 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Love and Freedom in the Hereafter | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 9/5/2003 4:53 AM (GMT -6) |   | Man, I have really got to get the internet at my apartment. I leave work yesterday afternoon and by the time I come back I've missed too much to catch up.
I'm still in agreement with what BJS said in his last post quote:
But my point is this, Meph: There is a SIGNIFICANT difference, I think, between God having an "unchangeably loving nature" and mankind being CREATED with an "unchangeably loving nature." In other words, God's nature was not forced upon him by another entity. He just always existed. That's why I am suggesting that perhaps genuine love can exist in the ORIGINAL nature (God) without the capacity for anti-love, but that cannot be true for a CONTINGENT beings
I did a little reading last night and found something that I thought would be good for the discussion. Here is a little bit of what Robert Adams says in his book Finite and Infinite Goods about some of the topics we have been addressing.
"What calls for more discussion here is the further supposition that those properties that fit God, so to speak, for the role of supreme Good follow necessarily from the divine nature-- so that God cannot be sadistic, or love cowardice, for example.
...More disturbing is the objection that this limitation of God's possibility of choice diminishes the divine freedom.(italics Adams) In response to this objection let us note first that there is no suggestion here of God's will being subject to any external constraint or any external standard. The only limits envisaged are those that are thought of as following from God's own nature. Moreover, we NEED NOT SUPPOSE THAT GOD'S ACTIONS ARE DETERMINED IN DETAIL BY THE DIVINE NATURE. What I would suppose follows in the first instance from the divine is a certain general character of God's disposition and life, from which, to be sure, God's actions spring. Certain features of God's desires and aversions, likes and dislikes are determined in this way. We may suppose it is part of the divine nature, for instance, that God is generally disposed to rejoice in the joys, and dislike the sufferings, of any actual being, and would not want or will eternal misery for the innocent. This seems consistent enough with the conception of God as a voluntary agent. Some of our desires are given by our natures, after all, or at any rate by something in our makeup that we do not control."(pg. 47)
I think that this is very important to the conversation. Human free will is not exercised in a vacum, our choices are limited by our nature. I CANNOT will myself evil (Aristotle, Aquinas, Pascal, etc) but that in no way necessitates my choices. In the same way, God cannot act contrary to who he is in his nature. A choice by God to decide to be loving totally devoid of his nature seems intuitively incoherent.
Gonna go back and try to read over all that I missed last night...
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/5/2003 7:32 AM (GMT -6) | | YEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAW!  Doc’s on tha scene!
Doc:
quote:
Consider this: If God could have been non-loving, by what standard would he have been judged so? What ontologically GROUNDS this standard?
I submit that once we logically separate "love" or "life" from the essential nature of God, we fall into ultimate pluralism of a rampantly irrational sort, for we posit a) a plurality of ultimate realities which b) have no ontological grounding. I, with Meph, would argue it makes more sense, especially for monotheists, to understand the ultimate standard of love, goodness, life, etc… as being IDENTICLE with God’s essential nature.
That’s the way…uh huh uh huh…I LIKE it…uh huh uh huh!  (Word to KC and the Sunshine Band!)
*********************************
Ross posted:
quote:
I did a little reading last night and found something that I thought would be good for the discussion. Here is a little bit of what Robert Adams says in his book Finite and Infinite Goods about some of the topics we have been addressing.
"What calls for more discussion here is the further supposition that those properties that fit God, so to speak, for the role of supreme Good follow necessarily from the divine nature-- so that God cannot be sadistic, or love cowardice, for example.
...More disturbing is the objection that this limitation of God's possibility of choice diminishes the divine freedom.(italics Adams) In response to this objection let us note first that there is no suggestion here of God's will being subject to any external constraint or any external standard. The only limits envisaged are those that are thought of as following from God's own nature. Moreover, we NEED NOT SUPPOSE THAT GOD'S ACTIONS ARE DETERMINED IN DETAIL BY THE DIVINE NATURE. What I would suppose follows in the first instance from the divine is a certain general character of God's disposition and life, from which, to be sure, God's actions spring. Certain features of God's desires and aversions, likes and dislikes are determined in this way. We may suppose it is part of the divine nature, for instance, that God is generally disposed to rejoice in the joys, and dislike the sufferings, of any actual being, and would not want or will eternal misery for the innocent. This seems consistent enough with the conception of God as a voluntary agent. Some of our desires are given by our natures, after all, or at any rate by something in our makeup that we do not control."(pg. 47)
I think that this is very important to the conversation. Human free will is not exercised in a vacum, our choices are limited by our nature. I CANNOT will myself evil (Aristotle, Aquinas, Pascal, etc) but that in no way necessitates my choices. In the same way, God cannot act contrary to who he is in his nature. A choice by God to decide to be loving totally devoid of his nature seems intuitively incoherent.
This is EXTREMELY important. This is exactly what Electra’s been getting at too. Great post, Ross!
******************************
Doc:
quote:
The fact that that the notion of contingent beings necessarily loving is strongly counterintuitive is one reason to judge the notion mistaken.
First, let deal with the intuition thing. If Doc would have finished my quote, it would have said…
I contend that it is NOT CORRECT for Christians to contour their understanding of love on our CURRENT human experience. Let’s be honest. The MAJOR reason that people hold to the “love requires freedom” thing is because this is where our human intutions lead us. And I would agree with that. BUT, it is completely erroneous to judge how love works by our current human experience…especially when we have reason to believe that we are ESCHATOLOGICAL creatures who have not yet experienced humanness to the full. Check my earlier post when I said this. When Christ comes, we shall be LIKE him. We are talking radical transformation. We will EXPERIENCE what it’s like to love God without being ABLE to choose anti-love. We MUST keep this in mind. So, between our eschatological experience and God’s experience of love within the Trinity, I believe that we have AMPLE reason to at least question the “love requires freedom” thing.
NO ONE seems to be acknowledging my argument about us NOT having the fullness of human experience yet. Did no one see my “American from Nebraska” analogy? How about another one. Remember way back when we didn’t have telescopes and such? Wasn’t it counterintuitive to think that the Earth was spherical…AND that it was spinning in space…AND that the earth actually went around the sun? HECK, YEAH, it was. But once our experiences grew, we learned new things, now didn’t we? Look, I fully grant that the conception of genuine love without the ability to choose otherwise is counterintuitive. I grant that. But WILL YOU grant me that we, as human beings, have good reason to believe that ONE DAY, we shall learn what it’s like to be in a genuine loving relationship without CAPABILITY of choosing anti-love? If so, then why in the world do you want to base how we define love JUST on our current experience? It makes no sense. Go back and look at all the analogies for this selective type thinking. It’s not right.
******************************
Doc:
quote:
But I think it is more than that. I think it is logically incoherent. Perhaps I could get at the contradiction this way.
I) The meaning of being a non-necessary (contingent) person involves being a center of volition. That about which you cannot be otherwise is that about which you cannot be personal.
2) Love can only come from persons.
Erog: Contingent persons must choose love for their love to be personal.
AHA. That’s the presupposition that TATIAN tried to smuggle in. Doc makes it explicit here. This is just plainly false. Being a contingent being has NOTHING to do with center of volition. I explained that in my “Deconstructing TWT1” post. So, let’s bracket that out. What he seems to want to say is that PERSONHOOD involves center of volition, and I’d agree with this. However, he says that “that about which you cannot be otherwise is that about which you cannot be personal” With all due respect, you seem to be forgeting your own arguments. Remember in Trinity and Process how you show how even though God has a NECESSARILY loving nature, there are CONTINGENT EXPRESSIONS of this love which make bring into account the realm of PERSONAL CHOICE?? Almost like what Ross’s post says. You’ve shown how having an unchangable nature does NOT negate center of volition, and thereby doesn’t negate choice.
Now, let’s put things together. It is possible for a NON-NECESSARY (contingent) being to have a center of volition and make choices from that center of volition…while those choices are CONTINGENT expressions of the nature of said being.
This is in NO way logically incoherent. Your #1 up there is WAY problematic. I hope we all see this.
***********************************
Doc:
quote:
The hypothesis that love need not be chosen is not needed for implication #1 if you admit that as a matter of fact (if not necessity) at least one being can be created with libertarian free will regarding love and end up being eternally resolved as a loving being.
Yep. It’s needed. It shows UNQUALIFIABLY that this is so.
**************************************
Doc:
quote:
Regarding implication #2 and #3: What you are asking us to buy is a way of thinking which
a) you admit is counter-intuitive, at best
b) destroys the only adequate explanation for evil (the free will defense)
c) renders unintelligible the fact that God created a risky open creation when he could have done otherwise
d) renders unintelligible the fact that God created beings who may be lost when he could have ensured their salvation – though he desperately WANTS all to be saved.
Regarding A, I have discussed the whole counterintuitive thing AT LENGTH. If anyone hasn’t seen what I’ve said about it, please go back and check those posts out.
Regarding B, so what? Surely our faith in actuality of God and the Lord Jesus Christ doesn’t rely on the free-will argument. Right? 
Regarding C, nothing is rendered unintelligible. It’s rendered something that people don’t like to hear. That God, in divine wisdom, felt like creating an open Creation was worth it, all things concerned…and NOT based on some metaphysical limitation. It’s completely intelligible.
Regarding D, Ah, the glorification principle!
No problems here, Doc. Anyone else got problems?
**********************************
Doc:
quote:
The main reason we adopt views is that they render intelligible aspects of reality that would be otherwise intelligible. And on this score, good friend, I must say that I see no reason to adopt your view. Even if it WAS coherent to suppose that contingent beings could love necessarily, I would think it reasonable to assume that it must not be so if for no other reason than the fact that assuming they MUST choose love explains so much, whereas assuming they don’t have to choose explains nothing and in fact creates more problems.
Explains nothing? I disagree, sir. It does provide explanation, just not an acceptable one to some people. I contend that the free-will argument is NOT the end-all, be-all. Obviously, I’m in the minority on that score. The explanation lies in the will and intentionality of God. Glorification principle, baby...
And here’s the real problem. Bottom line: It’s not wise to just take something JUST because it makes everything fit the way we want it to. I think I’ve shown very clearly that it is coherent to speak of a contingent personal being with an unchangable loving nature. I’ve also shown how we have examples of this with God and our eschatological selves post-Consummation. The rest is gravy.
"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 | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/5/2003 7:42 AM (GMT -6) | | BJS:
quote:
But my point is this, Meph: There is a SIGNIFICANT difference, I think, between God having an "unchangeably loving nature" and mankind being CREATED with an "unchangeably loving nature." In other words, God's nature was not forced upon him by another entity. He just always existed. That's why I am suggesting that perhaps genuine love can exist in the ORIGINAL nature (God) without the capacity for anti-love, but that cannot be true for a CONTINGENT beings, because contingent beings have their natures determined for them.
Ok, Brett. Check this out. Should I be mad because I’m “forced” to ONLY be a human being? Shouldn’t I be furious that I don’t have the wherewithal to change myself at will into a bird, or giraffe, or whatever? My nature as a HUMAN BEING was “forced” on me, according to your logic. As a contingent being, my HUMAN nature was determined for me by God. Problem?
See the issue, Brett? Saying that creatures of God can have UNCHANGABLE aspects of their natures is NOT problematic…at all. Nor is it a form of tyranny. We have been so conditioned by our experiences as free agents to believe that ANYTHING that is determined outside of our control is NOT COOL. We’ve got to get around this.
Being created with a loving nature would be NO MORE OR LESS “forcing” thing upon us than God creating us as human beings with a HUMAN nature.
"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 | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/5/2003 8:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Speaking of counterintuition...what's MORE counterintuitive to human experience than some of the insights in QUANTUM PHYSICS? But do we deny that stuff just based on our intuitions? Nope. Why? Because we have reasons to believe what studies in quantum physics shows us.
Now, we have two instances that exhibit that genuine love does not NECESSARILY require freedom to do otherwise: God's love to Godself in the Trinity and eschatologically realized Christ-like human beings.
What is the problem? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/5/2003 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | BJS:
quote:
No, no, no. It is a very different thing for our physical natures to be determined than it is for our volitional will to be determined. Because WHO WE REALLY ARE is not the physical earthsuit that we wear. WHO WE REALLY ARE is defined by the extent to which we can self-determine. If we are controlled (think Doc’s microchip analogy here) we are nothing but a divine appendage, not a unique individual.
From Ross’s quote (emphases mine):
“More disturbing is the objection that this limitation of God's possibility of choice diminishes the divine freedom.(italics Adams) In response to this objection let us note first that there is no suggestion here of God's will being subject to any external constraint or any external standard. The only limits envisaged are those that are thought of as following from God's own nature. Moreover, we NEED NOT SUPPOSE THAT GOD'S ACTIONS ARE DETERMINED IN DETAIL BY THE DIVINE NATURE. What I would suppose follows in the first instance from the divine is a certain general character of God's disposition and life, from which, to be sure, God's actions spring. Certain features of God's desires and aversions, likes and dislikes are determined in this way. We may suppose it is part of the divine nature, for instance, that God is generally disposed to rejoice in the joys, and dislike the sufferings, of any actual being, and would not want or will eternal misery for the innocent. This seems consistent enough with the conception of God as a voluntary agent. Some of our desires are given by our natures, after all, or at any rate by something in our makeup that we do not control."
First of all, you used the word “controlled” Do you see how all this rhetorical stuff could cause problems?
Second, Ross’s quote backs what Doc has said in Trinity and Process. Having a unchanably loving nature in NO WAY compromises our uniqueness as persons, our uniqueness comes not ONLY from our natures, but also from our contextual INTERPRETATIONS and expressions of who we are. I will give you an example. Let’s use Doc’s microchip analogy (since EVERYONE seems to want to use it) Let it be that microchips are placed into ALL people such that ALL people are loving. Now, will this mean that there will be NO distinctive manners in which this loving nature will be EXPRESSED? Of course not. Different people in different contexts with different experiences will express things in different ways. Will this mean that every person won’t have their OWN UNIQUE spin on HOW to love and how to demonstrate it in THEIR contexts? Absolutely not. Won’t we be able to SELF-DETERMINE how, when, where, and in what contexts we will express our loving nature? Sure we will. I wouldn't express love in the same way as Doc's wife would. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't express love in the same way as ANYONE else in the world!
If all this is true, then HOW could it be said that we would just be a divine appendage and not a unique individual?
Ross’s quote is MASTERFUL. It’s saying that individual actions are NOT exhaustively determined IN DETAIL by the one’s nature. There is PARTICULARITY and context to consider. Think about Doc’s “prism” idea. He basically acknowledges JUST this point. Even when ALL will be loving, because of our unique distinctions, we will all reflect to love of god UNIQUELY…even though we won’t be able to choose anti-love!
Come on, man. You’re feeling this, right?
"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 | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/5/2003 9:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Brief hiphop break...
Someone may ask , "Is the free will argument in danger?"
All my mommies say...
"Uh ohhhhh, Uh ohhhhhh...
Uh ohhhhh, Uh ohhhhhh..."
from the summer jam, Lumidee's "Never Leave You"
http://www.mtv.com/bands/az/lumidee/artist.jhtml
hehehehehe... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/5/2003 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc
I submit that once we logically separate "love" or "life" from the essential nature of God, we fall into ultimate pluralism of a rampantly irrational sort, for we posit a) a plurality of ultimate realities which b) have no ontological grounding. I, with Meph, would argue it makes more sense, especially for monotheists, to understand the ultimate standard of love, goodness, life, etc… as being IDENTICLE with God’s essential nature.
Iconoclast
I TOTALLY agree with this. I think love IS identical with God's "essential" nature.
I don't however see any contradiction with God being AT CHOICE with love. God loves out of choice. God chooses to love. Love is identical with God's eternal nature.
I can conceptualize this for an eternal being. So what is the problem?
It seems to me that the problem is in the logic of this concept of a "necessary being". Why should I accept this logic? To me it is finite logic used to try and comprehend an infinite being. It is a MAP that is VERY FAR from the actual territory.
Perhaps the problem starts with this very notion of "essential" nature. Notice that we finite humans are here presupposing that God has an "essential" nature. This is a major presupposition of what God's "eternal" nature is. We can certainly postulate that God has an "eternal" nature and that a part of it must be love and life but to then apply the finite logic of "essential" and "necessary" seems to presuppose that we actually understand something about this "eternal" nature.
Algebra which is finite mathematics simply could not deal with infinite or infinitesimal quantities. A whole new conceptual framework had to be invented called Calculus. I submit that "essential" nature and "necessary" nature are based on finite concepts just like Algebra and are woefully inadequate to even begin to apply any sort of logic to what God's "eternal" nature might actually look like.
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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/5/2003 4:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc
If God could have been non-loving, by what standard would he have been judged so? What ontologically GROUNDS this standard?
Iconoclast
The standard would be that He would not be alive. Without love there is no life. Existence IN HIMSELF ontologically grounds this standard. Life is the ground of love and love is the ground of life. For God to choose against love is for God to choose against HIS OWN life. But since we know God exists then we know that God chooses love. Because we know that God chooses love we know that God is alive. God says of Himself, "I will be that I will be".
So could God choose against love? Sure. That means He would choose non-existence. By the way, could WE choose against love? Yes. And I submit that also means that we are choosing non-existence. God is giving us a clear choice - to love or to NOT love - He is setting before us Life or Death. This is no different than the choice He always has. Now, how hard is it to imagine that there isn't much chance of God choosing to end His own existence? It isn't about character "solidification" (as though we will be like ice cubes) it is simply about coming to realize as deeply as God realizes that love IS life and that life is to CHOOSE love. And when I say God "realizes" I don't mean ("Oh, I get it!") I mean He REALIZES in the sense that He CREATES AS REAL - to choose love is to REALIZE, to bring into the REAL or to CREATE life.
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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/5/2003 4:29 PM (GMT -6) | | compulsion. forced. mechanical. robot.
Would everyone please
STOP THE
FRIGGIN
RHETORIC!!!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/5/2003 4:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
I really don't get this argument Meph. You are asking us to discount our actual experience of what love means and believe in some abstract argument you are making that is untestable.
If a person GENUINELY believes that post-Consummation human beings will be only have compatibilistic freedom towards being loving…then for THOSE PEOPLE, this is NOT an abstract argument. You may not believe this…JUST LIKE you may not believe that God is compabilistically free ONLY towards being loving. But for people who DO believe either or both of these things, there is reason to BROADEN our understanding of love beyond our current experience.
I think it's interesting. It would seem that you must not only say that God could have chosen other than love...but in "heaven" so can WE. WE can still choose other than love. Interesting.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/5/2003 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
In my view after the consummation we will STILL be able to choose against love. However, it will be crystal clear to us that when we do we are choosing non-existence. How many people do you suppose will, after choosing love and experiencing God's love for them decide to annihilate themselves?
Hmmm...so it's a FORCED choice, then? Heh...
PS: You KEEP talking about the Christian God as a monad. We are talking about a TRIUNE God. One essence, three persons, remember? I still haven't seen how your ideas work out in a TRINITARIAN framework. Was it possible for the Father to CHOOSE to not love the Son? Yes or no? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/5/2003 5:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/5/2003 5:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
quote:
My personal experience of God is that He chooses to love me.
Just wait a cotton picking minute. Your experience is of God CHOOSING to love you?? How in the world could you EVER know that besides God specifically telling you…”Hey, look. I could have CHOSEN not to love you, but I CHOSE to love you.” You have experienced God loving you, for sure. But on what basis could you say that you KNOW that God CHOSE to love you when he could choose otherwise? I have a hunch that you are READING IN assumptions....but we'll see.
VERY interested,
| | Back to Top | | |
| 400 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:10 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 |
|
|