SPIRIT and Pentocost

Pentecost

Posted Thursday, June 12, 2008

Fr. Thomas looks at the roots of Pentecost-- the coming of the Spirit-- in Old Testament worship.

T: Again, what I mean by omnipresence: “All that God is actually and potentially is part of the definition of every other actuality and possibility (whether spiritual or physical). In other words, God is present to all things in the sense that God holds them in existence, sustaining their being and apprehending their becoming—at their locations.” But God’s sustaining activity is unmediated. There’s no non-God reality empowered by God to sustain the universe on God’s behalf. So God does it. Created material realities are spatially located, thus, God’s sustaining energies [but not God] are spatially located.

Z: I completely agree with this figuative, non-literal understanding of God's omnipresence as it is presented here. God does things to (but is not necessarily literally located alongside) spatially located creation.

T: To me there’s nothing figurative or non-literal about such presence. Figurative presence would be a mediated presence by some symbo or some such thingl, say, God sets up an idol of himself and the idol represents God and so reminds us of God. THAT’S a figurative, non-literal presence. But there’s nothing non-literal about the unmediated presence of God’s sustaining us.

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

T: What notion are you talking about?

PoW:  I think its something in this:

T: I can, however, always know at every present moment that who I am and the freedom in which I live is a grace gift of God, my creator and sustainer. I can always know what I freely determine in love perfectly reflects God to God and others since God is the ultimate free loving creator. In doing what God does—determine myself in love—I look like God. But for you the best way to look like God and reflect God is to have God determine one’s self and its movements. This is exactly what your ever-present question means. It means we receive from God the specific form of expression our love it to take. It means we are not creators in any meaningful sense. God determines the expressed form and so most perfectly sees himself reflected in us. For you, D, God sees himself in creation by determining it. Even though you have creatures choosing to be so determined, that doesn’t change the implications—creaturely personal identity is gone. That’s essentially the rock-bottom of your view. It’s determinism all over again. For me God sees himself in creation by NOT determining it, but by—having perfected its nature in love—“letting it go.” For me, God’s answer to the question you propose we ask is, “Are you perfected in love or not? I created you to be a free and creative lover. Stop asking me to tell you what to do all the time and go love somebody.”

Tom: So what’s ‘unbiblical’ about this notion—the notion that we freely determine ourselves in love, reflect God in doing so, can always know that this is true, and that such is God’s will for us? What’s unbiblical about these, B? You know I’m talking about glorified existence in heaven, right?

I think you heard God’s answer to our expecting to be told exactly what to do every moment reacted maybe. Dunno. I’m trying to express God’s desire that we live our lives as creative lovers empowered by God’s grace, not micro-managed (as you and D seem to think will be the case) by a moment by moment communication from God to us of exactly what our next step is to be (raise your right—not your left—hand…now, and say “Hello!”—not “Good Morning!” to your neighbor now, and etc.). I don't think that when perfected we shall need to seek divine guidance about what our next step shall be. That's not to say we don't live in God's grace. It just means we shall no longer live in the fallen, conflicted contexts where evil is possible and which make our seeking wisdom for the next moment necessary. 

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/13/2008 9:57:01 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/14/2008 12:43:47 AM (GMT-5)

Tom: Bruce, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what's 'unbiblical' about the 'notion' that once glorified and perfected in love, free from temptation and sin, we won't need to seek God's wisdom for the right way to go. Can you tell me what's unbiblical about this?

POW: I don't understand.

Tom: Carefully. I’m gonna walk through it step by step because I really want an answer from you:

(1) I said that once perfected, our having self-determining freedom over how we express our love will include our bodies. Fulfilled human existence is embodied existence. And I believe we determine HOW our love for God and others gets expressed through our bodies. God does NOT decide everything about this. God doesn't want to decide everything about this. God wants US to determine how we express our love. Not God deciding it through us. Not God deciding it by imprinting it on our subconscious. But God letting us go, leaving us to determine ourselves in this way. God wants this. God loves ths. This is part of what God created.

(2) D replied by painting a picture of a moment-by-moment life with God in heaven (it's only heaven we're talking about) that includes God having a specific/detailed plan for every move we make.

(3) I responded by disagreeing. I say God does not have a specific blue-print for how he wishes the universe to unfold or of all the movements he wishes our bodies to make down to the last flinch.

(4) D wondered what the answer would be if we asked ourselves on a moment by moment basis what Christ would want/desire to do if he were in our particular shoes. D’s assumption is that God has ONE specific way he wants the next moment to be, and the next, and so forth, so that the divine will alone decides everything about how the universe (our choices included) unfolds.

(5) This is a key difference between D and me, because I don't believe the question he poses will be appropriate for perfected, glorified existence. But for D that question DEFINES perfected, glorified existence. I can only hope you see the difference between D and me on this. Anyhow, I said that if I imagined asking Christ in heaven what precise thing he would do in my shoes (D's question), he’d likely answer by saying something like, “There are a LOT of equally loving things I might do in your situation. You’re free to creatively determine how your love gets expressed, so you choose. Don't ask me to tell you what to do all the time. I don't want that kind of relationship.”

For me, God’s answer to the question D poses is NOT to tell us what to do but instead to ask us, “Are you perfected in love or not? I created you to be a free and creative lover. Stop asking me to tell you what to do all the time and go love somebody.”

(6) ENTER POW. You said, “Tom says of God, ‘Stop asking me to tell you what to do all the time and go love somebody.’ Tom does not literally think we should not ask God for wisdom.

(7) Actually, POW, I do literally think that in heaven, once perfected, we won't NEED to ask God for wisdom. There won’t be any circumstances to warrant a “should” with regard to asking for God’s wisdom.

(8) Then you immediately switched from ‘wisdom’ to ‘grace’ and said, “But what Tom seems to miss is that we NEED God's grace to empower me, and to help me do it.”

But what you miss, POW, is the difference between 'grace' and 'wisdom'. We will always need God’s grace and empowering presence. We’ll never grow out of needing THAT. But that’s not the same as needing WISDOM in the world to come.

(9) Then you wondered, “Maybe Tom loves a notion of what he wants to be possible (that is unbiblical) and won't let go of it?”

(10) I asked you “What unbiblical notion is that?” and you said it was this (from my comments):

“I can, however, always know at every present moment that who I am and the freedom in which I live is a grace gift of God, my creator and sustainer. I can always know what I freely determine in love perfectly reflects God to God and others since God is the ultimate free loving creator. In doing what God does—determine myself in love—I look like God. But for you the best way to look like God and reflect God is to have God determine one’s self and its movements. This is exactly what your ever-present question means. It means we receive from God the specific form of expression our love it to take. It means we are not creators in any meaningful sense. God determines the expressed form and so most perfectly sees himself reflected in us. For you, D, God sees himself in creation by determining it. Even though you have creatures choosing to be so determined, that doesn’t change the implications—creaturely personal identity is gone. That’s essentially the rock-bottom of your view. It’s determinism all over again. For me God sees himself in creation by NOT determining it, but by—having perfected its nature in love—‘letting it go’. For me, God’s answer to the question you propose we ask is, “Are you perfected in love or not? I created you to be a free and creative lover. Stop asking me to tell you what to do all the time and go love somebody.”

There's a lot there. So I don't know if you think ALL this is unbiblical or if just part of it is unbiblical.

(11) So I asked, “Well, POW, what’s unbiblical about this?” and you replied with, “I don't understand.”

Amazing.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/14/2008 2:02:16 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/14/2008 2:22:31 AM (GMT-5)

POW: "essence -- God in relationship within the divine being energies -- God in relationship with his creation (not effects that flow out of the divine essence as if it were a cause)."

T: Did POW actually say “not effects that flow out of the divine essence as if it were a cause” or is that Z offering his interpretation of POW?

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

Z: And there you lost me again. We all agree that God's sustenance (what God does) is literally omnipresent. But no one here has put together an argument that shows that God (in relationship within the divine being or in relationship with his creation) is literally omnipresent.

1. God's work is omnipresent. (I agree)
therefore
3. God is omnipresent.

It doesn't work with out the additional premise: "2. God is God's work." If you deny that premise, then you've got no argument and no reason to bring up God's sustaining work in the first place.

BTW, I reloaded my starbucks card today. Yet, I was not literally present in the starbucks bank account. In fact it doesn't make any sense to begin with for me to speak about literally being in a bank account.

T: Did you use any means other than your own ‘self’ to reload your card? In other words, was your reloading an ‘immediate’ or ‘mediated’? Obviously it was ‘mediated’. You accomplish this through the ‘mediation’ of some means. That’s how you could do it without being literally present.

Does God use some non-God means of mediation to communicate his sustaining acitivity to the created order or not? If yes, then God is not literally present as you’re arguing. But then we have to say there is some non-God entity that IS literally present in the sense we want to say God is. If not, then God is that literally present entity and his sustaining activity in the created order is not mediated. Traditionally at least the Church has claimed the latter, that God’s sustaining the universe is not mediated for him by some non-God means. Roughly speaking, Z, if you were God and you wanted to reload your card, you wouldn't need the internet, computers, cars, or whatever to 'mediate' for you. You'd ALWAYS be in all Starbucks stores at all times and would just need to approach the desk to have an employee recharge it.

Tom

Tom: Bruce, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what's 'unbiblical' about the 'notion' that once glorified and perfected in love, free from temptation and sin, we won't need to seek God's wisdom for the right way to go. Can you tell me what's unbiblical about this?

POW: I don't understand.

 

(11) So I asked, “Well, POW, what’s unbiblical about this?” and you replied with, “I don't understand.”

 

Amazing.

 

Tom: Carefully. I’m gonna walk through it step by step because I really want an answer from you:

 

(1) I said that once perfected, our having self-determining freedom over how we express our love will include our bodies.  [b: glorified bodies, whatever that might mean]   Fulfilled human existence is embodied existence.  [b: Yes. ]   And I believe we determine HOW our love for God and others gets expressed through our bodies.   [b: Yes. ]    God does NOT decide everything about this.   [b: Yes. God already decided the logos of our being, and also the skopos of our communion with God-- (which includes our relationships with God and with creation) -- Payton, page 96... in his chapter "The Creator and the Creation" within the section called The Dynamism of Creation"]    God doesn't want to decide everything about this.   [b: Yes. For our logoi and our skopoi God provides possibilities and potentialities for us to be our logoi and explore our skopooi in fellowship with God and to the praise of his Glory! ]    God wants US to determine how we express our love.   [b: Mostly yes, with the addition that it is tough for us to "determine" anything. Right? We "work out" how we express our love and share in other people's love. ]   Not God deciding it through us.   [b: God already decided a lot, in the creation of our logos, and with it the setting of our skopos. The rest is DYNAMIC -- Get Payton's book!!!]    Not God deciding it by imprinting it on our subconscious.   [b: Slowly forming us, with our cooperation. Payton explores the differences in understanding of sin in E & W, where the environment and our habits play more of a roll in E. ]   But God letting us go, leaving us to determine ourselves in this way.  [b: To me, that is overstating the matter. I'd say "...God working with us. ]    God wants this. God loves ths. This is part of what God created.   [b: Yes. ]  

 

So far so good?

(2) D replied by painting a picture of a moment-by-moment life with God in heaven (it's only heaven we're talking about) that includes God having a specific/detailed plan for every move we make.

 I'm not going to get between you (though I think you steriotype him).

 (3) I responded by disagreeing. I say God does not have a specific blue-print for how he wishes the universe to unfold or of all the movements he wishes our bodies to make down to the last flinch.

  [b: Both LOGOI and SKOPOS. But that leaves a lot of possibilities and potentiaalitieI say "yes" to plan, (not blueprint--Boyd likes to politicize things!) and to strategies and tactics.]  

(4) D wondered what the answer would be if we asked ourselves on a moment by moment basis what Christ would want/desire to do if he were in our particular shoes. D’s assumption is that God has ONE specific way he wants the next moment to be, and the next, and so forth, so that the divine will alone decides everything about how the universe (our choices included) unfolds.

  [b: (1) I don't know if D would; and (2) you may be steriotyping him. The two of you need payton in your conversation, as something fixed' to discuss. The two of you are like a needle and thread where neither of you are holding still for the other to aim. ]  

(5) This is a key difference between D and me, because I don't believe the question he poses will be appropriate for perfected, glorified existence. [b: Paul didn't know what that will be -- so you can't ask Paul. Don't ask me either, 'cause I don't know. But the question of whether things should be DyNAMIC now is vitally important -- which is why I answered it right away at the top. ]  But for D that question DEFINES perfected, glorified existence. [b: I'm comfortble in defining logos and skopos of every created thing, and then sitting back and appreciating the dynamism of the possibilities and potentialities within the Creation, as well as the task and calling for glorifying God in everything! ]   I can only hope you see the difference between D and me on this. [b: Dynamism=good. Blueprint=bad. But you need to listen to d. when he argues that it is "deeper" than your steriotyping. And you need to listen not to you saying that about "deeper" but to continue remembering that I'm raising not only logos but also skopos! ]   Anyhow, I said that if I imagined asking Christ in heaven what precise thing he would do in my shoes (D's question), he’d likely answer by saying something like, “There are a LOT of equally loving things I might do in your situation. You’re free to creatively determine how your love gets expressed, so you choose. Don't ask me to tell you what to do all the time. I don't want that kind of relationship.” [b: What does imagining that scenerio do to help me NOW? ]  

 

For me, God’s answer to the question D poses is NOT to tell us what to do but instead to ask us, “Are you perfected in love or not? I created you to be a free and creative lover. Stop asking me to tell you what to do all the time and go love somebody.”

 

(6) ENTER POW. You said, “Tom says of God, ‘Stop asking me to tell you what to do all the time and go love somebody.’ Tom does not literally think we should not ask God for wisdom.

 [b:  I was just being chatty, about the "not literally", saying what was obvious and what you would surely not disagree with. ]

(7) Actually, POW, I do literally think that in heaven, once perfected, we won't NEED to ask God for wisdom. There won’t be any circumstances to warrant a “should” with regard to asking for God’s wisdom.

 [b:   Fine, but I was just being chatty in saying that I didn't think you were trying to make a literal statement about that, BUt that your thesis in the preceeding was something else. That's all. ]

(8) Then you immediately switched from ‘wisdom’ to ‘grace’ and said, “But what Tom seems to miss is that we NEED God's grace to empower me, and to help me do it.”

 [b:   this is a fading converstation in my memory. So, I'll only say here that Grace IS NOT "God's unmerited favor" but IS God's-self working energetically in to empowering his creation. I THINK THAT CONTINUES throughout all eternity. ]

But what you miss, POW, is the difference between 'grace' and 'wisdom'. We will always need God’s grace and empowering presence. We’ll never grow out of needing THAT. But that’s not the same as needing WISDOM in the world to come.

 [b:   What then is wisdom?  If we do something that is wise, isn't that wisdom. And if the "AUTHOR" of that wisdom is God--though it is produced by us--that can be said to BOTH be our wisdom and God's wisdom. ]

 

(9) Then you wondered,  [b: Too long ago. Sorry. ] “Maybe Tom loves a notion of what he wants to be possible (that is unbiblical) and won't let go of it?”

 

(10) I asked you “What unbiblical notion is that?” and you said it was this (from my comments):

 

“I can, however, always know at every present moment that who I am and the freedom in which I live is a grace gift of God, my creator and sustainer. I can always know what I freely determine in love perfectly reflects God to God and others since God is the ultimate free loving creator. In doing what God does—determine myself in love—I look like God. But for you the best way to look like God and reflect God is to have God determine one’s self and its movements. This is exactly what your ever-present question means. It means we receive from God the specific form of expression our love it to take. It means we are not creators in any meaningful sense. God determines the expressed form and so most perfectly sees himself reflected in us. For you, D, God sees himself in creation by determining it. Even though you have creatures choosing to be so determined, that doesn’t change the implications—creaturely personal identity is gone. That’s essentially the rock-bottom of your view. It’s determinism all over again. For me God sees himself in creation by NOT determining it, but by—having perfected its nature in love—‘letting it go’. For me, God’s answer to the question you propose we ask is, “Are you perfected in love or not? I created you to be a free and creative lover. Stop asking me to tell you what to do all the time and go love somebody.”

 

There's a lot there. So I don't know if you think ALL this is unbiblical or if just part of it is unbiblical.

 

Tom

 [b: OK, YOUR BREAKING IT DOWN REALLY HELPED. HOPE THE "LOGOS" AND "SKOPOS" IS HELPFUL TO YOU. AND, REMEMBER, GET PAYTON. ]  

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 6/14/2008 11:29:26 AM (GMT-5)

Don't just read the top, but read the top too.

http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/essence-and-energies-in-the-fathers/