 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > The Evangelical Universalist | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/1/2006 1:25 PM (GMT -6) |   | POW:
Explain this facination for the concept "maximize."
Simple.
When it comes to God and God's appreciation of beautiful experience (including that via loving sociality) in Creation...
God just can't get enough. 
God's desire is that the depth and breadth of God's relational self-disclosure (love AND glory) in God's contingent expression be EVER-EXPANDING. As is God's appreciation of that relational self-disclosure. This exists within the creational parameters with with God wished to create Creation.
There is no END POINT at which God looks at Creation and says...
"Yep. That's enough expression of love and beauty in the Creation.
The ONLY area where God is "satisfied" with beautiful experience is God's ad intra triune reality...which grounds God's aseity.
God just wants more and more love and glory to permeate God's creation...forever and ever.
Why?
Because it is THIS kind of gift that the Father wants to give to the Son...and the Son wants to give back to the Father.
For someone to argue, with my fundamental thesis on this...
Someone would have to argue that there is a LIMIT to the glorification and beauty that God wants to experience in Creation!
I'd love to see someone argue THAT.
Heh.
Don't narrow this to quantitative, POW. It's deeper than that.
Easy as pie.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/1/2006 1:30:47 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/1/2006 7:50 PM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...
...the "queen" is Christ and the Father acts and restrains FOR Christ--not HIMSELF. And even then, God maximizes the well-being of creatures so much as He can within the constraints of His purpose for Christ's glorious reign.
JS, I have a 'knee-jerk' reaction to the mere wording of Chirst being the queen. The Church --His Body-- is the Bride. (The queen-mother would be Mary, but that does not come into play here.)
I just remember the unfolding exegesis John Chrysostom gives of 1 Cor. 15 ( http://ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-12/npnf1-12-44.htm#P1912_1165237 ) where he repeats some of the very biblical phrases. Working backwards, the 'end' is that "God be all an in all." Forgive my hasty reading of your post, but the "all in all" seems to go a step *beyond* your paragraph. The second part brings us up to what you did say. Paul writes "subjection to Chirst" and then connects that to the purpose of all that is subjected to Christ's reign is offerd to the Father for "all in all."
So, at least this much I can say: my reading of the Bible did not prepare me to understand what you meant there.
I don't mean to be cute, or snippy. And I'm SURE this sounded bad -- I'm sorry. I haven't woke up from a nap yet.
Please forgive me.
$.02
(o)Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 10/1/2006 8:16:42 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/1/2006 8:14 PM (GMT -6) | | | POW: JS, I have a 'knee-jerk' reaction to the mere wording of Chirst being the queen.
Jeff: I don't like it either. But it made the point.
POW: I just remember the unfolding exegesis John Chrysostom gives of 1 Cor. 15 ( www.ccel.org) where he repeats some of the very biblical phrases. Working backwards, the 'end' is that "God be all an in all." Forgive my hasty reading of your post, but the "all in all" seems to go a step *beyond* your paragraph. The second part brings us up to what you did say. Paul writes "subjection to Chirst" and then connects that to the purpose of all that is subjected to Christ's reign is offerd to the Father for "all in all."
Jeff: I'm not following you here. I'll be out 'til next weekend. But if you get time to relate 1 Cor. 15 to my comments and reasoning, I'll try to respond then. The phrase "then comes the end WHEN" seems, to me, to be an end in time of temporal creational history, as opposed to a teleological end.
The main problem I have with God creating and acting for Himself (only or primarily) is that I find it difficult to avoid what seems to be implied by that--that God's satisfaction is attained at the expense of (suffering, etc) creatures (including infants). I prefer to see the Father creating/working/enduring primarily for the satisfaction of the Son. This seems to resolve that problem, for me. And I see scriptural support for it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/1/2006 8:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
The main problem I have with God creating and acting for Himself (only or primarily) is that I find it difficult to avoid what seems to be implied by that--that God's satisfaction is attained at the expense of (suffering, etc) creatures (including infants). I prefer to see the Father creating/working/enduring primarily for the satisfaction of the Son. This seems to resolve that problem, for me. And I see scriptural support for it.
What's important to remember, Jeff, is that the Son is JUST LIKE the Father, with respect to the disposition of self-giving. Which means that the Son will WANT to give redeemed Creation BACK to the Father. Reciprocation of unilateral love. Just as the Father works for the glorification of the Son, the Son works for the glorification of the Father. As this mutual glorification takes place, the TRIUNE GOD is revealed and lifted up. Read the book of John and see how many times this motif comes up.
This is what POW is saying here..
Forgive my hasty reading of your post, but the "all in all" seems to go a step *beyond* your paragraph. The second part brings us up to what you did say. Paul writes "subjection to Christ" and then connects that to the purpose of all that is subjected to Christ's reign is offered to the Father for "all in all."
This is biblically important to recognize.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/1/2006 8:24 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/1/2006 8:26 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
Meph, the tiptoeing close to the edge of psychological-tinrity makes me nervous.
Heh.
Then you would absolutely be ANXIETY-FILLED at Doc's dissertation.
At any rate, what do you think is the problem, POW? What is making you so nervous? How is what I'm saying doing ANY HARM to the life of faith in Christ...or belief in God's love for the world?
Sometimes, POW, I wonder if you get anxious about what you may not fully understand.
Be specific, please?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/1/2006 8:30:12 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/1/2006 8:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: What's important to remember, Jeff, is that the Son is JUST LIKE the Father, with respect to the disposition of self-giving. Which means that the Son will WANT to give redeemed Creation BACK to the Father. Reciprocation of unilateral love. Just as the Father works for the glorification of the Son, the Son works for the glorification of the Father. As this mutual glorification takes place, the TRIUNE GOD is revealed and lifted up. Read the book of John and see how many times this motif comes up.
Jeff: I'm with you here. I think this is undeniable from scripture. But if Paul is accurate, then all things are OUT of the Father and THROUGH the Son. So I'm thinking that indicates that the Father is the prime mover in the act of creation. Once the Father creates for Christ (for the pleasure derived from Christ's glorification), the Son necessarily seeks the Father's glory FROM that creation, also.
I'm just trying to avoid, if possible, that idea that the Father derives satisfaction (from glory or beauty) at the expense of innocents. I think we can avoid it by positing that the PRIMARY purpose of the Father is to glorify Christ, as opposed to Himself. Otherwise, the continuance of creation and the associated suffering of innocents seem to be FOR, in some sense, the sake of the Father. I'm not thinking we have to posit that to be coherent, so far.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/1/2006 8:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
I'm just trying to avoid, if possible, that idea that the Father derives satisfaction (from glory or beauty) at the expense of innocents. I think we can avoid it by positing that the PRIMARY purpose of the Father is to glorify Christ, as opposed to Himself. Otherwise, the continuance of creation and the associated suffering of innocents seem to be FOR, in some sense, the sake of the Father. I'm not thinking we have to posit that to be coherent, so far.
Uh, oh.
Now we've got issues.
Reread Isaiah 53.
I hope this is not based on the "love does not seek it's own" thing. It seems like you are trying to find a way to say that the Father NEVER ultimately seeks his own.
But I think you should remember something...
God is the ONLY BEING for whom self-glorification is NOT ultimately in competition with the well-being of other beings. It's not a zero-sum game with God.
If Isaiah 53 doesn't show us that, I don't know what does.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/1/2006 8:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: But if Paul is accurate, then all things are OUT of the Father and THROUGH the Son.
$.02: "God the Father created the world through the Son (Word) in the Holy Spirit. The Word of God is present in all that exists, making it to exist by the power of the Spirit. Thus, according to Orthodox doctrine, the universe itself is a revelation of God in the Word and the Spirit. The Word is in all that exists, causing it to be, and the Spirit is in all that exists as the power of its being and life."
http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=37
"The Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit" (Eph 2: 18-22).
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/1/2006 8:58 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Sometimes, POW, I wonder if you get anxious about what you may not fully understand.
Thanks for asking.
I'm nervous when my literacy exceeds my ability to explain or debate.
This does not reflect any disconfidence in knowledge or care.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/1/2006 9:07 PM (GMT -6) | | POW:
Both the psychological-trinity of Augustine (which he meant only as an analogy) and the nineteenth century "social trinity" are untrue.
And since you mention Doc's dissertation (which I never read) I'll mention the prejudice in T's master's thesis (which I did read) whereby he got from Gregroy of Nyssa the notion that Gregory *did* teach the hip social trinity, while Gregory's " clearly teaches what is even more clearly what is in the title -- On "Not three Gods." ( http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.v.html ) -- that there are *not* three personalities in the Tri-unity of God.
Yup.
You don't understand.
Did I say that Doc's main ontological description of God's triune nature was one where there were three "personalities" in God?
Hmmm...
No I didn't.
I was referring to the fact that he quotes a lot of Edwards and, insofar as he does, discusses the psychological model (kind-like) that Edwards had.
So you are actually not disagreeing"with me.
At all.
You are disagreeing with what you THINK my belief of the trinity states.
You may be wrong on that. (Get Greg's dissertation.)
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/1/2006 9:13 PM (GMT -6) | | On "Not three Gods." ( http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.v.html )
For JeffScott:
But in the case of the Divine nature we do not similarly learn that the Father does anything by Himself in which the Son does not work conjointly, or again that the Son has any special operation apart from the Holy Spirit; but every operation which extends from God to the Creation, and is named according to our variable conceptions of it, has its origin from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. For this reason the name derived from the operation is not divided with regard to the number of those who fulfil it, because the action of each concerning anything is not separate and peculiar, but whatever comes to pass, in reference either to the acts of His providence for us, or to the government and constitution of the universe, comes to pass by the action of the Three, yet what does come to pass is not three things.
- St. Gregory of Nyssa -
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/1/2006 9:15 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/1/2006 9:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | Meph: God is the ONLY BEING for whom self-glorification is NOT ultimately in competition with the well-being of other beings.
Jeff: This is exactly what I'm trying to argue. But if the suffering of innocents is endured FOR the aesthetic satisfaction or glory of the Father, then that competition seems to exist after all. If, however, the suffering of innocents or gratuituous suffering is a necessary condition for the ultimate glorification of Christ, THEN those sufferings might only be allowed by God because they are necessary for Christ's appropriate/fitting glorification.
See what I'm saying? I'm saying there is a way to account for innocent suffering and gratuitous suffering without positing that God allows it for His own satisfaction (either glory or beauty)--it's for Christ's sake. So the fact that there IS beauty and glory for God amidst the suffering is one thing. God just doesn't necessarily intend it or allow it for His own pleasure. He could only allow it for Christ's sake--so the benevolent purpose of creation will not be frustrated. Otherwise, He would stop the suffering right now, despite the loss of glory for Himself that would result thereby. God does not seek His own satisfaction if it can only be obtained at the expense of gratuitous suffering.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/1/2006 11:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
God does not seek His own satisfaction if it can only be obtained at the expense of gratuitous suffering.
If human suffering of innocents is, at some point, part of God's plan for God's own glorification...then it's no longer gratuitous.
Gratuitous means "being without apparent reason, cause, or justification."
This is what the "greater good" idea means.
Now, I don't think we should disagree here.
You AGREED with me on Isaiah 53 that it showed that God can use human suffering of one who is innocent for his purposes of self-glorification (which is ultimately confluent with the well-being of all others).
We need to postulate this:
If God uses human suffering of innocents as a direct means of God's own satisfaction, it was for a GREATER GOOD reason such that the suffering cannot be classified as "gratuitous"
I would agree with you that gratuitous suffering of innocents exists in the world. And I agree with you that God would not use superfluous suffering of innocents as direct means for God's glorification.
But because the Father CAN use suffering of innocents for the Father's glorification (Isaiah 53), then there is no reason to place the weight that you put on the whole "the Father cannot be doing this primarily for Himself" tip. It's an overemphasis, I think.
See what I'm getting at?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/1/2006 11:26:42 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/1/2006 11:34 PM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...
POW, even if the Father never acts independent of the Son, it doesn't follow that the creation is OUT of the Son. It's OUT of the Father and THROUGH the Son. Paul does not make that distinction for nought. Nor does he vainly say that it "was pleased" the the fulness of the godhead dwell in Christ bodily. Christ does not act of His own perogative in all matters. Otherwise, the language of 1 Cor. 15 and many other passages is unintelligible. I can't understand trinitarian theories that essentially undo the very distinctions in the godhead that biblical language emphasizes.
Jeff, I don't disagree with where you say "Christ does not act of His own perogative in all matters." think you could write "The Son does not..." too.
I can't figure why you chose the wording "OUT of" though. I'm familiar with "OF" to reflect that the *unity* of the Trinity is founded in the one Will of the Father.
Other (western) theologies of the Trinity are based on defining each member based on what their differences are from the other members.
The Eastern Fathers don't. For them and their understanding the Father is the Fountainhead, and the Son is the only-begotten and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. (In the last three years Rom has backed off on the filoque.)
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/1/2006 11:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: (emphasis mine)
I'm saying there is a way to account for innocent suffering and gratuitous suffering without positing that God allows it for His own satisfaction (either glory or beauty)--it's for Christ's sake. So the fact that there IS beauty and glory for God amidst the suffering is one thing. God just doesn't necessarily intend it or allow it for His own pleasure. He could only allow it for Christ's sake--so the benevolent purpose of creation will not be frustrated. Otherwise, He would stop the suffering right now, despite the loss of glory for Himself that would result thereby. God does not seek His own satisfaction if it can only be obtained at the expense of gratuitous suffering.
It seems like your struggle deals with this ideas:
1) Love seeks to stop suffering as soon as possible.
2) If being A allows suffering of another innocent being B ultimately for being A's own glorification on any level, that being cannot be doing loving activity on any level towards being B in allowing said suffering.
With these beliefs, for you to say that the Father allows the suffering of "innocent" humans ultimately for the Father's own glorification, you have a hard time saying that the Father is operating according to perfect love. Moreover, because love seeks to stop suffering as soon as possible...to say that the Father defers stopping suffering ultimately for the sake of his own glorification...rubs you the wrong way.
Probably because of your weight on the idea that "Love does not seek it's own."
It is easier for you to say that the Father is ultimately doing it as an act of love for someone else (the Son)...than it is for you to say that the Father is doing it ultimately for himself. Hence, your apparent focus on this.
That's why I've been trying to say what I have.
Belief #2 only works it is ultimately the case that being A's self-glorification is NOT CONFLUENT with loving activity towards being B. (This is usually how we see fallen HUMANS work...)But as we see, God doesn't fit this bill. All of God's activity ultimately works towards loving activity towards all creatures. (God always works for the good of the whole...etc, etc...)
Once we see this, then we don't have to say that the Father ABSOLUTELY COULD NOT use the suffering of innocents as direct means to the Father's self-glorification. We don't have an less-than-helpful press to push the Father's gift-giving to the Son.
In my mind, this is very, very, very important to get.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/1/2006 11:54:05 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/2/2006 12:42 AM (GMT -6) | | POW,
There is a reason why we won't agree on some things.
I think that you, like Gregory of Nyssa, don't believe that diversity exists in God's "essence." It is "one nature", you say. No diversity at ALL in God's "essence" Having difference with respect to causation (manner of existence in the Godhead) is NOT the same as having diversity being an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT in divine reality. Only UNITY is an essential element of divine reality. God IS One, insofar as there is only ONE Fountainhead from whence the Godhead is...the Father.
In Doc's (and my) view, God's essential existence IS the ultimate depth of beautiful experience, which incorporates unity AND diversity. Diversity is an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of divine reality...just as is fundamental unity. God IS One, insofar as there is only ONE eternal experience of divine perichoretic loving relationality between 3 distinct loci of self-understanding within the life of the Godhead. God IS single divine experience of the perfect loving sociality in God's ad intra existence. In other words, God IS love.
Metaphysically, Doc's view tries to deal with the reality of there being 3 loci of self-understanding in God. Unless we want to say that that Father, Son, and Spirit had absolutely NO separation in self-understanding from whence they related to one another (ie the Father could not see himself in any way separate from the Son), then it helps to have some metaphysical way of describing this reality. Orthodoxy, it seems, thinks that this concern is irrelevant. What's imporant is living in the ECONOMY of God's self-revelation and leaving it at that.
Here, I agree more with G of Minnesota than with G of Nyssa.
This divide between us, POW, is just gonna be there. Let's just recognize that.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/2/2006 1:10:03 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/2/2006 1:07 AM (GMT -6) | | I feel like it's important to show you something, POW.
Talking about the Godhead having 3 distinct loci of divine self-understanding (Father, Son, Spirit) does NOT necessitate that there is no possible fundamental unity grounding the life of the Godhead. Saying what we are saying does NOT equate to tritheism! By the categories of trinitarian process, the fundamental UNITY that grounds the God's essential existence is one of SINGLE divine experience of perfect, perichoretic loving sociality between 3 loci of divine self-understanding.
Believe it or not, POW, one can believe this (that unity AND diversity exists in God's essential existence)...and still incorporate the belief about the Father being the "Fountainhead" of the Godhead, the Son being the Only-begotten, and the Spirit proceeding from the Father.
Trinitarian process makes room for this.
Yeah...
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/2/2006 7:54:37 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 226 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:37 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 |
|
|