Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/25/2008 8:32:32 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/30/2008 8:31:28 AM (GMT-6)

Tom: I see it as interpersonal, a “face to face” encounter. You (Imago) see it as God encountering Godself in us, the divine Person staring at the divine Person.

D: It's a both/and. As the Father's Child (the Son) is continually "born and borne" in us epicletically by Father's Spirit, God the Father looks at a GRACE-BORN Father's Child...and interpersonally relates to Father's Child...face-to-face. What does "Abba, Father!" mean but a face-to-face personal relationship?

Tom: Dude, you just described and confirmed what I said. You have divine-divine interpersonal relationality. I’m talking about divine-human interpersonal relationality, about relations between divine and human persons. It’s right there in your words. The ‘person’, the ‘Who’, in us who relates to the Father interpersonally, is the Logos, not some human (non-divine) person. For you, non-divine personhood is an impossibility.

Your both/and is vacuous.

Tom

D: Do you believe that a human person…?

Tom: You don’t believe in “human persons” so how can you ask the question?

D: …ACTUALLY “become” Christ...body, mind, and spirit...epicletically (I think you know what this means by now...) through Father's Spirit?

Tom: Even though you don’t believe in human persons, I’ll answer the question.

If you mean the human subjectivity is destined to dissolve into the divine subjectivity so that no difference is perceived, and wherein the human will is not a source of creative and free expression, then my answer is ‘no’. I will not take THAT away from God. But if all you mean is that the human arrives at a place where there’s no conceiving of one’s self without conceiving of Christ, no perception of one’s ‘meaning’ and identity apart from one’s relationship of love and intimacy with Christ, no choice that is made that is not Christlike because it flows from this intimacy, then my answer is ‘yes’.

My analogies are on record. There IS a synergy and a very specific relationship between identities. The procreation of children and the family unity, the ambassador as [representative of] State, the musician playing another composer’s music. When Louis Armstrong plays Gershwin, everybody knows it’s Gershwin. They ‘meet’ Gershwin. Gershwin is ‘in’ the music. Gershwin ‘is’ his music. His image is there. But everybody also KNOWS it’s Armstrong. And they perceive the difference. Armstrong is ‘contributing’ something free and creative, something no one else can contribute, something Gershwin doesn’t determine, so that the end product is a synergy of identities. It’s not JUST Gershwin. It’s not JUST Armstrong. It’s Armstrong high on Gershwin. And there’s no revealing of Gershwin into the world apart from the specific, free, creative interpretations of other musicians who play his music. Now, if we can imagine Armstrong ‘as musician’ and Gershwin as ‘the only music composer in existence’, we’d say then that there is no fulfillment of Armstrong’s being and identity apart from Gershwin, apart from identifying himself with Gershwin. I don’t have a problem with this. I’ve said it ALL ALONG. There’s no separating them, but there’s also no conflating them; no dissolving the one into the other like some drop of ‘ego’ into the great sea of the Divine Ego. Likewise, there’s no fulfilled personal human existence, apart from our relationship to/in God. But there’s something in this for me which you refuse to admit, and that is the exercise of freely creative capacities on the creature’s part and its contribution to our unique identities in Christ (along the lines of my analogies).

Another analogy might be Scripture itself.

“The whole of Scripture is the product of the divine activities which enter it, not by superseding the activities of the human authors, but by working confluently with them, so that the Scriptures are the joint product of divine and human activities, both of which penetrate them at every point, working harmoniously together to the production of a writing which is not divine here and human there, but at once divine and human in every part, every word and every particular.” Warfield

“The organic nature of Scripture…implies the idea that the Holy Spirit, in the inscripturation of the Word of God, did not spurn anything human to serve as an organ of the divine. The revelation of God is not abstractly supernatural but has entered into the human fabric, into persons and states of being, into forms and usages, into history and life. It does not fly high above us but descends into our situation: it has become flesh and blood, like us in all things except sin. Divine revelation is now an ineradicable constituent of this cosmos in which we live and, effecting renewal and restoration, continues its operation. The human has become an instrument of the divine, the natural has become a revelation of the supernatural; the visible has become a sign and seal of the invisible. In the process of inspiration, use has been made of all the gifts and forces resident in human nature.” Herman Bavnick

When you read Paul, you know you’re reading ‘Paul’ and not ‘John’ or ‘Luke’. And this human element, its development and unique character, defines the end product. It defines revelation itself. And the way it defines revelation is not the direct result of the divine will. Who Paul was at the time he wrote was not the result of unilateral divine causation. At the same time, when you read John, Paul, or Luke you’re reading the revealed Word of the Father. Christ inscripturated as it were.

D: If yes to 1, do you believe that it's God the Father's Will that this occur for human persons?

Tom: In the sense of my ‘yes’ above, yes. In the sense of your monism, no.

Let me ask you a question. Do you still feel I have something to ‘repent’ of?

T

Post Edited (HumanHypostasis) : 1/31/2008 2:46:11 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/31/2008 2:36:18 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/31/2008 2:37:33 AM (GMT-6)

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

D: In Louis' mind, he actually "lives" the life of Gershwin in his own freely creative musical existence...and is completely reliant upon and "freely obedient" to the LIVING spirit of Gershwin in all of his musical artistry. Louis epicletically indwells Gershwin.

Tom: Is it Armstrong’s creative capacities freely expressing Gershwin’s music, capacities undetermined BY Gershwin? If so, you have my view. If not, you have your view.

If you want to construe the analogy to suit your view, fine. But as it stands, the analogy is exactly what we experience in real life when we hear Armstrong. That’s the analogy I’m offering.

D: 1) By the Father's Spirit, Christ himself interpenetrates the Body of Christ "I" LIKE UNTO the Real Presence of Christ interpenetrates the bread and wine at the epicletic moment.

Tom: I’m with Grosheid on the elements. I don’t see the elements substantially transformed into Christ in any manner of speaking. Sorry. They’re just a reenactment, a memorializing of history, a point of contact wherein my faith and perception connect to the historical act of Christ on my behalf. There’s nothing magical about the elements. I think to make the elements anything more than this is superstitious magic.

D: 2) The human will is fully, totally, utterly, completely submitted in all ways to the divine will. The innate power of the UNFALLEN human will is to freely choose this submission.

Tom: We disagree about what “fully, totally, utterly, completely submitted” to the divine will means and looks like. You just interpret such surrender in deterministic fashion. I don’t.

T

Post Edited (HumanHypostasis) : 1/31/2008 6:39:14 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/31/2008 2:54:57 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (HumanHypostasis) : 1/31/2008 3:13:46 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/31/2008 6:58:29 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/31/2008 7:00:41 AM (GMT-6)

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

I was on staff with Greg.  I HAD to have discussions with him about the theology behind Communion. (and Baptism for that matter)  I KNOW that he is STRAIGHT "Baptist" on these ideas through and through.  I KNOW how WHC (a church emergent from a BAPTIST GENERAL CONFERENCE church plant) "communion" works...from Greg's perspective.

He is a "memorialist" too.

Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/31/2008 7:16:45 AM (GMT-6)

I did.

Tom: I’m with Grosheid on the elements. I don’t see the elements substantially transformed into Christ in any manner of speaking. Sorry. They’re just a reenactment, a memorializing of history, a point of contact wherein my faith and perception connect to the historical act of Christ on my behalf. There’s nothing magical about the elements. I think to make the elements anything more than this is superstitious magic.

D: Well, you may want to consider "changing your thinking" in this theological area.

Tom: Can you give me biblical grounds for doing so?

D: But, I will say this. To the extent that you don't grant any reality to the possibility of the Real Presence of Christ in epiclesis, then we really don't have anything else to talk about.

Tom: I don’t think I suggested that Christ isn’t really present in communion, that his presence isn’t really encountered. Of course it is. Wherever two or three are gathered…. I just don’t see any biblical ground for locating that presence “in the elements.” It is rather located “in the act.” THAT’S a relational theology, not magic.

But D, do you really mean that if I don’t agree with you on the nature of the elements that we have nothing to talk about?

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

Tom: Imagine a “control” that “makes room” for creative expression, a control that delimits a scope of creativity within which we determine ourselves. Try to think outside of your deterministic tendencies.

D: You don't seem to allow a person to be able to self-dispose into being the “termini of God's creative act” (Royce). And that's the thing. I've talked to Greg and he KNOWS...there is NO METAPHYSICAL REASON to say that this cannot be the case. It's not a metaphysical impossibility that a human being be so submitted to God's will that they become the “termini of God's creative act.” The only thing that he (and you) have been saying is that God doesn't WANT it that way.

Tom: I wouldn’t debate the sheer, metaphysical possibility of God’s making some created entity X the terminus of his creative act. Of course that’s possible. I don’t know if we can have a created world without that much being the case.

But, D, once you start to define X and ascribe certain relational capacities to X (say, X is a ‘person’ who ‘loves’), then the range of metaphysically possible relations that can obtain between God and X narrows. If X is an inanimate object, God ‘may’ and ‘may not’ relate to it in certain ways. His own nature, along with the nature of inanimate objects, delimits the possible types of relation that can obtain. If X is a horse or a cow, the same metaphysical constraints apply and the types of relation that may obtain will be different, probably greater. And if X is a sentient, self-reflecting, value perceiving, meaning conferring, and freely disposing center of experience who is held accountable for her choices (Tom takes a breath), similar metaphysical constraints will delimit how God ‘may’ and ‘may not’ be said to relate to X. So are there ANY conditions under which some X may be the terminus of God’s creative act? Sure. Do humans qualify under such causation? I don’t think so; not for the KIND of personal, loving relationship it seems to me the Bible suggests God and we engage in.

If God ends up utterly and exhaustively manipulating, controlling, and determining us in heaven, then certain consequences follow about US and divine-human relationality. And I don’t think that supposing those consequences are God’s purpose for creating us can be biblically supported.

D: In your view, God doesn't want us to make the choice to be God's "living extensions" in such a way.

Tom: In my view, it’s not possible for us to make the choice to so dispose and remain ‘persons in loving relation’.

D: God prefers us to make the choice to retain control of our self-determination and self-regulation for “ourselves.” Your sense of this is driven by your “telos” that you (and Greg) see for the world.

Tom: First, it’s not “for ourselves” that I think we remain free to determine the shape our loving expression takes. I think it’s “for God” that we remain such.

Second, I don’t think we “choose” to make it the case that we retain control of our creative capacities for ourselves. I think the metaphysical constraints of loving relationality simply delimit the possibilities. We’re created with such capacities, and choosing our way out of those capacities isn’t one of the capacities. So I don’t think we come to a place where we have to ‘choose’ to ‘retain’ our freedom. We just are.

But third, I agree that this is all driven by my understanding of God’s telos for us. If I had reason to believe that God wasn’t interested in interpersonal loving relations with human beings I suppose I’d be free to consider your view. But as it is, I ain’t.

D: And they DON'T INCLUDE "epiclesis" or "theosis" in the orthodox sense...for either of you.

Tom: Correct. I don’t think there’s room for me in orthodox views on these issues.

D: So...

Tom: So I guess I’m a heretic as far as all the EO and maybe most the Catholic Church is concerned. Luckily a) they don’t drown or burn heretics today, and b) there will always be enough Evangelicals who disagree with the Orthodox view to provide opportunities for community and ministry for those of us who don’t share the Orthodox hope of never again being able to draw their heavenly Daddy a picture.

Tom

PS Do you really think I need to 'repent' of this?