 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Unpardonable Sin | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/28/2007 10:29 PM (GMT -6) |   | I know what I said, but I saw these and need an answer.
Tom:
creaturely loving relationality requires LFW.
AND...
Libertarian free will gives way to compatibilistic free will.
Jeff: Taking the two together, Tom, does this mean Libertarian free will gives way to the elimination of creaturely loving relationality? That's what they seem to imply to me? I don't see why this is necessary. I think we can have the same kind of loving relationality the Father and Son have after LFW gives way to compatibilism. Indeed, I think Christ as a non-omniscient man had just that kind of love. Love, to me, is nothing more than intentionally acting for the highest knowable and doable sentient satisfaction of another. I think both creator and created beings can do this.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/29/2007 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | The LORD sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, "There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.
"Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him."
David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, "As surely as the LORD lives, the man who did this must die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity."
Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'
"This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD."
Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the LORD, the son born to you will die."
After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.
On the seventh day the child died. David's attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, he wouldn't listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate."
David noticed that his attendants were whispering among themselves, and he realized the child was dead. "Is the child dead?" he asked.
"Yes," they replied, "he is dead."
Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.
His attendants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!"
22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."
-------------------------------
Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your unfailing love;
according to your great compassion
blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity
and cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions,
and my sin is always before me.
Against you, you only, have I sinned
and done what is evil in your sight;
so you are right in your verdict
and justified when you judge.
Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
Let me hear joy and gladness;
let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
Hide your face from my sins
and blot out all my iniquity.
Create in me a pure heart, O God,
and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
Do not cast me from your presence
or take your Holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of your salvation
and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.
Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
and sinners will turn back to you.
Deliver me from bloodguilt, O God,
you who are God my Savior,
and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.
Open my lips, Lord,
and my mouth will declare your praise.
You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.
May it please you to prosper Zion,
to build up the walls of Jerusalem.
Then you will delight in the sacrifices of the righteous,
in burnt offerings offered whole;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.
----------------------------
Was David FORGIVEN, UNFORGIVEN, or BOTH?
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
Therefore (YOU) go and introduce all peoples into the Way, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and intstructing them in following everything I have commanded you. (Great Commandments!)
And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."
Post Edited (Exousia) : 1/29/2007 8:16:52 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/29/2007 9:53 AM (GMT -6) | | It seems to me that David faces serious ramifications for his actions (the loss of his child, the sword in the household) with NO FORBEARANCE on that. The Lord proclaimed what would happen and it did. David had HOPED that God would be GRACIOUS (forgiving?) and let the child live...but it didn't happen. But, at the same time, David was SUPPOSED to have been KILLED for this...and he knew it. That was the JUST penalty, right? But Nathan told David that God had TAKEN AWAY his sin, such that he didn't have to die. He was FORGIVEN of his SIN, it would seem.
Given this present discussion, I don't know what to say about this. I don't know if David was FORGIVEN or not? I mean, the text says that he was...but at the same time, he faced NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES for his actions! Was his SIN forgiven...but his actions NOT forgiven? I don't even think that makes sense. Was it the case that David was UNFORGIVEN, but living in FOREBEARANCE because God brought negative consequences, but he himself was still alive? Was David FORGIVEN with respect to his own life...but UNFORGIVEN with respect to the death of the child and the calamity of the household?
I don't even know anymore.
"Forgive us our debts/trespasses as we forgive our debtors/those who trespass against us."
"And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." (Mark 11:25)
Sigh...it's all a blur.
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
Therefore (YOU) go and introduce all peoples into the Way, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and intstructing them in following everything I have commanded you. (Great Commandments!)
And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."
Post Edited (Exousia) : 1/29/2007 9:16:22 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/29/2007 9:06 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/29/2007 9:24 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/30/2007 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | I think LeRon is really great.
Can't wait to read "Faces of Forgiveness"
Electra read it and thought it was GREAT. We talked about it a while ago...
Something from a reviewer on Amazon...
----------------
F. LeRon Shults and Steven J. Sandage co-authored The Faces of Forgiveness: Searching for Wholeness and Salvation (Baker: 2003). Sandage brings his expertise as a clinical psychologist who teaches at Bethel Theological Seminary and Shults brings his expertise as a theologian who also teaches at the same seminary. Together they tackle the meaning and practice of a core human necessity: forgiveness.
They introduce a new-to-many concept: facial hermeneutics. They write, "We suggest that the face represents a powerful interpersonal "text" that evokes an attempt to interpret the feelings and dispositions of the other." By "face" they mean the actual human face (a fascinating discussion in the book) and also "facing," that is, encountering/confronting presence, our being to one another, and the meaning our "being" has for good or bad. Sandage discusses the psychological/ developmental dimensions of "facing" (as well as losing face and de-facing) and Shults offers an intriguing biblical study of "face" (God's "face" and human faces). The reader is led into the union of "face" and "forgiveness," or as the book title rightly describes "the faces of forgiveness."
A core premise of the book is the move from a "substance" definition of being to a "relationality" definition of being (for both God and human beings). Shults offers similar theological insights from a robust trinitarian theology as he does in his book Reforming the Doctrine of God. The blend of psychology and theology from a trinitarian vision of relationality offers new, creative insights about and practices of forgiveness, especially for Christians formed by forensic (legal) forgiveness--that great transaction in the sky that doesn't really change lives. As they report, forensic forgiveness is good news for oppressors and bad news for the oppressed. With this forgiveness lives can be acquitted, wiped clean of "sin," with no need for justice and shalom-making. But, humans don't long for a clean slate in the sky, but for personal and relational wholeness and salvation here and now. Shults and Sandage urge a forgiveness that is essentially all about the here and now, not about a ticket to go to heaven when we die. Forgiveness is about inviting people in the here and now into joyful, infinite life and glory of the Father, Son and Spirit, that is, into a community of infinite love. It's incarnate, unending grace.
In many ways, Scot McKnight's book, *Embracing Grace: A Gospel for All of Us,* offers a similar vision of salvation and grace in community. Scot comes at it from the angle of "the gospel of the kingdom of God" and how the believing community is the gospel incarnate. The church is the message as well as having a message.
Shults writes, "I suggest that the overarching meaning of forgiveness in Scripture is manifesting and sharing grace" (125). " When forgiveness, an aspect of a broad horizon of salvation, becomes relational and present, it also becomes communal, not individualistic. "Speaking from a free-church tradition, Miraslov Volf argues that redemption is mediated through real relations in community, not simply 'immediately' to the individual" (160).
Just as salvation/redemption is "by grace through faith," so is forgiveness. Shults writes, "Trying to work up the energy to forgive another exhausts human resources. Divine forgiveness makes room for humans to share in the grace and joy of trinitarian love, which provides an infinite resource for human forgiveness" (169).
Shults discussion of "Being in Eucharistic Community" (216-221) draws on the meal-time practices of Jesus (and the early church) as incarnate expressions of forgiveness or intended forgiveness. He argues that who was to be included or excluded from the Lord's Table was not the issue for the early church, but the Table was a practice to show the shalom-bringing transformation in our otherwise exclusionary lives and culture(s).
The Faces of Forgiveness is a book I highly recommend. A friend of mine told me that the book "made a profound change in his life." It's not a popular, pietistic (shallow, "feel good" book nor is it a pop-psychology "self-help," "seven steps" to forgiveness and wholeness book. It's a compelling invitation to comtemplate (and participate in) the radical meaning of sharing the life of our trinitarian God with each other and the world.
---------------------------
LeRon talks about "forgiveness" being "sharing in divine grace." I love that. I know that God is ALWAYS about that.
Scot McKnight on "Jesus Creed" did some commentary on the book that was helpful too.
www.jesuscreed.org/index.php?s=Forgiveness+and+the+Face
Some VERY good words here...emphasis mine...
-----------------
Steven Sandage and LeRon Shults, in The Faces of Forgiveness, propose a new and fresh approach to how the Bible speaks about forgiveness and how forgiveness works in real practice today. The question I will ask today is this one: In your experience in working with forgiveness issues, how tied is the ability to forgive to personal characteristics? Or, what do you find to be the big obstacles to the capacity to forgive?
There are two simplicities in forgiveness teachings: some make it simple and immediate and if you don’t forgive there’s something seriously wrong — they seem to be a bit unfeeling about it all; the other side turns it nearly into an objective condition: if someone does something wrong, they should pay for it, and if they pay for it, bingo! they are forgiven. Sandage and Shults propose a complex path that penetrates far deeper. Most recognize that forgiveness is not simple; it is messy; and for many, many, many extremely difficult because it brings back pain and wounds that are hard to deal with.
[Added: There is another simplicity. Those who don’t forgive haven’t grasped God’s forgiveness; when they do, they’ll be able to forgive. This is whopping stick that is only rarely the issue, should be used infrequently, and tends to finds its way into the hands of a mental construction of life that gets away from the tougher realities of forgiveness by those who have been wounded.]
I’ll do a few posts on this book, but let me summarize what the book does. Sandage is a professor of marriage and family studies at Bethel Theological Seminary and Shults is a professor of theology at Bethel. The book has two major parts — Sandage has two chapters on forgiveness from a psychological research viewpoint and Shults has two chapters on forgiveness in biblical and theological perspective. They co-write an introduction and a conclusion.
1.o Introduction
A big issue in this book is the concept of face, and they’ve got a dynamic idea both in the psychological and biblical sections. These points, in two parts of the book, are worth the price of the book.
There are three sorts of forgiveness: forensic, therapeutic, and redemptive. The first deals with standing and the elimination of retribution; the second with interpersonal relations; the third is the grace-creating changes of redemption between God, a person, and others. We need to distinguish the three sorts, and be careful to keep them in their proper place.
2.0 Forgiveness and Intersubjective Formation
Here is a major idea, and the two chps by Sandage are rooted in extensive research into the literature: “the capacity for forgiveness is formed in response to the face of the other” (31). In other words, and I need to summarize quickly, intersubjectivity is needed for humans to forgive one another but intersubjectivity requires personal health and that is not always the case. So the ability to forgive is in part acquired, in part psychological, and in part an aspect of inter-relational development.
To be characterized by “forgivingness” involves two features: empathy and humility. We simply don’t really forgive if we don’t have these two features are work in our relations.
Intersubjective deficits that prevent forgiveness:
anxiety/insecure attachment style
vengefulness
rumination
narcissistic
shame proneness
Intersubjective strengths:
emotional stability/secure attachment
agreeableness
differentiation of self
empathy
humility (or guilt-prone)
-------------------------------
Basically what I'm gathering is that LeRon believes that forgiveness set in the context of INTERRELATIONALITY (instead of some juridical thing) is basically lived out in community where the Grace and Love of God are brought into real interpersonal situations.
Straight.
What I also like is that, it seems, that things are being placed in their perspective. IDEALLY, forgiveness would be a NON-ISSUE. Everyone would just live in perfect love and intersubjectivity and all "forgiveness" would be just CONTINUOUS communal living in God's divine grace to us ALL. However, we are NOT in an ideal situation. All of us are in some way hurting, wounded, and offended. And THIS makes it hard to "forgive" and to RECEIVE forgiveness. I love Shults' quote...emphasis mine...
"Trying to work up the energy to forgive another exhausts human resources. Divine forgiveness makes room for humans to share in the grace and joy of trinitarian love, which provides an infinite resource for human forgiveness"
Now, the question is WHAT happens when a person's wounds are ALL HEALED? What happens when God has REMOVED their ability to be falsely perceive their existences to be threatened or devalued. What if ALL OF THESE THINGS were eliminated from the picture:
anxiety/insecure attachment style
vengefulness
rumination
narcissistic
shame proneness?
I would think that you would have a being who would NEVER choose NOT to forgive at any time. Forgiveness (I would just say perfect love) would flow from this person at all times. 70 X 7...and all that. But that's me.
I can't wait to read this for myself. I think I'll like it a lot.
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
Therefore (YOU) go and introduce all peoples into the Way, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and intstructing them in following everything I have commanded you. (Great Commandments!)
And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/30/2007 10:33 AM (GMT -6) | | | I knew you'd like LeRon!
Exousia: Basically what I'm gathering is that LeRon believes that forgiveness set in the context of INTERRELATIONALITY (instead of some juridical thing) is basically lived out in community where the Grace and Love of God are brought into real interpersonal situations.
Tom: I'm trying to get my hands on a copy of LeRon's book. His other books look really good too. I think this could be a great 2007 theme to pursue. Being the tortoise that I am, I EXPECT worthwhile issues to take some time!
What I'm afraid is happening, D, that that the misunderstanding or misapplication of that "juridical thing" will motivate people to swing too far left of center. It just isn't the case that this is an EITHER/OR--either the stale, impersonal, juridical approach of the courtroom OR the personal interdependence of loving relations. Don't buy this EITHER/OR D. Always, always, always be suspect of either/or's. You must prove they're genuinely incompatable first.
My feeling has always been that these are complementary, that there is an "order" and "accountability" to interdependant loving relationships (on the one hand) and that but for the importance of such relationships there would BE NO order or accountability to the universe (on the other hand). See? BOTH/AND.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 1/30/2007 10:02:08 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/30/2007 10:55 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/30/2007 11:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
My feeling has always been that these are complementary, that there is an "order" and "accountability" to interdependant loving relationships (on the one hand) and that but for the importance of such relationships there would BE NO order or accountability to the universe (on the other hand). See? BOTH/AND.
It's all in one phrase...
"Yes, I AM my siblings's keeper, in some sense...for my sibling is NOT SEPARATE from me.
Responsibility comes from the importance of the relationship. Taking or giving responsibility demonstrates the importance of the relationship. In free relations between sentient beings, responsibility grounded in LOVE (ie. the primal importance of all relationships, right-relationship that creates truth and beauty) marks HOW the relationships are multiplied and sustained.
That's why the Great Commandments are what they are:
LOVE God as your Absolute.
LOVE your neighbor and yourself fully, yet in a context of being RELATIVE to the Absolute.
And that's why these commandments cannot be separated from responsibility and prioritization. If there were NO responsibility, there could BE no prioritization of any kind that would make any sense.
There IS "order" and "accountability" to that order such that the loving relationships can be generated, maintained, and multiplied successfully. And this order is natural.
God's such a genius!
I don't think we're on different pages, Tom.
Told you. It's just a matter of emphasis.
From what I understand, you want to make sure that we don't create an artificial divide between love and accountability. I want to make sure that we understand that accountability cannot have means or ends not ultimately commensurate with love...and PERFECT LOVE at that.
Emphasis.
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
Therefore (YOU) go and introduce all peoples into the Way, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and intstructing them in following everything I have commanded you. (Great Commandments!)
And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."
Post Edited (Exousia) : 1/30/2007 10:53:25 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/30/2007 2:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Exousia: From what I understand, you want to make sure that we don't create an artificial divide between love and accountability.
Tom: Yes! And that's why I'm afriad this "down with all things juridical" will hurt us in the end.
Also, I think it's far better to understand forgiveness as saying something about BOTH sides--the divine attitude toward sinners AND the divine administration of accountability. Since whether we are held accountable for our sin depends upon our repentance and faith, it makes sense to understand forgiveness (which Scripture says we may enjoy or not enjoy) as describing THIS aspect of the relationship, not primarily God's feelings of love about us, though the latter motivates and explains the former.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 1/30/2007 2:34:15 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/31/2007 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Re: 2Cor. 3.17
Jeff: To me, the context is saying that the elect have freedom because they have the Spirit. It is not alluding, to my mind, to anything like spacial omnipresence when it says "WHERE" the Spirit of the Lord is. The "WHERE" means, IN US vs. those without the Spirit.
Tom: I’m just trying to flesh this out a bit. 2Cor. 3.17. Jeff thought there wasn’t anything metaphysical here. I’m not so sure. Plummer (ICC) says: “‘We get an argument in this form, ‘The Lord is the spirit,’ ‘Where the spirit is, is freedom’. Therefore, ‘Where the Lord is, the bondage of the letter is taken away.’ Or, as Pseudo-Primasius puts it, Dominus spiritus est. Liber est spiritus. Idcrirco non potest valamen accipere, sed magis ipse revelat.” His point is that the middle claim (“where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom”) stands alone. Its truth is logically prior to the truth that in the gospel the veil is lifted.
So Paul claims that in Christ the bondage of the letter is broken, the veil is lifted, and freedom comes to believers. That much is clear. It seems to me that “where the spirit is there is freedom” is a separate argument in support of this claim, not just an articulation OF that claim (which is all it would be if you’re right Jeff). When Paul says, then, that “where the Spirit is there is freedom” he’s not describing the gospel’s power to free us, he’s arguing a separate truth, something about the Spirit’s presence, that explains WHY the gospel has this power to free us. “Where the spirit of the Lord is there is freedom” is a more fundamental, metaphysical claim about God in the world. Unless it’s true generally that wherever God is there is freedom, it would not help to say “The Spirit is present in the gospel and that means freedom for believers.” It has to first be the case generally speaking that wherever God is there freedom exists before it can be reasoned on this basis that the gospel frees us because therein the Spirit is encountered.
I'm not arguing that Paul is intentionally asserting UR here. What I'm wondering is whether UR is a valid deduction from what Paul argues. To be a valid deduction, I should think Paul would have to intend "where the Spirit is there is freedom" to be a more general metaphysical principle about God in the world. But it seems plausible that Paul would have to mean something like this if it is to support his claim that those who believe the gospel are free because the gospel is where we encounter the Spirit.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/6/2007 8:33 PM (GMT -6) | |
A few (and long) comments...
Tom, about my references to rewards:
What I was trying to say was that I believe the issue of rewards is all about the heart, that we will find our reward fair and just based on who we are (entailing what we have done while on earth to become who we are in heaven). So, yes, I’m very much interested in that concept of reward (and I see that I didn’t make that clear in my post about rewards). I’m not the least bit interested in “rewards,” however, as some sort of “Well, you get the silver crown...could have had the gold, but silver’s at least better than bronze.” I don’t believe any reward we get will have anything to do with some token given to us (like a white rock with a name on it – what the hek am I going to do with a white rock?
about the question “Why did God make us if His aseity has no need for us?”
With what little I know of love, I can say this much; that if I loved as God loves, the sheer desire to share that with others and for others to be able to experience it would be more than enough motive to create beings who would be capable of experiencing and sharing in that kind of love. That God as a fully satisfied God in all of His aseity does not need to create in order to experience a more satisfying love, it is still the nature of love that it desires to be shared. Sharing love with a creation that can make sense of that kind of love offers God something He does not have in Trinitarian aseity: relationship with a creation that is so amazingly made (in order to share in His love) that result of this relationship, though adding nothing to God’s self-satisfaction in Trinitarian aseity, becomes something of the “next highest experience” God can experience besides His own self-contained Trinitarian love.
about LFW as the starting point:
God, being the only eternal being, creates in order to both share His love and to make way for beings to experience this love. He can only create non-eternal beings. Since God’s existence (His starting point, which is no starting point) is necessarily perfect in love, the closest (I believe) any being is ever going to come near to experiencing this eternal love is via LFW. The starting point, therefore, for a non-eternal being is both the knowledge and the opportunity to experience what it is to not love as God loves. This can never be the case with a compatibilistic starting point.
Though the Logos is eternal, was, and is, without sin and is necessarily perfect love, the door would never be open for the Logos to personally partake of and experience evil (non-eternal love) if humanity was compatibilistically created. “What would be wrong with that?” you ask? With compatibilism as the starting point in creation, the relationship between God and creation would not be as robust and broad as it is with LFW as the starting point. A creation compatibilisitically created would not have the perspective about what it means to love without having known about both the knowledge AND the opportunity to experience love (“In the day that you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will die” – “you will loose out in the experience of loving as I love”). Proof of this is in Jesus’ statement to Simon while in his house, the house in which the woman poured oil on Jesus’ feet: “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” With compatibilism as a starting point, this statement could never have been made, and creation would never know of this “degree” or comprehension of love and of loving. This makes LFW a superior starting point over compatibilism in order to experience and live in eternal love. Please note: from an LFW starting point, one doesn’t have to choose to not love in order to appreciate the value of love.
about Christ absorbing our accountability and about atonement:
We’re back to the old questions similar to “If Christ’s death was for all, how is it applied only to those who “accept” Him? In this case, the question is if Christ absorbed (paid for) our sins, did this include absorption for all? If not, why not? And if it did, how is it that anyone is accountable when all is said and done. Further, how is it that Christ has “absorbed” anybody’s accountability? I don’t think this is what the atonement is about. I think, rather, as I have noted before, that God has always retained the right to forgive and leave it at that. He doesn’t have to hold anybody accountable if He’s ready and willing to forgive. But, as we see so clearly in life, accountability is built into our existence; when wrong is committed, consequences are usually just around the corner. Accountability shows itself plain and clear as part and parcel to our lives...while on earth! Accountability, then, is not a heaven/hell issue. It is not a “Christ had to die so that we don’t have to be held accountable” issue. Rather, accountability is a life (love) / death (non-love) issue. Accountability is applicable to creation that is made with LFW as its starting point. Once again, this could not be the case if compatibilism were the starting point – the door that is always open to experience accountability is, again, something that makes LFW a more robust starting point than compatibilism. And, again, just because LFW is the starting point does not mean that one must experience being accountable in order to appreciate it. The knowledge of accountability and the ever-present open door of experiencing accountability can be appreciated for all that accountability means.
I believe we are accountable as accountability falls directly in line with LFW (again, “In the day that you eat of the fruit, you will die,” and “The soul that sins shall die”). As finite beings, our starting point in this matter is in LFW and in having chosen poorly. Regardless of God offering forgiveness, and indeed granting it, we still find ramifications for our sins; consequences. Further, even if God forgives us our sins, He still retains the right to “teach us a lesson” for our own good, meaning the ramifications of our sins can be the very act of God’s direct intervention in our lives to bring about maturity toward eternal love. It is no longer an issue of accountability; it is a matter of growing up in Him. Perhaps this explains why God could “punish” David and yet forgive Him. The death of David’s son (his first from Bathsheba) is a statement about the death that took place in David’s relationship with God when David ordered the death of Bathsheba’s husband. Forever, David would know first hand what it means to experience Uriah’s death by experiencing the next closest thing to death itself; the death of a child, a reminder of the death he personally brought about in his walk with God. the death of his child would be, for David, quite a lesson he would carry with himself for the rest of His life. And perhaps he needed that. But we must also remember that it was from another child from David’s relationship with Bathsheba from whom would come the Christ. This had more to offer David, Bathsheba and the rest of the world than to had brought about the Christ through the child of an illicit affair, which could only speak of death (the cessation, or, at least a major hindrance, of love), not life and love.
In view of this, the atonement, as I see it, addressed something more than forgiveness and accountability. It addressed a world (of people) who were forever banished from knowing the eternal love of God because of their sin their having chosen to not love. Forgiveness or no forgiveness, accountability or no accountability, there would always be a gulf between God and people if left up to them, to restore the relationship – people being unable to reverse the affects and effects of their choice to not love. Only if God enters the stream of life and becomes subject to it via LFW can the problem be addressed. When Christ died, as I’ve noted in posts on other threads, another human being died. But when Christ resurrected, the Logos declared Himself the Eternal One who alone could bridge the gap between God and humanity. As I also noted in other posts, this is what Romans 5 is all about, so often given little attention because in view of Romans 3-4, many decide that the context must be something about Christ dying specifically for our sins and, therefore, chapter 5 must be about this, but it’s not real clear, so it’s just kind of left to itself.
The atonement is all about bridging, not absorbing. Language like, “He took on Himself our sins,” and “He became our sin” can have no true metaphysical reality (how in the world is one going to literally take on our sins? What, do they jump off us like fleas and jump on Him?) No one but I can be accountable for my sins. Not even Christ can alleviate that, anymore than no one can step up to the judge in a court of law and say, “Your honor, I’ll die for his crime.” THAT would lesson the whole concept of accountability as we know it in all of it’s reality. What the atonement can do, however, is make a way out of this hell-whole and pit of despair, this broken relationship. By dying, Christ dies as a man, as a human, as one who is accountable as much as the next guy. But He has nothing to be accountable for because He never sinned; He is God. So when He rises (raises?) from the dead, He has made a pathway to God that had never been made before. It is at this point where the language “our sins being forgiven” and “He Himself bore our sins” must be seen for what this great resurrection event makes the language mean; not absorption, not a literal carrying away our sins, not a literal bearing our sins, not even a figurative carrying or bearing – again, how can Christ’s death let me off the hook? Rather, a ladder was made available to humanity, one in which only the Son could ascend, one in which only the Son could could also descend in order to take others with Him who would be willing to ascend with Him.
To finish my thoughts about the atonement, yes, our sins are found forgiven (Christ had been forgiving sins for some time before He died), and yes, He did carry away our sins and bore them, but only if any of this is to mean something much bigger than “my sins” or “your sins.” Christ’s death is the declaration that the only thing humanity can find in the experience of choosing not to love is death – separation from God. If one can accept that, one can ascend. If one cannot, or will not, accept this, one must ultimately experience the ramification (the accountability) of having chosen against loving: hell. Not a place to be punished, but a place of no escape of what separation of God and love is really all about. Right now people think they escape these two things, but they will only be able to think this for so long. Eventually, everyone who has not chosen to jump on the ladder to God must experience the full ramification humanity’s choice to love itself rather than God (hey, it was a free choice, and it’s not like God didn’t warn Adam and Eve!). However, even hell must have a redemptive purpose (either that or annihilation must take place) or one is required more than what is fitting to a fallen human being. Either destroy the soul or save it (after one has fully realized the benefit of choosing to love and does so). That’s accountability, and it’s totally fitting.
Well, I’ve rambled on quite long enough. Pardon any poor grammar and writing. No time to edit as I would like to.
For LFW as the starting point and all that that means...
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship with us?Post Edited (Starkman) : 2/7/2007 8:09:29 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/7/2007 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Great stuff, Starkman. 
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.
Therefore (YOU) go and introduce all peoples into the Way, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and intstructing them in following everything I have commanded you. (Great Commandments!)
And surely I am with you always, even to the very end of the age."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/7/2007 8:27 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...Yo yo yo yo hommie Starky! I'm not 100% with ya on why LFW is necessary, but 99.9% ain't bad! How 'bout that sub-zero stuff this past weekend baby? That's what I'm talkin about . Tom
Dude, when I ask someone how it's going and they say that they're just chillin', I'm, like, "Dude, chillin'? We're way beyong chillin', son. We're seriously all stiffed out, frost'n with the brohaaas." (It's like, don't even talk about "chillin out." We're so beyond being chillin' that we can't even help our "just feez'n out" bad selves.)
It wasn't so bad, Tom, up here until the wind hit. Today was like ok, and then the sun dropped. It then got nasty cold up here. We FINALLY got, like, what, four inches of snow. We have had zilch up here. Weird winter!
Ok, so you're, like, not all on it with my view of why LFW is necessary. Teach me, Obiwon! Do share.
For "Just freez'n out, man. Just freez'n out,"
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship with us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/8/2007 8:53 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Stark-
I entirely missed this last blast of cold. I was locked down in a lab (volunteering for some drug experiment) from Friday till yesterday. In fact, they kept the room I was in too warm!
OK, so about your LFW stuff. I kinda got mixes messages. On the one hand you said this:
“With compatibilism as the starting point in creation, the relationship between God and creation would not be as robust and broad as it is with LFW as the starting point. A creation compatibilisitically created would not have the perspective about what it means to love without having known about both the knowledge AND the opportunity to experience love.”
That sounds like you’re saying that God’s creating us compatibilistically loving would result in an ongoing relationship of love, just not “as robust” or “broad” as one that resulted in our libertarian becoming. But you grant the possibility of genuinely loving relationship via created compatibilism. I’m denying that possibility. It’s loving relationship via libertarian becoming (and all the risk that involves) or NO possible creaturely loving relationship, period.
But on the other hand you said this:
“Since God’s existence…is necessarily perfect in love, the closest any being is ever going to come near to experiencing this eternal love is via LFW. The starting point, therefore, for a non-eternal being is both the knowledge and the opportunity to experience what it is to not love as God loves. This can never be the case with a compatibilistic starting point.”
I can see how this could be read as stating there’s no creaturely loving personhood except via LFW. But I’m not sure.
And in my view it’s not SO much “since God’s existence is necessarily perfect in love” that explains why WE have to libertarianly become loving. It’s rather “since we are NOT necessarily loving by nature” that explains this. It's not what GOD is (your "since God..." phrase) that explains why God goes LFW in our case. It's what WE are that explains it.
As I understand Jeff, God had three options (with respect to creating or not creation a world of loving creatures):
A) Don’t create at all.
B) Create a LFW world of “loving becoming” and risk the pain and suffering that entails.
C) Create a CFW (compatibilistic free will) world of “loving givenness from the get-go” and by-pass the risk of pain and suffering.
Jeff says (C) yields creaturely loving relationship but that God went with (B) because the pain and suffering entailed in a LFW world contributes something to the temporal reign of Christ and Christ’s enjoyment of creation which (C) cannot contribute.
In my metaphysics, God had only two options:
A) Don’t create at all.
B) Create a LFW world of “loving becoming” and risk the pain and suffering that entails.
In my view (C) is metaphysically impossible. All Jeff's explanations of the unique pleasures Christ gets from a C-type world are beside the point since a C-type world isn't a possible world. Consequently, I don’t need any explanation for the risk and pain entailed in LFW other than, “Creaturely love requires LFW becoming” (that is, TWT1). God just COULD NOT get creatures to experience loving relationality apart from the risks of LFW. Jeff denies this, essentially denying TWT1. It sounded there like you were agreeing with Jeff in denying TWT1.
Personally I think Greg wasn’t clear enough when he explained TWT1. One could object, “Well, God doesn’t require LFW to be loving.” And in fact Greg thinks God is compatibilistically loving. It’s been a while since I read Greg on this. I’m sure he explains it. It’s just that the “rule” or “law” of TWT1 as stated (“Love requires freedom”) isn’t itself clear. But maybe that’s just language. You don’t want to overload those six law or principles so that they can be remembered easily. “Love requires freedom” has a nice ring to it. But in my view, what’s really meant is “Creaturely love requires libertarian freedom.”
I'd be interested to know where Exousia is on this today. He and I (and Greg and Iconoclast) have been round on round on this but it's been over a year. Exousia agreed with Jeff against me, Greg, and Iconoclast that God COULD create a C-type world. Though Exousia felt he proved his point hands down, Greg and I have never budged. I thought Exousia came out several months ago and conceded that we were right, but I can't remember.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 2/8/2007 8:04:27 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/8/2007 9:05 AM (GMT -6) | | | By the way, whether a C-type world is a possible world has HUGE implications. The entire Free Will Defense rests upon it. However, Jeff argues differently. His justifications for LFW (and consequently the Free Will Defense) aren't metaphysical (like Greg's and mine are), they're more utilitarian. The need for LFW isn't "the metaphysical constraints of creaturely loving relationality," it's "the eschatological constraints of Christ's temporal reign."
Now, even IF I concede that a C-type world is a possible world, I still haven't heard a point by point explanation of the specific pleasures Christ gets from a B-type (libertarian) world that he cannot get from a C-type world. I really think Jeff slips in the mystery card here--"It must be the case that Christ gets some sentient satisfaction from our libertarian becoming that he doesn't get otherwise..." and so forth. See the reasoning? At the very place I need concrete reasons, I get mystery. What those specific pleasures are I don't know, I just have to assume some such thing is the case, since it's true that God could have created a C-type world. See? (And I don't think my approach posits the mystery where concrete explanations are required.) So I don't face any of this. C-type worlds are metaphysically impossible. That means the unique C-type sentient satisfaction Jeff supposes Christ gets from such a world are equally impossible.
But I still like Jeff! When is he going to come up here and visit us?
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 2/8/2007 8:22:10 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/8/2007 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Tom: But I still like Jeff!
Jeff: LOL!!!  I like you, too, bro!! Anyway, I'm bummed out. I'm having real issues at work, I lost my billfold with all my stuff in it, and my dog died last night. Anyway, I'm off work today to get another driver's license etc., so I got time for a post or two. I think my response below can be used to address D's response to me on the other thread.
As I understand Jeff, God had three options (with respect to creating or not creation a world of loving creatures):
A) Don’t create at all.
B) Create a LFW world of “loving becoming” and risk the pain and suffering that entails.
C) Create a CFW (compatibilistic free will) world of “loving givenness from the get-go” and by-pass the risk of pain and suffering.
Jeff says (C) yields creaturely loving relationship but that God went with (B) because the pain and suffering entailed in a LFW world contributes something to the temporal reign of Christ and Christ’s enjoyment of creation which (C) cannot contribute.
Jeff: You're not understanding my approach. I'm trying to explain things as parsimoniously as possible. I think it buys something which I will try to explain again. But I don't know if (C) is possible. I just don't know if it's not possible. But since I can already explain the creation in terms of just what Christ gets out of it, why try to explain LFW in terms of anything else? Let me explain:
If LFW is for the Son, and creation is only (please note this "only;" D is still misunderstanding me here) for the Father insomuch as it satisfies the Father to satisfy the Son, then I can ground the role of LFW purely in terms of what it buys the Son. See? Does God benefit from it in terms of glory/etc? Sure, but that doesn't mean that was His motive for creating. It's not necessary to assume it.
Now if we say LFW solidification is for the Father, OUT OF WHOM are all things, then that means God, to the extent that this process is for all, wants all people to go through the solidification process. So what do we do about babies that die at 6-months? We have to 1) posit some kind of post-mortem process OR 2) assume that they miss out the TELOS of their being.
If we assume 1), we've assumed something that is not necessary. There is already plenty of loss in the creational project and, for all I know, LFW might exist only for it's contribution to the temporal end of Christ's reign/glory. Why assume the deaths of infants aren't just another class of losses. If we assume 2), it sounds like we're questioning whether LFW soldification was the TELOS of all people after all.
Now let's move it to a 1 year old baby whose parents are putting out cigarettes in her skin. You're view holds that the the opportunity of these parents for LFW exercise trumps the child's opportunity to develop to her potential. Why bother with such difficulties. Easier to say that Christ's glory/reign requires that the uniformity/analogousness of the created order is necessary to an extent that entails regrettable loss. I would rather say God is constrained by those constraints than say He's constrained by the LFW opportunities of child-abusers at the expense of a child.
This way, when the temporal end of creation is done, God will simply love ALL of us simply because we exist, and we will have no further extrinsic value grounded in means-ends relationality. Heck, I can even believe my dog's spirit will be put to some eternal use in that view. Why not? He knows when a sparrow falls. And that does my heart GOOD.
You seem to suppose that your view doesn't entail extrinsic worth. All views do. Because all views have to accept suffering as a necessary means to maximal sentient satisfaction. Nothing but extrinsic worth can explain this, as far as I can tell. You're saying God's desire for beauty is what RENDERS suffering WORTH IT to God. You can't escape this metaphysics any more than I kind. No one can. Unless we say that God is not sentiently motivated. Do you want to say that?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/8/2007 12:01 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Sorry to hear about your billfold. Bummer. And your dog too. That’s painful.
Jeff: You're not understanding my approach.
Tom: I’m trying!
--------------
Jeff: I don't know if (C) is possible. I just don't know if it's not possible. But since I can already explain the creation in terms of just what Christ gets out of it, why try to explain LFW in terms of anything else?
Tom: I have to explain it other terms because
(a) I have (in my view) very good reasons for believing (C) is not possible,
(b) have NO analogy to make (C)’s being possible meaningful,
(c) don’t see what the specific benefits of (C) are for the Son (but I’ll wait to see if you explain them below), and
(d) have a perfectly find explanation of LFW’s role in (B).
I’m not seeing any motivation for ME to consider (C). I can see it for YOU because you admit the possibility of C-type worlds.
--------------
Jeff: If LFW is for the Son, and creation is only (please note this "only;" D is still misunderstanding me here) for the Father insomuch as it satisfies the Father to satisfy the Son, then I can ground the role of LFW purely in terms of what it buys the Son. See?
Tom: Perfectly. This is what I thought you were saying. So how am I not understanding your approach?
--------------
Jeff: Does God benefit from it in terms of glory/etc? Sure, but that doesn't mean that was His motive for creating. It's not necessary to assume it.
Tom: I thought this was your view, yeah.
--------------
Jeff: Now if we say LFW solidification is for the Father, OUT OF WHOM are all things, then that means God, to the extent that this process is for all, wants all people to go through the solidification process. So what do we do about babies that die at 6-months? We have to 1) posit some kind of post-mortem process OR 2) assume that they miss out the TELOS of their being.
Tom: To be consistent with my view on LFW, I would have to agree that SOME minimal exercise of the will is required for ANY creature to enter/engage in loving relationship with God. So I may have to bite the bullet and admit that some postmortem context in which agents exercise their will is necessary for infants and the mentally handicapped who are not able to determine themselves in this life. But I’d be no more unorthodox than John Piper if I did that! Doc agreed to this years ago too.
-------------
Jeff: If we assume 1), we've assumed something that is not necessary.
Tom: It may be necessary FOR ME since I find C-type worlds meaningless.
-------------
Jeff: There is already plenty of loss in the creational project and, for all I know, LFW might exist only for it's contribution to the temporal end of Christ's reign/glory.
Tom: What IS that contribution, Jeff? That’s what I need to know. You keep saying it contributes something to Christ’s reign/glory. What?
-------------
Jeff: Why assume the deaths of infants aren't just another class of losses. If we assume 2), it sounds like we're questioning whether LFW soldification was the TELOS of all people after all.
Tom: Well, I don’t want to assume that people miss out on the telos of their being, so I’ll go with (1) in your disjunction to explain the destiny of babies.
-------------
Jeff: Now let's move it to a 1 year old baby whose parents are putting out cigarettes in her skin. You're view holds that the the opportunity of these parents for LFW exercise trumps the child's opportunity to develop to her potential.
Tom: Not if God provides maximal grace available postmortem (see Jerry Walls for a GREAT argument for this in his “The Logic of Hell”) to make the required responsible choice possible.
Jeff: Why bother with such difficulties?
Tom: Because (C) is metaphysically impossible. The risks entailed in LFW are the ONLY metaphysical option God has for actualizing creaturely loving relationality.
--------------
Jeff: Easier to say that Christ's glory/reign requires that the uniformity/analogousness of the created order is necessary to an extent that entails regrettable loss.
Tom: Tell me what it is about that glory/reign that requires LFW. Assuming C-type worlds are possible, what sentient satisfaction or glory does Christ get from B-worlds [LFW creaturely becoming] that he cannot get from C-worlds [unconditionally God-given, compatibilistic, creaturely love]? Without specific benefits to consider, I don’t know how to judge your view. You haven’t described one such benefit yet.
---------------
Jeff: I would rather say God is constrained by those constraints than say He's constrained by the LFW opportunities of child-abusers at the expense of a child.
Tom: From my point of view, Jeff, it’s:
(a) only at temporary expense of the child,
(b) assuming the eventually reconciliation of all, and
(c) assuming the impossibility of C-type worlds (which on my view is extremely strong).
Jeff: This way, when the temporal end of creation is done, God will simply love ALL of us simply because we exist, and we will have no further extrinsic value grounded in means-ends relationality.
Tom: What unique glory/satisfaction does Christ receive in your scheme though? That’s what I want to hear.
-----------------
Jeff: You seem to suppose that your view doesn't entail extrinsic worth.
Tom: In a sense, only GOD’S worth is intrinsic. All other worth is extrinsic by virtue of being contingent and derivative, but that’s not a strike against me so far as I can see. However, given that much about contingent creatures such as us, once we exist before God, we intrinsically possess our God-given value. Our value to God is grounded in what we ARE, not is some temporary benefit we contribute to Christ’s reign.
-----------------
Jeff: all views have to accept suffering as a necessary means to maximal sentient satisfaction.
Tom: Whose satisfaction? Not OURS (on your view). You believe God could have created us perfectly and compatibilistically loving from the start, without having to go through suffering. That is, there’s no benefit FOR US in B-type over C-type worlds. Both yield the SAME benefit for us. On your view, what makes our B-type world preferable to God over C-type worlds is the benefit FOR CHRIST. And that’s part of my problem with your view. What possible satisfaction does CHRIST, the most satisfied being there possibly could be, get from our B-world that makes the pain and suffering worth it? Until you spell out the unique sentient satisfactions CHRIST gets, I’m not seeing your view at all.
-----------------
Jeff: You're saying God's desire for beauty is what RENDERS suffering WORTH IT to God.
Tom: I’d say that God’s enjoyment of seeing beings who didn’t even have to exist experience and reflect his love is what renders suffering worth it. It’s not God’s desire for beauty per se that makes it worth it. God has all of that already. It’s God’s desire for the beauty of us being freely and unnecessarily loved by God that makes it worth it.
I think I’m out of explanations. 
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 2/8/2007 9:58:33 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/8/2007 5:14 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Tom, I don't have much time so let me just make a few points:
1) My approach has nothing to do with the possibility of C-worlds. I just suspect we will be compatibilistic one day with respect to holiness and love (though I think we will still be free with respect to imaginative ways to love). And I think God and Christ will receive sentient satisfaction from us in that compatibilistic state.
2) Christ benefits from LFW because the libertarianly free adoration/worship/etc. of loving subordinates has the ability to stimulate a capacity for sentient satisfaction in him that he cannot experience independent of creation. I think you will deny this. But if none of the godhead is experiencing something novel or unique from creation that they couldn't experience without risk, why the risk? I think divine purpose is mysterious so I don't know how to explain some of these things. They just seem like brute facts that can not be denied without giving up explanations of what needs explaining. So I just posit that the godhead is somehow receiving satisfaction from creation that they couldn't experience otherwise. Is this problematic to you? If so, can you explain the risk in terms of perfect love otherwise? This gets back, again, to God being motivated sentiently.
3) Something trumps other things. I can't believe that God doesn't want to intervene to protect the child from abusive parents. SOMETHING about final cause metaphysics defines the constraints that motivate God to FOREBEAR. I think it's MUCH easier to say that the degree of uniformity of the created order requisite for the maximation of Christ's glory/reign is what constitutes those constraints that explain God's forebearance.
Tom: In a sense, only GOD’S worth is intrinsic. All other worth is extrinsic by virtue of being contingent and derivative, but that’s not a strike against me so far as I can see. However, given that much about contingent creatures such as us, once we exist before God, we intrinsically possess our God-given value. Our value to God is grounded in what we ARE, not is some temporary benefit we contribute to Christ’s reign.
Jeff: This is the biggy. ALL WORTH IS EXTRINSIC so long as it pertains to an END. This is final cause metaphysics, as I understand it. An end, by definition, is attained at a point in time. After the end is attained and its side effects have come to pass, extrinsic worth no longer exists. All that is left is a loving creator with His creatures. Perfect love THEN is unconstrained by necessary and fitting means. Compatibilism, at this point, is not problematic. This is equally true for both of us, if I am properly understanding the relation of extrinsic worth to an end. The difference is, you create three Telos's instead of one. The 1) sentient satisfaction of the Father, 2) the sentient satisfactoin of the Son, and 3) the LFW solidification of creatures. I, on the other hand, think 2) grounds 3), and that 2) is purposed as a means to 1).
So in the hierarchy, the Father, OUT OF WHOM is the creational project, creates for His sentient satisfaction, which happens to be caused by the sentient satisfaction of the Son, which in turn happens to require the LFW relationality of creatures. Tom, you and I are very close. I just don't have to explain how the interest of one creature trumps the interest of another creature. If God is interested in the physical well-being of a baby, yet God is interested in the LFW opportunities of her physically abusive parents ALSO, there has to BE an explanation of why God's interest in the one creature trumps God's interest in the other. I think if we just explain all trumping in terms of Christ's glory, we don't have to waste our time trying to explain all that other in terms of creature interest vs. creature interest. We're done.
We still have perfect love. We still have sentient motivation in the godhead. We still have the importance of LFW. It just saves us from having to suppose there are explanations for hypothetical ends that may not even exist. Maybe they do. But it buys us nothing to posit them. All is explicable without it. And UR is even easier to explain, because it never depended on the proper use of LFW by each and every individual. LFW is only important with respect to the TEMPORAL END of creation. That end is as sure as attained ALREADY. The only question is: how can Christ's glory be MAXIMIZED by relating rightly from now on?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 2/8/2007 7:35:06 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/9/2007 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Hope you’re doing OK with you dog, Bro. As a kid I had a favorite Basset Hound that got hit by a car. My brother and I sat with him in our arms in the back seat while my Dad raced to the Vet’s where we had to put him down.
OKeedokee…
Jeff: 1) My approach has nothing to do with the possibility of C-worlds.
Tom: Nothing? This is news to me. You earlier argued to the effect that “since God can create us compatibilistically loving from the start, we must find some explanation for LFW that’s not related to US.” I still looks to me as if your whole reason for organizing creation Christward is motivated by this desire to find an explanation for the risk of LFW. You’ve said as much. I must really be missing it.
Jeff: I just suspect we will be compatibilistic one day with respect to holiness and love (though I think we will still be free with respect to imaginative ways to love).
Tom: Yes! I just deny that God could have started off by creating us so while you affirm this possibility and THAT, so far as I can see, sends us looking for explanations of LFW risk in different places.
Jeff: And I think God and Christ will receive sentient satisfaction from us in that compatibilistic state.
Tom: No doubt. I agree. It’s genuine love. It’s OUR loving and worshipping God (something it would NOT be were God supposedly to create us in that state from the start).
Jeff: 2) Christ benefits from LFW because the libertarianly free adoration/worship/etc. of loving subordinates has the ability to stimulate a capacity for sentient satisfaction in him that he cannot experience independent of creation. I think you will deny this.
Tom: I agree our loving God stimulates a unique satisfaction in that it’s contingent satisfaction, and it’s libertarianly determined, and it’s not God loving himself (which it WOULD be were God supposedly to create us in such a state). God takes pleasure in loving, and valuing. In our case he takes pleasure in valuing the work of his hands—us. That IS something he doesn’t get from himself. But it’s a contingent expression of the same KIND of love and valuing and satisfaction God gets via Trinitarian relations. That’s how I’m seeing it.
BUT my question is this: Given the fact that God CAN create us compatibilistically loving from the start (as you say) and given the fact that God gets sentient satisfaction this, WHAT UNIQUE sentient satisfaction does Christ get from our loving him via libertarianly determined compatibilistic characters that he cannot get from our loving him via our exhaustively God-determined comptabilistic characters? I need to know THAT because your whole argument is that God risks the pain and suffering of LFW for THIS unique satisfaction. What is it?
Jeff: But if none of the godhead is experiencing something novel or unique from creation that they couldn't experience without risk, why the risk?
Tom: Because it’s the only way to get US into an experience of God’s love, and that’s our experiencing and reflecting and magnifying God’s love is what God values. THAT’S what GOD gets out of the deal—glory, pleasure, satifaction, of course. I’m not saying God doesn’t create for himself in any sense. I’m saying that what God gets out of it is the pleasure of a chance to LOVE US and VALUE US, a chance to BE WHO AND WHAT GOD IS with persons who are NOT GOD.
Jeff: I just posit that the godhead is somehow receiving satisfaction from creation that they couldn't experience otherwise.
Tom: I’m cool with that. But we have to careful. If we say the pleasure God gets from creation is utterly unique and also say the desire for this pleasure motivations God to create, then it will be hard to deny that creation is a truly free and unnecessary choice. You end up attributing some essential privation of perfection or good in God, something creation supplies and perfects in God. I’m uncomfortable with that. So I’ll say the pleasure God gets from creation is the same IN KIND as the pleasure God gets from himself, that it’s a contingent expression of the same KIND of love that God is. But it is different in important ways: it’s contingent, risky, and painful.
Jeff: 3) Something trumps other things. I can't believe that God doesn't want to intervene to protect the child from abusive parents.
Tom: Neither can I. Not only that, but neither can I believe that God DOESN’T actually intervene to protect the child. So for me, in the case of a child’s abuse, I assume God DID intervene and do all within his power given the creational variables that constrain the exercise of his will within the larger purpose of creation. How much muscle God is able to flex in this or that situation is different given these contextual variables.
Jeff: SOMETHING about final cause metaphysics defines the constraints that motivate God to FOREBEAR. I think it's MUCH easier to say that the degree of uniformity of the created order requisite for the maximation of Christ's glory/reign is what constitutes those constraints that explain God's forebearance.
Tom: The only actual attempt at explaining divine forbearance I can think of in Scripture is Peter’s comment that God puts off judgment to give people more chances to move toward him. Here at least forbearance is God acting in the interest of the human whole. I don’t know if that’s all it is. Is more needed? I think child abuse fits into this without having to suppose other explanations rooted in some unique pleasure Christ gets from a libertarianly determined love that he doesn’t get from a God-given compatibilistic love. If I could just know what that unique gain is, I’d be able to adjudicate your view. But without it I don’t know how to get motivated.
Jeff: This is the biggy. ALL WORTH IS EXTRINSIC so long as it pertains to an END.
Tom: Right, I see.
Jeff: This is final cause metaphysics, as I understand it. An end, by definition, is attained at a point in time. After the end is attained and its side effects have come to pass, extrinsic worth no longer exists.
Tom: Hmmm. What do YOU think the telos of human being is? I think it’s to be in compatibilistic loving relationship to God, to be one with the holy God of love. So yes, I agree (and have always said it) that LFW is not intrinsically valuable. Its value is in its necessary role in getting human being into compatibilistic love of God and others. Once we’re there, LFW isn’t valuable (except, as you say, to ground a sufficiently DIVERSE expression of love in eternity, in which case the telos of LFW is never exhausted and it’ll have some value forever).
Jeff: All that is left is a loving creator with His creatures. Perfect love THEN is unconstrained by necessary and fitting means. Compatibilism, at this point, is not problematic. This is equally true for both of us, if I am properly understanding the relation of extrinsic worth to an end. The difference is, you create three Telos's instead of one. The 1) sentient satisfaction of the Father, 2) the sentient satisfactoin of the Son, and 3) the LFW solidification of creatures. I, on the other hand, think 2) grounds 3), and that 2) is purposed as a means to 1).
Tom: Wow. Well, I suck at communicating then. For me there’s (1) the triune satisfaction God gets from creation; (2) the experience and reflection of divine love by creation; and (3) LFW solidification of creatures. In my view, (2) causes (1), that is, (2) grounds (1). God creates for the enjoyment of loving others. It's for God, yes, but it's creation as an opporunity to love us that is for God. You posit the "for an other"-ness between Father and Son. I posit it between God and creature. And then, (3) is the metaphysically necessary means for (2). In my view God cannot achieve sentient satisfaction from creaturely love apart from LFW becoming, period. It's (a) create an LFW world for the enjoyment of being in love with creatures, or (b) create for some other impersonal non-relational non-loving purpose (impoersonal entertainment), or (c) don't create at all. I'm inclined to even limit it to (a) and (c).
Exousia or others, jump in. I'm pooped. 
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/9/2007 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't see any need other than God just wanting to share who He is with others (those He creates) in order to justify God creating sentient beings who can love Him back, who can experience something of the same vein of love God shares within the Trinity. By nature, love wants to express itself, wants to share. It isn't that God isn't fully satisfied ad intra, it's that love says, "Hey, this is cool, you know. It's even the best (ad intra), but how about we create sentient creatures who can share in this, who can appreciate what we are and can enjoy that in eternity with us? Whatta ya say? Wouldn't that be absolutely cool?"
I think that is more than enough motive for God to create. I cannot, as Jeff does, assign anything more to the creation than this.
In order to arrive at this kind of relationship (between God and creation), it's going to take LFW, not compatibilism. Unlike Tom, I don't deny that a creature MADE compatibilistically couldn't love, I just don't believe it would be for the same reasons that a creature created with LFW would love, and that is why LFW creates a more robust relationship. If, however, it is impossible for a a creature who has been made compatibilistically to love in any form, well, so be it. I can live with that. But I deny plainly and clearly that it is possible for a creature made compatibilistically to love as a creature who is made with LFW.
In order for LFW to accomplish its goal, there can be no other way for the ultimate telos to arrive than by risk, risk that will entail tremendous suffering (to whom much is given, much is required). The risk-factor being so great that a child could be abused is to speak so greatly of the value of LFW. Without the phenomenal freedom we have to choose to love, there could be no phenomenal relationship with God when all is said and done. The greater the love relationship as the telos, the greater the risk and potential danger.
Crap! I'm outta time.
Any, I hope that clears up some of the mud, Tom.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship with us?Post Edited (Starkman) : 2/12/2007 6:51:54 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 115 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:11 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 |
|
|