Post Edited (One Love) : 12/5/2008 3:03:03 PM (GMT-6)

Wait a second.  That sounds familiar...oh, yeah...

Alexei V. Nesteruk
Light from the East: Theology, Science, and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition
Page 28
"Detachment from Nature and the Love of Nature"

----------------------------------------

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/5/2008 11:47:30 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Tom) : 12/5/2008 1:41:23 PM (GMT-6)

Loder again...

-------------------------------

As we have attempted to illustrate in the foregoing chapters of this book, the move toward and intelligible grasp of a wholistic truth that includes the human knower is Kierkegaard's approach as well as [Neil] Bohr's. Obviously, Kierkegaard does not get this from Bohr--so where does Kierkegaard get it? Based on Paul Minear's study "Kierkegaard and the Bible" as as well as on Kierkegaard's own writings, it is evident that Kierkegaard's immersion in the Scriptures was far more significant for his constructive thought than was Hegel or any other aspect of the Danish culture of his day. The answer to this question, then , may be that his approach come from his intense reading of Scripture--not only for its content, but for the Spirit in which it was written.

The turn of mind that such a deep indwelling of Scripture might induce may be succinctly described by making reference to Paul Ricouer's provocative essay "Toward a Hermeneutic of the Idea of Revelation." (OL's Note: Tyler suggested this to me along with SK long ago! Thanks, Ty!) In this essay, Ricouer demonstrates that in all major genres of Scripture there is a dual voice speaking. The paradigmatic position is the prophet, whose utterances Ricouer characterizes as "a Voice behind a voice." This bipolarity also applies to narrative, law, wisdom, and hymnic types of biblical literature. By way of brief illustration, in the wisdom literature, the sage who speaks univocally--not dialectically--nevertheless knows that Wisdom precedes him. Hence, he always speaks with a sense of duality. In fact, for the scribes following the Exile, wisdom was personified as a transcendent feminine figure. She was eternal, living with God; intimacy with here was not to be distinguished from intimacy with God.

Consistent with Ricouer's bi-polar anaysis of scriptural texts is the observation that according to Scripture the true identity of persons is inseparable from their relationship to God. Thus human identity becomes bipolar, and it is expressed in dialectical form--such as Paul's "I, not I, but Christ," or Jesus' "I, not I, but the Father." (Booya! )

Such pervasive bipolarity throughout Scripture suggests that Kierkegaard's intense reading of the texts yielded not only insight into their content, but also an inside view of the spiritually-inspired author who attempts to articulate the mind of Christ which, as Kierkegaard put it, is always "our contemporary." The major connection to be made here, however, is that the biblical solution to the dilemma of human particularity versus the universality of truth is relationality as the irreducible limit; beyond this no objectivating consciousness can speak without thereby saying less. The exhaustive and differentiated knowledge of the whole that includes the knower without remainder is only possible when the strange loop of self-inclusive relationality is bounded on one side by the mystery of Divine Presence [Holy Spirit of Christ-the-Logos]--in whom resides ultimate meaning and purpose--and on the other side by the human spirit in its drive to make all things intelligible. These two are not antithetical: in their relationality, they constitute the ultimate epistemological duality.

James Loder.
The Knight's Move
Chapter 8: Relationality in Scientific Discovery: Kierkegaard and Einstein.
"Kierkegaard and the Voice behind the voice"
Pages 188-189

More...page 49...

Although some theologians (e.g. W. Pannenberg and others influenced by Hegel) want to dissolve the human spirit into the Divine Spirit, it seems inappropriate for several reasons.  For example, this dissolution would reduce human freedom to an expression of the Divine life, but such a reduction woud have two alternate negative consequences.  The first is that human freedom could not move outside of the Divine will, since, by this view, human freedom is Divine.  The second alternative consequence is that human existence would have no spirit of its own; hence no relationality with God would be established from the human standpoint.

The first alternative patently contradicts both the biblical and the historical evidence, and the second contradicts the biblical accounts of the two spirits working together.  The most convincing text for this latter point is Romans 8:16 ( "it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God" ) where in complete accord with the Holy Spirit, our spirits cray "Abba, Father."  This text alongside the present text (1 Cor. 2:5-11) and others such as Philippians 2:12, where a relationality between the human and Divine Spirit are held together in a differentiated unity, make it impossible for us not to agree with Tillich, Barth, and others who retain the two-spirit (divine and non-divine) position.

-------------------------------------------------

I feel like Chris Tucker to Jackie Chan from "Rush Hour" ...

"Do yooooou understand the woooooords that are comin' outta my mouth??"

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/5/2008 2:49:02 PM (GMT-6)

---------------------------------------

Remember Loder...

The first is that human freedom could not move outside of the Divine will, since, by this view, human freedom is Divine.  The second alternative consequence is that human existence would have no spirit of its own; hence no relationality with God would be established from the human standpoint.

6th Council...

The sixth of the seven Ecumenical Councils, called together by St. Constantine the New, dealt with the following:

• Condemning the heresy of the Monothelites

By this point, Arianism had become largely marginalized and many Arians were accepted back into the Church. But a new attack on the Person of Christ emerged in the form of the Monothelites. The Monothelites argued that Christ has only one will, for He is one person albeit with two natures. The Council felt that this "impaired the fullness of Christ's humanity," and that human nature without human will would be incomplete. That affirmed that since Christ was true man and true God, He must have two wills: a human will and a divine will. Monothelitism was condemned as heresy.

and...from here...

Following the five holy and universal synods and the holy and accepted fathers, and defining in unison, it professes our lord Jesus Christ our true God, one of the holy Trinity, which is of one same being and is the source of life, to be perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity, like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, who is properly and truly called mother of God, as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no separation, no division; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single subsistent being [in unam personam et in unam subsistentiam concurrente]; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, Word of God, lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as Jesus the Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the holy fathers handed it down to us.

And we proclaim equally two natural volitions or wills in him and two natural principles of action which undergo no division, no change, no partition, no confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the holy fathers. And the two natural wills not in opposition, as the impious heretics said, far from it, but his human will following, and not resisting or struggling, rather in fact subject to his divine and all powerful will. For the will of the flesh had to be moved, and yet to be subjected to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For just as his flesh is said to be and is flesh of the Word of God, so too the natural will of his flesh is said to and does belong to the Word of God, just as he says himself: I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me, calling his own will that of his flesh, since his flesh too became his own. For in the same way that his all holy and blameless animate flesh was not destroyed in being made divine but remained in its own limit and category, so his human will as well was not destroyed by being made divine, but rather was preserved, according to the theologian Gregory, who says: "For his willing, when he is considered as saviour, is not in opposition to God, being made divine in its entirety." And we hold there to be two natural principles of action in the same Jesus Christ our lord and true God, which undergo no division, no change, no partition, no confusion, that is, a divine principle of action and a human principle of action, according to the godly-speaking Leo, who says most clearly: "For each form does in a communion with the other that activity which it possesses as its own, the Word working that which is the Word's and the body accomplishing the things that are the body's". For of course we will not grant the existence of only a single natural principle of action of both God and creature, lest we raise what is made to the level of divine being, or indeed reduce what is most specifically proper to the divine nature to a level befitting creatures for we acknowledge that the miracles and the sufferings are of one and the same according to one or the other of the two natures out of which he is and in which he has his being, as the admirable Cyril said. Therefore, protecting on all sides the "no confusion" and "no division", we announce the whole in these brief words: Believing our lord Jesus Christ, even after his incarnation, to be one of the holy Trinity and our true God, we say that he has two natures [naturas] shining forth in his one subsistence[subsistentia] in which he demonstrated the miracles and the sufferings throughout his entire providential dwelling here, not in appearance but in truth, the difference of the natures being made known in the same one subsistence in that each nature wills and performs the things that are proper to it in a communion with the other; then in accord with this reasoning we hold that two natural wills and principles of action meet in correspondence for the salvation of the human race.

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/5/2008 2:44:34 PM (GMT-6)

Tom:
This is all essentially indistinguishable from pantheism to me, and some panentheists would share my view (as Phil Clayton’s volume shows). Some panentheists think other panentheists are pantheists because they, like you, blur the distinction between God and the creature. It’s just not the case that panentheism is a clearly defined and agreed upon worldview. Of course, the best any of us can do is make the best evaluation possible of another’s claims. I’m not claiming dogmatic certainty or making accusations, mind you. But your view has all the earmarks of a pantheistic worldview. I wouldn’t know how to defend you against the claim that you’re basically a pantheist. I know my concern doesn’t bother you much at this point because you’re increasingly confident of the truth of your position. But there you have it.

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/5/2008 2:58:41 PM (GMT-6)

D, great thread I must say.   Many kudos to you! 

Lately,  I've only found time to read.  However, I wanted to share this little nugget with you:  The Holy Spirit in the Theology of T. F. Torrance

Digg’n it.

---------------------------------

* St. Paul speaks of Christ “emptying” Himself in His voluntary sacrifice for us all (Philippians 2:5-11). It is the only place in the New Testament that speaks of this particular action of Christ - at least as an “emptying” (kenosis) but the concept has always played a large role in the Church’s understanding of Christ’s death on the Cross.

It is interesting to me that Father Sophrony, in his writings, takes this idea of kenosis and applies it as well to the “not-I-but-the-Father” sayings: “I live by the Father” (Jn. 6:57; cf 5:30, 7:18, 15:15).

Fr. Nicholas Sakharov says of Father Sophrony’s point:

Christ, though the incarnate God, avoids any “divine action” of his own, so much so that the Father’s hypostasis [Person] is manifest absolutely through the absolutely “transparent screen” of Christ’s self-emptied hypostasis. Through this kenosis it becomes the “express image of the Father” (Heb. 1:3).

This, it seems to me, says much to us about what it means to become “like Christ.” The moralist approach (which I was taught as a child) is fraught with constant attention to “what would Jesus do?” in a moral calculation that can never end in anything but failure or delusion.

When St. Paul speaks of conformity to the image of Christ it is always clear that this is not something we accomplish, but something that is accomplished within us by God. In particular he says:

I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. And the life that I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me (Gal. 2:20).

Here is our own kenosis or emptying. “Not-I-but-Christ.” And thus we become transparent and finally transparent such that we are His image (of transparency) This is not an effort of moralism, but a self-offering to God. And so St. Paul writes:

I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:1-2).

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/6/2008 11:18:55 AM (GMT-6)

Make sense, man? 

Post Edited (Tom) : 12/7/2008 9:43:45 AM (GMT-6)

Just think about these when you are readin'... 

"Father, forgive them...because they don't know what they are doing."

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/7/2008 10:17:04 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/7/2008 10:21:05 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Tom) : 12/7/2008 10:39:34 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/7/2008 5:58:44 PM (GMT-6)