Humans were INITIALLY DESIGNED (via God's intention for incarnation) to become created "gods" ("sons" of God) who always have God's Spirit as our "determining element."  Fully realized human nature is really a theandrism...a "divine humanity" like Nesteruk talks about.  And the Incarnate Word confirms all this in his coming.

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/28/2010 4:06:59 PM (GMT-6)

Tom: I’d like to see a rationale for the incarnation's necessary role in deifying us apart from all consideration of sin and redemption. In other words, take "having to save us from sin" out of the equation (because that tends to be the SOLE explanation for the incarnation) and tell me why the incarnation is necessary to our fulfillment. What is it about created human being per se (not sinful/fallen human being) that REQUIRES the incarnation?

D: Here we go: Humanity is designed with the Incarnation "at heart". Humanity is intended to be a theandric reality, rather than merely a species of animal life. In other words, humanity is designed to have the fullness of Divine Presence indwell (via the Holy Spirit) in its particularity, effectively empowering full expression of human freedom, creativity, and beauty.

Tom: And why can’t this happen if the Logos never incarnates? If all creation is the energies of God, and if God is never separate from us anyhow, and if we humbly turn to God and give him all we are…WHY isn’t that enough?

Forget our ACTUAL history of sin and rebellion and the need for the incarnation in terms of salvation. Apart from all that, why can’t we be filled with the fullness of the divine presence JUST because we already live and move and have our being in God and already bear his image? What’s missing that the incarnation alone provides beyond all this?

D: As divine Person, the Eternal Son has the Holy Spirit of God "resting" in himself. In taking on human particularity, the Son filled the requirements (as it were) of human experience being grounded and centered in the Spirit of God.

Tom: Why do we need the Son to fulfill those requirements (again, forgetting sin for the moment). Let’s say we all obeyed perfectly and never failed to trust God’s word. Wouldn’t we have been ultimately glorified/deified just as a matter of staying on course without the Son also having to become a human being? I’m not seeing what the incarnation does to get me deified that couldn’t be done apart from the incarnation if my own nature and self remained grounded in God by trust. See what I mean?

D:  We can say that the Son's incarnation fulfilled the broken image of God in humanity...

Tom: If we’re broken. I get that. Let’s say nobody’s broken. The human race is doing just fine and is progressing toward greater intimacy in obedience to God. Wouldn't we eventually arrive apart from the incarnation?

What I’m looking for is an ontology of human being (not sinful human being) that makes clear why that humans can’t be filled to their natural capacity with the fullness of the divine presence apart from the incarnation. The answer isn’t just saying, “God designed it that way,” or “the incarnate Logos is the archtype of human being.” That’s nice, but it doesn’t explain why God couldn’t fill human beings with his presence without also having to incarnate.

My own hunch, D, is that the incarnation was necessary apart from sin because human fulfillment occurs interpersonally and that, more importantly, the full possibilities of interpersonal relations and intimacy occur where the persons in relation share the same nature. It’s that simple. And that applies to human-human or human-God relations. But given our finite understanding and vastly limited perspective on things, the fulfilled state of divine presence we were intended for can’t be fully experienced by us except through perceiving and relating to God as divine in terms we are able to embrace within our created contexts. We finite humans can’t directly perceive or touch or grasp the divine persons in their uncreated splendor. But to become intimate with another person, to be filled with that person, one has to engage that person with the full range of one’s own natural capacities and limitations. There has to be a shared ‘natural context’ in which personal intimacy occurs. Otherwise, there will remain dimensions of personal and loving intimacy that never get realized.

So, God had to become a human being simply because human persons can only become fully intimate with persons who share the same nature, for ‘shared nature’ becomes ‘how’ communication in all its fullness takes place. This is why “when we see him we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is.” The fullest intimacy (and transformation of our natures as a result) that God intends for us can’t take place until we see the incarnate Son—touch, feel, handle, speak with him, etc. That’s what I’m thinking. Yes, this communication happens now on one level (via prayer, human conscience, the human spirit, etc.), but there are dimensions of intended fullness whose realization awaits a depth of perception that is available to us only in terms our natures are equipped to perceive. So that means God’s GOT to incarnate so that the person of the Son, and the needed depth of perception of God in the full range of personal attributes we require, can be known.

That’s pretty chopped up, but it’s kinda what I’m thinking. What this means is that the beatific vision is a vision of the incarnate Christ in unveiled glory. We never see the Father or the Spirit. Our point of departure--so far as relating to God personally is concerned--is the incarnate One.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 12/28/2010 8:01:00 PM (GMT-6)

good

Tom said...
I like the Endokimov quote. Good stuff.

I'd like to see a rationale for the incarnation's necessary role in deifying us apart from all consideration of sin and redemption. In other words, take "having to save us from sin" out of the equation (because that tends to be the SOLE explanation for the incarnation) and tell me why the incarnation is necessary to our fulfillment. What is it about created human being per se (not sinful/fallen human being) that REQUIRES the incarnation?

Tom

---

(o)

Something else I was thinking.  The "shared context" between Divine Presence and human existence is ultimately the SPIRITUAL context.  It's this spiritual context that enabled Enoch to even PERCEIVE God...let alone ENJOY God as much as he evidently did.  And this goes back to what I'm saying about the Incarnation being anticipated in the creation of humanity as a whole.  What I say is this: the fulfillment of creaturely union and communion with the Uncreated (ala all the intra- and inter-personal capabilities of the Imago Dei in human being) is seen in Jesus.  Kallistos Ware says pretty much the same thing in "The Orthodox Way".  He says that the "true image and likeness of God is Christ himself"...and that humanity is created in the "image of the Image".  In the Incarnation, Jesus showed us the full possibilities involved the "image of the Image" being liberated into divine likeness.

"The true image and likeness of God is Christ himself; and so, from the very first moment of man's creation in the image, the Incarnation of Christ was in some way already implied.  The true reason for the Incarnation, then, lies not in man's sinfulness but in his unfallen nature as a being made in the divine image and capable of union with God."

Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way, page 71.

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/28/2010 11:11:12 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/28/2010 11:09:08 PM (GMT-6)

In the EUCHARIST, you have people acting perichoretically with Divine Presence ala the Real Presence of Christ mediated by the Holy Spirit.  The Body/Blood of Christ.  The Mind/Nous of Christ.  The Holy Spirit of Christ.  All aspects of Christ's reality that believer active PARTAKE and PARTICIPATE in...making it a part of every aspect of themselves.  Through the Eucharist, we actively indwell and intake Divine Presence (ala the Real Spiritually-Mediated Presence of Jesus).

Now ask yourself...would the Eucharist (as the Church has long understood it) even be POSSIBLE if God had not ACTUALLY become human?  Could people actually believe they were taking in divine power and presence in eating and drinking if not for the Incarnation?

Nope.

We would not have the perichoretic, interpentrating INTIMACY of eucharistic life...without the Word becoming human flesh.

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/28/2010 11:59:49 PM (GMT-6)

D,

Enoch’s assumption is as impossible then on your view as it is on mine. How’s his assumption possible if God isn’t ACTUALLY incarnate already to effect such a thing? This is my question that I can’t seem to get an answer to. What does the incarnation effect that ONLY the incarnation can effect and which must be the case if we’re to experience the fullness of divine presence in us?

D: What I say is this: the fulfillment of creaturely union and communion with the Uncreated (ala all the intra- and inter-personal capabilities of the Imago Dei in human being) is seen in Jesus.

Tom: OK, so it’s seen in Jesus. So what? Did Enoch see it? No. So people don’t NEED to see it in the flesh in order to achieve it. That’s what you’re saying. In that case, WHY must anyone see it?

D: Kallistos Ware says pretty much the same thing in "The Orthodox Way".  He says that the "true image and likeness of God is Christ himself"...and that humanity is created in the "image of the Image".

Tom: That’s interesting, but so what? Why’s the image HAVE to be incarnate in order for us to achieve the full potential of our natures?

D: In the Incarnation, Jesus showed us the full possibilities involved the "image of the Image" being liberated into divine likeness.

Tom: I’m not disagreeing. I’m asking, WHY is this revelation of the sort of intimacy we’re intended for necessary for us to achieve it? And how’s it apply to Old Testament saints who didn’t have the revelation?

D: The true nature of human ontology would not have been REVEALED to Creation without the Incarnation.

Tom: But you don't think the true nature of human ontology HAS to be revealed to us in order for us to achieve the fullness of our potention. Enoch achieved it and he didn't know the true nature of human ontology. You don't want to say people have to perceive the true nature of their own ontology before they can be intimate with God, do you?

D: Moreover, human ontology as we have it would not have been CONSTRUCTED as it was without divine intent of union and communion with creaturely reality BEFORE CREATION, which is perfectly expressed in the humanity seen in the Incarnate Word at the right time in human history. In other words, Enoch's (and Elijah's) experienced intimacy with God-unto-heavenly-assumption (via human spirit-to-Holy Spirit connection) BECAUSE of the "template" of humanity, given God's ultimate pre-Creation intention for complete union and communion with Creation via the Incarnation of the Divine Word.

Tom: So because God’s intention to incarnate is one and the same with the intention to create at all, the Logos is the template for the humanity God intends to be intimate with. So humans get constructed with this template in mind. Hence, because we’re built according to the template, we’re able to conform to it (Enoch and Elijah) without the template’s ACTUALLY being incarnate. What does the trick is just that we’re constructed (i.e., relational spirit beings) or hardwired for intimacy with God. I can get with that. We basically have to be hardwired for relationship with God. Done. That's included in what I was saying.

But if that’s the case, D, then WHY incarnate? If being hardwired for relationship is enough (i.e., build according to a template that makes intimacy possible, i.e., in the image of God), then why must the template come to earth apart from the mission to save us (we want to find a rationale for the incarnation APART FROM the need to save us)? So: 1) What happens in the actual union of the divine and human in Jesus that we require in order to be intimate with God? And 2) do you really want to say Enoch and Elijah discovered such intimacy apart from the actual hypostatic union? You can't say ‘yes’ to (2) without undermining your case for a NECESSARY incarnation?

about the Eucharist, man, I don’t know what to say. I think we’re transformed into Christ’s image by making the CHOICE to relate ourselves intimately to God—through prayer, the disciplines, worship, iron sharpening iron, etc., not by eating Jesus. That's pretty much it. ;o)

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 12/29/2010 6:58:44 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Tom) : 12/29/2010 7:00:22 AM (GMT-6)

Wait a sec, D.

Let’s conceive of creation as triune gift, as an intra-trinitarian event. Take the rationale out of the sphere of human perfection (whether fallen humanity or unfallen). And instead of finding a place for the incarnation within the larger act of creation, let's locate creation as a whole within incarnation. In other words, it’s all about incarnation as the gift of extravagant creative expression of the divine persons one to another prior to an irrespective of human beings. Creation really is about God celebrating Godself. And creation remains a third-part event so to speak until the Son unites it to his own person irrevocably. THAT is God's gift to Godself. So creation of the cosmos is just the means and space by which the Son is able to fashion a creative expression of himself for the Father. One might conclude that we humans are an afterthought, and in a sense this is true, But we are as much part of the Son’s gift to the Father.

This changes things D. It views the incarnation not as a necessary means to human fulfillment per se (though it could be described as that only very indirectly). That makes incarnation subservient to humanity and elevates humanity unduly, as if God creates the cosmos to have humans relate to him before all else and thus incarnates to achieve this human end. What if we turn this all on its head and say God creates to incarnate for Godself (viz., to relate to Godself in a new way, i.e., as personally incarnate) and pursues relations with humans only as a consequence of this plan. But this would remove any need to understand the incarnation as necessary for human perfection in the sense traditionally believed. It means human perfection becomes necessary to God’s larger intentions for incarnation. Human perfection and glorification become implicated in incarnation in precisely the opposite direction we usually think. Human perfection doesn’t require the incarnation as much as the incarnation (and all that God intends it to be) requires human perfection.

I'm really feeling this.

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/29/2010 11:24:23 AM (GMT-6)

Yes, Tom?

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/29/2010 11:46:59 AM (GMT-6)

In Greek Patristic literature, it was a prevailing view that the state of human being as it exists in the natural environment includes the body, soul (including the dianoia as an analytical part of the soul), and spirit [Spirit's note: the "eye of the soul", St. John of Damascus], which had never been dissociated from the Holy Spirit. Human spirit stands here for the nous (spiritual intellect, the organ of faith), linking the human person to its dynamic relationship to God and to the world. It is natural congeniality with God, which is articulated by the presence of the Holy Spirit in human being. But the Holy Spirit is the creator of both body and soul, whose unity forms a particular human person. The presence of the Holy Spirit in human constitution thus makes the human person open upward through it's calling to the Divine as its destiny. Without the Spirit, the Greek Fathers assert, the human being is incomplete and imprisoned through the conditions of the created nature.

This "human constitution" is what it is, I believe (and Nesteruk seems to say) from the divine intention for incarnation.  Loder seems to straight up confirm this, from a Kierkegaardian standpoint, no less!

Human beings are DESIGNED to be GOD-BEARERS. 

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/29/2010 8:37:18 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 12/29/2010 10:48:08 PM (GMT-6)