Interesting piece from Roger Olson, where he predicts that it will be Calvinists who will lead the way in making universalism a tolerated doctrine within an evangelical environment patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/01/2627/
Personally, I don’t think either group will be more prominent than the other in terms of pushing it forward or making it more acceptable in evangelical circles - there are reasons why both groups often point to the other as logically leading to the notion of everyone being saved and there are reasons why people swap between the two groups when they realise their group doesn’t emphasise enough (or even denies) a particular aspect of salvation.
Found it a bit frustrating in the comments section that Olson kept on pushing his argument that universalism is a denial of libertarian free will and that if you affirm the latter, then you can only be a hopeful universalist - as if a) universalists only argue from philosophical arguments that everyone will be saved (of course, affirming that people will always have the power of contrary choice means it’s technically possible for some to forever reject God but I don’t base my own argument on denying that) and b) that non-universalists who put emphasis on free will aren’t doing exactly the same thing when they say that NOT all will be saved. If you can’t be sure that everyone will be saved because of free will, then you can’t be sure that not everyone will be saved because of free will. I doubt Olson would accept that as an argument against his own position because I sincerely doubt he argues from that - it’s almost certainly more scripturally-based and if it is, then there’s no reason a universalist arguing primarily from scripture cannot affirm that all will be saved without denying libertarian free will.
He didn’t respond to this when I put it to him in the comments section…
I doubt my browser will even allow me to make comments there, but if someone hasn’t pointed out that final perdition one way or another must involve the destruction (by God or by creatures against God Who would continue to provide it) or the ultimate disrespect (by God Who nevertheless continues to provide it) of libertarian free will, then someone should.
Note that this goes beyond the question of agnosticism due to free will, where (supposedly) we just can’t be sure one way or the other which way someone with free will will finally go.
Also as you said, his article is another example, to me always amusing, of Arms and Calvs blaming each other if Kaths become legitimate, as if their own gospel assurances would not just as equally contribute! But then, they each think their own gospel assurances are nothing but right and the other gospel assurances are nothing but wrong!
So from an Arm perspective (like Roger’s), it’s the Calvs’ fault if they convince Arms that God originally persists to victory at whomever He intends to save; and it’s the Calvs’ fault if they come to accept that God seriously intends to save all sinners from sin without simultaneously dropping the assurance of original persistence.
Moreover he treats Arminians as being necessarily “immune” to becoming universalists, apparently on the ground of typical Arminian insistence on human free will.
Piffle. I was an Arminian, who did and still does have a very strong belief in the reality and importance of human free will, grounded in God’s own trinitarian reality and in God’s own free will. That didn’t change one jot. I only became more theologically consistent about the relation of creaturely free will to God’s free will.
The whole thing (for the prof) seems to be a question of what free will is. Only he doesn’t seem to have asked that question. He assumes a very simple definition of free will; like a free radical bouncing around wherever it “wants to.” But a free radical is just reacting to external factors and isn’t truly free at all. It’s non-rational. To have true free will, one has to be sufficiently rational. Rational beings do not bounce themselves into the “fire.” Rational beings do the thing that will allow them to survive and thrive. To do otherwise is irrational, unless one does it to benefit some beloved other. Even if a being is rational, he may not be sane. If the synapses are misfiring or the hormones are sloshing in the wrong places, a person is NOT free. Ask any mental health professional.
There’s also the possibility that a person may make an apparently self-harmful choice for love of another person. But if we DO that, it’s only an example of a particularly exalted free will; a free will that knows that to love truly is the only way to ultimate fulfillment. And if THAT is our motive, we are closer still to the Kingdom. Moreover if we have sufficient knowledge and sanity to make rational choices with our rationality, then we will understand that we make the sacrifice not only for the benefit we will provide to the beloved, but also for the joy that is set before us – as Jesus did.
A person who intentionally does the thing that will result in ultimate anguish is either irrational and/or insane, or he has insufficient knowledge to understand precisely what it is that he does. Such a person is not free. Once he knows the truth then he will make the rational, sane, informed choices that will result in achieving the rational, sane, informed goal of ultimate happiness.
I agree with Cindy in that it depends on how one defines “free” will. As the Christian universalist Gerry Beauchmin has shown from the scriptures, libertarian free will is a myth. While the Bible rejects libertarian free will it teaches that most humans have human responsibility. Most humans are free agents in the sense that they make their own decisions about what they will do, choosing as they please according to their desires and thoughts. If we make our choices from a strictly neutral position with no prior inclination or desire then we make choices for no reason. If we have no reason for our choices then they become spontaneous. If they become spontaneous then they have no moral significance. If a choice just happens with no rhyme or reason for it then it cannot be good or bad. Motives count too. Not just the decision. Every choice has a prior inclination, reason, or desire. If there is no prior reason then a choice cannot even be made. This is why it is impossible for God to sin. He has no desire for sin. He still chooses what He wants but He always wants to do good. When everybody makes it to heaven they will have a completely new nature with all sin and sinful desires removed from their hearts. They will be free from sin. Because they have new natures they will be like God and it will be impossible for them to sin. They still choose what they want but because all sin is removed from their hearts they always want to do the right thing. This is true freedom. Our choices will be determined by something within. Not by external factors. Our choices are always done for a reason. There is a reason or desire behind it. Otherwise it becomes spontaneous and irrational. Here’s the Biblical evidence in “Hope Beyond Hell” that shatters the libertarian free will position:
The article mentioned a chapter on Hypothetical Universalism. As Jerry Seinfeld would ask, “what’s that all about?” Now what would folks say if you visit different churches and say you believe in Hypothetical Universalism?
He did answer one comment of mine when I asked him why he thought universalism was a denial of libertarian free will. He said that his definition of it is “power of contrary choice”, which I then for the purposes of the argument was happy to affirm in my follow up comment when I tried to explain why I thought believing universalism to be true (rather than just a hopeful universalism) is not to deny free will. He didn’t get back to me on that, though to be fair there were a lot of other comments on the article for him to respond to.
No one has shown from the the scriptures that libertarian free will is a myth. It’s impossible to show that from the scriptures, unless one has an unusual concept of libertarian free will such as “being able to do anything you want.”
A fairly common definition of libertarian free will is something similar to this: “Having chosen to do X in the past, you could have chosen not to do X instead.”
Where in the Bible do we find that such a statement is negated?
“Compatibilist free will” is, in fact, not free will at all. If every event is determined by prior causes, there is no free will. “Compatibilism” is but determinism dressed up in fancy clothes.
The following site lists some quotes from early Christians writers, affirming free will:
Paul states that in our fallen condition we do not seek after God. No one seeks after God. When the Bible speaks of inabilities It’s speaking of the inability to do what is truly good.
As the passage states, those who are accustomed to doing evil can no more choose to do good than a leopard choose to change his spots. The leopards spots are part of his nature. Likewise sinners all have a corrupted nature. Those who are according to the sinful flesh cannot subject themselves to God and His law:
The mind set on the flesh is an enemy and does not subject itself to the law of God (willful and wanton rebellion). It is not able to do so.
The only way we can be saved is because we have a Savior who saves people perfectly without fail. This is the difference between man’s religions and Christianity. Christianity is focused on God’s abilities to accomplish what He sets out to do
Everyone is unable to come without the drawing of the Father. But God will accomplish what He sets out to do. Indeed, later it says God will draw all people to Himself. Without fail.
Without a doubt this disproves libertarian free will.
For the benefit of everyone, here’s a definition from the Protestant Got Questions site: What is libertarian free will?. Does anyone have any issues or concerns regarding their definition and/or commentary?
You’re right Jason, and that wasn’t what I meant to say here – bad example for me to have chosen. I guess my point is that “libertarian” choice is often just such a situation. Where were you born and to whom? What were you taught as a child? What examples have been shown you of the true nature of God? We have no or very little control over any of these things. Most of them just happen to us. They affect us both by what they show us (whether true or not) and by what they do not show us. To this we add in our own genetic disposition and we make a “choice” which is both uninformed (or misinformed) and highly influenced by our circumstances, perhaps by our state or mind and emotion, by our physical and mental health, our education, and on and on. I disagree with the determinists, but they do have a point even though they carry it too far, imo. Our “free” choices are nowhere nearly as free as we make them out to be. Until we BECOME free to at least some extent, how can we possibly make a valid choice?
From CARM (i.e. Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) at What is free will? Does anyone have any issues or concerns regarding their definition and/or commentary?
Protestant Got Questions " Do human beings truly have a free will?. Does anyone have any issues or concerns regarding their definition and/or commentary?
Here’s a definition from the Protestant Got Questions site, I shared earlier: What is libertarian free will?
Just consider me as one helping with definitions and such, as an Amicus curiae (i.e. “friend of the court”).
On his Reasonable Faith site, philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig answered a submitted question in which he discussed how he views free will. He thinks the presence of alternative possibilities is not a necessary condition of free will. He feels that free will, instead, is not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. That sense of free will seems like yours above.
Cole, your biblical quotes indicate only that when a person gets caught up into a pattern of living or choosing or acting, that he “cannot” get out of it.
I placed “cannot” in quotes, because I think the biblical writers actually meant that it is difficult to change.
Let’s face reality. The fact is that many people who are so caught up DO change. Examples:
Some alcoholics have been able to stop drinking—immediately, cold turkey. Others struggle for a long time and finally are able to stop. Still others seem never to be able to quit. So it is also with taking recreational drugs, overeating, and many other such “fleshly” practices.
Some children raised in a dysfunctional family have turned out to be beautiful, loving, and caring people. Others raised in a loving family have become rebels.
Jesus said that people are “slaves to sin”, and need to be liberated. But even slaves have free will. They can rebel against their masters.
Jesus died to deliver us from sin and the power of sin. When we submit to his authority, we are under a different master. So it becomes much easier for his disciples to do right by the enabling grace made available by his supreme sacrifice.
For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:11-15)
Tend to agree with WLC on free will. It goes back to God’s active self-existence: God chooses to self-exist, nothing makes Him choose it, even though if He chose not to self-exist He would cease to exist, which is not possible for the self-existent ground of all existence.
This collapses the question of whether it is technically possible or impossible for God to choose other than to actively self-exist. In one sense it is possible, because God actively chooses one thing and not another; but in another sense it is impossible because independent self-existence as such always chooses to self-exist thus (but only thus) excluding the possibility.
(That being said, I seem to recall William Lane Craig being very inconsistent at best, or maybe even principly denying, that God actively self-exists. Which is unfortunately normal among theologians, even among trinitarian theists who out of all theologians and philosopher ought to know better.)
Note however that insofar as WLC applies this notion of free will to creatures, by the same proportion he cannot consistently claim hell shuts down free will. That leaves open room for repentance, especially if God continues actively seeking the repentance of those in hell, thus empowering them with the ability to choose to repent. It is only by God that we have the capability to choose; but for creatures (not for God) the choice does entail possibilities: we can only abuse our abilities to do good, doing evil instead, if God gives us the ability to make rational actions and thus also moral actions.
The difference there is that if we choose instead to act against the ground of our existence (which is God, not ourselves), God can and clearly to some extent does act to keep us in existence anyway, which in itself is strong evidence toward God’s intended goals in doing so! Whereas if God chose to act against God’s self-existence, nothing and no one would be able to save God (and all dependent reality) from the consequences; but since we exist at any moment at all, we can be sure God never has and never does and never will do that. (Thus also shall never act against fulfilling fair-togetherness between persons, if at least binitarian theism is true.)
Similarly, we cannot save ourselves apart from God. But a leopard’s spots or an Ethiopian’s skin (or a Caucasian’s leprousy looking skin ) is a properly natural characteristic, not a culpable abuse; sin is worse than that. Nevertheless, just as we cannot sin without properties from God which we choose to abuse, neither can we save ourselves from sin apart from God: and sin by its character involves us hampering our connection to God.
That doesn’t mean God leaves us with no capability to choose otherwise, though: we would not be responsible for our behavior, thus not morally blameable, if He did, and in fact ‘we’ would not exist as persons to the extent that the capability was ever withdrawn!
The moral censure of passages such as you quoted, Cole, actually testifies to the existence and capability of free will, and the possibility of the person doing better, which the person refuses to do, not because the person is fully constrained by the corrupted nature (though such constraints can and do exist), but by choice to abuse the capabilities being continually given by God.
To try to improve one’s self without recourse to God is beyond futile; it simply cannot possibly happen without God, and never does happen without God.
This is actually part of the point of the Calv notion of non-election, which necessarily amounts to God’s determinism for evil: God chooses so that the non-elect never have any possibility of choosing good, but must instead always do evil. If God ever did choose to empower them to do good, that would be an assurance God would save them from their sins eventually! But then they cannot be to blame, their behaviors being fully determined by things, especially by God, other than their own responsible choices, for which by God’s choice they have zero capability.
Only a supremely perfect God— supremely loving as well as supremely powerful— could guarantee an infinitely glorious payoff; so if the greatest gift a Creator has to offer is himself, then no lesser god could even compete with a supremely perfect God when it comes to the payoff. To wager on hope rather than despair is, accordingly, to stake one’s life and future on a supremely perfect (and therefore a supremely loving) God rather than upon some narrow sectarian god.
The above can be found towards the end of Tom Talbotts book The Inescapable Love of God. I can see that the course of the above discussion is mostly reflecting on the Armenian / Calv debate but for myself I would think that the inadequacy of both are kind of displayed in the very arguments that they generate. So I really like the short circuit Tom puts in place here.
Regarding the situation in the wider Evangelicle Church or even wider I find it a little problematic. Being currently a member of a Weslian Church. Do I speak to my pastor and elders re this sort of subject knowing that in the unlikely event that they listen to my thoughts and get on board they may in fact put their jobs at risk? Just how important is it really! Is it slowly slowly catchy monkey or go for broke and find the biggest bat and go a whacking?
Any thoughts?
