Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 7/25/2003 8:40 AM (GMT -6)

Would you agree with this?

Full divine affirmation of free willed dignity is no less than allowing ALL self-determined, self-soldified decisions of sentient creatures to endure for the length of said creatures NATURAL existences.

and would you agree with this?

The irredicible center of the person is the will.

Let’s just say that you do agree with both. If any being’s irreducible center would last ETERNALLY in any way, then the ramifications are clear: their self-chosen ends would have to be endured eternally. I believe that at this point, you would basically agree with me that this “dignity” argument is the last bastion for reconciling hell with God, right? This is the main thing that would keep the idea afloat as a creational factor by God. So….

What I would like to point out is the following:

If what I've just said about "free willed dignity" is true, then NEITHER annihilationism NOR universalism are viable! Why? Because the affirmation precludes ANY TYPE of intervention that would halt the full NATURAL ramifications of self-solidified choices. It wouldn't matter whether this intervention were euthanasia (annihilationism) or hypnotism (one type of universalism). If what C.S. Lewis hints at is true...that the ONLY thing left of a being eternally is the WILL and this cannot be touched…then any type of divine cessation and extinguishing of a creature's center of will would be OBSTRUCTING the natural ramifications of self-solidified choices by eternal beings…and violating the affirmation itself. Remember, according to your view, Doc, the center of the will is the GROUND of persons…our natural selves. This center of will is NOT naturally perishing, it is MEANT for eternal life with God...but theoretically could be extinguished by God.

Bottom line: Anyone who holds that

1) the affirmation of the free willed dignity is no less that allowing ALL self-determined, self-soldified decisions of sentient creatures to endure for the duration of said creatures’ natural existences

2) the irreducible center of the person is the WILL

…CANNOT be a universalist or an annihiliationist in the warfare and openness worldview consistently! A person who believes #1 and #2 cannot help but hold to the existence of eternal conscious suffering and an corresponding eternal dualism between “heaven” and “hell”

I’m hoping to show that someone cannot, on one hand, argue for the “dignity” idea…and then turn around and advocate ANY TYPE of cessation of creaturely personal existence by God ala annihiliationism. And that advocating the “dignity” idea forces the paradox even more…

Infinite divine love for ALL individuals is compatible with a divine deliberative decree instituting the possibility of eternal conscious punishment and separation from God for ANY individual.

What say you, Doctor Boyd?

Hmmm,

"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 7/25/2003 8:50 AM (GMT -6)

Hey - this was a great post! I was thinking the same thing - but you articulated it well.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/25/2003 8:50 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi: and would you agree with this? The irredicible center of the person is the will.

Tom: Dallas Willard argues that the "heart," "spirit," and "will" are one and the same irreducible center of human being.

Mephi: I’m hoping to show that someone cannot, on one hand, argue for the “dignity” idea…and then turn around and advocate ANY TYPE of cessation of creaturely personal existence by God ala annihiliationism.

Tom: Music to my ears. I'm listening.

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 7/25/2003 9:18 AM (GMT -6)

Convince me that this "center of the person (will)" is eternal without Christ.

peace, don

---
"You cannot step twice into the same river; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you." Heraclitus

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/25/2003 7:31 PM (GMT -6)

Don: Convince me that this "center of the person (will)" is eternal without Christ.

Tom: Hi Don. I think Mephi's point is not that we are eternal in spite of Christ, as if God does not possess the sheer power to annihilate us if he chose to, but rather that, as is the case now with the exercise of God's power, our existing forever as either alive or eternally un-alive is a consequent of his endowing us with the dignity and freedom of image bearers. Consider the whole "creation covenant" Doc talks about God having made, including the metaphysical price God had to pay (i.e., our freedom), in order to get THIS sort of world (a world of love). Well, our being covenanted for eternity (for better or for worse) is one more implication of God's having chosen to create THIS sort of world (our living forever which our choices is the metaphysical price tage God had to pay for designing us for his kind of love).

Is that where you're going Mephi?

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 07/26/2003 12:34:45 AM

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 7/25/2003 10:10 PM (GMT -6)

Tom:

quote:
I think Mephi's point is not that we are eternal in spite of Christ, as if God does not possess the sheer power to annihilate us if he chose to, but rather that, as is the case now with the exercise of God's power, our existing forever as either alive or eternally un-alive is a consequent of his endowing us with the dignity and freedom of image bearers. Consider the whole "creation covenant" Doc talks about God having made, including the metaphysical price God had to pay (i.e., our freedom), in order to get THIS sort of world (a world of love). Well, our being covenanted for eternity (for better or for worse) is one more implication of God's having chosen to create THIS sort of world (our living forever which our choices is the metaphysical price tage God had to pay for designing us for his kind of love).

EXACTLY, Tom. Given Doc's view, the covenanted eternality of the creaturely sentient soul is part of the package. So, a person can't on one hand take this view, the "dignity" idea espoused here...and THEN try to talk about annihilationism. Won't work.

Good deal.

"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 7/26/2003 5:02 AM (GMT -6)

Meph

So, a person can't on one hand take this view, the "dignity" idea espoused here...and THEN try to talk about annihilationism.

Iconoclast

One can affirm this "dignity" idea and then go on to affirm both annihilationism and universalism thusly:

Universalism: God will ultimately convince everyone to actually choose life. (The optimist view)

Annihilationism:

a: The NATURAL end result of choosing death is to end up having the consciousness of a rock.

b. God ALLOWS the individual to annihilate themselves if they so choose.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 7/26/2003 5:46 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast:

quote:
Universalism: God will ultimately convince everyone to actually choose life. (The optimist view)

This goes against the idea of self-solidification against God. The universalism that you are talking about also presupposes that there ARE no “end to probationary periods” This ain’t viable in Doc’s view.

**********************

Iconoclast:

quote:
a: The NATURAL end result of choosing death is to end up having the consciousness of a rock.

What I’m hearing is the the natural end of self-solidification against God is the cessation of existence. So…is SATAN a “rock” now? Nope. I would argue that Satan’s current existence as a self-solidified being AGAINST God goes against this argument. (Remember, I, Doc’s view presupposes an actual Satan figure.)

************************

Iconoclast:

quote:
God ALLOWS the individual to annihilate themselves if they so choose.

The only way that I could get this to work would be for God to go to each hellbound person and say “Hey, just to let you know, you will exist in this state for eternity…UNLESS you choose to cease your existence now.” Then this being would unexplainably have the ability to cease their NON-CORPOREAL existence! Uh…how about no. How would you argue that sentient beings WITHIN DOC'S METAPHYSIC can cease their own existences?

Interesting…

"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/26/2003 6:18 AM (GMT -6)

HERE ARE THREE OF THE ABLE-IST DISCUSSERS" ON THE BOARD.

So, don't let me interfere...

quote:
Meph:

EXACTLY, Tom. Given Doc's view, the covenanted eternality of the creaturely sentient soul is part of the package. So, a person can't on one hand take this view, the "dignity" idea espoused here...and THEN try to talk about annihilationism. Won't work.

I think that I'm with you there, Meph. I hold on to this simple phrase: God is the God of LIFE.

quote:
Iconoclast:

Universalism: God will ultimately convince everyone to actually choose life. (The optimist view)

I am more comfortable if "convince" were changed to "allows."

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/27/2003 2:28 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi: someone cannot, on one hand, argue for the “dignity” idea…and then turn around and advocate ANY TYPE of cessation of creaturely personal existence by God ala annihiliationism. And that advocating the “dignity” idea forces the paradox even more…

Infinite divine love for ALL individuals is compatible with a divine deliberative decree instituting the possibility of eternal conscious punishment and separation from God for ANY individual.

What say you, Doctor Boyd? Wink

Doc: I say that you're absolutely right. But this shouldn't be at all suprising. Indeed, I think its really circular reasoning. Why? Because the postulation of the "dignity" hypothesis (by way of my interpretation of TWT4) was done as an ABDUCTIVE piece of reasoning to account for the ASSUMED FACT that hell is eternal conscious suffering. In other words, IF we have OTHER reasons for thinking hell is eternal in duration (not just consequence), THEN what must we postulate as being true to explain this otherwise puzzling fact? And the answer I suggest is, "irrevocable dignity" (TWT4). You just stated that the postulation was successful. "Dignity" implies the possibility of hell because "dignity" was postulated to explain the reality of hell.

Now, if one wants to rather argue for annihilationism or universalism, they would have to a) show their grounds for believing this and b) demonstrate that human dignity (my interpretation of TWT4) doesn't imply the possibility of an eternally enduring hell.

OUTRAGEOUS blessings on ya

Doc

Hmmm,
Evil

"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 7/31/2003 2:22 AM (GMT -6)

Doc:

quote:
Now, if one wants to rather argue for annihilationism or universalism, they would have to a) show their grounds for believing this and b) demonstrate that human dignity (my interpretation of TWT4) doesn't imply the possibility of an eternally enduring hell.

Ok. Two things.

1) My argument would be that our own “moral wiring” goes against the “dignity” idea at it’s core. Try to apply that logic for any given situation where forced intervention may be necessary. Heck, just apply it to my deprivation tank analogy. Personally, I would have a very hard time trying to apply this logic with alcoholic, drug addicts, etc. So, I would argue for the possibility of annihilationism OR universalism insofar as I would disagree with this VERY skewed idea of “human dignity” I would reconfigure as follows:

Full divine affirmation of free willed dignity is no less than allowing ALL self-determined, self-soldified decisions of sentient creatures to have real ramifications during the said creatures NATURAL existences.

Notice this does not entail ENDURING all ramifications of their decisions throughout their existences!

2) I just want to reiterate to the board that to the extent that someone DOES accept your interpretation of TWT4, the context of your worldview, and the “dignity” argument, they absolutely cannot be annihilationists or universalists. No Scriptural arguments would do it for the annihilationist at this point! It is LOGICALLY NECESSARY that they dismiss those things as possibilities. So any person who says “Yeah, I believe in the “dignity” idea that Doc holds…and I’m fundamentally a universalist.” Or ‘Yeah, I believe in the “dignity” idea that Doc holds…and I’m fundamentally an annihilationist” would be terrribly inconsistent. This is extremely important.

Evil

"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."

--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/31/2003 6:07 AM (GMT -6)

Meph: 1) My argument would be that our own “moral wiring” goes against the “dignity” idea at it’s core.

Doc: Here we are either a) not understanding the point of each others analogies or b) simply confronting fundamentally different intuitions about dignity.

The analogy I think fits best is of (say) a friend of mine who is totally destroying themselves with alchohol. I do everything possible over and over and over to try to get him help (indeed, even committed him involuntarily three times) but he continued to fall. He choose the bottle over everything else, and he insisted he liked it that way.

There comes a time where you just let him go. (And if I was God, I would know accurately when that time is.) But I would not put a gun to his head (annhilationism) or labatomize him (universalism).

Meph: I just want to reiterate to the board that to the extent that someone DOES accept your interpretation of TWT4, the context of your worldview, and the “dignity” argument, they absolutely cannot be annihilationists or universalists.

Doc: I think you're right, for both annihilationism and (your hypothetical version of) universalism hold that there is a value that trumps the value of dignity: namely, mercy killing. Both kill the personhood of the person. It is fair game to discuss the morality of the situation. At the end of the day, though, I think we both agree that what drives our views is more our exegesis than our philosophical reflections on morality (though the two are of course intertwined). While I think my "dignity" interpretation of TWT4 can be rendered plausible (e.g. the above analogy), I doubt I'd hold to it unless I for other reasons believed Scripture taught hell was eternal. To the extent that I question that Scripture teaches hell is endured eternally, to that extent I question my "dignity" argument.

And, to be honest, I do question it. I'm not close to being certain.

good stuff
Doc

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:18 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual