quote:

---

3. God wants PEOPLE to be saved. Here we need to unpack what constitutes God's idea of what a human self is. (In otherwords, what it is to be made in the image of God.) God is not desiring that humans be transformed into automotons and then be unified with God. God wants each individual, as a whole and self-actualized finite creature before God who is cognizant of one's sin and cooperative, even desperate for salvation, to be saved.

"Saved" is the verb that ties all of the above together. Like a good German structured sentence. (Right POW?)

Finally, to tie this in to Meph's question, this would mean that God wills that people become the people they choose to become. (Simply put, our choices really do matter. And they matter eternally.) And that both God and those people are stuck with the reality of that. If we chose submission to God, then so be it, if we chose seperation from God, then, so be it.

---

Sounds familiar, don’t it, peeps? My quote…

quote:

---

I believe that the most plausible explanation, given the open view, would be to say that God just will not ACCEPT loving behavior from creatures in ANY OTHER MANNER other than self-determined, self-solidified form. God just won’t because he doesn't want to. Moreover, God places the “dignity” of free will over and above God’s desire for all people to be saved. God’s wish for total salvation is a wish indeed that is conditioned by 1) God’s stipuation on loving behavior and 2) God’s upholding of free will and it’s ramifications at all costs.


All this is such that merely letting a being experience THEMSELVES as lovers and enjoyers of God is NOT ENOUGH. If they can’t get there on their own, they just don’t get it.

---

So, I see what you are saying. But here’s the things. Are you saying that UNLESS human decisions don’t actually entail ETERNAL consequences in both directions, then they never mattered?? I would beg to differ. Hell is hell. They got there. They self-solidified themselves and experienced it. Furthermore, according to Doc’s view of hell, there was not much “people” left of them from that anyways. So, why would it be wrong for God to compatibilistically compel them out of such a state, bringing about a universalism instead of some horrendous eternal dualism?




"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

Edited by - MephEternal on 07/03/2003 1:29:06 PM

God...........................Human Creatures

quote:

---

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------
Main Entry: pro·pi·tious
Pronunciation: pr&-'pi-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English propicious, from Latin propitius, probably from pro- for + petere to seek -- more at PRO-, FEATHER
Date: 15th century
1 : favorably disposed : BENEVOLENT
2 : being of good omen : AUSPICIOUS <propitious sign>
3 : tending to favor : ADVANTAGEOUS
synonym see FAVORABLE
- pro·pi·tious·ly adverb
- pro·pi·tious·ness noun
------------------------------------------------

John Calvin: "...It is at the same time sufficiently evident what God means here, even that he is reconcilable, as soon as men truly turn to him: and thus we see that men cannot be called to repent, until God's mercy is presented to them. Hence also it follows, that these two things, repentance and faith, are connected together, and that it is absurd and an impious sacrilege to separate them; for God cannot be feared except the sinner perceives that he will be propitious to him: for as long as we are apprehensive of God's wrath, we dread his judgment; and thus we storm against him...


"...when God is especially displeased with us, it is yet an evidence of his paternal kindness when he favors us with the prophetic teaching..."


"...God was ready to receive them into favor..."


"...God, when he saw the people rushing headlong through blind despair into all kinds of impiety, designed to make the trial whether or not some of them were healable..."


"...We now see what God's design was, even that he wished to give those Jews the hope of mercy who were altogether irreclaimable, so that they might not reject what he taught on hearing that it would be for their good."


"...Let us then understand that the Prophet says here, that he was sent that he might try whether the Jews would repent; for God was ready to receive them into favor."


"...God manifests his unspeakable goodness, that he does not wholly cast away men who are almost past remedy, and whose diseases seem to be unhealable. . . .We now see why it was said, If so be that they will hear."


"...God intimates that it was not enough that the whole people should ostensibly confess their sins, but that every one was required to examine himself. . .Repentance therefore is only true and genuine, when every one comes to search his own case; for its interior and hidden seat is in the heart."


"...men cannot be called to repent, until God's mercy is presented to them..."


"...repentance and faith, are connected together, and that it is absurd and an impious sacrilege to separate them; for God cannot be feared except the sinner perceives that he will be propitious to him: for as long as we are apprehensive of God's wrath, we dread his judgment; and thus we storm against him..."

---

quote:

---

The option of simply turning them is not that different from this, so far as I can see. If the self IS now DEFINED as a solidified character against God, then in turning this self, God is actually ANNIHILATING the self and CREATING a new one -- only the new one isn't a HUMAN self but a pet. I can see no reason why God couldn't do this, if he wanted. But we have to be clear that this view isn't doing ANYTHING for the damned person that annihialtionism doesn't do. It's just ADDING the curious belief that an eternal stepford wife copy of the person was created memory, as it were, of a person who once was and as a shell-testimony to what they could have been.

If you say, "why not say that God just doesn't WANT that kind of love... he only wants chosen love...." well, that IS what I'm saying. If God wanted THAT kind of "love" (viz. shell love-like behavior), he could have gotten that without going through any probationary epoch.

I THINK you, me and Modes are pretty close to each other on this one... or maybe not.

---

Ok. I think the false self/true self idea really comes in here. My chief presupposition here is that ANY sentient creation of God has an innate characteristic: A indescribable yearning and acknowledgement of God. We are all created to KNOW that we need God. The sinful, false self emerges when we believe the lie that we do NOT need God and basically deadens this yearning. I would also say that this innate characteristic is NEVER destroyed but simply SUPPRESSED under the false self. (Hmmmm…what’s that passage in Romans??)

If what I’m suggesting is true, then God compatibilistically REMOVES the false self from each hell-bound being. Of course, this annihilates everything about the hell-bound being that was in line with the false self…BUT SOMETHING REMAINS. The TRUE self of that being that was broken by sin, but NOT destroyed. To be sure, this would be quite small in the hellbound being, but it is enough for God to take and EXPAND via God’s compatibilistic power. And this is what is distinct from annihilationism. With annihilationism, NOTHING of the being remains. Not one iota. With my view, there IS something of the “self” that remains. Moreover, this expanded “self” would be more than a pet in that it would truly EXPERIENCE ITSELF as loving God. If there is anything crucial to the understanding of sentience, it is conscious SELF-REFLECTION. A mere pet cannot do this. To say that bringing this semblance of life from the previous zombie state would be a recreative miracle would be the understatement of the century!

Again, notice all of this would be possible WHILE:

1) God created a world where genuine love was possible.
2) God was able to secure himself a bride of self-solidified God lovers.
3) Free will and human dignity would be affirmed, in that human beings were able to self-solidify themselves and EXPERIENCE the ramifications.
4) A probationary period did exist.

In essence, what is being described above is a middle ground between annihilationism and UNIVERSALISM. Everything that can be redeemed by God will be…and due to the constitution of God’s sentient creations, everything indeed CAN be!

*********************************

I suppose that we ARE pretty close to each other, in that we all seem to be agreeing that, if indeed eternal conscious punishment is the case, that the best explantation for it’s existence is God’s intention on not accepting any other type of loving interaction save self-solidified, self-determined love…and it was THIS CHOICE (not necessarily metaphysical limitation) that makes way for an eternal dualism and eternal punishment.

I’ll just be honest though, Doc. Things get weird here. I don’t know if we would agree that this is a MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE reason. We say that God INFINITELY values each created sentient being as if they were the only one. So much so that God genuinely wishes for all to be saved. Yet, God would be willing to put up with AT LEAST ONE (but probably many, many MORE than one) being enduring eternal punishment as a wraith-like solipsistic “non-entity”….just so that the “dignity” of free will can be upheld…when that dignity would not be essentially in danger at all?? This seems just as problematic to me as someone who would really let the 40 out of the 100 people deteriorate into depersonalizing madness unto death…just because they wanted to honor self-isolating people’s freedom to choose to its fullest actualizable ramifications This really does seem to go against the idea that God REALLY, REALLY wanted everyone to be saved. Is this really morally justifiable?

Cool stuff, Doc.




"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

quote:

---

Yes, here is where we part. I agree with your true self/false self distinction. And I see nothing intrinsically incoherent in your speculation of a universal "salvagable remainder" that cannot/ need not be burned away. I just don’t see any compelling reason to believe this, for I don’t see any compelling reason to share your presupposition. I would LIKE to believe there is an indistinguishable "salvagable remainder" in each person, but I don’t see it in experience or in Scripture. Seems to me our true self can be irretrievable lost, "without remainder." Then we ARE simply "the lie," das nichtige, the chosen nothing.

---

Hmmm…so it comes down to presuppositions then, eh? I suppose so, for I don’t see anything in Scripture or experience that speaks AGAINST the salvagable remainder. Moreover, the possibility is what I’m looking at, meaning that it would have been possible for God to have done this, if God so chose. We can both acknowledge that, right?


**************************

Doc:

quote:

---

What is more, I still suspect your in violation of TWT4 (like that was some kind of "law"… right). How can be have the potential to be totally FOR God for eternity if we lack the potential to be totally AGAINST God for eternity?

---

Uh, oh. My quote from the other thread:

quote:

---

First off, let me type this. This is Doc’s definition of “probationary period/probational epoch” from SATPOE on page 427:

“probationary period/probational epoch. The period of time a free agent must go through in order to choose to love or not to love, for love cannot be coerced. I argue that if love was God’s aim in creation, there had to, by metaphysical necessity, be a probationary period, for love must be chosen. For humans, this present age is our probationary period. Our individual probationary periods come to an end as our free choices become crystallized in the form of an irreversible character. Ultimately, one is eternalized either as one who is open to God’s love or as one who is closed off to it. The probationary period, as the self-determining freedom that accompanies it, comes to an end. This is expressed in TWT6: the potential to influence is finite.”

Ok. REEEALY look at that, y’all. I’ve basically agreed with every statement in this definition…EXCEPT ONE.

“Ultimately, one is eternalized either as one who is open to God’s love or as one who is closed off to it.”

In my mind, there was absolutely no STRICTLY metaphysical reason to say that the self-solidified state had to endure eternally! Doc might say that TWT4 is the issue. It says that there is proportionality to the potential to influence others. Basically, the implications would mean this: if it is metaphysically possible for a being to eternally love God, it MUST be the case that it is metaphysically possible for a being to eternally NOT love God. But here’s the thing. To satisfy this all you need to say is:

1) Self-solidification in both directions to the point of irrevocability BY the self is possible.

2) The self is so constituted such that it is metaphysically POSSIBLE that eternal separation from God may occur.

You would NOT need to say that self-solidification MUST endure eternally. This is a different statement! But that’s how it seems Doc took it. Just like God allows people to eternally enjoy God, he MUST allow people to eternally be away from him. This is obviously not the case. This would not be an issue of METAPHYSICAL necessity, as much as being an issue of being ETHICALLY “FAIR.”

I’ll show you what I mean. Example. Let’s say you are you right now. Now, being a self-determined human being, you have the power to become a much more loving person or a much more hateful person. Let’s say that you spend the next 50 years being a hateful person, such that you have pretty much solidified yourself that way. You can no longer help being a hateful person. Now, I HYPNOTIZE you, via different means, until I actually have you do a complete 180 degree turn in your thought life. I’ve essentially brainwashed you into believing that you are a loving person. And it works. People can’t even BELIEVE it’s you. Now…think about it. Did I remove the essential CAPACITY that you had for self-solidification? Heck, no. You had done it already! The only thing that I did was STOP THE RESULT from enduring until your death. Nothing more, nothing less.

This same principle applies. God would not be negating TWT4 by just preventing the self-solidified hell person from being so ETERNALLY. So, then it would NOT be metaphysically impossible to do what I’m saying. I think Doc just has to grant me this one.

---

Again, all that TWT4 formally states is that moral responsibility is proportionate to the potential to influence others. This actually really applies to the probationary period...not to the endurance of a self-solidified state.





******************************

Doc:

quote:

---

I hear you. This, along with all but a handful of passages, is why annihilationism is so attractive. So I do abductive reasoning with a mystery card chaser. I know God would save them IF HE COULD. So I conclude that he CAN’T. And now I try to figure out why he CAN’T. And the best guess I can hit on is *free will + principle of proportionality. Am I fully satisfied with this?

---

I don’t know. Are you? Anyways, I’d grant the “free will” part, but the TWT4 thing won’t work, I think.

Sweet stuff, Doc.



"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

quote:

---

We usually say that Jesus had the POTENTIAL to sin, even though he WOULD NOT have, right? Basically what you say is that Jesus, given his human nature, was metaphysically able to sin even though he wasn’t ACTUALLY able to, yes?

---

quote:

---

WHAT? Don’t all the verses about people in hell, tormented day and night forever, cool my tongue stuff etc… count against your concept of a slavagable remainder? You don’t want to be a universalist, but you DO want EVERYONE in heaven, you DON’T want them annihilated, and you DON’T want them eternally suffering. DUDE. If I may be so bold, sounds to me like you want to have your orthodoxy and eat your universalistic cake too.

---

I meant that nothing in Scripture speaks against the possible existence of a salvagable remainder. All the Scripture shows is that some people will not be saved. This does nothing to show that the concept of all beings possessing a salvagable remainder is metaphysically impossible. This is what I was trying to say.
And you seem to grant this with your next statement.

quote:

---

It’s logically possible TWT4 is mistaken, or that I’m wrong in taking it to imply the potential for CONSCIOUS existence apart from God for eternity. And its logically possible for God to create people with a non-negotiable center (true self) that cannot be annihilated. So, its logically possible that in the eschaton God destroys everything about a person except this non-negotiable center. And, therefore, its logically possible that these "people" (I hesitate) worship God, but not freely (and this is the "true" self?). Its logically possible, yes.

---

*****************************

Doc:

quote:

---

But, if you grant TWT4, I’m not sure its logically possible for a person to have the capacity to LOVE GOD ETERNALLY WITHOUT REMAINDER while LACKING the capacity to HATE GOD ETERNALLY WITHOUT REMAINDER.

and…

But it seems to me that the potential for self-chosen conscious existence TOWARD God for eternity entails the opposite potentiality for self-chosen conscious existence AGAINST God for eternity. If the non-negotiable remainder is preserved on one side, TWT 4 would stipulate that a non-negotiable remainder must be preserved on the other.

---

Hmmm…I don’t think my point was acknowledged. I’m granting that before the end of the probationary period, it is the case that free willed beings are constituted such that they INNATELY have the capacity to choose for or against God for the duration of their existences. This is what TWT4 implies. In other words, IF GOD WERE TO DO NOTHING, then the hellbound beings would remain in their states eternally. This is all that is necessary to accept TWT4.

What I’m saying is that God could compatibilistically compel beings POST-probationary period, after self-solidification in hell has taken place…and prevent that end state from being eternal. See what I’m saying?

*********************************

Doc:

quote:

---

Simple, NO! You’re making an argument that sin is to Jesus what eternal hell is to solidified hell bound beings. I don’t at this point see that it works. For the two variables state exactly opposite things! Jesus couldn’t metaphysically sin because his solidified nature as God was AGAINST it. But solidified hellbound beings CAN experience eternal hell precisely because THEIR solidified natures are FOR it.

Don’t buy the argument. But I love the creativity of the suggestions. Capacity for hell without the metaphysical possibility of it… WILD.

---

Ok. Now we’re REALLY not together. You’re taking my idea wrong. Check it…

Jesus’s FULLY human nature possessed libertarian freedom because ALL human beings have it. Jesus’s FULLY divine nature created the effect of compatibilistic freedom. The dynamic ended up being such that though Jesus, LOGICALLY SPEAKING, could sin (ie he was a full human being would COULD do sinful acts and have sinful thoughts), his divine nature assured that he WOULD NOT sin. Jesus’s libertarian freedom was INFLUENCED by the divine nature such that Jesus wouldn’t sin. So, sin’s relationship to Jesus is one of CAPACITY, not ACTUALIZATION.

In just the same way, eternal hell is related to solidified hellbound beings. TWT4’s effect is such that all sentient beings, because of their free will, have the ability to self-solidify…and because of their constitution, exist eternally in their self-solidified state. This means that they have the CAPACITY to eternally be in hell. What could happen is that God’s compatibilistic working would be such that, though self-solidification to hell would occur, eternal remaining in that state would NOT. So, the CAPACITY that the beings have is not ACTUALIZED.

The relationship I’m trying to highlight is as follows:

It is possible for something to innately have the CAPACITY to do something, but, due to constraints on said thing-whatever those may be--, the capacity is NOT actualized.

Got it?

*************************

Hey! I have another way to say it that you may get!

I would NOT say this:

It is metaphysically possible for a person to have the capacity to LOVE GOD ETERNALLY WITHOUT REMAINDER while LACKING the capacity to HATE GOD ETERNALLY WITHOUT REMAINDER.

I WOULD say this:

It is metaphysically possible for a person who has the capacity to either love or hate God eternally without remainder to be so constrained such that only ONE OPTION is ACTUALLY (not LOGICALLY) open for the person!

Yeah! I think that oughta do it.

**************************************

Here’s where I think your interpretations of TWT4 may be wrong. You seem to be saying that LOGICAL possibility isn’t enough but possibililty for ACTUALIZATION. In other words, you seem to say that if it is not ACTUALLY possible for people to eternally suffer in hell because God WILL save all, then TWT4 is being falsified. I say thee nay. All that is necessary is the innate power within sentient beings that makes eternal suffering in hell LOGICALLY POSSIBLE! All TWT4 has to work with, Doc, is LOGICAL POSSIBILITY.

Thus, I say again, that someone can grant all 6 of your theses, honor the dignity of free will in doing so, and STILL have room for universalism or full annihilationism to exist. Therefore, the reasons why God would have eternal conscious suffering have to be something 1) NOT metaphysical and 2) something NOT having to do with dignity of free will.

We’re getting there, right?

quote:

---

The following is a quote from a notation on Page 345 of Doc’s “Satan and the Problem of Evil:Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy” Part of note #8 on the page…

“Thomas Talbott argues that an all-loving God would abandon free will and unilaterally turn his creatures to him if not doing so mean that they would experience eternal misery (“The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment,” Faith and Philosophy 7 [1990]: 38). In my view (following Lewis and others), Talbott is asking for a metaphyiscal impossibility. This is the fundamental incoherence of universalism. Love must be chosen. See J. Kvaning’s discussion, The Problem of Hell (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 83-88.”

---

I’m arguing otherwise.

Just for clarity of intent.





Edited by - MephEternal on 07/05/2003 10:31:13 PM

quote:

---

Jesus’s FULLY human nature possessed libertarian freedom because ALL human beings have it. Jesus’s FULLY divine nature created the effect of compatibilistic freedom. The dynamic ended up being such that though Jesus, LOGICALLY SPEAKING, could sin (ie he was a full human being would COULD do sinful acts and have sinful thoughts), his divine nature assured that he WOULD NOT sin. Jesus’s libertarian freedom was INFLUENCED by the divine nature such that Jesus wouldn’t sin. So, sin’s relationship to Jesus is one of CAPACITY, not ACTUALIZATION.

In just the same way, eternal hell is related to solidified hellbound beings. TWT4’s effect is such that all sentient beings, because of their free will, have the ability to self-solidify…and because of their constitution, exist eternally in their self-solidified state. This means that they have the CAPACITY to eternally be in hell. What could happen is that God’s compatibilistic working would be such that, though self-solidification to hell would occur, eternal remaining in that state would NOT. So, the CAPACITY that the beings have is not ACTUALIZED.

---

quote:

---

Meph: All TWT4 has to work with, Doc, is LOGICAL POSSIBILITY.
Doc: I think you’ve nailed the central point of our disagreement. Dude, logical possibility isn’t enough. Heck, anything that’s not logically contradictory is logically possible. TWT4 is about POTENTIALITY, which is much stronger than logical possibilities. It’s logically possible for you to wake up a female tomorrow, but I don’t believe you have the POTENTIAL for this.

---

Hey, I’ve got it. How about, when you get back, you DIRECTLY SHOW ME how TWT4 NECESSARILY deals with potential actualization rather than just logical possibility. The only (and I mean ONLY) thing that I’ve been able to figure out is as follows:

From a REALIST standpoint, if God made a creational factors such that all beings HAD to experience the results of their choices for the duration of their existences, then TWT4 must deal strictly with potential actualization. This chosen creational factor would have METAPHYSICAL implications upon any Creation that God made.


I said this on the other thread. And I ALSO got this from abduction. Now, again, if you TAKE AWAY God’s self-chosen creational factor/self-limitation, there is no more metaphysical reason for your interpretation of TWT4. And I’m arguing that one CAN take this reason away, and still God could accomplish everything that you say God wishes to. The only thing that you can do is to argue that God, given God’s essential existence as love, would NECESSARILY have to make this creational factor. Reframed, you have to argue that love NECESSARILY lets all free-willed ramifications endure for as long as the beings that make the decisions endure. It is THIS idea that I tried to contradict with my “sensory deprivation tanks” analogy. I find it highly problematic to say that it would be NECESSARILY LOVING to allow those 40 people to psychological disintegrate unto a heinous death…MERELY because they ignorantly defiantly chose to…especially when I had the means to adequately stop it. Check out the analogy!

http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2235

Ok, I think I’ve REALLY gotten to the heart of our issue. So, when you get back, this is what I’m looking for:

Show that love NECESSARILY lets all free-willed ramifications endure as long as the beings making the decisions endure.

If the above is demonstrated, then you are very correct about TWT4. And I will gladly concede!

Have a nice break. Thanks for all the interaction.




"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

Edited by - MephEternal on 07/06/2003 09:39:33 AM