Ask a Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist Christian Stuff

[Tree of Life]

I'm seeing two main premises here:

1) God motivates a person to be saved but doesn't override their will, and just makes it easier.
2) Without God's grace man would never choose God.

So the conclusion here is that either grace is resistible, in that it makes choosing easier, which means you're not down with Calvinism; or that grace is irresistible (good so far), without which man would never choose God, in which case he isn't free to accept or reject him. I'm only responsible for something I'm free to accept or reject, not something I can't help but do or something I'm forced to do.

God's grace is irresistible. It does not violate the will of man. It empowers the will of man. Much in the same way that you believe God will be irresistible upon final judgment. Man's will is not violated because man freely chooses God. He cannot but choose God because the full beauty and glory of God is revealed. Once seen it cannot be rejected. It is always freely chosen.

 

[bhsmte]

God's grace is irresistible. It does not violate the will of man. It empowers the will of man. Much in the same way that you believe God will be irresistible upon final judgment. Man's will is not violated because man freely chooses God. He cannot but choose God because the full beauty and glory of God is revealed. Once seen it cannot be rejected. It is always freely chosen.

If God's grace is irresistible, why is it that some don't see a force that comes from God this same way?

Is it, that God chooses not to make his grace irresistible to some? If so, wouldn't this mean God does not love all his creation in the same light?

 

[Received]

God's grace is irresistible. It does not violate the will of man. It empowers the will of man. Much in the same way that you believe God will be irresistible upon final judgment. Man's will is not violated because man freely chooses God. He cannot but choose God because the full beauty and glory of God is revealed. Once seen it cannot be rejected. It is always freely chosen.

I just don't get these two statements as jiving well together:

1) Man can't but choose God if he's given irresistible grace.
2) God is freely chosen.

Can't but means necessarily. Whens something is necessary, it isn't free; freedom only comes with possibility, in this case the possibility of accepting God unto salvation or rejecting God unto sinfulness.

 

[Received]

If God's grace is irresistible, why is it that some don't see a force that comes from God this same way?

Is it, that God chooses not to make his grace irresistible to some? If so, wouldn't this mean God does not love all his creation in the same light?

Yeah, but God can do whatever he wants. For Calvinism, love is secondary to power. And even if we accept this frightening conclusion, we're left with the problem of how God determines which people are saved or not.

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, but God can do whatever he wants. For Calvinism, love is secondary to power. And even if we accept this frightening conclusion, we're left with the problem of how God determines which people are saved or not.

Sure, what fun would it be to be God, if he couldn't do whatever he wanted? Sort of like the line from Mel Brook's History of the World movie; "It's good to be the king"

Now, this would mean, that God picks some people to give this grace and others, are basically out of luck. I can't reconcile that with an all loving God.

 

[Tree of Life]

I just don't get these two statements as jiving well together:

1) Man can't but choose God if he's given irresistible grace.
2) God is freely chosen.

Can't but means necessarily. Whens something is necessary, it isn't free; freedom only comes with possibility, in this case the possibility of accepting God unto salvation or rejecting God unto sinfulness.

Then you live with the same problem. Don't you believe that all people will freely choose God once it's all said and done? And yet God does not violate their wills. Am I right?

 

[bhsmte]

Then you live with the same problem. Don't you believe that all people will freely choose God once it's all said and done? And yet God does not violate their wills. Am I right?

What do you mean by; "all is said and done"?

 

[Received]

Then you live with the same problem. Don't you believe that all people will freely choose God once it's all said and done? And yet God does not violate their wills. Am I right?

But I'm not saying, in the end, that God is freely chosen. I'm saying that God is unfreely accepted, not out of compulsion, but because any child seeing his father as he really is in a good way can't help but accept this father. I guess, leaving the possibility open, that people could reject God and Hell would be an eternal sort of place along the lines of a nicer Dante or C.S. Lewis' dingy grey city, but whatever.

In your case, you're holding two contradictory propositions.

 

[Received]

Sure, what fun would it be to be God, if he couldn't do whatever he wanted? Sort of like the line from Mel Brook's History of the World movie; "It's good to be the king"

Now, this would mean, that God picks some people to give this grace and others, are basically out of luck. I can't reconcile that with an all loving God.

And this would mean that God really, truly is playing dice, given that "luck" here means God arbitrarily chooses things, and has no standard by which to choose them.

 

[Tree of Life]

But I'm not saying, in the end, that God is freely chosen. I'm saying that God is unfreely accepted, not out of compulsion, but because any child seeing his father as he really is in a good way can't help but accept this father.

This is all the calvinist means when he says "irresistible grace". It's semantic at this point. You say "unfreely accepted" and I say "freely chosen" but it seems that we mean the same thing.

I guess, leaving the possibility open, that people could reject God and Hell would be an eternal sort of place along the lines of a nicer Dante or C.S. Lewis' dingy grey city, but whatever.

But whatever? Then you're not a universalist at all.

In your case, you're holding two contradictory propositions.

Only if you understand my use of "free" to be libertarian, which it is not. It's compatiblist.

 

[bhsmte]

But I'm not saying, in the end, that God is freely chosen. I'm saying that God is unfreely accepted, not out of compulsion, but because any child seeing his father as he really is in a good way can't help but accept this father. I guess, leaving the possibility open, that people could reject God and Hell would be an eternal sort of place along the lines of a nicer Dante or C.S. Lewis' dingy grey city, but whatever.

In your case, you're holding two contradictory propositions.

I believe his position in contradictory, if God is an "all loving" God to all his creation. If God picks and chooses who he wants to give this grace, then he wouldn't be all loving, to all.

 

[Received]

This is all the calvinist means when he says "irresistible grace". It's semantic at this point. You say "unfreely accepted" and I say "freely chosen" but it seems that we mean the same thing.

Right, but my position doesn't entail holding two contradictory statements, mentioned above.

But whatever? Then you're not a universalist at all.

Sure I am. I believe all will be saved. I'm just open to the possibility, which is logically required to be an openminded person, that it might not be true, and in this case that there might be freedom of man that overcomes God's love.

Only if you understand my use of "free" to be libertarian, which it is not. It's compatiblist.

Okay, that's a whole different discussion. You're saying you consciously have been holding to compatibilism all the while you've been a Calvinist? Could you spell out how compatibilism makes things acceptable to you regarding this debate?

 

[Received]

I believe his position in contradictory, if God is an "all loving" God to all his creation. If God picks and chooses who he wants to give this grace, then he wouldn't be all loving, to all.

That's an easy point to reason away for a Calvinist. Nobody says God is all loving. Problem solved. But wait, not solved for all those who aren't elect. Well, to hell with them (literally).

I know, it's utterly frightening.

 

[bhsmte]

That's an easy point to reason away for a Calvinist. Nobody says God is all loving. Problem solved. But wait, not solved for all those who aren't elect. Well, to hell with them (literally).

I know, it's utterly frightening.

What is frightening, is people would worship such a God and perform psychological cartwheels, to convince themselves this is ok.

 

[Tree of Life]

Okay, that's a whole different discussion. You're saying you consciously have been holding to compatibilism all the while you've been a Calvinist? Could you spell out how compatibilism makes things acceptable to you regarding this debate?

I simply think that freedom in the libertarian sense is incoherent. When I say that man freely chooses God I mean that man chooses God because he wants to choose God. There is nothing constraining or coercing his will. His will, by God's grace, is to choose God.

An unfree decision would be if man chose God not because he wanted to but because he was coerced. This is how man's freedom is compatible with God's sovereignty.

 

[bhsmte]

I simply think that freedom in the libertarian sense is incoherent. When I say that man freely chooses God I mean that man chooses God because he wants to choose God. There is nothing constraining or coercing his will. His will, by God's grace, is to choose God.

An unfree decision would be if man chose God not because he wanted to but because he was coerced. This is how man's freedom is compatible with God's sovereignty.

But, you claim God's grace is irresistible, so that would mean man would choose God freely.

It just so happens then, in your specific belief, God chooses not give his grace to everyone and this is obvious, because not all believe as you do.

Why do you think God wouldn't want to give his irresistible grace to everyone?

 

[variant]

That's an easy point to reason away for a Calvinist. Nobody says God is all loving. Problem solved. But wait, not solved for all those who aren't elect. Well, to hell with them (literally).

I know, it's utterly frightening.

It's an easy point to reason away if you are OK with an objectively evil God I suppose.

 

[Received]

I simply think that freedom in the libertarian sense is incoherent. When I say that man freely chooses God I mean that man chooses God because he wants to choose God. There is nothing constraining or coercing his will. His will, by God's grace, is to choose God.

An unfree decision would be if man chose God not because he wanted to but because he was coerced. This is how man's freedom is compatible with God's sovereignty.

Well, in this case a person's integrity is based on how many unfree decisions he makes. The tough, character-building decisions are precisely things we don't want (that is, immediately desire, by the flesh).

And if you claim that "want" here means what a person chooses, you've sucked up the content of "want" here, which stands for precisely the ground from which a person has the choice to transcend in overcoming his desire to do otherwise.

And yeah, if freedom means desires, then there is no coercion at all by God. But this means that, to be psychologically and theologically consistent, then any time a person like the example I gave above uses his freedom against his desires, he's not really free, or when the Bible speaks of someone choosing something against his immediate inclinations that he's being unfree. Hence the war between the flesh and spirit means choosing through the spirit to overcome the immediate temptations of the flesh makes the person unfree, but scripture speaks of there being freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1). Surely this isn't the freedom of magically having your desires automatically lined up via God's irresistible grace to doing what's right. Right? Because if it were so, there would be absolutely no responsibility on man to overcome his temptations.

I think you put more knots in this one by pulling it too tightly. The concept that is causing this much tension to the point of inconsistency is God's sovereignty in this sense. That's gotta go.

 

[Received]

It's an easy point to reason away if you are OK with an objectively evil God I suppose.

Exactly. Who, interestingly, happens to be very good to you and the rest of the people you consider "in". Tribal theism at its finest (although I wouldn't call Tree of Life a tribal theist, not intentionally).

 

[Tree of Life]

Well, in this case a person's integrity is based on how many unfree decisions he makes. The tough, character-building decisions are precisely things we don't want (that is, immediately desire, by the flesh).

And if you claim that "want" here means what a person chooses, you've sucked up the content of "want" here, which stands for precisely the ground from which a person has the choice to transcend in overcoming his desire to do otherwise.

The mind set on the flesh cannot please God because it in no way wants to submit to God. But the mind set on the Spirit is free to obey God because it wants to obey God. Given, there is a splitness to the Christian life. Our flesh (remaining sin) wants to rebel against God. But our spirit, regenerated by the Holy Spirit, wants to obey God. Our self becomes disassociated from our sin. This is why Paul says in Romans 7 that "it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me."

And yeah, if freedom means desires, then there is no coercion at all by God. But this means that, to be psychologically and theologically consistent, then any time a person like the example I gave above uses his freedom against his desires, he's not really free, or when the Bible speaks of someone choosing something against his immediate inclinations that he's being unfree.

Until full glorification the Christian is not completely free. He is free and becoming more free to serve God, but his flesh still serves sin. He has not been completely liberated to serve God.

Hence the war between the flesh and spirit means choosing through the spirit to overcome the immediate temptations of the flesh makes the person unfree, but scripture speaks of there being freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1). Surely this isn't the freedom of magically having your desires automatically lined up via God's irresistible grace to doing what's right. Right? Because if it were so, there would be absolutely no responsibility on man to overcome his temptations.

Freedom in Christ does not mean immediate deliverance from sin, though some experience more deliverance in this life than others - and that miraculously. But this freedom is a growing, joyful desire to obey God from the heart.

I think you put more knots in this one by pulling it too tightly. The concept that is causing this much tension to the point of inconsistency is God's sovereignty in this sense. That's gotta go.

If I threw out God's sovereignty I would have to throw out the Scriptures themselves.