An Arminian Universalist

[TotalVictory]

That is, God’s sovereignty is exercised temporally rather than as an exercise of coercive (even if well intended) power. It’s God’s patience that allows us to be saved.

Hi again Richard…

I wonder if you’d be willing to comment on 2 particular instances which certainly appear, at least on first glance, to be much more about sovereignty/election and God’s unilateral actions than on a more temporal understanding.

Specifically,

1. Pauls road to Damacus intervention and
2. Pauls insistence that the clay (us) has no standing to protest what the Potter (God) does with/to us.

Sure, God is patient and willing to wait, but in these two instances at least, that patience seems to have given way to unilateral action for which we’ve little hint that God has regrets or feels sorrow.

Curious to know how this fits in your understanding…

Bobx3

[Richard_Beck]

I can’t agree with you about choosing God though, as there are numerous direct statements in scripture to the contrary, where it’s made clear that we are unilaterally chosen by God (whether temporarily as vessels of honor or dishonor), not the other way around.

I wonder if you’d be willing to comment on 2 particular instances which certainly appear, at least on first glance, to be much more about sovereignty/election and God’s unilateral actions than on a more temporal understanding.

Specifically,

1. Pauls road to Damacus intervention and
2. Pauls insistence that the clay (us) has no standing to protest what the Potter (God) does with/to us.

Thanks for the questions.

First, I do think that God chooses us first. But what does that mean? I think it simply means that God is unconditionally for us. God choosing us is simply another way of saying God loves us. That God will never give up on us. That God, as I said, will be eternally patient with us.

But none of that forecloses or precludes our response and “coming to our senses.” In this I see salvation as very similar to good parenting. The parent doesn’t make the child choose anything. That would be coercive and abusive. The parent does wield power, but that power is exerted in a way that preserves the volitional integrity of the child. I believe God works in a similar way. Yes, God’s initiative, like the parent’s, is the driving moral force. And in that sense I guess you could say that the parent is making the choice through the child, albeit very, very indirectly. But I think that indirection is important, psychologically speaking. The child has to “own” and “author” the choice. If not, the choice is going to feel alien, unnatural, disassociative, and “not me.”

A lot of the way I approach this has to do with my being a psychologist. Words like “sovereignty” and “election,” while thrown around a great deal, are pretty meaningless to me. What I always want to know is what all this might feel like, psychologically speaking. Phenomenologically speaking, humans choose God. I did. I do every day. I do give God credit for that. As will everyone, ultimately. But I have the experience of choice. That’s what I mean when I say that the experience is functionally Arminian.

Regarding Paul’s conversion, I do think God can act in powerfully assertive ways. And if the Potter does this there isn’t much the clay can say. But I don’t think Paul’s conversion is normative. Not even in the bible. God does appear to people like that, but it’s not the norm. I didn’t have an experience like that.

[Cindy_Skillman]

Matt and Bob, you both have some great things to say, and I think I agree with you. And I also agree with you, Richard. (Though I’m mad at you – not really – for “stealing” the parent/child analogy I already had decided to use. )

So Matt’s points about us needing God and realistically not being able to resist Him forever were excellent. I can’t remember exactly what Bob said, but it was good and since I read it, it’s in me – like a grape I’ve eaten. The seed is there and has nourished and changed me . It’s too hard to go back and find it in this response window at the moment, though.

Anyway, in addition to these things ya’ll have said, I would like to open up the parent child thing a little bit more. A three year old does not have a lot of freedom – though in a sense he has both as much and more freedom as an adult. He can choose the next thing he will do or say and no one can stop him. We can attempt to deter and discourage him from making choices we don’t like, but anyone who has been the parent of a toddler knows just how much immediate control is available to the parent. If it isn’t pure hands-on physical force, there’s no way to persuade the child if he’s unwilling.

Yet he doesn’t have many options open to him, really. He can’t truly save up his money and go out and buy a pony or even a puppy without his parents’ blessing. But as he matures, he becomes more free. He grows up; he gets both choices and responsibilities, and he can make those choices. From his pov he seems to be making those choices freely. (Because maybe he hasn’t heard about the whole existence of free will debate!) And I think that maybe our Father is doing the same thing the loving and competent parent does; that is, equipping us to handle freedom and setting us free little by little as we gain mastery over ourselves.

'Will He allow us to permanently and irrevocably damage ourselves or others? No. We don’t have the freedom to do that. Some Arminians would disagree, though, and it causes painful anxiety in their hearts. A person we care about but never felt right about witnessing to has died suddenly and we believe they must be in hell, and we believe that it’s OUR FAULT! Or I am a Christian but I don’t feel I’m devout enough and because I can lose my salvation at any moment, I live in fear and worry that I may not be doing enough to please God (even though I believe that I believe the just live by faith, not works). Or maybe I’m an Arminian preacher and, Chan-like, I look out over my congregation and know them to be mostly worldly people and my heart aches for them because they aren’t seeking God, obeying God, desiring God enough (how much is enough, btw?) I am afraid, genuinely afraid, that most of them are hell-bound and I can’t do anything about it. They aren’t getting it.

All that fear! It is not of God. No, they will not be permitted to permanently harm themselves, and I also will not be permitted to permanently harm them. But up to a certain point, they do get to choose. They get to choose quite an amazing lot, even to the point that many people looking on say, “If there is a god, why does he allow this sort of thing? I want nothing to do with such a god.” And it isn’t difficult to understand why they say it.

So . . . I say with Bob that He is leading us into freedom but that we aren’t really there until we’re free. Free from the tyranny of sin and the domination of the flesh. When we are perfect, then we will be free. The elect? IMO, they get there sooner and get to turn back and help the stragglers. “What would Father say if we came home without the others?”

Love, Cindy

[Melchizedek]

Thanks for the questions.

First, I do think that God chooses us first. But what does that mean? I think it simply means that God is unconditionally for us. God choosing us is simply another way of saying God loves us. That God will never give up on us. That God, as I said, will be eternally patient with us.

While I do think that’s true as far as it goes; what I see declared in scripture goes beyond even this.

But none of that forecloses or precludes our response and “coming to our senses.” In this I see salvation as very similar to good parenting. The parent doesn’t make the child choose anything. That would be coercive and abusive. The parent does wield power, but that power is exerted in a way that preserves the volitional integrity of the child. I believe God works in a similar way. Yes, God’s initiative, like the parent’s, is the driving moral force. And in that sense I guess you could say that the parent is making the choice through the child, albeit very, very indirectly. But I think that indirection is important, psychologically speaking. The child has to “own” and “author” the choice. If not, the choice is going to feel alien, unnatural, disassociative, and “not me.”

A lot of the way I approach this has to do with my being a psychologist. Words like “sovereignty” and “election,” while thrown around a great deal, are pretty meaningless to me. What I always want to know is what all this might feel like, psychologically speaking. Phenomenologically speaking, humans choose God. I did. I do every day. I do give God credit for that. As will everyone, ultimately. But I have the experience of choice. That’s what I mean when I say that the experience is functionally Arminian.

Regarding Paul’s conversion, I do think God can act in powerfully assertive ways. And if the Potter does this there isn’t much the clay can say. But I don’t think Paul’s conversion is normative. Not even in the bible. God does appear to people like that, but it’s not the norm. I didn’t have an experience like that.

I don’t know that I’m entirely comfortable with the parenting analogy as you’ve presented it here. As a parent myself, I am constantly having to “force” my kids to do things they’re not inclined to do, for their own good. We don’t always have to go the “Apostle Paul” route with our kids, but sometimes we do and it doesn’t appear as though God is any different in this respect (except that He’s got a much wider variety of kids to deal with). If God wants something to happen, it happens, regardless of what it takes to make it happen (to me, that’s sovereignty as demonstrated in scripture). Sometimes it’s the Damascus road approach, sometimes it’s much more subtle and gentle; it just depends on the child He’s dealing with and the circumstances.
Also, inasmuch as we are ‘choosing’ God, that is entirely as a result of His initiation (as you have hinted at here), as we can do nothing apart from Him. I guess maybe the biggest difference in how we approach this, is that I have a tendency to view things from what I see as God’s perspective, rather than a human experiential one. I can’t disagree that it seems like we have choice concerning certain things, but at the same time, I have to acknowledge that those choices are always being heavily influenced by other factors beyond our control.

[Matt_Wiley]

All that fear! It is not of God. No, they will not be permitted to permanently harm themselves, and I also will not be permitted to permanently harm them. But up to a certain point, they do get to choose. They get to choose quite an amazing lot, even to the point that many people looking on say, “If there is a god, why does he allow this sort of thing? I want nothing to do with such a god.” And it isn’t difficult to understand why they say it.

So . . . I say with Bob that He is leading us into freedom but that we aren’t really there until we’re free. Free from the tyranny of sin and the domination of the flesh. When we are perfect, then we will be free. The elect? IMO, they get there sooner and get to turn back and help the stragglers. “What would Father say if we came home without the others?”

Cindy, beautiful thoughts as always