology, of A.E. Knoch?

And IMHO…this ORIGINAL poster was very rude, egotistical and snobby to boot.

Perhaps this original poster joined Frankenstein’s elderly gentleman friend…for some wine and “interesting” stuff to smoke…and some violin music…and is now a bit more mellow. Or, in some cases - it might be the “inspiration”… for some of the theological positions - presented at the forum???