Jesus was addressing the resurrection in both clauses. For He was responding to Martha’s statement, “I know that he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.” We agree in our understanding of the first clause.

Here is an interlinear of the second clause in Greek:

και πας--------ὁ---- ζων–και πιστεων εἰς–ἐμε οὐ μη–ἀποθανη εἰς–ton αιωνα
and everyone the living and trusting—into me not not dies------into the age

My translation: and everyone who lives and entrusts himself to me by no means continues in death right into the next age.

When Jesus answers anyone he often does not limit his response to answering only the question but often expands his response to give additional info.
So while i acknowledge your ability in translating Koine greek Paidion , in this case i think the bible translators got it right that Jesus is simply saying
if you believe in him , physical death has been conquered.

At last, Gabe, I am posting an argument that I think shows that the idea of the reconcilation of all people to God is consistent with libertarian free will.

I believe that God won’t violate human free will. I also believe that of their own free will all human beings will, sooner or later, choose to be reconciled to God. (and I don’t believe a person’s character magically changes post-mortem).

I believe that God is pure LOVE (1 John 4:8,16), and that He will never give up on anyone. For that reason, everyone will eventually submit to his authority.

I believe in libertarian free will, which in its simplest form means “the ability to choose.” Though determinists of both flavours (hard and soft determinism, the latter also called “compatibilism”) may speak of “choosing”, they don’t actually believe that we, ourselves, are the cause of the acts we perform, but that they are all caused by forces, either external or internal. Libertarians define “free will” in words similar to the following: “If person P has at time T chose to perform action A in circumstances C, then P COULD HAVE chosen not to perform A at T in C.” Determinists do not admit such a possibility. For them the only way P would not have chosen to perform A, is if T and/or C were different from what they actually were.

The reason that some think that the eventual reconciliation of all to God is inconsistent with libertarian free will, is that they suppose that some people could resist the influences of God forever. But is this possible?

Here on earth we often act in accordance to influences upon us. But we don’t have to do so.

Some examples:

1. A father spanks his child for infraction of a family rule. Many children are trained to obey by this rather strong influence. But some children will disobey in spite of the spankings.

2. A gunman threatens a room full of people by displaying his gun. He says, “Just put your wallets and purses on the table there, and after I have collected them I’ll let you go.” Most people in the room will comply, hoping to avoid being shot thereby. This is a VERY strong influence indeed! But one individual refuses, thinking that the gunman might not shoot him and as a consequence face a murder charge.

No influence, no matter how strong, is a CAUSE of a free-will agent’s behaviour. It is but an influence. Therefore free will prevails, even though many choices are strongly influenced.

In this life many people feel that they have no evidence even of the existence of God. But post-mortem, they will become aware of Him, repent and submit to his authority. Many know that God exists, but believe him to be evil, bringing vengeance and harm or extreme punishment on people, and so they rebel against God, not knowing his true character. But post-mortem, they will sooner or later become aware of his charcter, and submit to Him.

There may be some people who will rebel against God, even knowing that He is pure LOVE. They may continue in a state of rebellion for a long time. But with God influencing them (and possibly also the perfected saints, the sons of God who will be manifested, for whom the whole creation is groaning), it will be rather likely that they will submit to God. Well, if they truly have libertarian free will, is it not possible that some of them will hold out forever? It is theoretically possible, but not practically possible. Remember, we’re talking about FOREVER here! Maybe they can hold out for a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years. But forever? If they have the will power to hold out forever, won’t they be equal to God in will power? I don’t think they can be. Only God is infinite in his attributes. He has no equals.

This scenario might be compared to affirming that if you throw a million dice in the air as often as you like, they will NEVER all turn up sixes.

The probability of getting a six when throwing one die is 1 in 6.
Therefore if you thow the die 6 times, you will probably get a 6 at least once more often than not.

If you throw two dice, the probability of both being sixes is 1 in 6².
Therefore if you throw 2 dice 6² (or 36) times, you will probably get both sixes at least once, more often than not.

If you throw three dice, the probability of all three being sixes is 1 in 6³.
Therefore if you throw 3 dice 6³ (or 216) times, you will probably get all sixes at least once, more often than not.

If you throw a million dice the probability of all the dice being sixes is 1 in 6 exponent 1,000,000.

Therefore if you throw 1,000,000 dice, 6 exponent 1,000,000 times (an incredibly large number), you will probably get all sixes at least once, more often than not.

But as large a number as 6 exponent 1,000,000 is, it is not an infinitely large number. Thus all sixes WILL turn up sooner or later. If you toss all those dice FOREVER, you are CERTAIN to get all sixes (though theoretically, it might never happen).

That’s why, with the influence of God and perhaps his perfected saints, it is CERTAIN that every person will sooner or later submit to Him (though theoretically, it might never happen). But again, if it never happens, then someone has a will as invincible as God’s.

Paidion,

Thanks for the post. I pretty much see it the same way you see it. We do have real choices, we can chose good over evil, but we don’t get to chose the choices that are offered to us. So, I think we are on the same page.

I was just thinking about the title of this post “God won’t viloate human free will”. And it struck me a ludicrous.
I mean, I did not choose:

1. to be born,
2. to be bald,
3. to have a good father and mother,
4. to be healthy
5. to have a supportive personality
6. to have an ‘ok’ IQ
7. to be born in this present evil age
8. to be born in the USA.
9. to have brothers but no sisters, to not be an only child
10. to… well, you get my point.

And I don’t see in scripture and emphasis on human free will. Scripture speaks of us as being slaves of unrighteousness (through no choice of our own), dead in our iniquities (through no choice of our own). And it takes Jesus to set us free and give us life so where does this Human Free Will stuff actually come in. Slaves and the dead have no free will. One must be “Free” and “Alive” to truly have “Free Will”, I think.

That’s a good observation, Sherman. When we have been set free, then we are free. I like that.
Of course, once we have been delivered from Egypt, there is still a promised land to be won.

And I don’t see in scripture and emphasis on human free will. Scripture speaks of us as being slaves of unrighteousness (through no choice of our own), dead in our iniquities (through no choice of our own). And it takes Jesus to set us free and give us life so where does this Human Free Will stuff actually come in. Slaves and the dead have no free will. One must be “Free” and “Alive” to truly have “Free Will”, I think.

We clearly don’t have literal free will but i think when this phrase is used biblically it generally means we have the ability to make choices. Of course even these choices are influenced by a million things so whatever it is we have, it is of a limited nature.

“Choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh 24:15). That is essentially what free will is —— the ability to choose.

Slaves have not lost their ability to choose. Throughout history, some slaves have chosen to disobey.

I have not found the phrase “dead in iniquities” anywhere in scripture. But I did find “dead in tresspasses and sin” (Eph 2:1). To be “dead in sin” does not imply extinction of our ability to choose.

Jesus is necessary in order to be set free from sin. But He won’t set us free unilaterally. We must coöperate with his enabling grace. “Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain” (2Cor 6:1 RSV). In order to coöperate with Him, we must exercise our ability to choose to do so.

Incorrect. As I have indicated above, slaves have not lost their ability to choose. Some have even chosen to disobey, even when they are aware of the consequences. When you sayh “the dead have no free will”, you now seem to be using “dead” in the sense of physical death. But those who are “dead in sin” still are able to make choices. They are “dead” in the sense that they do not possess the joyous LIFE which is available in Messiah Jesus.

Agreed, we do have the ability to make some choices, but as you note those choices are very limited in nature. In fact, I think I’ll start a new thread on Factors that determine who we are.

Let me throw a spanner into the works. The argument that God does not or will not violate the libertarian freedom of his creatures presupposes that God is external to the creature, that divine action somehow competes with free human action, that divine causality interferes with creaturely causality. But what is the transcendence of God means that his action in the depths of the human soul cannot interfere with human freedom precisely because God is the creator of human freedom and is thus “closer to us than we are to ourselves” (St Augustine)?

This is a question I have been wrestling with for years, and I simply cannot figure it all out, but I am persuaded that the Arminian account of human freedom is deficient because it does not recognize the radical difference between God and creatures. It is this difference, the divine transcendence, that grounds the divine immanence and precludes us from ever identifying the “causal crux” between divine action and human actions.

And it just so happens that this is the position of St Thomas Aquinas: goo.gl/T5JRB3.

I think you raise an excellent point Fr. Kimel - when I was reading Tillich last year I struggled for awhile with his idea that, rather than being a Supreme Being among other beings, God is the ‘ground’ of Being. (Perhaps “Being” itself - which is another and fascinating study).
A few people raised the question, that I myself had at the time, whether this meant - to Tillich - that God was not a ‘person’. And the way Tillich lays it out, it is difficult to find Personhood in that ‘ground’.
About that time, [tag]alecforbes[/tag] and I were discussing panentheism, which really ties in at this juncture: if God is not ‘just’ a being at the top of the great ‘chain of being’, but is in fact the power of Being itself, then all that is, is because He continually gives it being.

Whoa, almost got to the deep end of the pool there.

Your spanner really woke me up this morning!

Note thought that Joshua was speaking to the children of God, those born into relationship with God and his chosen people, giving them, well, encouraging them to follow God with him. Of course, the choice was, follow God or die in the desert; hmm, not much of a choice. My point is that free will is a factor in who a person is, but not much of a factor.

Yes, we all have a “rebellious” side to us, but did we choose to be “rebellious”. And it seems that some are just born bent that way, much more so than others. Did they choose this personality type? Nope. So is there “choice” a result of the rebellion they are born in or truly a choice?

I have not found the phrase “dead in iniquities” anywhere in scripture. But I did find “dead in tresspasses and sin” (Eph 2:1). To be “dead in sin” does not imply extinction of our ability to choose.
No, but it does imply that we are predisposed to sin. And if one is predisposed to sin and then falls to that predisposition, are they then fully making that choice? Or is the choice simply a natural outflow of the predisposition to sin. It is the later, I think. Thus one needs to be delivered from the predisposition to sin before one can really choose.

Jesus is necessary in order to be set free from sin. But He won’t set us free unilaterally. We must coöperate with his enabling grace. “Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain” (2Cor 6:1 RSV). In order to coöperate with Him, we must exercise our ability to choose to do so.
Some people seem to be predisposed to cooperate with God because of their personality type, environment, and call on their life. Others seem to be predisposed to not cooperate with God because of those factors. I was one born with a call on my life; but many people do not have such a call. I’m reminded of something I heard said, that in systematic theology they were Arminian, but in experiencial theology they were Calvinistic.

Incorrect. As I have indicated above, slaves have not lost their ability to choose. Some have even chosen to disobey, even when they are aware of the consequences. When you sayh “the dead have no free will”, you now seem to be using “dead” in the sense of physical death. But those who are “dead in sin” still are able to make choices. They are “dead” in the sense that they do not possess the joyous LIFE which is available in Messiah Jesus.
The more I ponder my own salvation, reconciliation to God, the more I am humbled by the reality that He chose me, pursued me, saved me in spite of myself. I was so deep in Christian religious pride in self-righteousness, that I didn’t even know that was surrounded by it and drowing in it. God intervined in my life when I didn’t even know I needed it. I was “dead” and didn’t have a clue what it meant to be “alive”, though from childhood I was predisposed to have a tremendous hunger/love for God.
[/quote]

Imagine a bunch of literal alcoholics. Further imagine that they spend all day in a bar which serves unlimited free drinks.

That is how much free will I think we have here on earth. We can always choose not to sin. Every single sin we commit is our own fault because our own choice. That said, we are all alcoholics surrounded by drinks. Realistically speaking, we are going to sin a lot–and (alas) we do. All this sinning is the result of not having enough freedom, not because we have too much freedom. The more we sin, the less free we are. The less we sin, the more free we are.

Well said.

In reference to Geoffrey’s post above: I will go a bit astray here, not trying to hijack the thread, but I will give Rumi’s perspective on drunkenness and salvation.

All day I think about it, then at night I say it.
Where did I come from, and what am I supposed to be doing?
I have no idea.
My soul is from elsewhere, I’m sure of that,
and I intend to end up there.

This drunkenness began in some other tavern.
When I get back around to that place,
I’ll be completely sober. Meanwhile,
I’m like a bird from another continent, sitting in this aviary.
The day is coming when I fly off,
but who is it now in my ear who hears my voice?
Who says words with my mouth?

Who looks out with my eyes? What is the soul?
I cannot stop asking.
If I could taste one sip of an answer,
I could break out of this prison for drunks.
I didn’t come here of my own accord, and I can’t leave that way.
Whoever brought me here will have to take me home.

This poetry, I never know what I’m going to say.
I don’t plan it.
When I’m outside the saying of it,
I get very quiet and rarely speak at all.

Paidion never said our choices were without influence, just that we have the ability to choose. Just because most people take the path of least resistance, doesn’t mean they always will. That said, I do agree with what most of you say. I have long argued that we are not free in the sense that we can make choices free of influence or restrictions. But we definitely can choose good over evil and we can do it consistently. I am sure we all pretty much are on the same page, just probably have different ways to express it.

But even choosing good over evil is at some level, self-preservation. It isn’t like we are good for the sole purpose of being good. There is intrinsic reward. Think about it, doing good gives one a “clear conscience”, it keeps one from making foolish mistakes. Christ himself appeals to the rewards of being good. So being good is about choosing the rewards that don’t perish, versus the rewards that are short lived and do… That is my take on it anyway. That said, I want to do good for the sake of good, but if I look inward, that is because I hate evil… That in and of itself is incentive. There is something about doing the right thing that is so… satisfying. Jesus knew this.

Doing good for the sake of doing good is called love- the perfect law of liberty.

“It is God who is in you to will and to work His good pleasure.”

How is this for a twist on things?

A logical conundrum put to me by atheists led to me to a radical position in favor of Free Will, and that in turn became the basis for the doctrine of Universal Restoration, all from the Garden of Eden story. The balance of scripture only confirms this by reading consistently with it. Unlike other proofs, my conclusions do not depend on any other passages from scripture beyond the introduction of Original Sin into the world.

The conundrum put to me by the atheists is typically referred to as “The Problem of Evil” or the “Epicurean Paradox”. They believe it cannot be answered, and that it therefore logically proves the impossibility of the existence of a Creator who is Benevolent and Omniscient and Omnipotent.

If he is Benevolent, then he should not want bad things (Evil) to happen to us, his creation.
If he is Omniscient, he should have known that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit, and that Evil would enter into the world
If he is Omnipotent, he should have the power to prevent the problem in the first place, or to fix it.

Now the church does have an answer to this, and that is that God did not introduce Evil into the world. Man did, by disobeying God’s command in the Garden. It is telling that this is the very first story after the Creation. God thought it important to explain “The Problem” right from the outset.

But it turns out that the church has made a hash of this, because further doctrine undoes this simple explanation. Here is how:

For man to bear ultimate responsibility, God must have given Adam and Eve total Free Will. They had to be completely in control of their choice, for if God gets even 1% credit for it, then he is implicated in the Evil that followed. It should be obvious that Calvinism falls over on this point alone. But even if Calvin believed that Adam and Eve had complete Free Will, this has all changed, and Total Depravity means that today we do NOT have the same choice. So, without such a choice ourselves, how can God possibly hold us accountable by sending us to Hell for eternity? How can a Benevolent God punish us at all for something we have no control over?

It is worth pointing out that Paul starts out his dissertation on Predestination in Romans 9 through 11 with this very objection. And without going into the finer points, it must be noted that he reaches a conclusion of Universal Restoration that seems so contradictory in some ways that he can only declare it to be a “mystery” and beyond his own understanding. Verse after verse of chapter 11 points to Universal Restoration, but his final answer to the apparent contradiction is:

“For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.”

In brief, all the bad things Paul discusses are temporary in nature. And they serve the purpose of bringing about an ultimate redemptive good.

But Paul’s answer does not detract from the logic that only a radical view of Free Will on the part of Adam and Eve keeps God clear of all blame for the Evil they brought into the world. They made a choice that was contrary to God’s will, and God made a choice to leave them completely free to do so, despite the Evil consequences he knew that would entail. God willingly limited his own omnipotence in giving Free Will to man. And due to his Omniscience, we must also conclude that this was the Benevolent thing to do, because he was aware of a greater good that could come from it.

Which then means we must ask, what is that greater good? What was the point of the exercise? The standard church answer is that God wanted a few who would worship him out of their own Free Will, which is true worship, even if it meant sending the vast majority off to eternal damnation (or annihilation). This is a very unsatisfactory answer. As others have pointed out, we can never have completely Free Will in every respect. Just for a start, we don’t get to choose where we are born. Can a Benevolent God have babies born in pagan cultures who will never hear the Gospel, and turn around and condemn them for the fact that they were born in the wrong place? There must be a bigger plan.

And without going into a debate as to how this is to be accomplished for those who die before it is achieved (purgatory, reincarnation, resurrection, etc.), that bigger plan is Universal Restoration. We must all return to that state of perfection enjoyed by Adam and Eve, but this time, armed with the knowledge of the consequences of sin, we will choose of our own Free Will to do God’s will.

But what is “God’s will”? If God is good and he is benevolent, then his will can be understood to be anything and everything that leads to a good (positive) outcome for all. Everything else, everything that has a bad (negative) outcome for anyone is NOT God’s will. It is Sin. It misses the mark.

So Free Will, in a radical yet practical sense, must be complete freedom on our part to choose to obey or disobey God’s will. Which is another way of saying that we freely choose to do what is best for us (collectively) every time. Only such a construct allows us to each have uniquely individual identities (unlike the ideal of Eastern religions) and yet all enjoy a paradise with God, where nothing bad ever happens. We were each made “in the image of God”, and this process makes us more and more like God and “at one” with God, without being indistinguishable from our Creator.

If this is clear, it should then be apparent that this is the most incredible gift that God can give us. We are little gods in training, as it were, just as Jesus answered the Pharisees. “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”

And there does not seem to be any other way to accomplish this. “Behold, the man is become as one of us, knowing good and evil.” We cannot be like God without understanding Evil and its consequences. We have to know why Evil IS evil, because then we understand why God’s ways are the only good option for us. We obey God because we want to, because we choose to, and not out of fear.

As you can see, the entire emphasis shifts to the consequences of sin itself. It is those consequences that we must learn to want to avoid. Not some fear of eternal punishment. In one sense, this was the failure proven by the Law of Moses. It listed many sins to be avoided, but rather than just leaving the consequences as sufficient punishment, it sought to use the fear of imposed extra punishments as a deterrent. The bulk of the Old Testament is taken up with stories of what a colossal failure this approach was. But when Jesus tried to point this out, he found that the Pharisees believed in this failed approach as strongly as ever. And sparks flew.

The final piece of the puzzle is a correction of the church doctrine of Total Depravity, which even the catholic church subscribes to in a looser form. That doctrine denies us Free Will altogether, and says that this does not change until we die. Yet this is not the picture painted by Paul or Jesus or even Jeremiah in the Old Testament. Jeremiah said that days were coming when the Law would be written on our hearts. Jesus makes clear that this applies to us today when he says, “Ye must be Born Again”. Paul repeats this with, “consider ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Peter says the same thing.

The New Birth must be understood to restore to us that perfect Free Will that Adam and Eve enjoyed. It must be available to us today, not only after we die. It must enable us to literally put into practice Jesus’ admonition to, “Be ye perfect”, and to take seriously the instructions of John: “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.” If we do not see our way clear to pursue this here and now, then perhaps we have not fully grasped the implications of what it takes to be “Born Again”. I have some ideas in that regard, but will save those for another day.

The point is that this logical construct that follows from the Garden of Eden story, and that we find reflected in one key scripture after another, makes us personally responsible for our own Restoration to that Edenic state of Paradise, and gives us a role here and now in God’s Universal Restoration. Far from warning people about hell-fire and brimstone, we are to be telling them the Good News about how to join in God’s plan for their ultimate Restoration, and indeed, “the Restoration of all things.”

It is this final point that is the most drastic alteration to prevailing theology. Because presently we have churches full of people who accept that they are “all miserable sinners” who can only sit around and wait for Christ to show up again and fix everything. They don’t even have a picture of the Restoration. Just imagine if the real problem is that Jesus has already given complete instructions and is now waiting for them (and us) to put them into practice. Imagine if present theology has the church 180 degrees out of sync with God’s plan. We are all sitting around waiting for God to act, and yet he has done his job and is now waiting for us to act! I do expect sparks to fly.

Thinking about this a bit more, the problem is not with Total Depravity itself. The problem is whether or not we can gain power to be free from sin in this lifetime. Calvinism, and Protestantism in general seems to say, “No”.

The Catholic teaching on Baptism, and especially on “Actual Grace” seems to say, “Yes”. Encouragingly, the catholics are especially clear on the fact that God wants ALL men to be saved. See “The universality of actual grace”, towards the end of this article:

newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm

Which means the problem arises when we fail to understand how to access Actual Grace: God’s power to obey his will in this lifetime.

Protestants mostly say it is impossible to be perfect in this life. Catholics mostly assume the same thing, then go to confession.

The missing element in a doctrine of Universal Restoration is the mechanism for purifying ourselves from sin, so that we can consistently do the will of our Father.

Either we can access the mechanism here and now, or it must exist in the afterlife, or in the next life.

But if it exists in the next life, then it is available to us now. The problem is merely one of understanding. Waiting for the next life is the wrong approach, even if belief in reincarnation was correct.

If it happens after death, in a place like purgatory, then we have to ask what the purpose of this life is. The simple fact that the Bible is full of instructions on what we should do in this life and rather quiet on the subject of purgatory should point us to the conclusion that we have simply missed the mechanism that God has made available to us here and now.

To the extent that Protestantism denies the existence of such a mechanism (and denies purgatory as well) it nullifies the broad teaching of scripture, as it absolves us of personal responsibility. Why bother doing anything good at all in this life, if God will simply snap his fingers and “fix” us once we die? Why didn’t he do that at the start? What is the purpose served by 70 or so years of guaranteed sinning?

The catholic church affirms the mechanism, linking it to Baptism, but then leaves things in a mystical state. You are supposed to believe that you simply rise up out of the waters “born again”, a new creature in Christ. “Presto, change-o, God has fixed you. And if he didn’t, the priest is here at 9am every day to hear your confession.”

Add to this the fact that most catholics were baptized as infants, so they were supposed to be perfect from the time they were even conscious. So it is understandable if this good teaching of the church fails to connect with them in a meaningful way. The net effect is the same as with the Protestants, even if the theology diverges widely.

So we find ourselves in need of discovering this mechanism whereby God radically changes us, that we read about in Scripture:

“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”
Romans 8:2

And if this mechanism is available to us, then it is available to all men, and a Universal Restoration becomes possible.

Today, in absence of a clearly understood mechanism for accessing Actual Grace, a Universal Restoration remains just theory, with folks debating about purgatory, and other ways it might happen after they are dead.

Once we know the mechanism, so that we see how we ourselves will be restored in this life, we can then carry on the less important debate of what happens to those who died without discovering the mechanism and accessing Actual Grace while alive.

Today, in absence of a clearly understood mechanism for accessing Actual Grace, a Universal Restoration remains just theory, with folks debating about purgatory, and other ways it might happen after they are dead.

Once we know the mechanism, so that we see how we ourselves will be restored in this life, we can then carry on the less important debate of what happens to those who died without discovering the mechanism and accessing Actual Grace while alive.

Nice to hear your thoughts Gorden. The general UR belief regarding what you may call “purgatory” we would call the Lake of Fire which is a place of restoration through purification. Not all URs see it exactly this way but i think most do. You quoted what i guess you think most Protestants believe but their thoughts and beliefs nowadays are very diversified. Even original sin and even free will are open to examination. I myself think that evil didn’t just accidently make it’s way into human life. I think we mostly learn by contrast therefore to know good we must know evil. They were in the same tree by God’s design and it was God who said “the man knowing good and evil has become like us.” Evil in the hands of man is sinful but in the hands of God may be a learning tool that is a painful but necessary lesson.

Gordon, I am sympathetic with much of what you wrote, but I think a part of your theory is dashed against the jagged rocks of historical fact. In Christian history, where are the sinless ones? Even the very greatest of saints looked into their own hearts, and they were appalled by what they saw.