 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/13/2010 4:26 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Hey, you guys...I'd really like y'all's opinion on this guy's statements.
As I read him, I'm hearing him say that the chief responsibility of a Christian is to be "available" and "receptive" to the Spiritual Presence of Jesus, allowing the Person of Jesus to live his life in and through us. From his perspective, this doesn't mean that the Christian chooser is passively involved. The Christian chooser is also responsible for making choices concerning behavior and attitude that ALLOW for Christ's Spiritual Presence living in and through our lives, re-presenting Christ's presence unimpeded. What I feel is crucial with Asher in Tom is this: for any given human being, the author seems to deny any moral self-suffciency such that self-empowered, self-generated works of love are actually possible. Creatures are self-determinative, but not self-generating in any real sense. They can only receive their direction of becoming according to another source. That can either be God (ie. SK faith) or the "Void" of creaturely no-thingness before God (SK despair).
Long and short of it, his thoughts mean that the goal of the Christian life is NOT to become so purified that we self-determine AND self-generate our own "works of love" at some point. The goal of Christian life is to self-determine one's openness and receptivity to the Risen Jesus himself working in the self through the indwelling Holy Spirit of Jesus. Please notice that the self is not confused with Christ...just like a holy temple is never confused with the holy Presence that permeates the temple making it holy. A temple is essentially derivative from the sense of Holy Presence it references, reflects, and embodies. Same way with the human...when they live as a "temple" of Christ's very Presence.
What do you (Asher and Tom) think about the idea the human beings CAN self-determine themselves, but CANNOT self-empower and self-generate actual "works of love" in whatever self-determinations they make? Would y'all agree with that?
I'm thinkin' so. I mean think about it. If it's really true that we can only love God (and in turn, self and others) is to the extent that we understand that we are deeply, unconditionally loved by God, then that's prima facie evidence that our works of love are derivatives in the most essential sense: we cannot self-empower and self-generate love to God and others...we can only receive the Father's love for Christ and Christ's love for us "shed abroard in our hearts" through Christ's Spiritual Presence within us, which spirates love and empowers us for works of love.
"Without Christ, I can do no-thing." (No self-empowerment or self-generation of works of love)
"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Self-determination of works of love empowered and generated by the love of Christ directly from Christ's Spiritual Presence)
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/13/2010 5:17:50 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/13/2010 5:21 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Well, I’m just going on your explanation for the moment.
Christ, the Logos, is the defining group for all possibilities of creaturely becoming. So of course when a creaturely being becomes all they can be in some respect, they’re conforming their existence to their logos. So there’s no complaint so far. We can’t self-generate IF you mean “create new possibilities not already grounded in Christ.” So all creaturely being, however free and creative from our side of the equation, is a conformity to Christ.
But the problem is here: “[Creatures] can only receive their direction of becoming according to another source.”
What if God as the directing source directs the creature to determine which among a set of equally loving possibilities gets actualized? That is, what if the Creator directs the creature to determine herself creatively even if this doesn’t mean the creature is creating the possibilities? I don’t see why we should think God would want to SPECIFY the PRECISE form that creaturely becoming takes in every instance, and it sounds like that's what this guy might be saying--viz., God has a specific directive for EVERY aspect of creaturely becoming and ALL we do is follow directions in those respects. I'd disagree with this. It’s one thing to say we don’t ULTIMATELY GROUND the possibilities of our own becoming. It’s another to say that we can’t self-determine within a set of possibilities and thus contribute something to the unique shape our existence takes toward God.
D: What do you (Asher and Tom) think about the idea the human beings CAN self-determine themselves, but CANNOT self-empower and self-generate actual "works of love" in whatever self-determinations they make? Would y'all agree with that?
T: Are you taking self-empower and self-generate to mean the same thing? And self-determine means something else? I suppose we can define these in a way that gets lays out certain divisions. But it seems to me that if we ‘self-determine’ then we have to be SOMETHING which a) is not divine, and b) is ABLE to do this self-determining. In other words, how would something that is NOT an empowered self self-determine? I don’t want to say we ground our own existence. Right. But to self-determine is to self-generate IF we mean “generate a shape or form” via the powers of self-determination.
D: I'm thinkin' so. I mean think about it. If it's really true that we can only love God (and in turn, self and others) is to the extent that we understand that we are deeply, unconditionally loved by God, then that's prima facie evidence that our works of love are derivatives in the most essential sense…
T: Sure, if you’re talking in “the most essential sense,” then yeah, all creaturely being is derived from and grounded in God. I’m cool with that. I guess I don’t see what it is you (or the above articles) really want to DENY in our case—that we’re able to create ourselves? Sure. We can’t do that. That we create the possibilities of our own becoming? We can’t do that either. That if God were removed from the scene we'd be able to do anything? Nope. Can't do that either. That we self-generate? Well, I guess it gets fuzzy here. It depends on exactly what’s meant by ‘generate’, because ‘generation’ does involve ‘determination’. Generation in fact is a KIND of determination. And we are self-determining, so…
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 10/13/2010 5:25:34 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/13/2010 5:25 PM (GMT -6) | | This quote will help...from Fowler.
It is important to reiterate that the character of man’s behavior is not self-generated by anything within man. Man derives what he does from either God or Satan, and that by a choice of receptivity to such character expression. If, as evangelicalism tends to indicate, man can manufacture and produce his own sin and unrighteousness ek eautos, “out of himself,” then it is logically imperative to likewise indicate that man is capable of generating his own righteousness and holiness ek eautos. If man is capable of the one, he is capable of the other. Ponder the logical consequences of such: If man is capable of self-generated unrighteousness, he becomes his own devil and is irredeemable. If man is capable of self-generated righteousness, then the incarnation of Jesus was superfluous and “Jesus died needlessly” (Gal. 2:21). If there is any truth in the humanistic premise that man is self-empowering and self-generative, then there is no “good news” of man’s redemption – there is no Christian gospel! God forbid!
The repetitive and emphatic explanation of man’s inability to be a god-like producer and actuator of behavioral character is necessary to formulate a firm foundation for understanding the gospel. That is why we have belabored the point over and over again in this article. It is only when we understand that “what man does, he derives from another,” from a spirit-source other than himself, that we have a valid Christian premise that denies the humanistic premise en toto, and establishes a logical basis for understanding anthropological function.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/13/2010 10:19 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Fowler: It is important to reiterate that the character of man’s behavior is not self-generated by anything within man. Man derives what he does from either God or Satan, and that by a choice of receptivity to such character expression.
Tom: My first response is to say that if there’s anything at all that’s generated by the human self, it’s the “character of man’s behavior.” But before arguing what I mean by that, let me say that I think Fowler is operating under the false belief that what ‘generates’ the character of a person’s behavior has to be ENTIRELY one thing (his either/or), i.e., he doesn’t seem to think that what accounts for or explains the character of our behavior might be the SHARED determinations of BOTH God and us (and others in our lives as well). He’s looking for a SINGLE explanation (i.e. single source) of character. But why think explanations have to be singular—especially explanations of personal character? My feeling—as a synergist—is that if we have a say-so in WHETHER we obey God (whether we cooperate with God or not), then it must be the case that we SHARE in the explanation of our character (i.e., WHY we are the persons we are).
Fowler: If, as evangelicalism tends to indicate, man can manufacture and produce his own sin and unrighteousness ek eautos, “out of himself,” then it is logically imperative to likewise indicate that man is capable of generating his own righteousness and holiness ek eautos. If man is capable of the one, he is capable of the other.
Tom: Why think that? First of all, we don't produce sinful acts ek eautos IF that means absolutely on our own. God has to sustain us and maintain us throughout our misrelation. So our sinning is, on this level of observation, not exclusively "of us" after all. There really is no such absolute "of us." That term HAS to be understood relatively and in context. So the question is not whether or not we have power to self-determine ek eautos (i.e., be the final arbiter in free choice). We do have that power. The question is how this power of self-determination figures into the overall explanation of our existence and character. I guess that's where I'm not satisfied with Fowler.
More specifically regarding his comments above, it follows that if we’re freely self-determining, then we’re free to reject God and misrelate in sin OR to rightly relate to God and flourish. And being free with respect to BOTH these options, it follows that we share in the explanation of outcomes in terms of character. But what else does sharing in the explanation of our character mean but that the explanation for that character is not, as Fowler says, either God or Satan. On the contrary, it’s either ‘God and I’ OR ‘Satan and I’.
-------------------------------------
D: If the human spirit is "ek eautos" with respect to generating one's own "works of love", then Christ's statement about "without Me, you can do nothing" wouldn't make any sense.
Tom: Why think that? That's a MONERGIST’S way of viewing outcomes. But a SYNERGIST wouldn’t think that since I can’t do anything without Christ, when I do something with Christ “I” no longer figure into the explanation for what it is Christ and I do. In short, while it’s true that we can’t do works of love without Christ, it’s not true that we don’t really do them WITH Christ. Christ is a ‘necessary cause’ of our being what he wants, yes. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other ‘necessary causes’ as well, namely, us--even if the causes don't all play the same roles. If it’s true that ‘we’ cannot love as Christ wishes us to WITHOUT CHRIST, it’s also true that Christ cannot have us loving as he wishes us to WITHOUT US, and I don’t mean without our “existing” (that goes without saying). I mean without our CHOOSING. Yes, Christ sustains the chooser while choosing, but that doesn’t divest self-determining creatures of genuine participation with God in outcomes.
I'm arguing that works of love are generated synergistically because they're determined synergistically (even if God and we determine different things about the works of love that procede from us).
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 10/14/2010 7:45:58 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/14/2010 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
Ex 35:30-36 30 Then Moses said to the Israelites, "See, the LORD has chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, 31 and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts- 32 to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, 33 to cut and set stones, to work in wood and to engage in all kinds of artistic craftsmanship. 34 And he has given both him and Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, the ability to teach others. 35 He has filled them with skill to do all kinds of work as craftsmen, designers, embroiderers in blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen, and weavers—all of them master craftsmen and designers.
Ex 36:1-2 1 So Bezalel, Oholiab and every skilled person to whom the LORD has given skill and ability to know how to carry out all the work of constructing the sanctuary are to do the work just as the LORD has commanded. 2 Then Moses summoned Bezalel and Oholiab and every skilled person to whom the LORD had given ability and who was willing to come and do the work.
I don't think of these qualities as any less ethical than other "moral" or "character" issues.
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) : 10/14/2010 12:38:35 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/14/2010 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | More Fowler. From "Spirit-union Allows for Soul-rest". The section on "Soul-rest and the Will". Long quote, but I think it's worth it...
************************************************
The human will within the soul, the psychological function of man, is where we choose and decide how we will act within the context of our willingness to be receptive and contingently derivative from a source beyond ourselves. There has been much debate and argument about the so-called "free-will of man." My position? I categorically deny that man has "free-will." Only God has free-will; i.e., the absolute freedom to will anything into being in accord with His character (Who He is), and to put that willed determination into action out of His own Being. That's free-will, complete with the will-power to put it into action! Man does not have free-will in that sense. God created man with "freedom of choice," and our choices are choices of willingness to derive power and character in our behavior from one spiritual source or the other - God or Satan. Martin Luther wrote a classic book, The Bondage of the Will.15 In that book he does not advocate the Calvinistic idea of depraved inability to choose (as many have thought), but argues against his contemporary, Erasmus, a humanist, who taught that man could will into being in his own behavior the character of righteousness or sinfulness. Such a thesis of "salvation by willed works" is at the heart of all humanistic thought. Martin Luther argued that the will of man is bound by the context in which God created man as a choosing and derivative creature, to be contingent and dependent on God. Only God can auto-generate. Only God can self-actuate. Only God can spontaneously create. Only God can be a prime-producer or mover out of His absolute divine free-will, having the will-power to bring into being that which is expressive of His own Being. Oh, what "rest" there is in recognizing that we cannot and do not have to bring things into being with our will. We don't have to exercise so-called "will-power" that allegedly makes things happen, produces character, or generates righteousness. There is certainly no "soul-rest" in the false thinking that we have to willfully make things happen, create goodness, and hold it all together.
Many people fret in "unrest" that human life here on earth is constituted of "decisions, decisions, decisions." Without the capability of decision-making, we would be automatons or marionettes - puppets on a string. The frustration of decision-making is usually due to a desire to avoid responsibility and accountability for the decisions we make. There is no doubt that decisions have consequences, and we have to live with the consequences of our choices. Paul wrote, "He who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done" (Col. 3:25).
...
Decision-making among Christians seems to be even more complicated. Christian religion often advocates that we need to choose to be more committed, to decide to be more dedicated, to consent to be more consecrated. There's no "rest" in that, for it is never enough. Evangelical humanism fails to understand that human commitment is just another form of "works" salvation. All we can commit is sin, and even that is derived from the diabolic source. Our only consistent choice is to be submitted to God for whatever He is committed to be and do in us. The commitment is on God's side. James wrote, "Submit yourselves to God" (James 4:7), and thereby we can "rest" in His sufficiency.
Christian religion suggests that we must discover, know, and make decisions in accord with the "will of God." This precise "will of God" is often viewed as if it were a predetermined plotted course, and we must go orienteering with our spiritual compass to find God's plotted course for our lives. Some consider searching for the "will of God" to be somewhat like water-witching for the source of God's hidden rivers. Others approach the "will of God" as if it were a maze wherein we are like rats trying to find our way to God's goal. Still others view the search for the "will of God" to be a random process of bouncing off of the walls of life. Christians are looking for the "will of God" in all the wrong places. As previously noted, the "will of God" is within us by spirit-union, and it always has to do with the expression of the character of Christ. We have the freedom to make any choice within the context of the empowering character of God. (OL's Note for Tom: No exhaustive determination of action there!) God doesn't care whether you drive a Chevy, or a Ford, or a Toyota; but He does care whether His character is exhibited while you drive whatever you choose. God doesn't care whether you choose a white shirt or a colored shirt, a print dress or a pant-suit; but He does care whether you allow for the "fruit of the Spirit" in your behavior while you wear whatever you wear. We have great latitude and liberty in our decision-making as Christians - even in our relationship choices. Does this mean that everything is not black and white, but that there are "gray areas" of decision-making? No, behavioral expression is only expressive of godliness or sinfulness, but God's pure white character of godliness has myriad possibilities. Christians can "rest" in the freedom they have in Christ.
The contortions that many Christians go through in their decision-making are a mockery of human function. Many Christians seem to be hog-tied with an endless list of limitations and perfectionistic expectations. They are "putting out fleeces" (cf. Judg. 6:36-40) to see if God will jump through the hoops and confirm their decisions. Others are "waiting on God" in indecision, failing to understand that indecision is itself a decision not to decide, and that is often a decision not to rely on Christ within. The passivism of sitting on our duff, twiddling our thumbs, and waiting for divine dynamite is not Christian decision-making. It has been said, "You can't steer a ship unless it's moving." Some are paralyzed and immobilized by the fear of making a mistake, of making a wrong choice, or a less than perfect decision in accord with the hidden "will of God." They become paranoid in their questioning, "Is this what I want to do, or is this what Jesus wants to do?" How do I decide? Such troubled restlessness is the neurotic norm of Christian religion.
On the other hand, there are Christians who put on a Pharisaical show of piety, claiming to have a "perfect God-sniffer" for their decisions, for they repeatedly say, "God told me to do this; God told me to do that." Have you noticed that their God often appears to be fickle in His change of direction? I have concluded that those who have to broadcast God's alleged direction in their lives are usually covering up for their own self-determined direction and decision-making.
It sounds so spiritual when a Christian says, "He chooses best who leaves the choice to Him," or "He chooses best who chooses what He chooses." God always chooses to express His character by the dynamic of His Son, Jesus Christ, in human behavior. That does not relieve us from decision-making. Perhaps it is better to say, "He chooses best who chooses to be receptive to the character expression of God by allowing the life of the living Christ to be lived out in his behavior." We are choosing creatures who are responsible to make choices in life. I have a statement that I repeat every morning as I begin a new day, "I am only responsible to be and to do what God wants to be and do in me today." This is a variation of Jesus' statement, "Not My will, but Thine be done" (Lk. 22:42), which does not deny the responsible choice that Jesus had to make in facing death.
So, how do we make choices in our will in accord with the "will of God" within us? I am convinced that the elusive "will of God" is only hidden or unknown to those who fail to recognize and affirm who they are in Christ and all they have been given in spirit-union with Christ. When we are secure in our identity in Christ and the sufficiency of Christ within, we face the choices of life by realistically considering the available options and alternatives, consulting with others if we consider such helpful (cf. Prov. 15:22; 20:18; Lk. 14:31), "listening under" that inner voice of God's personal revelation in spiritual discernment and obedience, and then following through with a decision of receptivity and availability to God, despite how foolish our action might seem both to our own minds and to others. We make a decision, trust our decisions, and act with confidence - willing to take responsibility for our willed decisions without blame-shifting, and willing to live with the consequences of our choices. Sure, we make some stupid, unwise choices (perhaps even selfish and sinful), and we may not like the consequences, but we are still God's children who move on to make additional choices of availability.
Christians will find soul-rest in their decision-making when they realize that their decisions are not earth-shattering, God-destabilizing, choices set in concrete. Christians need to be willing to make choices in accord with their intuition when "it just seems to be the right thing to do." Christians should feel free to "follow their dreams," for God has often given them those aspirations as "the desire of their heart" (Ps. 20:4; 21:2). We can take comfort in the words of Samuel's commissioning of Saul, "Do for yourself what the occasion requires, for God is with you" (I Sam. 10:7). In Augustine's words, "Love God and do what you will." We are free to walk through life with the confidence that the divine "Yes" is operating within us. Having made a decision, we reckon it to be of God and assume it to be right, unless God makes an obvious exposure to the contrary, which He has every right to do, and even when He does so it does not impinge on the legitimacy or propriety of our decision. There is great "rest" in that recognition.
There are some Christians who seem to think that because they have the "mind of Christ" and the "will of God" in spirit-union, every decision they make is automatically and spontaneously God's determination. They think that in spirit-union their will is fused with God's will, and all their choices are direct-drive determinations of God. On the contrary, I believe that our will, in conjunction with our mind and emotions, has been patterned with old choice-channels of actions and reactions of the past. After becoming Christians our will-switch is spring-loaded to the routines of past choices. If we do not purposefully, moment-by-moment, choose and will to make a choice of faith to allow God to be operative in our behavior, then we will spontaneously revert to the old patterns. We are continuously responsible to make faith-choices to be receptive to the activity of Christ in our lives. Faith is a choice, a decision. It is not just the believing of accurate historical facts and theological doctrines. It is not a mystical devotion of attachment and reliance. Faith doesn't DO anything; it just receives God's character and activity. The Christian life is comprised of such faith-choices that allow for our receptivity of Christ's activity. In such a "walk of faith" (Col. 2:6) our wills can "rest" from the pressure of performing and producing Christian behavior, and simply continue to receive the character and empowering of Christ. We do not "rest," however, from the necessity of having to make choices.
*********************************
I don't see you (Tom) and Fowler disagreeing that much...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/14/2010 1:38:37 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/14/2010 1:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Can any long time, card-carrying evangelical really deny this?
**********************************
Performance incentives have become the motivational focus of most evangelical preaching. Christians are urged to act in ways that are acceptable and pleasing to God, despite the fact that “Christ accepted us to the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7), and we are “accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6 – KJV). Active striving to be perfect is often encouraged, whereas Christians have been made perfect (Phil. 3:15; Heb. 12:23), and need only be receptive in faith to the expression of God’s perfect character in their Christian behavior. Trying to “be like Jesus” in a conformational Christlikeness that imitates Jesus’ example is a common theme in popular evangelical teaching. It is not copycat imitation of Jesus that God desires, but that the “life of Jesus might be manifested in our mortal bodies” (II Cor. 4:10) – manifestation, rather than imitation! The issue is not “what would Jesus do,” but “wanting/watching what Jesus does.” Calls for commitment, consecration, and dedication are laced throughout most contemporary exhortations in the churches today. It is not personal commitment to performance that God desires of Christians, but that they might “submit themselves to God” (James 4:7) and thus to all that He is committed to be and do in, as, and through them. Seeking to discover and do the “will of God,” is another performance pursuit of popular religion, as they fail to understand that the “will of God” is always Jesus – His life lived out in His people in every situation.
...
When the dynamic “union of doing” in Christ is turned into performance expectations, then Christianity (Christ-in-you-ity) has degenerated into religious exercise. Christianity is not religion! The word “religion” is etymologically derived from the Latin words religare and religio, meaning “to bind, tie, or attach.” Religion ties people to the believe-right doctrines and teachings of fundamentalistic belief-systems. Religion attaches people to social organizations and denominations with hierarchical control. Religion binds people to the legalistic keeping of rules and regulations of behavioral laws and codes of conduct. Many have been deceived into thinking that the Christian religion is the advocacy of morality, that educates people in character values so they might behave in ethical conformity. This is another denial of the Christian’s “union of doing” in Christ by which the life and character of Christ is lived out in Christian behavior to the glory of God. But the evangelical do-right religion persists in the utopian dream that social activism for the purpose of ethical consensus will solve the problems of the society in which we live.
...
Genuine Christians...cannot sin with indifference or impunity. The living Christ within them will not let them get away with it. Granted, there are those who engage in the hypocrisy of attempting to impress others of their “spirituality,” but most performance-oriented Christians are seeking to repress or suppress their sin inclinations and propensities by pushing them below the surface of their behavioral “acting out.” Many obsess in a sin-consciousness that focuses more on their sinfulness than on the living Christ whom they have received (cf. Heb. 12:2). Via navel-gazing introspection, these Christians seek to assess their progress of performance as gauged by the religious standards of spiritual success, but they continue to be overwhelmed by guilt, shame, and condemnation for their sin. In many churches, they repeatedly run to the so-called “altar” to confess their sins, and seek God’s forgiveness for a failure to perform what God never expected them to perform in the first place. God’s desire is simply that the Christian be receptive and available to spontaneously express the character of Christ.
The institutional church, meanwhile, is guilty of keeping Christians on the treadmill of do-right religion. Guilt and condemnation are intense psychological motivators that keep people involved and attending the church services, where they continue to confess their sins, plead for God’s forgiveness and help in prayer, and give generously to “the Lord’s work.” In return, they experience an emotional and sensate ecstasy, which they call “worship,” which temporarily masks the sin-consciousness of their inadequate performance, and induces them to dedicate and commit themselves to better performance. A cyclical pattern of mutually self-serving activity, indeed!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/14/2010 1:59:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/14/2010 5:43 PM (GMT -6) | | I didn't read it all carefully, D. So I may be missing his point, but...
Fowler: The human will within the soul, the psychological function of man, is where we choose and decide how we will act within the context of our willingness to be receptive and contingently derivative from a source beyond ourselves.
Tom: The will is where this happens, but it's where OTHER things happen too. I mean, I don't think the will has ONLY to do with yielding or not yielding to God. It can ALSO describe the self-determination of creatures who are sufficiently disposed Godward but who now are determining the shape of their creative expression.
Fowler: There has been much debate and argument about the so-called "free-will of man." My position? I categorically deny that man has "free-will."
Tom: And I categorically affirm that we have free-will. So…
Fowler: Only God has free-will; i.e., the absolute freedom to will anything into being in accord with His character, and to put that willed determination into action out of His own Being. That's free-will…
Tom: WHO in the world decided that THAT and THAT ONLY is what free-will is? Come on. If that’s what he’s talking about, then OF COURSE God is the only free being conceivable since he’s the only necessary/underived being there is. But that is NOT what people talk about when they engage in debate about “free-will.” On the contrary. What we’re talking about is the ppower to self-determine or self-dispose. It’s perfectly legit to call this “free-will,” and that’s what people debating free-will are debating, not whether human beings have the power to create ex nihilo like God.
Just wanted to clear that up.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/14/2010 9:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Fowler: The human will within the soul, the psychological function of man, is where we choose and decide how we will act within the context of our willingness to be receptive and contingently derivative from a source beyond ourselves.
Tom: The will is where this happens, but it's where OTHER things happen too. I mean, I don't think the will has ONLY to do with yielding or not yielding to God. It can ALSO describe the self-determination of creatures who are sufficiently disposed Godward but who now are determining the shape of their creative expression.
I think he says this. He says the will is where we self-determine actions WITHIN the "context" of self-determining reception and openness to God's Activity (Grace). Reposting...
As previously noted, the "will of God" is within us by spirit-union, and it always has to do with the expression of the character of Christ. We have the freedom to make any choice within the context of the empowering character of God. (OL's Note for Tom: No exhaustive determination of action there!) God doesn't care whether you drive a Chevy, or a Ford, or a Toyota; but He does care whether His character is exhibited while you drive whatever you choose. God doesn't care whether you choose a white shirt or a colored shirt, a print dress or a pant-suit; but He does care whether you allow for the "fruit of the Spirit" in your behavior while you wear whatever you wear. We have great latitude and liberty in our decision-making as Christians - even in our relationship choices.
Hear what he's saying? Within the "context" of Christ's character (analogous to the possibilities that already exist in Christ the Logos, like you said, Tom), a person is free to self-determine within that range among equally-weighted options. I thought this is pretty much what you say.
***********************************************
Fowler: Only God has free-will; i.e., the absolute freedom to will anything into being in accord with His character, and to put that willed determination into action out of His own Being. That's free-will…
Tom: WHO in the world decided that THAT and THAT ONLY is what free-will is? Come on. If that’s what he’s talking about, then OF COURSE God is the only free being conceivable since he’s the only necessary/underived being there is. But that is NOT what people talk about when they engage in debate about “free-will.” On the contrary. What we’re talking about is the ppower to self-determine or self-dispose. It’s perfectly legit to call this “free-will,” and that’s what people debating free-will are debating, not whether human beings have the power to create ex nihilo like God.
Do you believe the human being have its own self-sufficient power to create underivative love and goodness from the heart like God?
Fowler says no.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/14/2010 11:42:10 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 10/15/2010 11:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: See the problem here D? It's confusing. He says we have "libertry" but not "free-will." I agree with you that by "free-will" Fowler is talking about the power to create underivitive love from the heart. And I agree that only God can do THAT. BUT he's not being consistent with his language and he's confusing, because he concedes that we have "liberty" within the context of Christlike character. What is liberty to choos if not freedom to choose?
No biggie--once you figure him out. But I would not LIMIT the term "free-will" to describe God's power to create underived love. I'd use it to also describe what HE calls our "liberty" to choose.
------------
Sorry guys, been busy the past few days. I haven't had time to really digest this thread yet, so I won't really tackle it yet...but...
Tom: See the problem here D?
Tom: It's confusing.
Tom: he's not being consistent with his language and he's confusing
Tom: No biggie--once you figure him out.
There's a problem...confusion...inconsistent and confusing language...you have to figure him out to even understand what he's saying.
This is exactly what I was saying about the whole use of "selflessness"...It's a problem...it's confusing...you have to figure out which concept of "selflessness" is being used.
And Tom also thinks that's "no biggie" in the long run.
I think it is a "biggie"...because only the well versed are gonna "figure it out"...so ultimately because of the bad choice of terminology (using words that mean nearly the opposite of what is actually meant, etc.)...you have a very small audience that will understand you...and most people hearing you will leave with confusion.
I'm just sayin' 
I'll check back in tomorrow. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/16/2010 9:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Asher: I think it is a "biggie"...because only the well versed are gonna "figure it out" ... so ultimately because of the bad choice of terminology (using words that mean nearly the opposite of what is actually meant, etc.)...
Tom: How does 'selfless' "mean nearly the opposite of what is actually meant"? It sounds like you think when people use "selfless" to mean something that's not dysfunctional that this is the opposite of what the word "actually" means. But words actually MEAN what the USER actually decides or intends it to mean when the user ACTUALLY lets it go. Words by in large don't have a single meaning anyhow. They have possible meangings that are chosen by the user given the context.
Misunderstanding still occur, of course, when someone uses a word to mean something that others don't default to in THAT context. That's pretty much the WHOLE of our disagreements. In the case of "selfless," I think most users (yes, I'm guessing based on my experience of the word) use "selfless" to mean something good. Objecting that the suffix -less will not allow people to use 'selfless' to mean something other than "without a self" ignores how language works. On the other hand, the theological debate over free-will does not, as Fowler says, employ the term "free-will" to mean something that only God can possess. What Fowler says we DO have--liberty--is the same as what he folks mean when they say we have what Fowler says we don't have: free-will.
But once people spell-out what they mean (and Fowler does so), THEN things become clear and folks know just which meaning is being intended, then they can agree or disagree with the substantive point. My problem with Fowler is not that he doesn't define what he means by "free-will." He does. My problem with him is that he claims his understanding of the term is the prevelant one within the debate over free-will, which it is not.
Similiary, my objection to you has been not that "selfLESS" cannot mean "void of or without a self" in certain contexts, but that this meaning is not the default meaning of "selfless" outside the psychotherapist's office or classroom. Even psychologists know what people mean when they say "Mother Theresa was a selfless person." No trained couselor who engages the more analytic meanings of words and conditions would think 'selfless' in this instance meant anything negative. On the other hand, if two psychiatrists are discussing a patient who is suffering from some mental and/or emotional dysfunction and they say, "He's absolutely selfless," THEN I'd assume that they think the patient has "no concept of self" or just isn't a self. But EVEN then, my guess is they'd say, "He just doesn't have a self."
But back to the question: Is God selfless? The answer depends upon WHO is asking the question and in what CONTEXT. If the two psychiatrists are asking whether God is like their dysfunctional patient, then my answer is "No, God is NOT selfless. God IS a self, in the fullest sense of the word." This has been YOUR point, and I agree with you. BUT if I was discussing the Church's response to poverty and Mother Theresa's example of 'selfless' living and whether this reflects the sense in which God is selfless, I'd answer, "Absolutely, yes" (as would, I suspect, any psychiatrist who was also a believer in God). What would YOU say in response to the latter example, Asher? Would you stop the discussion about Mother Theresa and tell us that since "selfless" ends with the suffix -less which means "without" that God cannot therefore be described as a selfless being? I'm trying still to understand what your issue is here. Is it just how misundertandings occur given overlapping contexts? OR are you thinking that strict analytical definitions of words HAVE to be held to in ALL contexts? Meaning is NOT always reducible to lexicography: So "selfless" ends with the suffix "-less." "Butterflies" don't have anything to do with "butter." How's the word USED has to be asked before one can say what the word MEANS.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 10/16/2010 12:13:34 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/16/2010 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher: This is exactly what I was saying about the whole use of "selflessness"...It's a problem...it's confusing...you have to figure out which concept of "selflessness" is being used. And Tom also thinks that's "no biggie" in the long run. I think it is a "biggie"
Tom: It cannot be a huge deal for understanding, for once you clarify the way you're using your terms (where multiple uses are possible), then understanding takes place.
Asher: ...because only the well versed are gonna "figure it out"...
Tom: You really think MOST of the less-than-well-versed people out there (say, folks untrained in theology and/or psychology) by default assume that "selfless" means what psychiatrists only sometimes mean when they use the term in their offices, namely, "without a self"? That would make them well-versed! I'm seriously gonna put this to the test and over the next few weeks ask folks I meet randomly what they first think "selfless" means. I'll send you a check covering $1 for every person I find who says anything OTHER than "Oh, it means acting in the best interests of others" (or something equivalent).
But like I said, it doesn't matter. There's no problem in the long run because any two people who are having a discussion that involves the word "selfless" are going to have that conversation within a particular context and what each means by the word is gonna become clear. If it's not clear at first, the disagreements will press them to clarify their meanings.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 10/16/2010 4:08:22 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/16/2010 12:45 PM (GMT -6) | | | Asher: ...because only the well versed are gonna "figure it out"...
Jeff: Here's where I think you're right. Because you are seriously engaged in the "form" of institutions to achieve societal ends, you are involved in debate that requires clarity on definitions of justice, etc. But in our political climate, it is supposed by many that "good government" (and by that I include your view of anarchism) is achievable without any suppositions about post-mortem consequences of our actions. And as we have agreed, apart from a benevolent God that serves as the ultimate governor in terms of ultimate accountability, all political and ethical philosophy is arbitrary in the first place.
So, for the sake of the practical and actual atheists, it's important to be CLEAR that, for us, meaningful and rational unselfishness is only intelligible in terms of post-mortem consequences that render certain sacrifices of self-interest, made in this life, NON-sacrificial in the long run. In other words, unselfishness is only rational in the short run. All rational behavior is self-interested in the long run. Even God is self-interested in the long run. He's just competent to implement a moral order where the highest possible natural good of any member of the moral community (including Himself) is attainable by means that are consistent with and conducive to the highest possible natural good of all OTHER members of the moral community.
Indeed, what is possible for us or God is delimited and constrained by God's very competency. But so long as He is competent to render existence WORTH IT for all creatures, He is truly competent in rendering the moral order rational. All that's all that needs to be true for philosophers to do their business rationally.
So, yes, in this political climate, we really DO need to define unselfishness with great clarity when we're talking in political circles. Because we live in a society where many political activists assume the federal constitution (and the rule of law, etc) supposedly makes rational sense in terms of atheism (i.e., moral relativism). And it doesn't--not even remotely.
This is why I think people like Alan Block can never understand how the theistic epistemology works for ethics and, therefore, for economics. His approach is just flat logically inconsistent with mine, though I agree with a great many of the specifics he argues for. It's just that those specifics don't follow from his epistemological foundations. He hasn't analyzed his arguments sufficiently to see that. He's assuming degrees of analogy that are utterly speculative given his starting point. And no rational person need embrace an utterly speculative assumption.
As Lewis said, if nothing is obvious, nothing can be proved (even in an inductive sense of that term). We need intuitions from which our ethical views are rationally inferred, not speculative assumptions made post-hoc to fit our preferences. THat is exactly the opposite way to do philosophy.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/16/2010 4:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: [God is] competent to implement a moral order where the highest possible natural good of any member of the moral community (including Himself) is attainable by means that are consistent with and conducive to the highest possible natural good of all OTHER members of the moral community.
Tom: Yep. And it's God being this (i.e., constituting his own greatest possible good AND defining the greatest good of all else by virtue of being the Creator of all and thus grounding the possibilities of being and becoming for all that he creates) which makes it possible for him to affirm others AS others without being motivated by a dysfunctional self-reference.
This was my interest in the thread, because Asher seemed to be saying (unless I got it wrong) that God, being the most self-ed self imaginable, does all that he does FOR his own self and thus cannot truly act FOR others. In other words, God couldn't treat others as selves because he inevitably turns all others into means for his own pleasure in a depersonalizing way.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 10/16/2010 8:57:04 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 10/17/2010 12:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: This was my interest in the thread, because Asher seemed to be saying (unless I got it wrong) that God, being the most self-ed self imaginable, does all that he does FOR his own self and thus cannot truly act FOR others. In other words, God couldn't treat others as selves because he inevitably turns all others into means for his own pleasure in a depersonalizing way.
1) God, being the most self-ed self imaginable
yep
2) does all that he does FOR his own self
yep
3) thus cannot truly act FOR others
nope, where did that come from?
Taking everything I said, how did you arrive at this? Hint: start with the word "entanglement", let "I-Thou entanglement" be the governor of every other thing I have said, and that definitely leads to a different place than the above. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/17/2010 8:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh, my bad then, Asher. Sorry. Thanks for clearing that up.
Now I'm not sure what we were differing over at all except for the fact that you would never use "selfless" to describe loving actions toward another while most others would (and do) use the word that way. Was that it? I mean, over on the Very Random Thoughts thread you were wondering whether you should call yourself a Christian or not. What was motivating that?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 10/17/2010 9:25:01 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:52 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 |
|
|