 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Theology 101 According to Prof. Mephi | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 1/25/2005 8:36 AM (GMT -6) |   |
Modes of Thought said...
Corey said...The way I've framed this for my own thinking is that there is a gap between epistemology and ontology. There exists objective truth. But my knowledge of the truth is necessarily subjective and conditioned. Is this the qua/quae distinction?
Not quite, epistemology/ontology typically engage in abstractions and ideas. Talk about reality (being/ontos) and how it is represented (epistemology). Fides qua is always concrete and deeply personal. Once faith (fides qua) is abstracted from the human subject, it tends toward fides quae.
Another way of speaking the distinction is:
fides qua--The faith by which we believe (existential)
fides quae--The faith/beliefs we hold to be true (intellectual)
does that help? Thanks, that is helpful. I'm still processing when you said, "Comprehesion of the Absolute/Ultimate/Truth will elude us, so we begin by more humbly seeking whatever understanding we can muster." That's what prompted my comments about ontology/epistemology. There's going to be a gap between our fides quae and Truth. It's in this gap that I find a heightened tolerance for other positions that may disagree with my own inclinations, especially when I recognize that we both share fides qua. I hold (at least try) my fides quae much more loosely than I used to.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 1/31/2005 7:55 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Hi Modes,
Modes said...
7) If God is love, He must love satan.
This is simple logic, so Meph will be bound by it.
I see what you're driving at, but if by "simple logic" you mean that the second statement (the conclusion) invariably follows from the first statement (the premise), I'd say that's not technically true. There's actually another implied premise in between them, which is that to "be" love, entails loving everyone, which I would normally accept, as would most of us, inlcuding yourself and Meph, hence the omission. But in this weird realm where personal entities get equated with abstract qualities (e.g., "God is love"), the rules are a little different. We know that God does not love every THING -- sin and evil, for example. If Satan is equatable to either one of those in the same way that God is equatable to love, i.e. Satan is the essence of evil itself or sin itself -- "Satan is sin" -- then God can't love Satan and the opposite of the conclusion above is simple logic to which we're all bound. The question is, is Satan equatable to something God doesn't love in the same way that God is equatable to love?
Thoughts?
Bryan Post Edited (Bryan McCarthy) : 1/31/2005 7:03:04 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/31/2005 9:21 PM (GMT -6) | |
Bryan,
Good to have you around the board. I hope you enjoy things here. Couple of quick responses....
Bryan: "We know that God does not love every THING -- sin and evil, for example"
This counterexample does not hurt your original implied premise - that "to "be" love, entails loving everyone" You have given examples of "things" that God does not love, or rather one thing "sin" (evil being the same thing in my book). And following a long line of Christian thinkers, many folks would deny that evil has any existence in and of itself. Evil is not a "thing" in and of itself. It is the product of free agency, which is good ontologically, gone bad.
So we're forced to say that God does love every person, including Satan, or God does not love every person. Or you could take the position that ha Satan is not a personal being, but the essense of evil itself. I think we had a very detailed discussion about this a while back 
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 2/1/2005 11:21 AM (GMT -6) | | | Hey, Ross.
Thanks for the welcome. I do like it. A lot.
Ross said...
Bryan: "We know that God does not love every THING -- sin and evil, for example"
This counterexample does not hurt your original implied premise - that "to "be" love, entails loving everyone" You have given examples of "things" Yeah, you're completely right. This is why I had said,
Bryan said...
which I would normally accept, as would most of us, inlcuding yourself and Meph, hence the omission.
I was arguing that the one exception to this would be if Satan was equatable to the "thing" (or to be consistent with your argument, "good gone bad") of sin, i.e. "Satan is sin" which is what I think
you were driving at with,
Ross said...
Or you could take the position that ha Satan is not a personal being, but the essense of evil itself
Basically, I was just pointing out that it's not as easy as "since God is love, he must love Satan" since Satan may be the essence of evil itself. I don't know for sure if I'd say he is, but the fact that it's debatable in my mind makes that argument not "simple logic."
Ross said...
or rather one thing "sin" (evil being the same thing in my book)
Yeah, they might be; I'm not totally sure -- The reason I used them both is because though I would have stuck with evil, evil unfortunately (for the purpose of this argument) is also an adjective/adverb, whereas "sin" in only a noun. So if I say "Satan is sin," this is the same syntactically as "God is love" (love not being an adverb either), but if I say Satan is evil, though it can be read as Satan is the noun person, place, thing, or idea, "evil," most people would read it as an adverb -- that he has the quality of being evil, which is different syntactically than "God is love." So I went with sin to avoid it looking like I meant Satan is a bad guy.
Thanks for the response.
Bryan Post Edited (Bryan McCarthy) : 2/1/2005 10:27:44 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 2/1/2005 11:30 AM (GMT -6) | |
rossfadeinout said...
So we're forced to say that God does love every person, including Satan, or God does not love every person.
No, we're not "forced" to say that. Saying God embodies love ("God is love") has no implication that God loves Satan or every person for that matter.
"God is love" is agnostic on who or what God loves, imho.
Hint: No direct object in "God is love".
"God is holy", what does that "force" us to say?
 Post Edited (Laika) : 2/1/2005 10:33:56 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 2/1/2005 11:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika said...rossfadeinout said... So we're forced to say that God does love every person, including Satan, or God does not love every person. No, we're not "forced" to say that. Saying God embodies love ("God is love"  has no implication that God loves Satan or every person for that matter. "God is love" is agnostic on who or what God loves, imho. Hint: No direct object in "God is love". "God is holy", what does that "force" us to say?
Some possibly pertinent points I would add to this:
1. Love is not some kind of stuff that God is composed of; in the context of 1 John 4, "God is love" clearly means "God is perfectly loving in all his ways, and his children should be too." (Let us love one another, for love is of God and every one that loves is born of God and knows God). In other words, "God is love" is not a definition of God's person; it is instead simply a definition of God's character.
2. If we keep in mind that God is perfectly benevolent (loving) AND that His perfect benevolence clearly is revealed in scripture as HATING sin, evil, and even evildoers, etc., then it poses no problem at all for us to say God hates Satan. The most benevolent thing God can do towards Satan is to absolutely hate him and work towards his destruction. Being truly benevolent means one seeks the highest good of all, not just the highest good of each individual without consideration given for all.
Psalms 5:5 - The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
Psalms 45:7 - Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Quoted in Heb. 1 as a fulfillment of Messianic prophecy).
Deuteronomy 32:41 - If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me.
Sure seems to me like God's love (as experienced by created beings, at least) is very much conditional. Also seems to me like "God is love" makes a whole lot more sense if we keep in mind that it is God's character (and not his nature) that is being described in 1 John, in addition to the fact that God's love is primarily benevolent, and by definition must take into consideration the highest good of everyone (the universe of moral creatures). This requires that in certain cases, the highest good that God can do for some is to NOT bless but rather to curse them.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 2/1/2005 11:49:25 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:38 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 |
|
|