This quote from D. seems very clear:

"I mean it in the same way that I believe Jesus meant it when he quoted the "you are gods" thing.

We are Images of God who obviously demonstrate a glorious similiarity to our Creator and have tremendous responsibility because of it.

We are "gods" (little g) because we are in the Image of God (big G)."

Unison: Do you see any metaphysical reason that would make it impossible for a human being to self-dispose themselves towards being "the termini of God's creative act"?

Tom: I’m not sure, but my hunch is that for X to be utterly and exhaustively determined by the will of God (or by the will of any other non-X entity), X should not be thought of as being a personal dispositional center of volition responsible for transitioning possibility to actuality, in which case it would no longer be X, since it’s the RESPONSIBLE disposition of our individual actuality that constitutes our personhood. It’s ownership of our disposing that defines our uniqueness and actually creates the synergistic beauty that God creates for in the first place. So, to my mind, X’s freely self-disposing OUT OF this and into a state in which some will other than X’s will would utterly and exhaustively determine everything about X would be analogous to X’s disposing out of existence, freely embracing the annihilation of their unique and responsible self, their own distinct dispositional identity. I don’t know how to prove this is metaphysically impossible, but given what I understand to be God’s purposes in creating us dispositional personal creatures in the first place, I would say you can’t freely choose your way out of being THAT.

I know you and B keep saying that theosis doesn't mean the annihilation of our individual subjective selves, but I don't see how this isn't really what you're (Unison) advocating. You SAY it isn't so, but I when it comes to the one activity that defines the self (SEL-disposition), you say we end up disposting OUT of this so that God's the only self that's determining anything.

Tom

Post Edited (MANY) : 6/24/2007 11:18:06 AM (GMT-5)

The Illumined Heart Podcast    http://www.ancientfaithradio.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/

Ask Fr. Thomas Hopko -- Posted Sunday, June 24, 2007

This is the 2nd in our monthly installments of Q&A with Fr. Tom on a variety of subjects related to our faith and Orthodoxy. In this episode he tackles questions about pre-destination and Mary. This feature will be heard the last Sunday of every month. If you would like to submit a question for future programs, you may email Fr. Tom at  illuminedheart@ancienfaithradio.com.

And their understanding of God neither being "in time" nor "out of time" makes all this possible.

(It occured to me that OV's reactionary stance "against" calvinistic/augustinian determinism might be a cause of tying a tangled knot here.   -just a thought- )

Bruce in Chicago/PoW

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 6/24/2007 12:56:52 PM (GMT-5)

Tom: It’s ownership of our disposing that defines our uniqueness and actually creates the synergistic beauty that God creates for in the first place.

Unison: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. (Unison's Note: Just like Jesus wanted to be IN us, right?) The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Tom: I’m having a difficult time here. You denying one or more of the following:

a) that self-determination defines our unique actuality as persons,

b) that such self-determination can be described as a proper sort of synergism,

c) that such synergism yields a unique beauty that pleases God,

d) that God’s reasons for creating included the obtaining of such beauty.

Which is is?

Surely, D, what Paul meant by “I no longer live” is not “I am no longer a self-determining disposition or person,” or “Absolutely everything about me, even choice I make, is determined by God,” or “I never conceive of myself as being the final arbiter in ANY choice I make,” but rather something more like “I no longer live for myself as I did before; I no longer orient all things around my own significance or define the meaning of my existence through self-centeredness.” Surely that makes better sense of Paul here.

------------------------------

B: This comes down to one word: "surrender." By free will I surrender. That sums it all up. "I surrender all."

Tom: But it offers nothing by way of an answer to the question D and I are debating. To suppose that our being eternally capable to sometimes determine the form our love takes is not to suppose we are sometimes other than fully surrendered.

B: EO is not just speculating about something "then," but is speaking of the fulness of the eschata "now." So what they say is what they are convinced of experientially.

Tom: It’s very difficult to debate a person’s theological explanation of their experience of the Spirit. So I won’t comment, except to say I guess that what D and I seem to be debating just is that speculative aspect of the consummation when we are glorified.

There’s a very important aspect to our present life in this unredeemed and unglorified creation that’s being carried over into the consummation an applied (rather uncritically by D I think) to our consummated, glorified existence then. And that’s the presence of the risk of evil and suffering in the world made possible by the existence of unglorified persons. So matter how far along the way a believe is in this life, they remain on THIS side of being irrevocably gloried. So some risk is always present. And THIS is why our inclinations and intuitions are not infallible and cannot be trusted, and thus why we must expect a far greater percentage of our actions to be directed or proscribed by God who alone knows the bigger picture and can judge what’s most appropriate and loving. But the main reason why such judgment even needs to be made is the risk of evil and suffering.

However, it’s precisely this risk that no longer characterizes creation or God’s relationship to it in the consummation. Nobody seems to give much thought to the implications of this for our relationship with God and the nature of our freedom and life in the eschaton. Instead, in defending the idea that God would need or desire to determine every choice we make in the eternal state, it’s the present existence of risk and our failure to understand enough about the world to judge what’s best in any given situation that’s given as the reason for thinking God will unilaterally determining our every move throughout eternity. The assumption is that after glorification we still cannot be trusted to make the simplest decision on our own. As B says, “One reason for surrender that Hopko suggests is our ever-present potential for self-delusion.” That’s fine for the present moment. But the question is, Will the potential for delusion (and so evil and suffering) continue to characterize us throughout the eschton? To answer “yes” is to deny the very theosis being argued for and the common belief that we will be compatibilistically free with regard to love. I’m inclined to answer “No.” We shouldn’t assume that the potential for self-delusion (viz., risk) will characterize us in the final state. But contrary to Hopko (if he even thinks this), the potential for and risk of delusion and risk need not be the only reasons for characterizing the whole of our relationship to God as one of “surrender” even on the assumption that we’re free to determine the form our loving expression takes in some circumstances. Such free expression IS a surrender to God.

B: So, Tom, tell us, in "this" life what do you see in your father-in-law? I think that is relevant.

Tom: I see a less than perfected human being doing the best job at loving others that I’ve ever seen in another human being. How is this relevant to the nature of human freedom in the consummation?

My hunch (expressed above) is that some will assume that since we can never be in a position to judge what’s best and most loving in any given situation NOW (because our ignorance combined with our less than glorified state is what constitutes risk) and must be told by God what to do at all times, the eternally glorified state is just a much more intense version of the same thing. We’ll still be incapable of making a single choice safely. So God will just make them all. I categorically reject this notion of the glorified state as intuitively or theologically preferable—in spite of all the rhetoric and history regarding theosis—over and against a notion of that state which supposes we will be free to determine some of the form which our love will take because such self-determination is a) constitutive of the beauty and glory for which God creates us, and b) remains definitionally an aspect of individual personhood.

B: And their understanding of God neither being "in time" nor "out of time" makes all this possible.

Tom: Then I’m out of the discussion, because,“neither in time nor out of time” is meaningless to me. And if a meaningless notion is what makes a controversial claim about the nature of the God-human relationship in the final state possible, then I have no hope of understanding it or engaging the conversation.

B: (It occured to me that OV's reactionary stance "against" calvinistic/augustinian determinism might be a cause of tying a tangled knot here.

Tom: Sorry B, I can’t understand this.

--------------------------------

Unison: Quoting B, “EO is not just speculating about something "then," but is speaking of the fulness of the eschata "now." So what they say is what they are convinced of experientially.”

This is important, Tom. This really isn't just metaphysical speculation or anything like that. We are talking about truly living PROLEPTICALLY. That is to say, bring in the eschata that WILL BE to the earth NOW. Living on EARTH as we are to live in HEAVEN. Being an EMBASSY of people who are Ambassadors of Christ's power, glory, and love...right now.

Tom: You’re assuming that the potential and risk that are part of our relationship with God in the world now and how they define and influence that relationship will continue to characterize the relationship forever. If you agree that they won’t continue to characterize the relationship forever, then (as I ask above) how is that the manner in which such potential and risk require us to not trust our own fallible inclinations and intuitions but to look to God to determine the best a given situation allowed to define how self-determining we might be when such potential are risk are not present?

Tom

(I couldn't follow what your remark means; maybe D. understands it.)

But all I was saying is that surrender is a form where free will exists and that will also supremely wills the will of the other. Seems evident to me. That's why I posted it.

.

As to your father-in-law, I hope it was OK to use him as an example. Let me explain what I meant: though we are not perfect *sometimes* we experience what C.S.Lewis calls "the thin places" where heaven emerges into the present. I like Lewis' figure of speech is a nice one.

Tom: So, to my mind, X’s freely self-disposing OUT OF this and into a state in which some will other than X’s will would utterly and exhaustively determine everything about X would be analogous to X’s disposing out of existence, freely embracing the annihilation of their unique and responsible self, their own distinct dispositional identity. I don’t know how to prove this is metaphysically impossible, but given what I understand to be God’s purposes in creating us dispositional personal creatures in the first place, I would say you can’t freely choose your way out of being THAT.

Unison: This would only be true if the "True X" weren't the divine ground of X's being; the unique, personal "eschatological essence" of X. But, since the "True X" IS the eschatological essence, then all X is doing is self-disposing into her most authentic manner of becoming which is the perfect openness to the divine ground expressing itself continually in "non-divine" reality.

Tom: It looks to me like you’re just assuming the point of argument, which is whether or not eschatological essences are exhaustively definitive for behavior in all conceivable worlds. I say they are not. You seem to think they are.

That God has the “true Tom” in mind which is the ground of my being, my eschatological essence, I can agree with. That this essence precludes all indeterminism, that it defines only one maximally beautiful, glorifying form of expression in any conceivable context is not something is a different matter (and the real debate). I think I’ve suggested good reasons to suppose that part of every eschatological essence is the capacity to freely self-dispose in loving ways.

You see the dispositional capacity to freely dispose one’s self as a temporary means toward coming into our eschatological essence, after which time the capacity is no more (because the essence by definition precludes indeterminism of any kind). So the capacity is “given up” and “surrendered.” We “shed” this capacity.

I see this capacity as the means of our existing eternally before God, as that in which our unique personhood subsists and by which means we (at least sometimes) reflect God’s glory and beauty through freely determining the form our love takes.

You see our fundamental purpose solely in terms of reflecting divine beauty in deterministic ways.

I see our fundamental purpose both in terms of reflecting and creating beauty. That’s my both/and, for even in creating beauty (or contributing to the creation of beauty) we are reflecting God’s glory.

----------------------------

Unison: One LOSES their life to truly GAIN their life. Exchanging the TEMPORAL (lower) for the ETERNAL (Higher)

Tom: Come on ya’ll, when Jesus talked about giving up one’s life to gain it he was talking about taking up the cross to shed misrelation, sin, and self-centeredness to gain right relatedness, peace, and glory. But why think “lose your life” means “give up the capacity to self-determine”?

Unison: Come on, Tom. What's not being clear about this?

Tom: It’s clear. It’s just objectionable!

Unison: It's a friggin both/and, Tom. Don't you see it??

Tom: You keep saying it’s both/and. But both what? Tell me again what the two elements are to the both/and to make sure I’m following ya. Will glorification in the final state result in it’s being the case that we are BOTH exhaustively determined by the divine will AND sometimes free to determine ourselves? Is it your view that the God-world relationship will be BOTH exhaustively determined AND indeterministic on some level? Is that a meaningful thing to believe? What’s your both/and? My understanding is that you think we are BOTH exhaustively determined by God AND remain unique personal individuals. If that’s your both/and, then no, I don’t see that at all.

My both/and for the final state is this (or something close to it!): We are BOTH defined by God as the ground and source of our existence and the one who defines our eschatological essence (that which we ‘gain’ when we ‘lose our [false]-selves through embracing the cross”) AND free to sometimes determine the form which our loving expression takes. My both/and is possible because the two claims that make it up aren’t mutually exclusive (which I think yours are). My both/and says that the eschatological essence, though defined by God as its source and grounds, remains a self-determining center of loving possibilities, the determination of which rests with the person as final arbiter. THAT is not lost I don’t think. It survives final glorification. It is the perfection of THIS capacity which glorification is about.

----------------------------

B: But all I was saying is that surrender is a form where free will exists and that will also supremely wills the will of the other. Seems evident to me.

Tom: To me also. That’s what I’m arguing FOR. But where D and I differ is that he sees the ‘divine will’ (that we will to surrender to) as being a unilateral determination of all things. No more indeterminism in the universe. I see indeterminism as a good thing, a wonderful thing, and where all wills and characters are sufficiently perfected in love, a source of beauty and glory that isn’t had otherwise.

Peace out!

Tom

Post Edited (MANY) : 6/24/2007 9:55:43 PM (GMT-5)

Unison: Let me use different language then, Tom. I believe that there is a state where the creaturely will is continually in PERFECT UNISON with the Divine Will because the creature, empowered by grace, FREELY CHOOSES (because the will has been freed from sin!) to unconditionally and continually SURRENDER to the Divine such that, functionally, only the Divine "wills" and "does" in the creature. The lower eternally chooses to submit to and "incarnate" the Higher. Even though there are two wills, there is really only ONE will. Even though there are TWO "centers of experience" (Creator and created) that are relating, they functionally become ONE BEING. (Think about the example of MARRIAGE) True unity of "being" and "becoming." In doing so, the creature has awareness that the ultimate ground of it's deepest subjectivity is God. Thus, the creature understands it's fundamental self (and that of all creatures) to be of, from, and to God. A fundamental paradigm shift about the "self" and it's true grounding! The creature has a view of itself and the world from these truths, and, in so doing, conforms to "God's way of seeing things" I wanted to say that this state is the full realization of the "eschatological essence" in a being.

Ok, Tom. Give me the metaphysical language.

Tom: That dudn’t need any help from me! I can totally get with this, D. Let me restate my basic beef and then see if it can accommodate what you’ve just said. I want to say that…

a)      in the eschaton God’s ‘willing’ through us will on occasion (as it sometimes is now I believe, but never mind conceding this is the case presently) be compatible with alternative but equally loving outcomes, and that

b)      given our perfected characters in the eschaton there will be no probability for self-delusion or risk of misrelation, and that

c)      there’s a beauty to God’s ‘willing’ that we be left to determine which of equally loving alternatives gets realized through us, SO THAT

d)   God may leave (or "will that..." if you prefer) the determination of WHICH loving outcome gets actualized to us. [I added this red part after D responded to this post.]

When you state your theological concerns and values, I’ve always been able to get with them. But when you try to say what these values require or preclude in terms of concrete choices and freedom, that’s when I get antsy. I think that’s when some of your old deterministic and boot-licking sensibilities come back and influence how you perceive the options. But I think my main concerns and values are compatible with what you’ve just described.

Our being the final arbiter in some situations IS for our wills to be in unison with God’s will. The “unison of the divine and human willing” (so that effectually God’s will is being done THROUGH our willing) that you value is completely fulfilled and protected. It’s just that ‘what God wills’ is (in some instances at least) our continuing to contribute to the actualizing of relational beauty through self-determination. GOD wants it. We say yes to it. THAT is ‘wills in perfect unison’.

Take the example of the loving father and child who paints a picture for her Daddy. Are their ‘wills’ less than totally and complete in unison if the father wants his daughter to “make up something” on her own for him to enjoy? Or are their ‘wills’ really only in unison, or even more in unison, if the daughter says, “What would you like me to draw you Daddy?” and the father replies, “Draw me a palm tree (not an oak tree!) with Spring (not Fall!) foliage, and place the sun in the top left (not right!) corner so that the shade casts over your red wagon (not your tricycle!)” to which the daughter FREELY WILLS to give her Dad what he wants and draws what HE specifies?

I’m not disagreeing that when God asks for something specific our being in total unison with God’s will wouldn’t entail our doing precisely as he commands. That’s cool. I’m disagreeing completely that the perfected and glorified God-human relationship should be thought of in such exclusively specific terms.

Your assumption that the divine will is always meticulously SPECIFIC is just an assumption, and you’re getting it (I think) from the fact of our present fallen and ignorant context (and maybe some from the old boot-licking days). But it is in the end an unsubstantiated assumption to suppose that God would so will through us. Lose that assumption and there will be no reason to suppose a loving father interested in a maximally mutual loving relationship wouldn’t say, “Hey Sweety, why don’t you surprise me with a pretty drawing?” and that WHATEVER the daughter decided to draw in response would constitute a willing which is every bit the sort of “perfect unison” you value, no less than the unison reflected in her willing to follow some very specific command or wish of her father. It’s just our willing in unison with God’s will and not a particular level of meticulous specificity on the part of God’s will that defines the perfect sort of unison you rightly value and expect.  

See it?

Tom

Post Edited (MANY) : 6/25/2007 1:01:55 PM (GMT-5)

What I noticed is that I agreed with D. here:

I believe that this is how Jesus lived.

My both/and says that the eschatological essence, though defined by God as its source and grounds, remains a self-determining center of loving possibilities, the determination of which rests with the person as final arbiter. THAT is not lost I don’t think. It survives final glorification. It is the perfection of THIS capacity which glorification is about.