Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 8:48 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Just a question real quick...

Athanasius made the distinction between substance (essence/ousia) and will and held that the Son, as homo-ousios with the Father, was begotten NOT by the will of God. God doesn't CHOOSE to beget the Son. This was his way of differentiating between the being of God (the Son) and the being of the world. The Son derives his existence essentially while the world derives its existence from the will of God.

That's my take. However, Zizy (and many others) dispute this. Because he sees freedom as crucial to personhood, he has to say God CHOOSES to beget the Son. It's this choice that constitutes personal distinction. He doesn't want to say God is subject to ANY form of necessity. It's alllll chosen freely. But how does God CHOOSE to exist? Nonsense.

Anyway, I was just wondering about whether the Orthodox view the Son as begotten by the WILL of God or not.

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 9:19 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I'd say it like this:

The ONE Uncreated Consciousness (God IS Spirit) eternally "speaks itself" into trinitarian being by the Father/Nous breathing out His Eternal Word/Logos of Self-Reflection (The Word is the Perfect Image of the Father) by way of His Eternal Spirit/Pneuma. In this self-speaking, he is eternally "I Am (That I Am)." Uncreated Consciousness just eternally IS (being uncreated)...and in relating itself to itself and it's fundamental choice to be itself, the THREE eternal persons of the ONE Uncreated Consiousness eternally are as well.

In other words, The Trinity is the "choice" of the perfectly free God choosing to be himself eternally.  Creation is the "choice" of God to relate to something OTHER than God (that which must be CREATED)...a CONTINGENT choice grounded in God's eternal choosing of Godself.
 
Make sense?


Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/6/2010 9:31:55 AM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 12:12 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
nice to read, D.

T., ask Behr.


(o)

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 4:56 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
It doesn't make any sense to me to say God's essential triune being is a CHOICE, that God speaks Godself into trinitarian being. That makes God's existence the effect of a cause and logically presupposes the volition/will responsible for the choosing. I much prefer Edwards' analogy of non-volitional self-contemplation. The Father perceives himself and the Son is the Image, etc. But self-perception isn't an act of will. We don't choose to be conscious beings.

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 5:08 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
B: T, ask Behr.

T: Will Athanasius do? ;o)

T


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 5:30 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians; Discourse 1.29:

 

29. But, observe, say they, God was always a Maker, nor is the power of framing adventitious to Him; does it follow then, that, because He is the Framer of all, therefore His works also are eternal, and is it wicked to say of them too, that they were not before origination? Senseless are these Arians; for what likeness is there between Son and work, that they should parallel a father’s with a maker’s function? How is it that, with that difference between offspring and work, which has been shown, they remain so ill-instructed? Let it be repeated then, that a work is external to the nature, but a son is the proper offspring of the essence; it follows that a work need not have been always, for the workman frames it when he will; but an offspring is not subject to will, but is proper to the essence.

 

Athanasius grounds the divinity of the Son precisely in the fact that he is not begotten by the will of God as is the world. Therein lays the ontological distinction between God and the world…unless I’m really misreading things.

 

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/6/2010 5:55:48 PM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 6:00 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom:
I much prefer Edwards' analogy of non-volitional self-contemplation. The Father perceives himself and the Son is the Image, etc. But self-perception isn't an act of will. We don't choose to be conscious beings.

Are you saying that "choice" is not a part of being a conscious "self"? I don't know about that, bud.  I don't think that SK would agree with that...


Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 8:19 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Selves choose, yes. I just don't think one of things they choose is to self-perceive. What would it even mean to choose to be self-conscious, to self-reflect? I don't think any of us actually chooses to do that. I think self-perception is a pre-requisite to choice, not the other way around.

So, what about Athanasius?

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 9:07 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Well said Tomthanasius.


(o)

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 9:44 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom:
So, what about Athanasius?

To me, A. is saying that God the Son cannot be a "work" that was "made" before all things BECAUSE he's a Son (and perfect Image) of the Father. Sonship of divinity is not being a "project", as it were. He's just taking it to the Arians. I would say the same thing, as I'm not an Arian. I don't believe that God the Son was "created" by God the Father. I believe that the process of Uncreated Consciousness' self-relationship (Using Loder's terms, self-reflection and self-relatedness) is what grounds the 3 unique perspectives of the Father, Son, and Spirit.


Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 9:46 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Loder KILLS on this...


Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 9:51 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Let me say it this way...

Let's say that the relationship between Father and Son is one of "self-reflection." (like what JE was talking about). The Father sees the Perfect Image of himself in the Son, and the Son has the Father "in" him by being the Perfect Image of the Father. This is divine self-reflection, ok?

Now, what happens when the self-reflective relationship between the Father and Son RELATES TO ITSELF, by choosing to BE itself?

What do you think happens?

SK says something about a "self as a positive relationship."  

Hmm...could that have anything to do with the Holy Spirit...being analogous to the human spirit, and it's role in self-knowledge, self-reflection, and self-choice? (No one knows the thoughts of God but the Spirit of God, like no one knows the thoughts of human being but the human spirit.)


Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/6/2010 9:56:37 PM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 10:01 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
And here's the interesting thing. It's the Father's "disposition" for self-other relationship that grounds that whole trinitarian process...JUST LIKE it's the human disposition for self-other relationship that grounds the process of the self-perception of which you speak, Tom

And what IS that again...meaning the Father's dispositional reality of self-other relationship?


Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 10:03 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Father
Son
Spirit

----------

Nous
Logos
Pneuma

An aspect of being in the image of God?


Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 4/6/2010 10:47 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Nous

Nous (adj. noetic) in Orthodox Christianity is the eye of the soul. Just as the soul of man, is created by God, man's soul is intelligent and noetic. St. Thalassios wrote that God created beings "with a capacity to receive the Spirit and to attain knowledge of Himself; He has brought into existence the senses and sensory perception to serve such beings." Eastern Orthodox Christians hold that God did this by creating mankind with intelligence and noetic faculties. Angels have intelligence and nous, whereas men have reason, nous and sensory perception. This follows the idea that man is a microcosm and an expression of the whole creation or macrocosmos; it is through the healed and corrected nous and the intelligence that man knows and experiences God.

In this belief, soul is created in the image of God. Since God is Trinitarian, Mankind is Nous, Word and Spirit. The same is held true of the soul (or heart): it has nous, word and spirit. To understand this better first an understanding of St. Gregory Palamas's teaching that man is a representation of the trinitarian mystery should be addressed. This holds that God is not meant in the sense that the Trinity should be understood anthropomorphically, but man is to be understood in a triune way. Or, that the Trinitarian God is not to be interpreted from the point of view of individual man, but man is interpreted on the basis of the Trinitarian God. And this interpretation is revelatory not merely psychological and human. This means that it is only when a person is within the revelation, as all the saints lived, that he can grasp this understanding completely (see theoria). The second presupposition is that mankind has and is composed of nous, word and spirit like the trinitarian mode of being. Man's nous, word, and spirit are not hypostasis or individual existences or realities, but activities or energies of the soul. Where as in the case with God or the Persons of the Holy Trinity each are indeed hypostases. So these three components of each individual man are 'inseparable from one another' but they do not have a personal character" when in speaking of the being that is mankind.

The nous as the eye of the soul, which some Fathers also call the heart, is the center of man and is where true (spiritual) knowledge is validated. This is seen as true knowledge which is "implanted in the nous as always co-existing with it."


Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/6/2010 10:51:27 PM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:26 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