While that is certainly true of some Christians, it is certainly not true of the Greek Orthodox Church. We won’t stop talking about the resurrection! 
Paidion,
I was going to PM you a few days ago, but your PMs were disabled. Was hoping to reconcile any differences we had in our past exchanges. Anyhow, thanks for posting.
That is odd, Gabe. Others have private-messaged me.
I think you used to be right, Paidion, about when people die they are simply dead. But that all changed in A. D. 30 at Christ’s death and resurrection. He emptied the grave, and He took all the formerly dead (i. e., everyone from Adam to the thief on the cross) with Him to Heaven. Ever since A. D. 30, when our bodies die, we instantly go to Heaven. This is why Christ said, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.” (John 11:25-26)
Bingo! 
It doesn’t make sense that Jesus would use the word “die” in two different senses in the same sentence. But if not, then the clauses are in contradiction: “Whoever believes in me though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die.”
In the first clause, he says that a person who believes in Him may die, and in the second He says that a person who believe in Him shall never die.
So in the second clause, to avoid this contradiction, you would have to understand “die” in the first clause as physical death as we know it, but in the second clause, you would have to understand it as “ceasing to exist”. For we know that believers have continued to die physically throughout the centuries.
Jesus was addressing the resurrection in both clauses. For He was responding to Martha’s statement, “I know that he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” We agree in our understanding of the first clause.
Here is an interlinear of the second clause in Greek:
και πας--------ὁ---- ζων–και πιστεων εἰς–ἐμε οὐ μη–ἀποθανη εἰς–ton αιωνα
and everyone the living and trusting—into me not not dies------into the age
My translation: and everyone who lives and entrusts himself to me by no means continues in death right into the next age.
I think the idea is that whether one is dead or living, Jesus will raise him when He comes at the beginning of the next age.
If he is already dead, he shall live again. If he is now living, and dies, he does not continue in a state of death right into the next age, but, just like one who is already dead, he will be raised to life again when Jesus comes.
There is no justification for translating ἀποθανη as if it were a future. It is an aorist subjunctive. Greek verbs have no time significance except the indicative mode. The same word in the same tense and mode is used in the first clause. “Everyone who entrusts himself to me, though he dies, yet shall he live.”
I won’t say “Bingo”, Steve7150. This is not a game or a contest. I’m not trying to win an argument here, or show off my “great” wisdom or knowledge. I consider myself to be searching together with you all for truth and reality, and I trust that your attitude will be the same.
I won’t say “Bingo”, Steve7150. This is not a game or a contest. I’m not trying to win an argument here, or show off my “great” wisdom or knowledge. I consider myself to be searching together with you all for truth and reality, and I trust that your attitude will be the same
Sorry Paidion, i meant bingo in the sense that i believe the state of our immediate afterlife did change after Jesus death and it was nice for me to finally hear someone else validate the moment it changed. In the OT there was no in between state after physical death but now i think we are like the Angels in this intermediate state waiting for the resurrection.
It’s a lot more attractive thinking we will be like Angels then the phrase “disembodied spirits.”
Jesus was addressing the resurrection in both clauses. For He was responding to Martha’s statement, “I know that he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” We agree in our understanding of the first clause.
Here is an interlinear of the second clause in Greek:
και πας--------ὁ---- ζων–και πιστεων εἰς–ἐμε οὐ μη–ἀποθανη εἰς–ton αιωνα
and everyone the living and trusting—into me not not dies------into the age
My translation: and everyone who lives and entrusts himself to me by no means continues in death right into the next age.
When Jesus answers anyone he often does not limit his response to answering only the question but often expands his response to give additional info.
So while i acknowledge your ability in translating Koine greek Paidion , in this case i think the bible translators got it right that Jesus is simply saying
if you believe in him , physical death has been conquered.
At last, Gabe, I am posting an argument that I think shows that the idea of the reconcilation of all people to God is consistent with libertarian free will.
I believe that God won’t violate human free will. I also believe that of their own free will all human beings will, sooner or later, choose to be reconciled to God. (and I don’t believe a person’s character magically changes post-mortem).
I believe that God is pure LOVE (1 John 4:8,16), and that He will never give up on anyone. For that reason, everyone will eventually submit to his authority.
I believe in libertarian free will, which in its simplest form means “the ability to choose.” Though determinists of both flavours (hard and soft determinism, the latter also called “compatibilism”) may speak of “choosing”, they don’t actually believe that we, ourselves, are the cause of the acts we perform, but that they are all caused by forces, either external or internal. Libertarians define “free will” in words similar to the following: “If person P has at time T chose to perform action A in circumstances C, then P COULD HAVE chosen not to perform A at T in C.” Determinists do not admit such a possibility. For them the only way P would not have chosen to perform A, is if T and/or C were different from what they actually were.
The reason that some think that the eventual reconciliation of all to God is inconsistent with libertarian free will, is that they suppose that some people could resist the influences of God forever. But is this possible?
Here on earth we often act in accordance to influences upon us. But we don’t have to do so.
Some examples:
-
A father spanks his child for infraction of a family rule. Many children are trained to obey by this rather strong influence. But some children will disobey in spite of the spankings.
-
A gunman threatens a room full of people by displaying his gun. He says, “Just put your wallets and purses on the table there, and after I have collected them I’ll let you go.” Most people in the room will comply, hoping to avoid being shot thereby. This is a VERY strong influence indeed! But one individual refuses, thinking that the gunman might not shoot him and as a consequence face a murder charge.
No influence, no matter how strong, is a CAUSE of a free-will agent’s behaviour. It is but an influence. Therefore free will prevails, even though many choices are strongly influenced.
In this life many people feel that they have no evidence even of the existence of God. But post-mortem, they will become aware of Him, repent and submit to his authority. Many know that God exists, but believe him to be evil, bringing vengeance and harm or extreme punishment on people, and so they rebel against God, not knowing his true character. But post-mortem, they will sooner or later become aware of his charcter, and submit to Him.
There may be some people who will rebel against God, even knowing that He is pure LOVE. They may continue in a state of rebellion for a long time. But with God influencing them (and possibly also the perfected saints, the sons of God who will be manifested, for whom the whole creation is groaning), it will be rather likely that they will submit to God. Well, if they truly have libertarian free will, is it not possible that some of them will hold out forever? It is theoretically possible, but not practically possible. Remember, we’re talking about FOREVER here! Maybe they can hold out for a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years. But forever? If they have the will power to hold out forever, won’t they be equal to God in will power? I don’t think they can be. Only God is infinite in his attributes. He has no equals.
This scenario might be compared to affirming that if you throw a million dice in the air as often as you like, they will NEVER all turn up sixes.
The probability of getting a six when throwing one die is 1 in 6.
Therefore if you thow the die 6 times, you will probably get a 6 at least once more often than not.
If you throw two dice, the probability of both being sixes is 1 in 6².
Therefore if you throw 2 dice 6² (or 36) times, you will probably get both sixes at least once, more often than not.
If you throw three dice, the probability of all three being sixes is 1 in 6³.
Therefore if you throw 3 dice 6³ (or 216) times, you will probably get all sixes at least once, more often than not.
If you throw a million dice the probability of all the dice being sixes is 1 in 6 exponent 1,000,000.
Therefore if you throw 1,000,000 dice, 6 exponent 1,000,000 times (an incredibly large number), you will probably get all sixes at least once, more often than not.
But as large a number as 6 exponent 1,000,000 is, it is not an infinitely large number. Thus all sixes WILL turn up sooner or later. If you toss all those dice FOREVER, you are CERTAIN to get all sixes (though theoretically, it might never happen).
That’s why, with the influence of God and perhaps his perfected saints, it is CERTAIN that every person will sooner or later submit to Him (though theoretically, it might never happen). But again, if it never happens, then someone has a will as invincible as God’s.
Paidion,
Thanks for the post. I pretty much see it the same way you see it. We do have real choices, we can chose good over evil, but we don’t get to chose the choices that are offered to us. So, I think we are on the same page.
I was just thinking about the title of this post “God won’t viloate human free will”. And it struck me a ludicrous.
I mean, I did not choose:
- to be born,
- to be bald,
- to have a good father and mother,
- to be healthy
- to have a supportive personality
- to have an ‘ok’ IQ
- to be born in this present evil age
- to be born in the USA.
- to have brothers but no sisters, to not be an only child
- to… well, you get my point.
And I don’t see in scripture and emphasis on human free will. Scripture speaks of us as being slaves of unrighteousness (through no choice of our own), dead in our iniquities (through no choice of our own). And it takes Jesus to set us free and give us life so where does this Human Free Will stuff actually come in. Slaves and the dead have no free will. One must be “Free” and “Alive” to truly have “Free Will”, I think.
That’s a good observation, Sherman. When we have been set free, then we are free. I like that.
Of course, once we have been delivered from Egypt, there is still a promised land to be won. 
And I don’t see in scripture and emphasis on human free will. Scripture speaks of us as being slaves of unrighteousness (through no choice of our own), dead in our iniquities (through no choice of our own). And it takes Jesus to set us free and give us life so where does this Human Free Will stuff actually come in. Slaves and the dead have no free will. One must be “Free” and “Alive” to truly have “Free Will”, I think.
We clearly don’t have literal free will but i think when this phrase is used biblically it generally means we have the ability to make choices. Of course even these choices are influenced by a million things so whatever it is we have, it is of a limited nature.
“Choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh 24:15). That is essentially what free will is —— the ability to choose.
Slaves have not lost their ability to choose. Throughout history, some slaves have chosen to disobey.
I have not found the phrase “dead in iniquities” anywhere in scripture. But I did find “dead in tresspasses and sin” (Eph 2:1). To be “dead in sin” does not imply extinction of our ability to choose.
Jesus is necessary in order to be set free from sin. But He won’t set us free unilaterally. We must coöperate with his enabling grace. “Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain” (2Cor 6:1 RSV). In order to coöperate with Him, we must exercise our ability to choose to do so.
Incorrect. As I have indicated above, slaves have not lost their ability to choose. Some have even chosen to disobey, even when they are aware of the consequences. When you sayh “the dead have no free will”, you now seem to be using “dead” in the sense of physical death. But those who are “dead in sin” still are able to make choices. They are “dead” in the sense that they do not possess the joyous LIFE which is available in Messiah Jesus.
Agreed, we do have the ability to make some choices, but as you note those choices are very limited in nature. In fact, I think I’ll start a new thread on Factors that determine who we are.
Let me throw a spanner into the works. The argument that God does not or will not violate the libertarian freedom of his creatures presupposes that God is external to the creature, that divine action somehow competes with free human action, that divine causality interferes with creaturely causality. But what is the transcendence of God means that his action in the depths of the human soul cannot interfere with human freedom precisely because God is the creator of human freedom and is thus “closer to us than we are to ourselves” (St Augustine)?
This is a question I have been wrestling with for years, and I simply cannot figure it all out, but I am persuaded that the Arminian account of human freedom is deficient because it does not recognize the radical difference between God and creatures. It is this difference, the divine transcendence, that grounds the divine immanence and precludes us from ever identifying the “causal crux” between divine action and human actions.
And it just so happens that this is the position of St Thomas Aquinas: goo.gl/T5JRB3.
I think you raise an excellent point Fr. Kimel - when I was reading Tillich last year I struggled for awhile with his idea that, rather than being a Supreme Being among other beings, God is the ‘ground’ of Being. (Perhaps “Being” itself - which is another and fascinating study).
A few people raised the question, that I myself had at the time, whether this meant - to Tillich - that God was not a ‘person’. And the way Tillich lays it out, it is difficult to find Personhood in that ‘ground’.
About that time, [tag]alecforbes[/tag] and I were discussing panentheism, which really ties in at this juncture: if God is not ‘just’ a being at the top of the great ‘chain of being’, but is in fact the power of Being itself, then all that is, is because He continually gives it being.
Whoa, almost got to the deep end of the pool there.
Your spanner really woke me up this morning!
Note thought that Joshua was speaking to the children of God, those born into relationship with God and his chosen people, giving them, well, encouraging them to follow God with him. Of course, the choice was, follow God or die in the desert; hmm, not much of a choice. My point is that free will is a factor in who a person is, but not much of a factor.
Yes, we all have a “rebellious” side to us, but did we choose to be “rebellious”. And it seems that some are just born bent that way, much more so than others. Did they choose this personality type? Nope. So is there “choice” a result of the rebellion they are born in or truly a choice?
I have not found the phrase “dead in iniquities” anywhere in scripture. But I did find “dead in tresspasses and sin” (Eph 2:1). To be “dead in sin” does not imply extinction of our ability to choose.
No, but it does imply that we are predisposed to sin. And if one is predisposed to sin and then falls to that predisposition, are they then fully making that choice? Or is the choice simply a natural outflow of the predisposition to sin. It is the later, I think. Thus one needs to be delivered from the predisposition to sin before one can really choose.
Jesus is necessary in order to be set free from sin. But He won’t set us free unilaterally. We must coöperate with his enabling grace. “Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain” (2Cor 6:1 RSV). In order to coöperate with Him, we must exercise our ability to choose to do so.
Some people seem to be predisposed to cooperate with God because of their personality type, environment, and call on their life. Others seem to be predisposed to not cooperate with God because of those factors. I was one born with a call on my life; but many people do not have such a call. I’m reminded of something I heard said, that in systematic theology they were Arminian, but in experiencial theology they were Calvinistic.
Incorrect. As I have indicated above, slaves have not lost their ability to choose. Some have even chosen to disobey, even when they are aware of the consequences. When you sayh “the dead have no free will”, you now seem to be using “dead” in the sense of physical death. But those who are “dead in sin” still are able to make choices. They are “dead” in the sense that they do not possess the joyous LIFE which is available in Messiah Jesus.
The more I ponder my own salvation, reconciliation to God, the more I am humbled by the reality that He chose me, pursued me, saved me in spite of myself. I was so deep in Christian religious pride in self-righteousness, that I didn’t even know that was surrounded by it and drowing in it. God intervined in my life when I didn’t even know I needed it. I was “dead” and didn’t have a clue what it meant to be “alive”, though from childhood I was predisposed to have a tremendous hunger/love for God.
[/quote]
Imagine a bunch of literal alcoholics. Further imagine that they spend all day in a bar which serves unlimited free drinks.
That is how much free will I think we have here on earth. We can always choose not to sin. Every single sin we commit is our own fault because our own choice. That said, we are all alcoholics surrounded by drinks. Realistically speaking, we are going to sin a lot–and (alas) we do. All this sinning is the result of not having enough freedom, not because we have too much freedom. The more we sin, the less free we are. The less we sin, the more free we are.
Well said.
In reference to Geoffrey’s post above: I will go a bit astray here, not trying to hijack the thread, but I will give Rumi’s perspective on drunkenness and salvation.
All day I think about it, then at night I say it.
Where did I come from, and what am I supposed to be doing?
I have no idea.
My soul is from elsewhere, I’m sure of that,
and I intend to end up there.
This drunkenness began in some other tavern.
When I get back around to that place,
I’ll be completely sober. Meanwhile,
I’m like a bird from another continent, sitting in this aviary.
The day is coming when I fly off,
but who is it now in my ear who hears my voice?
Who says words with my mouth?
Who looks out with my eyes? What is the soul?
I cannot stop asking.
If I could taste one sip of an answer,
I could break out of this prison for drunks.
I didn’t come here of my own accord, and I can’t leave that way.
Whoever brought me here will have to take me home.
This poetry, I never know what I’m going to say.
I don’t plan it.
When I’m outside the saying of it,
I get very quiet and rarely speak at all.