tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post6426175229737561445..comments2024-03-15T17:06:31.642-05:00Comments on The Piety That Lies Between: A Progressive Christian Perspective: Of Heaven and TriathlonsEric Reitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-30313850963939852682011-10-06T01:12:28.927-05:002011-10-06T01:12:28.927-05:00[2nd part, continues from above]
If the above pic...[2nd part, continues from above]<br /><br />If the above picture is a good description of the dynamics of the human condition and thus of the dynamics of reality, then perhaps we find an explanation for a problem which has long troubled me, namely the different views about soteriology taught by different traditions within Christianity. Roughly, in the East (and also in my plain reading of the Gospels), salvation is found by one getting up and following Christ. Salvation is a matter of doing what Christ asks of us. The grace of God is there in the texts of the Gospels, in the traditions of the Church, and in the presence of the living Christ - but grace works like a light that brightens the path, on which one must walk by one’s own strength and will. In the West, and particular in the Protestant tradition, the understanding appears to be quite different. Now, it is said, salvation comes not from works but from faith, one is literally saved (and I assume propelled forwards) by the grace of God. The grace of God is now seen as a saving hand one must grasp. One’s depravity is such that this is the only way. <br /><br />This apparent contradiction may represent the different realities of grace and of salvation within the dynamics of the human condition. The Eastern tradition speaks to the human condition of one who stands, as it were, mid-way between hell and heaven. Christ in the Gospels talks to his disciples who had already left their old lives to follow Him, and to the multitudes of believers who came to listen to Him. The Western tradition in contrast speaks to those who are further behind and close to hell. These people are lost, do not know what they are and what is taking place. Here, indeed, the grace of God must be a much more active one. And as God respects peoples’ freedom, people must still take a first step in faith and grasp grace’s outstretched hand. <br /><br />In general I think that the view of reality (which on theism is a fundamentally personal one) as well as of one’s personal condition as a dynamic movement – first, fits with how one’s reality is as a matter of experiential fact, and, secondly, helps one understand the apparent contradictions between religious thought both within and outside of Christianity. If I am right, then Protestants have the merit of actually having reached beyond the Gospels, having faced up to the gravely fallen condition of most of us, and having revealed the nature of God’s grace within that common reality – while, interestingly enough, thinking they are doing nothing but concentrating on scripture.<br /><br />Finally, the idea that reality is fundamentally a movement reminds me of one of the most famous sayings of one of the most famous philosophers of antiquity, namely Heraclitus’s “<i>ta panta rei</i>” (i.e. “the all flows”).Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-56880008747910599672011-10-06T01:08:29.570-05:002011-10-06T01:08:29.570-05:00Eric,
I do think there is an endpoint to the hum...Eric, <br /><br />I do think there is an endpoint to the human existence. After all to be human entails to be limited. Thus the idea of theosis, i.e. of one’s being extinguished in God, strikes me as both very beautiful and very logical. And also strongly resonates with the understanding of the eschaton in the Eastern religions. And also with the way mystics talk and with some important bits and pieces of our own Gospel according to John. Only God is eternal, and our life is eternal only in the sense that it will be subsumed into God’s. <br /><br />I think I understand your idea about the distinction between capacity of comprehending and actual comprehension, and how the former can be perfected at some point in time within our life. I like to visualize reality as a landscape on which one walks, and in which the spot one stands on represents one’s own state of character. When one needs to reach the peak of a mountain one will typically not see it, but will walk more or less blindly, trying to pick the paths that go upwards, studying a map or following the signs that previous climbers have left on the road, etc. But at some turn of the road the peak will come into view. That point would be where one’s capacity to comprehend God is perfected, even though one may still be far away. This may be the same point at which, as you say, one’s capacity for love is perfected. Another way to perhaps say the same thing is that at some point one will not anymore choose to sin, one will not anymore choose to move away from God, for the simple reason that one’s character will have reached a state in which one realizes the nature of one’s being and the absurdity of sin. <br /><br />Now the idea that heaven starts somewhere has its antipode, namely the idea that hell too starts somewhere. Hell, then, would be the place where one is so far away from the peak and the landscape becomes so flat that one cannot anymore tell which way the peak lies. One’s capacity to comprehend God reaches zero. Virtually all choices open to one are now sinful. One has lost one’s way. <br /><br />Under this picture clearly enough extremely few people reach heaven in this life, but many fall to hell. But whereas heaven, by its nature, is a point of no return, the same need not be the case for hell. Or, rather, the same would be the case for hell if it weren’t for God’s grace, as I discuss bellow. <br /><br />[continues]Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-220769254374695322011-10-03T16:23:44.313-05:002011-10-03T16:23:44.313-05:00Dianelos,
I have some sympathy for this vision of...Dianelos,<br /><br />I have some sympathy for this vision of things, although I also have some questions about it. I certainly share the idea that heaven would be active rather than static, dynamic rather than passive. Whether the dynamic character of heaven is best conceived as the exercise of a perfected character or as the continual perfecting of one's character depends, I think, on whether you think there is an endpoint that can be reached. <br /><br />With respect to the comprehension of the infinite God, John and I (in God's Final Victory) consider briefly the idea that "no finite being can comprehend the infinite, and that the joy of the blessed partially consists in growing eternally in their comprehension of God." We neither dismiss nor endorse this idea, since acknowledging it was enough for our purposes. <br /><br />But I wonder if there is a distinction to be made here between a creature's <i>capacity</i> for comprehending and the act of comprehension. Even if the latter is eternally increasing (one is continually coming to comprehend more of God's infinite essence), the former might admit of a definite maximum, a state of perfection--in which case it wouldn't be more heavenly to eternally approach but never attain that state. Far better to grow eternally in one's comprehension of God as "efficiently" as one can (by virtue of having a perfected capacity for comprehension) than to dynamically move forever towards a fuller understanding of God--but less well than one could.<br /><br />Similar distinctions can, I think, be made with respect to love, distinguishing between the capacity for love and the scope of one's love. The latter might be eternally growing as one encounters more and more of God and God's creation TO love--and this would be so even if the capacity for love were itself perfected and so not growing.<br /><br />If it is in fact possible for a finite creature to have perfected capacities in these and other domains, this would seem more "heavenly" than to constantly have imperfect capacities but get ever closer to perfection. The point is that something like the dynamism and growth you describe would still be conceivable at another level.Eric Reitanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-27790921123343225662011-09-27T17:38:22.765-05:002011-09-27T17:38:22.765-05:00Eric,
We are used to thinking that reality is a ...Eric, <br /><br />We are used to thinking that reality is a static place, but I think reality is fundamentally a movement of creation, a space where the most valuable form of creation there is takes place, namely the creation of personal perfection. Under such an understanding of reality heaven becomes not a state of perfect bliss and of purity of love and of being present with God, but rather a movement towards that state (which some call “theosis”). Under this understanding heaven is not a place but a direction, not a state but a movement.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.com