 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Questions to Separate the Wheat from the Chaff | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/15/2011 12:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/15/2011 5:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Let's compare...
"We...are far from imposing the task of conceiving that the eternal Logos ceased with the Incarnation to exist in His general revelation in the world."
H. L. Martensen
Christian Dogmatics: A Compendium of the Doctrines of Christianity
Pp. 264
***********************************************
Who ran the universe during the incarnation? The Bible tells us that Christ holds all things today (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3). However, if Christ relinquished the exercise of his omnipresence and omniscience while on earth, there is no way he could have continued to perform this role.
In reply, the passages that celebrate Christ's role as Creator and Sustainer of the universe describe Christ's customary role. They do not rule out the possibility that Christ, for a season, set aside this function. The doctrine of the Trinity allows us to assert that God exists in three distinct ways at the same time. According to kenotic theorists, the second way God is God--The Second Person of the Trinity--emptied himself and became a full human. But (thankfully) the universe was not thereby vacated. The Father and Spirit continued to exercise their omnipotent and omniscient capacities.
If it were exegetically necessary, we could argue that Christ still held all things together even while he was incarnate. Consider this example: The owner of a company who goes on vacation may nevertheless be credited with "holding the company together" if he has responsibly arranged for things to carry on a certain way while he is gone. So long as Christ's wisdom and power lie behind the sustaining of the universe, it can be said that he held all things together even after he temporarily surrendered the use of his infinite wisdom and power to become a man.
Greg Boyd, Paul Eddy
Across the Spectrum
Hmmm...so who's perspective would CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA really like?
3 guesses and the first 2 don't count... 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/15/2011 5:37:18 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/15/2011 7:15 AM (GMT -6) | | These are questions that can be posed to all evangelical "kenotic view" holders (These are two I sent to Dr. McCall, Tom.)
Immediately post-Immaculate Conception/Incarnation...
1) What exactly preserved the hypostatic continuity between the Uncreated Son/Word/Logos pre-Incarnation and the human embyro within Mary's womb, post-Incarnation? In other words, what made the human embryo in Mary's womb hypostatically identical to the Uncreated Son/Word/Logos?
2) Did the human embryo in Mary's womb have any type of active interpersonal (hypostatic) relationship with God the Father and God the Spirit? If so, how and to what degree?
If a person has either no answer or no real answer for #1...AND...they flat-out say "No" to #2, then you know exactly what's going on.
They have a case of "T.A.A.A.M-itis"! (Tritheism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, Adoptionism, and Monothelitism)
Make sense?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/15/2011 7:47:02 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/15/2011 8:12 AM (GMT -6) | | | OK, D. You've said a lot, so let me try to focus it down a bit. I see no difference between emptying OF and emptying HIMSELF. They are just two ways of saying the same thing. There's basically an implied ellipsis in "emptied himself" that reads as "emptied himself of." Otherwise, the verb "emptied" is meaningless. Indeed, humbling oneself is a form of emptying oneself OF something--e.g., high-mindedness, warranted or not.
But by the two minds/wills view, the Logos emptied himself of nothing. He actually added onto himself another personality which, when contemplated, violates the LNC by eradicating any conceivable principle of individuation for persons. Because as far as I can tell, you're saying that the conscious states and beliefs of the incarnated Jesus of Nazareth are just a subset of the conscious states and beliefs of the eternal logos. But if that's the case, the eternal logos believes contradictory propositions (e.g. that he both is and is not omniscient).
And this is what I'm getting at with 451. Let's say that there is some supra-intuitive (i.e., mystical in that sense) way that what you're saying can be true without violating the LNC. The fact is, humans are not privy to a way this can be resolved consistently with the LNC. We simply can NOT be expected by God to believe what, to us, is a contradiction. That destroys human epistemology at the root. At that point, even the very term "heresy" is undefinable.
-Tritheism/Polytheism (God the Son's personal reality seen as separable from interpersonal relationship with the God the Father) What scripture says the Son's deity involves inseparable interpersonal relationship with the Father? It SAYS, all things are for and through him. -Arianism (there was a time when the Son AS PERSON was not...ie. as embyro in Mary's womb) Not if "person" means what we normally mean by the term. I think I was a person in my mother's womb. -Apollinarianism (one mind in Jesus, supposedly that of the pre-existent Son) Again, what scripture even implies Jesus' deity entails the need for two minds? -Adoptionism (there is NO HYPOSTATIC CONTINUITY between the pre-existent Logos and Jesus) I don't know what "hypostatic" continuity means to even contrast it with a non-hypostatic continuity -Monothelism (one will in Jesus) Again, what scripture even implies Jesus' deity entails the need for two wills?
Post Edited (Similitude) : 10/15/2011 9:16:34 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/15/2011 9:37 AM (GMT -6) | | J - Because to me, the godhead is nothing more or less than that/those person(s) that account(s) for the ordered system of beings my mind is naturally designed to infer as an extra-ego world.
451 – What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that we only assert a godhead that our minds can “infer.”
J - No. I don't believe we infer God. I believe inference is only possible if there is a Designer.
451 - Does our knowledge of God come from our inference? If so, are you dismissing revelation? I am not insinuating anything, just trying to get a sense of where you are coming from.
J - I am not dismissing revelation. But revelation that needs to be communally believed is communicated in words. And the meaning of words is inferred inductively.
------------------------------------------
J - The other [sense of mystery] is that which can not be thought by humans--supra-intuitive relationality, e.g. But that kind of mystery, by definition, is irrelevant to philosophy and theology.
451 – And that opens the door to my main comment. What you describe above is what I might call revelation, the communication of that divine rationality in a way that our minds and hearts are able to receive.
J - Even if I were to concede for the sake of argument (and I don't) that God could privately reveal supra-intuitive knowledge to particular humans, it would follow from the principle of "where nothing is given, nothing is required" that such knowledge would not be COMMUNALLY obligatory. Only that which can be communicated with language can possibly be obligatory COMMUNALLY. Because that's the only way we can communicate COMMUNALLY. Moreover, it is obvious that scripture implies that private revelation is given in proportion as we are able to receive it in terms of our state of "growth." So there is no way such private revelation can be mandatory for all believers to believe. I Cor. 2 makes that abundantly clear.
451 - I would agree that revelation is a problem for philosophy. I might even further suggest that revelation is the bane of philosophy. It answers questions not asked and creates more questions by its assertions. Revelation, by its nature, inserts itself into the discussion and makes much of our debate look like foolishness.
J - I disagree. What we believe to be revelation is that which was attempted to be communicated in language in ancient texts. It is not true that philosophers don't try to understand why people believe what they believe. That's what epistemology is all about. Moreover, many admit that there are very good inductive arguments for the historicity of the gospels. That alone opens up the very can of worms, philosophically speaking, that many find uncomfortable. But it's not because induction is a-philosophical. It's because they're biased.
451 - So, when I ask whether Jesus was omnipresent while He walked the earth, I have to look at the Scriptures. Then I find passages where He tells Nicodemus that He “saw” him under the fig tree and He tells the disciples that wherever two or three of them are gathered He is there “in the midst of them.” I assert these statements as revealed truth. I also consider such things as the firm conviction throughout Scripture that God is omnipresent and Jesus is fully God. These are the only kinds of real theological assertions I can make.
J - But seeing someone doesn't tell me where they are. And divine omnipresence, per tradition, is not dependent upon how many are gathered or whether they are gathered. So those verses tell me nothing about divine omnipresence with anything like clarity or unequivocalness. So I won't be dogmatic about your belief based on those verses.
451 - There is no question that this leads me to certain apparent contradictions and to literal interpretation of verses that are uncomfortable for my preferred way of thinking. When that happens, I have to stand on the mystery of the divine rationality that you mention. I simply do not and probably cannot understand.
J - Which is why it can't be obligatory upon the rest of the believing community. No one is obligated to believe what they can't coherently conceive of. That's equivalent to saying we are required of where nothing is given. God doesn't do that.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 10/15/2011 9:41:48 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/15/2011 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | EXCELLENT! Funtime.
Similtude:
I see no difference between emptying OF and emptying HIMSELF. They are just two ways of saying the same thing. There's basically an implied ellipsis in "emptied himself" that reads as "emptied himself of." Otherwise, the verb "emptied" is meaningless. Indeed, humbling oneself is a form of emptying oneself OF something--e.g., high-mindedness, warranted or not. But by the two minds/wills view, the Logos emptied himself of nothing. He actually added onto himself another personality which, when contemplated, violates the LNC by eradicating any conceivable principle of individuation for persons. Because as far as I can tell, you're saying that the conscious states and beliefs of the incarnated Jesus of Nazareth are just a subset of the conscious states and beliefs of the eternal logos. But if that's the case, the eternal logos believes contradictory propositions (e.g. that he both is and is not omniscient).
1) The key thing with the "emptying" thing is that it is not exegetically warranted to say that the Logos/Word/Son emptied himself of divine characteristics or nature. Even your own take shows the "emptiness" as being one of not being "full of" self; you're just saying that God is self-less and other-oriented unto being sacrificial. That's WAY different than what much of the modern kenoticists are trying to say about it. Again, you saw the commentary yourself. Do you disagree with them?
2) I think a good example of the "emptying" the Son did was in the show " Undercover Boss" "The show’s format is based on a senior executive of a company working undercover in their own firm to investigate how the company really works and identify how it can be improved, as well as rewarding the hard working staff."
If you haven't seen it, you should. One episode I saw was with a CEO of a waste disposal company who became an entry level person working with other staff who didn't know who he was. Now, the person did NOT stop being CEO of the company...however, under the terms of the show, they had to change their appearance and go by ALL of the same things that all other persons who worked went through. No special perks or favors. He had to do all the hard work under all the then current methods that everyone else did. Now would we say that the Undercover boss only APPEARS to "empty himself" because he didn't totally give up being CEO of the company while he emptied garbage along with the other workers for the lenghth of time that he did? Of course not! If anything, lots of praise gets heaped onto the CEOs who participate on the show for DOING what they do. How come this can't go for Jesus? "He came to His own...and his own recognized him not..."
3) I hear you saying that a singular personal experience cannot have two distinct, yet interrelated levels of consciousness, such that one transcends yet includes the other. I don't agree. The analogy that helps me is the wake-induced lucid dreamer idea I've mentioned many times before. I don't see how it's nonsense to say that the Logos can experience himself as Creator (from the "outside" )and created (from the "inside" ) at the same time. Are you saying that you can't conceive of this at all? *********************************** Similtude: Let's say that there is some supra-intuitive (i.e., mystical in that sense) way that what you're saying can be true without violating the LNC. The fact is, humans are not privy to a way this can be resolved consistently with the LNC. We simply can NOT be expected by God to believe what, to us, is a contradiction. That destroys human epistemology at the root. At that point, even the very term "heresy" is undefinable.1) Humans that have had lucid dreams ARE privy to what I'm talking about . Can you really not conceive of an immaterial, boundless, omnipresent being having a "thought" akin to a wake-induced lucid dream that said being experiences from the inside as a particularized creature within the "thought"...and as such, has a dual consciousness in a singular personal experience? I can conceive of such a thing very easily. VERY easily. 2) Heresy is not undefinable. I'll give you an example. If I told you that I believed that the Son of God was absolutely a CREATED being...not uncreated at all...I think that you would at least say that belief contradicts with biblical testimony and significant theological affirmation from believers down the years. That's all "heresy" is, as I see it, bro. ************************************* Similtude: -Tritheism/Polytheism (God the Son's personal reality seen as separable from interpersonal relationship with the God the Father)
What scripture says the Son's deity involves inseparable interpersonal relationship with the Father? It SAYS, all things are for and through him.
-Arianism (there was a time when the Son AS PERSON was not...ie. as embyro in Mary's womb)
Not if "person" means what we normally mean by the term. I think I was a person in my mother's womb.
-Apollinarianism (one mind in Jesus, supposedly that of the pre-existent Son)
Again, what scripture even implies Jesus' deity entails the need for two minds?
-Adoptionism (there is NO HYPOSTATIC CONTINUITY between the pre-existent Logos and Jesus)
I don't know what "hypostatic" continuity means to even contrast it with a non-hypostatic continuity
-Monothelism (one will in Jesus)
Again, what scripture even implies Jesus' deity entails the need for two wills?Let's start here. Biblical stuff I know you won't disagree with... 1) God the Father is a person. 2) God the Father is uncreated and antedates Creation 3) God the Word is the perfect image of the Father. 4) God the Word/Son is co-eternal with the God the Father. (This means that God the Word/Son is ESSENTIALLY uncreated and transcends Creation as the Father does) 5) Only the Son truly knows the Father...and only the Father knows the Son (This assumes an interpersonal relationship). So, when we put all these together, we have the Father and the Son in an essential, uncreated, co-eternal interpersonal mutually-defining personal relationship. Now the question that we have to ask is this: Can the Son completely cease being in this relationship to the Father at all? I don't see how that's even metaphysically possible.
Now, let's say that you and I AGREE that it's not metaphysically possible. What happens when the Son takes on human individuality (completely with brain and creaturely noetic capability)...basically taking on a nature that is infinitely distinct from the Uncreated, Eternal, Transcendent reality where the Father and Son ceaselessly relate interpersonally?
Would we say that, insofar as, the Uncreated and Created realms are infinitely distinct...that the Incarnate Word would have two infinitely distinct perspectives within ONE personal experience?
I think we would.
Just think about it.
THAT's where the "two minds" and "two wills" (associated with the two infinitely distinct yet inseparably related realms of consciousness associated with the Uncreated and Created)
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/15/2011 11:07:33 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/15/2011 2:42 PM (GMT -6) | | | D: The key thing with the "emptying" thing is that it is not exegetically warranted to say that the Logos/Word/Son emptied himself of divine characteristics or nature. Even your own take shows the "emptiness" as being one of not being "full of" self; you're just saying that God is self-less and other-oriented unto being sacrificial. That's WAY different than what much of the modern kenoticists are trying to say about it.
J: First, no member of the godhead ever emptied their self to become self-less and other-oriented. So that wouldn't work anyway. Second, another key thing is the sense in which Jesus is deity. Jesus himself uses the argument that the Psalms called humans gods as a counter to their unbelief that Jesus could be equal with God in some sense. Thus, the SENSE in which a being is deity is part and parcel to the attributes thereof.
D: Now would we say that the Undercover boss only APPEARS to "empty himself" because he didn't totally give up being CEO of the company while he emptied garbage along with the other workers for the lenghth of time that he did? Of course not! If anything, lots of praise gets heaped onto the CEOs who participate on the show for DOING what they do.
How come this can't go for Jesus?
J: I think that analogy is perfect for my view. IOW, the Logos only has one stream of conscious experience and identity, just like the CEO. He's still the one FOR whom and THROUGH whom the creation exists just as the CEO remains the CEO. But in both cases, something is given up for some duration of time.
D: Can you really not conceive of an immaterial, boundless, omnipresent being having a "thought" akin to a wake-induced lucid dream that said being experiences from the inside as a particularized creature within the "thought"...and as such, has a dual consciousness in a singular personal experience?
J: Not sure what you mean by "inside" unless being in a dream state where the subjective experience seems to the dreamer to be objectively real events--i.e., events that involve other beings as opposed to mere mental objects. If so, then I would say that dreamers are either experiencing the "inside" or "outside" perspective at any given time--not both simultaneously. But even if they can be experienced simultaneously, the dreamer would be believing contradictions to believe the "outside" and "inside" perspectives could both be true simultaneously. And I don't believe the Logos ever has or ever will simultaneously believe contradictions.
D: 2) Heresy is not undefinable.
J: I didn't say it was. I was saying that if the LNC is not valid, nothing is definable.
D: 5) Only the Son truly knows the Father...and only the Father knows the Son (This assumes an interpersonal relationship).
and
What happens when the Son takes on human individuality (completely with brain and creaturely noetic capability)...basically taking on a nature that is infinitely distinct from the Uncreated, Eternal, Transcendent reality where the Father and Son ceaselessly relate interpersonally?
J: "Ceaselessly" is the key word. In 5), you don't say that. In the scripture, it doesn't say that. That's why my view can still be scriptural. And until I can see how to get around what, to me, is an apparent contradiction in your view, I have no other conceivable option.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/15/2011 3:13 PM (GMT -6) | | D: The key thing with the "emptying" thing is that it is not exegetically warranted to say that the Logos/Word/Son emptied himself of divine characteristics or nature. Even your own take shows the "emptiness" as being one of not being "full of" self; you're just saying that God is self-less and other-oriented unto being sacrificial. That's WAY different than what much of the modern kenoticists are trying to say about it.
J: First, no member of the godhead ever emptied their self to become self-less and other-oriented. So that wouldn't work anyway. Second, another key thing is the sense in which Jesus is deity. Jesus himself uses the argument that the Psalms called humans gods as a counter to their unbelief that Jesus could be equal with God in some sense. Thus, the SENSE in which a being is deity is part and parcel to the attributes thereof.
I'm not saying the emptying of the self was to BECOME something. I was echoing what the commentary writers (and others) have said as far as the emptying of the self as EXPRESSING the selfless, other-oriented nature that God already IS. I still ask what do you think of what the commentators said about the passage specifically?
*************************************************
D: Now would we say that the Undercover boss only APPEARS to "empty himself" because he didn't totally give up being CEO of the company while he emptied garbage along with the other workers for the lenghth of time that he did? Of course not! If anything, lots of praise gets heaped onto the CEOs who participate on the show for DOING what they do.
How come this can't go for Jesus?
J: I think that analogy is perfect for my view. IOW, the Logos only has one stream of conscious experience and identity, just like the CEO. He's still the one FOR whom and THROUGH whom the creation exists just as the CEO remains the CEO. But in both cases, something is given up for some duration of time.
The CEO never relinquished being CEO. The CEO just did relatively menial duties along with other lower level workers without them knowing who he was. This is like unto the kind of kenosis that Martensen talks about. The kind of kenosis that modern kenotics talk about would have him completely relinquishing his being CEO while he did the lower level stuff.
****************************************************
D: Can you really not conceive of an immaterial, boundless, omnipresent being having a "thought" akin to a wake-induced lucid dream that said being experiences from the inside as a particularized creature within the "thought"...and as such, has a dual consciousness in a singular personal experience?
J: Not sure what you mean by "inside" unless being in a dream state where the subjective experience seems to the dreamer to be objectively real events--i.e., events that involve other beings as opposed to mere mental objects. If so, then I would say that dreamers are either experiencing the "inside" or "outside" perspective at any given time--not both simultaneously. But even if they can be experienced simultaneously, the dreamer would be believing contradictions to believe the "outside" and "inside" perspectives could both be true simultaneously. And I don't believe the Logos ever has or ever will simultaneously believe contradictions.
1) You can't rule out the simultaneous experience out of hand. I'm sure you know that.
2) It would not be contradictory for the dreamer to experience the two contexts and what those contexts allow...and to operate accordingly. Show me how that's logically impossible, bro. I'm not seeing it. It seems like you deny simultaneity of dual experience and then guage things by that.
*****************************************
D: 2) Heresy is not undefinable.
J: I didn't say it was. I was saying that if the LNC is not valid, nothing is definable.
I don't see how it's invalidate the LNC to see posit simultaneous, dual experience of distinct realities. It's eluding me.
*******************************************
5) Only the Son truly knows the Father...and only the Father knows the Son (This assumes an interpersonal relationship).
and
What happens when the Son takes on human individuality (completely with brain and creaturely noetic capability)...basically taking on a nature that is infinitely distinct from the Uncreated, Eternal, Transcendent reality where the Father and Son ceaselessly relate interpersonally?
J: "Ceaselessly" is the key word. In 5), you don't say that. In the scripture, it doesn't say that. That's why my view can still be scriptural. And until I can see how to get around what, to me, is an apparent contradiction in your view, I have no other conceivable option.
This just makes sense, Jeff. If God the Son/Word/Logos is an UNCREATED PERSON that is CO-ETERNAL with God the Father (the uncreated, transcendent person in whose image the Son/Word/Logos is) in a INTER-personal relationship...how can incarnating into Creation CHANGE or NEGATE that? You'd have to say that the Word's incarnation ANNIHILATED the uncreated, eternal relationship he had with the Father. That doesn't even make logical sense, bro. Surely you see that.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/15/2011 3:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
"Ceaselessly" is the key word. In 5), you don't say that. In the scripture, it doesn't say that. That's why my view can still be scriptural. And until I can see how to get around what, to me, is an apparent contradiction in your view, I have no other conceivable option.
"Father, I want these whom you have given me to be with me where I am. Then they can see all the glory you gave me because you loved me even before the world began!"
"Father, glorify me with the glory that I had with you before the world began."
These are two of Jesus' quotes. They only make any sense if the Incarnate Word is talking about his loving, glory-filled INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with God the Father pre-Creation ie the uncreated, transcendent, eternal realm of Deity.
Will you agree to that?
If you DO agree to that, then you must see that you have God the Father and God the Son in an essential, uncreated, co-eternal interpersonal mutually-defining personal relationship...that CANNOT be ceased by any created order reality. That would be to say that the created can "cease" activity within the boundless UNcreated, which is ludicrous.
Now once you agree to THAT...then anything that we say about Jesus as the Incarnate Word of God the Father in the power of the Holy Spirit HAS to take this into account. Why? Because if we are NOT talking about Jesus this way...we do not have the incarnation of the BIBLICALLY DESCRIBED God.
Feel me?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/15/2011 3:39:01 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/15/2011 3:45 PM (GMT -6) | | | This is why the evangelical modern kenotic views are either POLYTHEISTIC or METAPHYSICAL/THEOLOGICAL NONSENSE. They effectively say that God the Son can actually exist as a being in an exhaustively non-hypostatic state (ala Jesus in the womb) while God the Father and God the Spirit just "kick it" in the uncreated, eternal realm. That can only either happen with polytheism or a fundamental metaphysical/theological mistake about the Trinity.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/15/2011 3:52:18 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/15/2011 4:20 PM (GMT -6) | | D: These are two of Jesus' quotes. They only make any sense if the Incarnate Word is talking about his loving, glory-filled INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with God the Father pre-Creation ie the uncreated, transcendent, eternal realm of Deity.
Will you agree to that?
J: I have no problem with that.
D: If you DO agree to that, then you must see that you have God the Father and God the Son in an essential, uncreated, co-eternal interpersonal mutually-defining personal relationship...that CANNOT be ceased by any created order reality. That would be to say that the created can "cease" activity within the boundless UNcreated, which is ludicrous.
J: I would agree it couldn't cease if it is essential to the nature of each. But that's precisely what is not unequivocally stated. What I would say, though, is that any finite cessation of said CONSCIOUS relationality must somehow be known theretofore to serve a greater good for both. And this is the other point where we disagree--because you don't believe their total satisfaction can ever be surpassed. But I do.
So back to the two minds question. Let me state what I think you're saying and what it implies, then let me know where you think, specifically, I'm misunderstanding you.
I hear you saying that the subjective, conscious experience/states of the incarnate person we call Jesus was a SUBSET of the total subjective, conscious experience/states of the eternal logos, who is also one and the same person as the incarnate Jesus. This seems to me to mean that ONE person can simultaneously believe he is omniscient and is not omniscient. So what am I missing?
Post Edited (Similitude) : 10/15/2011 4:24:44 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/15/2011 4:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | The only reason that we are dealing with the paradoxical "two minds" thing in the first place is because of the question I've been asking:
Can the loving interpersonal relationship between two UNCREATED, ETERNAL persons (the Father and the Son) that necessarily exists AND necessarily antedates Creation...be eliminated by any created order activity?
Again, I don't see how this can be metaphysically possible. One would have to deny the Son's co-eternality, uncreatedness, and personhood that he gets immediately and wholly from God the Father who eternally "begets" Him...with or without a Creation.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/15/2011 4:42:52 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/15/2011 4:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Bro. Can the loving interpersonal relationship between two UNCREATED, ETERNAL persons (the Father and the Son) that necessarily exists AND necessarily antedates Creation...be eliminated by any created order activity? That's what I'm talking about. I don't see how ANYONE can say that.
J: Not eliminated by created order activity. Rather, eliminated, for short durations, by SELF-KENOSIS. And in that sense, the "necessary"-ness of the relationship is a necessity of continuedness--not necessarily one that can not possibly consciously cease for one party for a short duration for teleological reasons.
So a necessary uncreated, eternal person can just CONTINGENTLY negate those realities to become exhaustively created, temporal, and non-personal? How does that even work? Saying self-kenosis doesn't help at all. How can an UNCREATED reality morph into an exhaustively CREATED reality...when they are two infinitely distinct realities by definition? Now THAT seems to abridge the LNC to me.
Taking on human flesh is a created order activity. It would not be possible without a Creation. I don't see HOW God the Son taking on human flesh somehow metaphysically negates his NECESSARY uncreatedness, eternality, and personhood that is, again, always bestowed upon Him by God the Father.
It's just not making sense, dude.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/15/2011 4:49:30 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 406 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|