 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Self-Reference | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/28/2010 10:29 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/28/2010 10:47 PM (GMT -6) | | | OL: Basically, biblically speaking, Satan has IRREVOCABLE "FREEDOM" to "percieve and enjoy God" because of the irrevocable presence of the Lord via the Holy Spirit within him, as a creaturely "spirit" being. One has to demonstrate how Satan can irrevocably destroy his ability to "perceive and enjoy God" by sinful self-determination/misuse of his libertarian freedom such that there is no further possibility at all for a future loving relationship to God and himself.
Brandon: Was thinking about this. If Satan or any other self-referential being were able to destroy the ABILITY to "percieve and enjoy God" it would seem that one would end up in total and complete despair such that they could not be held morally responsible for their misuse of freedom because this would affect all levels of the self-referential being's ontological status.
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 | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/28/2010 10:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
If Satan or any other self-referential being were able to destroy the ABILITY to "percieve and enjoy God" it would seem that one would end up in total and complete despair such that they could not be held morally responsible for their misuse of freedom because this would affect all levels of the self-referential being's ontological status.
To utterly destroy the ability to "perceive and enjoy God" , Satan would have to literally annihilate his drive to be a "self" working for his highest good (currently believed to be himself). He'd basically be analogous to a an experiencing being in a "spiritual stupor" unable to relate himself to himself, with NO morally-significant activity at all. But he CAN'T do that. Both drives are gifts irrevocably given to Satan by God Himself, whose immediate Personal Empowering Presence is the center of Satan's very being. This is because Freedom Requires Self-Reference. That's why Satan (as evil as he currently is) is using those gifted abilities in misrelation RIGHT NOW!
To irrevocably nullify the ability to "perceive and enjoy God" via self-deceit, Satan would have to elimate any possible opportunity for intimate knowledge of the Truth--coming directly from the Spirit of Truth--to set him free. ("You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." ) But he CAN'T do that either. He'd have to remove the Holy Spirit from his constitution to remove any further "impulse towards good" or God-ward movement...and that's metaphysically impossible.
Either one of these HAS to be true for Walls' ECT and Daniel's annihilationism.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/28/2010 11:07:59 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/28/2010 11:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Totally agree with you. I'm simply saying that if he were reduced to this state of being, it seems that according to Daniel's view such self-reference would cease to exist thus any possibility to PERCIEVE and enjoy God. So this raises questions of moral implications. I mean what would that entail in terms of moral responsibility?
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 | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/28/2010 11:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Why would God annihilate someone who reached that point? Such a being would be a complete mess!
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 | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/28/2010 11:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
Why would God annihilate someone who reached that point? Such a being would be a complete mess!
Because it was be the most gracious thing to do. If a spiritual being could actually reach that state where there was NO further possible ability to relate oneself to oneself (or any others), it would be analogous to someone in a permanent, non-recoverable (not just persistent) vegetative state with no real self-awareness capacity at all for any future becoming.
Annihilationists would argue that God would be loving and gracious to "pull the plug" on such a person. We're gonna say that's not necessary...because it's NOT POSSIBLE for any incorporeal aspect of creaturely sentient beings to have their self-referential "spiritual" capacity 1) completely removed such that immutable "spiritual stupor" obtains or 2) irrevocably nullified by "terminal self-deceit."
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/28/2010 11:30:24 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/28/2010 11:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Hmm...I can only say that based on what you are say about the Spirit's irrevocable presence that " with God all things are possible.
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 | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/29/2010 1:13 AM (GMT -6) | | | Philosophical Grounds for A Reasonable "Expectation" of Eventual Universal Reconciliation:
For any unredeemed creaturely spirit being "X" who has been created in God's image...
1) While the possibility for X freely choosing to receive God's love remains viable, God will continue to work with X towards that end. (God is Love; "who God is" )
2) The possibility for X freely choosing to receive God's love unalterably remains viable. (Metaphysical price-tag of creaturely subjects in God's Image; "who we are" )
If 1 and 2 are true...then...
3) God will continue to work with X until she freely chooses to receive God's love. (Interaction of "who God is" and "who we are" )
It's pretty much that simple. You don't even have to do that whole "Probability-is-less-than-1" type thing here. It just says that 1) no being created in God's image is irredeemable and 2)God never gives up on any authentically redeemable being. To argue against this for ECT or annihilationism, one pretty much has to argue against #2...basically saying that X's possibility for freely choosing reception of God love can be rendered fundamentally UNviable some kind of way. To do that, it has to be demonstrated metaphysically HOW an incorporeal "spirit" being (like Satan) can irrevocably eliminate or nullify the ability to "perceive and enjoy God" via misrelation of self-determination and/or misuse of libertarian freedom...such that they are absolutely irredeemable by God.
If it's indeed true that part of the image of God in being X includes her irrevocable capacity to give and receive love in her self-referential activity...and one wanted to be an annihilationist...then that one would have to deny #2 by saying that X's creaturely misuse of libertarian freedom can effectively annihilate (not merely despoil) God's image in her. And that's a hard sell...ESPECIALLY for the Evangelicals.
Thumbs up, y'all? 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/29/2010 3:19:24 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/29/2010 3:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Would this interaction even be POSSIBLE if Satan had absolutely NO ABILITY to "perceive and enjoy God" in "relating himself to himself"??
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?” Then Satan answered the Lord and said, “Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.
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 5/29/2010 8:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey One Love,
I've got a busy weekend. I read some of what you and BBBC, and Tom have posted, but I haven't gotten to everything yet. I probably won't be able to get a decent response up until tomorrow sometime.
Good stuff. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 5/29/2010 2:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Here is a self-referential verse.
Mark 12:29 Jesus answered, "The most important is: 'Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.'
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.'
31 The second is, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
In order to love others we must love ourselves (of course in a healthy way, ie., loving God and seeing ourselves as we truly are) and we can ONLY love ourselves when we are in a right relation with God. That is, one is prior to the other.
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 | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/29/2010 2:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Putting this more in line with Greg's Aesthetic Argument and all...we're pretty close...
---------------------------------------------
For any unredeemed image bearer X before God...
1) X has the irrevocable drive to move towards perceiving and enjoying some supreme good via self-referential activity.(Definitional disposition of creaturely personal being)
2) X in sinful misrelation does not enjoy God as her supreme good. (Description of sin)
3) God Himself is actually the supreme good for X. (Aesthetic Argument, Logos/logoi, etc)
4) God's Personal Presence within X is the metaphysical ground of X's existence. (EO view of Grace, etc)
5) God never gives up working to free X to enjoy God as her supreme good while the possibility of such exists. (God is Love)
6) The possibility for X enjoying God as her supreme good always exists. (No X is "hopelessly locked in sin." )
7) God never gives up working to free X to enjoy God as her supreme good. (5 and 6)
8) X has the potential to refrain from enjoying God as her surpreme good without ever stopping. (Flip side of #6)
9) If X unceasingly continues in refraining from enjoying God as her supreme good, ...X will never actually enjoy God as her supreme good. (Logical possibility of "endless suffering")
10) Given 1-7, it is reasonable to believe that it is EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE---though not logically impossible---that X will unceasingly continue in refraining from enjoying God as her supreme good unto experiencing "endless suffering."
Old example for #10. It's LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that I could go to the Eiffel Tower with the 2 shoebox full of Scrabble letters spelling out Psalm 119 on a windless day, throw them out, and watch them spell a legible Psalm 119 on the ground. It's LOGICALLY POSSIBLE. At the same time, if you saw me bet my house that such a thing WOULD occur within 6000 tries, you'd still probably think I was totally irrational and/or crazy! You'd admit the logically possibility, but try to convince me that it was existentially FOOLISH to actually believe that it would happen...even WITH 6000 tries...or 600,000 tries!!
It the same logic here. It's logically possible that a creaturely "spirit" being can unceasingly refrain from perceiving and enjoying God (the ground of his very being) as his supreme good. But given WHO God is and WHO we are as created images, it would be just as IRRATIONAL and CRAZY for me to believe that will occur...as it would for me to believe I'd be spelling out Psalm 119 at the bottom of the Eiffel Tower with the 600,000 tries!
What do y'all think?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/30/2010 10:13:02 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/30/2010 5:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Interesting. Went back to Willliam Hasker's book: "Providence, Evil, and the Openness of God."
Chapter 6: The openness of God. Pages 102-103.
Here, Hasker is talking about the REVERSE of what we've been talking about here. Some argument with the open view says that, in openness, there is a logical possibility that all people might freely choose to reject salvation, thus thwarting God's ultimate goal of having a people. The logical possibility CANNOT be denied given the basis of LFW. Listen to his logic against this...
We certainly should not underestimate the tremendous resourcefulness of God in adapting his responses to human actions--even willful and disobedient human actions--so as to achieve his wise and loving purposes.
But even if it is possible, in the open view, for all human beings without exception to reject salvation, still this might be overwhelmingly improbable--so improbable that the risk of such an outcome is negligible. Consider a parallel: According to modern physics, there is a finite probability that all of the oxygen in a room should concentrate itself in a small volume, leaving the rest of the room devoid of oxygen and unable to sustain life. But the probability of this happening is so minute that rational persons can and do disregard the possibility in conducting their lives; I am completely confident that not a single one of my readers goes about with bottled oxygen in order to protect himself in the event of such an occurance! So why should our inability to show how God can logically guarantee that humans will respond to his love constitute a serious objection?
See what he's saying? Hasker basically says that the logical possibility of every human being rejecting salvation is so "overwhelmingly improbable" unto negligibility, that no SERIOUS consideration of it's occurrance is rational.
IN LIKE MANNER...
We are saying that the logical possiblity of any image-bearing creature unceasingly refraining from perceiving and enjoying God as the ground of his very being and his supreme good (and so endure "endless suffering" )..."is so minute that rational persons can...disregard the possibility in conducting their lives."
As a rational person, I can grant the LOGICAL POSSIBILITY that "endless suffering" of an unredeemed person can obtain...but I put just as much confidence in that actually happening as I do that the LOGICAL POSSIBILITY that all of the air in this room right now will concentrate itself in a small area, killing me. As a rational person, I can "conduct my life" as if NEITHER LOGICAL POSSIBILITY WILL OBTAIN. So, I can affirm the potential "endlessness" of hell...JUST LIKE I can affirm the potential "spontaneous contraction" of air in a room at any given time: Negligible.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/30/2010 5:50:56 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/30/2010 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | | Get it, Tom? If open theists ALREADY use this type of argument about "overwhelmingly probable" probabilities about why they don't fear universal damnation...then UR people can use the same argument about why they anticipate universal reconciliation..
Its a done deal, baby.
Check your email, Tom. Heh.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/30/2010 9:47:52 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/30/2010 9:49 AM (GMT -6) | | | Universal Reconcilation is a "REASONABLE HOPE FOR (GOD'S) SUCCESS" in his "just war" to convince all of his image-bearers that God is INDEED the loving ground of their being and their highest good. URs believe that it's BECAUSE of the "overwhelmingly improbable" possibility of "eternal suffering" that God would RISK Creation with self-referencing, self-determining created persons at all. This "minute" possibility was the ACCEPTABLE RISK of an all-loving God who didn't need Creation at all. Would any theodicy person FAULT God for that acceptable risk? I don't think so. It's the BEST THAT GOD COULD DO to give us the LFW we need to be his "people" (not just absorbed into Divine Presence) while assuring that as many images as possible end up perceiving and enjoying God forever...which is the BEST POSSIBLE END for any image-bearer!
I believe in God's ULTIMATE VICTORY in this. A rational person can have the "reasonable hope" that God will convince everyone...even Satan. He'll work as long as it takes...and Satan always has an opportunity to "perceive and enjoy" God. It's just a matter of time...and patience.
Christus Victor...all day, eryday.
John Piper is right about "Christian Hedonism."
Christian Hedonism teaches that the desire to be happy is God-given and should not be denied or resisted but directed to God for satisfaction. Christian Hedonism does not say that whatever you enjoy is good. It says that God has shown you what is good and doing it ought to bring you joy (Micah 6:8). And since doing the will of God ought to bring you joy, the pursuit of joy is an essential part of all moral effort. If you abandon the pursuit of joy (and thus refuse to be a Hedonist, as I use the term), you cannot fulfill the will of God. Christian Hedonism affirms that the godliest saints of every age have discovered no contradiction in saying, on the one hand, "We are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered" (Romans 8:36), and on the other hand, "Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I will say, Rejoice" (Philippians 4:4). Christian Hedonism does not join the culture of self-gratification that makes you a slave of your sinful impulses. Christian Hedonism commands that we not be conformed to this age but that we be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2) so we can delight to do the will of our Father in heaven. According to Christian Hedonism joy in God is not optional icing on the cake of Christianity. When you think it through, joy in God is an essential part of saving faith.
It's no small event that both Greg Boyd and John Piper LOVE Jonathon Edwards. Both of them AGREE that God is the Supreme Beauty and the Highest Good of every creature in God's image. Heh.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/30/2010 10:11:54 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/30/2010 10:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Random.
How can God "suffer" with Creation while being "impassible"?
Perfect Equanimity.
When we abide in presence, it is natural for us as human beings to feel expansive and open in our hearts. We are touched and affected by our experiences, often in profound ways, but we are not lost or swept away by our emotional reactions. We are compassionately connected with truth, and this supports us in our ability to remain present even to potentially painful experiences or realizations. Equanimity gives us tremendous support for our soul's capacity to be touched and transformed by the events of our lives, both grand and subtle. This gives healthy Fours the ability to embrace life without being so "storm-tossed" by every feeling. Even negative experiences can be made into something positive, and they find peace in knowing that the soul is able to transform every experience into something worthwhile and valuable.
-----------------------------------------
American Buddhist monk Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:
“The real meaning of upekkha is equanimity, not indifference in the sense of unconcern for others. As a spiritual virtue, upekkha means equanimity in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, pleasure and pain. Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human beings. True equanimity is the pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the 'divine abodes': boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the preceding three, but perfects and consummates them.”
God has "equanimity" to an infinite degree. Hart called it "divine apatheia"...right, Tom?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/30/2010 10:42:47 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 5/31/2010 11:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm...
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.
John Wesley's Notes...
The sons - The holy angels, so called, chap.38:7 Dan 3:25,28, because of their creation by God, for their resemblance of him in power, and dignity, and holiness, and for their filial affection and obedience, to him.
So...biblically, angels are considered "sons" of God, it seems. So I guess that, if we took that to be true, then that would make God their "father", yes?
Take a listen to Greg's 5/30/10 sermon whenever they put it up.
Thought: "If Satan is an angel, and angels can be considered sons of God, doesn't that mean that Satan is a son of God?"
Think of the picture that Greg paints of the "heart of the father" in the parable in relationship to how God may actually feel about Satan, a lost son of God.
Really.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 5/31/2010 11:52:49 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/1/2010 3:07 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/1/2010 9:32 PM (GMT -6) | | From here...
Jersak believes that both the classical tradition and dogmatic universalism err on the side of presumption. I think that his position is that
1. the classical tradition presumes that final judgement obliterates hope (which pushes the biblical texts beyond where they go, and fails to take the universal salvation texts seriously enough) and that
2. dogmatic universalism does not take seriously enough (a) the possibility of humans freely resisting God forever, and (b) the fact that the Hell texts do not unambiguously allow for the salvation of all from Hell.
Well, there is just tonnes of good stuff in this book. I even have a lot of sympathy for his final embracing of hopeful universalism - I appreciate his theological justification for it and respect his integrity in handling the biblical material as he draws that judgement.
Obviously, I go further. I am a strongly inclined to accept the truth of convinced universalism (what I occasionally call 'dogmatic' universalism - although I do not mean 'dogmatic' in a technical theological sense). So I guess that my view is one that Jersak would see as presumptuous. Well, I don't mind that, but clearly I don't myself think it presumptuous.
I guess that I don't find the freewill argument against convinced universalism to be at all persuasive (for reasons sketched in ch 1 of my book). So for me to be persuaded to scale back my universalism to 'hopeful' mode I'd need some biblical case that the universalist texts don't teach that all will be saved but that all 'can' be saved or that all 'might' be saved. I just can't see that.
----------------------------- I'm thinking this issue is solved with our proposal. From the open view perspective (and the LFW idea within), there metphysically HAS to be a logical possibility of humans (and angels) freely resisting God forever. Openness adherents like Hasker have already said that. Greg has said that. (Think about the Hexagon: "Might" and "Might Not" ) Period. The end. It just has to be that way ontologically or there's no real ground for LFW. At the same time, given who God is (EO Grace, God as Supreme Beauty/Good, Ground of all existence, Reality as Aesthetic, etc) and who image-bearers (self-referencing, self-determining, seeking a supreme good, etc) the probability of any image-bearer actually freely resisting God forever is so "overwhelmingly improbable" unto negligibility, that it makes RATIONAL SENSE TO believe that "all will eventually be saved."
In other words, there can be an "convinced universalism" that allows for the irrevocable "might and might not" possibility to refrain from enjoying God as their supreme good that metaphysically grounds LFW with God-ward movement...while saying that it is rational to be fully persuaded that that proability of that an image-bearer will only exercise the "might not" option without ever stopping (unto experiencing "endless suffering" ) is "so minute that rational persons can...disregard the possibility in conducting their lives" ...such that they live "as if all will be saved."
Make sense?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 6/1/2010 9:51:01 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 10:03 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 |
|
|