Hmmmm Richard… that seems to me a rather different looking question than the one you started with…???.. But no less interesting!
I’ve heard people argue that the very existence of sin proves we have free will. (that is, God certainly wouldn’t have programmed us to turn to evil/wickedness…) – I’m not sure it “proves” it, but is certainly suggestive of it…
Let me speculate that, sometime in the future, we’ve learned “enough” about the science of Free Will (the Neuroscience) to suspect we are not really “free” at all. In this setting, it seems that the need for God to take all the time he “needs” to effect His plans for salvation would certainly suggest that free will really is present to some degree! I mean if it really IS all determined, why the need for so much time??
Also, was wondering if you could direct us to some specific studies/experiments in the literature you must be referring to which strongly suggest that free will is very limited… Nothing exhaustive, just a few off the top of your head perhaps??
Regarding the first question I quote above. It all has to do with psychological integrity. Any change we experience has to occur at a certain psychological pace so that I recognize myself from one moment to the next. Otherwise we move into psychosis and disassociation. Thus, I’d argue that I’ve not changed the subject: our biological make-up affects the pacing of change, the time it takes for us to move from A to Z.
For book recommendations start with Wegner’s The Illusion of Conscious Will, Libet’s Mind Time, and Baumeister’s Willpower. Or, more quickly, you can talk to people who have tried to, say, kick a smoking habit, lose 20 pounds, stop looking at pornography, overcome clinical depression or keep any of their New Year’s Resolutions.
I want to note that there is a major difference between limited free will and zero free will. In my case, I spent some years training for wrestling and running. I repetitively practiced running technique and wrestling moves for years until the technique and moves became instinctive. My reflexive reactions became what I trained for them to become. In another case, I developed an addiction to tobacco. After I converted to Christianity, I made over forty attempts to quit smoking. I would crumple up my pack a cigarettes while determining to quit. But some time after midnight, I would cave in and drive to an all-night convenience store to buy a pack a cigarettes. However, within three months after my conversion, I quit tobacco. In these cases, I had limited free will, but free will nonetheless.
This is a different topic, though somewhat related, but I think this idea is exactly what a lot of Christians need to think about when it comes to virtue-formation, what the bible calls “sanctification.” What is interesting here is that the will becomes, through training, less “free.” Virtuous action becomes instinctive and less a matter of “choice.”
My view is that something like this–the acquisition of virtue through the instruction of God–is the root vision of salvation in UR.
I see this as an increase in self-control instead of a limit of free will, but perhaps we could explore this more in another thread since this is a different but related topic.
Have you explained this in one of you blog posts or could you please explain this more for me?
I see that. But when something becomes habituated and automated we really aren’t exercising self-control. We’re responding quickly and unreflectively. An athlete, in the moment of competition, isn’t exercising self-control, going back and forth about something in her mind. She is, rather, in the flow.
But self-control is huge during the time of preparation. Who wants to work out in the morning?
The main point here, for me, isn’t a rejection of free will. Again, the choices of self-discipline are huge. I’m mainly in all this trying to get people to have more realistic visions of what will actually looks like in life because I think a lot of people are working with old, out-dated Cartesian notions of the mind that are increasingly untenable. More, these notions tend to thwart spiritual formation efforts by emphasizing “trying” (willpower and choice) over “training” (practice and discipline). One of the attractions of UR, which is why this discussion fits this thread, is that it works really well with scientific understandings of the mind, brain, and behavior change.
I don’t know if I have a post exactly on this topic. But I think the idea is familiar in UR discussions, the notion that God’s fire is a refining fire. That perfection and sanctification are the goal. But what does that look like and imply? We tend to dress it up in “church language.” But the formation of virtue in us–think: fruits of the Spirit–seems to be getting after what God is up to in our lives, the telos of God’s love and wrath.
Here’s my realistic vision. I hold that human will is somewhere between the notions of Cartesian will and soft determinism. I suppose many libertarians would agree with me, but I am unsure if there is a philosophical term for my notion of human will.
Although I’m not too sure how aware the general population is of advances in Neuroscience, I certainly agree with you that universalism, for me as well, tends to play out over and against the notion of a radical free will. I actually feel that this is one of the hardest “selling” points of universalism within conservative evangelicalism. There is a huge premium placed on human free will in the prevailing theology of today; and most don’t see it as compatible with universalism, “hell” texts aside.
I’ve been following your blog since a member on here pointed it out to me, and I’ve been thoroughly enjoying it; particularly your series on fear of death. I’ve also pointed a friend who is in the psychology field (as well as ‘sort of’ on board with universalism) to your blog as well.
Welcome to the forum!
oh yes, can I ever relate to this. As a physician myself (Anesthesiology) we face smokers – and their self inflicted damages – all the time.
It interests me that I can divide them (generally) into two groups: those who have a desire to quit, and those who know the dangers, but claim to “choose” to smoke anyway. “I gotta die of something; so whats the big deal if it’s this that kills me” kind of thinking…
Well that’s another angle I think: in Salvation talk, we pretty much claim that ones desire to be saved is taken by God as faith and will be rewarded. So, as the typical telling has it, we are in our sins, we desire salvation and we repent and ask forgiveness, and God pardons us rendering us somehow as a person He is willing to “save”. Which is kind of odd isn’t it?? Because nothing at all has happened that actually makes us less likely to commit the same sin over, and over, again. So that aspect troubles me quite frankly… Besides, doesn’t Romans 9:16 say that it does NOT depend on our will, or effort, or even our desire – rather, it depends on God’s mercy… That text puts a serious wrinkle in the whole “God will save those who want to be saved” story line… (to say nothing of the even greater problem of Romans 11:32 which holds that this condition is at the very hand of God Himself!! He has bound us all into disobedience so that He may show mercy to all! – I’d be curious how you interpret those texts…)
But this brings me to another perplexing problem… I know of (have heard lecture, and read his book) a Psychiatrist from Chat tanooga TN by the name of Tim Jennings whose formulation of the good news involves the “healing of the mind”. But his ideas never “work” to my way of thinking because in his formulation, one must at least WANT to change and has at least the capacity to discern his sorry condition. But what if someone doesn’t have this desire? His “solution” presupposes that inner felt need, yet what of those who appear never to have even that?? It smacks of pulling oneself up by his own bootstraps as-it-were…
So for me, it’s easier to empathize with the smoker who really wants to quit (but can’t) than with the smoker who intends to continue smoking and mocks my feeble attempts to convince him otherwise!!
And yet what better describes the condition of “sin abounding” better than this!! And in response to that abounding sin, God brings — even greater Grace. (Rom 5:20)
I get that the law was added to show us the poverty and hopelessness of our condition, but what of those who laugh at - and mock - the law??
Richard,
I don’t know if you’re familiar with Joel B. Green but he’s similar in that he’s shared doubts after studying in Ner-science that the free will position was something he began to doubt. Not that he abandoned it, but he saw so much evidence to say that it should at least be discussed and debated. He’s not a Universalist but I think he’s at least sympathetic.
Dr. Beck,
I so much agree with your OP. I too am more inclinced based on the doctrine of election rather than on the doctrine of free will. My expreience has been much like your own.
further comments are subjeted to ridicule for being a star wars fan*
As I was growing in my rejecction of Calvinism, I also began growing in my rejection of libertarian freedom (or Arminian theology, which I was raised in). I remember going to my pastor after watching the Star Wars Episode 3 and asked him, if Anakin is destiend to do evil how can he be free to choose otherwise? Everything was stacked against the character and as far as I could tell, he had no choice except to fullfill his destiny. My pastor had no repsonse and said it was a mystery how it all works - BLAM my rejection of liberatarin freedom was complete and my journy towards the darkside was too.
I have much in common with my Calvinist brothers however, this election doctrine of theirs is something I doubt. I believe in election but I don’t think it means some people and not others.
This is very interesting, but it springs a question to my mind. If progressive sanctification over a certain amount of time for every distinct individual is required for UR, then what about us who already know the Lord? In other words, what is the difference in the post-mortem process for an unbeliever as opposed to a believer? If we also have to “recognize ourselves from one moment to the next”, how can we go from being not fully sanctified (when we die), to being completely sanctified at the resurrection?
It sounds like this idea would lead to a purgatorial cleansing for all people (believer or not) in the next life. The reason for this is because none of us become fully sanctified in this life. The logical end of this concept seems to be that we all, believer or not, will have to go through this refining fire (if we hope to retain our consciousness and go from one moment to the next). Therefore, salvation becomes a post-mortem process for all people, not just the unbelieving. Any thoughts, Richard?
Hopefully I’m making myself clear. Perhaps a bad analogy will help. Let’s say sanctification is like a video game with an infinite amount of levels to pass. Mother Teresa was at level 100,000 when she died. Hitler was at 7. Mother Teresa will be instantly transformed and glorified at the resurrection. Hitler will go into the purifying fire. He will gradually go through the levels, on and on, until he finds himself further along the road to sanctification.
If full sanctification is far and beyond into infinity, how does Mother Teresa get to that level of full sanctification without missing a beat in the process? In other words, wouldn’t she have to begin at level 100,001 in order to retain her conscious personality? If God, through the resurrection, perfects her, can she still retain her conscious personality without missing all the good lessons along the way?
Certainly agreed. Perhaps the sanctification process for the believer would not be classified as the “second death”, but as a distinctly different form of sanctification. Will we become absolutely perfect at the resurrection? If yes, then the purging is unnecessary. If not, then there seems to be a further need for correction, even for believers.
How do we undergo such a drastic change in the resurrection (from being imperfect to perfect) without also going through “step-by-step”, “moment-by-moment” change? I don’t understand how we can say that those who don’t overcome have to go through a thorough, time-consuming purging (so that they learn holiness), when we believers don’t have to learn anything in the next life but instead get instantly morphed into glorified beings. I don’t see the connection. According to the logic of the original quote I quoted, it is the unbeliever’s natural “slow-learning process” that needs to be adjusted over time in the afterlife. My question is: Why do believers get an instant change if an unbeliever has to undergo a slow learning process? Do we believers know everything there is to know about holiness? Do believers not have the same slow learning process as the unbelievers? According to the logic of Richard’s quote, if we get instantly transformed in the resurrection (from a sinner to a glorified perfect human being) we will also undergo “disassociation” and “psychosis”.
So, a few logical possible scenarios remain:
God does intend to change people over time in the afterlife due to natural human stubbornness and inability to change. Due to this, unbelievers and believers will have to undergo a sanctifying process in the afterlife in order to transform them. Due to the metaphors of Scripture (in a universalist presupposition), it seems that this will be unpleasant and painful for the unbeliever (albeit ultimately restorative), but educational and pleasant to the believer (growing in grace). The consuming fiery presence of God will affect every individual differently.
This theory of neuroscience in the original post is not the full picture, and God can somehow do an instant transformation of a believer without the individual losing their personal identity or consciousness in the process.
2a) If #2 is true, then it may also be possible for God to do the same thing for an unbeliever (Ultra-universalism).
2b) If #2 is true, then it is also possible for God to do an instant transformation of the believer (as a reward for earthly faithfulness), but still choose to subject the unbeliever to the correction process, however long it might take.
Since I don’t know all of the details of neuroscience on this topic, I’m undecided. But I tend to not lean toward Ultra-universalism… so if I was able to know the details (which I currently am not), I’d most likely choose between #'s 1 and 2b.
not all believers are overcomers. The overcomer has already submitted to the trials and testing and there is nothing, or next to nothing left to be burned away. maybe all thats left is what is attached to the mortal body??
Just found this article in one of my local papers today on all of this. At the end they even mention about how this could effect the worldview of those who ‘believe in a god that gave you a soul that is the seat of your decision making’.
Well, here it is:
Reading this Neuroscience thread made me recall a Chapel Talk I gave at my old boarding school. Posted it in “Essays” (Twice by mistake, Mods - my bad. Feel free to euthanize one.)
That’s sort of what I believe. That everyone will be refined through the love of God. “Everyone will be salted with fire.” Another theological resource here is the Orthodox notion of theosis.
That notion of salting with fire, of cleansing, is how I came to grips with Universalism. Self-righteous Saul being burned away leaving only Paul. Cowardly Simon being burned away leaving only Peter.
Specifically Rev 2:11 “Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt AT ALL by the second death.” – This AT ALL captured me. Didn’t say they wouldnt experience the lake of fire. Simply said it wouldn’t hurt them at all. Like it could hurt others SOME, and others A LOT. Depending on how they “brought forth fruit in keeping with their repentance”.
It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of THE LIVING GOD.
