In conversation with Brayden Dantin’s “My Song Is Love Unknown: Universalism, Conversion, and Individuality”

The comments below are in conversation with Brayden Dantin’s My Song Is Love Unknown: Universalism, Conversion, and Individuality.

Brayden, your notion of human freedom seems very much consistent with that of David Bentley Hart’s approach, such as he set forth in “What Is a Truly Free Will?”

DBH wrote:
I define perfect freedom as the unhindered realization of a rational nature in the end that fulfills it as rational. I assume also that, for finite intellects, such freedom involves a deliberative ability to choose among different courses of action. All I reject are two logically impossible notions: that there can be rational freedom that is not first set into action by a “transcendental” final cause, and that freedom can exist in any way except in direct proportion to the rational competency of the agent.
end of DBH quote

For my part, at our next gathering, I’d like to explore the many practical implications that might (or not) flow for us, as finite intellects, in light of

1) the “proportionality” between freedom & rationality and

2) the true nature of our deliberative abilities & choices.

How might those implications inform our protological, historical & eschatological perspectives?

Consistent with classical ascetical, mystical & spiritual theology, wouldn’t those implications precisely suggest that all manner of human realities likely present in terms of degrees – venial & serious sin? Bernardian loves? Ignatian degrees of humility? classical purgative, illuminative & unitive ways? ad majorem Dei gloriam? degrees of glory manifested & beatitude enjoyed? heavenly hierarchies & capacities? eternal epectasy?

Using DBH’s conception of freedom, wouldn’t a logical free will defense of evil still work, generally, even  though, regarding hell, it’s clearly nonsensical?

Not to be coy, I would finally argue that, while our transcendental ends are divinely determined, we are relatively free to choose among our finite means of attaining same. That’s to suggest, while God determines THAT He’s our only ultimate end, we largely determine HOW – as well as HOW MUCH – we would to manifest God’s glory.

So, beyond an essential degree of divine relationship, might we further self-determine to enjoy  superabundant degrees of divine intimacy?

After Notes

As long as we jettison, anthropologically, incoherent conceptions of free will, and theologically, morally unintelligible conceptions of just punishments (in/finite disproportionality), other classical distinctions can still be very meaningful. This includes such realities as pertain to the antecedent & consequent divine will, sufficient & efficacious grace, nature & grace, predestination, divine predilection, etc

It’s not the fact of being indwelled, which grace establishes. For rational creatures, being indwelled is constitutively gifted by the gratuity of creation.

In the gratuity of grace, the Spirit will further illuminate us & so grow the kinds, orders & degrees of divine knowledge that we can enjoy. Such divine manifestations variously gift us through the lights of experience, faith & vision.

So, beyond our divine omnipresencing, rational creatures also constitutively enjoy the divine indwelling and, with it, a natural desire to know God. Still, even our knowledge of God admits of kinds, orders & degrees (the potencies of which God would never eternally foreclose). We can thus be variously illuminated by lights of experience, faith & vision, all which have the potential to be fully satisfying even though eternally finite (cf epectasy), such satisfaction always being directly proportionate to the degree that one’s innate desires have theretofore been awakened.