Would you prefer it if “Christian universalism” were true?

[Cormack]

This is the kind of things that’s very familiar to me, @grasping the after wind, since I’m well read in deterministic beliefs like 5 point Calvinism and Islam. About Martin Luthers public spat with Erasmus.

Luther's response was to reason that original sin incapacitates human beings from working out their own salvation, and that they are completely incapable of bringing themselves to God. As such, there is no free will for humanity because any will they might have is overwhelmed by the influence of sin.​

When God redeems a person, he redeems the entire person, including the will, which then is liberated to serve God. No one can achieve salvation or redemption through their own willpower—people do not choose between good or evil, because they are naturally dominated by evil, and salvation is simply the product of God unilaterally changing a person's heart and turning them to good ends.
​

This sounds a lot like my previous message to you. Which rounds the curve nicely back to my original question.

Just to be clear. You believe human beings are capable of being tormented, tortured or some variation of the word and they can refuse Gods offer to be reconciled? That’s possible?
​

Couldn’t God under Luthers scheme of things save absolutely everyone and there’s no way they could resist him, not unless he himself refused to “redeem the entire person, including their will.”

That’s not so much the unbeliever resisting but rather God sustaining the unbelief, like holding up a boxer after you’ve already knocked the sense out of him.

 

[Cormack]

Man’s earthly objective can only be fulfilled during man’s lifetime on earth.

The early church believed that through the Harrowing of hell that many people believed on Christ after their death. Christ preached to the whole world from the time of Noah. You wouldn’t be open to joining Christians who believe that?

God is doing and allowing all He can to help willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective,

Don’t you believe when the Holy Spirit convicts everyone that it’s an effort to help both the willing and the unwilling? Christs death upon the cross for all wasn’t for simply the willing, right?

Paul for example wasn’t willing to believe and receive Christ, He was one of the churches most harsh critics, and a dangerous enemy to boot. God helped him more spectacularly than most and he was initially unwilling.

God cannot make you choose of your own free will

since it has to be your autonomous free will choice and not His choice,

I’m not sure though how it is that Christians can defend and champion freewill, insisting that God desires and values freewill, but then they write that it’s going to be removed from humans.

free will can be taken from them.

true forgiveness is a transaction requiring the person being forgiven to humbly accept the forgiveness as pure undeserved charity to complete the transaction.

I don’t see any reason to believe that people wouldn’t possess their faculties post mortem, especially faculties that God values so deeply.

What we could do in life is limit each other’s choices, for example we can break someone’s leg or tie people don’t so they can’t go to the park how they usually do. None of that is the denial of freewill though, it’s just restraining our ability to exercise choices.

Freewill however can be used by people without physical faculties, the immaterial angels rebelled, people in deep sleep make choices through dreams, everyone of sound mind can decide on their own thoughts and invoke their own feelings.

So your answer to number 2 is that there is something about hell or the afterlife that preludes peoples free choices. That seems to remove the very humanity that God believed is there though.

Why create people and judge them for their freewill choices, then punish something new that exists in hell who doesn’t have a freewill.

Satan is very limited by God but does fulfill a purpose here on earth to help willing individuals in fulfilling their objective.

That loses the idea of rebellion, no? Which again is tied up with our shared belief in the value of freedom of choice.

God has the power and knowledge to take anything away from the lowly satan, so it would be wrong to pay an undeserving enemy of God anything.

He doesn’t really get paid though, not on the Christos Victor model. He gets duped and outwitted by God almighty who not only takes back His perfect Son, His Son also plundered Satan of his captives. The Harrowing story.

I do appreciate that the Christos Victor model seems to be very primitive, not so lofty as our later theories, but maybe it being primitive is proof of something we should take pride in.

Yes, we choose to be slaves of satan by sinning, but that does not mean satan “paid” for us or deserves to have us.

Undeserved sure, which makes God outsmarting Satan all the more fitting. The great deceiver got hoodwinked and trapped in his own craftiness.

Do you having a problem seeing the kidnapper being sinful man?

I’d more than likely be baffled by the idea that man could kidnap himself, or that God paid the ransom to…? I’m not sure.

To start our reading and I expect comments and questions:

……. I probably won’t do that if it’s expected of me, sounds too much like homework. Though of course I’ll read something you’ve taken time out of your day to write me.

 

[Cormack]

A person would immediately stop the torture of “hell” if all they had to do was “believe” in Christ.

Wouldn’t a God who’s doing “everything He can” to save those people allow them to do that? It’s not by works, lest any man should boast.

They could believe in Jesus, no better morally than the thief upon the cross. The time and place changes but Gods love remaining strong.

Is temporary punishment in “hell” while retaining freewill not within Gods power to do, or not within Gods interest to do?

If it’s not within his interest, it’s a strange thing for us to say he’s doing all that he can to save.

 

[bling]

The early church believed that through the Harrowing of hell that many people believed on Christ after their death. Christ preached to the whole world from the time of Noah. You wouldn’t be open to joining Christians who believe that?

James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

We have very little nonbiblical writings from the first and second centuries and the works we have do not appear to be protected and preserved by the Holy Spirit, like the letters in the Bible were protected and preserved, so we cannot say what “the early church believed”. It does not matter much to me. Scripture does not say, “Jesus tried to convert dead people”.

Don’t you believe when the Holy Spirit convicts everyone that it’s an effort to help both the willing and the unwilling? Christs death upon the cross for all wasn’t for simply the willing, right?
Paul for example wasn’t willing to believe and receive Christ, He was one of the churches most harsh critics, and a dangerous enemy to boot. God helped him more spectacularly than most and he was initially unwilling.

Paul for example wasn’t willing to believe and receive Christ, He was one of the churches most harsh critics, and a dangerous enemy to boot. God helped him more spectacularly than most and he was initially unwilling.

Saul/Paul was an extremely well educated fanatical religious follower of the God given true religion, up until the cross. There was no one like him and no one can ever be like Saul/Paul because there is no transition from one true religion to another true religion. What God would have to do for Saul/Paul to possibly get him to accept His charity as charity will not have to be done for anyone else and God does treat everyone very individually. Saul/Paul would not have wanted to admit he was totally wrong, responsible for killing innocent people, his teachers were wrong, his friends were wrong, his plans/future/hopes/dreams were a waste. Saul/Paul could have wanted and easily forced himself to believe: he fell from his horse, starred at the sun, had a nightmare and thus was blinded and delirious.

The Holy Spirit “helps” all sinners up until the point they would never accept His help.

I’m not sure though how it is that Christians can defend and champion freewill, insisting that God desires and values freewill, but then they write that it’s going to be removed from humans.

Free will is very much needed for Godly type Love which we have in heaven, but if we reach a point where we will never obtain Godly type Love then those people do not need free will.

I don’t see any reason to believe that people wouldn’t possess their faculties post mortem, especially faculties that God values so deeply.

What we could do in life is limit each other’s choices, for example we can break someone’s leg or tie people don’t so they can’t go to the park how they usually do. None of that is the denial of freewill though, it’s just restraining our ability to exercise choices.

Freewill however can be used by people without physical faculties, the immaterial angels rebelled, people in deep sleep make choices through dreams, everyone of sound mind can decide on their own thoughts and invoke their own feelings.

So your answer to number 2 is that there is something about hell or the afterlife that preludes peoples free choices. That seems to remove the very humanity that God believed is there though.

Why create people and judge them for their freewill choices, then punish something new that exists in hell who doesn’t have a freewill.

God values, Godly type Love and free will is needed for Godly type Love. God could make all the animals without free will, but does not, so it is not free will God values.

Sinful rebellious people who refuse to change and will never accept God’s Charity as charity, no longer need free will. It is not that God is obligated to all humanity to keep them human, since those who will not accept Love are only good for helping others who still can accept God’s Love as pure undeserved charity.

That loses the idea of rebellion, no? Which again is tied up with our shared belief in the value of freedom of choice.

After satan rebelled against God in heaven, satan’s free will could be taken from him, it is only needed for Godly type Love.

He doesn’t really get paid though, not on the Christos Victor model. He gets duped and outwitted by God almighty who not only takes back His perfect Son, His Son also plundered Satan of his captives. The Harrowing story.

I do appreciate that the Christos Victor model seems to be very primitive, not so lofty as our later theories, but maybe it being primitive is proof of something we should take pride in.

There is some truth in the Christus Victor, but the “Ransom Theory of Atonement” seems to be more of an add-on, not something Christus Victor was intending to cover, from my reading.

Undeserved sure, which makes God outsmarting Satan all the more fitting. The great deceiver got hoodwinked and trapped in his own craftiness.

I use Job to show that and not atonement.

I’d more than likely be baffled by the idea that man could kidnap himself, or that God paid the ransom to…? I’m not sure.

Christ is both the Payer of the ransom and the ransom itself.

Who kept the prodigal son away from his father? Did the rebellious, hateful, greedy, lustful son return to the father or a different person?

……. I probably won’t do that if it’s expected of me, sounds too much like homework. Though of course I’ll read something you’ve taken time out of your day to write me.

I am asking you for help to come to a greater understanding of atonement.

 

[bling]

Wouldn’t a God who’s doing “everything He can” to save those people allow them to do that? It’s not by works, lest any man should boast.

They could believe in Jesus, no better morally than the thief upon the cross. The time and place changes but Gods love remaining strong.

Is temporary punishment in “hell” while retaining freewill not within Gods power to do, or not within Gods interest to do?

If it’s not within his interest, it’s a strange thing for us to say he’s doing all that he can to save.

I think you maybe confusing the objective, which has everything to do with obtaining Godly type Love.

A person who refuses to humbly accept pure undeserving charity (Godly type Love) as pure charity to the point they would never making the free will choice to accept, will never have Godly type Love.

Heaven is described as one huge Love feast, but the only Love at the feast is the Love the person who went to hell never liked or wanted. Most people like to be “loved” for how they want others to perceive them to be and not in spite of the way they really are. These people would be miserable in a lovey-dovey heaven. There is no carnal type love, it is all unselfishness, so what can be done with them in the spiritual realm?

 

[Cormack]

James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

That’s why belief is a complex word, not meaning simply intellectual assent (believe that,) but could also mean trust (to believe in.)

There’s no reason to believe that people in “hell” couldn’t believe in God. People can trust in God anywhere, unless you do something like redefine freewill or define freewill out of hell or believe he doesn’t want to save people after a certain cut off point.

We have very little nonbiblical writings from the first and second centuries and the works we have do not appear to be protected and preserved by the Holy Spirit,

Scripture does not say, “Jesus tried to convert dead people”.

I’m writing about the Bible though. The Bible and the most ancient reading of some parts of the Bible. It’s not written in those exact words, but it’s pretty dang close.

After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built….

For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.
​

So far as I’m aware there are only two historic readings of that material, the more modern reading that gained a lot of traction during the reformation, and the very ancient harrowing of hell.

So if you are willing to believe and trust the very ancient harrowing verses and the understanding built by early Christians, then it doesn’t say that Jesus “tried to convert the dead,” He actually did convert. He tried and was victorious.

It does not matter much to me.

I think believing in the Harrowing of hell is a real theological game changer.

The Holy Spirit “helps” all sinners up until the point they would never accept His help.

Why is the help in air quotes though? It’s genuine help, right? It’s not insincere or done with a mind to damn these people. I’m assuming Gods work to help the lost sinner comes from a heart that’s pure and good. God does help even the unwilling, that’s my point.

Free will is very much needed for Godly type Love which we have in heaven,

Freewill is needed for almost everything, not simply love. God says “choose this day whom you will serve,” and that whenever we sin He had made a way out for us. He had prepared a way to pick by our own freewill, but we often refuse.

Freewill is about whether we choose to stay in bed or wake up, whether we grumble or be thankful. It’s not so narrow a concept as “Godly love” or not. Freewill is intrinsic to human beings.

After satan rebelled against God in heaven, satan’s free will could be taken from him, it is only needed for Godly type Love.

Yet we know Satan freely decided to tempt Job and even Jesus into possibly hating or acting against the Lord, and since we know God tempts nobody, it wasn’t His doing. Satan prowls around seeking to devour, that’s not robotic or in the lap of God, it’s the free choice of an evil being. Freedom is bigger than the definition you have created.

Who kept the prodigal son away from his father? Did the rebellious, hateful, greedy, lustful son return to the father or a different person?

The prodigal son did that himself. The same person returned, just with another outlook. He humbled himself. These aren’t two different people anymore than you were different when you might have believed inaccurate things or been selfish in the past. God wants to save us even in our bad state.

A person who refuses to humbly accept pure undeserving charity (Godly type Love)

I believe the word you’re going for is “grace.” Christians have the word grace and they’ve been using it for a very long time.

When you redefine grace into Godly type love and attach to it loads of presuppositions like… “freedom is about godly type love and without godly type love we don’t need freedom,” you’re really inventing your own religion.

People act freely everyday without Gods grace or love or any type of theological attachment because freedom is an innate faculty of people.

Creating “godly type love” as this thing that freewill requires and that is also a synonym for grace and that’s going to be removed from people and Satan doesn’t have it isn’t biblical. None of those things are Bible verses, but you do prefer them over very biblical beliefs that the Christian community has held dear for over 1000 years.

It’s the same with inventing our own view of the atonement, since however exciting or invigorating the new beliefs may be, they’re not the Christian faith. The Christian faith is an ancient group activity, not one mans invention.

Things like the Harrowing of hell and the Christos Victor doctrine are Christian beliefs, they’re about community and being joined into Gods revealed truths. It’s not about innovations.

There is no carnal type love, it is all unselfishness, so what can be done with them in the spiritual realm?

I think what’s been done in the spiritual realm really depends on how you’re prepared to see the Bible and God.

If you’re prepared to obscure the early centuries of the Christian faith as being unguarded by Gods Spirit or lost to our communal sense of things, then the only thing that’s left is innovation and theories for people to entertain themselves with.

God bless you.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No, not meaning that. I mean it more along the lines of human beings already having their will oriented towards sin, in “bondage” to sin.

So, they’re in bondage to sin and unwilling to repent and believe in God without an initial act from Him, that initial act reorients the sinners ways so that they naturally want to believe and receive the things of God.

So, in that sense, it’s not forced, rather it’s that the persons nature has been reoriented so that they will to do right by Gods grace.

You wouldn’t believe anything like that?

I believe exactly that. And God has delivered on that initial act through Christ. Yet many still do not reorient themselves but reject God despite His having taken that initial act. If, despite having taken the initiative and having first shown how much He loves them, they remain steadfast in their rejection of Him, how other than just removing their will can God reconcile them to Himself. Additionally, if God must override them and remove their ability to decide in order to be reconciled, after having provided the means for voluntary reconciliation, is the result really reconciliation or is it simply forced submission?

Because they’re not really things, they’re just absurd combinations of words. Like demanding God create dry water or He’s not God.

One cannot have choices about something and be denied choices about that thing at the same time. Either one or the other but not both. God can however decide which of those things GHe prefers. Lutherans generally do not subscribe to fatalism nor do we try to place limits upon what God is capable of doing based upon what He may already be aware of. So we don't insist that because God knows what will happen that He caused it to happen. Except in the sense that He is the first cause and therefore everything that occurs is because he created the universe to begin with. We don't see God as a puppet master but as a Father that knows when and where his children will fail but allows them to do so as protecting them from themselves is not only a form of bondage but an impediment to the child becoming mature.

Forced love (in many minds) is like dry water or another absurdity, it’s a contradiction, the thing is lots of deterministic camps don’t believe it’s forced.

They use a rationale much like the one I’ve already shared, so I’m just probing to get a measure of how much Lutherans actually agree with those rationalisations to do with nature and willing and God reorienting the unbelievers.

In terms of your quote I defo believe that it’s more loving to allow people to live and move and operate freely, rather than be subject to divine power games. But then again I’m a libertarian, libertarian freewill is my bag. Not everybody shares that belief.

Even Psalms has the Lord saying He won’t lead people like an animal who needs to be steered this way or that.

So yeah, I’m genuinely trying to cut through the terminology fog. I’m sure you’ll revisit some of those ideas and share if they’re near to something you’d believe.

Love is something that must be freely given or it is not love at all. One cannot make another love one. That is part of the definition God created for love and it is intrinsic to it. It is God's nature to give love unconditionally. It is not our nature to do so. If He gives one His unconditional love and one rejects it, it is not God that is at fault. Demanding that God change the way love works in order to save those that do not wish to attain salvation or do not recognize the need for it is an unreasonable request.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Is this similar to the idea of God having two wills. Secret and explicit, permissive will and the will of decree. There’s a lot of branding that goes into teaching the same thing, so I’m asking here.

Not sure, it's just the terms St. Thomas used, he insists that God's will is one though so I do not think so.

 

[grasping the after wind]

This is the kind of things that’s very familiar to me, @grasping the after wind, since I’m well read in deterministic beliefs like 5 point Calvinism and Islam. About Martin Luthers public spat with Erasmus.

Luther's response was to reason that original sin incapacitates human beings from working out their own salvation, and that they are completely incapable of bringing themselves to God. As such, there is no free will for humanity because any will they might have is overwhelmed by the influence of sin.​

When God redeems a person, he redeems the entire person, including the will, which then is liberated to serve God. No one can achieve salvation or redemption through their own willpower—people do not choose between good or evil, because they are naturally dominated by evil, and salvation is simply the product of God unilaterally changing a person's heart and turning them to good ends.
​

This sounds a lot like my previous message to you. Which rounds the curve nicely back to my original question.

Just to be clear. You believe human beings are capable of being tormented, tortured or some variation of the word and they can refuse Gods offer to be reconciled? That’s possible?
​

Couldn’t God under Luthers scheme of things save absolutely everyone and there’s no way they could resist him, not unless he himself refused to “redeem the entire person, including their will.”

That’s not so much the unbeliever resisting but rather God sustaining the unbelief, like holding up a boxer after you’ve already knocked the sense out of him.

I find that "free will" is a bit differently defined from one person to the next. Some people deny the existence of any form of free will others accept that we re capable of making some decisions on our own and others consider that free will doesn't exist unless every whim we have is unopposed. These latter suggest that since we are not each of us in complete control the universe we have no free will at all.

Personally, I dispute the idea that people are completely dominated by evil. They are more dominated by self interest, pride and self love than by evil IMO. The two often coincide with each other but often do not. Human beings almost universally desire to be seen by others as good. They will often act in ways that are not evil out of compassion or sympathy or self interest or pride or self love or love of another or just to be seen as good by others. Humans are much more complex in my mind than Luther gives them credit for. People are not incapable of resisting temptation. We do so often. We are however incapable of consistently resisting temptation.


I do agree that we cannot bring ourselves to God. God , however comes to us and all we need to do is refrain from rejecting Him. Lutherans , and many other Christians believe that we cannot by our own willpower or actions cause ourselves to be reconciled to God. It is God who has made reconciliation available to us through His actions, not through ours. If we refuse to be reconciled it is on us.

I cannot speak for Luther or all of Lutheranism but I will give you my best personal opinion on the subject. I believe that the Lutheran POV does not allow for a scenario in which God forces those that reject Him to accept him or the Calvinist POV in which God saves who He wills to save and does nothing for the rest. Nor do I think there is anything in Lutheranism that would suggest that God forcing people to not reject God's Grace would constitute God making people reject it. The differences between Calvinism and Lutheranism are not that great but they are not infinitesimal either. One of the biggest points of contention between Calvin and Luther being that in Calvinism there is no way to either accept or reject salvation while in Lutheranism, though one cannot earn salvation or decide to accept it , one can reject it. For Calvin it is simply a matter of God's sovereignty being predominant and not being concerned with the collateral damage done to the non elect because they are left out. To Calvin they deserve what they get and God saving some despite their deserving the same is God being extremely magnanimous. In Calvinism the elect are no more worthy of God's grace than the non elect but God just chooses to proffer it upon some and not others. Luther would insist God sheds his Grace on all but some reject God's gift of Grace and God will not force them not to. I hope I am not misrepresenting anyone but that is how I have come to understand things. keeping in mind I am not a biblical or religious scholar and may well err in my understanding of the denominational doctrines.

 

[Saint Steven]

What is the meaning of "biblical"?

It means, if you ask a Damnationist for biblical support for their position they can give it to you. If you ask an Annihilationist for biblical support for their position they can give it to you. If you ask a Universalist for biblical support for their position they can give it to you.

But typically a person of any one of these groups will claim that the other two are not biblical. I'm the odd one that claims all three are biblical. I must be wrong. - lol

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It means, if you ask a Damnationist for biblical support for their position they can give it to you. If you ask an Annihilationist for biblical support for their position they can give it to you. If you ask a Universalist for biblical support for their position they can give it to you.

But typically a person of any one of these groups will claim that the other two are not biblical. I'm the odd one that claims all three are biblical. I must be wrong. - lol

... I guess we'll see how right or wrong you are when @Hmm comes on by ...

 

[Cormack]

I find that "free will" is a bit differently defined from one person to the next.

Yes and there’s a shared way for Lutherans to define freewill, part of the community belief that isn’t up for being obscured in the mess of internet opinions that are out there.

It’s true that everyone has their own ways, but not at high level Christian scholarship, up there there’s a bottleneck and only certain views thrive. The idea that its each to his own every man is his own religion only lives on forums, and those differently defined nuances about what freewill means are always on the side of the determinists.

And God has delivered on that initial act through Christ. Yet many still do not reorient themselves but reject God despite His having taken that initial act.

According to Luther the initial act is the irresistible reorientation of the sinners whole person, their will included. Gods wholly in charge of that process so it’s not within the fallen sinners power to come to God unless he does that work first.

Additionally, if God must override them and remove their ability to decide in order to be reconciled, after having provided the means for voluntary reconciliation, is the result really reconciliation or is it simply forced submission?

It’s up to the textbook Lutheran to say whether or not they’re going to allow that word (“forced”) to enter into their categories, which of course they wouldn’t because it’s an unflattering depiction of their God.

In the quote I shared it doesn’t say that the sinners freewill is overridden, rather it says, much like on Calvinism, “there is no free will for humanity because any will they might have is overwhelmed by the influence of sin.“ As a result of that no free will situation “people do not choose between good or evil, because they are naturally dominated by evil,” So God does step in and totally reorient their wills so that they can now choose good things over bad.

That’s Luthers view (the “founder” of Lutheranism.)

Personally, I dispute the idea that people are completely dominated by evil.

Humans are much more complex in my mind than Luther gives them credit for.

I cannot speak for Luther or all of Lutheranism but I will give you my best personal opinion on the subject.

keeping in mind I am not a biblical or religious scholar and may well err in my understanding of the denominational doctrines.

Do you think it’s slightly misleading to refer to yourself as a Lutheran when you reject so many standard beliefs within Lutheranism? Not to mention correcting Luther on his anthropology.

Lutherans generally do not subscribe to fatalism

We don't see God as a puppet master

5 point Calvinists would insist upon exactly the same words, despite their beliefs logically ending in fatalism and puppet master style deity. They would use an unspecified version of “freewill” (one that denies humans the ability to come to God,) in the very same way that Luther would have.

One cannot make another love one.

Neither Calvinists nor Lutherans teach that God is making or forcing love, their vocabulary won’t permit that, the only force that’s being applied is to the change of a fallen will so that they can now love God. That’s something you insist is exactly what you believe.

That’s not forced to love but rather forced to will in one particular direction. Mankind has no freedom in themselves to believe in and trust Gods appeals to be reconciled, not until he works the supernatural whammy on these people and changes their will. He “redeems the whole person, including their will,”

The force isn’t in loving, not in their vocabulary, the “force” isn’t even in the changing of their wills, because people don’t like the optics of using the word force. Seems to rapey for them.

If you believe God “redeems the sinners whole person, will included,” then you’re a textbook Lutheran who denies mankind’s ability to believe in God without a deterministic act on his part.

Under that scheme of things a good God could simply redeem the whole world from the jaws of sin and universalism would be true. Hence my observations and questions to you.

Just to be clear. You believe human beings are capable of being tormented, tortured or some variation of the word and they can refuse Gods offer to be reconciled? That’s possible?
​

They couldn’t resist God under the Lutheran model unless God wanted them to be successful in resisting him. If he won’t unilaterally redeem their wills then there’s no hope of these people believing, once more from Luther and Erasmus.

and salvation is simply the product of God unilaterally changing a person's heart and turning them to good ends.

If you reject those ideas then you’re (at best) an inconsistent Lutheran.

Demanding that God change the way love works in order to save those that do not wish to attain salvation or do not recognize the need for it is an unreasonable request.

God can redeem their wills and must do so or they’ll never believe, and that’s according to Luther, meaning if anyone isn’t saved (just like in 5 point Calvinism) it’s because God hasn’t seen fit to reorient their will so that they “freely” love him.

If He gives one His unconditional love and one rejects it, it is not God that is at fault.

Calvinists would write the same because they don’t like the word “fault.” If God (according to Luther) must redeem mans will or they won’t love him, and God refuses to redeem that will, whose “fault” is it that man won’t change and love God?

Normal people would reply it’s Gods fault because He’s withholding the one thing those people need in order to love Him. He could free them up so they could love and worship him but he won’t.

Calvinists would say “the sinners is at fault because they freely choose not to believe!” You can see the disingenuous nature of their language here.

Seems to me that Lutheranism has that same disheartening language problem.

 

[Cormack]

Some people deny the existence of any form of free will

They’re determinists.

others accept that we re capable of making some decisions on our own

Libertarians (and sneaky determinists.)

and others consider that free will doesn't exist unless every whim we have is unopposed.

These latter suggest that since we are not each of us in complete control the universe we have no free will at all.

Those are determinists strawmanning freewill theism. There’s only two types of believer in those above quotes, point 3 is just a really bad argument made by the people who populate group 1 (the determinists.)

Of course their position is incredibly lame since nobody believes freewill to mean doing our every whim (e.g. flying, turning into jello, change gender.) It’s just another attempt at artificially nuancing the debate in favour of determinism.

I do agree that we cannot bring ourselves to God.

You shared that you believe we cannot believe in God without him first reorienting our wills and changing man by supernatural means. Your words “I believe exactly that.”

So, like the Calvinists, you’re a determinist. You’re not a believer in libertarian freewill but rather in “compatiblism,” the belief that freewill and determinism are compatible.

This making freewill and determinism compatible is “achieved” by redefining freewill from the ability to do otherwise in any given situation into “acting in line with ones nature.” Now this opens the door for God to change and reorient our natures however he sees fit.

So to be very clear and plain. You are a determinist, you do believe God must change mans will or they will never believe in God of their own doing, this change Luther has told us is “unilateral.”

Unilateral = (of an action or decision) performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a situation, without the agreement of another or the others.

If you believe that God can be resisted in this unilateral matter, then once again you’re being an inconsistent Lutheran. Which is fine. It’s not a crime to be inconsistent, but doing so does lead into more absurdities and contradictions for your view (more than are already present in determinist theologies.)

Lutherans , and many other Christians believe that we cannot by our own willpower or actions cause ourselves to be reconciled to God.

Nobody believes we can be reconciled to God by our own willpower. There are two reasons for this belief, which one do you believe in…?

1. It requires synergy. God is forgiving and we must act to receive that forgiveness freely, it’s a two way thing and couldn’t be done alone. That grace of God is accepted freely, not “freely” as in Calvinism and Lutheranism, but truly free and in no manner are our wills deterministically coerced.

2. Man can’t do it by his own freewill because it’s the unilateral choice and act of God. God saves and nobody else is part of the choice.

You’ve written things as if you believe in both of these points at different times.

I believe that the Lutheran POV does not allow for a scenario in which God forces those that reject Him to accept him or the Calvinist POV in which God saves who He wills to save and does nothing for the rest.

It’s unilateral so it’s “forced” to everyone who isn’t a determinist, Calvinists and Lutherans just don’t like that word.

 

[Cormack]

he insists that God's will is one though so I do not think so.

So when God says He desires that the wicked turn from their way and live, do you feel that’s one of His wills or His genuine undivided will?

 

[Strong in Him]

Would you consider Abraham asking “will not the God of all the earth do right” arguing with God the Father?

Of course not; that's a statement of faith, not argument.

Do you think He recoils at people having their own ideas.

No.

you’re allowed your own opinions and preferences.

I know.

If only for the purpose of having those preferences corrected by the God you love, believing “it’s not my place” does strike me as you seeing God as a sort of tyrant.

Not in the slightest; I don't know how you came up with that conclusion.

The question of this thread is "would you prefer it if Christian universalism were true?"
My only comment was that it doesn't really matter what I prefer; it's not up to me. Yes, of course I can have an opinion and say to God "I wish everyone was saved in the end". But to say "I'd have preferred it if you had done this", sounds critical and rather arrogant - like, "If you'd wanted my advice Lord, I would have said it was better to ......".
How does saying, "it's not for me to question God's actions" mean that I believe that he is a tyrant? I believe Scripture actually says somewhere that it is not for the clay to question the potter.

God IS love - and compassionate, merciful, kind, just and so on.
He is not a tyrant at all.

 

[ozso]

Would you prefer it if “Christian universalism” were true?

Hell no. Burn baby burn!

 

[Hmm]

A random post to see if it kicks this very useful discussion over the 100 page threshold... probably not, but we all have to dream!

 

[Hmm]

I see that it didn't. Most embarrassing.

 

[Saint Steven]

I see that it didn't. Most embarrassing.

It should turn when we hit the posts per page limit. Come on baby, let's roll to the next page...

Nope. - lol

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm not sure if I would prefer it if Christian Universalism is true, in interest of God being able to do "more than we can imagine or think" I'm leaving some room in my expectations for God to do something way better.