The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Love: is it REALLY Volitional? ie a “free choice”?

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#39

I wonder . . . are we mixed up on this topic because we have the idea that freedom means freedom to do absolutely anything we’re capable of doing at any time? The thing is, that sort of freedom describes the torture of the mentally deranged, the disorganization and death of a wilderness, the wild reproduction, immaturity and unpredictability of a cancer. This sort of freedom DOES lead to death.

A person who obeys his every whim and does all his heart desires, unresponsive to any outside influence, will live in constant torment. He’ll be socially isolated, impoverished, and probably physically ill. If our bodies’ cells did this, we’d be dead in moments. If the universe behaved in a completely “free” (ie: random) manner, it would not exist. Because of the organized (and yet free) dance of the universe around us, an individual person can survive for a time in a state of complete psychic disorganization. He’ll end up in a mental hospital if he’s lucky, a prison if less so, or soon he’ll be dead. Neither society nor the world can tolerate this kind of freedom for more than a very brief time.

We have this romantic idea that wilderness is beautiful and full of life and natural and perfect as it is. As a person who lives in what is more or less a wilderness, I beg to differ. Wilderness means things go in their own way, fighting with one another for survival. One sort of plant (Ponderosa Pine in our case) overgrows all the other plants to the point of excluding almost anything other than itself. As a consequence, whole forests die from unchecked infestations and thorns grow up in their place. Populations of animals ebb and flow in a constant battle between predators and prey, with disease and depredation as a wild card. There is great beauty here, but the beauty is in the organization, and the organized things are the healthy things. Mankind was deputized to keep the garden, which essentially means to introduce organization, to keep all things in balance with one another and in a state of health and optimum well-being. Which of these states is truly freedom? Only the garden offers a space for genuine freedom, for all the plants and animals to thrive and live in peace with one another. The other way – the way of libertarianism – is the way of chaos and death. If all the residents live according to a higher nature, that is, in love toward one another (not the letter), then the garden thrives.

Cancer occurs when cells grow and reproduce out of control – in a disorganized fashion. They never mature, but continue to grow and stack up one on another on another in a chaotic mass which is, in itself, extremely viable – until it kills its host. Are the cells free to do as they will? Maybe – at least they’re free to do what’s in their nature. What they “will” is to garnish all the resources of the body to feed their wildly reproductive nature. The problem is, that they’re broken. But they’re doing what they will, as broken things. Is this freedom? Is this the sort of freedom Father wants for us? WE are broken. We’re following the will of a broken nature.

When we die with Christ, we leave behind that broken nature, that unchecked chaotic wilderness, that deranged and disorganized mind. All these things are bondage. What I think is that He’s lifting us up into the next stage of our development (evolution, if you like) from the merely physical plane into a new freedom. As we are naturally, we’re confined to the physical, but when we die with Christ and are raised with Him, we add the spiritual dimension; we become new creatures, learning to live in the life of God, in the dimension of the spirit, rather than merely in the life of the flesh. In our new level of life, we no longer desire to do the things that lead to death. Does that mean we’re not free? I suppose you could look at it like that, but in truth, I think it means we enter a freedom the like of which we can’t yet fully comprehend. We enter life. That does mean organization as opposed to chaos, and maybe in our present state we see that as somewhat restricting. I don’t think we’ll see it that way for long though.

A child who learns to keep his bedroom clean and tidy is free to enjoy his room far more than a child who has to climb over piles of toys and dirty clothes to get to a bed he must first clear of books and candy wrappers, more toys and more dirty clothes before he can relax with his new magazine. We tend to resist this kind of freedom. It doesn’t follow that organized freedom is any form of bondage. In fact, it is maturation (which you remember cancer cells never experience), and keeping the garden so that it fills with life rather than death, and finding true mental stability and peace. It is, I believe, becoming the adult sons and daughters of God – His representatives in the physical universe who have become fit to orchestrate the Kingdom of Light in the realm of disappearing darkness.

#40

Chrisguy,

This thread is indeed full of rich ideas, and blessed with Tom (and Bobx3)'s especially profound reflections on the nature of our ‘will.’ I can now only barely chew on your own challenging contribution.

You suggest that “evil wills” are “the source of evil,” because “angelic powers” were “given” “control of the natural laws of our planet.” But I don’t see how other “powers” causing evil relieves God of all responsibility, or would be more comfortable than determinists’ admission that evil comes from what God set up (Would Job or Paul feel better toward God in that the work of Satan’s ‘thorns in the flesh’ in their lives were only indirectly administered (or ‘permitted’) by God?) You do assert evil was not (metaphysically) “necessary” or “inevitable,” but was “worth it” as an “unintended” risk or possibility. But I don’t see how that would appreciably improve my sense of God’s character. And my own classical supposition that God well knows what his design sets up, means even less comfort is provided by such theoretical distance.

Yes, I knew that you see the decisive ‘influence’ in our actions is not the usual external determinants, but your own “choosing part.” I just don’t see that the evidence supports that belief.

I too do sense that God values our “becoming Good.” Rather than instantaneously programing us to righteousness, going through a process of becoming who we are meant to be appears essential to becoming genuinely conscious persons who are distinct from God. Yet it’s not clear that the incredible ability you believe we have follows from this. You conclude that God mustn’t find “many conversions” “valuable,” since they are “robotic,” and “ambiguity” is the key to moral acts that God really wants. I agree that ‘choices’ where we feel torn can be used to wonderfully develop us, but actually wonder if God is not especially magnified when we are so clear about is good, that it’s no longer a hard call at all. I want to recognize that our ‘participation’ is somehow vital in experiencing what God pursues. But when you say that “we are the ones that are ourselves becoming like Jesus,” it seems to imply more personal credit for even my paltry sanctification than I seem to deserve. My impression is that there are mysterious and challenging tensions here that are difficult to keep in balance.
’

#41

Lots of good contributions here. I think Cindy raised a very salient point.
The point I wanted to make above is that ‘the will’ is a concept we use to describe behavior; it is shorthand for a process, not a description of a thing. We can LOOk, not think metaphysically, and SEE what people do, and can even understand the ‘why’ of their activities, and this will provide us plenty of material to flesh out the concept.

If you are a Cartesian dualist, perhaps you won’t agree (and you may have other reasons not to agree as well). But if you think holistically, you would see that focusing on a separate entity called ‘the will’ is a severe form of reductionism. The will is ‘me’ - and I am ‘built on’ material ‘stuff’ - my mind does not operate without a blood flow, cellular communication, organs working more or less as they should - in fact, if those things fail, “I” cannot think or love or act - or choose - at all. So, in some way, unless dualism is correct, even the state of our physical bodies - and that includes neural pathways - is ‘me’.

I like Paidion’s definition of free will just fine; my difference is, that I don’t think we have that kind of free will. We can observe that for ourselves, a phenomenology of will, so to speak; and this would keep us from reifying the concept ‘will’ into a concrete reality.

I believe we are a subtle blend of deterministic behavior AND a power to make meaningful decisions. I think if you look at concrete human beings and their actions, that blend is obvious. Trying to articulate it, not so much. :smiley:

#42

Dave B, it seems that we share some similar insights (or confusions) :slight_smile:

#43

:smiley:

#44

Bob,

Thanks as always for a stimulating reply. I don’t have much time right now (an exam tomorrow!) but do want to offer my reflections. I am really enjoying our exchange!

Yes, I did offer the suggestion that higher beings played some role in the corruption of our world. I offer it of course only as an hypothesis. You say this doesn’t provide you with a God more trustworthy/good than one in which directly caused evil. Perhaps the line between permission and causation is blurred and they mean the same thing, you seem to suggest. But it seems to me that by having the buffer of other free agents, this does in fact relieve God of some responsibility regarding the existence of evil. The alternative is that all evil is directly caused by God himself, rather than simply permitted for some higher end. A determinist is committed to believing that God actively caused the Holocaust, for instance. But why? That is the question! Why did he cause it? A free will theodicy at least offers some sort of possibility. I would be happy to hear an alternative. Perhaps there is some higher end for which he caused it, but I’m not sure that makes sense, for reasons I’ve given before (why does God need evil in his creation? How does evil come forth from the all-and-only good? Does admitting that God causes evil actually destroy the notion of evil altogether? What greater good makes it necessary for such an horrendous thing to occur? The whole idea that evil must be necessary for good seems backwards - e.g. would I have to cheat on my wife for us to have a better marriage?)

Perhaps I am mistaken in everything I’ve said. But what is your explanation for the state of the world and the existence of evil? Do you believe in angels/demons? I really feel a sense of one sided criticism here. It’s not as if free will theists choose this theodicy because they see no problems with it at all. Rather, how else do you answer the questions that are demanded of any theodicy? Where is the determinists engagement of the actual problem of evil? All I see, from many of them, is a wave of the hand in dismissal because the concept of free will is “vague”. But the state of the problem has not been advanced one inch. So, directly, I pose the question: where does evil come from if we don’t have free will?

Now, I do really sympathize with many of your points. In particular, the freedom you (and Dr. Talbott) talk about in reference to doing good acts totally free of any inclination to sin. This point is particularly powerful to me due to a certain amount of psychological torment - which has indeed reached levels of anguish, I must say - I have suffered. Is not a truly free act one in which we’re unfettered, as it were, by evil impulses, feelings, pain, etc.? Isn’t a free act one in which we are fully informed of all the consequences that will result of our action? I can really sympathize here.

In fact, I have at one time believed that the purpose of free will was not to “love” or “become godly”, but rather that it was necessary for us to experience the idea of “causation” and our own consciousness. I argued that it would be impossible to understand the term “cause” unless we had causative ability (free will) at some point, and likewise this free will is what gives rise to the notion of “myself” over and against an objective universe and/or persons.

I am not totally against this idea. It does jive very well with my sense of overwhelming grace and the sort of psychological state that allows “free” acts, in the sense of being unimpeded by evil/painful forces, to occur. If that is the case, free will is indeed a necessary part of creation, but not because without it people cannot be loving or good or believers. Rather, it would be necessary in order for us to formulate certain concepts in our minds otherwise impossible, such as: myself, other, and causation. I am still interested in pursuing this line of reasoning, because I do believe free will is essential to an answer to where evil comes from. I am not so sure where it fits elsewhere in my belief system. I certainly sympathize with you regarding my own growth and maturity. I often feel very strongly not that I personally have overcome my own weakness, but rather I’ve simply been “delivered” from such sufferings.

If you’re interested, here is a post I made a while back which fleshes out this idea - that is, of free will serving as an explanation of evil, what it’s purpose is and how it plays no part in salvation or perfection.

Thanks again,
Chris

#45

Chris,

Thanks, I’m retired and appreciate what you squeeze in amid studies! I too enjoy this dialogue that provides scrutiny for my own very uncertain and tentative instincts here. I’m blessed by how you wrestle with such a challenging subject. To be healthy, I find that we mustn’t be paralyzed by the feeling that we can’t make good choices. And the struggle to do right doesn’t seem like a charade to me, even though contradictorily, my questioning of our ability sounds like that.

But you’re right, I’m skeptical that an omnipotent God “indirectly” ‘signing off’ on evil protects him much from sharing responsibility. I suspect that simply blaming ‘Satan’ et al for evil to genuinely isolate God from it would require a real but problematic dualism. Otherwise, great difficulty remains here. As I’ve said, a scripted determinism needn’t be the alternative reality. Yet it seems that we find our self in an existence where evil can be recognized as at least indirectly inevitable.

I agree that where I’ve pushed seems to troublingly diminish the very concept of ‘evil.’ But “cause” is a tricky word. So when you say, God surely wouldn’t “cause Evil for some higher purpose,” I suspect you see the high value of freedom as what makes having evil worth it (i.e. God sees a need for that in his creation, and that effectively means that there will be evil). In that case, it seems that we’re just quibbling about what higher purpose warrants evil, and this creation where it seems inevitable.

You just want a satisfactory explanation of evil!!! But That is THE challenge for theism (I often think the only huge one) that great minds have struggled to satisfy!!! One has to appreciate here the attraction of process theism (which at least coherently gets god off the hook), and perhaps join the host who aren’t sure what could make having such evil be worth it.

As you’re aware, Talbott seems to reflect much on these questions, though I don’t think I’m able to comprehend all he says. As I’ve alluded, I suspect the more determinist alternative lies in the direction that forming genuine persons of character distinct from God can’t happen by just programming them to know nothing but the divine instinct (what you call “our own consciousness” and reflect on in your attached “faces” post), rather than the kind of character development that is possible living in an inevitable mixture of good and bad (whether the bad is conceived of as a direct or indirect result).

Grace be with you,
Bob

#46

Thanks for including this, Tom. This is exactly what I was thinking about as I was reading through the thread. As discussed in later posts, I think many of us likely have a fundamental misunderstanding of what “free” really means in the context of this discussion.

#47

Your thinking, Chris, is so close to my own, that I think I could have written what you said in your quote above. Man was created in the image of God, and I think the main attribute of God which was imparted to man was free will. If God always intervened to prevent man’s commission of evil acts, He would thereby limit man’s free will. In my opinion, that is the very reason He seldom intervenes. I agree with you that the reason is NOT to bring about a greater good. Your example of the Holocaust is a good one. What “greater good” has been brought about by the Holocaust? If there was one, God has never revealed it. I suspect that the ramifications are only evil. Having said that, I do agree that God IS ABLE to bring about good out of evil, but He does not “permit” the evil for that purpose. Again, He seldom intervenes in order to preserve man’s free will. He wants man to choose Him and to choose righteousness by means of his own free will.

Why He seldom intervenes in “natural” evils, I won’t address right now. That is a different issue.

#48

I am personally beginning to think that the reason God doesn’t intervene as often as we suspect He should to prevent evil; is not in order to “preserve our free will” (as I personally don’t think that is a primary concern for HIm), but rather because He has laid out a specific process by which we are to develop spiritually which requires the ability to make poor choices and then learn from them. I recall the words of a (Christian) song that go something like: “If it’s true that we learn from our mistakes, then by now, I should be a genius” :laughing: But irony aside here; I think there is a sense in which we are bound to learn and grow and develop precisely by making mistakes. If we did not have the freedom to screw up, would we ever truly develop in any meaningful way?

#49

Is it not a primary concern for Him to preserve the image of Himself which He imparted to man?

#50

If that is His concern, and not primarily to preserve free will, then why did He not create us so that we would do no evil and make no poor choices?

The only reason of which I can think that He didn’t do so, is that that would imply no free will.

#51

All – but especially Tom

It’s interesting how we all here shade and nuance our views on sovereignty and freedom so that we remain true to the truth we see in each idea.

Reminding myself that the question which started this thread for me was “Is Love really volitional?”. My answer – which came to me as something of a surprise; I’ve always heard/assumed that ‘love is a choice’ – was no. It really seemed to me nothing much at all like a choice. And it’s not like I even wanted to love God - it just sort of happened!

Which triggers flashbacks of something I’ve heard so many many times over the years, and am sure most of you have too. People say that “God can/will save those who want to be saved” or other similar things. (Heaven will be populated by people who want to be there; God will give people what they want, and so on)

Desire, hope, yearning, (ie wanting) all seem to be important, sure. I’d bet every single one of us here have experienced that deep and earnest desire for that “hole in our hearts” to be filled by the only One who can. God. Except there’s a rather big problem with this idea it would seem.

From where does this desire, hope, yearning come? Does God restrict Himself to saving only those who can conjure up and manufacture that desire on their own? Or does God Himself have the right to place it there in the first place?

A prime hallmark of sin, it seems to me, is disordered thinking. Our desires often have little to do with our own true self interest. We not only see and evaluate matters incorrectly, when we do see them properly we seem unable to muster the proper response. So even if I did somehow manage to have the proper wants, I find my actions do not reflect this. How frustrating, confusing, and hopeless! Maybe a bit like Paul in Romans 7??

And then of course, as sin deepens its grip on us, the prospects for ‘wanting’ what God wants for us grow even dimmer. Am I even “free” to generate my own righteous wants? Many worry that God can not allow a free mind to be “determined”. Well, why not have that same worry at the way SIN “determines” us??

It’s as if I have this inner sense here that things, in the realm of freedom, must somehow be “fair”. That the playing field must be level. But even as I say this, I find myself having little trouble wishing that God would heavily tilt things not so they were level and “fair”, but that they be so profoundly to my advantage that my salvation is all but guaranteed. This of course seems quite reasonable to me given that God knows and is aligned with what is best for me far far better than I am.

Which makes me wonder; would it in fact be a violation of my freedom if God just deposited in me the correct desires? So that I would want, yearn for, earnestly desire, what He knows is truly in my best interest? Given that I’m not even able to know what is in my best interest, let alone able to generate the proper desire, it would seem a gross dereliction of duty on God’s part should He allow ones eternal destiny to be controlled by what is obviously distorted and disordered thinking!

Can’t we say that such distortions and disorder (Cindy talked about chaos and randomness… same idea maybe Cindy??) are totally incompatible with the kind of freedom God insists we have before we even contemplate such a serious decision?? Thus, what I guess I’m trying to say is that most common thought on this subject has it completely backwards. God does not violate our freedom when He implants within us desires for Him and then guides us to the ordered thinking necessary for freedom to actually be realized; rather, He establishes freedom in doing this.

It sounds odd to suggest that God “forces” freedom on us, but that’s pretty close to what I mean.

Or something like that…

Thanks all
Bobx3

#52

Perhaps; but that still doesn’t necessarily make it the primary concern. Freedom is a concern of God, but I don’t think preserving our free will, but rather our ultimate freedom is a primary concern. Was God primarily concerned with the apostle Pauls freewill, or conscripting him as His representative to the Gentiles when he directly intervened in Paul’s choice of life-purpose and caused a major U-Turn with that little incident on the Damascus road?
I think your presupposition about the importance of preserving a certain level of free will perhaps comes from some unwarranted assumptions about what it means to bear the image of God.

#53

Yes, that’s pretty much what I had in mind, Bob. Actually the thought I have is fractals. Fractals are repetitions of self-similar patterns. They’re not exact facsimiles but more in the line of a symphony in which the same theme is repeated all through but with variations to make it new and cause it to harmonize with and build on previous iterations of the theme. We see this in nature. Like GMac, I think nature is our ultimate textbook, available more or less to everyone, to teach us what the Father is like and what we should expect to see, knowing it comes of Him and expresses Him. Supreme but supremely individualized organization.

For example, think of a tree with its trunk and branches that keep branching off (often in some variation of phi (not pi) – aka the “golden mean” or the “Fibonacci sequence” – approximately but not precisely 2/3:1/3 – Not sure how to write that; hopefully I’ve got it right). As you move out, the large branches are expressed in smaller and smaller branches and finally out to twigs, then to leaves with their own capillary systems branching out smaller and smaller. Go back down to the roots of the tree and it does the same, finally expressing itself in branching rootlets and root hairs, all of which are vital to the tree. I suspect that no two leaves are exactly alike, and no two trees have exactly the same branching pattern or arrangement of leaves. Probably no two root hairs are even exactly alike. Yet they’re all similar to one another and related to one another and organized. This fractal pattern repeats itself in mountains, the cells of living things, the lightning of a stormy night, the universe itself. Disorganization of this pattern always precedes and brings about death.

http://www.filteredmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/tree-fractal.jpg


The part I’m interested in sharing starts at about 2:30, but if you want to see the entire documentary from which this is taken, here’s the link: Hunting the Hidden Dimension I think it’s well worth the time and bandwidth, but then that’s up to you to decide. :wink: It’s just short of an hour long.

How does this apply spiritually? I think it’s something like this: We’re to be iterations of our father, joined to one another in a complete expression of who He is and what He’s like – in other words, His Glory! As Jesus is the exact representation of the Father, so we the ekklesia/bride are to be the exact representation of Christ and members individually representative of Him and of the ekklesia (which is His image). Creation, redeemed, is one as He is one, and paints in all its aspects a perfect portrait – a perfect avatar of Him.

I think He’s in process of nudging out all the chaos and disorganization in order to bring the entire universe into harmony and sympathy with one another and with His image – not that we should be clones of anything at all, but that we should all have our place in the great whole that reflects His image with variations through and through all creation. The symphony – the dance – the ordered and yet free expression of love and life and joy that is our God. It is far, far better to become part of the harmony as soon as possible rather than continuing in death and disharmony, so as to bring peace to all things and dwell in shalom with one another and with our Lord who is all in all. The closer I look, the more beautiful He is.

#54

Oh my!
Cindy – this may well be the best summation of the entire purpose of God, and the complete notion of UR, that I’ve seen on this whole site!
THANK YOU!!

And “nudging” – what an appropriate word here!
Not clones…
each his place…
symphony, and free…
part of the harmony…

That is stunning…
Thanks!

And blessings…
Bobx3

#55

Thank you so much, Bob! :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

#56

I second what Bob said, as well.

There is a great case to be made - and has been made - that at root, we think in metaphors. I am very aware that my theological beliefs are shaped by metaphor and Tale. I am unable to just read or state a doctrine and have it mean much to me. But, give me a ‘true’ Tale, or a great metaphor - such as Cindy and “The Dance” - and I have a grasp of the meaning of doctrines and teachings.

Does that make sense? Here is a link to a pdf file which you might/might not enjoy, it’s dry in many places (somewhat technical), but good if you have the interest.:
shu.bg/tadmin/upload/storage/161.pdf

#57

The biggest puzzle for me is that while all normal, healthy people have libertarian free will, the ability to choose, the ability to have chosen other than they actually did (or however one wishes to describe this ability)… and yet a significant number of these free-will agents deny that they possess free will.

To me, this phenomenon can be compared to a person with normal, functioning eyes claiming that he cannot see.

#58

I have eyes, but I don’t see well at all - almost legally blind in fact.
I have a will - or actually more than one? since, if I struggle with myself over a moral action, some part of me is struggling with some part of me?
I’m not denying free will, and I like the definition of it that Paidion has come up with; but I think, like my eyes, that it is defective; God is still working on me. :smiley: