 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Self-Reference | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/26/2010 1:10 PM (GMT -6) |   | OL: I think, Tom, that Daniel's ultimately going with the idea that at any given moment, a creaturely being has the freedom to accept or reject God by self-disposition. He takes this to mean that, given infinity forward, it's logically possible that the potential to freely reject God via self-disposition WILL be exercised by SOME redeemed sentient being at SOME time in the future.
Tom: So creation CANNOT be FINALLY SECURE in its creator?
That sucks. It sucks bad because the consequence of those who reject God is annihilation, on Dan's view. So he's for irrevocable consequences for rejecting God in certain contexts but not for irrevocable union with God in ANY context? That means in heaven we'll be free to reject God, and given an infinite future, there will probably be an steady EXIT out of heaven of people into annihilation. So heaven eventually empties out, there IS no creation to speak of, and God will be back where he started.
That's your view Dan?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/26/2010 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | I'll try to get a response up for you guys in a bit. I had a nice, eloquent, brilliant response but alas, my computer decided to die. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/26/2010 1:19 PM (GMT -6) | | | No, Tom. As I understand him, Daniel currently holds to annihiliationism based on an idea of creaturely solidification into evil such that God gives the solidified evil person "what they want" (God's absence) by annihilating them via fiat. Daniel doesn't have creaturely SELF-annihilation going on.
A problem that he has with EUR is that IF it were true, from his perspective, then creatures would have to have the irrevocable ability to choose for or against God at all points in time, meaning that even IF Satan were to experience God's love and salvation, he could still have the potential to choose to reject God even after said experience. Daniel sees this "2nd fall" as he called it as INEVITABLE given the infinite future forward.
What I'm wondering about is that Daniel seems to say that such an inevitable post-judgment, post-forgiveness "2nd fall" would be a "conscious choice" rationally-deliberated (and thus morally responsible before God) could occur completely unconditioned by the "D-day" of Jesus' triumph and exaltation and "open shame" of Satan's defeat.
Does not compute to me.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/26/2010 1:24:57 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/26/2010 2:06 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hmmm...
Origen did not believe in the eternal suffering of sinners in hell. For him, all souls, including the devil himself, will eventually achieve salvation, even if it takes innumerable ages to do so; for Origen believed that God’s love is so powerful as to soften even the hardest heart, and that the human intellect – being the image of God – will never freely choose oblivion over proximity to God, the font of Wisdom Himself. Certain critics of Origen have claimed that this teaching undermines his otherwise firm insistence on free will, for, these critics argue, the souls must maintin the freedom to ultimately reject or accept God, or else free will becomes a mere illusion. What escapes these critics is the fact that Origen’s conception of free will is not our own; he considered freedom in the Platonic sense of the ability to choose the good. Since evil is not the polar opposite of good, but rather simply the absence of good – and thus having no real existence – then to ‘choose’ evil is not to make a conscious decision, but to act in ignorance of the measure of all rational decision, i.e., the good. Origen was unable to conceive of a God who would create souls that were capable of dissolving into the oblivion of evil (non-being) for all eternity.
...
Origen’s conception of freedom, as discussed above, was not the same as modern conceptions. This is not to say that his conception was wrong, of course. For Origen recognized freedom only in reason, in rationality, which is precisely the ability to recognize and embrace the good, which is for him God. Irrationality is ignorance, the absence of a conception of the good. The ignorant person cannot be held responsible for his ignorance, except to the extent that he has been lazy, not applying himself to the cultivation of reason. The moral dimension of this conception of freedom is that ignorance is not to be punished, but remedied through education. Punishment, understood in the punative sense, is of no avail and will even lead to deeper ignorance and sin, as the punished soul grows resentful, not understanding why he is being punished. Origen firmly believed that the knowledge of the good (God) is itself enough to remove all taint of sin and ignorance from souls. A ‘freedom’ to embrace evil (the absence of good) would have made no sense to Origen who, as a Platonist, identified evil with enslavement and goodness with freedom. The soul who has seen the good, he argued, will not fall into ignorance again, for the good is inspiring and worthy of eternal contemplation (see Commentary on Romans 5.10.15).
So, taking this stace, once Satan has "seen the good" of God (post-defeat, post-judgement, post-forgiveness) one would really believe that Satan could fall BACK INTO embracing evil like he did in the first Fall? Don't think so.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/26/2010 2:44:57 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/26/2010 5:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Alright, lets start from the top.
One Love :Here's my thought, Daniel. I can understand Satan deceiving himself to think he had a chance against God PRE-JESUS. I really can. But after the utter triumph of the Crucified and Risen Son of God...I'm thinking that, if the scriptural testimony is true about the EXTENT of the triumph, then that MAY have an effect on the continuing willingness to oppose God over time.
Daniel: First, I'm not sure we can reduce the rebellion of Satan to a desire to over-power God. I'm thinking about the book of Job and Satan's role in the narrative. He was the enemy of creation, he called God's judgement and wisdom into question by suggesting that humanity doesn't really love God. Satan called into question the entire project of creating loving relationships. Second, do we see any signs that suggest Satan is diminishing in his desire/goal of undermining creation? I certainly don't see any difference between Satanic influence pre-Jesus and post-Jesus. There are a inconceivable number of ways to mis-relate. They do not all reduce to power dynamics. Unless you're a post-modernist.
One Love: See, bro, it seems that your main argument is that freedom to reject God's love and receive God's love is absolutely uncontstrained by information and personal experience, such that it will always be a 50/50 chance of sinning...but that's not accurate. Definitely not by TWT 6. Basically, what you say is that if someone has the irrevocable freedom to misrelate to God and themselves, after receiving judgment and salvation...then it's INEVITABLE (given the infinite future forward) that the being WILL DEFINITELY fall into rejection of God again, even AFTER experiencing God's post-judgement Love. But I don't know about that.
Daniel: I see it this way. The freedom to mis-relate requires an epistemic distance from God. Our distance from God is a necessary condition for LFW in the context of our choices for or against God. Distance is necessary for there to be God-ward movement. If there is sufficient distance for us to continue to move toward God then there is sufficient distance for us to move away from God. If there is freedom to move toward God in the eschaton it follows that humanity has the epistimic distance to mis-relate.
I don't know what the day of Judgement means in UR. As the day of Judgement seems to be an ongoing process when the unrepentant finally come to accept the inevitable and come to God. Thus, the judgement of damnation has no enduring quality, but the judgement of salvation does. If each option is the consequence of free-choices then doesn't the freedom of choice collapse into the "choice of God". Since the choice against God is not capable of being an enduring decision. In other words, the freedom of choice, whatever that means, all leads to the same choice in UR: The choice of God (I know Tom and OL disagree on this).
Freedom seems to become meaningless if, in the end, everyone HAS to chose the same thing.
One Love : It seems like it. But if LFW exercised in rational deliberation in the choice for or against God, then these events would HAVE to come into play for them to consider.
Daniel: I'm not sure the choice for or against God can be reduced to rational deliberation.
One Love: The unchanageable exaltation and triumph of the Incarnate Word, Jesus, (and the corresponding shaming and disarming of the evil powers) is what provides the "assymetry" by which defeated foes of God can come into the open doors of the Holy City, but do not want to go back out.
Would you agree this is possible, Daniel?
Daniel: It's certainly possible. I'm open to being wrong. However, I cannot make sense of many of the metaphors about life/death in the New Testament without there being some sort of eternal consequence of choices made in this life. I don't know how the fallen powers will be redeemed. They seem to be working on a difference scheme then we are. My point about Satan was that a creature with less epistemic distance then we currently have fell from heaven. If the choice to repent remains open post-judgement, and we're going to call that a free choice, then the choice to rebel remains open post-judgement. Both sides of the coin need to be possible for it to be considered a choice at all.
One Love:Greg uses this analogy all the time: the relationship of the Normandy Invasion to the ultimate victory of the Allied Forces over the Nazi Forces. After the heavily-sacrficial landings, a "significant variable" had been secured such that ultimate victory was definitely leaning toward the Allied Forces...even though heavy fighting continued up to the end.
Daniel: That might be a poor analogy, because if Hitler had not of opened up the eastern front into Stalinist Russia the invasion would have failed. Even had the initial invasion force succeeded in gaining a foothold, they would have, in all likelihood, been defeated. From my understanding of history, the victory of WWII had as much to do with poor planning on the Nazi side as it did with any particular achievements from the Allies. The Allies never, themselves, achieved anything that set the ultimate victory in stone. Hitler shot himself in the foot, so to speak.
One Love: Is any exercise of libertarian freedom we see completely unconstrained with respect to being conditioned by received information/truth and previous personal experience?
Daniel: It doesn't have to be completely unconstrained. Adam fell even though he was in the garden. Eve and Himself ate the apple even though they were instructed not to. This isn't completely unconstrained from information and historical perspective and it isn't completely irrational. We can be held responsible for irrational deliberations. When we act, and decide, how many of us actually place our thought process within symbolic logic and determine the validity, let alone soundness, of our thought-processes?
One Love: If the defeat of Satan by Jesus in front of all the angelic hosts and powers means ANYTHING, it has to be somewhat significant to WHY "every knee will bow" and "every tongue will confess" that Jesus is Lord.
Daniel: Because on the day of judgement everyone will acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord of the cosmos and accept their judgement as legitimate. The Lamb has the authority to judge. Even the demons know Jesus is the Lord. Are they still in rebellion?
One Love : Would you be "fooled" into thinking it "had to be magic"...like you may have been before? Nope.
Daniel: How many addicts are "fooled" into revisiting their abused substance after KNOWING and EXPERIENCING the pain it causes to them and others? Many. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/26/2010 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom:
OL: I think, Tom, that Daniel's ultimately going with the idea that at any given moment, a creaturely being has the freedom to accept or reject God by self-disposition. He takes this to mean that, given infinity forward, it's logically possible that the potential to freely reject God via self-disposition WILL be exercised by SOME redeemed sentient being at SOME time in the future.
Tom: So creation CANNOT be FINALLY SECURE in its creator?
That sucks. It sucks bad because the consequence of those who reject God is annihilation, on Dan's view. So he's for irrevocable consequences for rejecting God in certain contexts but not for irrevocable union with God in ANY context? That means in heaven we'll be free to reject God, and given an infinite future, there will probably be an steady EXIT out of heaven of people into annihilation. So heaven eventually empties out, there IS no creation to speak of, and God will be back where he started.
That's your view Dan?
Daniel: I think there's a slight mixing up here. I would suggest that given how I'm understanding UR, creation cannot be finally secure in it's creator. Apparently I'm in the minority, so I could be very wrong 
In my view: the repentant, both those have repented in this world, and in post-mortem, when the truth is revealed to individuals who have not had the opportunity to decide, are forever and finally secured in their creator because they have freely chosen to become people who no longer have the choice to move against God. There is no more God-ward motion in them because they have solidified themselves IN God. There is nowhere to move. The eschaton is the living out of that relationship between redeemed humanity and God which will not fail.
Tom: I'd just reply that neither my concept of love nor of freedom with respect to created being precludes the compossibility of the capacity to irrevocably dispose Godward and the incapacity to irrevocably dispose against God.
Daniel: Freedom ends with the irrevocable disposition toward God. I really don't see how freedom of choice in the context of decisions for or against God has any meaning after it has been decided. I don't have freedom in regards to my past decisions. The solidification toward or away from God will be like a past decision in this world post-judgement. It cannot be undone. At least thats how I see it.
It seems perfectly analogous to the way the world runs now. We have the repentant and the unrepentant. Unless you go with some sort of "once saved always saved" scheme, then I find it perfectly understandable to watch some oscillate between each of the camps.
I'm having a really hard time understanding what the day of Judgement means inside of the UR scheme. It's pretty hyped up in the bible: The general resurrection, the judgement of all creation, glorified humans, justice established, etc. If we say that there are people who enter into judgement without repenting (which doesn't seem to be debated) then why isn't their judgement enduring? What hints do we have that the day of judgement is final for some (the saved) but incomplete for others (the damned)?Post Edited (Daniel M) : 5/26/2010 5:27:57 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/26/2010 11:08 PM (GMT -6) | | 2 Thessalonians 1.5-10:
All this is evidence that God's judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.
What does UR do with this passage? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/27/2010 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom,
Yea. If the judgement of destruction is "everlasting", how does it come to pass that eventually the unrepentant become part of the "holy people"?
The judgements of destruction and salvation seem to have the same enduring quality. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/27/2010 4:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Was thinkng of something. I remember listening to a song by Mylon Lefevre live in concert. During his speil before the song he said. "I'm free. Free in Jesus. Free not to do drugs. Free not to have promiscous sex. Free from anger and hate and pride, etc." Now, if you want to talk about seeing something in reality which demonstrates the sort of freedom (self-solidification unto compatiblistic freedom) I think it would look something like this. Ontologically, as far as one's disposition is concerned, one may still have the ability to choose otherwise (which is part of what that irrevocable potential to percieve and enjoy God is about) . However, in this case one has solidified to the place where they no longer want to do otherwise. Again, we see this in reality in our walk with the Lord.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 5/27/2010 4:25:31 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/27/2010 4:24 PM (GMT -6) | | | Look at what OL said here: The unchanageable exaltation and triumph of the Incarnate Word, Jesus, (and the corresponding shaming and disarming of the evil powers) is what provides the "assymetry" by which defeated foes of God can come into the open doors of the Holy City, but **do not want** to go back out.
Question: Does the scope of "freedom" merely entail the choice to do otherwise? It seems to me according to the Bible, we are SLAVES and NOT free with respect to sin. That is, one is TRULY free when they no longer desire the fruits of the sinful nature or desires to participate in them. One still COULD, dispositionally speaking, choose otherwise, but they don't desire to. How is that not freedom?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/27/2010 10:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tom,
Tom: Are you thinking this is a problem if their judgment is also "aionios" (eternal)? Are you taking "aionios" to always mean "temporally unending"?
Daniel: Alright, the verse says "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord".
Am I taking it to mean "temporally unending"? Yes, because there seems to be good support for "aionios" to mean "temporally unending" or "forever" or "everlasting".
I'm not an expert on Greek by any means. But just looking up a quick cross reference in Strongs (166), It seems as though it's also translated into "eternal" fairly often. I prefer the ESV:
Mt 18.8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.
Mt 19.29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
Within the same book we see the same word "aionios" used to describe both negative and positive judgments in the afterlife. Using just these passages, if the "aionios" of the negative judgement is NOT temporally unending, then why should we assume that the positive judgement IS temporally unending?
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
The simple structure of this (granted) translated sentence seems to imply that the "perishing" or "life" any individual may experience, has "aionios" as it's qualifier.
2 Peter 1:11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Again, does this not suggest a "temporally unending" kingdom?
Tom: On an aside, the "destruction" (olethros, I think) in 1Th 1.9 is also used in 1Co 5.5 (I think) where Paul speaks of surrendering the offender to Satan "so that his flesh may be destroyed but his spirit saved" on the day of judgment. Just thought that was interesting; that "destruction" can be redemptive and so not inconsistent with "salvation"
Daniel: I think this might actually prove my point. If you're right and "olethros" is used in both cases, then it seems as though "olethros" has an unending dimension. 1 Cor 5.5 is talking about the destruction of the sinful nature in order for salvation to occur. We don't assume that the sinful nature is destroyed only temporarily do we, that it will come back to haunt, and tempt, again? No, we read it as a final end to the sinful nature. And if "olethros" is used on the whole of a human soul, why would it mean something different? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/28/2010 12:09 AM (GMT -6) | | | Hmmm...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/28/2010 1:03:10 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/28/2010 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | I want to respond to your stuff, Daniel. I'll get to it today...but first...
Thought: If the Spirit of the Risen Jesus is the actual ground of all created persons, is irrevocable self-deceit about God and self possible for any created being?
As I think about it, this would apply to any type of "eternal death." If self-created ECT (Jerry Walls), it's because they never get out of their self-deceit about God being the Supreme God. If it's annihiliationism (Daniel), it's because they have so solidified in their self-deceit, that God KNOWS it's impossible to break them out of it, and he graciously annihilates them.
But my mind says this: Can the created mind experience irrevocable self-deceit with respect to their relationship with the God the Holy Spirit as Summum Bonum, if the Holy Spirit is revealed to be the Uncreated Ground of the Self?
It seems to me that ECTers and annihilationists HAVE to say yes: Creatures can and do irrevocably SELF-DECEIVE THEMSELVES such that it is literally impossible for them to see God as their highest Good. and URers HAVE to say this is NOT possible.
See what I'm saying?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/28/2010 8:57:44 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/28/2010 8:58 AM (GMT -6) | | I will say that if Love is Truth...and Love Never Fails...then Truth Never Fails such that Truth overcomes Self-Deceit...eventually.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/28/2010 9:35:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/28/2010 10:06 AM (GMT -6) | | One more thing...really quick.
If part of the image of God in creaturely beings is the irrevocable capacity to give and receive love in one's self-referential activity...what implications may that have on this discussion?
First of all, would anyone deny that this qualifies as part of the image of God (who IS Love) ?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 5/28/2010 11:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey One love,
I look forward to your responses. I'm loving the discussion.
One Love: If part of the image of God in creaturely beings is the irrevocable capacity to give and receive love in one's self-referential activity...what implications may that have on this discussion?
Daniel: I need to think on this for a bit. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/28/2010 11:36 AM (GMT -6) | | That's what I said earlier. I said, "Also, I find it interesting that that part of human constitution not affected by the fall is the irrevocable capacity to "to perceive and enjoy God forever." This is what the Creator designed them for. For example, to be a portal and conduit recieve God's love. That's the metaphysical groundedness of the creature. Once that's in place, then it seems that UR is valid. In other words, what other reason would there be for this designed portal to be left intact?"
So it woud seem that in Daniel's view this irrevocable capacity to recieve God's love is irrevocable in some persons but not others.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 5/28/2010 12:04:20 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/28/2010 1:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel:
So it woud seem that in Daniel's view this irrevocable capacity to recieve God's love is irrevocable in some persons but not others.
Yeah, Brandon. But it's more than that. He (and others like Walls) want to say that it by self-determination unto irrevocable self-deception that eternal "death" occur. But that's the problem: if it's actually an aspect of WHAT IT MEANS to be a creature in God's image to have the irrevocable capacity to "perceive and enjoy God" / "receiving God's love"...how can any created being completely misrelate to themselves (via self-deceit) and God (via despair against God) that such that there is NO POSSIBLE FURTHER HOPE of ever receiving God's love...especially when God Himself (the Creator Spirit, Love) is holding the whole relation together in the first place as the constant source of our being...and personally "WOOING" us with His Presence and opportunity for love relationship that God immutably gives to all his "images"?
See what I'm saying?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/28/2010 1:04:01 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/28/2010 1:06 PM (GMT -6) | | In SATPOE, Greg talked about how some people wanted to say that FREEDOM was "more important" than Love such that Freedom (and not Love) was the ultimate reality. To them, this justified the idea of an eternal hell. God wanted to honor us with the ability to irrevocably destroy ourselves BECAUSE of our God-given freedom. Greg tried to work AGAINST THIS via the idea that freedom was a METAPHYSICAL COMPONENT of being God's images: whoever images God HAS to have some measure of freedom because God HIMSELF is free! But he also wanted to say that this Freedom was CONDITIONED and CONDITIONABLE such that "compatibilist" freedom (the freedom to always live by the Good) was possible.
Love REQUIRES Freedom.
At the same time, we are created in God's image (meaning the ability to say "I am", "I give love", "I receive love", "I see Beauty.", etc) and God IS Love. If we are genuinely in God's image, I don't see how any being in his image would not have the IRREVOCABLE capacity to perceive God's beauty and love God...especially because THAT's JUST what God does ad intra.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/28/2010 1:10:43 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/28/2010 1:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel:
First, I'm not sure we can reduce the rebellion of Satan to a desire to over-power God. I'm thinking about the book of Job and Satan's role in the narrative. He was the enemy of creation, he called God's judgement and wisdom into question by suggesting that humanity doesn't really love God. Satan called into question the entire project of creating loving relationships. Second, do we see any signs that suggest Satan is diminishing in his desire/goal of undermining creation? I certainly don't see any difference between Satanic influence pre-Jesus and post-Jesus. There are a inconceivable number of ways to mis-relate. They do not all reduce to power dynamics. Unless you're a post-modernist.
I'm not talking about some celestial coup here. I'm thinking about Satan opposing God's (loving, truthful) objectives. Nothing more or less. Satan is the one who seeks to "steal, kill, and destroy" and is the "father of lies" who speaks his HOME LANGUAGE when he opposes Love and Truth.
Here's the deal: If Satan can ever LEARN that he cannot STEAL from Jesus (because Jesus has all authority), he cannot KILL or DESTROY God or his humanity (the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus), and that lies cannot prevail over Truth. (God is Truth and Love)...this would NEVER effect his desire about continuing such a futile misadventure?
******************************
Daniel:
I see it this way. The freedom to mis-relate requires an epistemic distance from God. Our distance from God is a necessary condition for LFW in the context of our choices for or against God. Distance is necessary for there to be God-ward movement. If there is sufficient distance for us to continue to move toward God then there is sufficient distance for us to move away from God. If there is freedom to move toward God in the eschaton it follows that humanity has the epistimic distance to mis-relate.
Yes, humanity has the epistemic distance to relate to being in the image of God (self-referential activity). But can any amount of sin DESTROY the image of God in a human. Absolutely not.
**********************************
Daniel:
I don't know what the day of Judgement means in UR. As the day of Judgement seems to be an ongoing process when the unrepentant finally come to accept the inevitable and come to God. Thus, the judgement of damnation has no enduring quality, but the judgement of salvation does. If each option is the consequence of free-choices then doesn't the freedom of choice collapse into the "choice of God". Since the choice against God is not capable of being an enduring decision. In other words, the freedom of choice, whatever that means, all leads to the same choice in UR: The choice of God (I know Tom and OL disagree on this).
Freedom seems to become meaningless if, in the end, everyone HAS to chose the same thing.
The "end" is everyone choosing for their own best Good (including the best for All). This is LITERALLY the "good" life. This is where there are different designations of "freedom". Some see freedom primarily as the ability to choose against the Supreme God (which is simultaneously their OWN highest Good and that of all creation) with eternal, irrevocable ramifications. If we can't do that, we're not free, they say. Others see freedom as natural, spontaneous "correspondence" to what is "true, beautiful, worthy, and good."
See the issue. One person will say that for God to maximize freedom, he HAS to give us the ability to irrevocably self-deceive so that our decisions can have eternal, moral import. Another will say that for God to maximize freedom, he HAS to give us the irrevocable ability to perceive and enjoy God so that our decisions can have eternal, moral import.
******************************
One Love: Is any exercise of libertarian freedom we see completely unconstrained with respect to being conditioned by received information/truth and previous personal experience?
Daniel: It doesn't have to be completely unconstrained. Adam fell even though he was in the garden. Eve and Himself ate the apple even though they were instructed not to. This isn't completely unconstrained from information and historical perspective and it isn't completely irrational. We can be held responsible for irrational deliberations. When we act, and decide, how many of us actually place our thought process within symbolic logic and determine the validity, let alone soundness, of our thought-processes?
By their sin, did Adam and Eve irrevocably destroy their human capacity to perceive God's beauty and receive God's love? If not, that directly illustrates my point. I'd say it didn't. If it did, then NO HUMAN BEINGS WHO SIN would be able to ever perceive any of God's beauty or receive any of his Love.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/28/2010 1:31:18 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 182 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:01 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|