Post Edited (Shekinah) : 6/23/2008 7:33:10 AM (GMT-5)

Repost...

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 6/23/2008 7:17:46 AM (GMT-5)

Tom said...

... my guess is that he views our true ‘self’, our ‘logos’, as the gift of creative capacities to interpret the divine themes of love, not specific determinations minutely prescribed. The divine themes are GIVEN as gift by God and then received back from us as gratitude precisely IN THE DIFFERENCE which our freely determined elaborations and renditions upon those themes constitute. Thus it is in the difference which we determine that we are in fact different from God in the only really important sense at all, personally distinct from God. So our gifts to God throughout eternity are not the blank slate of our volition void of self-expression and offered to God as the mere instrumentation for divine will (the sort Hart criticizes). Our gift to God is our renditions of the gift of his themes. That’s the music he wants to hear.]

Jesus is a human being WITH A HUMAN (NON-DIVINE) "LOGOS" that is "homoousias" with all human beings. 

So, does Jesus' personal will (that of the divine person, God the Son) express his love for God via Jesus' human (non-divine) spirit as "freely determined elaborations and renditions" of "divine themes of love"?

D: You seem so very concerned with HOW MUCH determination we have over our thoughts, feelings, and actions over and against God.

Tom: As concerned as you are that we not have such freedom.

D: I shouldn't be surprised. You seem to want to put this whole thing so in the context of libertarian freedom and "open view" issues...but anyways...

Tom: Really? I wouldn’t have thought that. I mean, I don’t care about the open view at this point. To my mind, the open view follows from the same core convictions from which follow my disagreements with you here—freedom and personhood. The open view is something else that follows from these concerns, but the OV isn’t motivating me here. The OV is motivated BY what’s motivating me here.

D: So, HOW MUCH determination do you feel that human persons should maintain for themselves before there's "too much control" by God?

Tom: However personally intimate God wishes to be with us (and us with him). God will determine as much of us, and leave us as free to determine ourselves, as is proper and sufficient for the most loving and interpersonal intimacy possible between God and human persons. But only someone bothered by our being free at all in this sense would be concerned about fixing percentages. That misunderstands personal relationships to begin with. We don’t do that with other personal relationships we have. Why with God?

D: To you, Tom, for a believer to be totally self-determined into ONLY following God's influences...would be for a person to remove their own personhood effectively.

Tom: As you’ve expressed it, right. But in my view of God, D, God’s influences aren’t always determinative of one possible option, and for compatibilistically loving glorified persons such as we shall be I think those influences will almost never be so determinative. Why should they need to be? Will there be evil to avoid? No. Why in the world would a perfectly loving God need or want to wholly determine perfectly loving creatures? To what end?

But if God CAN wish a range of equally loving possibilities and offer those to us through his influences, why would a perfectly secure and loving God NOT WANT perfectly loving creatures to determine for themselves which those possibilities gets realized? I can’t image a single reason for thinking God would PREFER anything else. In the end, all we self-determine remains grounded in God and reflects God’s own creative self (since all possible worlds are grounded in God). But which gets actualized can now (in heaven) without risk be left to us. In this free self-determining creative movement among possible goods we best reflect God since creation itself (being contingent and free) was just such a movement on God’s part. We reflect God best by determining ourselves as God does, not by being determined by God.

D: Please don't forget. WAAAAAAY back in the day, I demonstrated (following Neville) how process metaphysics CAN allow for functional theological determinism WHILE allowing for minor “pockets” of liberatarian freedom at the same time. Even GREG said it was possible...he just didn't want to buy it, as you may recall.

Tom: To quote Greg (to me personally), “Neville is a pantheist, as was Edwards.”

T

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 6/23/2008 7:42:12 AM (GMT-5)

How are these NOT the same kind of arguments that Greg uses for the open view??  See what I'm saying, Bruce?  Anyways...

How about this, Tom?  If we realize that we are NOT in heaven yet, why don't we do what is MOST NECESSARY given the "war zone" that we're in right now.  And you know what that means...

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 6/23/2008 7:48:21 AM (GMT-5)

D: Please don't make it seem like I am just dead set on there being exhaustive determination by God. That's NOT my point. We are BOTH saying that God wants to be as "one" with humanity as is possible in the context of interpersonal relationship between the Triune God and non-God sentient beings.

Tom: We just disagree fundamentally about the role of freedom in such relations. You’re of the opinion that one person can utterly determine another without undermining the other’s personhood. I categorically deny this, even in the case of the triune relations.

I think you’re more interested in ‘oneness’ per se and then in something that’s interpersonal. When I agree that God wants to be as “one” with us as possible, I mean “as interpersonally one as possible.”

D: And you've always been more against exhaustive determination than I have ever been on their NOT being exhaustive determined by God during this discussion.

Tom: Exactly. But that’s only because we have different understandings of what it means to engage in interpersonal relations. For me, such determination of one by another destroys the personal identity of the one.

D: I used the percentage thing because I REALLY wanted to know what your criteria was. The "proper and sufficient for the most loving and interpersonal intimacy" is quite subjective and I bet that certain mystics would probably see this WAAAAAAAAAAY differently than you would.

Tom: If they can argue their point, let them. But given that their mystics, they’ll probably just say they FEEL this one with God or that one with God. Well, I FEEL this interpersonally related with God. Is that the end of the discussion?

I have yet to see a determinist account of the God-world relation (even one that includes our libertarianly yielding to such determination—?) that’s compatible with interpersonal relations. Christ is not an example.

D: So, PLEASE don't make this look like all I care about is God exhaustively determining human beings.

Tom: Right, Bro. I don’t what to caricature your view. Just trying to say what it is that I see as objectionable.

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

D: How are these NOT the same kind of arguments that Greg uses for the open view?

Tom: They ARE arguments for the open view. But what you were saying is that concern to prove the open view was motivating my arguments about eschatology. I’m saying no; what argues in favor of my eschatology may also argue in favor of the open view, but so what? I could care less about the OV right now. Freedom/Love/Personhood are far more important.

D: How about this, Tom?  If we realize that we are NOT in heaven yet, why don't we do what is MOST NECESSARY given the "war zone" that we're in right now.

Tom: We should do whatever is necessary given our circumstances. War zone realities demand war zone strategies. We don’t understand the front lines like God does, so we have to follow God’s instructions, and there are likely to be detailed instructions a lot of the time. But there’s enough about our experience of loving interpersonal relations even in this life to tell us that the war zone arrangement will be the first thing to be abandoned in heaven. Even in this life, with God in worship, with our mates and children and others we love, when we can we insist that such one-option deterministic arrangements be abandoned. Why is that? When we yield to such determining instructions by God during this life, we do so not because we think such determination per se constitutes the stuff of loving relations. On the contrary, we abandon such an approach whenever we get the chance. We yield to them because the person we’re relating to (God) happens to know more than we do about the conflicts and strategies arrayed against us.

I’m interested in the Eschaton because there we unpack what we really believe God’s purposes for us are. And for me, to insist that war-time strategies that our survival requires are the very heart of the oneness God intends for us eternally is a huge mistake.

D: In the "Manifest" talk, Hart talked about an "apophaticism of intimacy" speaking specifically of Maximus the Confessor. What do you think the "apophaticism of intimacy" may be, Tom?

Tom: I rather liked what he had to say about apophaticism. But I don’t recall that phrase.

T

I’ll say this, D, since you asked about whether I was motivated in this debate by the open view. I’m motivated by one thing here: finding a view of creation that provides God the most beauty possible, one in which God finds the most pleasure possible and in which we find the most satisfaction possible. There will be a ‘unity’ and ‘oneness’ to that beauty. There will be a ‘diversity’ and ‘differentiation’ to that beauty. But the point isn’t to get to a state that’s “as one as possible” any more than it is to get to a state that’s “as differentiated as possible.” Both of these amicably co-inhere in what is beautiful. So in my view we should aim for the most beautiful God-world relationship possible. To be “as beautifully related to God” as possible without preferring either ‘oneness’ or ‘differentiation’ over the other is what has always been at the heart of my view. But as far as I can tell, D, a God-world relationship which is exhaustively determined by God is the LEAST beautiful option, since when it comes to creative freedom and personal expression, your view is ALL ‘one’ (God) and NO ‘other’ (differentiation). It can’t be maximally and relationally beautiful if there’s no determination of personal expression BY the person. In such a case there IS NO personal expression (other than God’s) to speak of. It’s less than relationally beautiful for God to create X and then utterly determine X, as it is less than relationally beautiful for X to desire to be so determined.

To anticipate your question: Yes, I apply this to the triune persons as well, and no I don’t apply it to the human in Christ since (as I expressed in a post you almost wept tears of joy over) the human in Christ is never “let go” by God to emerge into full, non-divine personhood, as are we “let go.” And the freedom I insist on is only necessary to such emergence of personhood. So appealing to what Christ is and how Christ is entirely misses the point.

I know you attempt to solve this by positing BOTH the human and the divine will perichoretically co-inhering, so that I’m freely choosing to abdicate from any determination of my will which is not already specifically willed by God for me. Do I choose in such instances? Well, yes. But my choice is antecedentally defined and determined by God. And I know this to be the case while choosing, and I freely will such a relationship. You think this secures our personhood. I disagree, not because I’m an open theist, but because there’s no relational beauty in it that I can see.

I’m not saying persons in loving relation NEVER defer to one another (they do), or that determining another person can never in any conceivable circumstance be a loving thing to do (it is; i.e., pushing another person out of the way of an oncoming car). But surely when we remove the conflicted or endangering circumstances that call for such actions and imagine ourselves in the most secure and sublime of contexts, such determining of one by another will be seen as less than maximally beautiful, or at least I think so.

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/23/2008 11:49:21 AM (GMT-5)

and...

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 6/23/2008 12:02:49 PM (GMT-5)

D: To you, Tom, for a believer to be totally self-determined into ONLY following God's influences...would be for a person to remove their own personhood effectively.

Tom: As you’ve expressed it, right. But in my view of God, D, God’s influences aren’t always determinative of one possible option, and for compatibilistically loving glorified persons such as we shall be I think those influences will almost never be so determinative. Why should they need to be? Will there be evil to avoid? No. Why in the world would a perfectly loving God need or want to wholly determine perfectly loving creatures? To what end?

But if God CAN wish a range of equally loving possibilities and offer those to us through his influences, why would a perfectly secure and loving God NOT WANT perfectly loving creatures to determine for themselves which of those possibilities gets realized? I can’t image a single reason for thinking God would PREFER anything else.

D: How are these NOT the same kind of arguments that Greg uses for the open view?

Tom: The open view aside, can you try to answer my questions?

1) In heaven, what need would there be in heaven for God to prescribe and determine all creaturely movement?

The only reason I can imagine would be the need to achieve a beauty that is lost if God is not all-determining. There's no contextual war-time madness going on, so that doesn't explain anything.

and

2) If God CAN wish a range of equally loving possibilities for us, why would a perfectly secure and loving God NOT WANT perfectly loving creatures to determine for themselves which of those possibilities gets realized?

Again the only reason I can think of for believing that God will want to determine everything about us is if there's a beauty IN such a determining relation as such (outcomes of choice aside)  that's lost on my view. What I can't for the life of me see is what that beauty is. That's what I've always wanted you to show me.

T

Tom: 1) In heaven, what need would there be in heaven for God to prescribe and determine all creaturely movement?

D: There's no "need" for God to do anything. God is free.

Tom: Obviously, right. So let me ask it this way: Why do you think God will forever choose to pursue a manner of relating to us (and us to him) which is so obviously conditioned by a fallen, wartime context? Help me out here. When that fallen, wartime world passes into non-existence and perfected saints dwell in an unimaginably sublime and peaceful context, why THEN continue to relate in such a manner. And do you not agree as I said that even in this life we judge abandoning such wartime arrangements when circumstances permit it? Loving persons as a rule defer to those they love, yes. But what's loving about wanting to determine everything about someoen you love? Do parents do that? No. Do married couples do it? No. If I ask my wife, "Where would you like to go out to dinner?" she may lovingly defer, "Wherever you'd like." But what if I respond with, "I really want you to pick the place; your deciding it will shape the event and our experience of it and that synergy is what my loving heart is after"? I can't imagine a love which, wartime constraints not around to require anything else, would not take such an approach.

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

Tom: 2) If God CAN wish a range of equally loving possibilities for us, why would a perfectly secure and loving God NOT WANT perfectly loving creatures to determine for themselves which of those possibilities gets realized?

D: If you are "Love" (the complete fruition of one's "logos", unconditional love of God and Creation [self, others, the earth, etc] ), then your human personal/gnomic will will align with God's will in any given situation such that you will SEEK to do what Christ would do if he had YOUR particular human particularity in any given situation you found yourself in: Abide in God's love unconditionally, being utterly open to, centered in, and dependent upon Christ's Holy Spirit for all areas of response to that love.

Tom: First, I don’t at all view persons in the eschaton who determine their loving expression in the way I’m suggesting as anything other than “abiding in God’s love” and “open to, centered in, and dependent upon” the Spirit. Somehow you think the scenario I paint incompatible with such surrender and centeredness. Can you tell me why you think my scenario doesn’t qualify as such in your view? I think, secondly, it’s because you assume there to be only ONE possible, most loving course of action for every circumstance imaginable and thus only one course of action compatible with imagining what Christ would do in your glorified circumstance. But why in the world assume that? I on the other hand imagine a plurality of most loving possible courses of action for nearly if not all glorified states. And I most certainly have the best of the evidence on my side here, in as much as God's choice to create, as contingent and free, was as equally loving as the choice not to create. What I want to know, D, is WHY you assume glorified existence admits of only ONE possible, most loving course of action open to you at all given times.

Lastly, I completely grant that IF there is only one such course of action imaginable, then God defines that most loving course of action, and I’ll happily concede that the only desire of a glorified, perfected heart will be to will that one thing, yielding the very outcome you imagine. But IF (an “if” in my question which your answer ignored)  the number of possible courses of action are all equally loving (here’s my question again)—Why would a perfectly secure and loving God NOT WANT perfected loving creatures to determine for themselves which of those possibilities gets realized?

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/23/2008 2:50:30 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 6/23/2008 3:08:35 PM (GMT-5)

Spouse 1: Where would you like to go to eat dinner?

Spouse 2: How about picking up some stuff from Whole Foods and cooking at home? (It's Spouse 1's favorite place to shop...and Spouse 2 has come to like the healthier choices too!)

Spouse 1: Wow. I was just thinking the same thing!

Spouse 2: How about that? Let's go!

Let (s)he that has a ear, hear.

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 6/23/2008 3:32:51 PM (GMT-5)

Oh, and did you read that "What is Christian Mysticism?" thing from Harvey Egan?

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 6/23/2008 9:26:41 PM (GMT-5)

Bringing it back...2.0

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

Look here, man. Let's just say this. Let's just say that...

1) there are cases where multiple courses of action are "equally loving" (meaning that there is no meaningful difference in the quality or quanity of love being expressed in the given thoughts, feelings, and actions of each "course of action"...distinction without real difference, in a way)

and...

2) when those situations occur, the Holy Spirit continues to, by grace, empower US and OUR human personal/gnomic agencies so that WE can make the most loving, beauty-creating decisions possible for OURSELVES in God's World in the moment...and humbly trust God for the rest.  (In my mind, this would functionally be the SAME as epicletically living out this idea: "What would the Presence of Jesus do RIGHT NOW if he were me (my entire human particularity) RIGHT NOW and empowered by the Holy Spirit in everything he did?" But anyways...)

I thought this is what you wanted to be the case.

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 6/23/2008 9:32:53 PM (GMT-5)

The Apostle Paul to the Church of Ephesus