When you read the following, PLEASE REMEMBER that Jesus has a HUMAN SPIRIT/NOUS/HEART...which is a NON-DIVINE DISPOSITIONAL REALITY.

From Trinity and Process, pages 394-395

God's Relationship to Non-Divine Reality

The disposition of God to create a non-divine reality--which is itself a contingent feature of God's necessary disposition to be God--is thus a disposition to create experiential centers of, and contributors to, non-divine beauty. It is a disposition to create a matrix of relations with ordinal centers, each of which enjoys and/or contributes to an approximation of divine beauty. The divine disposition "diffuses itself" (Edwards) into a multiplicity of dispositions which "aim at" a unique actualization, a unique perspective on reality, which is defined either as an contribution to, and/or an experience of, beauty.

It is at this point of this "diffusion" that the distinction between God and the non-divine world occurs. The multiplicity of dispositions towards non-divine realities are themselves non-divine in their concrescence. The "termini" of God's creative act is not (as with Neville) the creature act itself, but the beginning of the (not wholly determined) disposition of the creature which shall act. The non-divine disposition arises out of God--it is an aspect of God's self-disposition to delight in Godself--and results in what is not God.

As with Edwards, we can in this way assert that God's creativity is, in one sense,"the substance of bodies", the "ens entium" of all things, without thereby endorsing pantheism. But this in our scheme carried through more consistently than was possible in Edwards because we have not held that this creativity toward non-divine realities is in any sense necessary.  The relative autonomy of the non-divine dispositions is manifested in their autonomous--viz. not divinely determined--creativity, though their relative dependence is manifested in their tie to the primordial disposition of God as the ground of their creativity. The divine ground defines the parameters within which the preordained role of the entity within the matrix of being can be played, through exactly how this creativity is in particular actualized is their own doing. The divine ground thus defines the essence of the non-divine creature without thereby undermining the autonomous integrity of the creature: indeed, it is the divine ground of the creature's essence which allows the creature space to be autonomous.

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/16/2008 10:16:23 AM (GMT-5)

Tom: For the record, D, I don't see anything 'inter-personal' about the God-us relationship if it's to be structured and modeled without remainder upon the hypostatic union as you do. Thus, I'll continue to view you as a monist-emanationist with respect to PERSONAL being. Where the interpersonal nature of the God-us relationship is concerned, you're a straight up monist dude. So is Greg if he agrees. No more cigars!

Dwayne: Greg told me about your concern about my supposed monism/emanationism. It troubled him. Greg was specifically concerned about whether or not I believed that human beings were EXHAUSTIVELY DETERMINED by God such that libertarian freedom of loving expression was impossible. Greg said that as long as I hold that God doesn't EXHAUSTIVELY determine the human will such that there is no possibility of libertarian freedom for any choices of loving expression...I'm good. He said that open theism lies on a CONTINUUM. A person who is an open theist could be (HIS WORDS) "almost a Calvinist" having "99.99999" percent God-influence...as long as there is SOME libertarian freedom distinct from the divine will. And I remarked to him that this is EXACTLY what I said to him YEARS AGO (when I was back in TULSA, even!) when I pretty much independently reproduced the functional Nevillian theological determinism WITHIN the process metaphysic WITHOUT totally removing the possibility for libertarianly free expression of love. I ALSO showed him how this fit in directly with Loder's "bi-polar assymetrical relational unity" and how there IS no monism there.

Tom: I’ll have to object. True, if God only determined 99.9999% of everything about us, it would remain the case that SOME portion of the future would remain ‘open’. So ‘open theism’ would still survive. The future would be .00001% open (if we’re talking percentages).

But this isn’t the point at all D. That some aspect of our future is 'open' doesn't mean we're persons. And we’re not just talking about the future’s being open to SOME extent. We’re talking about our being PERSONS to the FULLEST extent, about the beauty of the interpersonal relationality that defines God being replicated in non-divine persons to the fullest extent possible, not the least extent possible.

I’ll definitely give this some attention in my research. The exercise of LFW can fall along a continuum, yes. But that fact alone doesn’t justify the claim that we can be essentially determined 99.99999% by God and still be “as” relationally constituted and personally distinct as we would be were that 99.9999% were left in our power to resolve. That’s the concern. In the end it matters what sort of determinations are made by God and what sort we’re left free to resolve. Freedom and personhood are inseparably linked with respect to the object of choice and not just with respect to choice per se. If I determine everything about you but leave you free to libertarianly determine whether you stir your coffee in a clockwise as opposed to a counter-clockwise direction (or some such pointless exercise of the will), you’re being free in this .000001% space cannot ground your ‘personal’ becoming. You have to be left free with respect to the sorts of choices that make for personal becoming and loving relationship. So it’s difficult (probably impossible) to argue that a 99.99999% determination of us by God would not for all intents and purposes erode the interpersonal quotient of the relationship so greatly as to prevent the very sort of beauty which (a) can only be had interpersonally and freely, and for the sake of which (b) we have every reason in the world to suppose God has in fact created us.

Sorry.

Where's Greg. Lemme at 'im!

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/16/2008 5:04:47 PM (GMT-5)

D: Hmmm...so for you, if the .000001% that was determined (by self-disposition) was the inability to refuse giving and/or receiving love and the 99.9999% of everything else were under our "power to resolve", you'd be just great. The LESS that God determines, even by creaturely self-disposition, the better...and creaturely personhood is at its "fullest extent possible."

T: I’m not following you. Got lost in the percentages and double-negatives (not left free to determine the inability to…what?).

It doesn’t make sense to say “God determines us by creaturely self-disposition.” If God determines us with respect to our doing X, then we aren’t also free to dispose ourselves with respect to X in a self-determined manner. Either God determines us with respect to X or we determine ourselves with respect to X.

The point is to be as free as is required in the sense necessary to develop into as creative a person as is possible for the purpose of replicating as much interpersonal beauty as possible (to provide as much pleasure and enjoyment to God as is possible). The point is not to be determined by God as much as possible while leaving some tiny slice of the future open so that open theism in the end can be said to have survived. The future can be open without our being persons at all. So securing open theism's truth isn't the goal. The goal is to secure the future of creaturely personhood. That'll mean an open future too, but the future isn't THE POINT. The PERSON is the point.

If we're determined by God in all respects except for the direction in which we stir our coffee (in heaven), you and Greg will be satisfied with having secured the truth of open theism. I say, big deal to that. Who cares? So the future is open. That doesn't mean we're relating interpersonally with God. Instead of showing me an open future, show me non-divine PERSONS doing something, functioning, relating, creating, etc. To show me THAT you'll HAVE to posit a LOT MORE creaturely freedom in the RIGHT WAYS/PLACES. You can't secure it by giving the creature libertarian freedom to determine .00000001% of his life, say, to stir his coffee and dress himself.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/16/2008 5:50:45 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Shekinah) : 7/16/2008 8:31:08 PM (GMT-5)

The Emptiness of Christ

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/17/2008 2:55:03 AM (GMT-5)