Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > What If?  Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 10/13/2006 12:31 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I remember JEE struggling with this too. He would always describe the perfection of divine love in terms of INENTION. But what we're arguing concerning eventual UR is that the INTENTION will ultimately become effectual. It is only in the temporal aspect of God's purposes that the variance of expression varies. Right? Love, IOW, can be constrained at times. But aren't we saying that perfect love combined with perfect power will prevail and eventually trump those constraints? If so, let's do language that is fully expressive of that distinction. It seems to me that confusion will result otherwise. We can't avoid the reality of God's tolerance of gratuitous suffering, so we might as well account for it in our language.

Ever notice how you'll throw things out and people go with it for a while and then they're abruptly confronted with the madness of continual suffering? That dissonance between the seeming absoluteness of language and reality is what we need to avoid. We need to embrace the wholistic picture of reality, including the madness and then explain how unconditional love works in the MIDST of the madness. This is THE theodicy issue that everyone has to intellectually account for. Otherwise, they will always find the language too unrealistic and go back into despair.


 

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 10/13/2006 12:39 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Jeff:
Ever notice how you'll throw things out and people go with it for a while and then they're abruptly confronted with the madness of continual suffering? That dissonance between the seeming absoluteness of language and reality is what we need to avoid. We need to embrace the wholistic picture of reality, including the madness and then explain how unconditional love works in the MIDST of the madness. This is THE theodicy issue that everyone has to intellectually account for. Otherwise, they will always find the language too unrealistic and go back into despair.

Ok.
Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 10/14/2006 10:06 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom: Thank God this board has Corey and me, TPs, to keep things open and flowing.
 
Jeff: You know, this temperament stuff is so important. I was talking to my boss the other day about a class I took on social styles. It has the same kind of approach as the Myers-Briggs classification, except that it emphasizes one's social style. But all these classification schemes are important to realize that we all have strengths and weaknesses that we need to always keep in consideration--as tough as that can be.
 
We all tend to over-generalize from analogy from ourselves. Take my claim, e.g.: This is THE theodicy issue that everyone has to intellectually account for. Otherwise, they will always find the language too unrealistic and go back into despair. Obviously not everyone is concerned about this theodicy issue. But I generalize because I know a number of people are. And as long as we understand that we're all trying to recognize ALL needs of ALL people, that's fine. We've just got to be careful. Sometimes posting can be so time consuming that I don't take the time to be accurate. And I hope I'm understood. Probably I'm not.
 
When Namaste says certain words aren't helpful, for example, he is probably right that for certain temperaments, that is true. But on the other hand, the T's have their own temperamental needs, also. We all tend to be most sensitive to those needs that we understand analogically from our own temperament. Which means we really need to learn this stuff and apply it for the sake of better communication.
 
I've gotten much better at the social styles stuff from practice, but I'm not keen on the intellectual part. Maybe we should all do our own personal analysis and then play back how we think that's affected our communication and miscommunication on this board. I think it could be helpful for future discussion. What do ya'll think?



 

Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/14/2006 10:10:50 AM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 10/14/2006 4:36 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Rakestraw's article in JETS (on theosis) makes a distinction that I think is useful -- here between patristic and Wesleyan understanding and an idea of Barth's, and his ilk: 

 

(see bold at bottom) 

I. BIBLICAL THEMES

Two verses, more than any others, provide the basis for theosis theology:

Gen 1:26 and 2 Pet 1:4. The Genesis text speaks of men and women as

created in the image and likeness of God. The Greek fathers taught that, in

the fall, humanity lost the likeness but retained the image. In their view,

according to G. L. Bray,

the Christian life is best conceived as the restoration of the lost likeness to

those who have been redeemed in Christ. This is a work of the Holy Spirit, who

communicates to us the energies of God himself, so that we may become partakers

of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). The energies of God radiate from his

essence and share its nature; but it must be understood that the dei˜ed person

retains his personal identity and is not absorbed into the essence of God, which

remains for ever [sic] hidden from his eyes.7

Whether the focus is placed on the image or the likeness of God being

restored, or whether one sees these terms as synonymous, the concept of the

Christian’s reintegration into the life of God remains central in all understandings

of theosis.

Peter writes in his second epistle that our Lord’s “divine power has given

us everything we need for life and godliness,” so that through his promises

we “may participate in [literally, “become sharers (koinonoi) of ”] the divine

nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires” (2 Pet

1:4). This text is quoted extensively by divinization writers, who do not believe,

as Karl Barth does, that Peter is speaking of nothing more than “the

practical fellowship of Christians with God and on this basis the conformity

of their acts with the divine nature.”8

There are numerous other Biblical texts that provide, in the view of theosis

theologians, Scriptural grounding for the doctrine. The high-priestly prayer

of Jesus in John 17, that all may be one as the Father and Son are one (vv.

11, 21–23), is frequently utilized, as is the Pauline theme of the Christian

life being a life “in Christ.”9 Many texts in Ephesians and Colossians are

drawn upon, especially those speaking of Christ as the image of God (Col

1:15–18) and Christians as those who put on the image of the heavenly man

being renewed in the likeness of God (Eph 3:16–19; 4:13–15; cf. also 1 Cor

15:49).10



(o)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 10/14/2006 4:39:46 PM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
54 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3 
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:52 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