 |
| 
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 6/24/2003 7:22 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Sorry guys. This was a mistake. Was purging some old posts of mine. Stuffed up. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/25/2003 1:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Albert
To put this another way, according to Calvinism, are God's actions causally determined (presumably by his nature), or not?
Kind of like looking at the sunset in a microscope. You have to go farther back than Calvin. (And even then, the "consistent" Calvinists wouldn't -- and THAT is because the "Concistent Calvinists" are consistent in their Christianity; not in whatever Calvin-ISM is supposed to be. REAL Calvinists don't like "ISMs.") So, here is your history lesson.
quote:
10. Fr. Th. de Regnon, inquiring why Filioquist considerations were never developed in the rich works of the Greek Fathers, asks: "Is this not proof that [such considerations] never occurred to them in their conception of the Trinity?" And he replies with a significant avowal: "In fact all these [Filioquist considerations] presuppose that, in the order of concepts, nature is anterior to person and that the latter represents a kind of efflorescence of the former" (Etudes de theologie positive sur la Sainte Trinite I (Paris, 1892), p. 309). He also writes: "Latin philosophy envisages first the nature in itself and then procedes to the expression; Greek philosophy envisages first the expression and then penetrates it to find the nature. The Latin considers personality as a mode of nature, the Greek considers nature as the content of the person" (ibid. p. 433).
(Vladimir Lossky, The Procession of the Holy Spirit
in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine, Chapter 4 of In the Image and Likeness of God (SVS Press: Crestwood, NY, 1976), pp. 71-96.)
www.jbburnett.com/auctor/lossky/lossky_img4-process-filioq.pdf
Now, seriously: Who cares that this comment was made by a 20th century Roman Catholic historian, and is quoted in a book by a Russian Orthodox theologian. Its the HISTORY that matters here. To consider nature as the content of the person goes way back to the Medieval West. To escape it, go East.
Repeating (quoting the above)L "in the order of concepts, nature is anterior to person and that the latter represents a kind of efflorescence of the former". Sooo..., if the "efflorescence" matches what you are asking about "God's actions causally determined (presumably by his nature)", well then, there you have it: "Latin philosophy envisages first the nature in itself and then procedes to the expression."
Its a Latin thing!
Edited by - fred on 06/25/2003 06:28:45 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 6/25/2003 3:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Well put Albert... I was thinking basically the same thing the other day. If Calvinist say that the idea of libertarian free will is incoherent and that human actions are caused by desires (example- Edwards "Freedom of the Will"), then doesn't the same objection to the incoherence of libertarian free will apply to God?
PS Fred, or PoW, or whoever, how many names do you have on this board? Just wondering... And "real Calvinists" don't like ism's??? Not too sure about that (maybe we're talking about two different groups) I have in mind my friends at Southern Seminary who have labeled me a heretic for even entertaining the idea that God would give man free will and not be in total control of every decision and event that happens. Oh, and when I told them that I visied this site and asked some of them to take a look... I really think that some of them thought that I had given up my true evangelicalism because the site is hosted by an Open Theist. I'm thinking about the Bruce Ware's and Ron Nash's and Al Mohler's who have indoctrinated my friends to think that Christians who think that the future is partially open "open theISM" are heretics... they are all about being concerned with ISM's.
Sorry about that, it just kind of hits a nerve with me...
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/25/2003 4:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Ross: "real Calvinists" don't like ism's??? ... "open theISM" are heretics... they are all about being concerned with ISM's.
Well...... Why should any one "ism" be different. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/25/2003 4:30 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't speak for Calvinism, but I have thought about this and am not sure of my conclusion. But my thoughts are that just b/c something is logically possible for GOd, does not mean it is possible for humans or anything else. It was logically possible for GOd to send his son to die for humanity. Is that logically possible for a person? Hardly , in fact it is incoherent since we are not God.
Secondly, it is possible that God is the only free agent, the only uncaused thing, that exists. Everything is determined from that- the first cause. God is the start of the chain of causation - everything else is within the chain of causation. This is consistent with determinism- having an uncaused essence which begins the chain. I believe Steven Hawking and others (who would not believe in God) nonetheless believe that there is an uncaused essence- the Big Bang or whatever- in other words, something started the chain that was not itself caused.
If you go the other way and say that God's actions are determined by his nature (so he is thus not free), does that entail fatalism? Well first there is scriptural support that God cannot lie, etc. Is that to be taken literally- ie he really cannot lie - or does it mean, God WON't ever lie? Basically this is an exercise in futility- since whatever God does it is good and right, right? Who knows if it is possible for him to act outside his nature, the fact is, he won't, if we are to believe the Bible.
"Fatalism is determined by the reaching the false conclusion that it doesn’t matter what one does, that one’s fate is determined to be a particular outcome whatever one does. The truth is, however, that one’s fate as a particular outcome is often determined by what one does, even though actions, along with one’s desires and beliefs, are themselves determined. The fact that they are determined doesn’t lessen their essential role in determining one’s fate. The best way to avoid being fatalistic or despondent about determinism is to understand clearly that our actions do matter in bringing about the outcomes we want, even though we don’t "ultimately" choose these actions, or the desires that motivate them, from some uncaused vantage point."- Thomas W. Clarke
You can be a free-willer and still believe in fatalism. You just think that humans are indeed free agents, that their wills are uncaused, but that no matter what you do, things are inevitable (such as death)- so why try. It's more of an attitude of giving up just b/c you believe the end is coming fast or you've been down all your life b/c of bad luck, or whatever.
Fatalism doesn't entail from determinism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/25/2003 4:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Ross
And "real Calvinists" don't like ism's???
The old Dutch Reformed pastor who baptized my oldest son told of a class at Calvin Seminary where the prof. remarked that all "isms" are idolotrous. A hand from the back was followed by the question as to whether that included "Calvnism." The professor merely reiterated that "All 'isms" are idolotry."
quote:
labeled me a heretic for even entertaining the idea that God would give man free will and not be in total control of every decision and event that happens.
I've got TWO answers to this. First, I'll post part of an article from the denominational magazine "The Banner." Second, with seriousness, I'd declare that attention to MERE details often makes us miss the most important thing. (Like Boyd agreeing and following up on my attention to "MEANING" on another thread.) God's "total control" is as Creator and Sustainer, and as Lord. But in His creation he also created mankind, and gave mankind an office as tiller and tender. God created the Structure, but created mankind to work in unfolding the potentialities of God's Creation. THIS IS CALVINISM! God's government over creation includes the nature that he gave each specific thing. Your question says: "the idea that God would give man free will and not be in total control of every decision and event that happens." Let me *shock* you by saying that Reformed thinking embraces the observation that BOTH (1) God gave man free will AND (2) God is in total control of every decision and event that happens. But THAT does not mean that God is "determining" everything. Far from it. By "determining" we would have to mean deciding every nut and every bolt. Humans are created in the image of Him who is prophet, priest and king." Man is both microcosm (sensible and intelligible) and mediator (priest and king, offering creation back to God in praise, and working to till and tend). NONE of those roles is robotic!!!!!
Here's that article:
quote:
From “Finding God’s Will”, by Bill Sytsma, THE BANNER, Sept 2002 ( pp.34-35)
SPIRITUAL INSIGHT
…
More commonly I hear of people praying and receiving a sense of peace about their decision—which should not be too quickly dismissed as mere intuition. God can lead us in that way.
Part of the trouble we run into is that often we believe there is only one way for us to follow God. Many people fear that God is standing over them with whip in hand, ready to punish the slightest miscalculation. My heart goes out to people who are paralyzed by fear because they have not sensed a clear sign from God in the face of a difficult decision. When you face a time like that, consider the possibility that God may be allowing you a number of different choices that are all within his will. God can use you whether you are a doctor or a farmer or a mechanic, whether you are married or single, whether you live in Alabama or Alaska, British Columbia or New Brunswick.
I believe the teaching of predestination. I believe that God has my life in his hands and that, at the final judgment, my final destination—eternity in God's presence—will be made a reality. This destination is possible because of what God has done for me. But even though God has determined my final destination, I do not believe that God has pre-ordained every decision that I will ever make. God leaves room for choices.
We are called to come to God in prayer, asking for God's guidance as we make decisions. And those decisions may be less important than the process of seeking God's guidance. God might be pleased if you decide to become a cosmetologist or a police officer, as long as you are approaching him in prayer.
God does not call us to a mere job. He calls us to a relationship with him. If we reduce God's call to a career choice or a decision-making formula, we might miss the wonderfully comforting sense of God's presence.
WISE COUNSEL
The third light in our decision-making process is found in turning to others from the Christian community. If you are struggling with a decision, find wise people to talk with about your decision. It could be a family member, a small group, a pastor, or someone you respect in your church. Find someone you believe could offer valuable insights, and ask that person for feedback. You might even find that the process of talking out loud makes your choices much clearer.
Our pride may keep us from asking others for help. We want to feel that we are competent to make our own decisions. But wise people realize their limits and turn to others for assistance when necessary. God has given us a community of believers, the church. And God often speaks to his people through others in the community. We need to lean on each other and seek God's wisdom through those we respect.
Do you feel uncertain about a decision you are facing? Maybe it's time to speak to the Captain. God gives us many lights that point to his will. And we can be assured that God hears our prayers and answers them in mysteriously wonderful ways. As we sincerely search for God's will, we can be confident that our Captain knows the way, and he will lead us safely home.
The article says: "God does not call us to a mere job. He calls us to a relationship with him." Mere activity would not be relational. It would be items on the altar without worship having taken place.
The article also says: "I believe the teaching of predestination. I believe that God has my life in his hands and that, at the final judgment, my final destination—eternity in God's presence—will be made a reality." Election is being IN the only ONE who IS ELECT, and that is Christ. So: "God has my life in his hands." A 6th century Greek theologian might say the same thing, and an Arminian would like what he said and how he said it.
The article also said: "we believe there is only one way for us to follow God. Many people fear that God is standing over them with whip in hand, ready to punish the slightest miscalculation." Two problems are there. First, there's the "whip" thing. Second, there's the whole thing about missing the point of our being given an "office" by God (as I outlined above).
"Consistent Calvin-ers" are Biblical Calviners. So when the article says "...consider the possibility that God may be allowing you a number of different choices that are all within his will." it is consistent with the Bible, and with what Calvin was looking at. Creation is dynamic. Faithful living and serivice is equally dynamic.
(Those Scotts put a straight-jacket on Calvinism. The continental Reformed tradition is much more free of it. Read Abraham Kuyper and his followers.)
Sorry about the detour, albert.
Edited by - fred on 06/25/2003 09:27:45 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/25/2003 8:26 AM (GMT -6) | | RD was NOT saying "Prime Mover" in her last post -- I don't think.
quote:
RD
Secondly, it is possible that God is the only free agent, the only uncaused thing, that exists. Everything is determined from that- the first cause. God is the start of the chain of causation - everything else is within the chain of causation. This is consistent with determinism- having an uncaused essence which begins the chain. I believe Steven Hawking and others (who would not believe in God) nonetheless believe that there is an uncaused essence- the Big Bang or whatever- in other words, something started the chain that was not itself caused.
If you go the other way and say that God's actions are determined by his nature (so he is thus not free), does that entail fatalism? Well first there is scriptural support that God cannot lie, etc. Is that to be taken literally- ie he really cannot lie - or does it mean, God WON't ever lie? Basically this is an exercise in futility- since whatever God does it is good and right, right? Who knows if it is possible for him to act outside his nature, the fact is, he won't, if we are to believe the Bible.
...BUT...
Since my memory was fuzzy I went and looked up a quote that would apply if she had.
Maybe it will be interesting here anyways!
quote:
from Christos Yannaras' "The Freedom of Morality",
Ch. 1 -- The Masks of Morality and the Ethos of the Person, pp. 16-18
4. The ethos of trinitarian communion
In the life of the Church, God reveals Himself as the hypostasis of being, the personal hypostasis of eternal life, exhaustive expression of the truth of being. It is not the essence of the energy of God which constitutes being, But His personal mode of existence: God as person is the hypostasis and life: God is not a vague supreme being, and impersonal essence which may be approached only through the intellect or the emotions. Nor is He a "prime mover," a blind energy which sets in motion the mechanism of the world; not yet an image of man exalted into an absolute, and infinite magnification of the individual characteristics and psychological demands of the human being. The God of whom the Church has experience is the God who reveals Himself in history as personal existence, as distinctiveness and freedom. God is person, and He speaks with man "face to grace, as a man speaketh unto his friend" (Ex 33:11).
It is precisely as personal existence, as distinctiveness and freedom from any predetermination by essence or nature, that God constitutes being and is the hypostasis of being. When Moses asks the identity of the God whose will he is to proclaim to the Israelites, the answer is "I am He who is" (Ex 3:14. God identifies the truth of existence, the reality of being, with His personal hypostasis. This means that the divine essence or nature is not an ontological reality prior to God's personal existence and determining it: God's being is not an ontological datum, anterior to the distinctiveness and freedom of the divine person. Rather, it is the personal expression of His being. :And when speaking to Moses, God did not say, 'I am essence; but, 'I am He who is': for He who is,, is not from the essence, but the essence is from Him who is. He who is has comprehended within Himself all being."(1)
The identification of being with the personal existence of God -- as identification with vital consequences for the truth of man and human morality -- explains the revelation of the God of the Church, who is one and at the same time trinitarian. The one God is not one divine nature of essence, but primarily one person: the one person of God the Father. The personal existence of God (the Father) constitutes His essence or being, making it into "hypsostasis": freely and from love He begets the Son and causes the Holy Spirit to proceed.(2) Consequently, being stems not from the essence, which would make it an ontological necessity, but from the person and the freedom of its love which "hypostasizes" being into a personal and trinitarian communion, God the Father's mode of being constitutes existence and life as a fact of love and personal communion.
The identification of being with the freedom of love -- of that love which forms being into hypostases -- reveals that the truth of the ethos or morality is equivalent to the truth of being. When we speak of the unity and communion of the three divine persons, we are referring to God's mode of being, which is the ethos of divine life. And the ethos of God is identical with this being. When the Christian revelation declares that "God is love" (1 Jn 4:16), it is not referring to one among many properties of God's "behavior," but to what God is as the fullness of trinitarian and personal communion.
(2--"God the Father, moved outside time and in love, proceeded to a distinction in hypsostasis, remaining without division or diminution) in the wholeness proper to Him, supremely unifies and supremely simple": Maxiums the Confessor, Scholia on the Divine Names, PG 4, 221A.)
Thus love is singled out as the ontological category par excellence, the only possibility for existence, since it is through love that God gives substance to His essence, and constitutes His being. Any other definition of God's ethos with evaluative content is ontologically unfounded: it applies a priori conventional predicates, taken from philosophical thought or social experience, to the mode of divine existence, which is nothing other than personal distinctiveness and the freedom of love. If we accept evaluative definitions of the Godhead, we make the personal distinctives of divine love subordinate to them, and consequently do away with it. Evaluative categories could refer only to nature or essence, but then personal distinctiveness would be subordinated to the necessity imposed by natural definitions, and consequently, once again, it would be non-existant or substantially curtailed.. In that case, the person of God would "undergo" whatever happened to the nature. The "accidents" of the nature would be "passions" of the person -- things undergone passively. This is why St. Maximus the Confessor affirms of the Godhead: "It is neither beautiful nor good: for these are as it were passions, and conditions and accidents." (3)
(3--Scholia on the Divine Names, PG 4, 412BC. Cf also Dionysius the Areopagite, On Mystical Theology 5, PG 3, 1045D-1048AB.)
Edited by - fred on 06/25/2003 1:27:49 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 6/25/2003 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Fred,
I see where our misunderstanding comes from. The Reformed author that you quote sounds pretty Arminian to me. In fact, there is little in the article that I would disagree with. But the Calvinists that I know would NOT say what this man said. Let me find some quotes...
Lorainne Boettner says "In matters pertaining to his salvation, the unregenerate man is not at liberty to choose between good and evil, but only to choose between greater and lesser evil, which is not properly free will...As the bird with a broken wing is 'free' to fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able."
Or of course Jim Packer saying this in his intro to Owen's Death of Death" quote:
God's act of election was defined by the Arminians as a resolve to receive to sonship and glory a duly qualified class of people - believers in Christ.3 This becomes a resolve to receive individual persons only in virtue of God's foreseeing the contingent fact that they will of their own accord believe. There is nothing in the decree of election to ensure that the class of believers will ever have any members; God does not determine to make any man believe. But Calvinists define election as a choice of particular undeserving persons to be saved from sin and brought to glory, and to that end to be redeemed by the death of Christ and given faith by the Spirit's effectual calling.... Now, the Calvinist contends that the Arminian idea of election, redemption and calling as acts of God which do not save cuts at the very heart of their biblical meaning; that to say in the Arminian sense that God elects believers, and Christ died for all men, and the Spirit quickens those who receive the word, is really to say that in the biblical sense God elects nobody, and Christ died for nobody, and the Spirit quickens nobody
Packer goes on to say quote:
it is Calvinism that understands the Scriptures in their natural, one would have thought inescapable, meaning; Calvinism that keeps to what they actually say; Calvinism that insists on taking seriously the biblical assertions that God saves, and that he saves those whom he has chosen to save, and that he saves them by grace without works, so that no man may boast, and that Christ is given to them as a perfect Savior, and that their whole salvation flows to them from the cross, and that the work of redeeming them was finished on the cross. It is Calvinism that gives due honor to the cross
This (you would probably say) "Western" theology sems very concerned with the incorrectness of Arminiansm. And I am very concerned with this (in my opinion) deterministic understanding of sovereignity.
So I guess that we're talking about two different types of Calvinists...
Thanks for the response, RD.... I seem to remember a conversation that you and Modes had several months ago about free will where the idea of God being free was discussed... Maybe I can find the link.
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/25/2003 11:53 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Ross: So I guess that we're talking about two different types of Calvinists...
Like I said, the Scotts and the Reformed are two somewhat different things. The Westminster crowd is more "scholastic/schoolish." Vanderstelt's criticisms of Van Till run along this line.
quote:
Lorainne Boettner says "In matters pertaining to his salvation, the unregenerate man is not at liberty to choose between good and evil, but only to choose between greater and lesser evil, which is not properly free will...As the bird with a broken wing is 'free' to fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able."
But would you really differ with this? Even Maximus the Confessor (whom Arminian's on this board seem to really like) would say:
quote:
. The manner of birth from God within us is two-fold: the one bestows the grace of adoption, which is entirely present in potency in those who are born of God; the other introduces, wholly by active exertion, that grace which deliberately reorients the entire free choice of the one being born of God toward the God who gives birth.1 ('Maximus's "realized eschatology" informs his whole understanding of the "potentiality" and "actuality" of the grace of deification. The full fruition of the grace of adoption is already present, at least potentially, in the believer, before it becomes actually operative in the spiritual life.) The first bears the grace, present in potency, through faith alone; but the second, beyond faith, also engenders in the knower the sublimely divine likeness of the One known, that likeness being effected precisely through knowledge. Therefore the first manner of birth is observed in some because their will, not yet fully detached from its propensity to the flesh, has yet to be wholly endowed with the Spirit by participation in the divine mysteries that are made known through active endeavor. The inclination to sin does not disappear as long as they will it. For the Spirit does not give birth to an unwilling will, but converts the willing will toward deification.2 (This discussion in Ad Thalassium 6 provides another remarkable instance, from his earlier writings, of Maximus's positive appraisal of the role of "gnomic" will into spiritual life, and even in the transition to deification.) Whoever has participated in this deification through cognizant experience is incapable of reverting from right discernment in truth, once he has achieved this in action, to something else besides, which only pretends to be that same discernment. It is like the eye which, once it has looked upon the sun, cannot mistake it for the moon or any of the other stars in the heavens. With those undergoing the (second mode of) birth, the Holy Spirit takes the whole of their free choice and translates it completely from earth to heaven, and, through the true knowledge acquired by exertion, transfigures the mind with the blessed light-rays of our God and Father, such that the mind is deemed another "god," insofar as in its habitude it experiences, by grace, that which God himself does not experience but "is" in his very essence. With those undergoing this second mode of baptism, their free choice clearly becomes sinless in virtue and knowledge, as they are unable to negate what they have actively discerned through experience. So even if we have the Spirit of adoption, who is himself the Seed for enduing those begotten (through baptism) with the likeness of the Sower, but do not present him with a will cleansed of any inclination or disposition to something else, we therefore, even after being born of water and Spirit (Jn 3:5), willingly sin. But were we to prepare our will with knowledge to receive the operation of these agents—water and Spirit, I mean—then the mystical water would, through our practical life, cleanse our conscience, and the life-giving Spirit would bring about unchanging perfection of the good in us through knowledge acquired in experience. Precisely for that reason he leaves, to each of us who are still able to sin, the sheer desire to surrender our whole selves willingly to the Spirit.
For Maximus -- if I'm reading correctly...jump in anyone -- the "grace bestowed by of adoption," that is "is already present. . .at least potentially" before it becomes of "full fruition. . .in the believer...(and)...becomes actually operative in the spiritual life.
So what Maximus observes isn't entirely different from what the Calvinists observe. They just describe it differently, and hense understand it differently. I think reading Maximus is clearer and more helpful because he is 1000 years before the Dordrecht trials.
Then...
quote:
of course Jim Packer saying this in his intro to Owen's Death of Death" [quote] God's act of election.....
Boy, I don't like that either. Not exactly John 3:16!
Packer's one good observation in that text (I read the whole thing elsewhere) was that Armenians fail to understand the central core thrust of Calvinism. He's right. TULIP is not the core of Calvinism!!!!
Thanks for the exchange!!!!!!!!!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P.S., the LB quote said: the unregenerate man is not at liberty to choose between good and evil, but only to choose between greater and lesser evil, which is not properly free will..., which focues on what IS NOT in the boefore. While the Maximus quote talks about WHAT IS in the after. That's almost like two sides of a coin.
What do you say?
Edited by - fred on 06/25/2003 5:14:42 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/25/2003 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | P.S. Read the small text section from Maxiumus the Confessor in the post above. It is well worth the time.
Fred | | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/25/2003 2:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Someone said, "It seems to me, whichever way Calvinists answer this question, they are in trouble."
I better not answer then. I don't want to be in trouble.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/25/2003 8:48 PM (GMT -6) | | In my experience, what the Calvinists fail to see (or simply refuse to see) is that Arminianism properly considered definitely does NOT teach "works salvation" or "it's all up to us," or that free will is not limited. Arminians teach that the prevenient grace of God draws the unregenerate to Christ. However, in Arminian thought, grace (or the Holy Spirit) is able to be resisted. This is in total agreement with the pre-Augustinian (and thus, Eastern Orthodox) understanding of salvation, grace, and free will.
Another grave error most Calvinians make with reference to Arminians is that they confuse synergism (what I have described above) with self-salvation. In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker), synergism is said to be the opposite of monergism (Calvinism/Augustinianism). This is patently false. The opposite of monergism would be...reversed monergism (one saves oneself). Such nonsense not even Pelagius would say. Without the grace of God drawing us to Christ, leading us to repentance, none of us could or would have ever repented.
I honestly don't understand how or why the Calvinists does not or will not see this crucial distinction in Arminianism.
Luke 13:34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, {the city} that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen {gathers} her brood under her wings, and you would not {have it!} NASB
John 1:11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Rom 11:17 ¶ But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, {remember that} it is not you who supports the root, but the root {supports} you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural {branches} be grafted into their own olive tree?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 06/26/2003 01:52:20 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 6/26/2003 3:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
Sorry about getting off the subject...Your last post was very well put, and I hope that there is somene on the board who will interact with your position.
Fred, I guess that I chose a quote from Boettner that I would not actually disagree with totally, but the point was his emphasis, as well as the Calvinists that I was talking about. He stressed the point that without God man is totally depraved and incapable of doing good. And of course, I think that anyone would agree-if there was no God or if God totally left us alone, then we would be depraved, lost, and without hope... But the question is, is it the case that God is not there, or has left us alone. I would say NO WAY! God has not left us alone, his previent grace draws us all back to the purpose for which we were created.
I guess that my problem is not with what man is capable of without God -I think that we all know that- but with the nature of God who created man for fellowship but would leave man in the state of total depravity without the grace to be redeemed...
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/26/2003 4:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Ross
Fred, I guess that I chose a quote from Boettner that I would not actually disagree with totally, but the point was his emphasis, as well as the Calvinists that I was talking about. He stressed the point that without God man is totally depraved and incapable of doing good. And of course, I think that anyone would agree-if there was no God or if God totally left us alone, then we would be depraved, lost, and without hope... But the question is, is it the case that God is not there, or has left us alone. I would say NO WAY! God has not left us alone, his previent grace draws us all back to the purpose for which we were created.
Amen!
Edited by - fred on 06/26/2003 09:57:26 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 6/26/2003 5:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
I was thinking back and I remembered a thread that has to do with your question, but poses the question from not only a Calvinistic understanding but also from an OV perspective. www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=1&ARCHIVEVIEW=&TOPIC_ID=2042
It is a LONG thread, but it is well worth the effort. The discussion really picks up on about page four or so with some of Meph's comments on God and creation... Not exactly what your question was, but I think very relevant.
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/26/2003 5:17 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Albert
... We can agree, I think, that God acts. The question is, why does God act? In particular, is his doing a particular act X causally determined by something-or-other, or not. If not, why can't that be true for us also?
... Those who believe in free-will would be divided into some, classical Arminians like John Wesley, who would believe that God possesses a nature of which has actions are an expression, but which does not causally determine his actions.
On the other hand, there are those who are actualists/functionalists, like Karl Barth, who would regard God's nature as being defined by his actions (like Sartre's maxim about "existence preceding essence").
Albert, you may feel this is another sidetrack. Hope not.
You asked, simply: "Is (God's) doing a particular act X causally determined by something-or-other, or not."
I'm guessing your answer is "no."
You follow up with: "If not (Building a double-negative here.), why can't that be true for us also?" So....I'm reading you to ask: "SINCE God is not (since that's your answer) 'determined by something-or-other' when he does act-X, THEN why can't it be true for us also that we are not determined in doing our act-Xs."
Do I have it right?
I'd say, from what I've read (And I'm only striving after literacy here -- I'm not smart enough to hope to get it right on my own thinking; or even to remember what I've concluded, sorry!), that the personal-ness of being is what we get from God. And so, first, I have to note that our very most defining characteristic IS determined by God: We are created in God's image. Second, we are not created as automotons: we are created in communinity -- at least by design. And by very definition we are not "persons" unless we are being in community. So, in that respect I have to take a very long pause, and struggle with the definition of whether or not we are self-determining in that community or not. Perhaps we create that community by our being in it. I don't know. (For God there is no "Trinitarian-ness" that God joins; rather, the Father in His person freely wills to love and begets the Son and causes the Spirit to proceed. Communion is God's mode of being; but God's person is before the mode. And how that does or does not bear out with me and us I'm not able to "go there" but find my "blackboard space" filling up and in need of a fresh erasing!
But my hunch is that our being creatures does bear on this.
A Lossky quote is perhaps parallel to this. (Sometimes parallel is as good as I can hope for.) God's freedom seems to include both transcendence and personal relationship! That's a good, snappy definition by my taste.
quote:
This God reveals Himself as transcendent to every image which could make known His nature, but He does not refuse personal relationship, living intercourse with men, with a people; He speaks to them and they reply, in a series of concrete situations which unfold as sacred history. Nevertheless the depths of His nature remain forbidden to all enquiry.
Vladimir Lossky,
The Theology of the Image
Chapter 7 of In the Image and Likeness of God
(St. Vladimir's Seminary Press: 1974), pp. 125-139.
Edited by - fred on 06/26/2003 10:19:41 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/26/2003 5:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's a quote from one of the posts on the page Ross linked to. (Any better quotes, Ross?)
The one being quoted is MEPH.
quote:
Meph
Tom, was God truly EQUALLY ABLE to create or not create? Check this out...
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1898&ARCHIVE=&whichpage=1
ESPECIALLY this part:
quote:
How about we put the question like so:
Is God's choice to express his love to OTHER EXISTENTS morally equivalent to God's opposing choice to NOT make other existents, while enjoying God's triune love by Godself?
THIS question is thorny as heck. Why? Because if the person says "No", then it would seem that the person would HAVE to say that God's moral perfection AND complete integrity DEMANDS some type of Creation event. And if the person say "yes", then the person has to admit that Creation was merely a product of WHIMSY, and not valuation of any type...which is tantamount to saying that Creation was arbitrary. Eenie meenie miney moe type stuff.
Hmmm...there may be a price to pay for your well-executed logic, Tom. 
("" is Meph's signature.)
Fred
Edited by - fred on 06/27/2003 12:43:50 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/26/2003 5:39 AM (GMT -6) | | In Meph's formation above there is one part that seems very different from what the Orthodox would frame:
quote:
Meph
...while enjoying God's triune love by Godself
That resembles
quote:
quoting Christos Yannaras (a contemporary Greek scholar and university professor in Athens, Greece):
"If we accept evaluative definitions of the Godhead, we make the personal distinctives of divine love subordinate to them, and consequently do away with it."
"being stems not from the essence, which would make it an ontological necessity, but from the person and the freedom of its love which 'hypostasizes' being into a personal and trinitarian communion..."
The impact of what he writes is seen in:
"If we accept evaluative definitions of the Godhead, we make the personal distinctives of divine love subordinate to them, and consequently do away with it. Evaluative categories could refer only to nature or essence, but then personal distinctiveness would be subordinated to the necessity imposed by natural definitions, and consequently, once again, it would be non-existant or substantially curtailed... In that case, the person of God would 'undergo' whatever happened to the nature."
Here's the problem: "...enjoying God's triune love" makes God passible.
Another problem is that by so doing "evaluative definitions" are applyed, subjecting the Person of God to human conceptions of what God's nature/essence 'has' to be.
A further problem I take with that post by Meph is that by saying "merely a product of WHIMSY" Meph is prefering that Communion preceed Person for God. He is subjecting God to human standards of morality.
Edited by - fred on 06/27/2003 1:01:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/26/2003 5:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Vs: "merely a product of WHIMSY"
quote:
It is precisely as personal existence, as distinctiveness and freedom from any predetermination by essence or nature, that God constitutes being and is the hypostasis of being. When Moses asks the identity of the God whose will he is to proclaim to the Israelites, the answer is "I am He who is" (Ex 3:14). God identifies the truth of existence, the reality of being, with His personal hypostasis. This means that the divine essence or nature is not an ontological reality prior to God's personal existence and determining it: God's being is not an ontological datum, anterior to the distinctiveness and freedom of the divine person. Rather, it is the personal expression of His being. :And when speaking to Moses, God did not say, 'I am essence; but, 'I am He who is': for He who is,, is not from the essence, but the essence is from Him who is. He who is has comprehended within Himself all being."
Edited by - fred on 06/26/2003 10:50:58 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 6/27/2003 3:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
Good stuff! The distinction between "essentialist" and "existentialist" view of God's actions is key to this discussion. The thread that I linked to a couple of posts back showed that this problem is somewhat faced by free will theists who are "essentialists," if I follow what you mean by the term. About halfway into the thread (pages 5 or 6 on) the discussion turns to a question posed by Mephi. Lets see if I can find the basics of the question... Basically the debate turned to whether God was free to create or not create. Here are the basics of Meph's position during the discussion... quote:
This is my thinking...
Step 1)
God's always seeks to satisfy God's disposition towards self-expression and maximization of love. At the "time" in the absence of Creation, God is doing so "unsurpassably" through God's triune relationship with Godself.
Step 2)
God, using infinite intelligence, knows of a possible state of reality where divine love can be expressed in a way NOT PREVIOUSLY experienced by God before: God can express and share his unsurpassable love to NON-GOD BEINGS and possibly have it reciprocated by said beings, culminating in a God/NON-God love relationship. A genuine novelty that will add to God's expereriences! [Note: Because love requires freedom, this necessarily excludes an EDF world! Love cannot be genuinely maximized if love is not possible.]
Step 3)
God sees the creation of this reality as a a NEW EXPERIENCE and MODE of satifying God's disposition and attributes worth to this option on that basis!
Step 4)
Again, using infinite intelligence, God contemplates the possible world, where it is generally possible that at least ONE BEING, but possibly many more, may suffer from an endstate of separation from God...the worst thing imaginable. But conversely, God, knowing God's own capabilities is assured within Godself (including possibly dying on a Cross for us) that God WILL secure a Groom/Bride type relationship with AT LEAST one non-God being, even if many others are lost. In other words, God KNOWS that God will be able to bring into existence AT LEAST ONE God/world love relationship...which is what God seeks.
Step 5)
God, being true to God's own essential existence, acts towards satisfying God's disposition by creating an open Creation.
So then the question is, was creation necessary from an Open Theist view. The discussion was very good from there.
Albert, I would like you to help me understand your distinction between being an "essentialist" and an "actualist/functionalist."
The latter position seems to avoid the problems faced by the essentialist understanding that was the difficulty in the discussion on the other thread. However, if what is good is defined by God's chosen actions, then the age old objection about the possibility of God willing that love was NOT good comes into play (it seems that way to me at least).
Thanks,
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2003 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert, I have a personal interestin in making certain one this is perfecly clear. I'm reading you...
quote:
Hello Fred!
Firstly, this is probably the existentialist in me speaking, but I must object to your quote in relation to Tom. It says that if God didn't have to create the world, then it would be a "whim", and not the product of God valuing it. In my view, this has things totally the wrong way round. It is only if God did not have to create the world, but freely choose to do so, that the world is valued by him. Meaning and value are a product of free, undetermined choice. No choice = no meaning & no value. When we choose something, we are saying "I want this to be". We are thereby saying "I value this". Value is created out of free action.
Please, please, please not that is was NOT MY quote, but a quote I copied from something that Meph posted. I was disagreeing with it -- not ascerting it. I was finding failings in it. As were you.
THAT MIGHT MEAN THAT YOU DIDN'T CATCH THE WHOLE REST OF WHAT I POSTED -- IF YOU THOUGHT I WAS COMING FROM THE POSITION YOUR POST ASSUMED.
Hmmm...
Edited by - fred on 06/27/2003 12:42:48 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2003 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert, I'd also be interested in your thoughts on what rossfadeinout asks. I noticed (especially in Meph) what he describes in his question for you.
quote:
Ross
...The distinction between "essentialist" and "existentialist" view of God's actions is key to this discussion. ...this problem is somewhat faced by free will theists who are "essentialists," ... a question posed by Mephi.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2003 8:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert, how far apart do you think we are, and in what form?
Fred: A further problem I take with that post by Meph is that by saying "merely a product of WHIMSY" Meph is prefering that Communion preceed Person for God. He is subjecting God to human standards of morality.
Albert: Thirdly, what I am saying is that God's actions are contra-causally free and undertermined, and so are ours, and that is in fact what comprises personhood. Being contra-causally free is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a person. This also hopefully makes clear that community is not necessary for personhood, since contra-causal freedom is not a relational attribute.
I'm trying to pattern my conception after both Yannaras and Zizioulas.
Zizioulas says:
quote:
Among the Greek Fathers the unity of God, the one God, and the ontological "principle" or "cause" of the being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God but in the _hypostatasis_, that is, _the person of the Father_. the one God is not the one substance but the Father, who is both the "cause" both of the generation of the Son and of the procession of the Spirit. consequently, the ontological "principle" of God is traced back, once again, to the person. Thus when we say that God "is," God is not an ontological "necessity" or a simple "reality" for God--but we ascribe the being of God to His personal freedom. In a more analytical way this means that God, as Father and not as substance, perpetually confirms through "being" his _free_ will to exist. And it is precisely His Trinitarian existence that constitutes this confirmation: the Father our of love--that is, freely--begets the Son and brings forth the Spirit. Thus God as person--as the hypostasis of the Father--makes the one divine substance to be that which it is: the one God. This point is absolutely crucial. For it is precisely with this point that the new philosophical position of the Cappadocian Fathers, and of St. Basil in particular, is directly connected. That is to say, the substance never exists in a "naked" state, that is without hypostasis, without "a mode of existence. And the one divine substance is consequently the being of God only because it has these three modes of existence, which it owed not to the substance but to the person, the Father. Outside the Trinity there is no God, that is no divine substance, because the ontological "principle" of God is the Father. The personal existence of God (the Father) constitutes His substance, makes it hypostases. The being of God is identified with the person.
Elsewhere Zizioulas makes the comment that Communion is an ontological category! But he says it in a way that makes clear that the Communion is manifested by the free act of the Father -- who personally is the cause of the Godhead.
Well, I guess a long quote is unavoidable. Problem is that there is no "time" between God's free acts and his "mode of being". Right!!! So crafting the ideas into words is tricky. Here's a great source:
quote:
TRINITY AS PERSON VS. "BEING"
(I suspect that you will like--or find interesting,
at least--what you read below. I think it is
ANYTHING but dry--very DRAMATIC!)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Dear Pastor John:
Today I penciled a remark of yours on my bulletin. On several occasions you have remarked how the "Trinity" is difficult. You said the "multiplicity of persons" in "one being" is something such that you (all of us) "don't understand." (Augustine had three separate theories of his own!)
I jotted the remark down because I wondered how it might relate to something that I had read recently. I wonder if what I read might cast some light on the subject.
So starting out, for the purpose of comparison--but not to be picky--I'm going to connect your "being" with the historical formula's term "substance." This is as in the formula: "one substance, three persons." Historically two separate things were done with this formula. So making the switch will keep things straight.
Historically, West and East had different assumptions about the ontological "principle" of God. The West assumed the principle to be "in the substance of God...in the "being" itself of God...in which "the unity of God is the one divine substance, the one divinity."
Quoting below from Zizioulas's "Being as Communion."
The West followed: "...ancient Greek ontology [where] God first _is_ God (His substance or nature, His being), and then exists as Trinity, that is as persons."
Zizioulas says that this misinterprets the Patristic theology of the Trinity where:
"...the unity of God, the one God, and the "ontological "principle" or "cause" of the being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God but in the _hypostasis_, that is, _the person of the Father_. The one God is not the one substance but the Father, who is the "cause" both of the generation of the Son and of the procession of the Spirit. Consequently the ontological "principle" of God is traced back...to the person. Thus when we say that God "is," we do not bind the personal "freedom" of God--the being of God is not an ontological "necessity" or a simple "reality" for God--but we ascribe the being of God to His personal freedom. In a more analytic way this means that God, as Father, and not as substance, perpetually confirms through "being" His _free_ will to exist. And it is precisely His trinitarian existence that constitutes this confirmation: the Father out of love--that is, freely--begets the Son and brings forth the Spirit. Thus God as person--as the hypostasis of the Father--makes the one divine substance to be that which it is: the one God. This point is absolutely crucial. For it is precisely with this point that the new philosophical position of the Cappadocian Fathers, and of St. Basil in particular, is directly connected. That is to say that the substance never existed in a "naked" state, that is, without hypostasis, without "a mode of existence." And the one divine substance is consequently the being of God only because it has these three modes of existence, which it owes not to the substance but to the one person, the Father. Outside of the Trinity there is no God, that is, no divine substance, because the ontological "principle" of God is the Father. The personal existence of God (the Father) constitutes His substance, makes it hypostasis. The being of God is identified with the person." (Zizioulas, pp.40-41)
Continuing (p.44):
"The manner in which God exercises His ontological freedom, that precisely which makes Him ontologically free, is the way in which He transcends and abolishes the ontological necessity of the substance by being God as _Father_, that is, as He who "begets" the Son and "brings forth" the Spirit. This ecstatic character of God, the fact that His being is identical with an act of communion, ensures the transcendence of the ontological necessity which His substance would have demanded--if the substance were the primary ontological predicate of God--and replaces this necessity with the free self-affirmation of divine existence. For this communion is a product of freedom as a result not of the substance of God but of a person, the Father--observe why this doctrinal detail is so important--who is Trinity not because the divine _nature_ is ecstatic but because the Father is a _person_ freely wills this communion.
(p.46)
"It thus becomes evident that the only exercise of freedom in an ontological manner is _love_. The expression "God is love" (1 John 4:18) signifies that God "subsists" as Trinity, that is as person and not as substance. Love is not an emanation of "property" of the substance of God--this detail is significant in the light of...--but constitutive of His substance, I.e., it is that which makes God what He is, the one God. Thus love ceases to be a qualifying--i.e., secondary property of being and becomes _the supreme ontological predicate_. Love as God's mode of existence "hypostasizes" God _constitutes His being. Therefore, as a result of love, the ontology of God is not subject to the necessity of the substance. Love is identified with ontological freedom.
And finally concluding (pp.48-49):
"The survival of a personal identity is possible for God not on account of His substance but on account of His trinitarian existence. If God the Father is immortal, it is because His unique and unrepeatable identity as Father is distinguished eternally from that of the Son and of the Spirit, who call Him "Father." If the Son is immortal, He owes this primarily not to His substance but to His being the "only-begotten" (note here the concept of uniqueness) and His being the one in whom the Father is "well pleased." Likewise the Spirit is "live-giving" because He is "communion" (2 Cor. 13:14). The life of God is eternal because it is personal, that is to say, it is realized as an expression of free communion, as love. Life and love are identified in the person: the person does not die only because it is loved and loves; outside the communion of love the person loses its uniqueness and becomes a being like other beings, a "thing" without absolute unique and unrepeatable, whereas life for the person means the survival of the uniqueness of its hypostasis, which is affirmed and maintained by love."
How's that, Albert?
Edited by - fred on 06/27/2003 2:06:15 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2003 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | | rossinfadeout and I BOTH want you, Albert, to get to his question. But, since the Greek Fathers did NOT sit down one day and remember that they had a philosophy paper to turn in on Monday, and happen to deside that they should do a little philosphy... That's NOT what they did. The WHOLE THING had its roots in Soteriology, and in Christology. Trinitarian theology is NOT -- many seminarian's experiences notwithstanding -- IS NOT an abstraction; or even a neat idea. It's a real issue, experientially known.
Here is another piece by Zizoulas from the same book, but different chapter. (I'll keep the text small.)
quote:
(From John Zizioulas's "Being as Communion" in the second chapter "Truth as Communion.")
section 2. The Eucharistic Approach.
. . . (p.80) . . . This was an extremely profound assimilation of the Greek concept of truth as the "nature" of things with the Johannine and Ingnatian concept of truth as life. Christ is the truth not because he is an epistemological principle which explains the universe, but because he is life and the universe of beings finds its meaning in its incorruptible existence in Christ, who takes up into Himself the whole of creation and history. Being is inconceivable outside of life, and because of this the ontological nature of truth resides in the idea of life.
This identification of being with life is so decisive for the history of Christian theology that, in our opinion, it is solely upon this basis that the great achievements of Trinitarian theology of the fourth century can be judged to their full value. It is therefore important to consider the reasons for this phenomenon. That was it among the Greek Fathers that made it possible to identify being with life?
This question cannot be answered by attempting to associate the ideas of Ignatius and Irenaeus with some intellectual movement, for the simple reason that such a movement did not exist. What seems to have formed the foundation of these two Father's thought is not an intellectual tradition, but their common experience of the Church as a community, and especially as a eucharistic community. The role played by the eucharist in the theology of Ignatius is so decisive that it would be surprising if it had not had an influence on the identification of existence with life. In fact, we meet the idea of immortality in his writings in connection with the eucharist. In Iranaeus we find the same centrality of the eucharist, and there is no doubt that this is what influenced his conception of the incorruptibility, with it ontological connotations, since this emerges from the relationship which he establishes between creation and the eucharist.
How could a theology of the eucharist lead to an identification of existence with life? The answer is found firstly in the biblical roots of the relationship between the eucharist and life. The Fourth Gospel provides an adequate base to establish this relationship. Secondly, both Ignatius and Irenaeus have to fight on behalf of the reality within the eucharist -- the former in combating docetism and the later in combating gnosticism. If the eucharist is not truly Christ in the historical and material sense of the word "truth." then truth is not life and existence at the same time, since for both men the eucharist imparts life. Thus truth had to become historical without ceasing to be ontological..
Finally there was the understanding of the eucharist as community. The life of the eucharist is the life of God Himself, but this is not life in the sense of an Aristotelian movement which flows our mechanically from the interior of existence. It is the life of communion with God, such as exists within the Trinity and is actualized within the members of the eucharistic community. Knowledge and communion are identical.
All this leads naturally to the theological development of the fourth century. But it must be strongly underlined that without this foundation of Ingnatius and Irenaeus, the trinitarian theology of the fourth century would remain a problem. We must therefore pause briefly on this point before passing to the fourth century.
The identification of existence with life through the idea of immortality and incorruptibility will lead naturally into trinitarian theology. If incorruptibility is possible only in and through communion with the life of God Himself, creation or being can exist and live only insofar as the source of being -- God -- is Himself life and communion. The eucharistic experience implies that life is imparted and actualized only in an event of communion, and thus creation and existence in general can be founded only upon this living God of communion. thus the divine act that brings about creation implies simultaneously, the Father, the Son and the Spirit.
Not an abstraction.
Edited by - fred on 06/27/2003 1:51:15 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/27/2003 9:04 AM (GMT -6) | | As per:
quote:
Secondly, regarding personhood, I don't agree with you that personhood "by definiton" can only exist in community. It is true that moral attributes such as love, kindness and so forth can only be expressed in community, but that doesn't mean that personhood itself ceases to exist if not in community. If a person is stranded on a desert island, they do not cease to be a person. If a unitarian says they believe in a personal God, I don't have a problem with that. If they say their God is a God of love, I don't even have a problem with that. However, I would say that their God had to create in order to love. The unitarian God is therefore dependent on the creation in order to express such moral attributes as love. The trinitarian God is not dependent on the creation, because the three persons of the trinity can eternally express love to each other. So the trinitarian God did not have to create in order to be loving. But personhood is a different thing. A person can be a person in isolation.
1. A "person" can be "isolated" without being "autonomous." And an "individual" can be "autonomous" in a crowd. (The issue relational; rather than spatial.)
2. "If a unitarian says they believe in a personal God..." Saying "personal" probably refers to the relationship of God to them; which is (of course) Trinitarian, whether they acknowledge it or not. 
quote:
Albert: It is true that moral attributes such as love, kindness and so forth can only be expressed in community, but that doesn't mean that personhood itself ceases to exist if not in community.
Right. And many of the OMNI's, it seems to me, belong in this secondary level. What do you think. BUT, prehaps I'd be more comfortable (and MEPH less so) if you change the work "love" above to "benevolence." We can say in a different respect that "God IS Love. But "goodness" is not what God IS.
quote:
If they say their God is a God of love, I don't even have a problem with that. However, I would say that their God had to create in order to love. The unitarian God is therefore dependent on the creation in order to express such moral attributes as love.
Right.
quote:
The trinitarian God is not dependent on the creation, because the three persons of the trinity can eternally express love to each other.
Here's where you actually slip and make a comment that differs with what you have been defending. You just described three persons sitting around "being God" _BY_VIRTUE_OF_ their loving one another. Zizioulas, and the Greek Fathers would say that the "cause" is the "Person of the Father." (I'm having fun with you here.)
quote:
So the trinitarian God did not have to create in order to be loving.
Exactly. | | Back to Top | | |
| 37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:37 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 |
|
|