 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Love and Freedom in the Hereafter | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/30/2003 1:11 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/30/2003 4:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, I'm pretty sure that I missed Icon's meaning the first time through. (What it looks like on the second time through is pretty deep.) But I want to post the thought that has been carried with me on carpool rounds. OK?
quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
It seems to me that process theology is like quantum mechanics. The whole thing presupposes that there must be an "observer" who is "outside" the system. . .
While my second reading comes up with the observer being God, my first reading had that observer being man--who is pondering God. I'll say the thoughts that came to mind.
Here's the thought.
We can TRY to compare God to "Love." And in so doing, we might discover some logically-proceeding ways of breaking units down into smaller parts, and then make some cross-comparisions. But there is a problem from the very beginning. US!
WE cannot conceive of "Love" except in one way. Experience. And we cannot experience Love except as Love comes from God. Our experience can only be of God's love. We have none to compare with God's love. We can reflect God's love. But there is no other love in the whole cosmos.
quote:
Psalm 139:7 "Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?"
This is why the Greek Orthodox are so concerned that this one thing be gotten right: That Christianity is not a theoretical religion. Rather, Christianity is nothing more or less than an experimental religion (their words).
So, I think that it is actually impossible to pursue some of the avenues of thought I'm seeing (I'm not being sweeping here.) on this thread.
It is worthwhile to go back and consider which thoughts are built upon the presumption that we know Love any other way than experimentally. Do we. I say not.
If we construct a theory of what Love is, and then compare God (or an imaginary, theoretical God) to that, then what has been accomplished. Nothing.
Even more must be said.
If we compare God to the Love that we have experienced, even then we fail. How can WE experience (in the experiement of living) God's love purely when we reject him so often. When we are conditional in our relationship to him. When we are deliberative in our embrace of his will and grace. How?
Those are things well worth considering.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/30/2003 4:10 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Hi Tom,
I appreciate your very thoughtful post. I have no problem saying God has the ability to sin, for I emphatically affirm God's libertarian free will, and God's moral agency. God obeys the same moral law he expects all moral agents to obey - the law of universal benevolence. I also agree that if God sinned, the whole creation would probably disintegrate, or worse yet, heaven would become hell, and in fact all would become hell.
The reason I say God can not do this is simply because he will not. He has forever chosen to be holy (benevolent) and we may rest assured that He will always continue to do so.
John, I have strong reservations about what you say there. Here is my reason:
quote:
James 1
13 ...For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
16 Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. 17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/30/2003 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's a quote from Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, out of the chapter on the Trinity. I'll post it, and then ask a question. Can you answer it?
quote:
St. Gregory Nazianzen thus brings together the two methods of approach: 'When I speak of God you must be illumined at once by one flash of light and by three.'
Here's the question: WHY?
What does that mean. (I bet Icon can say!) The answer is THIS: "God is Love!"
Another image, kind of like a "flash of light" is offered for us to understand and appreciate Love well:
quote:
To quote St. John Damascene...: 'The persons are made one not so as to commingle, but so as to cleave to each other, and they have their being in each other (ten en allelais perichoresin echousi) without any coalescence or commingling. Nor do the Son and Spirit stand apart, nor are they sundered in essence as in the heresy of Arius. For, to put it concisely, the Godhead is undivided; and it is just like three suns cleaving to each other without separation, and giving out light mingled and conjoined into one.'18 'Each one of the persons contains the unity by this relation to the others no less than by this relation to Himself.19
- 'Each one of the persons contains the unity by this relation to the others no less than by this relation to Himself.'
- 'The persons are made one not so as to commingle, but so as to cleave to each other, and they have their being in each other (ten en allelais perichoresin echousi) without any coalescence or commingling.'
This is in EVERYTHING about Love!
But you won't expect this:
quote:
Patristic tradition does not attempt any definition of God, for God is beyond all human words. "Concepts create images of God, wonder alone grasps something," confessed St. Gregory.3 For the Fathers, the word God is a vocative addressed to the Ineffable.
The difficulty in regard to man is just as great. It caused Theophilus of Antioch to say: "Show me your man and I shall show you my God."4 The divine mystery is reflected in the mirror of the human mystery. St. Peter speaks of homo cordis absconditus, the hidden man of the heart.5 Deus absconditus, mysterious and hidden, has created his vis-a-vis, his other self, homo absconditus, mysterious and hidden.(Evdokimov, Struggle with God, p.2)
Trinity is not some theory or abstraction. Nor is it an object that we can view at a distance. Trinity has to be viewed in our loving one another. (That's how we love God.)
quote:
...like the penitence of Job when he found himself face to face with God: 'I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.'11 The mystery of the Trinity only becomes accessible to that ignorance which rises above all that can be contained within the concepts of the philosophers. (Lossky, p.49)
Like the old joke about the poucher who threw his dynamite stick in the Sheriff's boat and said: "What's it going to be...argue or fish?" With old Job we cannot approach God through concepts.
Perhaps THAT is why God had to teach us about Himself through the medium of history:
quote:
If one speaks of God it is always, for the Eastern Church, in the concrete: 'The God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob; the God of Jesus Christ.' It is always the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. When, on the contrary, the common nature assumes the first place in our conception of trinitarian dogma the religious reality of God in Trinity is inevitably obscured in some measure and gives place to a certain philosophy of essence.43 Likewise, the idea of beatitude has acquired in the West a slightly intellectual emphasis, presenting itself in the guise of a vision of the essence of God. The personal relationship of man to the living God is no longer a relationship to the Trinity, but rather has as its object the person of Christ, who reveals to us the divine nature. Christian life and thought become christocentric, relying primarily upon the humanity of the incarnate Word; one might almost say that it is this which becomes their anchor of salvation.44 Indeed, in the doctrinal conditions peculiar to the West all properly theocentric speculation runs the risk of considering the nature before the persons and becoming a mysticism of 'the divine abyss', as in the Gottheit of Meister Eckhart; of becoming an impersonal apophaticism of the divine nothingness prior to the Trinity. Thus by a paradoxical circuit we return through Christianity to the mysticism of the neo-platonists.
Our liveboat is the concrete, the experienced, the experimental. (Our minds can carry us away if we don't give them something concrete to focus on.)
quote:
'In my opinion,' says St. Gregory Nazianzen, 'one safeguards one only God in referring the Son and the Spirit to a single Principle, neither compounding nor confounding them; and in affirming the identity of substance and what I will call the unique and like motion and will of the Godhead.'31
Nicene Creed: "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible."
There are OTHER paths...
quote:
(Christos Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West)
Aquinas's definition of theology is well known:
Nevertheless sacred teaching also makes use of human reasoning, not indeed to prove the faith (for that would do away with the merit of believing) but to render manifest some of the things which are delivered in this teaching.3
This 'rendering manifest' or explanation of revealed truth through the power of the intellect, and the rigorous use of reason within the framework of revealed truth, emphatically set a boundary between man and God, between the syllogistic capacity of the subject and the'incomprehensible reality of God. In the end the boundary is set between the divine and the human nature, a consequence which neglects the unity of the two natures into one person, that is to say, the possibility of personal participation in, and not merely logical 'clarification' of, the divine truth concerning God. The analytical scholastic methodology represents, then, a deeper stance which is essentially anthropocentric: the disposition of man to master what truth is accessible to him and to master it as an individual, as a subject and as possessor of the syllogistic capacity. The immediate sphere of empirical truth which is open to him, the first revelation which he must 'render manifest', is the reality of the physical world, the created cosmos. Man in the Western scholastic tradition does not participate personally in the truth of the cosmos. He does not seek to bring out the meaning, the logos of things, the disclosure of the personal activity of God in the cosmos, but seeks with his individualistic intellect to dominate the reality of the physical world. This stance truly forms the foundation of the entire phenomenon of modern technology. (Need a good polution picture here!)
. . . . .
The whole theocentric world-view of the Western cultural tradition is based on this ontic understanding of Being. God is the Supreme Divine Being, the First Cause (causa prima) in the scheme of cosmology, and the evaluative principle of Ethics. The direct result of this ontological way of thinking, which formed the rational basis of all Christian apologetics, in the 'banishment' of God, as it is rightly called, from the cosmos and his transference to the 'heavens', a realm which is beyond those regions accessible to experience. This Being, which is God, is separated from the sphere of human experience by the kind of boundary which separates the known and the unknown, the empirically existing and the empirically non-existing, sensible reality and conceptual understanding. Man is free to dominate nature and history.
. . . . .
The philosophical genius of Kant, within the presuppositions Of Protestant pietism, endeavoured to bridge the gap and opposition between the transcendent and the worldly, between religion and life. The bridge is built on the ground of ethical purposiveness. God is not defined in terms of logic, but of ethical necessity. He constitutes an empirical truth insofar as he is related to the inherent ethical demand of human conscience. God becomes the empirical starting-point of pure reason for the definition of the First Cause and the end purpose of the ethical act. The divine is interpreted in terms of ethical obligation. The stance of individualism and ethicism first developed in Western scholasticism was completed by the ontological starting-point of Kant who thus, simultaneously, summarized the inevitable development in the West both of Christianity and also of every anti-Christian movement. After him, even the most radical opponents of the Western metaphysical tradition from Marx to Sartre (with perhaps the unique exception of Heidegger), have remained in bondage to the ethical understanding of the problem of ontology. And, as regards Christian life, we are living today within the very broad scope implied by the term 'West' and the fullest possible application of Kant's views. Christianity for the most part is an individualistic ethic-- the most perfect, of course, as compared with previous ethics-which finds its high point in the command to 'love one another', that is to say, in the individual's obligation to show altruism, brotherhood and impeccable social relations. I think that today ethicism is the final and definitive stage in the development of the general stance of Western man. Its significance is felt above all within those Christian Churches in which ethicism has been able to eliminate the primacy of personal experience of truth, that is to say, the primacy of dogma. Through various forms of pietism ethicism. has been able to give a similar stamp to all Churches and confessions, irrespective even of their fundamental dogmatic differences. The Truth of the Church, the dogmas, remain dead theoretical principles without the least consequence in the realm of practical piety of the faithful. This is the reason why it is often said that what separates the various Christian Churches today seems to be a kind of historical residue of irrelevant and scholastic forms, namely, dogmas. In contradistinction to dogmas men present and proclaim the commandment of love, the ethical demand to unite the divided Churches, an attitude completely in line with both the ethical basis of pietism and with the rationalism of Western man. The life of the Church is seen as nothing other than one of social ethics common to all confessions. On the basis of the common pietistic spirit, the unity of the Churches has in principle already become a fact, Kant is the forerunner of this unity and the forerunner of the oecumenical movement.
What to do:
quote:
Divine Liturgy of St. James
. . .
In peace let us beseech the Lord. For the peace that is from above, and for God's love to man, and for the salvation of our souls, let us beseech the Lord. For the peace of the whole world, for the unity of all the holy churches of God, let us beseech the Lord. For the remission of our sins, and forgiveness of our transgressions, and for our deliverance from all tribulation, wrath, danger, and distress, and from the uprising of our enemies, let us beseech the Lord.
. . .
God and Sovereign of all, make us, who are unworthy, worthy of this hour, lover of mankind; that being pure from all deceit and all hypocrisy, we may be united with one another by the bond of peace and love, being confirmed by the sanctification of Thy divine knowledge through Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, with whom Thou art blessed, together with Thy all-holy, and good, and quickening Spirit, now and ever, and to all eternity. Amen.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/30/2003 5:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Hi PoW,
I affirm the verses you posted, and am certainly not ignorant of them. What my point has to do with is WHY God cannot be tempted with evil. Do you affirm God acts freely in all He does? I do. The articles that I posted early in this thread may be helpful in explaining my position.
P.S.: I seem to recall reading a few years ago in The Orthodox Study Bible the comment that "God is love" does not describe His essence or ontological status, but rather describes his character. I do not have a copy handy, but I thought you might.
God bless,
John
Thanks for responding, John.
As per "God is love" Met. John Zizioulas' book "Being as Communion" points out that God's ontological status is Communion. Rather than some substance, His ontology IS Trinitarian Communion -- or at least that is how you fill out the form listing philosophical categories.
I think we agree on that one.
Here's the part that I just won't pick up:
quote:
What my point has to do with is WHY God cannot be tempted with evil. Do you affirm God acts freely in all He does? I do.
We sang a song: "In Him there is no darkness at all." Sin is a parasite. I just think that even asking the question is absurd. God swares by Himself, scripture says. He IS the reason. I think that the talk of His WILL begins to separate God's will from God. (Some of the portion of quotes I posted above actually apply to this same thing -- though I did not have you in mind when I collected them.) Your comment about God holding himself to the rules he imposes is not something that I'd like to pick up either. Two reasons: the second is that it divides creation from its creator/sustainer; and the first is that it subjects God to external rules.
At least that's the way I'm hearing it.
If you get the chance, read those numerous-but-not-too-long quotes I posted above. I tried to put them in an order.
Thanks. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/30/2003 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | | I DO like the phrase "God is free" as somethign to scape off things that we should not attach to God: like the idea mentioned above of "considering the nature before the persons." But you did a parallel thing yourself: "God obeys the same moral law he expects all moral agents to obey - the law of universal benevolence." Applying a Kantian idea of benevolence back unto God forms a different idea of the Trinity, as something less than St. Gregory was telling us. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/30/2003 7:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Anybody know this book by Paul D. Molnar?
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 9/30/2003 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi PoW,
This will probably be the last time I will be able to respond today.
As to God holding Himself to his own moral law, I don't see how that is anything but INTEGRITY, and is certainly not a limitation. In fact, God tells us, "AS He who has called you is holy, be you also holy in all manner of your living," and "be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect," as well as "love as I have loved you." (Note these are all MORAL attributes, in contradistinction from God's NATURAL attributes, such as omniscience, and omnipresence, omnipotence).
Was Jesus God? Was Jesus tempted? Then I think the James quote on God not being able to be tempted at least needs some rethinking. From Genesis to Revelation, God calls people to LOVE the same way He does.
Below I have linked the articles which I think best explain my position. They are written by little-known Openness MGT writers, make a good case for the position that God's moral virtue is voluntary:
"Is God Good by Nature or by Choice?" by Jed Smock:
http://www.biblical-theology.com/freewill/godgood.htm
"The Goodness of God--Can Voluntary Goodness be Guaranteed?" by Kel Good
http://www.biblical-theology.com/freewill/goodness.htm
"The Assurance of God's Faithfulness," by Kel Good
http://www.biblical-theology.com/freewill/assurnce.htm
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/30/2003 7:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Molnar, Paul D
Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the Immanent Trinity
This book constructs a contemporary doctrine of the immanent trinity in dialogue with Karl Barth's theology and a selected number of prominent contemporary theologians. For Paul Molnar, human freedom can be properly understood only in the light of God's freedom, and any understanding of the immanent Trinity that is not fashioned from the economic Trinitarian self-revelation will lead toward a dualistic, monistic or agnostic view of divine/human relations. Therefore, any method that starts with experience and not explicitly the word of God revealed will be seen to threaten a proper perception of both divine and human freedom.
Molnar argues that a properly conceived contemporary doctrine of the immanent Trinity will enable theologians to say something positive about God and God's relations with us in history, without in any way making God dependent on history. In this book he analyzes and compares Karl Barth's view of the relationship between the immanent and economic Trinity with the views of other contemporary theologians in order to explore what a proper understanding of divine freedom should look like today, and how that view should develop in light of contemporary feminist and historicist approaches to the Trinity.
The author is a board member of the Karl Barth Society.
quote:
How can I become a member of the Karl Barth Society?
Please send your name, address, email address and annual dues of $15 ($10 for students) to:
Professor Paul D. Molnar
Division of Humanities-Bent Hall
St. John's University
8000 Utopia Parkway
Jamaica, New York 11439
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/30/2003 7:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
As to God holding Himself to his own moral law, I don't see how that is anything but INTEGRITY, and is certainly not a limitation. In fact, God tells us, "AS He who has called you is holy, be you also holy in all manner of your living," and "be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect," as well as "love as I have loved you." (Note these are all MORAL attributes, in contradistinction from God's NATURAL attributes, such as omniscience, and omnipresence, omnipotence).
NO, NO, NO! God is not speaking of "moral" attributes FOR US. God is speaking of faith--which is joining our will to His. Perfection is LOVE, and love, as I mentioned from Zizioulas IS an ontological thing. Being perfect as Christ is perfect is participation in the divine love of the Trinity. Adam and Eve had that, but traded it in. Relationship. Not sacrifice.
What you called there, "natural attributes" is a Western/substance-based list. Eastern liturgies do not use them. (As, say, John of Damascus, Ineffable and Immutable, etc., are used.)
Re-read the part in my post above about the TRAP the West (incl. Mr. Kant) that "morality" brings with it. (It can and has become a form of idolotry.)
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Was Jesus God? Was Jesus tempted? Then I think the James quote on God not being able to be tempted at least needs some rethinking. From Genesis to Revelation, God calls people to LOVE the same way He does.
Q = Was Jesus God?
A = Fully God and fully man; like us in every way except sin. (Creed)
Q = Was Jesus tempted?
A = Yes. Christ, ONE PERSON who was in TWO NATURES was tempted in his humanity. In the garden Christ prayed "if there be another way," showing us his human weakness. And he also prayed "not my will but thine," showing us his obedience. But he was only weak in his humanity. He was only tempted in his humanity.
God can not be tempted. (James) Christ's divine nature participated in the Trinity and shared the ONE divine will, all the while becoming man and emptying himself of his glory by holding our humanity (en-hypostatically) unto Himself. God personally became man; and a human ascended to the Father and reigns on high.
John: Then I think the James quote on God not being able to be tempted at least needs some rethinking.
PoW: James wrote CANON/TRUTH. The 20th century seems bent on dickering with God's revelation, replacing it with what feels good.
John: From Genesis to Revelation, God calls people to LOVE the same way He does.
PoW: If we project a seemingly (fallen) view of love unto God, then we have the seriously dangerous situation of being left without a divine example. God's trinitarian love is perichoretic (coinherence), and not one of suffering. (See my quotes above.)
WE are called to become, by grace, what God is by nature. And we can only do that by being grafted on to the True Vine. But if we have a view of the Vine's relationship to the Father and Spirit that is Kantian, or Thomist, then what we expect the Spirit to work in us and in the midst of his Kingdom (the Church) shifts off target.
Again, God is calling to join ourselves, by the Spirit to himself.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/30/2003 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm not making this up, John.
It was this very passage in James that I'm thinking about, and remembering Sunday night's Bible study: me and four 70+ year olds. One is a retired College English teacher, who spends summers teaching english in China, and winters discipling foreign students and ESL for imigrants. One a retired college dean. His wife, who grew up in Tailand and who's mother wrote "The King and I" said that WISDOM comes from immersing in God's word and in prayer. And a business man.
No sense, we all agreed, could be made from the opening "Count it all joy" if we were expected to judge so from outward appearances. And even more, the part about "he must believe and not doubt" is unrealistic IF it is considered to pertain to intellectual aspirations.
BUT, the wisdom of the passage is that God calls us to live by each moment. Moment, to moment, to moment, to moment. And in each moment GOD IS WITH US.
This passage does not ask us to immitate God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This passage asks us to let God dwell with us!
"he should ask God, who gives generously to all ..."
RATHER THAN finding moral fault, God "gives generously to all." And the "Wisdom" that is given to us is A PERSON. Christ is called "Wisdom" in scritpures, and in the liturgies -- at least one Christmas carol too I think.
DOUBT, in that James passage, is not the lack of any thought or conviction. It is the presence of TWO thoughts, two convictions. James calls him "double-minded" and "unstable.
Watch out for Kant.
Embrace James!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/30/2003 8:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
who's mother wrote "The King and I"
Ooops. The book was called "Anna and the King of Siam." (The other is the movie name.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 9/30/2003 8:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi PoW,
Well, I tried. As you are, as usual, simply not interested in hearing what anyone has to say unless they are Eastern Orthodox, it's definitely a foregone conclusion what your response to anything that is different from that will be.
Anyone should be able to see that God's moral attributes are able to be distinguished from his natural attributes. I'm sorry you don't. Now I expect you will post an Icon or two.
I also find you are guilty (and so is Eastern Orthodoxy, if you fairly represent their views) of categorizing and dividing up CHRIST, if you seriously expect us to believe that Jesus was tempted only in his humanity, but not in his deity? What? Did his deity somehow fly away while he was being tempted? Did he cease being Deity during this time? How are you not in fact arguing for a Docetic or Dualistic view of Christ?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/30/2003 1:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Was Jesus God? Was Jesus tempted? Then I think the James quote on God not being able to be tempted at least needs some rethinking.
To my eyes it was a case of someone saying that they knew better than scripture. (If you weren't then it for you to say so, and demonstrate how. Otherwise, maybe what my eyes saw was correct.)
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Well, I tried. As you are, as usual, simply not interested in hearing what anyone has to say unless they are Eastern Orthodox, it's definitely a foregone conclusion what your response to anything that is different from that will be.
So my Dutch Reformed friends talked about in that post now were, unbeknownst to them, Greeks? Same with the Nazarenes, Wesleyan Methodists, Baptists, Free Methodists and Roman Catholics I've taught with? Or my Mennonite relatives. They are all Russians and Bulgarians? Should I tell them that dark secret??? (What's gotten into your head?)
When all these groups agree, THEN you really have something. I found that the Greek theologians, the Hebrew writer of Scripture, and the elderly Dutch folk all had the same common-sense take on the matter.
Nothing wrong with that.
-----------------------
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
I have never read anything by Kant. So many books, so little time.
Do a wordsearch on THIS page. I quoted him. THAT was the ONLY issue related to Kant that I am pointing to. (You resembed him just that lettle bit.)
-----------------------
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
...you are...categorizing and dividing up CHRIST, if you seriously expect us to believe that Jesus was tempted only in his humanity, but not in his deity? What? Did his deity somehow fly away while he was being tempted? Did he cease being Deity during this time? How are you not in fact arguing for a Docetic or Dualistic view of Christ?
Shoe's on the other foot. Your possition there indicates that you believe that Christ ceased being fully divine when he became incarnate. (Several persons on this site do think exactly that! I hope that you are not comfortable being grouped with them John. Separate yourself from that inference.)
The Christological fact that you attack is very important! You need to embrace it, and discover the depths of its meaning and significance for your faith.
Here's two important theological declarations:
- "One of the Trinity Died."
This is called the "theopaschite formula." it answers the question "Who?" www.arimathea.co.uk/who.htm
quote:
Who Suffered ?
In 519 controversy arose in Constantinople when Gothic monks led by John Maxentius proclaimed their opposition to Nestorianism by use of the formula, ‘One of the Trinity suffered.’ This phrase became known as the Theopaschite formula. Despite the hostility of the akoimetoi monks (1), the Emperor Justinian was convinced that this formula was orthodox. Eventually, through the good offices of Bishop Hypatios of Ephesus, who visited Rome in 533, Justinian won the support of Pope John II, who, in his letter Olim Quidem to the Constantinopolitan Senate, declared the formula orthodox.
The Theopaschite formula is of great theological importance: it focusses our minds on the question Who suffered? The bitter arguments over Christology had focussed on the question of Christ's nature or natures. But on Calvary it was not a nature who suffered, but a person. And the Theopaschite formula draws us back to reflect on Who that person is - the Logos, God the Son and Word of God, known to us in His humanity as Jesus of Nazareth. It is the Word of God Who suffers, impassible in His deity, he has put on our humanity, and lives, suffers and dies with us as one of us to raise us with Him.
Theological discussion of ancient formulae such as the Theopaschite formula can seem dry and arid. We seem to enter a realm of intellectual conundrums. What is really at issue is our constant struggle to assimilate the truth revealed in Scripture and preserved and handed on in Tradition. The intellectual effort to assimilate the truth of Christ's suffering and death is one aspect of the transformation He brings: He is Saviour of the total person, body, mind, soul and spirit. The Eastern Christian tradition has always laid great emphasis on correct expression and correct ways of thinking the truth. That should never take us away from the central insight that the Truth revealed to us is a person, the living Word of God, who comes to encounter us and make Himself one with us by assuming our human nature, so that He stands before us as the man, Jesus the Anointed. Part of opening ourselves to His salvific presence is opening our minds to a correct apprehension of Who He is.
Where is the docetism, or the dualism in THAT?
- "Whatever is not assumed is not healed."
Athanasias said:
quote:
He has not assumed a body as proper to His own nature, far from it, for as the Word He is without body. He has been manifested in a human body for this reason only, out of the love and goodness of His Father, for the salvation of us men. We will begin, then, with the creation of the world and with God its Maker, for the first fact that you must grasp is this: "the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning." There' is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word Who made it in the beginning.
That is Christ saving us. The redeemer who is not by nature the same as the redeemed; but yet redeeming humanity was such a natural thing.
But how?
quote:
Certainly nobody who reads the Scriptures can plead ignorance of the facts as an excuse for error! There is this passage, for instance: "A man that is afflicted and knows how to bear weakness, for His face is turned away. He was dishonored and not considered, He bears our sins and suffers for our sakes. And we for our part thought Him distressed and afflicted and ill-used; but it was for our sins that He was wounded and for our lawlessness that He was made weak. Chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His bruising we are healed." O marvel at the love of the Word for men, for it is on our account that He is dishonored, so that we may be brought to honor.
So Athanasius nailed the issue of Christ taking our humanity to himself, and dying for our sins.
But later, the matter of HOW MUCH of our humanity was assumed came up.
quote:
Gregory the Theologian would phrase it: “what is not assumed is not healed.” Put plainly, and out front: Jesus is not a "mere man" like all other men. He is indeed a real man, a whole and perfectly complete man with a human mind, soul and body. But he is the man which the Son and Word of God has become. (Hopko)
WHERE'S THE RUB? YOU MENTION DOCETISM. YOU MAY BE CLOSE TO IT...AND YOU MAN NOT. YOU DECIDE.
quote:
...in the fourth century, it was also necessary for the Church to reject the teaching of a certain Appolinarius, who claimed that although Jesus was indeed the incarnate Son and Word of God, the incarnation consisted in the Word merely taking a human body and not the fullness of human nature. This was the doctrine that Jesus had no real human soul, no human mind, no human spirit, but that the divine Son of God, who exists eternally with the Father and the Spirit, merely dwelt in a human body, in human flesh, as in a temple.
SO IT IS IN THE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DIRECTION, OPPOSITE TO DOCETIC-NESS THAT WE SHOULD AFFIRM THAT CHRIST HAD A HUMAN MIND--FULL HUMANITY.
----------------------
You asked about docetism. No, of course not. Christ's humanity was truly his. The significance of Mary as the 'Birthgiver of God,' without a father, is that Christ's body never belonged to anyone but him. Christ suffered the horendousness of having body and soul sundered. But, even in death, that body was STILL HIS. He did not undergo decay. That was God's body. Yet it also suffered on the Cross.
Is Orthodox Christianity (whether held by a Baptist, a Lutheran, a Roman Catholic, a Mennonite...) dualistic when it says that Christ has two natures. Maybe so. But it depends on what you say dualism is. Is His divinity and his humanity different in nature? YA-SUR, YOU BET-CHA! (*faded Minnesota accent*) Are they both His? YES. Do they continue to both remain His; and ever more shall be, even into the scene in Revelations... YEP!
But, did his becoming human change his divinity. NOT AT ALL. The incarnation was an "assymetrical union", but a true union nonetheless. Divinity remained immutable, and humanity got healed--to what it was intended to be all along. But Christ "held to himself" our humanity.
And was it unnatural for His humanity to cooperate with his divinity? That is a sticking point for some people. They say that it must have been suffering for Christ to obey God. But is that correct. No way! Obeying God was "natural" for Christ -- as it is FOR US TOO. Sin is the un-natural illness. But Christ DID suffer. Everything from the two turtle doves to his death upon the tree was an IDENTIFICATION with our fallenness. That made him the perfect savior, because he met us in our weakness!!!!
-----------------------
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
I affirm God cannot be tempted with evil, as James does, while at the same time affirming Jesus was both God and tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15). So the problem raised by this apparent contradiction is yours, not mine
.
You say three things that I also agree with:
1. God cannot be tempted.
2. Jesus was...God.
3. Jesus was...tempted in all points like as we, yet without sin.
wE AGREE ON THESE.
I HOPE YOU CAN SEE, FROM WHAT'S ABOVE, HOW THIS IS POSSIBLE.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/30/2003 4:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
"Talking" with you is like talking to a wall, PoW. I seriously wonder why in the world you bother to visit a DISCUSSION board. What a piece of work you are. As you are either too dull or to obtuse to even TRY to read what someone else says, I see little point in belaboring my point with you.
JOHN, LET ME POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE GETTING PERSONAL. (See red portions in quote above.)
But for your information, while I have not read everything on this thread, I have read parts of it--in long stretches--over a period of time. GROWING OUT OF THAT have been thoughts initiated by OTHER reading and discussion with OTHER people. And founded on that I made a few posts. Mainly I expected Meph and Icon to see them. Maybe read parts of them. I feel assured of their intrinsic validity and applicability. I know for certain that they are complex presentations of complicated material. But the principles underlying them bear out in simple faith and devotion to our Lord. Actual discussions with actual persons in actual space and actual time bear that out. They are not much for virtual discussion, or even virtual reading. To be of use they demand lots of both time and effort. They were WORTH my prolonged labor. And writing them was a good proctice in both devotion and contemplation. But, mainly, their relevance to the real people -- who are not high brow -- that are around me at school and church was my MAIN concern. And remains so.
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
Shoe's on the other foot. Your possition there indicates that you believe that Christ ceased being fully divine when he became incarnate.
What are you talking about? YOU are the one who said Christ was only tempted in his humanity. I fully affirm Christ's divinity and humanity in his Incarnation. When Christ was tempted, I see no reason at all to think that somehow this was only his humanity that was being tempted. This is nothing if not disingenous, to somehow imply as you do that Christ's divinity was not being tempted when his humanity was. So I suppose Jesus was schizo in your view?
Its not "disingenous" to say what is true. Christ's divinity did not thurst. Nor was his divine nature tired. Nor did the divine nature of the Eternal Word -- who both created the whole cosmos AND was active in holding together his own molicules (!!!) -- need the devil's help in establishing Lordship. Aren't these things obvious. I trust so.
But it is pure dynamite to consider that Christ, while fully God and an active part of the Trinity, really was IN HIS HUMANITY tempted. This is due to the weakness that he took on. OUR WEAKNESS. (While his glorified body can not be tempted.)
Here's what I would suggest that you consider, John. Remember (as you also seem to think) that God's Person is not determined by his nature. (Isn't that related to the first question that you asked me, last page?) If you think THAT, then the rest of what I'm reporting to you just follows! The Eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity, was tempted in a way that neither the Father nor the Spirit were. That's an emphasis on the Person. Yet, there is also only ONE energy, will in the Trinity. As I quoted last page: 'The persons are made one not so as to commingle, but so as to cleave to each other, and they have their being in each other (ten en allelais perichoresin echousi) without any coalescence or commingling. Nor do the Son and Spirit stand apart, nor are they sundered in essence as in the heresy of Arius. For, to put it concisely, the Godhead is undivided; and it is just like three suns cleaving to each other without separation, and giving out light mingled and conjoined into one.' 'Each one of the persons contains the unity by this relation to the others no less than by this relation to Himself. (St. John Damascene) So, we can dampen any shock that we might have that ONE of the Persons suffered, was tempted, died. It was in fact the whole Trinity that willed that ONE of the divine Persons do these things in fulfillment of the will of all, which originates with the Father but is perichoretically shared by all.
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
You obviously have not even bothered to try and understand my position, so I will not tempt God by trying further to force you to understand.
If you persist in not really responding as you have, I will begin to ignore what you say.
I posted a few ideas, generated (as I said above) mostly by things off-board that were real-life; but fulminated via a span of readings on this site of Icon and Meph's posts. Then you asked a question or two. And I answered them.
John, pardon me. And please cut me slack. I have spent four or five years reading intently and in detail about just the sort of thing I've posted here. I don't know what is at the end of those links you posted. But I don't intend to go see. I know a lot of this stuff "pat." BUT, I'M REALLY MORE INTERESTED IN THE REAL PEOPLE, WHO ARE GUT LEVEL, AND INVOLVED IN DAILY, PRACTICAL CHRISTIANITY. Not in a speculative activity.
I'm interested in where the Baptist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Mennonite, Dutch Reformed, Greeks, Nazarenes, Wesleyan Methodists, Free Methodists, Copts, Ethopian and Oriental Orthodox all come together!
PEOPLE ARE MY LINKS!!!!!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/1/2003 12:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Please don't take this wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
You expect me to read all the voluminous amount of material that you typically post, and yet refuse to even look at the relatively short articles I linked to?
I DON'T/DIDN'T expect you to read that. If it pertains to you, then I suppose you might decide to read it. I PRIMARILY HAD OTHER PEOPLE IN MIND.
I was not interested in finding out what an OVer said about the subject (the LINKS). I very much appreciated the effort you gave to tell me what they led to. AS I SAID IN A PREVIOUS POST, I am PRIMARILY interested in this topic as it pertains to the fellowship and discussions in Sunday School and after the Evening Service at the Christian Reformed Church where I attend with my family.
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
You are really not interested in hearing my view.
Well, THAT is not accurate. I am not interested in being a participant in speculation. I have been interested in YOUR view. But not in speculations.
But I am REALLY not interested in the line of THIS discussion.
What IS interesting to me is how the Incarnation (including the Transfiguration, and the Eucharist) offer serious input into the topic of this thread: "Love and Freedom in the Hereafter "
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/1/2003 12:34 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
[I am not interested in being a participant in speculation. I have been interested in YOUR view. But not in speculations.
A good example of this how I mentioned the personal response my retired college dean friend had to his initial understanding of James' statement about not doubting. It was HIS view. And indiscussing it we found that both of us agreed negatively with regards to a purely intellectual definition of doubt, but we also agreed possitively with respect that it is vital not to be of two-thoughts -- that is doubt. What is useful and worthwhile to me is that OUR input comes from life, and God's dealing with us. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/1/2003 7:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
quote:
If I have to abandon my present position then I believe I’d be more likely to move in Icon’s direction, but I’d go all the way and maintain simply that God is libertarianly free and capable of performing evil, period. Icon wants to affirm God freely chooses to love but doesn’t seem to want to admit that this entails (or ever actually entailed) the possibility that God sin (as it does for us). If Icon does affirm this, then I missed it. I understood the whole .99 is 1 at eternity thing to be an attempt to jettison this portion of “love requires freedom” for God. I mean, if you guys are gonna accuse Doc and me of inconsistency, be consistent too. If, Icon, our being free to choose love entails the real possibility of not loving (that is, of sinning), and if God is also free to love, then bite the bullet and just fess up that God can sin, really sin (or at least that this was the case at some point). The argument about eternal choice in a nontemporal framework doesn’t do anything for me because it’s logical relations (not temporal ones) that entail the ability to sin for freedom to love (assuming you go this route in God's case).
I’d agree, Tom. This is why I said that “eternal choice” doesn’t make as much sense to me as ETERNAL CHOOSING. It would be GENUINELY FEASIBLE and POSSIBLE that God could, at any time, choose not to love. Ramifications aside, God could still do it. God chooses AT EVERY MOMENT to love. It’s NOT like God chose and then everything goes on “auto-pilot” from there. God would be the God that always chooses to love at every moment…even though at ANY moment God could do otherwise.
Trust me. I’m BEING consistent. 
***************************************
Tom:
quote:
If God could have created an unfailingly loving creation but chose not to, then I’d like Mephi to venture some reason why God did not do so. What? Just trust that this reason is consistent with the goodness we believe God is and which is revealed in the Cross and leave it at that? Why? Why assume that? Why assume that the goodness which gave us the Cross is consistent with a goodness that would choose to create a contingently loving world when a necessarily lovingly world was possible? Fraid not, Mephi. What you’re proposing (in my view) challenges the goodness revealed in the Cross. So unless you can come up with some reason for why God would go this route, it presents just as yucky a picture of God (perhaps more so) as does the belief that God is libertarianly free and able to perform evil. The glorification principle? OK, so what’s glorious in choosing to create a contingently loving creation (one in which you know will be overcome with evil and populate hell to the brim) over creating one that loves unfailingly?
The issue, Tom, would simply be that the same God that exists in the ETERNAL loving perichoretic Trinity, sustains all Creation in his loving care at all times, and provides the Christ Work (Incarnation, Life, Death, and Resurrection)…is the SAME God that, by divine wisdom and purpose, chose to give sentient beings the ability to morally deliberate (complete with all the possible ramifications of that).
How is the goodness of God seen in the Christ Work CHALLENGED by saying that God created morally deliberating sentient beings (and all the ramifications of that) when God didn’t have to? If the Christ Work HAPPENED, then how can it be challenged? What I mean is if one believes in the Christ Work as testified in the Scriptures, how would this action of God NEGATE the goodness of that work? How would this paint a “yucky” picture of God, I’m wondering?
***********************************
Tom:
quote:
I’m not sure which is easier to believe if I have to choose, that God can perform evil and bring an absolute end to goodness in the universe, or that God could have created an unfailingly loving creation, could have gotten all he wanted in terms of loving interpersonal relations with us, but chose to create a contingently loving creation instead, knowing that evil would overcome it.
Do you know the interesting thing about BOTH perspectives that I like. FAITH. True, biblical faith. Not rationalizations that just provide people with psychological certainty (which most theodicies seem to be, IMHO) In both perspectives, one cannot rely on metaphysical CERTAINTIES that get God of the theodicy hook! One just has to trust in the divine wisdom, will, and purpose of God…and leave it there.
I…LOVE…this! 
"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
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/2/2003 1:24 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
How is the goodness of God seen in the Christ Work CHALLENGED by saying that God created morally deliberating sentient beings (and all the ramifications of that) when God didn’t have to? If the Christ Work HAPPENED, then how can it be challenged? What I mean is if one believes in the Christ Work as testified in the Scriptures, how would this action of God NEGATE the goodness of that work? How would this paint a “yucky” picture of God, I’m wondering?
This is not intended as a "fly in the ointment." And forgive me if my rushing makes me mispost. OK?
Just the observation that "morally deliberating" is NOT falsely contrasted (if that's what's there -- I'm just waking up) with perichoresis. Here's why. "Deliberations" is what John of Damascus calls (what the desert Fathers called "thoughts" in contrast to 'nous', which is spiritual) that which is the very beginning of sin. Deliberative thoughts are double-minded. What James speaks of as doubt. (Mary did not deliberate in her "yes." She wondered greatly: "What can this be?" But she did not doubt her relationship to God, but trusted Him: "May it be...")
So I think it is entirely TRUE (and obvious from Adam and Eve's case) that God created us with the possibility for moral deliberations. But, once again, they are the fery first step in the slide into sin. ("Did God really say.")
Morality is a false facade. Relationship is everything.
(Hope this post was OK for you both, Tom and Meph.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/2/2003 6:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Some personal reflections, by Greg Boyd (enter soft calming background music)
1. There is some confusion over what TGB, me and (I think) Meph mean when we speak of God’s "necessary" nature. John Earp flushed this out, I think, when he noted that its not that God CANNOT sin, but that his CHARACTER is such that he CHOOSES NOT TO SIN. Icon seems to see God’s character as a restraint – on the analogy of a microchip in the brain. The metaphor I’d use to reflect this reality is of a person whose character is such that they certainly will never rape a child, and who is not tempted by such a deed. A person who IS tempted but says no does a praiseworthy thing. But a person who is not even tempted is MORE praiseworthy. A person who IS tempted and says "no" is to that degree FREE. But the person who is not tempted is MORE free. The person who is not tempted COULD rape a child, but its CERTAIN they never will. They have the LOGICAL possibility of doing so, but NOT the "feasible possibility."
I see God’s eternal nature as being the MOST praiseworthy and the MOST free because its not "feasible" for him to sin.
2. TGB raised a good point when he noticed that we praise God for many things he does not choose (in a libertarian sense). We worship God for his omnipotence and omniscience. I think this is simply what it looks like when created beings view the uncreated ONE accurately: its WORSHIP. We worship God for WHO HE IS. We acknowledge God for what he DOES because it reflects WHO HE IS. His REALITY is such that, for created beings to view it accurately, they ascribe ultimate worth to it – they worship. I think this is entirely different from praising God for making the right choices!
3. Meph, if I understand you, you hold that for created beings to be morally responsible they must be created decision makers. We couldn’t be virtuous if we had impeccable goodness built in, right? Yet, do you believe that GOD is a morally responsible being? Yet you grant that we praise God because he is good, even though he didn’t choose this (in a libertarian sense). If GOODNESS does not have to chosen for God, why does it have to be chosen by us? And, whatever your answer is, why think that LOVE does NOT have to be chosen by us just because its not chosen by God?
4. I have made a little progress understanding Iconoclasts idea of God choosing to exist, which he takes to be synonymous with God choosing to love and choosing to be triune. In his view, there is a "logical (not temporal) moment" prior to God existing in which God is in a "superposition" state, as it were, and in which it is decided that God would exist – or not. As I understand it, this is a logical postulation necessary to articulate the conviction that WILL is the ultimate reality. But I still cannot render intelligible in my own mind this idea of "God before God", as it were.
Nor can I get clear on the meaning of WILL apart from an agent who is MORE than will (viz. has a nature) yet is inseparable from WILL. In other words, it seems to me that a ‘will’ only has meaning when a personal agent HAS the will, which presupposes that the personal agent is MORE than will. So far as its conceivable at all, it seems to me that a will without an agent is pure randomness . Another way of saying this is that indeterminacy without determinacy is as inconceivable as determinacy without indeterminacy. So, I have to agree with Meph that the ultimate reality is "NATURE THAT WILLS" and "WILL WITH NATURE," not just "WILL."
Exist background calming music
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
| 400 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:06 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 |
|
|