 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/25/2005 5:30 PM (GMT -6) |   | I would sincerely like to hear how Doc's "ascribing unsurpassable worth" definition of agape love is possible. Below are some comments I made to my good friend sparknheart (Mark) regarding this. Thanks.
sparknheart said...
Life should not be a stagnating walk with the Lord.
I agree completely, and have never intended to indicate otherwise.
sparknheart said...
We are either moving closer towards God, or away from him each day in our preparation for death.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> Hopefully, as we grow/stretch in Christ’s love each day, we are called to reflect that love towards others.
It’s unsurpassable at that moment or point in time, since it’s all the goodness we can give at the time, because it's all we have received from the goodness of God to date.
Okay, but if it's unsurpassable, it can't be improved upon, or else it would by definition be "surpassable.
sparknheart said...
It’s true, only God is the absolute source of good, without Him we are nothing. God created us by blowing life into nothing but dirt. But, he also created us in his image, the imago Dai.
With that said, we all have worth to God, enough for his son to die for us. Being in Christ, it is our responsibility to reflect Christ’s love to the least of those.
It does not necessarily mean we are to tolerate man’s sin; “tolerance” towards sin has NOT ever been revealed in God character.
With that said we are not God and can not pass judgment on our fellow man's heart or intention. But on the flip side, it wouldn’t be in love to leave our fellow brothers/sisters dead in their transgressions either. I agree with Violin For God, look up to God and not down on others. In doing so, I hope we can reflect God’s unsurpassable worth to each other.
I agree.
sparknheart said...
Maybe you can ask Greg for a better explanation, I think he coined the phrase.
I have, and he just seemed to me to get irritated at the question and not really give an answer.
The problem, as I see it, is not our strength to give love (which strength, I of course agree differs from person to person). The issue I have is the perfectly impossible and illogical task of "ascribing unsurpassable worth" to everyone. To do so is simply impossible; if, for instance, I ascribe UNsurpassable worth to you, I have by definition not ascribed unsurpassable worth to everyone else, most of all, GOD. This is why to my understanding we can only ascribe worth relative to God to any created being.
As another example, scripturally speaking I am called to show my wife far more love than any other woman, even more than my own mother (the whole leavin' and cleavin' thing). But even then, if I were to ascribe UNsurpassable worth to my wife, I would by definition be guilty of idolatry, for God alone is worthy of "unsurpassable worth."
See what I'm sayin?
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 1/27/2005 8:22:27 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/25/2005 5:51 PM (GMT -6) | | John:
The problem, as I see it, is not our strength to give love (which strength, I of course agree differs from person to person). The issue I have is the perfectly impossible and illogical task of "ascribing unsurpassable worth" to anyone but God. To do so is simply impossible; if, for instance, I ascribe UNsurpassable worth to you, I have by definition not ascribed unsurpassable worth to everyone else, most of all, GOD. This is why to my understanding we can only ascribe worth relative to God to any created being.
As another example, scripturally speaking I am called to show my wife far more love than any other woman, even more than my own mother (the whole leavin' and cleavin' thing). But even then, if I were to ascribe UNsurpassable worth to my wife, I would by definition be guilty of idolatry, for God alone is worthy of "unsurpassable worth."
See what I'm sayin
Hmmm...let me try. From what I believe to be Doc's point of view.
God always ascribes unsurpassable worth to Godself...because God HAS unsurpassable worth. God is just acknowledging the TRUTH of the matter. This means ALL the persons of the Trinity, including the Son, have this worth. In God the Son dying a hellish death for humanity, God did something unheard of...essentially ascribing unsurpassable worth to human beings! How so? Doc's logic is that one can tell what something is worth by how much one is willing to pay for it. Since God felt like we sinners were WORTH the incarnation, life, and death of his Son, we MUST be worth it! God is the arbiter of reality and the ULTIMATE definer of all worth.
Now, if God the Son is to be ascribes unsurpassable worth...and THIS WORTH is the cost PAID for the redemption of sinners, then the logic stands that God must ascribe "unsurpassable worth"(ie the worth of God, the Son) to sinners. Else he wouldn't have done it. And if God ascribed this worth NOT to a conglomeration called "humanity" but EACH HUMAN BEING as an individual, then it stands that God, by his SOVEREIGN, OMNISCIENT desire bestows upon EACH HUMAN BEING "unsurpassable worth"
And who are WE to say to God that he can't ascribe a certain amount of worth to something??
The state "unsurpassable worth" only means that no greater worth can be conceived. Now, if our worth is found in HOW MUCH our God was willing to give for us...and God gave himself, we are being ASCRIBED unsurpassable worth. That is, we were paid for with a price of which NO GREATER WORTH can be conceived.
This may help you. God is the ONLY being that has unsurpassable worth as an INNATE CHARACTERISTIC of God's ESSENTIAL EXISTENCE. God's unsurpassable worth is based on the fact that God IS. Our unsurpassable worth is DERIVATIVE in the sense of being ASCRIBED to us by God.
The Creator/creature distinction you seek lies at the GROUND of the worth. God's is primary, essential, and necessary. Ours is derivative, non-essential, and contingent. Idolatry would be 1) denying God's sovereignty, via not accepting God's chosen ascription of worth to us as being true, and 2) considering our "unsurpassable" level of worth to be INNATE to our own being and NOT the gracious will of our Creator. Doc would probably say that to the extent that we DO NOT ascribe unsurpassable worth to all other human beings, we are committing BOTH acts inherent in idolatry.
Does this help? 
Later,
"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
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/25/2005 4:55:01 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/25/2005 8:03 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Meph,
How do you account for the fact that loving God is the FIRST and GREATEST commandment? Doesn't that entail what Christ meant when He said that he who does not hate his father, mother, etc. wasn't WORTHY of HIM? Doesn't that passage have real implications about differences in the worthiness of persons?
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 1/25/2005 7:28:57 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/25/2005 9:23 PM (GMT -6) | | This is an interesting topic. Thanks for clearly articulating the "humans have unsurpassable worth" position, Meph.
Here are some of my questions:
Why think that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son ascribed unsurpassable worth to humans? Sure, it does ascribe some worth to us, even a lot, but infinite worth? If so, how does that follow?
Did God really pay an infinite price in sacrificing His Son? And in what sense was it a sacrifice given that Jesus did rise from the dead? It wasn't like God the Son was giving up His very existence (or his deity) to save us. I have no idea how to quantify it, but I'm curious as to how we come to the conclusion that the price paid was unsurpassable. What assumptions does one need to derive that conclusion? Are those assumptions correct? Why couldn't it be the case the God's "sacrifice" (however we understand it) was finite, though very large?
If we do finally conclude that God paid an infinite price in saving us, why would that translate into each individual person having infinite worth? Perhaps God was willing to pay an infinite price to have a Church, a Bride for His Son. If so, then it seems we could conclude that the Church collectively has infinite worth. How do we get from there to the idea that God ascribes this same infinite worth to me or to you? Would God have sent His Son to pay an infinite price if He only thought one person would repent and be saved? If we think so, what grounds our confidence that He would?
Moreover, if each individual human does have infinite worth, this seems to lead to conceptual problems. On the one hand, it seems intuitive that if a person has a forced choice between saving the life of one individual or saving the lives of ten, that he should save the ten. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," as Commander Spock would say. On the other hand, if each individual has infinite worth, then it seems we can have no compelling grounds for chosing one way or the other for
infinity + infinity + ... + infinity = infinity
Finally, if each individual has infinite worth and so does God, then each individual has the same worth as God Himself. Sure, God's infinite worth is intrinsic, whereas ours is extrinsic, but if God values my neighbor as much as He values Himself, then it seems that I should have an equal obligation to value my neighbor as I do to value God. But, as jefscott points out, how does this jive with the fact that the first and greatest commandment is to love God first above all else?
Food for thought. 
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/25/2005 10:44 PM (GMT -6) | | |
This is an interesting topic! I was having some thoughts while in the shower, so I thought I'd run out here and put them down. So this may not be totally coherent 
The phrase "ascribing unsurpassable worth to others" comes from Doc's definition of love, if I can remember correctly where i first heard the term. And I think that the phrase can be freed from the charge of logical inconsistency, at least the way I look at it.
When it comes to persons, I do not believe that value or worth is quantitative. Let me give a funny example. Sometimes Katie will say, "how much do you love me?" My reply is usually something like "13." This response ususally gets me a funny look from her, and then a laugh. But an honest answer could not have anything to do with units of measurements. I love her truly, deeply, and immeasurably.
Let me give another example. If I have my mom, my dad, and my wife in the room, and then my dad leaves, I don't think that the amount of love that I have for the people in the room has diminished. In both instances (all three in the room, or two of them in the room) my love is true, deep, and immeasurable.
We can subscribe unsurpassable worth to someone simply because we subscribe worth to them. Persons(subjects), do not have quantitative worth like things (objects). You either love a person or you don't.
Thinking out loud....
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/25/2005 11:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Wouldn't Jesus' command to "love thy neighbor as thyself," in direct juxtaposition with loving GOD with ALL thy heart, soul, mind, and strength, indicate that our love for others besides God is by definition relative to God and relative to ourself?
Meph: Thanks for your explanation. I found it helpful to my understanding of what Doc's idea really means. I guess being a very mathematically/logically oriented type of person, my main problem is with what seems to me to be the indiscriminate use of the term, "unsurpassable."
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 1/27/2005 8:21:20 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/26/2005 2:33 AM (GMT -6) | |
rossfadeinout said...
When it comes to persons, I do not believe that value or worth is quantitative. Let me give a funny example. Sometimes Katie will say, "how much do you love me?" My reply is usually something like "13." This response ususally gets me a funny look from her, and then a laugh. But an honest answer could not have anything to do with units of measurements. I love her truly, deeply, and immeasurably.
Let me give another example. If I have my mom, my dad, and my wife in the room, and then my dad leaves, I don't think that the amount of love that I have for the people in the room has diminished. In both instances (all three in the room, or two of them in the room) my love is true, deep, and immeasurable.
This is an interesting thought (that the value or worth of persons is not quantitative), Ross, and you defend it with some nice examples.
I wonder, though, if the examples are wholly adequate to your purpose. There is a difference between our being able to measure or assign a relative quantity to something and its having a measure or relative quantity. In other words, is your love for your wife immeasurable b/c you don't have the means to measure it, or because your love is simply not the sort of thing that anyone (even God) could measure? Your examples seem good illustrations of the former, but I don't think they establish the latter.
Furthermore, it seems to me quite counterintuitive to say, as you do, that "You either love a person or you don't." Can't you love one person more than another? If God commands us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength then isn't it implicit that it's possible for someone to love God with less than that without thereby ceasing to love God at all?
Certainly, we don't like to make comparative evaluations of how much we love one person vis-a-vis another. It forces us to think about things that we'd prefer not to have to think about, like difficult choice situations (think of lifeboat dilemmas in ethics). On the other hand, sometimes the difficult choices must be made and then we are called to love God more than mother, father, wife, etc.
Regards,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/26/2005 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Let's see what we can come up with...
Alan:
Why think that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son ascribed unsurpassable worth to humans? Sure, it does ascribe some worth to us, even a lot, but infinite worth? If so, how does that follow?
Did God really pay an infinite price in sacrificing His Son? And in what sense was it a sacrifice given that Jesus did rise from the dead? It wasn't like God the Son was giving up His very existence (or his deity) to save us. I have no idea how to quantify it, but I'm curious as to how we come to the conclusion that the price paid was unsurpassable. What assumptions does one need to derive that conclusion? Are those assumptions correct? Why couldn't it be the case the God's "sacrifice" (however we understand it) was finite, though very large?
We take the understanding that prices paid for things has a commensurate nature, such that there is a corresponding attribution of worth. In other words, when we pay for something, we naturally pay what we think the something is WORTH. The more of a price that we are willing to pay for something, the more, I think it can be inferred, that we VALUE the thing we are trying to buy. For a biblical example, the pearl of great price parable. The reason that the person sold ALL THAT HE HAD and brought the land that the pearl was IN was because he thought is was WORTH that much. The pearl was WORTH spending all of his wealth to get. The point, of course, is that we should believe that the Kingdom of God is WORTH our COMPLETE and TOTAL dedication.
Now, taking this line of thought to God and the redemption of sinners, the application is obvious. Just like WE should view the Kingdom of God as WORTHY of our total dedication (ala pearl of great price), God viewed the redemption of sinners as WORTHY of his COMPLETE SACRIFICE. And this cannot be toned down. We are talking about...
--the infinite God becoming finite
--the holy God taking sin upon Godself...actually BECOMING sin, scripture seems to attest
--The Son being in at LEAST an existential period of separation from the Father. (A terrible price for one who from eternity past lived in perfect Triune relationship with the Father)
--the God who IS life...experiencing the tyranny of death
These things are HUGE. Moreover, according to scripture, God the Son was GIVEN as a GIFT from the Father (John 3:16-17). When we apply the logic that God the Son is having innate unsurpassable worth, everything seems to fall in line. In short, the redemption of Creation was the "pearl of great price" to GOD, such that God gave the most unsurpassably worthy thing---GODSELF--for us.
I really don't see how this can be disputed that heavily. Just me.
__________________________
Alan:
If we do finally conclude that God paid an infinite price in saving us, why would that translate into each individual person having infinite worth? Perhaps God was willing to pay an infinite price to have a Church, a Bride for His Son. If so, then it seems we could conclude that the Church collectively has infinite worth. How do we get from there to the idea that God ascribes this same infinite worth to me or to you? Would God have sent His Son to pay an infinite price if He only thought one person would repent and be saved? If we think so, what grounds our confidence that He would?
Here's are the assumptions that I hold about God.
1) The Triune God is love...meaning that God in God's essential existence is love. Unchangably, necessarily loving.
2) God's love is UNCONDITIONAL
3) God is infinitely intelligent (which is a function of God's omniscience). This implies that God, in eternity, had a conception of every POSSIBLE person who could have possibly existed.
4) God is omnipresent. There is no place where God is not present.
5) God is in some way ACTIVE wherever God is present.
6) God, given the scope of God's plan for Creation, believed the emergence of sin to be inevitable.
What these six things lead me to believe are the following...
1) It is POSSIBLE for God to love each and every ACTUAL person who exists as individuals with all God's heart.
2) It is POSSIBLE that God covenanted to love every person who emerges into actuality from mere possibility with all God's heart.
3) It is POSSIBLE that God made an eternal plan dealing with the sacrifice of God the Son where the redemption of Creation's inevitable fall would be made available.
4) It is POSSIBLE that God wishes for ALL individuals to be saved by God's redeeming work.
5) It is POSSIBLE that God is working on all individuals towards #4.
Now, I see no reason why God would refrain from doing 1 and 2...because God IS love. It's within God's capability to do it, so it's reasonable to say that God does this. For reasons 3 and 4, we have divine revelation that says that both of these are true. For reason 5, I think this is a reasonable implication of #4 and assumption #5.
So, putting these ideas together, you have God loving EVERY actual person who comes into existence unconditionally...AND God being willing to apply God's sacrifice (and accompanying ascription of worth) to ALL possible beings who may receive it.
All this comes up to God loving ALL actual individuals with all his heart...and ascribing unsurpassable worth to said individuals by way of offering salvation to them.
Does this work? You tell me.
*********************************************
Alan:
Moreover, if each individual human does have infinite worth, this seems to lead to conceptual problems. On the one hand, it seems intuitive that if a person has a forced choice between saving the life of one individual or saving the lives of ten, that he should save the ten. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," as Commander Spock would say. On the other hand, if each individual has infinite worth, then it seems we can have no compelling grounds for chosing one way or the other for
infinity + infinity + ... + infinity = infinity
Now, HERE's some good stuff. This highlights the love/ethics separation...which I think highlights a big distinction between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world. See, I believe that there are two distinct, yet interelated ways that God works in the world.
1) God loves each individual being with all God's heart.
2) God stewards Creation providentially.
#1 deals with God's ascription of worth to all individuals. #2 is where the "greater good" idea takes hold, meaning that God works for the minimization of evil and the maximization of good.
Now, follow this VEEEERY closely.
When it comes to God's LOVE for individuals, there is absolutely, positively, unqualifiably NO DIFFERENTIATION with respect to how much God loves each person. God loves each person completely the same: totally, completely, with all of God's heart! This, I believe, is the essence of the Kingdom of God as ushered in by Jesus. When it comes to God working for the providential care of the world, people are differentiated by ACCEPTABLE RISK categories and governmental purposes. This, I believe, is the essence of God's WORKING as governing within the kingdoms of this world. See, the "rook being sacrificed for the queen" issues are NOT issues of God's love...they are issues of how one fits into God's governance of the world and what MAY be sacrificed for the "greater good" of the whole.
In other words, this would be God's perspective...
"With respect to promoting overall divine boundaries and governance, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one. With respect to my love for each person, it's as if there IS only one...for I passionately love EACH of them that way."
This is the paradox: In one sense (love), there is NO differentiation in our worth before God. In another sense (ethics), our worth is RELATIVE to God provdential relationship with Creation. We can be unsurpassably loved by God...and still be acceptable (read: expenible) risks at the same time.
What I think ameliorates the dissonance of this paradox is the my concept of universalism. It show how love wins out in the end...after EVERYTHING not of God is purged from the scene.
Hopefully, I'm explaining this ok...
***************************************
Alan:
Finally, if each individual has infinite worth and so does God, then each individual has the same worth as God Himself. Sure, God's infinite worth is intrinsic, whereas ours is extrinsic, but if God values my neighbor as much as He values Himself, then it seems that I should have an equal obligation to value my neighbor as I do to value God. But, as jefscott points out, how does this jive with the fact that the first and greatest commandment is to love God first above all else?
Hmm...two things...biblical.
1) We are told that when we see "the least of these" we should treat them as if we are treating Jesus. What we are doing to our fellow man, how we feel about them, in some real sense, is how we are interacting with God.
2) The two Great commandments are inseparable. As 1 John and #1 above indicate.
I would argue that if we love God about all else, then we would do both of these things.
Only the CREATOR gets worship. And this is why the Creator/creation distinction (which is highlighted THROUGHOUT scripture) is so important.
Let's see how this does ya.
"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 | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
|  Posted 1/26/2005 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | |
To me, saying "God ascribes unsurpassable worth to every person" is a rhetorical construct that is qualitative, not quantitative. You can't really parse it for a mathematical model.
In fact, "infinite" isn't implied in it. If "unsurpassable" were speaking of a quantity, God only needs one unit measure of worth more than you to have "unsurpassable" worth. I can only muster ten units of worth to ascribe to my wife, He can muster eleven, He musters an unsurpassable amount.
MephEternal said...
1) It is POSSIBLE for God to love each and every ACTUAL person who exists as individuals with all God's heart.
2) It is POSSIBLE that God covenanted to love every person who emerges into actuality from mere possibility with all God's heart.
4) It is POSSIBLE that God wishes for ALL individuals to be saved by God's redeeming work.
5) It is POSSIBLE that God is working on all individuals towards #4.
Part of God's love for someone is letting them have their way. That's what free will is all about.
Some people's will is to be separate from God. God will grant them their request. To override their will would negate His love for them.
Why I can't 'buy' your universalism is, because you posit that eventually God will get His way in relation to everyone. That means some people's wills would have to be overridden in order for this to happen.  The same inevitably you ascribe to people sinning once God made creation is the same inevitably I ascribe to some people NEVER choosing to obey God out of a free choice.  That's why universalism is usually linked with determinism, imho.
Oh, and the Rick Warrenism <God knew you bazillions of years ago>, I totally disagree with. Even as a 'possibility'.
An example is telling your child, "you can be anything you want to be when you grow up but you WILL be a doctor". The steps on the journey that you thought were free really aren't if you don't get to the destination you set out for.
 Post Edited (Laika) : 1/26/2005 7:42:43 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/26/2005 9:16 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Perhaps we could say that God's love for each person is incalculable?
As far as Christ becoming "sin for us," most commentators take this reference in 2 Cor. 5 to be an allusion to Christ becoming "a sin offering for us."
If God's love is unconditional, it seems to me to completely lose its force, just like if it is described using the term, "unsurpassable." In both the Old and New Testaments, God plainly states conditions to being in a favorable relationship to Him, and the terrible consequences of not being in a favorable relationship to Him.
This reciprocal relationship is stated in creedal form several times in the Old Covenant as:
Ex 20:5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Precisely the same kind of reciprocity is plainly stated throughout the New Testament as well:
Mat 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven.
John 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will reveal Myself to him.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word. And My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
2Co 6:17 Therefore come out from among them and be separated, says the Lord, and do not touch the unclean thing. And I will receive you
18 and I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.
1Jo 3:10 In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the Devil: everyone not practicing righteousness is not of God, also he who does not love his brother.
If universalism were true, I could see how we could rightly say that God's love is unconditional. In fact, it seems to me the universalism is positively required if we say God's love is without conditions. However, we would then have the problem of how God's allowance of ANY evil in the world (even if not ultimately triumphant evil) is consistent with unconditional love.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 1/26/2005 8:19:04 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/26/2005 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | | | Interesting stuff, Meph. I have a few comments / questions on your latest post.
Meph: We take the understanding that prices paid for things has a commensurate nature, such that there is a corresponding attribution of worth. In other words, when we pay for something, we naturally pay what we think the something is WORTH.
Alan: We are agreed on this point.
Meph: God viewed the redemption of sinners as WORTHY of his COMPLETE SACRIFICE.
Alan: I'm unclear on this notion of a "complete" sacrifice when applied to God. To my mind, that would mean God's giving up everything He could possibly give up. I don't see how we be in a position to know that that is in fact what God did apart from God Himself explicitly telling us, and I don't know of any place in scripture where God explicitly says that He gave up everything He could possibly give up to save us.
Meph: We are talking about...
--the infinite God becoming finite
--the holy God taking sin upon Godself...actually BECOMING sin, scripture seems to attest
--The Son being in at LEAST an existential period of separation from the Father. (A terrible price for one who from eternity past lived in perfect Triune relationship with the Father)
--the God who IS life...experiencing the tyranny of death
Alan: I don't think I would agree with you on all these. (1) To my mind, the infinite God cannot qua God become finite, or He would effectively cease being God. I think the finitude of Jesus pertained only to his human nature, not to his divine nature. (2) I don't think that God could literally become sin. I take that verse to mean that Jesus became a sin offering for us. (3) I'm not sure we really understand enough of the Incarnation and of the Trinity to say with confidence that there was an "existential period of separation" of the Son from the Father. Granted, there was in the passion of the Christ some kind of "forsaking" that took place, but I think it is reading too much into that to conclude that it points to some kind of intra-Trinitarian schism. (4) I don't think God qua God could die. Insofar as he was a man, Jesus could die, but I don't think that as God the Son He could literally die. And anyway, isn't it overstating it to speak of the "tyranny" of death when we're talking about someone who raised himself from the grave and promised beforehand that he would rise?
Sure, the Father gives the Son to us in Christ (John 3:16-17). But what is the sense of "gives" here? Not, I think, that of "giving up" or "giving away" His Son. The Son isn't like a possession such that the Father could transfer ownership to us or anything like that. Perhaps "giving of" His Son. Perhaps "giving through" His Son. In any case, I don't know how one can get from this talk of giving to the conclusion that God has somehow given or paid an infinite or unsurpassable price for our salvation. That idea looks to me more like speculative theology than it does exegesis.
Blessings,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/27/2005 12:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan:
I'm unclear on this notion of a "complete" sacrifice when applied to God. To my mind, that would mean God's giving up everything He could possibly give up. I don't see how we be in a position to know that that is in fact what God did apart from God Himself explicitly telling us, and I don't know of any place in scripture where God explicitly says that He gave up everything He could possibly give up to save us.
Alan, we are talking about God Godself dying for sinners as a criminal on a cross. The self-existent, infinite, perchoretically Triune God sacrificing a NUMBER of elements, experiencing...
Death
Finitude
Separation
for persons who couldn't care less.
Honestly, you'd have to explain to me what more God truly COULD give other than Godself.
I'm not understanding the problem.
****************************************
Alan:
I don't think I would agree with you on all these. (1) To my mind, the infinite God cannot qua God become finite, or He would effectively cease being God. I think the finitude of Jesus pertained only to his human nature, not to his divine nature. (2) I don't think that God could literally become sin. I take that verse to mean that Jesus became a sin offering for us. (3) I'm not sure we really understand enough of the Incarnation and of the Trinity to say with confidence that there was an "existential period of separation" of the Son from the Father. Granted, there was in the passion of the Christ some kind of "forsaking" that took place, but I think it is reading too much into that to conclude that it points to some kind of intra-Trinitarian schism. (4) I don't think God qua God could die. Insofar as he was a man, Jesus could die, but I don't think that as God the Son He could literally die. And anyway, isn't it overstating it to speak of the "tyranny" of death when we're talking about someone who raised himself from the grave and promised beforehand that he would rise?
It seems very obvious that you would really be at home with the kenotic idea of Christ, and not the traditional idea...and that's cool. That's the only way some people can make any sense of the Incarnation at all. From my perspective, a good way to deal with this is to use different approaches to conceptualize the significance and magnitude of what was taking place with the Incarnation. Primarily, 1) the novel nature of what may be occuring and 2) the possible existential ramifications on God.
1. I think that the best way that we can think about this is experientially. The Incarnation of God, the Son was a NEW EXPERIENCE for God, insofar as we claim that God had never before been incarnated into a human being. This is HUGE, for we have the infinite God (God the Son) experiencing finitude. This level of condescension is MUCH easier stated than fully appreciated.
2. Fine. Let's go with a weaker idea...that God the Son only took sin UPON himself as a sin offering. You STILL have the holy God taking upon sin as a sin offering. This has HUGE ramifications, once one understands what this indicates! The level of sacrifice.
3. The Passion of Christ ASSUMES the existential period of separation, I think. We need not say that God the Son was ONTOLOGICALLY separated from the Father or the Spirit. But we do need to say that Jesus genuinely FELT the separation (abandonment) from God. And remember, this is a NEW EXPERIENCE for God because before, God the Son was in a PERFECTLY LOVING relationship with the Father...and enjoyed that relationship with the Father during his life...UNTIL the Passion. See what I'm saying?
4. Again, let's think of this experientially. You have the Eternal God, who is LIFE in Godself, experiencing death (which biblically speaking, was an enemy of God).
These new experiences that God was willing to engage in (or endure?) should not at ALL be taken lightly. They all demonstrate a willingness of God to, HOWEVER TEMPORARILY, experience things that are, in a true sense, ANTITHETICAL to who God qua God (as you say) actually is. Surely, we will not water this down by saying "Well, that's just experiences!" The fact of the matter is that God did NOT have to do it...and in allowing God the Son to endure this FOR SINNERS indicates a value judgment on God's part.
*******************************
Alan:
Sure, the Father gives the Son to us in Christ (John 3:16-17). But what is the sense of "gives" here? Not, I think, that of "giving up" or "giving away" His Son. The Son isn't like a possession such that the Father could transfer ownership to us or anything like that. Perhaps "giving of" His Son. Perhaps "giving through" His Son. In any case, I don't know how one can get from this talk of giving to the conclusion that God has somehow given or paid an infinite or unsurpassable price for our salvation. That idea looks to me more like speculative theology than it does exegesis.
The terminology that you used (giving of and giving through) is what I would agree with in the first place. It is not objectifying God the Son to say that Christ was a gift to sinners. It is definitely not objectifying God the Son to say that the decision MADE by God to make a way of salvation for sinners involved worth ascription. And THAT'S what we are saying. That WE are the "pearl of great price" to God.
Good stuff, man...lovin' it.
"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 | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/27/2005 7:45 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
I'm baffled. Could you do me a favor and please show me how universalism as I have described it and it's implications fits your descript ion? I'd love that. Inhumane torture!
If I remember correctly, not having waded  through everything you've posted, you think (given enough time, and eternity is a long time) everyone will eventually choose God.
We'll call it the evolutionary theory of universalism. If a gazillion years isn't enough, add another gazillion years and a long weekend and see if they'll repent then.
Am I in the court or did I go over the backboard?
See, I think this life is the only chance we get to live a life of faith. Once this life is over, it's all pretty evident God exists and is pissed. Then it's too late to accept Him, by faith.
Given a life of pursuit of pleasure versus a life of faith NOW, people make, what on the surface appears, a tough choice. Pursue my life or surrender to God's life. They make this on faith, but faith based on some evidence.
But after this life is over, what choice do they have? More time in hell or surrender to God now? hmmmm, tough choice. A choice that takes no faith.
Plus, and this is the most important,
if I don't surrender to God now, He'll keep torturing me until I do.
This is not "freely chosen love", this is compliance rendered by torture.
--------------------- <---- stick
Post Edited (Laika) : 1/27/2005 6:49:05 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/27/2005 9:56 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Laika: if I don't surrender to God now, He'll keep torturing me until I do.
This is not "freely chosen love", this is compliance rendered by torture.This statement ABSOLUTELY CONFIRMS to me that you either don't understand my view or are not taking some serious aspects of it into account. WHY do I do all this work??? Sheesh...
I have waded through your turgid posts and have the ruined leather shoes to prove it.
(in much verbosity there resides obfuscation)
"It is appointed men once to die, then comes judgement."
Take a guy, we'll call him Joe.
Joe refuses to surrender to God.
Joe dies.
Jesus returns, lots of end-time stuff happens, Joe bows his knee to Jesus, a vanquished foe.
Joe checks into the lake of fire for one (1) eternity. (Same amount of time the sheep spend with Jesus)
Now you say somewhere down the line, Joe chooses God.
I say it's expedient to Joe, now, in order to escape further torture.
Where did I go wrong?
Of course, someone else said that that which is redeemable about Joe will reside with God forever.
Post Edited (Laika) : 1/27/2005 9:06:52 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/27/2005 5:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika:
Plus, and this is the most important,
if I don't surrender to God now, He'll keep torturing me until I do.
This is not "freely chosen love", this is compliance rendered by torture.
and..
Take a guy, we'll call him Joe.
Joe refuses to surrender to God.
Joe dies.
Jesus returns, lots of end-time stuff happens, Joe bows his knee to Jesus, a vanquished foe.
Joe checks into the lake of fire for one (1) eternity. (Same amount of time the sheep spend with Jesus)
Now you say somewhere down the line, Joe chooses God.
I say it's expedient to Joe, now, in order to escape further torture.
Where did I go wrong?
Hopefully, you see the difference between those two sections of statments. You say that basically the choices made post-mortem are FORCED and not freely-chosen love, in the first one. You don't say that in the second.
I'd already argued that love CANNOT be forced. It's not about "surrendering to God" as if we are talking about torturing someone to make them tell us something. It's about the RESOLUTION of the dissonance created by the INTERNAL REALITY of the "god-shaped void" that has heretofore been SUPPRESSED/REPRESSED which exists in all sentient beings...and the EXTERNAL REALITY of God's loving presence. Big difference, man.
"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 | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/27/2005 10:47 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Laika:
Plus, and this is the most important,
if I don't surrender to God now, He'll keep torturing me until I do.
This is not "freely chosen love", this is compliance rendered by torture.
and..
Take a guy, we'll call him Joe.
Joe refuses to surrender to God.
Joe dies.
Jesus returns, lots of end-time stuff happens, Joe bows his knee to Jesus, a vanquished foe.
Joe checks into the lake of fire for one (1) eternity. (Same amount of time the sheep spend with Jesus)
Now you say somewhere down the line, Joe chooses God.
I say it's expedient to Joe, now, in order to escape further torture.
Where did I go wrong?
Hopefully, you see the difference between those two sections of statments. You say that basically the choices made post-mortem are FORCED and not freely-chosen love, in the first one. You don't say that in the second.
You see movement in that? 
He who comes to God must believe (faith) that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. Heb. 11:6
After an eternity in the lake of fire, pulling some guy's head out of the fire and asking, "do you freely choose to have faith in Me now?" isn't really the same.
It would be expedient to escape further burning. That's not faith.
I don't believe the lake of fire stuff is punishment. Punishment usually implies rehabilitation. Instead it's cutting cancer out forever in order to preserve the healthy cells.
The ark was an illustration of salvation, by faith they built it and boarded it and passed through the flood. Everyone else died. End of story. It's too late for the drowned to go, "Oh, NOW I get it!"
The Red Sea crossing, another illustration of salvation. God' people passed through, the Egyptians drowned.
In this life, God hides Himself from the proud and reveals Himself to the humble in order to reinforce the life of faith that is required for those to come to Him.
There's no comparable setting within the lake of fire.
Post Edited (Laika) : 1/27/2005 10:15:26 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/27/2005 10:58 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
Insert foot: I don't think humans have unsurpassable worth. I think the worth of humans IS surpassable. Can we ascribe unpassable grades to you in your school days?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/30/2005 9:14 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Now, follow this VEEEERY closely. When it comes to God's LOVE for individuals, there is absolutely, positively, unqualifiably NO DIFFERENTIATION with respect to how much God loves each person. God loves each person completely the same: totally, completely, with all of God's heart! This, I believe, is the essence of the Kingdom of God as ushered in by Jesus. When it comes to God working for the providential care of the world, people are differentiated by ACCEPTABLE RISK categories and governmental purposes. This, I believe, is the essence of God's WORKING as governing within the kingdoms of this world. See, the "rook being sacrificed for the queen" issues are NOT issues of God's love...they are issues of how one fits into God's governance of the world and what MAY be sacrificed for the "greater good" of the whole. In other words, this would be God's perspective... "With respect to promoting overall divine boundaries and governance, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one. With respect to my love for each person, it's as if there IS only one...for I passionately love EACH of them that way."This is the paradox: In one sense (love), there is NO differentiation in our worth before God. In another sense (ethics), our worth is RELATIVE to God provdential relationship with Creation. We can be unsurpassably loved by God...and still be acceptable (read: expenible) risks at the same time. What I think ameliorates the dissonance of this paradox is the my concept of universalism. It show how love wins out in the end...after EVERYTHING not of God is purged from the scene. Hopefully, I'm explaining this ok...
Meph,
I find your post to be very articulate and interesting. After reading a lot of your stuff, it seems you have a deep love for God. But, the kind of stuff you posted above, well, you totally loose me. I just can’t buy into your view of God’s love, or for that matter your view of love in general. I do hope you continue sharing your thoughts as you keep working through it.
Shalom,
Mark
Matthew 11:28-30 (NRSV)
"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 1/30/2005 9:29:17 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/30/2005 9:27 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
I'd already argued that love CANNOT be forced. It's not about "surrendering to God" as if we are talking about torturing someone to make them tell us something. It's about the RESOLUTION of the dissonance created by the INTERNAL REALITY of the "god-shaped void" that has heretofore been SUPPRESSED/REPRESSED which exists in all sentient beings...and the EXTERNAL REALITY of God's loving presence. Big difference, man.
Love isn’t a solo sport, we either play ball or die alone.
We're either going to the major leagues or we're being sent down... Big difference, man.
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 1/30/2005 9:24:24 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/30/2005 9:40 PM (GMT -6) | |
TGB said...
Insert foot: I don't think humans have unsurpassable worth. I think the worth of humans IS surpassable. It's surpassable by the worth of God. God is worth more than humans. I mean, come on. I'm not sure I ever understood the "attributing infinite worth to other" definition of love. Inestimable? Yeah, OK, we can't estimate a person's worth. Incomprehensible? Yeah, people are worth more than we can comprehend. But unsurpassable? Infinite? Naw. That just makes no sense to me. It seems like a no-brainer to me that God is worth more than people. What's wrong with just admitting that?
If we do what scripture says, namely, love others as we love ourselves, and prefer them even as better than ourselves, we'll do fine. I mean, who even does that much?
Tom
|
Tom, you're a straight shooter.
I like your simple answers to complicated questions.
|
 "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 1/31/2005 1:17:42 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/30/2005 11:53 PM (GMT -6) | |
JEE said...
If God's love is unconditional, it seems to me to completely lose its force, just like if it is described using the term, "unsurpassable." In both the Old and New Testaments, God plainly states conditions to being in a favorable relationship to Him, and the terrible consequences of not being in a favorable relationship to Him.
This reciprocal relationship is stated in creedal form several times in the Old Covenant as:
Ex 20:5 "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Precisely the same kind of reciprocity is plainly stated throughout the New Testament as well:
Hi John,
Wow, a reciprocal relationship, what a concept.
Hey, did you ever have a crush on someone but they never felt the same for you? (I heard it happens)  Um… would you say you're in love? I don’t think so, not fully anyways. The gift of love is not complete unless both parties freely choose to give it and of course, receive it.
Shalom,
Mark
Matthew 11:28-30 (NRSV)
"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Post Edited (sparknheart) : 1/30/2005 11:15:31 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 30 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:26 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 |
|
|