Post Edited (One Love) : 4/28/2010 2:26:04 PM (GMT-5)

This is only INTENSIFIED whenever you add in the Eastern view of Grace and the Logos/logoi concepts!!!

As I see it, it's patently obvious that a finite strength of will cannot eternally overwhelm or stand against an infinite strength of will.   It also seems obvious to me, biblically speaking, that because 1) God is Love AND 2) God Himself is the ground of existence for all finite beings..that God can NEVER CEASES offering a love relationship to his creature.  In order to do that, he'd have to stop being Love or stop being the ground of finite beings...and God does neither.

So...

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/28/2010 2:33:24 PM (GMT-5)

D: 1) God has infinite loving patience, such that God eternally offers an unconditional love relationship to a finite being (God is Love).

2) Only an infinite strength of will unto defiance can eternally resist God's unceasing offer of an unconditional love relationship.

3) No finite beings have infinite strength of will.

Therefore...

4) No finite beings will be able to eternally resist God's unceasing offer of an unconditional love relationship.

Tom: Under (1) I’d say “God eternally and unconditionally offers a love relationship,” so ‘unconditional’ qualifies the offer and not the enjoyment of relationship, because the enjoyment IS conditional (upon repentance and faith).

Apart from that, D, this seems like a much stronger argument than we had formerly worked out. This argument says it’s metaphysically impossible for somebody to go on forever freely rejecting God’s offer. But we had earlier argued this was possible. I’d FIRST argue something a bit more modest, namely, just that it’s impossible that any creature could freely foreclose the possibility of Godward movement. As long as we insist upon creaturely freedom, then we can’t foreclose upon the possibility of any creature’s continuing forever to reject God.

So, your (1) seems good. God’s being love means God unfailingly loves all exiting things. But (2) seems off. Do you want to say no creature can make a single irrevocable choice that metaphysically forecloses all possible subsequent movement toward God? I’d agree that’s impossible. But if your (2) means no creature can freely perpetuate its rejection of God forever, then that’s different, because this does seem possible to me. Your (3) just claims that what’s described in (2) is impossible, but I’m not clear on your (2). (4) concludes. But like I said, it seems to me like you’re wanting to argue more dogmatically for UR.

-------------------------

Greg: 6. Power to Influence is Finite. God’s creatures are finite. Although their freedom cannot be revoked, it can be thought of as “probational.” The scope and duration of their freedom is conditioned by many variables and ultimately determined by God’s will. The warfare between God and creatures who choose to use their freedom for evil is not eternal. Christ will vanquish his enemies in the end and creatures will be completely free to participate in the triune love of God at last.

D: This is only INTENSIFIED whenever you add in the Eastern view of Grace and the Logos/logoi concepts!

Tom: Greg’s comments here also speak to his question to you about God being the ‘ground’ of creaturely existence. See, if God is love and unfailingly loves all existing things, then God’s WILL will inevitably (by definition) express the intentions and purposes of love. All God’s choices and actions become an expression of love. Greg agrees no doubt. But this means that Greg has to agree that it’s God’s love (God’s will manifesting God’s loving intentions and desires) that determines the scope and duration of creaturely freedom. This seems roughly equivalent to what we mean when we talk about God being the ground of creaturely existence. It’s not the same, but it gets you the same thing, i.e., that creatures can’t free will for themselves what the love of God for them couldn’t consistently allow given his loving purposes for them.

So Greg will have difficulty arguing that a God who IS love, who unfailingly loves all existing things, would determine a scope and duration of creaturely freedom that includes the creature’s ability to freely dispose into irrevocable solidification against God unless this freedom were metaphysically entailed in the offer of eternal life (as Greg used to argue is the case). But then we have to ask whether we could consider an unsurpassably satisfied God who didn’t need to create at all to be a perfectly loving God for risking such loss. I don’t think a loving God would/could take such risks. But I remember asking Greg about this and he said of course God would take such a risk (if the fully solidified are annihilated, not ECT).

Basically, we have to deal with the argument that argues on the basis of contrasting values that if God is to give creatures the freedom to choose eternal life he HAS to give them the freedom to choose eternal death. I’m suggesting we approach this two ways. One, we argue that IF it’s true as a metaphysical law of creaturely love and relationality, then a loving God would NOT create, which is another way of just saying this law really is no law. For laws describe genuine possibilities. And if a loving God could not take such risks, then there is no possibility of such a world and no such law. But this means arguing for the belief that perfect love would not risk the possible eternal loss (annihilation even) of one creature even if all others forever enjoyed his way of life. That’s hard to prove logically.

Secondly, we argue that if God is love, and if God is the ever present ground of a creature’s existence (and capacities and freedoms, etc.), then it’s inconceivable that a creature could turn the very sustaining work of God that is the creature’s own existence against itself in a free and sufficiently informed choice of annihilation.

These seem to me to be two really good arguments against thinking that if God affords a creature the ability to choose eternal unending life he also has to afford that creature the ability to choose eternal unending death (as ECT or annihilation). I can say that the creature has to be free to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the offer of life. But that’s different than saying I have to be free to say ‘yes’ to unending life and ‘yes’ to ECT or annihilation.

So…

What about weaving these together?

P1 God is love and this entails that God unfailingly loves all existing things.

P2 Loving another means doing what you can to secure their highest good.

P3 Participating in the divine life is a creature’s highest good.

P4 God loves all those in hell (from P1).

P5 Therefore, God unfailingly seeks to secure the highest good of those in hell.

Then perhaps…

P6 As the ground of all created existence, God sustains creatures in their existence.

P7 Therefore, God’s sustaining act entails God’s unfailing attempts to secure the creature’s highest good.

Then perhaps…

P8 God’s sustaining act determines the scope and duration of creaturely capacities.

P9 All creaturely capacities are determined by God to secure the creature’s highest good.

P10 Creatures can exercise their capacities (we could be saying dispositions here) only within the scope and duration consistent with their highest good.

P11 No creature can exercise any of its natural capacities/dispositions outside the scope and duration of those capacities set by God with a view toward securing its highest good; in other words, no creature can transgress or violate the dispositional limits of its God-given and God-sustained nature.

P12 …

We could go on, but what we have to get to is the claim that God’s love for the creature means limiting the scope of creaturely capacities to exercises of volition that are consistent with its highest good. I guess that’s what P10 says. That doesn’t mean they’re choosing evil on occasion ‘as a choice’ is consistent with their highest good. I only mean that being free in this sense IS consistent with their highest good. Being free and capable to freely and responsibly annihilate one’s own existence, or irrevocably solidify into an utterly anti-God disposition is NOT a capacity which per se is in the creatures best interest. So a loving God wouldn’t endow creatures with such abilities.

Tom

το πνευμα το αγιον ουδενος απεστι των οντων

“Nothing is empty of the Holy Spirit.” Maximus

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/28/2010 7:31:44 PM (GMT-5)

But that's just it.  All TWT 5 really says is this: the gift of creaturely self-determination, with respect to one's relationship with God, cannot be revoked by God.  It doesn't NECESSARILY need to lead to an idea of the eternality of the human soul.  Greg took it that way as a part of his program.  To me, what TWT 4 and 5 basically say together is this:

As long as God and the creature exist, the creature has the irrevocable potential to choose for or against consciously receiving love from God with all the attending consequences related to each choice.

In other words, God didn't have to design "eternality" into the schematic of the human nature in order to make this possible.  Saying this is NOT THE SAME AS saying that the creature MUST be able to ACTUALIZE the potential of choosing against God throughout an INFINITE amount of time...over and against the Holy Spirit's continual wooing of infinite Love which DOES occur for an infinite amount of time.

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/28/2010 7:36:41 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/28/2010 7:52:12 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/28/2010 7:58:18 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/28/2010 8:05:47 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/28/2010 8:12:11 PM (GMT-5)

Are we just trying to stay within evangelical bounds or something?

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/28/2010 8:19:48 PM (GMT-5)

What?

"0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(repeating)1%"?

Aren't we just saying that God's infinite love can and does "win over" even the hardest finite heart, given enough time (which God has plenty of!)

God never gives up...and always "wins" his beloved.

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/28/2010 8:27:06 PM (GMT-5)