Hell

[Paidion]

My thinking seems to be identical to that of Matt on the subject of free will. I was going to reply to your post Steve7150, but Matt beat me to the punch—and so it is unnecessary for me to reply, because it would basically be a repetition of what Matt wrote. To me, "free will" is tantamount to "the ability to choose."

But I ask you this question, Steve. Do you know ANYBODY in the whole world who claims to believe in "free will" as you understand it? It is obvious that people's choices are influenced by circumstances as well as by other people. I can't imagine anyone seriously claiming that some people are not so influenced. So to deny "free will" as you defined it seems to be as ludicrous as denying that the force of gravity is exerted upon objects released into the earth's atmosphere.

I think most people understand "free will" as simply "the ability to choose." Determinists deny this ability. They claim that it is merely a subjective assumption, but that actually all that we do, including mental events, have been caused by prior events, and that therefore "the ability to choose" is an illusion—that whatever actions we have taken, could not have been otherwise. If this were actually the case, then we would not be responsible for any of our actions, and morality would be meaningless. For it would make no sense to say what we "ought" to have done, since we could not have done otherwise than what we actually did. Determinists deny that we ourselves can be the cause of our actions. They find this "an unusual" view of causation. They affirm that all events are caused by prior events, and not by "objects" such as people.

[mattrose]

You explained your position well but we do have a different definition of freewill. According to the dictionary free means unrestricted,exempt from interference, independence and exempt from external authority.

The word 'free' may mean those things in isolation, but the theological concept of freewill has never been imagined to imply the absence of outside influences. Like Paidion, I'm not sure there is anyone in the world who defines the theological concept of freewill as you're suggesting here.

If Paul was serious when he said Satan was the god of this world who blinds the minds of unbelievers then this doesn't square with freewill.

Let's stop and think through this passage (2 Corinthians 4:1-4). Paul's ministry consists of "setting forth the truth plainly" so that "we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience." This implies that the 'norm' for his audience is that they have a genuine choice to make at the level of their conscience when it comes to responding to the Gospel.

Then Paul discusses the perplexing problem of why so many don't respond positively to such good news as the Gospel. Why? Those who are perishing don't respond because "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers." Notice who we're talking about here. We're not talking about the person who responds to the message at the level of conscience. We're talking about the person who is already an UNbeliever. They've chosen not to believe. They are already perishing. Such people have put themselves in a position where belief is not currently a live option. Could they make a series of choices that makes it a live option again? Sure. They'll need to soften their hearts.

So, actually, the passage fits very well with the concept of freewill that I put forward. Many people hear the Gospel and have a choice to respond to it positively or otherwise. Others hear the Gospel but have already made so many choices away from God that they are not even in a place to respond positively to the Gospel (they can, at best, soften their hearts a little).

Also i think God intervenes when he deems it appropriate to execute his will in the bigger picture

Did anyone suggest otherwise?

like when he hardened Pharoah's heart

So you're suggesting, I think, that God gave Pharaoh no option but to do what he did? I don't think the story tells the story like that. More often in the beginning of the story, Pharaoh hardens his own heart. No doubt there comes a time when a CONSEQUENCE of our bad choices is the further hardening of our heart. God has every right to do that. But this is a far cry from Pharaoh not having had a say in the matter from the beginning. We're talking about a guy that convinced himself he was essentially god on earth over a period of years and then rejected evidences to the contrary over and over again.

So, again, the story actually fits my view of free will. Pharaoh had options. He chose poorly and suffered the consequences (including the removal, in time, of some of his options).

or picked Jacob

I think you are confusing God's election (missiological) with the Calvinistic doctrine of election (soteriological). God's selection of Jacob didn't mean Jacob didn't have freedom to make choices from that point on, or to do otherwise that what God wanted him to do (he did what was contrary to God's will quite often!). It simply meant that God (a Freewill being) had made the choice to use Jacob in certain ways. Jacob could respond to THAT choice in a host of ways.

Jesus said to his disciples that he picked them, they did not pick him and there are many other examples.

Again, the whole context of this passage goes against what you seem to be getting out of it. Let's look at the paragraph:

9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other.

The context is, of course, love (notice the bookends). Love requires freedom of choice. Jesus commands that they remain in His love (which implies they could do otherwise). V.10 starts with the word IF (which implies they may or may not keep His commands). The heart of the paragraph is that we are not just servants (bound to do whatever God wills), but also friends (who enter into relationship with the Master and have freedom in that relationship).

It is in this context that Jesus says He chose them and not the reverse. All it is saying is that the initiation of this loving relationship is always on God's side. When I say I believe in freewill. I am not saying that I think people have a 'live option' to choose God irregardless of whether or not God has initiated contact. I am simply saying that once God has initiated contact He doesn't dictate the response. They have the freedom to respond to it positively or negatively.

We love our children but are they genuinely free agents? No they are not because it is in our and their interests that we as parents make boundaries limiting their freewill because they are not capable of consistently making choices which are best for them.

Again, you're just using a very strange definition of 'free agents.' Being a free agent does not mean you have no boundaries or an unlimited amount of options. It means you are a genuine person who decides how to respond to your given situation and that you have a number of possible options of response. A child might get grounded, but they are certainly free to decide whether to learn from the discipline or harden their heart further toward their parents' rule.

My bible perspective is that from God's perspective, humans are mostly like children usually making expedient choices to satisfy our impulses, like Eve did. So love can exist between persons even if there is no freewill yet the child can make choices. I think humans for the most part are spiritual children in God's
eyes. Jesus even called his disciples "children." If his disciples were children, what does that make us?
Just want to add that Eve acted on her impulses and with regards to humans not much has changed since then except we have Ipads and Iphones.

You lost me a bit in there, but I think are clearly admitting that people have free will in the sense that I (and, as far as I can tell, most people talking about this theological concept), mean by the term. Eve made a choice (a bad one, but a choice b/w options nonetheless).

Finally Jesus prayed for his Father's will to be done but he never prayed for mankind's freewill to be done

Jesus, in His humanity, made a CHOICE to submit Himself to His Father's will. Who here would deny that the best thing to do with our freewill is to pray for God's will to be done?!?! This is a matter of aligning our freewill with God's.

if mankind's restoration ever takes place it would be mostly because of God's will IMHO.

And so, back to the subject of the thread, if mankind's restoration ever takes place it would be mostly because of God's love IMHO. If the wicked, in hell, come to points of repentance, it will be because they decide to soften their hearts in response to the loving discipline of Jesus Christ. It will not be because God coerces them.

[steve7150]

So, actually, the passage fits very well with the concept of freewill that I put forward. Many people hear the Gospel and have a choice to respond to it positively or otherwise. Others hear the Gospel but have already made so many choices away from God that they are not even in a place to respond positively to the Gospel (they can, at best, soften their hearts a little).

Also i think God intervenes when he deems it appropriate to execute his will in the bigger picture

would have died "in my sins"

Did anyone suggest otherwise?





First i must acknowledge i do have a biased view of freewill because to me postmortem repentance is a big issue and the literal meaning of freewill would diminish the probability of this IMO. If most or all folks really had a so called freewill choice to accept Christ then the justification of postmortem repentance in my mind lessens. Why give the unbeliever second chances? I would say JRs views are right on the mark.

Take myself as an example. I was not brought up in a Christian home and the authority figure in my home my father, told me that Jesus was the greatest salesman in the history of the world. No one ever told me anything else about Jesus until 2001. I thought Jesus was simply a prophet for the Christians, just as Moses was for the Jews and Muhammed for the muslims. I accepted Christ in April of 2002 so had i died before that i
would have "died in my sins" as "a child of the devil" in "unbelief." However i had no ability to make an informed choice before 2001 therefore i submit i had no freewill whatsoever. Is my situation unusual? Not at all because had i been brought up a muslim ,hindu ,buddist or atheist i probably would have been in the same boat and i think most people are in that boat.

So this concept of freewill which is used very loosely suggests that folks all are on a roughly even playing field and if they reject Jesus it's simply because they are wicked and evil and rebellious and stubborn(generally speaking) and no thought is ever given to everyone's unique circumstances. These circumstances to a large extent influence the unbelievers choices. What have they heard about Jesus, what were they told about Jesus, how is Jesus presented to them, what are their experiences with Christians? These and a hundred other factors will influence the unbelievers thinking, including last but not least Satan prowling around ready to deceive.

To have freewill at a minimum there must be an informed consumer and that is more often then not, not the case. The word "freewill" implies something that is simply not reality IMO and places the entire responsibility of accepting or rejecting Jesus in the lap of many folks who have not a clue about the weight of their very uninformed choices.

[mattrose]

No one ever told me anything else about Jesus until 2001. I thought Jesus was simply a prophet for the Christians, just as Moses was for the Jews and Muhammed for the muslims. I accepted Christ in April of 2002 so had i died before that i would have "died in my sins" as "a child of the devil" in "unbelief." However i had no ability to make an informed choice before 2001 therefore i submit i had no freewill whatsoever. Is my situation unusual? Not at all because had i been brought up a muslim ,hindu ,buddist or atheist i probably would have been in the same boat and i think most people are in that boat.

1. You paragraph here assumes that those genuinely ignorant of the Gospel are automatically in the category of 'child of the devil' and 'unbeliever.' This assumes a very black&white way of looking at things which I don't think is necessary. I think if you would have died before 2001, you would have been judged according to the light that you did have (Creation? Conscience?) and most likely given the additional opportunity to respond to the light of Christ. God would have known you were more in the category of ignorant than unbeliever. I think of an unbeliever as one who has rejected Christ (knowingly opted out), not one who simply didn't know.

2. You did have free will before 2001 on many fronts, but you may be right that believing in Christ wasn't a 'live option' for you at the time. Many of your choices before that time, however, either softened or hardened your heart. Each of those choices was made with free will. I agree with you that responding positively to Christ is not a live option for many people at most moments in their lives.

So this concept of freewill which is used very loosely suggests that folks all are on a roughly even playing field and if they reject Jesus it's simply because they are wicked and evil and rebellious and stubborn(generally speaking) and no thought is ever given to everyone's unique circumstances. These circumstances to a large extent influence the unbelievers choices. What have they heard about Jesus, what were they told about Jesus, how is Jesus presented to them, what are their experiences with Christians? These and a hundred other factors will influence the unbelievers thinking, including last but not least Satan prowling around ready to deceive.

I agree that the concept of freewill that you are talking about here is stupid. I'm just not sure who believes in that form of the doctrine.

To have freewill at a minimum there must be an informed consumer and that is more often then not, not the case. The word "freewill" implies something that is simply not reality IMO and places the entire responsibility of accepting or rejecting Jesus in the lap of many folks who have not a clue about the weight of their very uninformed choices.

Again, you're assuming that by FREEWILL we mean the absolute and ongoing ability to choose Christ at any point in one's life. I suggested no such thing. I think you got a misinformed idea about what freewill means in theology and, rightfully, found flaws in such a mistaken notion. But that shouldn't stop you from re-learning what the doctrine normally means and applying its reality to your theology.

[jriccitelli]

(I would somewhat agree with Matt and the foregoing, since Matt posted while I was writing, still in addition...)

7150, you are not the only one who thought this way, as I have encountered a few others who believed so, and a very good friend of mine also argues this way, he resorts to arguments like: if I have freewill, then how come I can’t fly? I tell him you have the freedom and freewill to ‘attempt’ anything you are ‘capable’ of, and you have freewill to ‘want and believe’ anything you can imagine. I believe God will judge us on the extent and degree to which we allowed any information to lead us away from our God given (or created) knowledge of good and evil.

‘However i had no ability to make an informed choice before 2001’

You had the ability, but you did not have the Knowledge (or the Gospel), I believe God could make a decision based on your heart towards truth rather than evil, and or a second chance to accept post-mortem (limited, not an eternal chance, and not necessarily everyone). We have a freedom to ‘be’ motivated persuaded deceived instructed manipulated influenced cherished and loved, how we respond to all these influences I think speak of God weighing the heart.
How we act on these impulses is what God sees, it is not even the professed faith that seems to motivate God to accepting us, but our minds ‘response’ to all the different knowledge, information, influences, and deceptions presented to us, so that God may accurately perceive what our response to the Gospel would be. This may be why Jesus’ emphasis on works and law hang over the Gospels, God is actually looking at the response to love, truth and goodness ‘in our heart’, rather than the exact response to the written formula, or outward accomplishments of the flesh that sometimes seem unattainable. There is no greater written formula of love and truth than the Gospel, so I would argue that the Gospel judges men's hearts, and on that decision men are divided.

… wicked and evil and rebellious and stubborn…

These are characteristics of characters that will not inherit the kingdom. God can determine if a person had bad information and is just acting on it, but God can also tell if the actions defy goodness, love, seeking truth, etc. and are just excuses for bad behavior.

How God created individual entities to be neutral, yet give them the capacity to make decisions both positive and negative hurts my brain to imagine how. nevertheless it seems God judges what we can imagine doing, even if we cannot physically do so. Sin does start in the heart so it seems our wrong turn may proceed the information that comes from outside influences. Heres a few verses i think that follow this idea:

‘And you, Solomon my son, know you the God of your father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands all the imaginations of the thoughts: if you seek him, he will be found of you; but if you forsake him, he will cast you off forever’ (1 Chron. 28:9 NKJV)
Because, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds (Romans 1:21-23 NKJV)

[mattrose]

Clearly 'freewill' is not the ability to do anything (that would be omnipotence). Free will entails a volitional response. Our ability to carry out our volition is another matter altogether. For instance, I could desire to be saved... but that wouldn't save me. I would depend on God for that.

Free will is the ability to make a willful response to any situation you are in. If someone is never in a situation of responding to the Gospel, then I'd agree they are not free to do so. But that doesn't mean they are not free in a hundred different situations that, if responded to rightly, would move them toward a place where they are more likely to have opportunity to respond to Jesus.

[jriccitelli]

I am not sure which period, or which representatives, of "the church from ancient times" you are referencing’ (Steve, Fri Dec 20)

I would respond, but I do not know which of us you are referring to since that was Homers post not mine (it is interesting though that you can accuse ‘us’ of over and again of not reading your posts ‘thoroughly’).

By the time Augustine's view prevailed, "finality" was the one ingredient missing from the church's view of hell. No punishment could be regarded as "final," since there was always more to come into eternity’ (Steve)

What we meant was that the ‘judgment’ is final, not the punishment. The idea of a ‘finality’ to the Judgment seems to be scriptural, and the context of our argument.

‘This is open to question. There was no "orthodox position" on hell before the fifth century… ‘(Steve)

The context of mine and Paidions argument was about a ‘second chance scenario’ for people such as Nicky Cruz. If anything it is an argument about purgatory, as I see no other traditional Church position on second chances or ‘a scenario that suggests such a realm’. So it was not an argument about hell specifically (maybe paradise?).

It would seem to me that the doctrines of the universal love of God for His creatures, and the doctrine of God's sovereign and limitless power to save, would better qualify as "orthodox" doctrines—if we were to allow scripture to decide what we will call orthodox. (Steve pg.3)

’Universal love of God for His creatures’? I think maybe a general love, but not an intimate or relationship love for creatures. This is clear in the fact that this ‘love’ has to synchronized with God destroying creatures and telling us He has the right to do so, I think that is the uniform teaching of scripture.

[steve7150]

Again, you're assuming that by FREEWILL we mean the absolute and ongoing ability to choose Christ at any point in one's life. I suggested no such thing. I think you got a misinformed idea about what freewill means in theology and, rightfully, found flaws in such a mistaken notion. But that shouldn't stop you from re-learning what the doctrine normally means and applying its reality to your theology.











OK so you are equating freewill with volition, i think. The Calvinist will acknowledge volition but not freewill i believe. I just printed out an article from "withChrist.org by Dan R Smedra called "Freewill vs Volition" and i will read it.

[mattrose]

OK so you are equating freewill with volition, i think. The Calvinist will acknowledge volition but not freewill i believe. I just printed out an article from "withChrist.org by Dan R Smedra called "Freewill vs Volition" and i will read it.

A key difference b/w compatibilists and libertarians is that the former believe we can be considered FREE so long as we end up doing what we desire. In the Calvinist system, God simply gives people the desires that He wills for them to have and then they 'choose' to carry out those desires. Strictly speaking, they had no choice but to carry out those (strongest) desires, but that doesn't matter to the compatibilist b/c they are still doing what they wanted to do in the end.

The libertarian thinks this is an absurd meaning to put behind 'freedom.' True freedom has to do with the legitimate ability to do otherwise.

So the question isn't really whether or not we have volition. I'm sure both sides agree! The question is the nature of what one means by freedom in general.

if libertarian free will is correct, dogmatic universalism is, IN MY OPINION, impossible unless we're talking about God simply foreknowing that all will indeed freely choose to repent postmortem.

[Paidion]

Yes, the compabilist believes that if nothing prevents us from doing what we want to do, we are free. But they believe just as strongly as the determinist, that we could not have done othewise than that which we actually did—because our desires were detemined by prior causes. They will argue, everything we do "is for a reason". So if all conditions are identical we will always want to do a particular action and no other.

Those who believe in libertarian free will believe that having done a particular action in the past, we COULD HAVE chosen to do otherwise. For example, if yesterday at noon I chose to eat mince pie and ice-cream for dessert, I could have chosen not to do so. Neither the hard determinist nor the soft determinist (compatibilist) believes that I could have chosen otherwise.

Another assumption of determinists of both stripes, is that if libertarian free will were true, then our actions would be random. For they cannot conceive of a free-will agent being the CAUSE of his own actions.