 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > The Evangelical Universalist | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/28/2006 11:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Vi: I'm not sure how the omni-s could be given up while perfect love is kept because the action of perfectly loving another requires the omnis. In order to perfectly love A, you have to perfectly know A and everything that could come into contact with A in order to perfectly express your love for A. Additionally, to perfectly love A, you'd have to have sufficient power available to enact that love for A when necessary.
Jeff: I think Asher's point can stand in a practical sense because of this: God will not allow us to be tempted above what we are able. Hence, even though we are not omniscient or omnipotent, God providentially assures that our circumstances are such that our knowledge and power is sufficient to act properly so long as we are abiding faithfully in God's will as we understand it.
In short, perfect love, as defined practically, only requires sufficient knowledge and sufficient power for the circumstances/SofA's at hand. We don't need to know how to maximize good/minimize evil on a universal scale. God handles those universal concerns that are within the purview of His purposes.
So I think both of you are correct in the different senses you are arguing for.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/28/2006 11:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | Great interveiw with MacDonald:
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/28/2006 11:20:02 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/28/2006 11:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
I see Vi's point, and I tend to agree. Namaste, it would help if you'd articulate this in terms of, say, Chalcedon (the two-natures view). Because when you say "the human Jesus" could or couldn't do tihs or that, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The human Jesus is one person/two natures. I don't know if what you're saying about "Jesus" is meant to include the human nature or the divine nature.
Whatever capacities are necessary to divinity have to be possessed by Jesus (obviously his divine nature). Whatever necessary EXERCISE of capacity properly defines God has to be EXERCISED by Jesus (obviously in terms of his divine nature).
1) When I say "human Jesus", I am just making a statement of emphasis. There IS a distinction between the human Jesus and the eternally begotten Son. The human Jesus is a contingent expression of God...whereas the Son is the necessary essential existence of God. This is NOT to say that the Son and Jesus are two different persons. They are the same person. It is to say that the human Jesus is a human being with a human soul that, due to the intensification of God's contingent expression into humanness, also has divine dispositional tendencies.
2) It's important to understand the beauty of the dispositional ontology. Because we can talk about definitional and constitutive dispositions...and we talk about God having a contingent element...we can say the obvious. If omnipresence were a NECESSARILY EXERCISED dispositional tendency of all 3 unique perspectives within the one necessary being, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE in all ways for God to become a FULL non-glorified human being. But since God HAS contingently expressed Godself in humanness, it must be the case that EXERCISE of omnipresence is NOT necessary for divinity to be maintained. In other words, omnipresence is a definitional disposition that only GOD can have...and he has this capacity necessarily. But that doesn't automatically mean that God MUST always express Godself to Creation by actualizing this capacity. He can express Godself via incarnation into a single human being. See what I'm trying to say?
**********************
Namaste: Sometimes one has to talk VERY INDIRECTLY to someone, using only the categories that they understand, even IF their categories are not totally representative of reality in order to bring a person to higher truth.
Jeff: Maybe it would be helpful to explain what their categories were vs. ours. I can't see the difference. They had an OT with the notions of forgiveness, mercy, love, etc. They also had verses like "blessed is the man to whom the Lord will in no wise impute sin." So I'm not understanding what categories they lacked that would have enabled them to conceive of UR. Maybe Vi has the same problem in understanding this.
I'll just say this. If someone wants to believe that Jesus completely knew about universalism, but decided to just use ECT language because of his context...and that causes less cognitive dissonance...go for it.
Again, I can go either way...but I lean towards thinking that Jesus basically lived in the tension that his faith placed him into.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/28/2006 11:42:50 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/28/2006 11:19 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/28/2006 11:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Dude...
I just scanned Beck's main idea...
You AIN'T gonna like it...
So, as a psychologist, let me tell you about the theological landscape of the future:
It will be a world where the soul has no place. In its place will be behavioral genetics, neuroscience, and psychology. "Sins" will be increasingly be viewed as biological or environmental issues (e.g., addictions, chemical imbalances). And, as a consequence, issues of justice, crime and punishment will continue to move more toward rehabilitative and social contract (e.g., deterrence) models. In short, the brain with its related sciences will slowly transform notions of free will and in its wake notions of virtue, sin, justice, crime, and punishment. Humans will be viewed as the product, a nexus, of causal activity and we will strive, as a self-reflective species, to understand and manipulate that causal machinery to engineer a harmonious future for all. We are in the beginning stages of this process, you see it already around you, and it will intensify as Pinker and Bloom say it will.
And as this future evolves, how will Arminian soteriological systems fare?
Not well.
How will universalism fare?
Very, very well.
Why? Because as notions of "free will" erode we will have to alter notions of moral praise and blame. Moral luck will dominate discussions of human responsibility. And Arminian systems will have no leverage in these conversations. But universalism will. Because universalism is fully compatible with a causal vision of the will. That is, God is fully willing and able (from a time perspective) to work with you as causal nexus, working with and shaping your contingent will to mold you into the image of Jesus.
Universalism is on the rise. And the factor driving this trend is, interestingly, neuroscience.
He denies the existence of the soul...and free will...all at the same time.
Wow.
He's too caught up on the Cartesian problem. He needs to get into process thought via David Ray Griffin. Some of the process insights about panexperientialism REALLY help in this regard, with respect to the mind-body issue.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/28/2006 11:36 PM (GMT -6) | | The MacDonald interview is on HELLA point!
Would you describe yourself as "hopeful" or "convinced" when it comes to universalism?
I describe myself as a 'hopeful dogmatic universalist'. That means that my theological system says that it is certain that everyone will be saved (hence, a 'dogmatic' universalist) but I am not 100% certain my system is correct (hence 'hopeful').
I do NOT mean that I think that universalism is central to Christian faith or that other Christians ought to believe it - I DO mean that on my theology it is more than a hope. (Namaste: HAYELL, yeah!)
What difference does it make? How has being a universalist helped you?
It fills me with hope for the future. It fills me with worship for God's love, his providence, his wisdom, and his justice. It increases my view of the power of the cross, of the mercy and grace of God. It helps me make sense of God's wrath and punishment. It helps me hold together God's love and wrath in a more satisfactory way than I could previously. It helps me deal more satisfactorily with the problem of evil (the victims of injustice really will have the wrongs they have suffered righted instead of going from the frying pan into the fire), it means I have something to say to the Christian parent who has lost a child that had rejected the gospel. My view of sin has not decreased but my view of grace has increased - where sin abounds grace abounds all the more. I now believe that God will heal all the wounds of sin in his beautiful creation. Sin will not have the last word.
...
But, if you're wrong, isn't it quite a dangerous mistake to make?
Very important question. I discuss this at the end of the book and argue that on my version of universalism, if it turns out to be wrong it is not a dangerous mistake.
Let me ask how my view might be dangerous?
- does it lead people to reject the Trinity? No
- does it lead people to underestimate how serious sin is? Nein
- does it lead people to throw out any elements in the creeds? Niet
- does it downplay the role of Christ and his cross and resurrection in salvation? Non
- does it encourage unholy living? does it undermine the importance of trusting Christ? Does it undercut the role of Scripture? does it dull our love for God? No! Nein! Niet! and Non!
But perhaps your worry is about mission. I imagine that your question presupposes that if one is a universalist they will not be motivated to engage in missions and evangelism. If that is the case and universalism turns out to be false then it is indeed very dangerous! The worry is understandable and important so let me say the following: In my view salvation is only found in Christ and, whilst not dogmatic about this, I am inclined towards being an exclusivist (i.e., I am inclined to think one has to have explicit faith in Christ to be saved). So God's purpose of saving all is only achieved through the proclamation of the gospel and its reception with repentance and faith. I think mission is central to the very raison d'etre of the church. There are lots of reasons for engaging in mission. The only one a universalist will not have is the idea that there are no second chances after death. Fortunately that is NOT the only reason to do mission. Actually, I do think those who are not saved will be condemned at the judgment and this is something we are seeking to avoid. So universalists can even be motivated by the desire to rescue as many as possible from going to hell.
You may object, "Oh come on Gregory! If hell is only temporary it hardly matters if people go there or not! In the end they will be saved anyway!"
To me this objection sounds crazy. Suppose that there was a real danger that you would catch a really dreadful disease unless you took the antidote. Would you say, "Who cares? I'll be healed anyone one day when I get my resurrection body so it makes no difference whether I catch it or not!"? I suspect that you would do all you could to avoid the disease in the first place. In the same way OT prophets warned Israel of serious judgment if they failed to repent. Now if someone had said to Jeremiah, "Jerry Boy! Why go to such lengths to warn us to repent? Who cares? God will only restore us after he has punished us anyway so it doesn't make any difference." Jeremiah would have been astonished! Of course, it is true that God does restore Israel after he judges them but that does not mean that the judgment is not worth avoiding. So it is that Jesus warns people to do whatever they have to do to avoid being thrown into hell. It is a real danger and it is serious EVEN IF God will redeem those in hell.
I can't wait until evangelicals start embracing this...
Then I can REALLY preach some stuff... 
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/28/2006 11:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Dude, the word "universalism" may not even be useful anymore. It means different things to people.
I agree with you. "Eventual universal reconciliation through Christ" seems better language to me, anyways. Reconciliation is what Christ's work is all about.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/28/2006 11:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
One more thing about despair being identical with sin. It seems to me that the most fundamental idea of sin (as a verb, i.e.) is the causation of gratuitious suffering. That gratuitious suffering can be brought upon one's self or another. I'm sure that despair is related to gratuitous suffering. But I don't see why the experience of despair is the sum total of what constitutes sin.
Do you understand how I'm describing despair? How about you describe what you hear me saying when I talk about "despair".
********************
Jeff:
In short, perfect love, as defined practically, only requires sufficient knowledge and sufficient power for the circumstances/SofA's at hand. We don't need to know how to maximize good/minimize evil on a universal scale. God handles those universal concerns that are within the purview of His purposes.
Well said. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/29/2006 2:32 AM (GMT -6) | | | Namaste: What's your description of love, Vi?
Vi: The action of seeking and striving for the greatest good of its object. What would you say?
And regarding the kenotic view (that was the word I was looking for!) - I see where you're coming from. So then we just come from different positions on the subject. Gotcha. (Though I still do think that perfect love does require the full ability to enact the 3 omnis in order to enact love. But given Jesus' specific mission, it required choosing to not use the 3 omnis to the fullest extent. At least that's what I'm thinking at this point.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2006 2:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Vi's description of love:
The action of seeking and striving for the greatest good of its object.
Ok. Let's break this down, Christianly speaking.
1) What does LOVING GOD look like? What is God's "greatest good" that would be sought?
2) What is the greatest good for any single human being?
3) What is the greatest good for any group of human beings?
4) Does your idea of love inherently attribute positive worth its object? In other words, is it possible for me to strive for the greatest good of an object WITHOUT attributing positive worth that object...and call that "love"?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2006 8:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
Beck: But perhaps your worry is about mission. I imagine that your question presupposes that if one is a universalist they will not be motivated to engage in missions and evangelism. If that is the case and universalism turns out to be false then it is indeed very dangerous!
Jeff: Here is where I lose him. How can one's worry about evangelism mean anything in a world devoid of free-will. WHATEVER happens must be God's design by that view. Why is it that those who deny free-will fail to see the logical implications of their view?
Beck didn't write that. Gregory MacDonald did. I think you read my stuff inaccurately.
******************************
Namaste: Do you understand how I'm describing despair? How about you describe what you hear me saying when I talk about "despair".
Jeff: I think it has something to do with the idea of people lacking confidence that all is full of love; that God truly IS the source of all that is worthwhile; that only by walking in His benevolent will can our greatest good be experienced.
But I think people can act in ways that result in a diminishing of our greatest good that doesn't entail such a lack of confidence. We see babies hurting themselves out of ignorance all the time. I think older people can do the same thing. IOW, sin can be the lack of confidence in God's total benevolence. But I don't think it has to be. It can just be a failure of sorts like the sin of negligence in the OT--but a failure that results in gratuitous suffering.
I'm going by the Kierkegaardian view of despair. It's not just about negative EFFECTS of certain actions, but a posture of a person before God (and reality). This is how Jesus was without sin.
Let me give you an example. Would it have been possible for Jesus to have made an unintentional inaccuracy in his carpentry that may have caused gratuitous suffering/problems for someone? If so, would we consider THAT sin?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/29/2006 9:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Namaste: Beck didn't write that. Gregory MacDonald did. I think you read my stuff inaccurately.
Jeff: Sorry. I deleted that post. I'm sure I do read your posts inaccurately. I hope you can be patient with me.
Namaste: Let me give you an example. Would it have been possible for Jesus to have made an unintentional inaccuracy in his carpentry that may have caused gratuitous suffering/problems for someone? If so, would we consider THAT sin?
Jeff: I would say that suffering that doesn't result from intention or negligence is not sinful. But it need not be gratuitous either. Because we can learn from it in the way God originally intended. All kinds of unintentional suffering that babies and adults experience is valuable in that sense. Our nervous system is designed by God to educate us, in a sense, by pain. But God did not intend for us to suffer from wrong intention or negligence. That would be the distinction I would make.
But as long as sin includes effects and posture, I'm following you. Sorry for being slow to catch on.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/29/2006 8:46:36 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/29/2006 6:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok. Let's break this down, Christianly speaking.
1) What does LOVING GOD look like? What is God's "greatest good" that would be sought?
God is the greatest good and union with God is the highest form of good. Love draws in the other in order to love, so that love can take place. It's like a two-step action: the drawing because of love and the action of displaying love to one another.
2) What is the greatest good for any single human being?
We're designed to be like mirrors, reflecting God - that is good. But the greatest good for a single human being is to freely choose this.
3) What is the greatest good for any group of human beings?
That the love and beauty of God would be shared, but the only place that can happen is being in God. What would take away from that? IMO, someone missing from the communal sharing of love.
4) Does your idea of love inherently attribute positive worth its object? In other words, is it possible for me to strive for the greatest good of an object WITHOUT attributing positive worth that object...and call that "love"?
It inherently attributes true worth of its object, both potential worth and actual worth - it assesses its object perfectly. Perhaps the point of when love reaches its goal is when the object's actual worth is the same as its potential worth.
But here's my disclaimer  - I really haven't thought about this as much, but after reading 1 John 4, it's kinda given me some insight into this. So I don't have my ducks quite lined up yet.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/30/2006 8:09 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/31/2006 8:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
But as long as sin includes effects and posture, I'm following you. Sorry for being slow to catch on.
The effects of which you speak come from the posture. Basically, it's like having a assembly line machine calibrated inaccurately. EVERYTHING produced by the machine will be affected by the errant calibration. So also, when one's posture towards God and reality is skewed, "sinful" activity is not far behind at all.
*********************************
VI:
This is what I'm getting from your statements, as I filter them through my own thoughts...
1) Having relationally-appropriate intimacy with God is the highest form of good for any being, including God.
2) When we have relationally-appropriate intimacy with God, we will freely reflect and share God's love and beauty to ourselves and others.
3) Love assesses it's object perfectly.
As I look at these, I would pretty much agree. These are certain ideas that I would not agree with. For one, you said...
What I mean by "Love draws in the other in order to love" is this: if there is separation between "lover" and "beloved" the fullness of love can't be expressed. There's a distance between the two. So in order that the fullness of love can be expressed, the lover seeks to draw in the beloved to himself, so there is no distance between the two. One thing from the Freitheim book that really caught my attention was his description of "intensities" of God. Using that description, the lover would strive to maximize the intensity of love being expressed with the beloved.
It seems like you are saying that the fulness of expressed love depends on the proximity or reception of that love from another. I would disagree. I would submit that love is fundamentally unidirectional. Now, love can HOPE that it's love is reciprocated, but it's not required or even sought. A person who freely loves does so WITHOUT expectation of any kind of recompense. I do agree that love MAY draw people...but this is not necessarily the case. Jesus loved people who were NOT drawn to him and who did NOT reciprocate his love...but he loved them unconditionally anyway.
Next, you said that love...
It inherently attributes true worth of its object, both potential worth and actual worth - it assesses its object perfectly. Perhaps the point of when love reaches its goal is when the object's actual worth is the same as its potential worth.
I would separate "worth" and "growth". One could almost read this and say that we have MORE WORTH based upon how much we acheive in some kind of becoming process. But this doesn't seem accurate to me. Our worth is based upon us being radically individual centers of perspective created and sustained by God. EVERYONE is worth the SAME to God. There is no being that God loves more or less than any other being. There are relationally-appropriate differences (for example, between the way God relates to angels and the way God relates to humans), but these are not indicators of "worth". We are all worthy of unconditional love and concern BECAUSE God, who is the arbiter of reality, declares that we are. So, as long as we don't link the appraisal of personal worth upon some STATE of the person, I'm good.
How's that?
*******************
Corey:
I had moved away from that as an attempt to better account for the destiny of the unevangelized, but now I see that my motivation to mitigate has been removed; I can affirm both exclusivism and universalism! (Or can I?)
Yes, Corey. You can. Just like Tom said.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/31/2006 11:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | Namaste:
It seems like you are saying that the fulness of expressed love depends on the proximity or reception of that love from another. I would disagree. I would submit that love is fundamentally unidirectional. Now, love can HOPE that it's love is reciprocated, but it's not required or even sought. A person who freely loves does so WITHOUT expectation of any kind of recompense. I do agree that love MAY draw people...but this is not necessarily the case. Jesus loved people who were NOT drawn to him and who did NOT reciprocate his love...but he loved them unconditionally anyway.
I'd agree with most of the stuff you said here (and your points 1-3 were right on!) and I do agree that a person who loves freely loves without requiring anything in return, but I think there's still the hope and desire of reciprocation. I think that's the only way we can make sense of God's agony when we turn away from God. Yes, Jesus loved people who were not drawn to him, but I think because the people weren't drawn to him, he also suffered. He knew what the likelihood of reciprocation would be and even with the odds at zero, he still loved. But in order for love to be expressed to its fullest extent it must be reciprocated.
So I think it may be a quality vs. quantity distinction. The quality of God's love is expressed to the highest degree. But because of a person's turning away, because of her own actions the quantity of God's love is hindered - not because of God's doing, but because the person chooses to not receive it. I also think it's a natural thing for humans to want to reciprocate love when they actually assess it as love and not a commodity.
I'll have to get back to the other stuff.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/1/2006 7:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Namaste:
I'd agree with most of the stuff you said here (and your points 1-3 were right on!) and I do agree that a person who loves freely loves without requiring anything in return, but I think there's still the hope and desire of reciprocation. I think that's the only way we can make sense of God's agony when we turn away from God. Yes, Jesus loved people who were not drawn to him, but I think because the people weren't drawn to him, he also suffered. He knew what the likelihood of reciprocation would be and even with the odds at zero, he still loved. But in order for love to be expressed to its fullest extent it must be reciprocated.
So I think it may be a quality vs. quantity distinction. The quality of God's love is expressed to the highest degree. But because of a person's turning away, because of her own actions the quantity of God's love is hindered - not because of God's doing, but because the person chooses to not receive it. I also think it's a natural thing for humans to want to reciprocate love when they actually assess it as love and not a commodity.
You are on track. Let's put this in dispositional language.
God's love comes from a source of unsurpassably intense lovingkindness that has been internalized by God's very being. This means that contingent expressions of ad intra divine love will ALL have the highest degree of love in those expressions. These expressions are given unconditionally and unilaterally.
Now, if the loving expressions are received by a person, there is now a COMPLEXITY involved with the loving expression that would not be there without the reception and reciprocation of the loving expresssion. God now has a NEW SITUATION in which to experience loving sociality. This experience of reciprocated loving sociality does NOT increase the intensity with which God appreciates lovingkindness (God is aesthetically satisfied by God's ad intra lovingkindness) ...but it DOES increase the complexity of loving experience that God experiences in God's contingent expression.
So, yes, God does hope that we will receive and reciprocate his love...and ONE REASON for that is because our reception and reciprocation of his love makes a NEW OCCASION for a quantitative increase in God's experience of beauty in Creation.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 11/2/2006 2:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Been thinking about this off and on throughout the day. Yes, it does bring a new complexity, but even more than just a new situation -- a new TYPE of love: particularly a new type found in beings like us humans. (Yeah, I know this needs to be flushed out a bit more, but I only have 10 minutes before having to get to bed - but at this point, I'm thinking simply in terms of contingent beings free to choose to reciprocate God's love.) The intensity of love God shares and experiences ad intra (I'm still trying to get the terminology... this means within the trinity?) is not increased, but it simply provides a new type. So perhaps SINCE the creation God is now constantly refining that new type of love to be in its purest form which requires it to remain freely given by contingent beings.
So, God's experience of God's love is at peak quantity and quality, but since creation there's a new type where the quantity and quality have to be maximally increased and refined. (Hope the metaphor makes sense... that's the best I can think of this late) There's a reason I'm thinking along the lines of "type" at this moment - it has to do with the atonement thread. I have an idea regarding why God had to be fully God and fully human for the atonement to work. But I still don't have a GREAT answer about "why a sacrifice". Hopefully I'll have a chance to share tomorrow.
And regarding the worth section, I fully agree. Worth was definitely not the best word for me to use. I basically meant that love perfectly knows it's object - where it is and where it could be. I guess the "worth" would be lie in the "potential" goodness of the object (which is the same for all people) as opposed to the current "actual" goodness. Again, it's not the "actual" goodness that determines the value, but the "potential" goodness that does. But love strives to actualize the potential goodness of the object.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/2/2006 8:03 AM (GMT -6) | | I saw this on amazon:
God Does Not Foreclose: The Universal Promise of Salvation by David Lowes Watson.
Anybody know this guy?
Tom
| | 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 6:16 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 |
|
|