 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Craig/Talbott Discussion | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 3:33 PM (GMT -6) |   | The Preservation of Autonomy in the face of Universalism
I read this paper about universalism the other day...
http://server1.fandm.edu/departments/Philosophy/staticpages/Murray/Univ.pdf
Michael J. Murray "Three Versions of Universalism"
The author argues that any form of universalism is philosophically problematic because they all devalue (if not eliminate) autonomy. Autonomy was being defined as the ability to have one's free choices make a discernable, lasting influence on the course of events in the world. Autonomous choices MUST have lasting consequences. Long story short, the author effectively says this: Autonomy is only ultimately worth something if there are ETERNALLY LASTING EFFECTS related to a being that stem from earthly decisions of said being. There has to be some meaningful link between eternal states and earthly decisions. He believes that there are no eternally lasting effects of earthly decisions in universalism with respect to character development, thus it would defeat the core belief of any meaningful soul-making theodicy perspective. If everyone is "saved", REGARDLESS of the intentions and deeds of their earthly existence, then, free choice exists...but autonomy with respect to their character development doesn't. I think it's a pretty good argument.
However...
I believe the author's issue is that he makes salvation a BINARY type of thing. Either you are a lover of God or you aren't. But why think that salvation has to be thought of in such a way? Isn't incremental development possible? I think so. I believe the answer is to be found in the experiences and incremental development of the self This kind of works on a quasi-process model of the self. We are in some real way a product of our experiences. Our experiences (and development from those experiences) constitute a real part of our personhood. Experiences that we don't acquire that we genuinely could have had that we could have had form an irretrievable loss...for even if we get another chance to have the same KIND of experience, it will not be the MISSED experience. So the lost experience...and the possible growth and impact from said experience...is irretrievable.
Let's deal with love now. Let's say that God wishes for us to constantly live in and experience love. God wishes for us to allow our experiences of love to develop us, even as we change the world around us by our very living in love. Our living in love makes a positive impact on ourselves and the world. We grow and are changed as we live in love. Now, to the extent that we don't live in love at any given point in time, there is IRRETRIEVABLE loss. During that point of time we didn't love, we MISSED an opportunity to experience love and positively impact ourselves and the world. We missed a chance to grow THAT MUCH MORE in love. Creation will NEVER get that missed opportunity back. Never. It's gone. And the same ripples happen EACH MOMENT we don't live in love. What this means is everytime I miss an opportunity to love where I could have loved, I lose something of my potential growth to that extent. Creation misses out on the chance to have more love come from me. When I get to a point of self-solidification, the personhood value I will have from that time forward is dependent upon what I have done up TO that point. What this implies is that if I were to decide to live unlovingly all day tomorrow, I would end up with less total experienced love contributing to my personhood (and Creation would end up with less total experienced love)...than if I were to actually live in love tomorrow. See the concept? Cool. Let's apply.
Now, let's take three people. All the people live to be 50 years old. For sake of simplicity, let say that following the decision to live a life of love, a person is solidified. Now...Person A chose to live a life of love at age 30. Person B chose to live a life at age 49. Person C didn't choose to live a life of love until long after death. Even though Persons A, B, and C have all chosen to live lives of love with God, they do NOT have to same amount of personhood value with respect to each individual's ideal self. Person A has lived in love longer than Persons B and C, and caught MORE love experiences than either...which became a part of A's self. This means Person A contributed more positively to herself and the world than did Persons B and C. Following the logic, person C has lost out the most. And these losses are IRRETRIEVABLE...and therefore ETERNAL in duration. So, even though all of the beings end up "saved", there is still meaningful differences with respect to their ETERNAL contributions to the development of themselves and Creation...based upon earthly decisions.
Thus autonomy is preserved...and is compatible with universalism.
Oh, just in case someone thinks the idea above is completely idiotic...a similar idea..
1 Cor 3:10-15
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
Wow. Rewards and loss after the judgement...based on things done in this life. Some people may have a lot of reward. Some suffer loss (or lost opporunity?). But ALL involved are saved. Wow.
But hey, I could be wrong on everything I've said up till now.
Who cares, right?
Ok...now I've GOT to go...sheesh...
 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/16/2004 3:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Feedback. I need feedback. Please.
Just give it to me raw.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/17/2004 6:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Heck, I'll just stick to what I know...tossin' out controversial theological positions!
Any responses? Is this stuff completely illogical, stupid, or what?
What say you, St. Gregory of Nyssa and Origen?
(In unison) "Apokatastasis. YAAAAAAAAAY!"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 12/17/2004 7:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Now, let's take three people. All the people live to be 50 years old. For sake of simplicity, let say that following the decision to live a life of love, a person is solidified. Now...Person A chose to live a life of love at age 30. Person B chose to live a life at age 49. Person C didn't choose to live a life of love until long after death. Even though Persons A, B, and C have all chosen to live lives of love with God, they do NOT have to same amount of personhood value with respect to each individual's ideal self. Person A has lived in love longer than Persons B and C, and caught MORE love experiences than either...which became a part of A's self. This means Person A contributed more positively to herself and the world than did Persons B and C. Following the logic, person C has lost out the most. And these losses are IRRETRIEVABLE...and therefore ETERNAL in duration. So, even though all of the beings end up "saved", there is still meaningful differences with respect to their ETERNAL contributions to the development of themselves and Creation...based upon earthly decisions.
Thus autonomy is preserved...and is compatible with universalism.
And, this jives with the strong Biblical motif that what happens in this life matters in the next. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 12/17/2004 8:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Haven't read everything, but . . .
If I understand correctly, Tom’s take is that LFW must extend to the end because LFW is necessary to get to the relationship that defines the end. So . . . Tom would agree that, given “LFW to the end”, universalism may be a possibility (i.e., it is logically possible that all could choose God in the end--in fact, universalism may be "historically" possible, but extreeeeeeeemly unlikely), but the bottom line is there is NO LOGICAL WAY to affirm a belief that this WILL in fact happen. If Meph wants disagree with this (given “LFW to the end”), I’d have to say I agree with Tom.
But, if Meph were to argue simply that there are other purposes that, in the end, outweigh LFW, I’d have to remain agnostic. While I can see lots of reasons to affirm that LFW is a big part of the divine/human relationship, I don’t see how we can know enough about that relationship to be absolutely sure that there are not other purposes that outweigh LFW in the end.
And, I think this agnosticism can be consistent with a strongly libertarian take on Providence and soteriology.
. . .
Ok, there you go Meph, (I reserve the right to back track on everything I just said . . . )
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/17/2004 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | | VERY good point, JET. Check this out, y'all. Why it's always important to read the notes of a book.
1.I contend that if LOVE is truly the END GOAL of Creation and God's very nature, then libertarian freedom is NOT the end-all be all...nor can it be.
and...
2. I contend that the argument of the METAPHYSICAL NECESSITY of the possiblity of hell...is a WASH...or at best a weak-a$$ argument.
A note from Doc in Satan and the Problem of Evil. In "A Separate Reality" the chapter about a hellish existence. Page 343. Note #5
"On the enduring good of free will, even when it has irrevocably chosen evil, see Richard Creel, Divine Impassibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 141-43. In order to avoid the problem of hell eternally frustrating the love of God, Creel supposes that freedom is the goal of God's creation, not simply the means towards the goal of love. In my estimation, this move is unnecessary and ill-advised. It protects God from pain by undermining his love."
I believe that Creel may have saw the issue. Given what you've have to say:
in God's omnibenevolent mind, it is MUCH, MUCH WORSE to put divine constraints on creaturely freedom such that people could freely continue to resist God for ages upon ages, but NOT eternally...than it is to:
1) have at least one (but probably many more) sentient being be eternally damned and separated from God
and...
2) have God (if ONLY God) endure NEVER-ENDING pain and sorrow over the loss of those persons...
...is it any wonder that Creel would say that FREEDOM must be the overall telos. It's the ONLY thing that could make sense. If FREEDOM were the end-all, be-all about why God would create...then OF COURSE, we could let people destroy themselves. And even better, in freely choosing to destroy themselves, they are extoling the overall telos! Creel's view would EASILY be reconcilable with any view of hell.
In my opinion, Doc's response is insufficient for the gravity of the reasoning. If LOVE is the main thing God's after, and all we are saying is that love must be freely chosen...EVEN THOUGH FREEDOM IS ALWAYS CONSTRAINED ULTIMATELY BY DIVINE WILLING and CAPABILITY...then it would seem that the omnibenevolent God would do ANYTHING IN HIS POWER to get EVERYONE to enjoy and participate in love. Would it be this God who would allow eternal separation from God when it could have been avoided???
Think about it. If God's ESSENCE is love...and God's PURPOSE FOR CREATION is love...then is what I am proposing so unthinkable??
Love must be chosen. Meaning the loving action ITSELF cannot be COERCED or PUPPETEERED. (That IS what it means!) Because of this, LFW must exist. God creates a sentient beings such that choices for or against God (which ALL have eternal consequences!) definitely come from the free will of the creature. But he creates them such that in their innermost being, they have an aspect of themselves, wherin lies the undeniable facticity of creaturely finitude before God. This constitution of being along with the ETERNALITY and INFINITITY of God ASSURES that, at some point in time, a limit of resistance will be reached such that perpetual inner disonnance is no longer able to be maintained with maximum intensity. We are finite beings, after all. A CHOICE to "come to oneself" is inevitable, though not necessary...and the long trek back begins for those who have hit "rock bottom"
Now, given LOVE as the PRIMARY TELOS for creation adn Love being God's essence...what do you think?
-------------------------
Also let's note this. This metaphysical argument for the eternality of hell seems like a HALF-HEARTED CONCESSION for Doc. On page 326, he tries to argue from TWTs 4&5. It's very obvious, however, that he doesn't hold much stock in it.
"As I argued previously, the nature of morally responsible freedom entails that an agent's potential for good must be proportionate to its potential for evil. This potential, I further suggested, must be irrevocable (TWT 4 and 5). If these insights are valid, one could perhaps further argue that since agents enjoy a potential to choose love for eternity them must, by necessity, possess a proportionate capacity to choose it's opposite for eternity. In other words, if opportunity and risk necessarily go hand in hand, the the opportunity for eternal gain must entail the risk of eternal loss. Hence the risk God must take in creating creatures with the capacity for eternal heaven is that he thereby creates them with the capacity for eternal hell.
If this argument is sound, it answers the most common philosophical objection raised against the doctrine of eternal, conscious suffering, namely that such an irreversible state is incompatible with the universal loving character of God.
---
Brief Digression: TWTs 4 and 5 do NOT mandate such a metaphysical limitation. All they would mandate is an agent's potential for eternal gain MUST be commensurate with the potential for eternal loss. (That's why Doc can be so hype on annihiliationism as a possiblity.) That's ALL it would mandate...and guess what. That's JUST what my "autonomy" idea DOES. It shows that our potential for eternal GAIN is commensurate with our potential for eternal LOSS! Why do I think this is important? Because in a note on the same page, Doc says...(emphases mine)
"In a similar vein, [Jerry] Walls argues that the eternality of hell is necessary if our moral choices are to be ultimately significant (Hell, pp. 136-37)"
Do you see? Do you SEE?? Basically, these people are arguing for the eternality of hell on the basis of how to explain MORAL AUTONOMY in light of idea of everlasting creaturely existence! And they think you need an eternal hell to do it...
BUT...YOU...DON'T!!!!!!
Y'all see this, right?
Let's continue with my original point: Doc doesn't hold much stock in his own argument. Continuing to page 327:
Why then does God allow any to suffer eternally? Perhaps because this possibility had to be part of the irrevocable freedom and eternal potentiality given to humans. Hell is therefore a risk God had to take if his goal was to populate his kindgom with agents who genuinely chose to be there.
I confess that I am myself not entirely convinced that this argument is valid. I consider it a plausible explanation of the scriptural teaching that those who reject God suffer eternally. If I did not have scriptural grounds for thinking that people suffer eternally, however, I could not confidently conclude this simply on the grounds that the potential to choose God eternally must be balanced by an opposite potential to reject him. One could rather argue that the possibility of choosing eternal life is balanced by the possibility of choosing eternal death, not eternal suffering.
He probably didn't buy this argument when he wrote this. He wanted to be an annihilationist SOOOOO bad, it seems. You can look at the argumentation he provides for it!
Anyways, this is just to show y'all. The idea of the METAPHYSICAL NECESSITY of Hell is not as solid as many like to think. Doc held this position for SCRIPTURAL GROUNDS PRIMARILY...not PHILOSOPHICAL. And for the "scriptural grounds" part, take a read of Talbott's "The Inescapable Love of God"...and see what you think about his biblical exegesis. You may be surprised what you think.
In the face of another plausible idea that RETAINS...
1) Creaturely, irrevocable freedom
2) Genuine autonomy
3) Post-mortem conscious suffering for those choosing against God
AND...
4) FREELY CHOSEN love and solidification towards God after death
...perhaps we should rethink some things. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/17/2004 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Clarity on TWT #1
All this means is that, outside of the case of self-solidification into a totally loving character, love must come from a being who genuinely has the power to choose NOT to love.
That's really all it means.
Now...
What I've been saying:
After hitting "absolute rock bottom" (or the big turning point), a person begins acting upon their essential nature and ACTUALIZING their creaturely reality before God. This is not to say that they INSTANTLY become solidified in totally loving. They are still making choices! But they are on the slippery slope, as it were, towards that end. It's an inevitable, though not necessary ending to a finite existence of attempted self-rule.
See how this view DOESN'T abridge TWT #1, Tom? | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 12/17/2004 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
After hitting "absolute rock bottom" (or the big turning point), a person begins acting upon their essential nature and ACTUALIZING their creaturely reality before God. This is not to say that they INSTANTLY become solidified in totally loving. They are still making choices! But they are on the slippery slope, as it were, towards that end. It's an inevitable, though not necessary ending to a finite existence of attempted self-rule.
Are you saying that a creature has LFW even if the end choice is inevitable, so long as the question of how and when is left to the creature?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/17/2004 4:02 PM (GMT -6) | | JET:
quote:
Are you saying that a creature has LFW even if the end choice is inevitable, so long as the question of how and when is left to the creature?
I'm saying that a creature has LFW with respect to a choice, if it is genuinely in the ability of the being to choose otherwise. With my idea, the creature always has the choice whether to love or not. There is just strong internal (the existential hunger) and external pressure (God's increasing presence) that influences that choice towards a good conclusion. The act of loving would NEVER be coerced AGAINST THE WILL of the subject, nor would it be PUPPETEERED by God. And doesn't this make sense? One cannot coerce LOVE, only OBEDIENCE. Love is not obedience and cannot be brought about by any form of torture, anyway.
Let's remember. Autonomy DOES exists. Beings ARE free to determine their ETERNAL STATES as well as the ETERNAL STATE of Creation at the end. What more freedom than that do we need?
If God REALLY wants everyone saved...if LOVE (not FREEDOM) really is the telos of this whole thing...how could God do any less?
-------------------
Ross,
DEFINITELY check out the book. See what you think! He makes, I believe, one of the best exegetical arguments possible for universalism. Doc might agree with me on that.
I would favor universalism over annihilationism because, in annihilationism, DEATH WINS. Think about it. If cessation of creaturely existence (a form of death) winds up having ETERNAL DURATION, how would it truly be said that there was total victory against DEATH?? The only real way that DEATH (as a phenomenon) would be no more is if EVERYONE ended up with God at the ABSOLUTE END OF THINGS. Death would then TRULY be "destroyed"!
--------------------------------
JEE:
quote:
In any case, it is quite problematic for the universalistic and the annihilationistic views that the very same adjective, "eternal," is used to describe both the state of the resurrected righteous (eternal life) and the state of the resurrected unrighteous (eternal punishment) :
Matthew 25:46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Hell is just an uncomfortable thing to contemplate for anyone; however, as Boyd points out in God of the Possible, just because a belief may be "scary" doesn't make it false.
Completely respect the position, John. I'd like you to take a look at the Talbott book too, if you have time. The aionion discussion is VERY important.
------------------------------
Here's the thing. If there are some reasons (theological, philosophical, scriptural) that you really think this doesn't work, let's lay them out. My thought is that if the all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God can NOT ultimately save all people, it must be for a DARN good reason. I don't believe (anymore) that Doc's theses really end up providing that reason.
So...let's continue...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 12/17/2004 5:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: Again, what is being proposed...
Given God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence (and all that those things entail), it would be impossible for God to create a sentient being whose ESSENTIAL NATURE allows for the possibility of the worst possible state of affairs for a sentient being, ie. ETERNAL, NEVER-ENDING separation from God. God could no more do this than God could create an inherently completely evil being!
JET: Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Doc is right and it is not possible for God to create a sentient being that is free (i.e., capable of love) yet whose essential nature does not entail the possibility of ultimately and finally rejecting God.
In that (hypothetical) case, are you absolutely sure that there is no reason whatsoever why God wouldn't create sentient beings capable of love anyway?
Whatever happen to theistic bootlicking?
Thanks,
JET | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/18/2004 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | JET:
quote:
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Doc is right and it is not possible for God to create a sentient being that is free (i.e., capable of love) yet whose essential nature does not entail the possibility of ultimately and finally rejecting God.
In that (hypothetical) case, are you absolutely sure that there is no reason whatsoever why God wouldn't create sentient beings capable of love anyway?
Oh, sure. There would be reasons, but they would not, IMHO, be coherent with the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Creator whose MAIN OVERRIDING, OVERARCHING PURPOSE for Creation was LOVE. Why? I cannot concieve of this type of God operating in such a utilitarian manner on such a devastating possiblity i.e. eternal separation from God. Again, the God we speak of would have to say that the potential (actually, inevitable...thinking of the scope of God's project and assuming your ideas) loss of sentient beings was "worth it" to Him overall. This would be QUANTIFICATION of sentient life. If you want an omelette (A Bride God can love), you gotta break some eggs (possible individuals eternally lost). If God truly does value every individual sentient being as if they were the ONLY ONE...then I cannot see this occuring.
I would think that a God so deeply empathetic with all sentient beings would rather NOT CREATE AT ALL than to have such a disastrous, ETERNAL state of affairs. A triune God that could have lived JUST AS WELL without a Creation, completely enjoying loving and being loved WITHIN Godself for eternity, would NOT objectify individuals for such a IRREVERSABLE, ETERNAL, DEVASTATING state of affairs.
Bottom line: Can you conceive of a omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Being who loves EACH INDIVIDUAL BEING WITH ALL HIS HEART and genuinely WISHES THE BEST FOR THEM...being willing to sacrifice the inevitable ETERNAL DAMNATION of at least one being (given the HUGE scope of the creational enterprise)...when said being wouldn't NEED to??
Remember, we say that God didn't NEED Creation. God could have done without it just fine. So would it happen?
All this said, YES...there could be a reason why God would create sentient beings even knowing the inevitability of at least one person being eternally separated from God. And if that was the case, fine.
But...
1. I'd have to dismiss the idea that LOVE was the primary reason for Creation. I'd say it was A reason...but not THE reason. I'd HAVE to say that there was some other motivation like "freedom" or "glorification idea" or something like that. But not love.
1. I'd also have to modify my view of LOVE a bit. Love obviously does not do ALL THAT IT CAN for others on a primary level. It can do all that it can, as contextualized under primarily SELF-ORIENTED purposes. In other words, love would ALWAYS be conditional. Never unconditional. And though this wouldn't work necessarily for human beings, it works for God because he's God.
This is how I got my theistic bootlicking to work before. Like Creel, I didn't believe the love was the MAIN, OVERARCHING reason for Creation. And like some theologians, I believed that the glorification of God ALWAYS contextualized God's loving actions...not the other way around.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/18/2004 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's the thing...
If we want someone to really believe that...
1) God is love. Not God "loves". God IS love.
2) God loves all people like they were the only one that existed.
3) God wants the absolute best for all beings
4) God would like to enjoy each person's love for eternity
5) God would want to do everything possible to move each person into an love relationship with Him that will last forever.
6) The MAIN, OVERRIDING REASON that God created in the first place was to love and be loved by others.
...we've go to think through the implications.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/18/2004 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
3) God wants the absolute best for all beings
I've read two _different_ views.
One is the "River of Fire" view.
The other is by Rev. Patrick Henry Reardon. Reardon explains in the 01/10/2004 Radio program, "Can a loving God cast people into Hell?" that out of LOVE God will make a place "away" from God's presence (which is of course just an expression, as there is no place where God isn't!) because that is what they want. (So, hell becomes a place chosen; like the cell locked from the inside expression.)
"God never sends any body to hell unless that person really insist on going there. ... Its the whole business of the Holy Spirit to keep human beings from going to hell. But people really do, because they are free to, people really do resist the Holy Spirit."
01/10/2004
Can a loving God cast people into Hell?
Rev. Patrick Henry Reardon
http://www.receive.org/index.php?menu=3&submenu=23&id=230
-
Thought y'all might want to hear.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/18/2004 9:25 AM (GMT -6) | |
Rev. Patrick Henry Reardon
http://www.receive.org/index.php?menu=3&submenu=23&id=230
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/18/2004 1:55 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
quote:
One is the "River of Fire" view.
The other is by Rev. Patrick Henry Reardon. Reardon explains in the 01/10/2004 Radio program, "Can a loving God cast people into Hell?" that out of LOVE God will make a place "away" from God's presence (which is of course just an expression, as there is no place where God isn't!) because that is what they want. (So, hell becomes a place chosen; like the cell locked from the inside expression.)
"God never sends any body to hell unless that person really insist on going there. ... Its the whole business of the Holy Spirit to keep human beings from going to hell. But people really do, because they are free to, people really do resist the Holy Spirit."
Thanks, POW. I remember the River of Fire idea. We've actually talked about this before...
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=778
I think I understand the concept, at least.
(Digression: For those of you who want to read the "River of Fire" thing... I recommend it.
http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm
I don't know how people would feel about some of the ideas behind a view of God that Kalomiros seems to assent to. He states (emphases mine):
So in the language of the Holy Scriptures, "just" means good and loving. We speak of the just men of the Old Testament. That does not mean that they were good judges but that they were kind and God-loving people. When we say that God is just, we do not mean that He is a good judge Who knows how to punish men equitably according to the gravity of their crimes, but on the contrary, we mean that He is kind and loving, forgiving all transgressions and disobediences, and that He wants to save us by all means, and never requites evil for evil. 22 In the first volume of the Philokalia there is a magnificent text of Saint Anthony which I must read to you here:
"God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God's goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.23 "
Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know of many RELATIONAL THEOLOGIANS (some of which are open view theists) that would go with this conception of God. This needs to be understood however, because it ties closely to WHY the River of Fire may work for people who believe like Kalomiros. Would this same idea work for a person who believes that God IS influenced by human beings, and DOES rejoice over us? Hmmm...]
I understand the idea. I believe that in Satan and the Problem of Evil, Doc comes pretty close to this view with his "A Separate Reality" chapter. Same essential story, as I see it. God respects freedom. At the end of this thing, when God's light and love encompasses everything, some people won't want to be with God...and so hell ends up being a PLACE/ATTITUDE that reflects such. In allowing people to be there, he is "giving them what they really want" out of love and "respect" (Kalomiros uses this thought too) for their creaturely free dignity.
I can understand why people would like this view. It's all on the people, not God. However, this goes back to CREEL's view making more sense to me. In this worldview, it would seem that FREEDOM, not LOVE, is the main issue of Creation. Freedom ends up being paramount...such that even skewed, dysfunctional wishes leading to an ETERNAL, HORRENDOUS END must be accepted and not intervened into in any way. Interesting.
"Hey, I'm going to create beings that have the possibility to completely deceive and pervert themselves beyond any repair...and subsequently live an ETERNITY in a miserable existence. And given the scope, of my creational plans, at least one of these beings WILL fall into that existence. But they'll be exhibiting their free will...and I will love and respect that free will."
Sorry. The ONLY WAY that I could get with this is to do like Creel and say that FREEDOM (or glorification, or whatever), but not LOVE, is the goal of all creation. That's the ONLY way it makes sense to me.
I could see how a dispassionate, unchanging, immutable God who "neither rejoices, nor gets angry", who does NOT "feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions" could do this.
But...
Not a responsive God who loves, cries over, chastises, rejoices over, and cares for each individual sentient life like it was the only one in existence...like a mother cares for a newborn child in a manger.
With all due respect...no way, buddy.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lomman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 14
| Posted 12/18/2004 2:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Also, as Talbott (and others) have pointed out, the whole idea of hell being a place "locked from the inside" (Lewis' The Great Divorce comes to mind) where people, though never able to attain true happiness in the presence of God, still prefer its dreary discomfort to the unbearable pain of submitting to God (and may even grow to feel quite "at home" there) simply does not do justice to the Biblical description of hell being a fiery place of agonizing pain and torment for those thrust there. The more I think about it, hell is either going to be an incredibly cruel punishment inflicted on the impenitent by a very vindictive God, or a place of severe, but ultimately merciful, correction by which those still in rebellion may finally "come to a knowledge of the truth" and be brought to repentance.
Lomman
"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to promote justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/18/2004 2:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Lonman (emphases mine):
quote:
Also, as Talbott (and others) have pointed out, the whole idea of hell being a place "locked from the inside" (Lewis' The Great Divorce comes to mind) where people, though never able to attain true happiness in the presence of God, still prefer its dreary discomfort to the unbearable pain of submitting to God (and may even grow to feel quite "at home" there) simply does not do justice to the Biblical description of hell being a fiery place of agonizing pain and torment for those thrust there. The more I think about it, hell is either going to be an incredibly cruel punishment inflicted on the impenitent by a very vindictive God, or a place of severe, but ultimately merciful, correction by which those still in rebellion may finally "come to a knowledge of the truth" and be brought to repentance.
YES. YES. YES. YES. YES.
Lord, be praised. YES.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/18/2004 3:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Is this making sense? If not, someone PLEASE show me how it's not.
Cause this is making a whole lot of sense to me...maybe too much.
Hey, I've got it. How about someone talk to me about how dangerous this foolish doctrine is...and give me some indications of the danger. Or some of the logical reasons it doesn't work. Or something like that. Oh, and make it REAL dangerous ramifications. Not the old political "you won't be able to be in ETS" or "well, this might hurt the missionary effort" reasons either. Try something else.
Seriously, I want to know what's wrong with this, why God wouldn't approve of me believing such drivel, etc. etc.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2004 2:41 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2004 7:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm...figure I better say this...for the "truthkeepers" out there. This is THEOLOGICAL speculation. I'm still THINKING THIS THROUGH. Just like I always do. Just because I'm really about this discussion doesn't mean I'm totally sold. If you wanna help, do like I ask and give me some good arguments AGAINST what I've been discussing.
So before you wanna start trippin', calling Dave Hunt, or putting logs to a heretic-burnin' fire, check yo'self.
For all the haters. Mad love to you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/19/2004 9:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph, any thoughts stem from the other guy's presentation?
quote:
"God never sends any body to hell unless that person really insist on going there. ... Its the whole business of the Holy Spirit to keep human beings from going to hell. But people really do, because they are free to, people really do resist the Holy Spirit."
01/10/2004
Can a loving God cast people into Hell?
Rev. Patrick Henry Reardon
http://www.receive.org/index.php?menu=3&submenu=23&id=230
Unless you don't have time to listen.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
| 72 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:59 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 |
|
|