ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY, by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos      http://www.vic.com/~tscon/pelagia/htm/b15.en.orthodox_spirituality.01.htm#or1

THE STRUGGLE WITH GOD, by Paul Evdokimov      http://www.tuirgin.com/files/texts/orthodoxy/Evdokimov/StruggleWithGod/html/

http://jbburnett.com/resources/evdokimov_strugglewGod1966.pdf

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 5/1/2007 9:33:28 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (MANY) : 5/2/2007 12:05:26 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (ONE) : 5/2/2007 7:13:52 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (ONE) : 5/2/2007 7:49:07 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (ONE) : 5/2/2007 11:10:18 AM (GMT-5)

One-

I’m far more sure about what I want to affirm than I am about what my affirmations require me to deny. So when you ask me if it’s my view that we should NOT seek this or should NOT want that, I’m very cautious. But if you ask me what we should seek and want, I’m more confident.

I will say this though, and I’m just speaking for myself. I would never tell you what existential sort of telos you should hope for. But I will say that I don’t think “I” should want or seek to be less than a fully individual self who perceives his distinctiveness over and against God in addition to whatever unity or oneness is perceived and enjoyed.

I’d never say we should NOT seek to be one with God and should NOT want to be his vessels, or be completely yielded, or completely want what God wants. I think we all agree that human beings will be one with God, totally yielded, completely in love and in tune with God. I don’t know exactly what that will look like metaphysically speaking.

You describe my view as wanting to maintain a certain “separation” between us and God. I would say “distinction.” “Separation” suggests a relational distance that needs eliminating, and I don’t think there will be any relational separation. “Distinction,” however, sounds like a healthy sort of differentiating that makes interpersonal relations meaningful. I think there is and will forever be a metaphysical distinction between the human individual and personal ‘ousia’ and the divine. But there's more. Earlier you granted the distinction between the divine 'ousia' or essence and the human individual 'ousia'. But you added that we are the divine energies of God, and since the divine energies are not the divine 'essence', there's no problem. If the 'house' analogy of Aristotle worked for you, then notice what I said there. The divine energies that ground and define a human being don't constitute the 'ousia' of the human individual, which is not reducible to the divine energies. Some THING, some 'ousia' "comes into being" through the activity of the divine energies which is itself NOT the divine energies. That was the whole point of Aristotle's analogy.

I’m a bit uncomfortable with your summarizing my view in terms of what you think I have to deny. Should we not want to be “only instruments through which the divine disposition is all that’s manifested”? Well, I’m not sure. That depends on what you mean, and as close as we are I fear we’re still using words differently. “Instruments” sounds a bit impersonal. I’d never describe my end telos in “robotic” terms either. It goes against everything I think the biblical story encourages us to hope for. And if “all” we are is instantiations of the one divine dispositional reality, then I don’t see that your affirmation of the individual unique ‘person’ is at all meaningful. We have to be more than JUST an instantiation of X if our ‘ousia’ is a “person” that is a non-X ‘ousia’.

This is where we keep missing each other. It seems that for you our unique individual person, our individual ‘ousia’, is just an “instrument” for some other person (God) to instantiate himself, like a hammer instantiates the carpenter. And that just so grates against me, D. I don’t think we’re “just” or “only” anything. So when you use that language it sets me up for a disagreement. I don’t think you’re being imprecise either. That’s part of the problem. You really do see our telos, the end state of the human individual personal ‘ousia’, in instrumental terms. I think that’s a mistake…for me. If it empowers you to love more, go for it. But it tends to depersonalize things for me.

I’ll say this. Whatever aims or desires God has for me, I’ll be happy to embrace them. I honestly don’t think God will be interested at all in detailing the minutia of our every move. You keep saying we should submit and obey the subjective aims of God. Nobody will disagree with that, One. Where some positive direction is prescribed by the Spirit, of course we’ll submit and obey. But dude, that’s not our debate. Our debate is over whether or not God will be interested in so detailing us, whether he’ll have subjective aims that cover every possible move we make. I’m inclined to think that once we’re compatibilistically loving, there’s no need for a divine management of the universe that prescribes what the universe’s next move should be and on and on throughout eternity. God’s subjective aim, I suggest, is to let us go to create our own beauty. It all reflects him because THAT is the sort of person God is.

We have very different dreams. We use a lot of the same language to describe it, but because we imagine very different end states, we’re really describing different things.

--------------------------

One: You are saying that God gets pleasure from the WAY we freely use our relative autonomous determination. That is to say, part of the pleasure that God gets from our choices is related to the extent that relatively autonomous beings are participating in the emergence of the choices, not only the outcome of those choices.

Tom: Yes, the manner in which we determine our choices, that is, that very fact that it’s not God who determines them but rather us, shapes and defines the outcomes and in so doing gives them their ‘personal’ quality which constitutes the pleasure that God seeks. God’s not looking to assign subjective aims for every choice. Why would God need to do that for persons who are unfailingly loving? Why would he want to? The whole question of “submission” and “obedience” that you bring up seems strangely alien in such a context. Obey? Obey what?

One: Here’s my issue: If a person ACTIVELY uses their relative autonomy to become a proverbial SLAVE to God’s desires because that’s what bring them the most satisfaction in God, then how is God NOT getting pleasure from the mode of choosing?

Tom: I can’t say that God wouldn’t get any pleasure from such a thing. I’m just saying that I can easily imagine a perfect being like God getting far greater pleasure from more diversely functioning human beings.

One: It sounds like you’re saying: In the end, we can choose any form of loving out perfect love that we want…EXCEPT being “instruments through which the divine disposition is all that’s manifested.”

Tom: Naw, I wouldn’t try to argue that God somehow locks the metaphysical door on our freely choosing that (and I’m still not sure on what you mean by that, but anyhow…). But if I had to offer an opinion, I’d say it seems to represent a less-pleasing-to-God arrangement than one in which the human individual ‘ousia’ remains a distinctly creative center of volition.

One: So, I CAN have my wish then?

Tom: I dunno! I mean, we can wish whatever we want. Whether or not we’ll get what we wish is up to God. Will you be disappointed if God says, “Dwayne, Son, that’s so beautiful of you to want to be an absolute robot of mine. I just love the heart of surrender that you have. Can I tell you what will most make me happy and so fulfill your wish? You want that, right?” [Dwayne answers, “Yes."] “So alright then, Son,” says God, “I’d like you to create and draw your own picture for me, then color it in any way you like! Take the rest of eternity to do it.” Are we to reply, "No, God. I don't want to create on my own. I want YOU to tell me what to draw, what size paper to use, whether to paint with watercolor, acrylic or oil, and which colors to use and in what quantities. I only want to make ONE decision that's uniquely MINE, and that decision is to give up making such decisions, to religuish the sort of independent choosing you're asking me to do. From now on, you make all the choices, God, and I'll just do what you say." D, bro, come on now. Do you really think God created us for this kind of relationship? I don't see it. Just don't see it.

Tom

Post Edited (MANY) : 5/2/2007 6:33:38 PM (GMT-5)

Yep.

Careful what kind of imagery you are implying, D.

One: I guess that I want to relate to the Father like Jesus did.

Tom: But the Son and the Father are one and the same ‘ousia’. We are not of the same ‘ousia’ as God. Don’t you think that means we ought to be very careful about drawing straight lines from Jesus to us?

One: What kind of "freedom" did Jesus want from the Father's will?

Tom: We’re talking about final states, right? Okay, I don’t want freedom FROM the Father’s will. Who wants that? I want to will what the Father wants, just like you do. We just disagree on what sort of end state God wills. You think God has specific aims that prescribe one right move for everything. I can imagine that in a fallen world like ours, ignorant and unglorified believers would need more hands-on management or direction, kinda like children learning to walk around sharp objects or to ride a bike. But in the eternal state? When we’re compatibilistically loving and pure? God wants ALL novelty to be determined/created by him alone for all eternity? Dude, come on.

Tom

Post Edited (MANY) : 5/2/2007 9:49:52 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (ONE) : 5/3/2007 1:36:13 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (MANY) : 5/3/2007 8:56:08 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (ONE) : 5/3/2007 11:48:15 AM (GMT-5)