A paradox of faith

[Steve]

[soul101]

[Steve]

[Stanley Anderson]

Not sure if I fully understand the question, but from what I think I understand, my reply is that your question is exactly what virtually the whole of Perelandra is about and attempts to resolve. Does that strike you as connected to your question or am I way off base?

--Stanley

[Steve]

[soul101]

I haven't read Perelandra, so couldn't comment in that respect. However, this seems to be along the tack of what you are saying:

from www.bruderhof.com. Copyright 2002 by The Bruderhof Foundation, Inc. Used with Permission.


I don't know if this is what you are implying. I think perhaps it is 2 issues being confused. are independence and autonomy the same thing? is it not possible to be dependent on God and autonomous in our faith?

[Josh]

[Ivory Keys]

I do think that God wants us to achieve some degree of autonomy, but I don't think it has to be paradoxical. Of course we should always be dependent on God for our stregnth and support; we should always be willing to admit his greatness and goodness in comparison with our flawed selves. However, it is a sign that we have grown much closer to him when we obey and further his cause of our own free will.

For example, I don't drink. I have no problem with people who do, but I have been taught this way of thinking since I was young and have grown to see the wisdom in such a standard. However, if, during my high school years, I had constantly told my friends, "I'm sorry, I don't drink because my parents say I can't," then I would have been demonstrating a lack of maturity and a bad sort of dependence on my parents. I think the type of autonomy God wants us to have is one where, of our own volition and through our own decisions, we want and choose to keep his commandments, without us saying, "Well, God said this is bad, so I can't do it." That is not really a bad way to go about life, but it is not the best.

Another little tidbit to add: I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as being three distinct persons, but one in purpose. So, for me, I see their partnership as each being autonomous, but dependent on one another. Christ could have done whatever he wanted, but chose to willingly align his will with the Father. That is what we need to aspire to achieve in our own lives.

Now that I think of it, we are completely dependent on Christ for one thing--our salvation. But it is of our own free will that we choose to accept his very necessary gift.

[Robert]

[chad]

Hmm. Well said, and a good distinction between having a will and what one wills. There might not be a paradox here, but I understand the feeling of irony when we go against our nature. It always surprises me how much I enjoy life when I desire and pursue the things God desires. One expects that there will be some sense of regret in submission to God, but ironically, when one loses their life for His sake, will find it.

[nomad]

I'm living in a hotel room at the moment, so I'm sorry I can't find the reference for this, but somewhere Lewis talks about the natural rewards of an action versus manufactured rewards. For instance, the natural reward of a job well done is a good product and it is fine for the worker to be pleased with his work. Money is a manufactured reward. "Manufactured" is not the word Lewis used. I remember the example that the natural reward for the lover is marriage, but a man who marries for money is a mercinary because that is not the natural reward of marriage. Anway, does that perhaps have something to do with this paradox? God wants us to act in obedience for the natural reward of His presence, not for some sort of mercinary reward like pride? So while seeking autonomy is what get us in trouble in the first place, we need autonomy in order to submit?

So then, did Adam and Eve have true autonomy before they sinned? I would say yes, because as long as they had choice they were exercising autonomy regardless of which choice they made. And doubtless they had many other choices to make - they just weren't moral decisions.

[WolfVanZandt]

Dependence is not inherantly passive. The codependent constellation may be very active. For instance, there is a very strong codependence in Military institutions but the military is certainly not active. Christianity is a militant religion; therefore, the dependence relationships involved should not (although the ideal is not always and is, at times, rarely the case) ideally be passive.

[nomad]

Good point Wolf. Does that mean our relationship with God is interdependent?

[WolfVanZandt]

Oog. I meantto say that the military is certainly not passive.

I would say that our relationship with God becomes increasingly interdependent (as with that with other Chistians), extremely individualistic, and intensely active.

I think a good illustration would be Paul's - the different parts of the body. If you've ever studied physiology, you will be impressed with how integrated the body actually is, yet the liver is certainly nothing like the stomach. Neither are in any way similar to the brachial nerve, yet they are all interdependent and active.

Another good illustration is a wolf pack. The individual members are very much individuals but when they band together to do something (such as hunt), they behave almost like a hive mind. Each member has an uncanny knowledge of what the others are doing and what they, themselves, should be doing and there's no question about divergence.

[soul101]