The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Free Willism or God's Soeveignty in Salvation of All

The weakness in your argument is easily shown. Salvation is not $100 laying on the sidewalk. Instead, mankind is guilty and justice apart from Christ demands eternal separation from Holy God. The perfect holiness of God cannot endure the tiniest blemish. No sin can stand in his presence. However, the good news is that there is no apart from Christ and so justice because of Christ instead demands our eternal salvation. The sacrifice of Christ endured all on our behalf removing our every blemish. The argument of this thread is that man’s will, free or not, has nothing whatsoever so do with the absolution of sin at the cross. The supposed accepting or rejecting the cross with a ‘free will’ or a ‘bound will’ has no impact on whether we are eternally forgiven. Instead all mankind is already forgiven at the cross apart from our will. Of course the gospel also adds that no one will believe this happy news apart from a super natural rebirth initiated by the Holy Spirit in the individual’s life.

1 Like

I remember Mister Peabody. He’s the smart cartoon dog, who invented time travel, via the “wayback machine.” I never thought he would show up - on this forum. Now I just gave some potential troll, a new avatar name. :exclamation: :laughing:

Perhaps I should share the Wiki summary. :smiley:

Virtually the entirety of the free will vs. predestination debate takes place within the theological system of Augustine of Hippo (A. D. 354-430), of which Roman Catholicism and classical Protestantism (i. e., Lutheranism and Calvinism) are variants. This system is outside of Orthodoxy.

I agree with Orthodox archpriest Sergius Bulgakov (A. D. 1871-1944) that the salvation of the entirety of God’s creation is ontologically necessary. That is, it cannot be otherwise. We are not merely lucky to have a deity that happened to decide on universalism from amongst various options. No. Instead, we worship the Holy Trinity, and the Trinity’s very essence makes universalism necessary.

I also state with certainty that (for example) if a man unknowingly drops $100, I can either give the money to him or I can keep it for myself. Either course of action is entirely possible. God did not predestine me to give the money back, nor did God predestine me to keep the money.

The above two paragraphs do not contradict one another.

I likewise agree with this statement. In fact to agree with this statement is to also agree that man does not have the ‘free will’ to resist final salvation. For the heart of the ‘free will’ debate has nothing to do with $100 fallen on the ground, but concerning man’s final destiny. Is an individual human being’s final destiny a function of their free will choice or a function of God’s sovereign choice? Afterall ‘free will’ is merely an ugly misguided theological invention by those who believe in eternal damnation to explain why some are saved and some are not.

Good points Jeff. Also, Catholics such as St. Thomas Aquinas believe in predestination. But they also believe in the paradox of free will. God doesn’t predestine anyone to hell. Those that hold to the certainty of hell like Tomas Aquinas believe God permits people to go to hell with their own free choice. God is in complete control but he permits evil and suffering. These views of providence and predestination were held by Thomas Aquinas and St. John of The Cross (The mystical Doctor of Catholicism). They lay the foundation for contemplation and Christian perfection. For with God in control and my future in His hands I have hope. This leads to union with Christ. You can read more about this in the books, “Predestination”, “Providence”, and “Christian Perfection and Contemplation” by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. He was the teacher of Pope John Paul II and expert on Thomas Aquinas. Moreover, in the Catholic Handbook of Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli it states:

It’s the Eastern Orthodox who are off. As G.K. Chesterton says on the issue of predestination and free will:

“I agree with Orthodox archpriest Sergius Bulgakov (A. D. 1871-1944) that the salvation of the entirety of God’s creation is ontologically necessary. That is, it cannot be otherwise. We are not merely lucky to have a deity that happened to decide on universalism from amongst various options. No. Instead, we worship the Holy Trinity, and the Trinity’s very essence makes universalism necessary.”

I think the good Bulgakov is rowing against some heavy seas with those statements. The term ‘ontologically necessary’ would take a heap of explaining, unless it is meant as a mystical statement. And the relation between the trinity and necessary universalism just doesn’t hold.

Yes, of course this all imo, Randy! :smiley:

Hardly!

One does not even need to be a careful Bible student to observe that every mention of mystery in the New Testament is not a mystery introduced, but instead a mystery revealed or explained by the advent of Christ. Christ does not bring question marks, but instead answers. Why would one cling to mystery when answer has been provided? I can only figure it is because they do not like the answers.

I have written at length about the ‘mystery’ strategy of the unbelieving to dodge the bullet of sovereign grace.

dgjc.org/optimism/mystery-in-the-middle

dgjc.org/optimism/real-or-apparent-paradox

Well, Jeff, the whole history of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant traditions, have produced some outstanding mystics.

As to whether they are sane or not, one need only consult the classics - on the topic. Which would be Mysticism: A Study in the Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness by Evelyn Underhill and **The Varieties of Religious Experience ** by William James.

Among my favorite Christian mystics are:

The desert fathers of Eastern Orthodox, Hesychasm and the theological concept of Theosis
The Roman Catholic mystics Meister Eckhart, Hildegard of Bingen, Julian of Norwich and Thomas Merton
In the Protestant tradition, George Fox and Jakob Böhme. Which includes the Quaker tradition, of the inner light. And if you can get through the terse language of Böhme and understand him, you can get through most written works.

One can find the books on Amazon. And in the US, can obtain them (though your local, public library, adult reference librarian).

One can put the mystics I referenced, into Google or Bing. There’s a Wiki article on each.

Of course, if one is both a Christian mystic and member of the Holy Fools tradition, the question of “sanity” is blurred. But I would say it’s more a “staged” insanity. Much like the “comic relief”, in a serious Shakespeare play. :exclamation: :laughing:

I am sorry to hear that, but happy to notice that you did not include Jesus or Apostle Paul on your list. You will not find a mystical statement from them.

Another point I would make, is that not all Christian (and non Christian) mystics, prosued the path of mysticism. Mysticism pursued them. For example:

George Fox was trying to asking obtain answers. This is related in his Quaker journal:

Then he had a vision of Christ, as the inner light. What’s little known, is that George Fox, also had the gift of healing.

Jakob Böhme was a shoe cobbler and a Lutheran. He didn’t pursue mystical experiences. But as Wiki Mentions:

Setting aside man’s final destiny for a moment:

I have before me a red Lego brick and a yellow Lego brick. I am going to snap them together. I can either A) put the yellow brick on top of the red, or B) put the red brick on top of the yellow.

snap

I put the yellow brick on top of the red.

Now the question: Is it possible that I could have put the red brick on top instead of the yellow brick on top? Or was I predestined to put the yellow brick on top, thereby making it impossible that I could have put the red brick on top?

Jeff,

A mystic is one who goes by their intuition and experience (heart). They are into poems and stories. Jesus told many stories and parables. To say He never made a mystical statement is absurd. Mystics share their experiences. Moreover when you read the Bible you see teachings that can only be understood from experiencing them within a certain frame of reference or context and then read an opposite teaching that can only be understood within another certain frame or context. Jesus Himself is the template of total paradox. It’s the glory of the lion/lamb paradox. I know the Bible is God’s word by this self authenticating glory. This glory is revealed not only through Christ in the Gospel but is interlaced throughout the Bible as well as reality. The evidence brings a transformation of mind and heart:

“Beholding the glory of the Lord, we are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.”~~ 2 Corinthians 3:18

This intuitive awareness and knowledge is mediated through the words of the Bible. It’s not in the words themselves but the meaning of properly understood revelation. The brightness of the beauty of the diamond is in the face of Jesus Christ. That is to say, the nondual paradox and mystery for Christians is a living Person (Christ). He is 100% God and 100% human. Masculine and feminine in soul. In Him all cosmic opposites are reconciled. It’s about becoming open to the opposites we find in Christ. It is here that we can begin to hold the opposites together in our self. A few more examples:

We admire Him for His transcendence, but even more for His condescension

We admire Him for His uncompromising justice, but even more because of His mercy

We admire Him for His majesty, but even more because it is a majesty in meekness

We admire Him for His equality with God, but even more because as God’s equal He nevertheless has a deep reverence for God

We admire Him because of how worthy He was of all good, but even more because this was accompanied by an amazing patience to suffer evil

We admire Him because of His Lordship over the world, but even more because this was clothed with a spirit of obedience and submission

We love the way He stumped the proud scribes with His wisdom, and we love it even more because He could be simple enough to spend time with children

We admire Him because He could still the storm, but even more because He refused to use that power to strike the Samaritans with lightening and He refused to use it to get Himself down from the cross

The purest and most exalted image of Christ is the fused together of extreme opposites. This is the highest expression of the Beautiful. It is a splendor arising out of unity in diversity. The greater the diversity the more profound the unity and the more extraordinary the Beauty. Reality is filled with paradoxes. The universe is both beautiful and damaged, we are both living and dying, God is both 3 and 1, we are both good and evil, the Bible is both human and divine. The list could go on into science and astrophysics (paradox of quantum mechanics and relativity). Likewise predestination and free will.

He served as a priest until his physical death, and he died at peace with the Orthodox Church. His writings get pretty speculative, but he nowhere said anything like, “The Orthodox Church is wrong and I am right.” There are a lot of things he wrote that I disagree with, but none reached the level of craziness of never-ending Hell. (A great many of the “Bulgakov was a heretic” crowd believe in the aerial toll houses, which [astoundingly] manage to make the never-ending Hell eschatology even worse! The inventor of the toll houses was probably mentally insane.)

Bulgakov’s theological system is contained in the following books:

His little trilogy:

  1. The Friend of the Bridegroom (1927) [on John the Baptist]
  2. The Burning Bush (1927) [on the Theotokos]
  3. Jacob’s Ladder (1929) [on the holy angels]

His great trilogy:

  1. The Lamb of God (1933) [on Christology]
  2. The Comforter (1936) [on pneumatology]
  3. The Bride of the Lamb (1945) [on ecclesiology and eschatology]

I would guess that The Bride of the Lamb contains his fullest statements regarding universalism.

  1. Does the sacrifice of Christ REMOVE every blemish so that the man actually righteous? Or is the man merely positionally righteous so that the blemishes are still actually there?

  2. Does the sacrifice of Christ merely make the man righteous in God’s eyes, whereas the man still retains the propensity to do wrong?

  3. Is God blinded to the unrighteousness of the man so that when He looks upon him, He not longer sees his sin, but Christ’s righteousness?

The ugliest thing that calls itself Orthodoxy. In a nutshell and from memory:

When a non-Orthodox dies he goes straight to Hell and will stay there forever. When an Orthodox dies his soul flits around on earth for three days. After that the soul ascends into the atmosphere where it is cross-examined by invisible demons. (Well, invisible to us. The dead can see them.) There are 20 booths/stages/toll-houses/whatever, each one with its own demon. At each toll-house, the demon accuses the soul of a particular type of sin (lethargy, let us say). If the soul during life acquired more energy points than lethargy points, he pays the demon and moves up to be cross-examined for another sin by another demon at the next toll-booth. If the soul manages to thus pay-off each of the 20 demons, then he gets to go to Heaven. But if at any point a demon gets the better of him, he gets immediately cast down into Hell where he will stay forever. Even great saints (with a capital “S” Saint in front of their names) barely get by all 20 demons. Even the Theotokos (i. e., the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, who the Orthodox Church teaches is the highest being in all creation) trembled on her death bed with fear of the aerial demons. As is obvious, therefore, virtually everyone goes to Hell. Unless you’ve met an Orthodox Saint (again, upper-case S), everyone you’ve ever met is Hell-bound. Every Orthodox I’ve ever met is Hell-bound. It’s pretty much hopeless for way over 99% of humanity. To cap this all off, it’s part of the “Good News”. :cry:

Some of the proponents of toll-houses would like to try to smooth things over a bit, using the word “metaphorical”. The bottom line, however, is that almost everyone gets sent to Hell, regardless of metaphors. The above piece of blasphemy is one of the most horrific pieces of nonsense I’ve ever had the displeasure to come across. It seems to me that it would produce only three types of people: atheists, holier-than-thous, and catatonics. If you ever want to try to inoculate yourself from ever becoming Orthodox, read the toll-house stuff. It’s the most effective scandal I’ve ever come across.

In the nearly 1,700+ pages of liturgies I’ve read, I’ve never come across a toll-house. In the many hundreds of pages of Church Fathers I’ve read, I’ve never come across a toll-house. In the various histories of Christianity I’ve read, I’ve never come across a toll-house. Etc. The only places you’ll ever come across them is in the assertions of the toll-house cult (which unbelievably claims the toll-houses to be the undisputed teaching of the Church through all of history).

I am sure you know how I will answer :slight_smile:. Our positional righteousness before holy God is 100% perfection because Holy God no longer sees our sin, but instead sees the righteousness of Christ. We are safely hidden INSIDE of Christ. I understand that all mankind is positionally perfect in Christ, but only believers believe it. Now a Christian is also someone whom has Christ INSIDE of them. So Christians are empowered by God living inside of them to do good and live righteously, though still well short of perfection in this life. So all mankind is IN Christ, but CHRIST is not (yet) IN all mankind.

Certainly, whether Christian or non-Christian we are all still tempted to sin. Now you say ‘propensity’ to sin. I don’t know if you mean before Christ living in someone they scored an average of 49% or less, but as a Christian they now score 51% or better? I don’t think we can measure things that way. It is certainly a great advantage against sin to have the power of Christ living within. However, I also know that the power he gives us to do good and avoid evil is still governed by his sovereign will. So even Christian can sin greatly.

Certainly, same question and answer as above.

Could you quote a statement from Jesus or Paul that you define as mystical? Perhaps we agree but have different definitions of ‘mysticism’.

The word ‘mystery’ is used numerous times throughout the NT. However, in each case the subject is that Christ explained or uncovered a mystery. He did not introduce mystery. Do you agree? I understand mysticism to claim to know things about God apart from reason or the Scriptures or communication with God. Or many, whether they are mystics or not, also claim that one cannot know what the Scriptures have plainly said, but instead they say it is a mystery. I am in too many conversations where people say the gospel itself is a mystery and one cannot know if all mankind is finally saved. Yet at the same time they boldly say they are 100% sure they are saved. So these mystics part from reason when they neglect to see the connection between their own salvation and the salvation of others.

Jeff,

A Christian mystical statement from Jesus is in Matthew:

The way of the mystic is to detach from the worldly. So much so that one finds it’s joy in God. The mystic shrinks into nothingness as the ego is deflated and then united to Christ. It’s a death to self and emptying of oneself so that the beauty and love of God may flow through. Christ gave us the example:

The two gates are always open to us but the narrow gate is unattractive to the world. It doesn’t have the fame and glitter that the world craves. It lacks the shiny bright new things of status and fame. The narrow gate opens to the path of discipline and material deprivation. The mystics don’t want great riches, power, praise, attention, a private jet, fame, recognition, or a place in history. They care little for a large circle of friends. Instead they want the pearl of great price - bliss, true happiness and peace of mind that comes from detachment. They want a heart open with love and compassion. This is the narrow gate of the Christian mystic. Which brings me to another mystical teaching of Christ:

And you are right. As I stated in the above post - mystics don’t go by as much of a rationalizing with logic. They go by their intuition and experience. That is - their heart. They are more into poetry and stories. They share their experiences.

Jeff, in reference to what you said in your post: “So all mankind is IN Christ, but Christ is not (yet) in all mankind”, I think this is backwards. I believe Christ is already in all mankind as we are all made in God’s image. Also John states that “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” However, many have not yet come to live in Christ, or they have left and have not yet returned.

Notice the words:

,in the NIV. Or

, in the ESV.

I think a distinction must be make between someone seeking mysticism and visions coming to people. Visions are very important, on the Red Road (Native American spirituality). For example, in Red Road Spirituality, we find this:

So how did Got reveal himself to Native American and indigenous people? In visions. And let’s examine George Fox and Jakob Böhme again:

George Fox was trying to obtain answers. This is related in his Quaker journal:

Then he had a vision of Christ, as the inner light. What’s little known, is that George Fox, also had the gift of healing.

Jakob Böhme was a shoe cobbler and a Lutheran. He didn’t pursue mystical experiences. But as Wiki Mentions:

George Fox had a vision. Jakob Böhme had visions. The contemporary Old Catholic Church mystic had visions. Visions are gifts from God, as long as they are in harmony with Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition - as we understand it.

Yes, visions can be from Evil Spirits, Demons, insanity, imagination, etc. But they would not be in harmony with Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition - as we understand it.

Oh, Yes. To Jeff’s statement that Christ, Paul, Apostles and Old Testament folks are not mystics. Or St. Michael’s statement that some were - or might be. We do **not **have enough information, in their written words, to make that determination. Therefore, we will never know, whether they were mystics or not - until God finally answers that question. So I am an agnostic, regarding that topic. :smiley:

On a lighter note, let me share some humor - from a recent Sunil Bali newsletter. :exclamation: :laughing:

Well, I am watching TV evangelist Joel Osteen. He’s taking today about asking big. We normally ask small and if we receive anything - it is small. Afterwards, it’s off to the church service. :smiley:

Holy Fool’s quote of Acts 2:16-17 makes me want to underscore something.

The last days began in A. D. 30.