2/7/2024 0 Comments Paul on lazarus bibleTalbott) he had was to do what he did! Which I don’t think is what we typically think of at all when we think of libertarian choice! (At least not the way I do) If the only way we can be free is to know the truth, then we cannot ‘freely’ choose to remain in ignorance/ blindness once we know the truth in a way that is not compromised by illusions. However, under the circumstances of Paul’s Damascus road experience, I would say that the only “free” choice ( ala Prof. Like Tom T., I am uncertain that we are truly in a position in our current state to make free choices. I think saying he was free to cooperate or rebel is an assumption, frankly. I’m not as confident as you are that Saul was free to say Ok, or remain blind. Well, I suppose it would depend on how one defines libertarian choice, certainly. He was however free to cooperate or to rebel. And he wouldn’t have been free from any unwanted consequences to remaining blind just like he wasn’t free from any unwanted consequences to cooperating instead of rebelling. He wasn’t free to avoid being blinded and goaded. Saul was free to say “Okay” or free to choose to remain blind just as he was free to kick the goads up to that point. The short version, though, is: depends on what is meant by “libertarian choice”. After which I could never get back to the composition window to rescue the text. I actually had an in-depth reply to this written out a few days ago, but I wasn’t saving as I went (writing at home) and the system logged me out before I tried to submit it. I guess my point was that I didn’t see any libertarian choice being exercised by Saul/ Paul in that scenario… But in the end, I think, the journey requires us to determine ourselves in response to God’s commands, offers, invitations. Melchi: That little incident on the road to Damascus basically amounted to God sitting Saul down on his butt and saying, “Look, you’re not being who I created you to be. Tom: Every difference so far as I can tell. What necessary/definitive role did the Apostle Paul’s “libertarian choice” play in his becoming what God created him to be? We have to work out our universal hope in terms of the necessary/definitive role libertarian choice plays in our becoming what God created us to be.” Melchi: I have a question about this comment: TGB wrote, “ And this is where we’d disagree with Talbott and other universalists. But I agree that (given other metaphysical commitments I have), irrevocable solidification into evil is impossible. I can’t see any obvious contradiction that’s generated by believing it. I mean, I think it’s a meaningful position. The deeper the metaphysical waters get the more charitable I am. The question is whether or not “irrevocable solidification into evil” is possible. I think it’s self-evident that we habituate and solidify our characters. However, I don’t think ‘character solidification’ itself is a silly idea at all. Which we (particularly as universalists) know is not correct. One major problem with it is that it makes the nature/power of evil and corruption more powerful than God’s ability to save/redeem. Melchi: I personally think that the “character solidification” position is rather silly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |