The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Universalism + Free Will = One Very Strange Bird

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#84

Thats the common perception. One or the other. but such a view, for me, does not satisfy the scriptures. If we base one on the scriptures, we must accept the other, but then, both cannot be true! or can they? Because if they are not both true then TOO MUCH OF SCRIPTURE IS A RIDICULOUS CONTRADICTION.

So,

I insist there is a higher paradigm, and its just too damned easy to argue around the terminus points of our finite minds, and so much satisfaction to be gained in the conflict- since all regard themselves as victors and understanders. :laughing:

#85

Like this :exclamation: :question: :laughing:

#87

or that blind people can see without God opening their eyes.

#88

Of course it sounds that way to you, but if you read my post again, without me listing all of them, it is clear that there are scriptures that seem to fit both views. Somewhere down the road, beyond the limited framework of the logic either side leans upon, there is perhaps, a resolution that will look like a square peg to a round hole to some. Sorta like Jesus was s suare peg to the round holes of His day.

His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
His ways are higher than our ways.
Who has known the mind of the Lord and who has been His counselor?

No one. If God determines everything, there is no justice and any accountability He would dictate is beyond foolish, and the scriptures would make no sense.

If everything is by the self-determination of man, then God is a negligent parent and impotentcreator, and the scriptures make no sense.

In order for the scriptures to make sens, as Jesus said, “The scriptures cannot be broken” and “It is written, You shall not tempt the Lord with a foolish test”- there must be something beyond what you see, or the opposition sees.

As far as married bachelors are concerned, i will defer to your expertise, either way you want to believe it :wink:

#89

Everyone is blind to their ideological opponents. Only the indoctrinated see clearly in their own eyes.

NIV
Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know.

New Living Translation
Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much.

"Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” 9He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.’ 10"Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.”…

All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable. 35This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: “I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH IN PARABLES; I WILL UTTER THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.”

9 “Who is it he is trying to teach?
To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk,
to those just taken from the breast?
10 For it is:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that[a];
a little here, a little there.”
11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,
12 to whom he said,
“This is the resting place, let the weary rest”;
and, “This is the place of repose”—
but they would not listen.
13 So then, the word of the Lord to them will become:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that;
a little here, a little there—
so that as they go they will fall backward;
they will be injured and snared and captured.

The wisdom of humility always leaves some room for mystery and further enlightenment, and the answers are never given through the polar positions of the generational debates. All that has grown out of them is liturgy, orthodoxy and systematic theology, or as I like to put it “God in a box”.

#90

I hope that I admit my blindness to what I cannot see, but also lovingly testify to what I do see.

Actually in my quote

I was returning us to the main point of this post. The will of a blind man cannot open his own eyes. Only God can do that.

#91

Right, we can’t fly to the moon, either, merely by a desire to do so.

But we can make choices. And that’s all free will is.

#92

Paidon, your last post explains precisely the heart of why we cannot seem to agree. We have different understandings of the philosophical meaning of ‘free will’.

If all ‘free will’ means is that we have the ability to make choices, then I agree we have ‘free will’. But in this discussion that is not all that it means. Sure all humans have the ability to make choices, but only within the bounds of their nature, just as a piece of rotten fruit is free to be everything that a piece of rotten fruit is. However a piece of rotten fruit cannot remove its own rottenness. And neither can unregenerate man love God or another. It is only within his nature to love self. The Holy Spirit must work that change. Thankfully that is his very specialty.

But I am repeating myself, sorry about that.

#93

According to your analogy, we have no more ability to choose than a piece of rotten fruit.

When I say we have the ability to choose, I mean it just that way. If I ask you whether you want pumpkin pie or blueberry, you can choose either of them. You may say you are constituted so as to prefer blueberry, and therefore you could not have chosen pumpkin. While admitting that you have a predisposition to take the blueberry, I say nonetheless, that could have chosen to take the pumpkin.

Indeed, this is the very definition of “free will”:

#95

The title of this is Universalism + Free Will = One Very Strange Bird. How about a song dedicated to strange birds?

#96

According to your analogy, we have no more ability to choose than a piece of rotten fruit.
When I say we have the ability to choose, I mean it just that way. If I ask you whether you want pumpkin pie or blueberry, you can choose either of them. You may say you are constituted so as to prefer blueberry, and therefore you could not have chosen pumpkin. While admitting that you have a predisposition to take the blueberry, I say nonetheless, that could have chosen to take the pumpkin.

Indeed, this is the very definition of “free will”:

No Paidion I think it is only the definition of “a will” not necessarily a free will. Free means unencumbered and in your example the choice is encumbered as it usually is in most instances. The difference could be semantics yet it could be significant because the degree of freedom we have in our choices may correlate with the degree of responsibility and accountability we have.

#97

Hi everyone, just wanted to chime in here.

I actually heard Chuck Swindoll when he made this statement. I’m not a huge fan of his, but it does IMO have a little to do with what we are discussing here.

by Charles Swindoll

“The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness, or skill. It will make or break a company … a church … a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice every day regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude … I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me, and 90% how I react to it. And so it is with you … we are in charge of our Attitudes.”

I have always liked this, and to some extent, try to live by it.

#98

Let’s take a station break, with another strange bird song :exclamation: :laughing:

#99

What I am positing is that it is more complex and interlaced than either pole of the debate likes to acknowledge, because mystery is offensive to the carnal mind. That is why(imo) there is such division, because man, in his mind, likes to define the undefinable beyond the limits of his perception, and rarely yields, even in the face of scriptures that contradict his views.

#100

Just to clarify your language choices do not match what I understand the Bible to say about our will and God’s will. God did not make puppets. Only he is a God big enough that could make living being with minds, wills, and emotions. Human beings make choices as the Bible is clear.

Yet because he is a loving father there are some choices he makes for us out of pure loving grace that we have no choice in. For example he chose to pay for our sin, in fact against the will of Peter and against all our self-righteous wills. Our will had no part of that. He also chose to accept the sacrifice of Christ as the guarantee of the salvation of all mankind. Our will had no part of that either. That was a deal between the Father and the Son.

Now regarding our decision to be happy about this good news, we observe that a few are, while most are not. This is a decision that must be made by each individual. We observe the a few have trusted Christ, while most do not. Why? Our birth nature of self-righteousness cannot make this choice without a change by the Holy Spirit. God does not make the choice for us, but the Holy Spirit frees us from our corrupted nature, effectively influencing us to make the decision, each one at the time of his choosing.

#101

Here’s my favorite “strange bird” song :exclamation: :laughing:

#102

Randy, seriously? Please show some respect for the discussion even if we disagree.

#103

Like I mentioned before, Jeff - I follow the Holy Fools tradition, which is a valid historical Christian tradition, started in the Russian Orthodox Church. I’m sure you wouldn’t want anyone here to NOT be true to their Christian beliefs and practices - would you? :question:

#104

I am not familiar with the ideals of that tradition nor whether it is ‘valid’ or not. However, I thought the goal of this forum and Christian discipleship and discussion was to grow closer to the tradition of Christ himself, thus happily closer to one another. I thoroughly enjoy laughter and laugh a lot, yet the ministry of Christ also communicated serious truths with serious implications. Differences might be laughable, insignificant, or very significant.

Does the Holy Fools tradition allow for persuasion, correction, sympathy, pain, rebuke, serious matters?

#105

I would suggest reading the Wiki link here entitled Foolishness for Christ. Then you might understand where I am coming from, along with the historical context of the tradition. And I might just ask some questions - in the matter of Socrates - to understand where you are coming from.