 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted Today 2:49 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
Here’s a nice post on freedom (if the link doesn't work: http://tearingdownthemaskofmaya.blogspot.com/2008/12/freedom-ancient-and-modern.html)
Let me share just a sliver:
“Calvin, in Hart's view, systematizes the perversion of freedom. Omnipotence, instead of indicating that God, in his transcendence, is always the full and perfect expression of himself, indicates instead the infinite power to dominate and control others in a way analogous to political power. But God's absolute freedom in the higher sense would mean a restriction on the autonomy of the will; God cannot do a great number of conceivable things, for this would be at odds with what it means to be God – or put another way, this autonomy would actually violate God's freedom. When freedom gets reduced to the autonomy of will it becomes theologically possible for God to willfully bring about evil, as Calvin makes evident.”
David Hart’s summary of divine omnipotence kind of stood up in my mind in a way it hasn't previously. I’ve said things like this myself about how divine power ought not to be confused politically with the power to control others or guarantee that one always gets what one wants. But I’ve not yet linked divine power with the fullness of divine self-expression in the way Hart does, and I find it exhilarating to contemplate. Divine omnipotence is the illimitable fullness of divine being. That is, it’s God’s ability always to be fully and perfectly himself, and it’s this fullness of personal being which no worldly force or circumstance can challenge or circumscribe. There can never be a situation that challenges God’s ability to be fully himself, nothing which can require or force God to be less than fully himself in that situation.
THAT is true power, and THAT is a beautiful thought.
Tom
"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas BerdyaevPost Edited (Tom) : 11/9/2009 1:52:34 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Today 4:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
And think of what possible actions and behavior belong to the person who is suffering injustice, or pain, or rejection, etc., IF that person's self-perception, identity, and sense of well-being don't depend on being treated justly or on the acceptance of others or the pain that life dishes up. Wouldn't THAT be the greatest power one could imagine having?
American Buddhist monk Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:
“The real meaning of upekkha is equanimity, not indifference in the sense of unconcern for others. As a spiritual virtue, upekkha means equanimity in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, pleasure and pain. Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human beings. True equanimity is the pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the 'divine abodes': boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the preceding three, but perfects and consummates them.”
Freedom from the "vortex of self-reflection" (Loder)
Yeah...
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Today 5:19 AM (GMT -6) | | | I know, right? Hahahahaha!
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted Today 6:01 PM (GMT -6) | | "freedom from all points of self-reference"
See, I think this is just impossible. But to get closer to the point that will touch both of us in a common locus...I do not think this is what God wants from us. Check out Tom's phrasing:
"So long as we REST our identities and sense of well-being and purpose in God's illimitable fullness and grace, offered fully and without reserve to us in Christ...WE can THEN also say OF OURSELVES that no circumstance, pain, or suffering can private or pollute the fullness of OUR being and existence."
our identities...BAM! there is self-reference
our sense of well-being...self-reference
our sense of purpose...self-reference
our being and existence...self-reference
The key is that our self is grounded on a greater Self. That does not indicate in any way that our self is invalid. I guess I can understand how one is carried away when contemplating the Greater Self...but I don't think that the Greater Self wants for the lesser selves to diminish their own sense of selfhood. He just does not want them to have a warped idea of what selfhood is. I think that LIKE GOD we are to take delight in our selves, value ourselves...that does not mean devaluing other selves (that's the problem.) But when someone enters into the I-Thouness of selfhood...they delight in themselves and in the other (self). So, to be "free from all points of self-reference" is to smash I-Thou to smithereens.
And I really cannot even understand what "freedom from all points of self-reference" would even look like. Describe it to me...without any reference to anything about your self!
Rob | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/10/2009 12:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Rob,
I don't disagree that we're to perceive ourselves as a self, and as valuable and important as God views us. We ought to believe about ourselves what God believes about us, and that's a lot of wonderful!
I'm not sure what Biku Body Budda Bubba Bohdi there means when he says we're to be "free from all points of reference," but all I would agree to mean by it is that no created thing in the world of our experience can serve as a point of reference by which we define ourselves. Like we said, nothing in the world can tell us WHO we are. Only God can do that. To be sure, that point of reference has to be something within creation. That's where we are. And that point of reference has to be a PERSON too. Only a person can personalize us, ground our personal identity. So it has to be some uncreated person who becomes a reference point within creation so we can reference him. And that's the Incarnate Son.
But like you said, this actually entails our personal distinction from God even if it means God is the only ground and point of reference for our identities.
I don't think D would disagree with any of this.
Remember the two moments of a single movement in personal becoming? The inner moment was that inner place of negation where we face the truth that WHO we are is essentially nothing if our point of reference is anything other than God. We die to self's attempts to ground its meaning and identity in the things of the world and we rest ourselves in the unconditional love and gift of sonship from the Father. But we're not done yet. There's the second outward moment of creative expression has to give our identities concrete creative expressive form in the world.
Because we're trying to express a relational ontology where all things ARE essentially related in some way, we can't say we relate only to God, that we have NO relation to others. We have to "be related" to the world. I think having two moments in a single movement or symphony of personal becoming allows us to ground our essential identity as sons of God in a place (that inward moment) that the world can't access or interfere with and THEN allow this sonship, this meaningful identity, to concretely determine its expressive form in a place (the outward moment) where the world DOES interfere and contribute to shaping us, because our concrete expressive form is always going to be a response to some circumstance over which we have no control.
Hope that helps.
Tom
"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas BerdyaevPost Edited (Tom) : 11/10/2009 1:27:34 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 11/10/2009 1:28 AM (GMT -6) | | If by omnipotence we mean the ability to do X, then 'omnipotence' might not be the right word. Etymologically, it just means 'all powerful' not 'able to do X.' Using the word this way makes things messy.
Furthermore, if we say God is able to do the conceivable act X such that God is unable to do the conceivable act ~X, then we deny the plain meaning of divine omnipotence i.e. all powerful. These two omnipotences are incompatible. More mess. To claim a belief in God's omnipotence says nothing unless we spend time explaining which language we are speaking, so why not just use unambiguous words in the first place? It's just a word - drop it if it doesn't convey what you mean. Thus it's better to find another term, perhaps one that has more than tangential reference to it's etymological meaning. Phrases like "impotence to sin" or "impotence to cease being God" while being less catchy at least clearly make one's point. To mean "not all powerful" when saying omnipotent is needlessly cryptic. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/10/2009 7:22 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Zach: Furthermore, if we say God is able to do the conceivable act X such that God is unable to do the conceivable act ~X, then we deny the plain meaning of divine omnipotence i.e. all powerful. These two omnipotences are incompatible. More mess. To claim a belief in God's omnipotence says nothing unless we spend time explaining which language we are speaking…
Tom: Which is it? You say the “plain meaning” of omnipotence is incompatible with saying God is able to do X and unable to do ~X. But at the same time you say that claiming to believe in omnipotence “says nothing unless we spend time explaining” ourselves. If the word by itself says nothing unless we qualify ourselves then it can’t be the case that that there’s a “plain meaning” to the word. Sure, “omni” + “potent” etymologically gets us “all-powerful.” But nobody is free from the necessity of having to qualifying further just what they mean by that.
I don’t think that makes the label useless. We can’t abandon use of other good words just because there are competing understandings. All the key words we use—‘faith’, ‘justification’, ‘atonement’, aionios (‘age-abiding’ or ‘eternal’), kollasis (‘punishment’), heck, even ‘trinity’—are employed with different understandings by different Christian schools of thought. There is no one “plain” theological meaning to these words. But since we like to abbreviate ourselves, I don’t suppose we’ll be surrendering use of them for more wordy phrases. In any case, who would give up these words as a vehicle to express THEIR understanding to others with whom they disagree so they can claim sole ownership of the term?
I think we’re all stuck with having to have conversations to explain ourselves. It sucks I know!
Zach: So why not just use unambiguous words in the first place?
Tom: Because they end up being not so unambiguous. You end up having to explain and unpack your phrase, and then the other terms you use in the phrase, etc.
Zach: It’s just a word - drop it if it doesn't convey what you mean.
Tom: But as you say, the word by itself “says nothing unless we explain ourselves.” So WHO should be the one to give up using “omnipotence”? The open theist, the Augustinian or the Arminian? O maybe everybody? What about other single terms we understand differently--omnibenevolence, faith, justification, redemption, etc.?
Tom
"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas BerdyaevPost Edited (Tom) : 11/10/2009 1:23:29 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/10/2009 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | It's like this: In God-empowered "apatheia", we are moved from being "self-preoccupied selves" (Marcus Borg) into being "God-preoccupied selves"...which I'd argue is our truest self. For this to happen, the self must be grounded completely in something "OUTSIDE" of itself to exhibit the self-transcendence that is the self's "birthright." That Someone, for the "Christian" is the One Triune God.
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... Post Edited (One Love) : 11/10/2009 11:42:41 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:07 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|