What is a successful (good) creation for God?

[Saint Steven]

At the consummation of all things, what does success look like for God's creation?

Could you address the way that "goodness", or "good", is a manifestation of freedom?
I'm obviously reading between the lines here. But... (52:20)

 

[public hermit]

Could you address the way that "goodness", or "good", is a manifestation of freedom?
I'm obviously reading between the lines here. But... (52:20)

I would say the way most folks today think of freedom is being able to choose without being compelled in making that choice. In other words, my choice is free if it comes solely from the impulse of my will. The usual account is referred to as libertarian freedom, which says my choice is free if I could have chosen otherwise. The account assumes that I am free if and only if in a given state of affairs (which includes one's thought process), if I chose x, under that exact same state of affairs (including the same thought process), I could have chosen y.

There are a number of problems with this account. 1. Although it has some intuitive appeal, it is absolutely not an account that can be proven for the simple fact that no two states of affairs are exactly alike. 2. Assuming for the sake of argument that I do experience the exact same state of affairs, including the same thought process, and I choose y instead of x (i.e., I choose otherwise) then my choice is arbitrary since it is not connected to a reasoned process aimed at some end (this is assuming my first choice of x was based in some reason). This is the case because my thought process is exactly the same but I have chosen otherwise. Why? There is no answer, I have simply chosen otherwise. And, therein lies the problem. Free choices are not arbitrary, they are connected to reasons aimed at some end.

I would argue further that a truly free choice is not only based in some reason aimed at some end (goal or purpose), but a truly free choice is aimed at a truly good end (goal or purpose). This is where a Christian account of freedom cannot be fully captured by the libertarian freedom account. And this is why I am constantly saying that our ability to choose evil is not some great good that God values.

Yes, we have been created with the ability to choose between good and evil. But that is not the goal. The goal is true freedom whereby we only choose good and never evil. That is the great good God values and that is the telos (end) that God is bringing us toward. This is why Irenaeus's account of Genesis makes the most sense, i.e. Adam and Eve in their spiritual immaturity chose evil instead of good because they were decieved. Thus life is a process where, by grace we are brought from spiritual immaturity (we come into the world not only physically immature but spiritually immature and must learn spiritually maturity by grace and the Holy Spirit)...we are brought from spiritual immaturity to spiritual maturity as we are transformed into the image of Christ who chose the good for all humanity even in the face of great suffering, sorrow, and death because of the joy set before him.

The early Christian proponents of Universal Restoration understood that true freedom occurs when we rationally choose what is truly good, and specifically choose our ultimate Good, i.e. God. Our willingness to choose evil is rooted in our ability to rationally choose good, but it's a distortion or illness whereby we choose evil because it seems good to us, pace Adam and Eve, and once we realize our error we are enslaved and cannot free ourselves. This is why they see punishment not as retribution for the misuse of free will but as healing from a will that is a dis-ability.

Our spiritual immaturity in self-seeking and sin is a sick or malformed will. This is simply part of the human condition. We were created, like Adam and Eve, to go through the process of becoming like Christ, which is the fulfillment of the image in which we are created.

If we are free in Christ we are free indeed. Ideally, we would enter the healing/maturity process now by grace and the Holy Spirit made available through Christ, and our vocation as ministers (servants) of Christ's ministry of reconciliation is to share the good news that God's help has come to heal us from enslavement to sin- to heal us from willingly choosing evil, which is to choose against our own good. In other words, we are called to willingly seek and help others seek their ultimate Good-union and love with God and neighbor.

But God is not going to abandon one sheep to the misery of their sinful condition. If it takes eons and eons, God will succeed in liberating all of humanity from their enslavement to sin and death. For some, that will be a very painful experience in their unwillingness to turn from evil, but God will not give up. The moment they turn toward the good (repentance), which is always in their ability, God will start applying the healing balm of Christ who took on their nature so they could become like him. That is the good news of God's unrelenting love that the early Christians who held to Universal Reconciliation were proclaiming. And,, it is the good news I have come to believe. Praise be to our Lord, Jesus Christ

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Annihilation means God loses some of God's good creation. Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree on this one. If real choice exists, not free will but real choice, then a being can become something that is no longer good. We see it in the Bible where God speaks about Israel breaking His Covenant (Jeremiah 3:20, [read the ESV for this one ->] Jeremiah 34:18, Hosea 5:7 & etc). Not to mention the flood. One thing that leads us to draw conclusions like this is that we forget that God can un-create as easily as He creates. It's why the notion of people getting bored in the afterlife (the real life) is so silly, God can literally delete boredom lol. In this The Lord tossing chaff into the fires of Gehenna to be consumed is not getting rid of His good creation, but disposing of that which is not good. Un-creating what would be considered blemishes in the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Lets remember that the only reason we are considered good is because of Christ. Without Him we are destined for the same flames that will bring The Devil and his Angels to destruction.

Hebrews 10:29

[Edit: Accidently put a capital H on "his angels" >_<]

 

[public hermit]

If real choice exists, not free will but real choice, then a being can become something that is no longer good

I'm going to disagree with this (not that my disagreeing means anything special lol). I do believe one can have an evil will that sees what is good as evil and what is evil is good (we all suffer from this to a greater or lesser degree) but I don't think a created substance, created good by God, can be nullified. Evil does tend toward non-being, a privation of good. Created substance, however, is being and good by virtue of its participation in the Being of God that sustains it. We don't have the authority to destroy our substance, which is sustained in this life and the next by God. So an evil will can reside in a substance that is good by virtue of being sustained by God. I also disagree that God destroys the good God has created. God does not destroy created being but brings it to fulfillment. I'm sure you will disagree but that's my position.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I also disagree that God destroys the good God has created. God does not destroy created being but brings it to fulfillment. I'm sure you will disagree but that's my position.

Yeah I do and that's ok. We're allowed to disagree . This isn't my position though as I don't think that God destroys the good, all I find in scripture is repeated verses of God saying that He is going to destroy the wicked. I don't see any references to an inherent substance that is "good" and unable to be destroyed [EDIT: OOPS I MEAN APART FROM GOD] but instead I see judgement for the corruption of that good. Think the flood. Besides, we're going to get a new spiritual body not made with hands when this one passes away and becomes dust and this body will not exist anymore, so is that not destruction in some sense? This whole position of God being unable to un-create or destroy seems a bit odd due to the sheer amount of support for the destruction of the wicked and things like 2 Peter 3:10.

Then there's also the thorny idea that The Father of Lies (literally credited as the creator of deceit) is somehow going to be redeemed. You would have to void the last bit of Revelation or turn it into some kind of purgatory.

This is a long video as it is a lecture, but Mr Fudge here lays out the overwhelming majority of the Biblical references used to support the consuming of the chaff/wicked. If you get bored one day or if there's a sneaky person here not contributing but just watching the conversation, you (or them) might find it interesting:

God bless

 

[Hmm]

I would say the way most folks today think of freedom is being able to choose without being compelled in making that choice. In other words, my choice is free if it comes solely from the impulse of my will. The usual account is referred to as libertarian freedom, which says my choice is free if I could have chosen otherwise. The account assumes that I am free if and only if in a given state of affairs (which includes one's thought process), if I chose x, under that exact same state of affairs (including the same thought process), I could have chosen y.

There are a number of problems with this account. 1. Although it has some intuitive appeal, it is absolutely not an account that can be proven for the simple fact that no two states of affairs are exactly alike. 2. Assuming for the sake of argument that I do experience the exact same state of affairs, including the same thought process, and I choose y instead of x (i.e., I choose otherwise) then my choice is arbitrary since it is not connected to a reasoned process aimed at some end (this is assuming my first choice of x was based in some reason). This is the case because my thought process is exactly the same but I have chosen otherwise. Why? There is no answer, I have simply chosen otherwise. And, therein lies the problem. Free choices are not arbitrary, they are connected to reasons aimed at some end.

I would argue further that a truly free choice is not only based in some reason aimed at some end (goal or purpose), but a truly free choice is aimed at a truly good end (goal or purpose). This is where a Christian account of freedom cannot be fully captured by the libertarian freedom account. And this is why I am constantly saying that our ability to choose evil is not some great good that God values.

Yes, we have been created with the ability to choose between good and evil. But that is not the goal. The goal is true freedom whereby we only choose good and never evil. That is the great good God values and that is the telos (end) that God is bringing us toward. This is why Irenaeus's account of Genesis makes the most sense, i.e. Adam and Eve in their spiritual immaturity chose evil instead of good because they were decieved. Thus life is a process where, by grace we are brought from spiritual immaturity (we come into the world not only physically immature but spiritually immature and must learn spiritually maturity by grace and the Holy Spirit)...we are brought from spiritual immaturity to spiritual maturity as we are transformed into the image of Christ who chose the good for all humanity even in the face of great suffering, sorrow, and death because of the joy set before him.

The early Christian proponents of Universal Restoration understood that true freedom occurs when we rationally choose what is truly good, and specifically choose our ultimate Good, i.e. God. Our willingness to choose evil is rooted in our ability to rationally choose good, but it's a distortion or illness whereby we choose evil because it seems good to us, pace Adam and Eve, and once we realize our error we are enslaved and cannot free ourselves. This is why they see punishment not as retribution for the misuse of free will but as healing from a will that is a dis-ability.

Our spiritual immaturity in self-seeking and sin is a sick or malformed will. This is simply part of the human condition. We were created, like Adam and Eve, to go through the process of becoming like Christ, which is the fulfillment of the image in which we are created.

If we are free in Christ we are free indeed. Ideally, we would enter the healing/maturity process now by grace and the Holy Spirit made available through Christ, and our vocation as ministers (servants) of Christ's ministry of reconciliation is to share the good news that God's help has come to heal us from enslavement to sin- to heal us from willingly choosing evil, which is to choose against our own good. In other words, we are called to willingly seek and help others seek their ultimate Good-union and love with God and neighbor.

But God is not going to abandon one sheep to the misery of their sinful condition. If it takes eons and eons, God will succeed in liberating all of humanity from their enslavement to sin and death. For some, that will be a very painful experience in their unwillingness to turn from evil, but God will not give up. The moment they turn toward the good (repentance), which is always in their ability, God will start applying the healing balm of Christ who took on their nature so they could become like him. That is the good news of God's unrelenting love that the early Christians who held to Universal Reconciliation were proclaiming. And,, it is the good news I have come to believe. Praise be to our Lord, Jesus Christ

This is the best of freedom I've ever read and it's made sense of a number of things that have always puzzled me, so thanks!

It's amazing how enlightened the early Christians were and how far we've descended since then, to the point where most Christians nowadays regard them as heretics.

One thing I find encouraging in your clear and contemporary explanation of their understanding of freedom is the idea that, however tied up you may be in sin, once you start to make a choice towards God, even though that may be small choices because of the extent of your imprisonment in sin and misunderstandings, God will respond to that and begin His process of healing and liberation.

 

[Hmm]

Besides, we're going to get a new spiritual body not made with hands when this one passes away and becomes dust and this body will not exist anymore, so is that not destruction in some sense?

Why did Jesus' resurrected body then still bear the crucifixion wounds on his hands and feet? We are transformed rather than destroyed and (some of us) built again as a kind of Plan B.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Why did Jesus' resurrected body then still bear the crucifixion wounds on his hands and feet?

I dunno, we'll have to ask Him. How did He teleport and appear from thin air?

 

[Hmm]

I dunno, we'll have to ask Him. How did He teleport and appear from thin air?

I see you miss my point. My fault in not explaining it well I'm sure. Ah, well.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Have you seen the movie "Interstellar"?

The conversation between Jesus and the pharisees when they heard that He would destroy the temple and rebuild it in 3 days:

I'm not trying to derail the thread, I'm sorry but I had to.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I see you miss my point. My fault in not explaining it well I'm sure. Ah, well.

Your point was He is matter (physical) and that it was the same body He died with. My response would be 2 Corinthians 5:1. Some people don't have bodies anymore and have had even their bones incinerated in fire. I have no issue with us in the resurrection being physical but we're not only going to be so, we're not now. What is our bodies now, will be no longer. Even if there is corrupted material in or apart of the body, the destruction of that corruption would still be destroying that corrupted material. Even if it's renewed it's changing what it is into something else completely different and that thing that it currently is ceases to be.

 

[Hmm]

Your point was He is matter (physical) and that it was the same body He died with.

Well, I referred to His resurrected body. If you read that as the "same body" then you misunderstood me. He still had a body - He didn't become a ghost - and that body still carried wounds from His earthly body, so I was trying to make the point that we are transformed, rather than destroyed completely as if we hadn't lived and rebuilt from scratch. Nothing is ever destroyed except, eventually, all sin.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Well, I referred to His resurrected body. If you read that as the "same body" then you misunderstood me. He still had a body - He didn't become a ghost - and that body still carried wounds from His earthly body, so I was trying to make the point that we are transformed, rather than destroyed completely as if we hadn't lived and rebuilt from scratch. Nothing is ever destroyed except, eventually, all sin.

I've never said those who are in Christ are destroyed completely, that is reserved for the wicked. I've always believed our new resurrected bodies will be both physical and spiritual (a nebulous usage of the word sorry, I mean 'spirit' or something of the kind). Like Christ's was.

 

[Andrewn]

By rational soul, I simply mean created beings that can choose between good and evil. That doesn't have to be restricted to humanity. Nyssa makes no such restriction, which is why I included the note.

The rational soul includes the personality, which is composed of three elements known as the id, the ego, and the superego. So, for you, anything less than the salvation of the ego is considered a failure. I don't think Origen believed this way.

In the case of those who are deeply wicked, is it possible that the spirit/nous is saved by shedding/annihilating the ego? Would this be a failure?

 

[Hmm]

I've never said those who are in Christ are destroyed completely, that is reserved for the wicked. I've always believed our new resurrected bodies will be both physical and spiritual (a nebulous usage of the word sorry, I mean 'spirit' or something of the kind). Like Christ's was.

You're an Annihalationist? Just out of interest, what makes you prefer annihilation over the more popular ECT?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

You're an Annihalationist? Just out of interest, what makes you prefer annihilation over the more popular ECT?

I grew up with the idea that eternal punishment = eternal death/destruction, not ECT. SDA have conditional immortality as official doctrine so I grew up without the cultural pressures that can result in eisegesis regarding ECT. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying I don't have cultural blinders, I disagree heavily with the doctrine of soul sleep for example which SDA also has an official doctrine but it took me a while to see it. ECT is dependant upon the inherent immortality of the soul which scripture denies as it states that the only being who is inherently immortal is God (1 Tim 6:16). I literally cannot read the bible any other way than with my upbringing in regards to Gehenna, to me ECT seems like it relies upon cultural enforcement for interpretation as apposed to consistently scriptural. I believe it seems absolutely clear that when scripture speaks of "smoke rising forever and ever" it's speaking of eternal destruction, the language is used of the city of Sodom & Gomorrah when it's destroyed. Not to mention things like the parable of the wheat and the tares. What happens to the tares? they're burned up. ECT also has sin still existing (those in Hell) and Christ's victory never really being complete.

Then there's also that Gehenna and Hell (Sheol) are not the same words, though because of cultural interpretation over time they are often conflated. That's why in the New Testament you see different words for Sheol like Hades and Tartarus for the prison that the Devil and his ilk will inhabit (2 Peter 2:4), which was a concept the Greek people understood but obviously seen through the lens of their new understanding of Christ, who He is, what He's done and what He will do.

I can't lay it out any clearer than the video I linked. Edward Fudge was a fantastic scholar regarding this and he really gives it proper exposition and he's far more coherent than I. After all I am Australian so I'm handicapped when it comes to coherence .

This is a long video as it is a lecture, but Mr Fudge here lays out the overwhelming majority of the Biblical references used to support the consuming of the chaff/wicked. If you get bored one day or if there's a sneaky person here not contributing but just watching the conversation, you (or them) might find it interesting:

[Edit: If you want to continue the discussion feel free to shoot me a message (not just you but anyone reading this who's curious) so we don't derail OP's thread. This topic absolutely has the power to do so xD. Though I am going to bed soon, it's 2am here.]

 

[public hermit]

The rational soul includes the personality, which is composed of three elements known as the id, the ego, and the superego. So, for you, anything less than the salvation of the ego is considered a failure. I don't think Origen believed this way.

In the case of those who are deeply wicked, is it possible that the spirit/nous is saved by shedding/annihilating the ego? Would this be a failure?

You will have to show how the id,ego, and superego fit in Origen's anthropology. At this point, it's an anachronism since he wasn't working in that framework.

I'll have to think about the second question.

 

[Hmm]

After all I am Australian so I'm handicapped when it comes to coherence .

No worries mate. Bonzer explanation!

 

[Andrewn]

I know how I would define the soul. I see it as what we make and do with our life . Jesus said if we want to keep our soul we must lose it die to self and live the life of following him just as he did.

Mar 8:35 For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it, but whoever loses his soul for My sake and the sake of the Good News will save it.

Two categories of people. Some will save their souls by following the Lord, and others will lose their souls by following their desires.

The second death is the death of the soul not your spirit, all that you build and accumulate on earth is lost forever.

Those whose souls are annihilated, their spirit, minus the ego, may still have a chance at the ultimate reconciliation.

 

[bling]

At the consummation of all things, what does success look like for God's creation? We have three options that have been believed by various Christians throughout the history of Christian faith.

Eternal life/Eternal damnation (Augustine): In this scenario, God succeeds in saving some rational souls for eternal life through Christ. However, God does not eliminate evil in all but perpetuates it by preserving those who willfully reject God in eternal torment. Conclusion: Failure since sin and evil, found in those rational souls that reject their ultimate good, persists for all eternity by God's will.

Eternal life/Annihilation (Arnobius of Sicca): In this scenario, God succeeds in saving some for eternal life through Christ and eliminating evil in rational souls. However, this elimination of evil includes the annihilation of some rational souls who willfully reject their ultimate good. Conclusion: Partial success since the result is the elimination of evil in rational souls but God loses some of God's good creation by destroying it.

Eternal life/Universal restoration (Gregory of Nyssa): In this scenario, God succeeds in saving all for eternal life through Christ. Some are saved in this life and others in the age to come through the remedial punishment of divine love until all rational souls reject sin and evil, willfully bending the knee and confessing Christ as Lord, after which Christ will hand the consummated kingdom over and God will be all in all. Conclusion: Complete success since God succeeds in eliminating all evil in all rational souls and saving all of God's good creation.

Note: It should be noted that Nyssa (the Pillar of Orthodoxy and Father of Fathers) taught the complete and absolute elimination of evil through reconciliation in Christ without destroying good. "Evil must necessarily be eliminated, absolutely and in every respect, once and for all" (On the Soul and Resurrection 101).

"For, thanks to all the respects in which Christ has mixed with humanity, having passed through all that is proper to the human nature, birth, nourishment, growth, and having gone as far as the trial of death, he has accomplished all the tasks I have mentioned, both liberating the human being from evil and healing even the inventor of evilness." (Great Catechetical Oration 26).

It seems clear that divine success at the consummation can only be the universal restoration of all. Anything short of that ranges from failure to partial success. Eternal damnation means that God wilfully perpetuates evil for eternity. Annihilation means God loses some of God's good creation. Do you agree or disagree?

First off:

God’s success is not dependent on man’s success. God does everything totally Lovingly and perfectly.

If the prodigal son does not return to the father in the prodigal son parable, it is not any fault of the father (representing God), the father did his part perfectly and Lovingly.

You always have to keep man’s objective and God’s objective in mind, which are not the same.

I have gone over many times man’s earthly objective, so let us address God’s objective, which He is totally successful in completing.

God is totally unselfish always allowing or doing what is the very best for willing humans to help them fulfill their earthly objective and really their objective (since earth is the only place where they can fulfill their objective). This messed-up world with Christ going to the cross, satan roaming around, death, tragedies of all kinds, hell and sin is actually the very best place for willing individuals to fulfill their objective.

The problem is there are certain things impossible to do, so not even God can do them. God cannot make another Christ, since Christ is not a made being, He is Deity.

The big thing God cannot do for us is: Make us just like He is in that we have this totally unselfish type Love compelling us to unconditionally, sacrificially serve others. This Love is not learnable, something we can develop, logical, or something we can pay God back for getting down the road. It is not just emotional but includes mentally being thought-out to do. This Love is not and cannot be made instinctive to man, a knee jerk reaction (a robotic type of Love). God also cannot make us Love against our will; this would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun.

We have got to humbly accept God’s Love for us in the form of forgiveness as pure undeserved charity with likely alternatives (making it a real choice on our part). Luke 7 and we are given Love.
If you make the free will choice not to want Godly type Love, that is not God's fault.