IMO you have a nuanced and balanced perspective.
it is not so curious to believe that God, who as you assert, is omnipotent and omiscient, could grant a stewardship of will
Certainly not curious that God could do such a thing. But instead curious that any would hold the position in light of the Scripture’s repeated assertion that we do not have the ability to change our own nature. Why is the good news that God is the heart changer so offensive?
but it is nevertheless a necessary term because at some point, in order to “agree” and to “serve” and to “love” there must be a freedom to choose.
Yes certainly we choose to reciprocate love for God and hopefully pursue it with zeal. However, in you own words you say that this happens when “The children of God, having been set free…”. So do you agree that we are not free until the Holy Spirit sets each individual free from enmity toward God?
The only point I am making is that the great confidence we have that all will be finally saved is because God has determined to make it happen. Without his determination we would all continue hiding from him with our fig leaves.
You suggest that I don’t understand.
Someone once suggested that true free will would be evidenced if the chooser could ultimately choose for or against God. Is that your understanding of whether someones will is truly free? However, I am convinced that, first, God has already decided on the basis of the death of Christ that no one will be lost eternally. Yet our first born will is lost from loving God until we are born again. Thankfully God did not even consider our will as he made payment for our sin. And second no one will be able to resist his overwhelming loving persuasion and pursuit of relationship with us. While we do our best to run from God, he runs the faster to overtake us. Our will is unable to finally resist his effective grace.
As I understand it… freewill means nothing more than “I can make independent choices for myself”. I can choose to jump off this planet, there is however the force of nature that counteracts my choice i.e., gravity. Just because my choice is affected by an outside force it would be a stretch to say gravity nullifies my freewill choice… it simply affects it. Thus there are bounds beyond which my freewill struggles to go… that does not mean I don’t have freewill, it just means there can be parameters wherein my freewill choices work. As a kid I was FREE to roam my back yard at my leisure, there were however fences that at a given point refrained my choices, so I adapted my choices; one day “I CHOSE” to climb over that fence.
Revelation (insight) helps direct our choices… someone might well be an enemy of God “in their mind” (Col 1:21), but come to a rather differing conclusion “about God” upon greater education or revelation of the mind, wherever that may occur.
So if we hold that an individual will never choose to love God apart from a specific heart changed caused by the Holy Spirit, then is their will free? Instead the mind of natural man is fenced in to carnality, a fence he can never climb over, but can only be lifted over by the Holy Spirit. You mention education and revelation. It is an essential point that one cannot be educated to Christianity. Though God may use education, education alone remains in the natural dimension, but the supernatural is needed for conversion. That is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 2:14.
I apologize, but I am saying the same things over and over again and probably not helping anyone. Ironically I am trying to educate others about God’s amazing grace, when supernatural persuasion is needed.
Hi Jeff. That’s one of the problems I have with the concept of ‘no free will’. Everything then becomes God’s responsibility. Whilst some are ‘proud’ to say that it removes any input/responsibility in the process of our own salvation, by the same token, it must also remove any responsibility for our own sin.
I’ve read the thread and I still cannot see any problem with believing in universalism AND the Arminian’s view of freewill.
Hmmm instead the point of grace is that God made a way to forgive what should have been damned. His absolute holiness cannot withstand the least blemish. We are responsible for our sin and in light of God’s holiness ought to be damned because of it. Yet his amazing grace made the way to forgive sin through Christ. He removed our responsibility / penalty for our actions and substituted the responsibility of Christ. The boast of the Christian is not that I am no longer responsible, but a boast and praise that Christ accomplished what we could could not accomplish. He freely willed our salvation.
Ironically IMO it’s the “sin consciousness” of evangelicalism that feels the needs for this to be done… neglectfully forgetting Jesus “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” – grace!! Flog (revive/resurrect) ‘sin consciousness’ and there’s always “works” to do… the very thing religion thrives on; but as always to the detriment of God’s free creation.
I do not claim to know where the line is between where God’s sovereign will and whatever degree of autonomy He has given towards man. I just see that it is clear in the language of scripture that man has a choice on some level, even on a daily basis. What I wrote was a paradigm presenting a stewardship of will given unto man by God- so obviously God reigns supreme- but He has left man a choice. Without such a consideration so much of the scripture is just nonsense.
For this reason I tend to reject blanket complete determinism by God or by man, but I reject total determinism by God because I believe He works in another way- not because of any limit upon Him, beyond His own desire to teach us to be His children through stewardship. I don’t think God ever had any doubt as to what every being would eventually choose because He knows the limits of His creation and the overwhelming superiority of light to darkness and love to hate and harmony to chaos. He has set it up this way from the beginning.
My point also, is that making UR dependent on one view or another of the debate about man’s will and God’s will, is unnecessary because universal reconciliation is demonstrable in either paradigm.
When you speak of the assertions of scripture, you have to realize that this particular discussion usually ends in two polarized points of view throwing up scriptures that seem to contradict one another.
Of course sound hermeneutics and exegesis demand that the truth incorporate all the scriptures.
So even if we are to see man’s will as a bubble, maintained by God within an infinitley greater bubble of His own higher will and ways(the scripture definitely asserts that His ways are higher and that no one completely knows His mind) we must acknowledge that our choices are a part of the way God works- or else the scriptures are broken.
His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
At some points we must simply acknowledge all the assertions of scripture do integrate into a larger, or higher, or deeper paradigm than we presently understand-
But in seeking that understanding we cannot disregard scriptures inconvenient to our view- as if the truth was a matter of a majority of verses. That is just settling short of the peak, making camp below Zion, refusing to take another step through the wilderness, cuttin it outta whole cloth.
As far as suggesting you dont understand… obviously if we disagree there is something one of us doesnt understand- but probably some things both of us dont understand- but my point was that your definition of the view of universalism + free will was incorrect or incomplete, as if perhaps you didnt understand the perspective you were describing.
It is difficult to discuss a difference in viewpoint when your presentation of the other view is inaccurate- so I fleshed it out a bit to give it some visible form as it really exists in my mind- which doesnt make it correct/true… just makes the point of view more legible for another considering the issue.
Can you then show me one Scripture that teaches that man has the ability to love God without the Holy Spirit first changing his nature? I understand the human logic and reasoning above, but can you provide a Scripture?
I have shown you Scriptures above that do teach that regeneration by the Holy Spirit is essential or we remain dead to the things of God. This part of the discussion would naturally lead to the extent of the depravity of man’s nature and how did it become depraved.
Also the word ‘determinism’ misses the beauty of the Holy Spirit’s work in transforming individuals as if God painted check marks in our lives with a paint roller. I am sorry that you use this word. John 3 instead uses the beautiful picture of the wind that blows where it pleases. Of course both the will of a house painter and the will of a fine artist are the reason that paint is applied. However, the house painter is just getting a job done whereas the artist is expressing beauty. I prefer to think of God’s sovereign will in transforming lives and bringing individuals through the new birth as the artistry of the Holy Spirit. Or as John 3 explains, like the wind that blows gently through tree leaves or rips trees from the ground when a hurricane blows. But again the point is that if the wind does not blow, there is no transformation.
Romans 13-15 For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the DOERS of the law will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, BY NATURE do the things contained in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thought accusing or else excusing them.
It is by the grace of God that He came to give us His word. We can choose to believe it and thus follow it, or we can choose to disregard it and continue on our own path which leads to destruction. There are many people who have gone to their graves, refusing to change in any way, shape or form. If we choose to sit around waiting for some sudden transformation to take place, we may be waiting for a long time because God already showed us the path that leads us to salvation. He said “Follow Me.”
Jeff… this is a CLASSIC example the embellishment of texts to claim a point: NOWHERE does “John 3 explains” what you said it does – you are going way beyond the text, clearly. All you have done is use poetic licence to make a point, and all points aside that’s fine, BUT that’s NOT what the text anywhere near says.
AND this is the problem that arises… it is too easy to embellish an argument with poetic licence, i.e., “interpretation” at the expense of factuality AND common sense.
(rhetorical question) Example: show me one Scripture that teaches “Sunday School” – “Sunday School” appears nowhere in the bible. Does that make such null and void? – it’s become part of how “we do” evangelical religion etc.
No. Can you show me one that teaches that man DOES NOT have that ability? I think the burden of proof lies with you who are making this claim.
James tells his readers to submit to God, draw near to God, and to humble themselves before God, and does not imply in any of those instructions that the Holy Spirit must first change their nature:
In these verses he also indicates that his readers can "resist the devil, cleanse their hands (of wrong doing), and purify their hearts so as to be single-minded. He doesn’t add that in order to do so, the Holy Spirit must first change their natures.
Then he makes this amazing statement:
He seems to say that one can visit orphans and widows in their affliction and keep oneself unspotted from the world through his own choice. Again he doesn’t say a word about this being impossible unless the Holy Spirit first changes his nature.
I run a couple of LinkedIn groups for writers and copywriters. Once a member - perhaps jokingly - said copywriters only work for ad agencies. That would defy common sense, as copywriters work for in-house marketing departments, PR firms, freelance (i.e. which many ad agencies hire as contractors), etc. And folks actually tried to argue against his statement. I just had this to say to him: Your statement is not self-evident. And that should put the matter to rest and place the burden on him to prove his claim.
I think it is sufficient to provide a scripture which clearly states that we have a choice to serve God or not.
Joshua 24v15 “Choose you this day whom you will serve”.
The text could not be more clear in stating that those people had a freewill decision to serve God (which Christ states is to love) or not to serve God.
In a sense however, this is irrelevant. The thread, and title of the thread was surely not to argue for or against determinism (was it?) but rather was a proclamation/suggestion that universalism and freewill are incompatible bedfellows. Eaglesway has eloquently and respectfully pointed out that they are not incompatible beliefs. What fascinates me is why there seems to be a need to imagine that the God of one camp, rather than the other, is more gracious, or more sovereign, or more loving or whatever.
My posts to u so far hav nothing to do with whether a person can make a decision for God without a changed nature.
I simply posted that your characterization of universalists who believe in free will was simplistic and incomplete to the point of indicating that you may not understand the paradigm of the view you oppose.
I have only clearly stated that man has been given a stewardship of choice by God.
But in response to your question, Romans 2 speaks of those who, never having had the law, became through obedience, a law unto themselves- their conscience accusing or excusing them on the day God judges the secrets of mens hearts thru Jesus Christ.
Paul said to Timothy… The foundation of God stands sure…inscribed with these words…the Lord knows those who r His and let evryone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.
Perhaps the Samaritan man in the parable had a changed nature, but Jesus wasnt highlighting that in the story. He was showing how the divine nature moves outside of religious boxes, like those of the Pharisee and the Levite.
The Samaritan man made a choice that showed he was a good steward of the gifts he had been given, and was a friend of God. The Pharisee and the Levite were poor stewards.
If anyone is in Christ Jesus they are a new creation. I believe in the new nature. We begin in it as babes…carnal. We grow in grace thru trials and life lessons where we are taught good stewardship…often by the conseqences of bad stewardship. All thru our lives God is bringing us into union with Him for the purpose of fellowship in the work of redeeming the creation from chaos.
I think that training requires a measure of free will, and so does friendship.
This is the position I take - as a hopeful universalist. It’s also a definition from a philosopher professor
But in Does Hopeful Universalism Sacrifice Divine Goodness?, the last term was defined like this:
Am I in trouble with you for proclaiming that one must be born from above, regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order to begin the Christian life?
Of course we have a stewardship of choice, in that we are not robots. Certainly we make decisions and are accountable for our decisions. I do not dispute that. However, can a person freely choose to receive Christ and forgiveness and obey Christ of his own ‘free will’ without the transforming help of the Holy Spirit? Another way of saying this is, my confession that the reason I am a believer and a Christian and someone else is not is because the Holy Spirit opened my eyes and raised me from spiritual death to life, whereas God has not yet opened the eyes of the unbelieving.
Those above disagreeing with this understanding above have quoted Romans 2:12-15 in defense that man does have free will. Does the passage go that far? The main point of that passage is that we are all sinners whether with or without the law, because even those without the law are both defended and accused by their conscience. In context Romans 2:4, already mentioned, does explicitly say that to neglect that it is God that changes hearts is in fact to show contempt for grace. A wrong attitude and understanding here will cause us to be judgmental towards others rather than recognizing that each of us only stands or falls according to God’s grace. That is one reason why this is a very important point. I think I touched on that earlier in this post, that a right understanding will help Christians to be more humble in evangelism and passionate in prayer.
Other passages are mentioned above such as Timothy, ‘departing from iniquity’, the good Samaritan, Joshua 24:15, ‘choose this day’, James, ‘submit to God’… However, one cannot use passages of this type, or examples of the Good Samaritan’s obedience to prove that natural man has a will with the freedom and ability to obey the whole law. And according to the argument of Romans 1-3 if someone cannot chose to obey the whole law, they are instead guilty of breaking the whole law. Just because God gives a command does not mean that natural man has the ability, the free will to comply. In fact according to Romans 5:20 the purpose of the law was not reform mankind and show us that we could obey, but in fact to show us that we cannot obey because we are sinners by nature. Sure some people obey certain commands, but no one has ever used their ‘free will’ to chose to perfectly satisfy the commands of God. Why not? Because our sinful nature is not free to do so. I do appreciate the Scripture references and would be glad to consider others. However, as you’ve already figured out, I do not think there is one. Someone above also agreed that there are no Scriptures that say man has ‘free will’.
However, there are many Scriptures that do explicitly and didactically teach that we do not have ‘free will’ and are in fact powerless without God’s help. Jesus himself said, ‘apart from me you can do nothing.’ Several have said the burden of proof is on me. I did quote Scriptures above, but I am guessing we each understand these differently. So there may be little useful point to further hair-raising argument in this post. However, to be willing to carry the burden of proof a bit further, Jeremiah 13:23 is often used to defend the necessity of God’s transforming power. I’ve already mentioned 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 positively highlights that God has revealed God’s wisdom to us, those chosen for faith, through his Spirit. Romans 11:6-10 negatively highlights that God gave others hard hearts and a spirit of stupor. My ebook at dgjc.org/optimism also highlights the specific words of Romans 11:32, “For God has bound all to disobedience, that he might have mercy on all.” Someone that is ‘bound’ is certainly not ‘free’.
I do apologize for my extension of Jesus metaphor of the Spirit as wind… if an apology is needed. However, the point I was making is on target with the Scripture, that is to enter the kingdom one must be born of the Spirit, from above. The Holy Spirit and only the Holy Spirit can effect the change of heart needed to transcend the natural realm and enter the supernatural realm. Nicodemus came to Christ fearfully at night as a religious Jew with questions for Jesus. Jesus punches his hypocrisy right in the eyes, though of course Nicodemus was already blind to the truth. Jesus amazes him with the truth that Spiritual life has nothing to do with Nicodemus religious’ system. Instead the Holy Spirit has the authority and free will to blow where he wishes, bringing the birth and transformation of the spirit to anyone he chooses, even the Samaritans and gentiles whom the Jews despised. Spiritual life is not dependent upon human will, John 1:11-13, but the will of God.
One last note, it was objected that this discussion is off topic because the focus on the post title is that ‘free will’ is incompatible with universalism. Understandably the conversation drifted into whether ‘free will’ exists or not. So back on topic, in addition to my understanding that ‘free will’ is not Biblically defensible, consider two points in answer to this concern. First I believe that holding to ‘free will’ as a universalist undermines the reason for the confidence we can have that God will finally save all mankind. The reasons I am confident that the salvation of all mankind is guaranteed is because the legal justification of sinful man has already happened apart from our will at the cross. Furthermore, even though unbelieving mankind is presently running from God in rebellion, unwilling to submit, though already forgiven at the cross, the determination and superior resources of Christ will overtake every last rebel converting them into his son or daughter. God’s determination to make us willing will defeat the unwillingness of our sinful nature. Most Arminians do not believe in the salvation of all mankind because they believe most of mankind will not use their ‘free will’ to chose Christ. Well if the choice was left up to mankind, then no one would be saved at all, because unregenerate man is unwilling by his very nature! However, instead, because of the gracious choice of Christ, all mankind will be saved. Secondly, I have argued above that holding to ‘free will’ neglects to give God the glory and praise for his grace that has and will save all. Man’s choice will not be praised in glory, but instead each of us will praise Christ that he pursued us with his love until his will prevailed over ours, changing what we were powerless to change ourselves.
Well I think you guys understand me well enough and yet likely still disagree so I probably need to discipline myself to leave the argument. God bless. Pray for me and I’ll be praying for you.
You are not in trouble with me at all. I am just sharing an opinion. You seem to think we are discussing being born from above now, as if I dont believe in that, but that was never in my re-posts to your posts, so I dont get it.
I am not sure where you are getting these presuppositions.- about what I dont believe… I think my only disagreement with you has been about nuances of sovereignty vs. free will.
I just thought your OP communicated an inaccurate view of a free will universalist perspective. Are you now trying to say anyone who believes in free will does not believe in being born again?
My responses were just towards the strange bird analogy, since I am one 
I believe in being born from above, by the incorruptible seed of the word of God- I do not believe that that was availavble in the OT in the way it is now thru Christ crucified- yet people did serve God, walk in righteousness, walk in faith…
I am not really interested in getting into a comprehensive debate on this, but I have some honest questions for you. Being born from above- made new in Christ, is a New Testament experience. Were there no righteous in the OT?. Are you saying there was never any love among Jew or Gentile? No sacrifice ever made for another. No generous act such as that of the Samaritan man in Christ’s parable?
That no one could ever make a choice for God before the “born again” experience was available?
Acts 10:1 Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the people and prayed to God continually. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, “Cornelius!” 4 And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, “What is it, Lord?” And he said to him, “Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God".
What of this man who was a Gentile and did not know Jesus? Were his acts, acknowledged as they were by God, the result of a “born from above” experience- before he was born from above? Was he the only one ever to hav chosen good stewardship(love God, love thy neighbor) before Christ regenerated him into a son of God? The last one? Or have there been many, throughout the ages from the beginning, unnamed people in forgotten lands and times who, as Romans 1 explains, saw the divine nature and eternal power of God through the things He created and walked before Him in humility- as well as in a certain limited ignorance?
That is what Romans 1 & 2 are all about. Cornelius was a just man before God having only his conscience to answer to, not being a Jew, and as yet having no gospel of Jesus Christ.
The scripture seems to indicate that he was chosen because of his deeds for the honor of being the first Gentile house to receive the gospel… the first Gentile house to be born from above.
Also, in relation to the OP, I would like to see the post of the strange bird who would say that we can do anything without the help of the Holy Spirit. I have not heard one single free will disposed universalist say such a thing. Or who ever said anyone could use their will to obey the whole law? These things are not even in dispute.
I do think the Holy Spirit may be more available than you do, like the rain, falling on the just and the unjust alike- otherwise how could anyone love another, sacrifice for a child or a spouse, lay down their lives for a friend… but in no way would I ever assert that man is sufficient to himself. i am just saying that God has allowed, even ordained, that man shares participation in the process from a “will” point of view, and the scriptures (imo) sustain that perspective. While my own views on the balance between sovereignty and man’s will are to complex to compose in a couple of posts, I will say one last time that I seriously disagree that being of an “Arminian” or “Calvinistic”(for lack of better terms sorry) undermines the reason for an assurance of the salvation of all, since everyone agrees that God is in control of the ages and His plan- it is a matter of method that is held in disagreement- a disagreement with too many degrees of moderation to go into thoroughly here. I am assured that all will be saved because of the glory of Christ crucified. It will win all into love, gather all into Him- but of course, God planned it that way.
That is why Peter says that we are predestined according to the foreknowledge of God. No doubt its a great mystery 
. I would never presume to over simplify it.