The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Baby universalism

Theology Philosophical
#21

Sorry.

I took LFW to mean limited free will.

I believe a creatures free will is limited by what he knows, what he thinks that he wants, and what he’s able to foresee.

Is that what you mean?

I would hope that all human suffering “matters to God.”

And if He could have the finished product from the get go, any suffering that’s part of reaching that finished product would be unecessary (and God wouldn’t will any of it, unless He couldn’t get to the finished product without it–if human suffering matters to Him.)

#22

Michael,
of course I think human suffering matters to God. I didn’t mean that. I simply mean the process (as illustrated with evolution) does not seem to me necessary to say it’s the only way something can be achieved.

Certainly he chose to allow us to expreience his molding us, but still the project involves a lump of clay which does not choose how it’s molded but is molded by the one molding it. And if LFW is necessary (as Boyd seems to think it is) then I certainly don’t agree with him. If someone could disarm the calvinistic rendering of the potter and clay then I perhaps might agree, but at this time, I read Rom 9 as stating that God does deal with us as he sees fit and it does not depend upon our own efforts or desires but upon his - and if that is true then the process is hardly up for grabs - or dare I say a gamble.

Thus I totally believe that God could take your baby sister and have her exactly how he wants her without having put her through hell. How he might accomplish that seems to me to be logical. In other words if I found it to be contradicting then I would deny it. But I don’t see a contradiction in God taking your sis and perfecting her with the short time she had.

I hope I don’t upset you with this cause I see how dear this is to you and my heart truly truly goes out to you. Tears come to my eyes thinking of those who suffer in such ways. But I have to say, I believe if God want’s to do with her as he pleases (love her) and perfect her in some way different than our own, then I believe he can.

With that said, God bless you and we’re always here for you Michael. And someday I hope I can share with you my hurts and questions as well.

Aug

#23

No universalist believes in the Calvinist rendering of the Potter and the clay.

The Calvinist rendering is that some lumps of clay are being shaped into one finished product: vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction (ECT), in order to demonstrate God’s justice.

And others are being shaped into another finished product: vessels of mercy, in order to demonstrate God’s Grace.

(And the clay has no right to complain, because God is God.)

That’s the Calvinist rendering.

The universalist idea that God is actually working toward the same finished product involves limited free will, and a necessary process.

Of course.

The lump of clay couldn’t mold itself into anything good, because it doesn’t know what it wants, or how to get there (and it’s limited free will is only likely to get in the way.)

Have you ever read Prof. Talbott’s article on “The Essential Role of Free Will in Universal Reconciliation”?

As I said in my last post, I believe a creature’s free will is limited by what it knows, what it thinks that it wants, and what it’s able to foresee.

Would you define what you mean by “limited free will”?

More precisely, what do you believe limits a creature’s free will?

If you say God’s will–the creature really has no will at all, does it?

#24

Michael,
I use “calvinistic” to mean it’s like the calvinist rendering - much like someone might say Oasis sounds so beatleish. I’m mostly referring to the determinism that’s embedded in Romans 9. Of course I agree with you that God does not torture anyone forever.

A process yes, but I’m not certain of “necessary”. For example, many dispensationalists usually refer to “we will all be changed, in a twinkiling of an eye…” - as undermining the process. I’m not sure they’re wrong. My eschatology certainly is not dispensational but I’m not expert on rapture theories. My point being, why do we need to be changed in a twinkling of an eye if a process is “necessary”?

The clay not only does not know what it wants but it’s not free to want to be good because it’s nature is hostile toward God, again I agree with those of the reformed heritage.

I believe I have read Talbott’s article on that but I certainly would love to read it again. He’s truly a fascinating thinker and it’s been quite some time since I’ve touched some of those articles.

For me (meaning from my point of view) our being limited in what we know causes a connundrum. How can one be expected or punished for what he does not know. As I understand LFW (libertarian) it requires that people know what they do and therefore are punished for it. While I agree with you, they don’t know, then how does God punish them? How is it all men are under condemnation? I tend to see the more determinist logic that God causes it (binds all men over to disobedience) in order that they might receive mercy (be saved) - perhaps I’m wrong about that. But at this time it makes the best sense to me.

This post by Boyd seems to me to rely upon LFW (lib). For if a process is necessary (which explains why LFW exists) then for him a infant but undergo the same struggles we do who maintained longer lives on this earth. I’m just saying I’m not sure the process is necessary, just as in a twinkling of an eye we will all be changed (for we will not all sleep).

Just my thoughts, and it’s been really nice getting to know you.

Aug

#25

This is from an article entittled “Universalism an the Oddity of Earthly life,” by Prof. Tom Talbott.

willamette.edu/~ttalbott/murray4.pdf

As usual, I think Prof. Talbott’s logic is impeccible.

But if this is the purpose of this earthly realm, and life does begin at conception, doesn’t it logically follow that my sister (and others who die at birth) will have to personally experience something of this earthly realm (either while in the intermediate state–through those of us here; or in the future–through reincarnation, resurrection to mortal life, or perhaps sharing in our life reviews when the books are finally opened)?

#26

some people live a long time, and some people don’t. some people experience a great wealth of what the world has to offer, and some people don’t. some people have a choice in the matter, and some people don’t.
what is better? well clearly to LIVE is best. but God is not restricted in His saving ability by the longevity of any of His creatures.
we don’t have any choice on the number of our days, and very little choice about the quality of our days. i think Solomon’s musings in Ecclesiastes about how all of life is but chasing after the wind…and yet, what is good is to do the work God has for you, and enjoy the fruits of that labour. taken along with the rest of Scripture, i can see that this time of chasing after the wind is necessary for some of us…for those of us given the gift, we are expected to put it to good use. to make it fruitful and grow in the Lord. but if you’ve not been given the gift of a long life, it’s hardly your fault, and i can’t imagine heaven being any less wondrous for someone who has not lived as long as another.

the parable of the talents i think shows some of the circumstances that i’m trying to describe here…not necessarily that everyone given little fails in any degree, but just that it’s rather arbitrary from our point of view, and our responsibility is merely to take what we have and make the best of it.

if i had died at birth (very nearly did), i believe God would’ve brought me into His kingdom. I believe one day i’d meet my parents when they arrived, and i don’t believe any lack of life experience would hinder me from enjoying that fellowship.

however, i have spotted a tiny flaw. what if i heard the stories of Life and wanted to know it? could i be content with never having lived, or would it be problematic to my joy in Heaven?
but i feel this begs a slight question as well…what about all of us, when faced with Heaven, thinking about the missed opportunities? we’ll clearly be so fulfilled by God’s love that i think we’ll get over that fairly quickly. and that may be the solution for the child: being in God’s presence is ultimate fulfillment, and nothing else could ever satisfy. also, a Heavenly perspective would show quite clearly why life apart from God’s full presence would be less than satisfying…you might want a glimpse, but the horrors would be too unpleasant to want to exchange for the eternal adventure that is being with God.

#27

This is an interesting thread. Thanks for ressurecting it; I somehow missed it the first go-around a few months ago.

Concerning the OP, it seems to me that Boyd makes to much of free-will. First, simply put, concerning the scope of our lives we have relatively little, very little free will. We do not choose when, to whom, how we’re born. We do not choose our personality type, our IQ level, our Emotional makeup, our gender, our hair color (or even if we have hair). We do not choose what influences come into our lives, the culture we’re born into, the religion we’re raised under. We do not choose what “facts” and “values” we are programmed with as children. We simply do not have absolute free-will, and never will until we come to be like God, absolutely in control of ourselves and everything around us! So to rest one’s theology on the principle that “love requires free-will” is, well, a flimsy foundation imo. Absolute free-will is an illusion. We are born slaves of unrighteousness, plagued to various degrees with evil within and without. We are dead in our sins, under the bondage of evil and the fear of death - and we have absolutely no choice in being born that way.

In like manner, scripture affirms that one being born of the Spirit, born again, born into the freedom of Christ is not accomplished through the will of man, but the will of God! We do not “choose” the Lord, but He chose us! We do not save ourselves from this present evil age, but Jesus saves us, liberates us. Only the free have “free-will”. Free-will is a by-product of salvation, something that we progressively grow in. Even being saved we only have limited free-will. And as we use that freedom wisely, we’re given more, but if we misuse it, it is taken from us until we repent!

Furthermore, the whole argument that love requires free-will just doesn’t make sense to me. If we were created for relationship with God, do we then choose whether or not to have a relationship with God? If He is the source of all creation, can creation then choose to not be in relationship to the creator? I don’t think so.

Concerning “baby universalism”, well, I appreciate Boyd showing how killing children is the only logical option for parents according to traditional Arminianian theology if they love their children and want to ensure them going to heaven, if one assumes all children that die go to heaven. This of course is if salvation is all about “going to heaven someday.”

I believe we have it backwards though, from God’s perspective He’s already Lord of all, all are in Christ, getting us into heaven is an accomplished deed! But salvation, from our perspective, is about getting heaven into us today! How do we help advance the kingdom of heaven on earth, the timetranscending kingdom of God advancing within, taking over the present evil age? What can we do to help heaven come to earth – praying and seeking, "Thy kingdom come on earth as it IS in heaven!?

Baby universalism is a huge problem for Arminianism. Of course, Calvinism is not strapped with that for God chooses who’s saved and who’s not, even between babies that die.

Also concerning the “age of accountability”, the older my children are, the more self aware they are, the more they are given, the more they are accountable to me. They do not have free-will, and yet they love me. They love me because I first love them and give my life for them. Love comes from love, not free-will. Love leads us, empowers us to love in response. What one sows one reaps is an immutable law of the universe.

BTW, the “one must have free-will” argument is a philosophical argument, not a scriptural one. And thus from an experiential perspective I disagree with the whole argument for I recognize experientially how limited, even illusionary, my “free-will” is. So for me, scripture, experience, and even reason are in opposition to the free-will argument.

#28

It wasn’t my intention to rescue a forgotten thread.

I was reading Prof. Talbott’s article on “Universalism and the Oddity of Earthly Life,” and I wanted to get some feedback.

(I could have started another thread, but it seemed relevant here.)

And Prof Talbott suggests that this earthly realm is an indespensible part of that process.

So doesn’t that imply that my sister will have to participate in it (directly or indirectly, vicariously or personally, while in the intermediate state, or in the future) before she’s perfected as a fully free, loving, rational, self aware individual?

#29

I don’t think that experiencing this earthly realm, this present evil age, is an indespensible part of the process. We can learn from the mistakes of others. Also, how long must one experience this earthly realm before we get the point or develope into what God wants us to be. How God brings us to being fully free, loving, rational, self aware individuals is up to Him. I mean, couldn’t He just create us that way with no need to go through the evil of this earthly realm? I think so. I believe He could, so why this present evil age? I actually think that we are only a part of what God is doing; it’s not all about us. We’re part of the scheme of things, but it’s not nearly all about us. Part of it, maybe the lion’s share, could be about the reconciliation of the angels that sinned, the principalities and powers of this present evil age. God proves to them that the power of love, grace, and forgiveness is far greater than the power of hate, selfishness, and unforgiveness. It’s interesting to speculate, but that’s all it is is speculation. Where trying to understand the shadows from images on the horizon. But what looks like a boulder to us might just be the South end of a North bound mule! I trust though that God has it all worked out!

#30

But if the unborn (and angelic beings) are truly able to learn thru our experiences here in this earthly realm, perhaps this realm and our experiences here are an indespensible part of the process (even for those who seem to be non-participants.)

That’s why I’ve always included words like “directly or indirectly,” and “vicariously.”

It’s also why I’ve never excluded the possibility of those in the intermediate state somehow participating in our experiences here now–or in our future life reviews (when all the books are opened, and we can all presumably see the big picture beyond the shadows.)

Any thoughts on that?

#31

I would like to introduce an approach to free will known as ‘Molinism’ here, inspired by William Lane Craig. It is also subscribed to by the outstanding philosopher Alvin Plantinga, who, by the way (to my delight :smiley: ), seemed to be expressing openness to hopeful universal reconciliation (see vimeo.com/8899005 (the latter link is a debate with a non-Christian, and his tentative UR comments are at 51 minutes and 58 minutes)).

See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism

My understanding of Molinism (also called ‘middle knowledge’) is that it means that God knows what a given free (in a full libertarian sense) creature would choose in a given circumstance. To clarify, this is different to Him determining the action; He knows what the action will be without causing it (hence allowing the creature to make a choice without being causally determined). For example, according to this He knew (without determining my action)ence allowing the creature to make a choice without being causally determined). out what I would have done if placed in a field in Australia, rather than at the computer in the UK today.

This may sound trivial, but this knowledge of ‘counterfactuals of creaturely freedom’ means that God can put given free creatures in circumstances so that they freely choose the best that they can (although this is never perfect), which means that God can direct the course of history without compromising creatures’ free will (since He knows, without causing it, what they would do in a given circumstance). This allows God’s sovereignty to be made perfectly compatible with libertarian free will.

In the case of something like abortion, for everyone that is allowed to live a full life, God knew that such an action would freely be chosen (without causing it to be so) and thus has a plan for every individual (their own “development story” as every person is developed differently into the person that they will eventually be in the context of UR and eternal life). Thus, every child that is allowed to live will benefit, in the end, from living their life. Hence, it is never justified by consequence to commit such an intrinsically wrong act, and such a harmful free choice would make the whole process of the reconciliation of all more lengthy and tough.

Different individuals require different amounts of development in this life to reach their eventual full potential, and so this life is certainly not superfluous.

#32

Suppose that there would be another chance for such growth for these babies in the First Resurrection duiring the Millenial Kingdom. It seems to me that the 1000 year reign is such a transistional period before the final dispensation of the New Heaven and New Earth. It is obvious to me that there will be room for growth during this period since at the end there will be those who still decide to reject Christ in the final battle when Satan is loosed.

#33

Yep, I trust everything we go through is are part of the process. Whether it’s indespensible or not, I don’t know; it’s beyond me.

I have the concept that what God is doing in our world, this present evil age, is on one side only part of what He’s doing in eternity, and on the other side much greater than what we can even begin to fathom currently.

#34

That’s possible Dondi; I’m not well studied in eschatology and do not have a strongly held opinion as to end time events (beyond UR). UR is more my understanding of soteriology.

I do find people’s NDE testimonies facinating though. In a few testimonies I’ve heard, people actually meet members of their family who died while children. One person met his grandson whom he did not know he had for the man’s daughter had miscarried a child in the first trimester and wasn’t absolutely sure she was even pregnant. Of course, this was years before the modern means of detecting pregnancy so early in the child’s developement.

Maybe the present evil age is not so much about our personal individual development, but about accomplishing God’s will in the whole grand scheme of things, whatever that is. I suppose that experiencing Good and Evil as we are currently experiencing it is not the only way to know Good and Evil. God could have later allowed Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of G&E without sinning against Him and breaking fellowship with Him. And could it be that God set this up as a means of reconciling the sinning angels and Satan? It’s and interesting speculation.