The Evangelical Universalist Forum

If God values free will...

Well, this thought occurred to me. Perhaps the angels are union workers. And that means they are entitled to personal time off, vacations, holidays, etc. :wink:

Another thought is we will not know all the answers…until the end of time…and God reveals it to us. In the meantime, we can read what the renown philosophers and theologians - say regarding these subjects. And pick the philosophers and theologians - that resonate with us. :smiley:

This book is from a Universalistic Calvinist determinist POV, opposed to LFW, but has some interesting things to say on the subject titled “The Problem of Evil & the Judgements of God”. Can be read for free, or purchased at a nominal cost as a book, at:

concordant.org/expositions/probl … -contents/

Somewhere in the middle - between those 2 extremes - is something called Compatibilism. Which one can find out more at iep.utm.edu/freewill/. Let me quote a bit:

I’m just pointing this out. Since there are more perspectives, then just determinism and Libertarian Free Will.

And here’s what the Calvinist site - Got Questions and Theopedia - have to say on this topic:

gotquestions.org/compatibilism.html
theopedia.com/compatibilism

http://38.media.tumblr.com/ae40e01a29ffe1d41795326847177941/tumblr_n6rmx2b5Su1qjnryvo3_500.gif

I don’t think God does limit our choices. How could we choose our parents or our place of birth at a time in which we did not yet exist? We ARE able to choose concerning food and shelter. However, food and shelter don’t magically come our way by shouting the words, “I choose food and shelter!” If we truly choose food and shelter, we will work for it. True, some people don’t have the opportunity to work for it, but many of them still choose food and shelter even if they have to beg. And some succeed in getting them on that basis.

Do you have any evidence that He does take it away when we die?

God never forces anyone in any way; He influences people. However, consignment to hell is God’s loving act in order to correct those who have resisted Him throughout their lives. He will never give up on anyone until all become righteous.

If that’s what you mean, I think you are mistaken. On what basis do you affirm that God “takes away that choice” after you die?

Intervening has no relevance to valuing free will. If you intervene with the bad choices of your children, does that mean you don’t value their free will?
I think it means you love them, and want to influence them to make good choices—choices that will help them rather than harm them.

I think I understand your reasoning, but I still don’t think it’s a violation of free will in Paul’s case. God didn’t override Paul’s free will. Rather He influenced him. Paul COULD HAVE resisted that influence if he had so chosen. But he chose to respond positively to it instead. His free will was still totally intact.

Men who torture and rape a girl have exercised their free will. God doesn’t override that free will. Many such persons have not chosen to do the loving thing. We don’t know how often God may have intervened in such cases to influence these evil doers. I have known men who have deeply repented of mistreatment of others, and have never repeated their evil acts.

Well, here’s my favorite articles today, from the Patheos evangelical site. They might be relevant here:

How Would You and Job Rate God’s Customer Service in Addressing Evil?
The Best Question to Ask a Skeptic

And I also present a helpful video:

Mindfulness Animated in 3 minutes youtube.com/watch?v=mjtfyuTTQFY

Compatibilism is determinism in a nutshell no matter how the Calvinists or those who support it spin it around so there is no in between. There is determinism/fatalism and there is libertarian free will. No in betweens.

The in-between could be called ‘humility’.

For the record, I’m not a fan of compatibilism or determinism - when it comes to theology. But I do present compatibilism as a topic. It exists, whether we like it or not. And it won’t go away - anytime soon. :laughing:

I agree Randy, it ain’t going away soon. Since it’s been a question like, forever. So, I won’t give you the answer, which was communicated to me privately by the Duke of Windsor some time ago, apparently a secret that only DaVinci knew and passed on. :laughing:

Many would agree with the gist of that. For example the following thread i’ve been reading recently, especially posts by “Jason0047”:

christianforums.com/threads … m.8024186/

I like the forum chap, with the Bugs Bunny avatar, called jimmyjimmy - Pardoned Rebel :smiley:

Can it be shown that there is ‘nothing in between’ determinism and LFW? No. A case has been made for each, and the other side has not been able to demolish it.
I realize that LFW is the lynch-pin of certain theodicies, most notably as put forth by Plantinga. And he makes a good case in his attempt to address the Problem of Evil; however his Free Will Defense is only as strong as its weak link, which is the unprovable LFW axiom.
All that being said, I lean (slightly) toward LFW, but it’s a matter of taste, not of necessity.

Actually, Dave - from the standpoint of professional philosophy at iep.utm.edu/freewill/, they have this outlined discussion:

I’ve read a lot of professional philosophy, from the pre-Socratics to the present over the past 35 years or so, still haven’t spotted that elusive proof. Of anything. :smiley:

If you make a salve of Limburger cheese…like Curly does in the Three Stooges… rub it all over the body…and walk into a sauna…I can prove that you will have the sauna - all to yourself. :laughing:

That was YOU that grossed us all out the other day? :laughing:

Apropos to the discussion of free will and other philosophical knots, here’s a note from MavPhil today:

begin quote
"Philosophers contradict one another, but that is not the worst of it. The grandest philosophical conclusion is and can only be a proposition about reality and not reality itself. But it is reality itself that we want.

Can religion help? Its motor is belief. But belief is not knowledge, either propositional or direct. And if an appeal to divine revelation is made, then the question inevitably arises: how does one know that a putative revelation is genuine?

If you certify the revelation by appeal to the authority of your church, then I will ask how you know that your church is the true church. After all, not every Christian is Protestant or majuscule-‘o’-Orthodox . Are those stray dogs who refuse Rome recalcitrant rebels who simply reject the truth when it is plainly presented to them? I think not.

The motor of philosophy is discursive reason. The motor of religion is belief and obedient acquiescence in authority. Neither Athens nor Jerusalem seems to be a wholly satisfying destination. Nor is straddling them with a leg in each a comfortable posture.

That leaves Benares.

The motor of mysticism is meditation. Its goal is direct contact with ultimate truth. Direct: not discursive or round-about. Direct: not based on testimony.

So should we pack for Benares? Not so fast. It has its drawbacks." - end quote

Well, Dave. You mention philosophy, reality and mysticism. I look at theology, philosophy and mysticism - as tools - to understand reality…And our place in it.

In fact, I distinctly remember a philosophy professor at College of Dupage. She had been ordained at a seminary. But was working towards a PhD in philosophy. In order to better defend the Christian faith. Very interesting.

And that brings up to Immanuel Kant - who is a personal favorite of mine (from britannica.com/topic/thing-in-itself)):slight_smile:

Perhaps - in Mexico - instead of a philoosphy professor, we should seek out a Nagual (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagual)

A Nagual would have a different perspective…then the ordained seminary Christian…who would soon have a PhD in philosophy. But both have their place.

Just like I studied with the academics (i.e. philosophy, theology, literature and psychology)…the Native American medicine men and women…and true saints from the east…

I visited an Anglican church, that also has a Charismatic component. In other words, they believe in the gifts - of the spirit. Actually, I hung around a Roman Catholic priest, who had the gift of healing and hearing God speak. He has since moved to Wisconsin - a different state. Anyway, I did enjoy the service. And will probably go back. They also bought a former manufacturing plant. And converted it to a church.

I asked a pastor if they believed in the real communion presence (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist). And if so, do they side with the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Lutheran explanation,

And I accept the Eastern Orthodox perspective:

Which means that Lutheran and Anglican clergy - can invoke the real presence. And the Eastern Orthodox, chalk up the process to divine mystery. Kind of like Medieva alchemy (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy). As talked about, in the Morning of the Magicians at amazon.com/Morning-Magicians-Societies-Conspiracies-Civilizations/dp/1594772312/.

Perhaps the real communion presences, is like Kant’s thing-in-itself.

We may never arrive…at the thing-in-itself…but getting close to it…from different perspectives and traditions…is the next best thing.

Here’s an email I’ve sent out, to a church I visited yesterday:

Hello everyone:

I just visited your church this Sunday. Just let me add a few observations:

I value churches that:

Honor the real presence in communion
Acknowledge the charismatic elements
Follow a conservative theology

You manage to blend:

The conservative Anglican tradition, as found in All Souls
With the apparent group creation, as found in Parkway community church

I classify myself as a Charismatic Eastern Anglo-Catholic. Which for me means:

I honor the Charismatic elements. In fact, used to attend the healing masses, of a Roman Catholic priest. He had the fit of healing and hearing the voice of God
I try to first find theological answers, via renown Anglican scholars - like C.S. Lewis or N.T. Wright.

If I can’t find satisfactory Anglican answers - via noted conservation scholars, I look to:

The Eastern Orthodox / Eastern Catholics - first and foremost
An answer from the Roman Catholic church

The only objection I had, was an element in the bishop’s Sunday homily. He implied that demon possession might be widespread - in modern times. I’ll just note the Roman Catholic position - on exorcisms. Before the Roman Catholic church gets involved, they first rule out:

An organic disease cause, as determined by a general practitioner and/ or medicinal specialists.
A psychiatric disease cause, as determined by a psychiatrist.

In other words, rule out scientific causes, before seeking a supernatural one.

The only other element I add, is that I value contemplation (as found in RC and EO churches) - for the laity.

I like to use the RC terms of “having a dialogue”. So I will continue my visits and continue to “have a dialogue”.

I did speak briefly, with clergy member Dan - during my first visit.

Hey Gabe.

I think this depends heavily on what is meant when you say that God “values” free will. How and why does God value “free will”? It can’t be that “free will” is an end in itself, (except in the sense that we must ultimately arrive at a state where our will freely chooses God). “Free will” must have a purpose; it must be a means by which we come to God. As such, the valuing of free will as if it cannot ever be disturbed by God or anything ‘external’ of ourselves is probably idolatry. On the other hand, to argue that God has made us without a single iota of free will is just as problematic, if not more so.

There’s a lovely little contrast I find in Acts 17:26-27 - “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him.” There is a distinction there made between God’s own workings, which cannot be undermined, and the initial liberty of will that He gives humanity, a will that exists so that we ultimately choose God. As George MacDonald argues, in creating us for Himself, God must, in some sense, separate us from Himself so that we may ultimately learn to consciously choose Him.

I believe we have enough will to be able to choose to act towards and ‘take part’ in the will of God. The natural limitations of our relationship to the world and to nature, as well as the possibility of divine intervention of course mean that our will is not unrestrained. I do not, however, think that this undermines the value of free will, the value of which is built on us ultimately becoming one with God.