 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/1/2011 11:43 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Tom and I came up with this today...
1) Do you (Person X) believe that when God the Son was a fetus in Mary's womb, he was in no way personally experiencing/exercising omnipresence with the Father and Spirit AD INTRA at the same time?
2) If YES to 1, does this imply that the divine mind (and will) of God the Son was completely localized within said fetus, post-Incarnation? (Again, it doesn't matter if it's by free choice or metaphysical necessity.)
3) If YES to 2, does your answers for 1 and 2 conform to Apollinarianism? Please remember that Apolinarianism says that the divine mind of God the Son was confined within a particular human lower soul/body union. It says that the only thing that is personally continuous in the pre- and post-Incarnation God the Son is his divine mind.
4) If YES to 3, then doesn't this make your perspective contrary to Chalcedon...as Apollinarianism itself is contrary to Chalcedon?
5) If YES to 4, do you think being Orthodox (Chalcedonian) on Christology is essential to Christianity?
Now, at this point...if Person X says NO, then you know that Person X is, indeed, heretical and doesn't care that they are separating themselves from the HUGE SEGMENT of Christianity that upholds orthodoxy from the Ecumenical Councils.
If Person X is your pastor...pray to God for them, then...
RUN
FOR
THE
FRIGGIN
HILLS!!!!!!!!!!
(but that last part is just my opinion...  )
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/1/2011 1:47 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/1/2011 7:43 PM (GMT -6) | | | D: 5) If YES to 4, do you think being Orthodox (Chalcedonian) on Christology is essential to Christianity?
J: No, I don't. Obviously.
D: Now, at this point...if Person X says NO, then you know that Person X is, indeed, heretical and doesn't care that they are separating themselves from the HUGE SEGMENT of Christianity that upholds orthodoxy from the Ecumenical Councils.
J: What I know is that I'm heretical per that tradition. But, yes, I don't care about that. Tradition isn't authorized by signs and wonders. It's just the opinion of men. By your view, D, God is more concered with confirming, by signs and wonders, claims that aren't as important as those He never confirmed with signs and wonders. Does that make sense? If so, how? I'm just not seeing it. Consequently, your view seems, to me, to imply something relatively unbecoming about God's nature, as well. Why would He provide less evidence for the more important claims about deity that can't be derived from reason and experience than for less important claims of that sort? Doesn't that seem to be contrary to the notion that what is required is based on what is given?
I dare say there have been plenty of believers who have lived and died with no knowledge of the Chalcedonian claims and without ever even thinking about what they convened to discuss. Why do I think that? Because I had never heard of or conceived of that claim until I read it right here on this forum. I don't think it would have ever dawned on me to posit dual conscious states of the Son during his incarnation. Nor am I aware of what scriptural texts require that explanatory route or are even more plausibly explained that way.
I'll do a poll with people I know that claim to be Christian to see if they're chaff or wheat by that criteria. I suspect most professing Christians in the world are chaff by that criteria. Right off the bat, I'm sure none of my family members have ever heard or conceived of it except my immediate family, who I informed after being informed here. I was raised Southern Baptist. Southerner Baptists, for the most part, don't think that metaphysical in the first place. Indeed, most people don't.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 10/1/2011 8:48:55 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/2/2011 7:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for that, Jeff. Some things...
1) God loves everyone equally: chaff or wheat. 
2) I agree that most people don't know this stuff. No one else in my whole family--even my beloved deceased grandparents--knows what the word "Chalcedon" even means. Heck, I've been "chaff" most of my life! I was raised Southern Baptist as well. And even after I got saved and went to seminary, I didn't take it as seriously as I should have. I am sure that God works with everyone who calls on Jesus' name as He is able, where they are. Again, God loves everyone equally.
3) I guess the main thing I was trying to get at with posting the questions was this: If someone is conversant with the terms "ad intra", "Apolinarianism", and "Chalcedon"...my assumption is that they KNOW and UNDERSTAND what I'm talking about. For most people, you probably couldn't get past "ad intra"...let alone "Chalcedon." If a person knows the terms and what they are about, then they are responsible for that knowledge. Much given, much required, right?
So, if there is a person X who fully understands all the questions...and STILL answers down the line all the way to the final question (and the heretical conclusions), then what I say is true: the person is not orthodox and DOESN'T CARE about it. You, Jeff, basically showed that with your own response. Now, of course, people can do what they want and believe what they want. My take is that is a PASTOR--someone who ideally is supposed to be a steward of the Church and it's history as well as a shepherd for the people--knowingly and willingly decides to dismiss/disregard the collective, universally accepted wisdom of the Church in their service...
then, in my opinion, a conscientious, knowledgeable Christian would do well to break camp. Why? Because with that kind of sensibility, how could such a pastor try to have ANY REAL AUTHORITY when it comes to conveying knowledge of the Christian God? If a pastor is willing to flagrantly negate the testimonies and work behind the Creeds...how could they teach me DISCERNMENT in reading the Scriptures or interpreting the history of the Church? They couldn't.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/2/2011 7:44:10 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/2/2011 8:08 AM (GMT -6) | | |
D: If a pastor is willing to flagrantly negate the testimonies and work behind the Creeds...how could they teach me DISCERNMENT in reading the Scriptures or interpreting the history of the Church? They couldn't.
J: It doesn't follow that someone who agrees with the Creeds is right about scripture anymore than the Pharisees were right about scripture just because they followed the traditions of men. Christ told them had they actually BELIEVED Moses, they would have also BELIEVED him.
I'm not saying I know creeds are right or wrong a priori. I'm saying I believe or don't believe them based on their seeming agreement or disagreement with scripture. And with you, I think we should acquaint ourselves with other points of view--but to constantly test our own views against them in case we are in error by our own best exegetical criteria that is available to us at the time. What more can God expect of us shy of confirming signs and wonders? Even signs and wonders have to be tested by scriptural criteria.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 10/2/2011 9:43:13 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/3/2011 8:02 AM (GMT -6) | | |
From Greg...
Is Open Theism Incompatible With a Chalcedonian Christology?
Question: The Chalcedonian Creed says Jesus was “fully God and fully human” and that these “two natures” remained distinct in the Incarnation, even though Jesus was one united person. I’m told that part of the reasoning behind the concern to keep Jesus’ humanity distinct from his divinity was to protect the “impassibility” of the divine nature (impassible = God does not suffer). Since Open Theists reject divine impassibility, shouldn’t they also reject the Chalcedonian Christology? In fact, couldn’t one argue that the rejection of divine immutability requires one to also reject a Chacledonian Christology?
Answer: Historically, there were a number of factors that led to the Chalcedonian Creed. The most important, I would argue, was that the Church wanted to affirm the full divinity and full humanity of Christ as revealed in Scripture over and against a number of competing views that were subsequently judged to be unorthodox. At the same time, its undeniable that the increasing influence of the platonic paradigm of perfection (and thus of God) as impassible and immutable on the evolving theology of the church throughout the second, third and fourth centuries affected the particular way many worked out the two natures of Christ. It was, in particular, a strong influential force in the fear some had of “mingling” the two natures.
But I don’t see that Open Theists need to reject the Chalcedonian Creed to be consistent. It’s important to note that many classical theists now reject the classical understandings of immutability and impassibility, and many others attempt to argue that the classical understanding of these concepts was not as absolute as was previous thought (that is, immutability didn’t mean God was unchanging in every respect and impassibility didn’t mean God is above suffering in every respect.) Yet few theologians feel compelled to reject the Chalcedonian Christology. It’s also important to note that many today – including some classical theists – are rethinking the concept of “nature.” It is at least as much in question as are the concepts of impassibility and immutability.
In this light, it’s clearly difficult to argue that any given theological position – including Open Theism — is intrinsically inconsistent with the Chalcedonian Christology.
--------------------------------
"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg BoydPost Edited (Tom) : 10/4/2011 7:21:15 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/3/2011 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | | I'm telling where he's getting caught up. Even though he hasn't read T&P for a while, he still holds a belief in there: if the divine disposition of "perfect love" is being expressed in and through the exercise of human disposition, then you have two natures in one fully human Jesus. That's how he would believe that God behold Himself "anew": perfect God-satisfying love in human (creaturely) becoming. It goes along with EVERYTHING he said in that Q&A part about the two natures in Jesus. Remember? Omniscience and omnipresence AREN'T NECESSARY for God to be God? All he needs is PERFECT LOVE? It's all right there in the sermon, if you think about it.
What he DIDN'T seem to grasp was the tritheistic and Appolinarian assumptions behind his view with thinking that was actually sufficient. Unfortunately this means, he's been thinking this way for quite some time. How old is T&P again?
Now what is interesting though (and I think I may do the paper on THIS)...is that this DOES describe "theosis". In other words, reality IS dispositional (essentially relational) and it's this dispositional nature of reality that ALLOWS for the very God-satisfying nature of God (complete self-giving love) to actually be expressed in created form. The love of the Trinity indwells the human individual via the Holy Spirit...and "satisfies" the soul. And like God, we can have INFINITE potential for expression from the satisfaction that we have in "enjoying" God within and without.
Greg's thesis was gold. And dude didn't even see it. Ah, but for some Maximus...
Fortunately, one can take on orthdox perspective (ditching the tritheism and Appolinarianism) and still KEEP Greg's essential idea about how human existence can ACTUALLY experience divine life.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/3/2011 11:49:41 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/3/2011 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | | Aha!
I'm thinking this is a PENDULUM SWING from the ONENESS theology that he was in before.THAT makes SENSE! 
Boyd was raised Roman Catholic, but became an atheist as a teen. In 1974, at the age of 17, he committed his life to Christ. He graduated cum laude from Yale Divinity School (1982) and magna cum laude from Princeton Theological Seminary (1987). He was Professor of Theology at Bethel University for 16 years, where he continues to teach on an adjunct basis. His Princeton dissertation (published as Trinity and Process) was a critique of the process theology of Charles Hartshorne. Here, Boyd attempts to construct a philosophical theology that retains the positive features of a process worldview, while avoiding its unorthodox implications. Boyd is widely known for his award-winning book Letters From a Skeptic (1994). This book is a collection of letters written by Boyd and his father Edward, who was an atheist at the time. Through the course of their correspondence, Boyd addressed many of the perennial intellectual challenges to the Christian faith, which led to his father's conversion.
Boyd is also a former Oneness Pentecostal, and wrote the book Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity (1992), critiquing the movement's anti-trinitarian view of God and other doctrines.
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 10/3/2011 11:46 AM (GMT -6) | | And Millard Erickson's "The Word Became Flesh" (the standard evangelical kenotic take) was written in 1991!!
Yeah. Things are making sense.
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 10/3/2011 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Dude, he says it in Christian Theology, his SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY book. This was the one of the books I used in seminary.
In the chapter called "The Unity of the Person of Christ"
He specifically says that the incarnation is a self-chosen "circumstance-induced limitation on the exercise of his powers and capacities."
He even uses the example of the world's fastest sprinter entered into a 3-legged race with someone slower. Even though the sprinter has his capabilities, he is limited by the speed of the slower runner. How this cashes out is that God the Son denies himself access to/exercise of his natural omnipresence such that he AS GOD THE SON could only be at one place at one time in the body of Jesus.
Now what is that?
Hint:
1) Do you (Person X) believe that when God the Son was a fetus in Mary's womb, he was in no way personally experiencing/exercising omnipresence with the Father and Spirit AD INTRA at the same time?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/3/2011 1:22:05 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/3/2011 1:18 PM (GMT -6) | | "Just as the runner...could unloose the tie, but choose to restrict himself for the duration of the event, so Christ's incarnation was a volutary self-chosen limitation. ... During that time, his deity always functioned in connection with his humanity."
Millard Erickson
Christian Theology, 2nd ed
page 752
-------------------------------------------------------------
This ends up being a ONE-MIND Christianity where the deity of Christ (the divine mind) is completely localized to the human body. The human soul in Erickson view merely ends up being the same "lower soul" that existed in Apollinarianism.
Remember the whole "distinction without difference" thing, Tom?
It's OBVIOUS to me now!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/3/2011 1:23:09 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/3/2011 1:53 PM (GMT -6) | | about his kenotic interpretation...
"If Erickson, a reputable theologian, blunders in this way, it is not surprising when on several occasions I have asked gatherings of evangelical pastors the question 'After the incarnation had occured, did the Second Person of the Godhead still possess and exercise the attribute of omnipresence, or was he confirmed to the human body he had assumed?' that many have opted for the latter construction: 'After all,' they say, 'is this not what the word "incarnation" means?' They did not seem to realize that the necessary implication of this choice is that in the incarnation God the Son divested himself of his attribute of being always and everywhere immediately present in his created universe."
Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology
Andrew Thomson Blake McGowan
Page 108.
Personally, I would say this:
They did not seem to realize that the necessary implication of this choice is that in the incarnation God the Son divested himself of his attribute of being always and everywhere immediately present with God the Father (even ad intra)...which is equivalent either to
1) metaphysical and theological nonsense (because it posits breaking up the NECESSARY relationship between God the Father and God the Son within the Trinity)
or
2) tritheism and Apolinarianism
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/3/2011 8:47 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/4/2011 2:13 AM (GMT -6) | | J:
What do you suggest?
Well, let's just say we start in our own backyard...and move out from there. Starting by prayer. (Prayer of the heart, even.)
To whom much is given, much is required...right? Once a person knows and understands something clearly, they are responsible for the choices pertaining to what they know. 
It could be as simple as the 5 questions above. They really ARE simple questions, if you know something rudimentary about all the terms (ad intra, Chalcedon, etc). And evangelical theology professors and seminary students should know SOMETHING about all of those terms. Paper-presenting Members of the Evangelical Theological Society should know something about all those terms. Agreed?
Hmmm. Now who do I know that's an evangelical theology professor and author as well as a former member of ETS---who's a kenotic theorist?
Hmm...
Stay tuned.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
| 406 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:17 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 |
|
|