Bare bones argument for God, revelation and salvation

[GrowingSmaller]

I'm bored and like theology, so set myself a task.

1) The perfect being exists (Anselms ontological argument)
2) It is a priori better to communicate perfection.
3) Therefore perfection is also necessarily communicated.

I think this fits in with some Christian ideas, of (1) Gods existence, of revelation of God (Gods communicaiton of His self (2)) and also in another way, of communion with God ((3) the transmission of perfection in grace to mankind); and that communion somehow 'a priori' or necessary i.e. before creation and the empirical method of for example personal assurance (Im thinking of predestinaiton of the elect).

One problem is if perfection is communicated to mankind, how is it that he sins etc - that would be a nature and grace issue (ie is grace ontologically natural or ontologically supernatural).

 

[Anguspure]

I'm bored and like theology, so set myself a task.

1) The perfect being exists (Anselms ontological argument)
2) It is a priori better to communicate perfection.
3) Therefore perfection is also necessarily communicated.

I think this fits in with some Christian ideas, of (1) Gods existence, of revelation of God (Gods communicaiton of His self (2)) and also in another way, of communion with God ((3) the transmission of perfection in grace to mankind); and that communion somehow 'a priori' or necessary i.e. before creation and the empirical method of for example personal assurance (Im thinking of predestinaiton of the elect).

One problem is if perfection is communicated to mankind, how is it that he sins etc - that would be a nature and grace issue (ie is grace ontologically natural or ontologically supernatural).

• Agape Love is the expression of perfection.
• Agape Love necessitates freedom of expression both from the perfect being in the the object of Love, the perfect creation.
• It is not necessary that perfection is communicated, it is simply better that it is communicated.
• The perfect creation may therefore choose to communicate less than perfection.
• If the perfect creation freely chooses to communicate less than perfection they choose to do so against the will of the perfect being, they sin against that being and sin enters the world.

 

[royal priest]

(ie is grace ontologically natural or ontologically supernatural).

Grace is usually associated with salvation from sin which a supernatural work of God to change the heart, will, understanding, affections, etc.
But, in some circles, grace is also associated with God's disposition toward those that are perishing. This would be a natural or "common" grace bestowed upon His creatures in general. This is seen to be the basis for Jesus' argument that we love our enemies in Matthew 5:45-46:
I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Hey thanks!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

• 
  
• It is not necessary that perfection is communicated, it is simply better that it is communicated.

Ok but shouldn't a perfect being necessarily choose what s better?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ive been reading up on theologians. Have you heard of Balthasar? He was, afaict, opposed to scholastic rationalism, calling it subjectless theology. In other words, theology so abstract the person is left out.

I have also heard protestant Christians talk of a "personal relationship with Jesus". Is this an offshoot of 20th C thinking - the return to the subject in a sense. Would such a focus have existed in the 19th C? Have been historically possible before maybe Kierkegaard?

Also IIRC Barth did in some way the opposite, he focused on God's revelation, and tried to make that the perspective,rather than a personalism focused on humanity.

Have you any thoughts, or favourite inspirational writers?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to the thread, so many worries!

 

[Anguspure]

Ok but shouldn't a perfect being necessarily choose what s better?

If we define perfection in terms of Agape, is it not more perfect to have a choice and make the better choice? To be constrained and have to do what is necessary strikes me, in terms of Agape, as something less than perfect. Not that a thing would not be capable of perfection by some other measure, but it would not be a perfect person.
So I don't see that a perfect being must necessarily choose what is better, although this person will, as a mark of perfection choose to do so.