 |
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 10/13/2011 12:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
The NAE, which represents 40 denominations across some 45,000 local churches, extends a request to meet with the president each year, Anderson said. This is the first time Obama has accepted.
"Evangelicals have had good access to the Obama White House, at least that's my experience. He clearly knows where we disagree on issues like marriage and abortion and he acknowledged that we have significant differences," Anderson said.
So, current evangelicals can't get Christianity right enough to tell a clear heresy from an actual "option"...but we can basically lobby to the White House to get what we want?
WTF??? 
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 10/22/2011 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/22/2011 10:20 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/22/2011 10:51 AM (GMT -6) | | | http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/
Richard Muow and Dallas Willard are a part of this!
As followers of Jesus Christ, Evangelicals stress a particular set of beliefs that we believe are true to the life and teachings of Jesus himself. Taken together, they make us who we are. We place our emphasis on ...
- Jesus, fully divine and fully human, as the only full and complete revelation of God and therefore the only Savior.
- The death of Jesus on the cross, in which he took the penalty for our sins and reconciled us to God.
- Salvation as God’s gift grasped through faith. We contribute nothing to our salvation.
- New life in the Holy Spirit, who brings us spiritual rebirth and power to live as Jesus did, reaching out to the poor, sick, and oppressed.
- The Bible as God’s Word written, fully trustworthy as our final guide to faith and practice.
- The future personal return of Jesus to establish the reign of God.
- The importance of sharing these beliefs so that others may experience God’s salvation and may walk in Jesus’ way.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/22/2011 10:57:24 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/27/2011 3:30 PM (GMT -6) | | GREAT Q&A!
Much of Christian theology that we assume to be true, key doctrines such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ, were thought out quite a while ago through rigorous arguments and analysis and debate. Evangelicals kid themselves when they believe that they can re-invent the wheel with every generation, that you have to produce another spate of systematic theology textbooks to teach people the stuff that has already been articulated for generations. Not to say those things aren't important. They are, and obviously you have to write these things depending upon the historical context. However, I do think we have to admit that the way that we read Scripture is through the ideas and concepts that have been passed down to us by a great tradition.
Look, you're not going to come up with the Nicene Creed by just picking up the Bible. Does the Bible contribute to our understanding? Absolutely it does; the Nicene Creed is consistent with Scripture. But you needed a church that had a self-understanding in order to articulate that in any clear way. I am not saying that necessarily means that you have to be a Catholic. But we have to understand that the Reformation only makes sense against the backdrop of a tradition that was already there. Calvin and Luther did not go back and re-write Nicea. They took it for granted. There's nothing wrong with conceding that and celebrating it and reading those authors.
Looking at tradition would also help evangelicals learn about Christian liturgical traditions, like Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, that many evangelicals reject because they say liturgy is unbiblical.
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 10/27/2011 5:58 PM (GMT -6) | | "...the Catholic Church and its leadership are far more constrained from doctrinal innovation than the typical Evangelical megachurch pastor.
For example, Gregory Boyd, a Baptist theologian and pastor of a Minneapolis congregation, denies that God knows the future, and bases this denial on a literal reading of Scripture. This is called the Open View of God or Open Theism. But two fellow open theists, Clark Pinnock and John P. Sanders, could not be removed as members of ETS in a November 2003 membership-wide vote initiated by Professor Nicole. Sanders and Pinnock affirm both inerrancy and the Trinity, and they seem to embrace these views sincerely and without mental reservation. Yet, in contrast to Pastor Boyd, Pope Benedict XVI, has far less power to steer his Church’s doctrine in any direction he may find consistent with his own professional theological project. For the Pope is constrained by settled doctrine–including Scripture, ecumenical councils, and prior ex cathedra papal pronouncements. Pastors and theologians like Boyd, Pinnock, and Sanders are constrained only by “inerrancy” and “the Trinity,” which means that they could embrace any one of a variety of heresies condemned by the ancient church and yet still remain an ETS member in good standing: Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, or the denial of eternal sonship.
Francis Beckwith
"Evangelical and Catholic"
pp 134-135
Dude. If you OOOOOOOOOOONLY knew.
Dang.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/27/2011 8:22:54 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/27/2011 6:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Just because I don't care...
From here...
One of the defining organizations within American evangelicalism is the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). Founded in 1942, the NAE serves as an umbrella organization that attempts to represent evangelical interests and views on a wide-ranging assortment of spiritual, social, cultural, and political issues. Including local congregations from 50 member denominations as well as individual churches from 24 other Protestant denominations, the NAE estimates that it represents a constituency of about 30 million people.
******************************************************
HA!!!!
Actual email correspondence. Start at the bottom and read upward!
**********************************************************
Subject: RE: Questiosn for NAE
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:47:03 -0500
Dear Dwayne,
I believe you and I spoke on the phone a few days ago. As I recall, we discussed the fact that the NAE does not go into detail in specifying the “how” of the incarnation, except to affirm that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human. To go beyond that in theological and ontological terms would be beyond the realm of the organization’s focus and purpose.
The issues you raise seem to point toward a theological “catch-22,” which all the more confirms the matter of mystery we discussed on the phone (i.e. that we as humans will never fully understand the “how” of the incarnation), but we still accept what the Bible teaches – that Jesus Christ is God the Son in fully human form. How that relates to the kenosis is debated by theologians, though the vast majority of evangelical theologians would affirm that God the Son voluntarily set aside the independent use of his attributes (emphasis on “voluntarily set-aside”) to submit to the Father’s will and plan in the incarnation and ultimately for the purpose of redemption (I believe it would be your option #1 with Evans’ view of mystery added in).
My personal opinion (not the NAE’s, as to my knowledge the NAE does not extend it’s Trinitarian definition to the level of “how” the incarnation took place and how it relates to the kenotic issue … only the writers of that statement could comment on it, and I’m not sure any of them are living today) is that option #1 is the most consistent with traditional evangelical theology (Evans’ view), but understanding there is mystery to how it takes place in a way that does not compromise the ontological truths of Jesus Christ as fully divine and fully human. It is my guess – only a guess – that the writers of the doctrinal statement would be in your “option 1” camp, with the answer to the Chalcedonian Council’s stance being that of mystery (i.e. the human mind cannot fully understand the “how” of the Kenosis), thereby removing that view from being considered heresy.
Dwayne, I’m not sure there is an answer to your question which I think is an “intellectual loop” from which there may be no escape for the human mind. Membership in NAE is largely dependent upon agreement with the doctrinal statement. I do not believe the doctrinal statement as it relates to the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ goes beyond the foundational assumption that Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine, and was so from the moment of conception.
I’m sorry I can’t resolve the ontological technicalities of your question on the kenotic issue. But I believe if you are fully committed to the NAE doctrinal statement as it reads (without attempting to go into the ontological layers of the “how” question), there should be no essential conflict with the NAE’s statement on the Trinity.
God bless!
From: Dwayne Polk [mailto:yielded@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 7:24 AM
Subject: RE: Questiosn for NAE
Mr. __________,
Good day to you! Thank you (and NAE staff) so much for your attention to my questions, sir. My main thing is that I want to see what the stance of NAE would be with respect to evangelical kenotic Christianity...and it's implications. I would like to join NAE...but it's quite important to me to know where NAE stands on this issue. I am not the only person desiring this information, but I am the one writing. Given that I know that you are probably extremely busy, I'll make this as quick as I can.
Here's NAE's trinitarian affirmation...
"We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
As I understand this assertion, it at least means that the interpersonal love relationship is just as "eternally existent" as the very PERSONHOOD of all three members of the Triune Godhead is "eternally existent." As such, any theological model that either implicitly or explicitly denies the immutable, unceasing personhood of any of the divine persons--or the interpersonal relationship amid all the divine persons--is directly contrary to the NAE trinitarian statement.
So, with that in mind, here is my problem with evangelical kenotic christology. One of the implications of ANY evangelical kenotic view (whether Millard Erickson's or C. Stephen Evans') is that God the Son does not EXERCISE any omnipresence post-Incarnation. Though God the Son may POSSESS the divine attribute post-Incarnation, he does NOT exercise it at all. This means that post-Immaculate Conception, God the Son is NOT co-extensive with God the Father and God the Spirit in omnipresence in the uncreated realm; as a matter of fact, the Son's divine mind is exhaustively localized to Creation within the human nature of Jesus.
Taking all this into account, here's what I see. The view either posits...
1) "God the Son in a Human Embyro Costume":
This view says that Jesus, son of Mary, is the Incarnate Word/Logos because the Divine Mind of the Logos is exhaustively localized in Jesus' body/soul union and effectively "running things" there. In other words, immediately post-Immaculate Conception, the divine mind of God the Son--which was exhaustively confined to a human zygote in the womb of Mary---was CONTINUING the interpersonal, uncreated communication/interaction with God the Father and God the Spirit while IN NO WAY using the human nature (ie a human zygote's natural capacities for interpersonal activity). Moreover,
a) the ONLY thing that is personally continuous in the pre- and post-Incarnation God the Son is his divine mind
and...
b) the ONLY agency of interpersonal relationships with the Father and the Spirit in the post-Immaculate Conception Jesus is the localized presence of the divine mind of God the Son.
As I see it, this view is nothing more or less than God the Son in a human flesh "costume." In trying to hold to the zygotic Jesus being "fully God", it is made something OTHER THAN "fully human."
OR...
2) "Human Embryo growing up to be God's Son":
This view holds that the human being, Jesus, was adopted as God's Son some time AFTER the Immaculate Conception event. In other words, the divine identity of God the Son, immediately post-Immaculate Conception, effectively ceases to exist...and thus is NOT CONTINUING the interpersonal, uncreated communication/interaction with God the Father and God the Spirit that has eternally being going on before then. This means the zygote BECOMES the Divine Son of God sometime AFTER Immaculate Conception when it later develops more interpersonal abilities to reengage the trinitarian interpersonal relationships. In trying to hold to the zygotic Jesus being "fully human", it is made something OTHER THAN "fully God."
Now...
#1 is a form of Apollinarianism, a bonafide heresy universally condemned by all who hold to Chalcedonian (non-heretical) Christianity held in the East and the West.
#2 is a form of Adoptionism, ALSO a bonafide heresy universally condemned by all who hold to Chalcedonian (non-heretical) Christianity held in the East and the West.
As hard as I try, the only way that I can see for an evangelical kenoticist to affirm the continuity of divine, uncreated personhood of God the Son pre- and post-Incarnation such that said divine, uncreated personhood is truly "eternally existent" (ie. unceasing in any way) is by postulating Option #1. However, this seems to be an intractable problem because Option #1 is functionally anti-Chalcedonian and, therefore, heretical.
I have been told by other evangelicals that I've personally spoken with about this (like C. Stephen Evans) that it's simply a "mystery" that Option 1 can obtain...while it NOT be anti-Chalcedonian heresy. Frankly, I'm not buying it. If one takes the evangelical kenoticist's claim as true (ie that God the Son does NOT exercise any omnipresence post-Incarnation) then all the things above follow.
So, my questions to you, sir:
1) Do you see the problems that I am articulating with respect to evangelical kenotic christology? Most importantly, do you see how I could see it as at best implicitly heretical, that is, anti-Chalcedonian?
2) Do you see how I could find evangelical kenotic christology at odds with NAE's trinitarian affirmation? With Chalcedonian Christianity, in general?
3) Is evangelical kenotic christology currently acceptable for one being a member of NAE in good standing? If so, how and why?
Thank you so much for your attention to this matter, Mr. McCormick! I will be eagerly anticipating your responses. God richly bless you and NAE today! :o)
Your brother in Christ,
Dwayne Polk
Subject: Questiosn for NAE
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:26:54 -0500
Hello,
Staff members in the office of the National Association of Evangelicals contacted me regarding questions you’ve raised relating to the NAE’s position on the Trinity and issues relating to the Kenosis. I would be glad to respond to your questions (I assist Leith Anderson with some matters related to NAE).
Please feel free to call me here at Wooddale Church, or email me. Contact information is shown below. Thank you.
God bless,
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/27/2011 6:09:13 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/28/2011 9:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Evangelicalism's Theme Song
("Mysteries" by Ladytron. I love Yo Gabba Gabba!)
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/28/2011 10:04:46 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/28/2011 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/28/2011 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | | | May as well while I'm at it. Since I mentioned C. Stephen Evans anyways in the email correspondence above. This is from an email about my conversation with Evans. From the email, you can see how the exact conversation itself went. Remember now, Evans is the editor of Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)
--------------------------------------------
I decided to call C. Stephen Evans. I was able to talk to him for 10 mins. This is what came out of it. 1) He had never considered the whole "Jesus-as-zygote-in-Mary's-womb" thing. That became obvious. He made a LOOOONG pause when I first asked him the question about Jesus as zygote. Throughout the conversation, Evans kept trying to make the issue about Jesus as adult or Jesus as child. I tried to hold the line at the Immaculate Conception. He really stumbled on this. 2) Evans said that a kenotic view person HAD to say that the triune relationships didn't cease while Jesus was a zygote. (His emphasis on HAD!) When I asked him how this happened, he ended up saying that there was some "mysterious essence" that existed in the zygote that was the "person" of God the Son that existed even while the zygote was non-conscious and not demonstrably interpersonally active. He specifically called the person in the zygote a "brute fact", even without any perceived hypostatic activity. I remarked that I didn't understand how a zygote could have any ACTIVE interpersonal capabilities even for self-awareness, let alone ongoing interpersonal intimacy with God the Father and God the Spirit. He just chalked it up to mystery, saying that somehow the "brute fact" of God the Son's personal presence was in the zygote as person relating to the other persons in some indescribable way. He even involved the abortion debate, saying that he believed that human personhood begins at conception! (WHAT???) When I said this seemed like some form of Apollinarianism, he just said he disagreed. 3) He said that the only way a person could be a kenotic theorist was to hold to the SOCIAL MODEL of the Trinity. The "Latin Model" as he called it would not work. I told him that it looks his view looked a lot like tritheism. He responded that many think that the social model is tritheism...but he disagrees. 4) In the end, Evans had NO REAL RESPONSE to my question of how the zygote in Mary post-Immaculate Conception is hypostatically identical to God the Son. He merely asserted that it HAD to be so...somehow. He obviously did NOT want to reduce the Trinity to a binaty at Incarnation...but he had no real argumentation of HOW to avoid that. He just defies and uses the mystery card.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/28/2011 11:00:05 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/29/2011 7:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey,
I know you asked Dwayne, but your note reminded me of something I sent Dwayne offline as we’ve been talking about all this, including the question about the process by which the Son’s personal identity emergences in Jesus’ conscious subjectivity.
I’ve been trying to put myself in the shoes of somebody listening to this and struggling to image it, especially in light of our insistence that the Person of the Son/Logos cannot cease to exist/enjoy fully realized hypostatic existence with the Father. That much defines God essentially. One might wonder how, if the Son is necessarily ‘personal’ how this allows us to attribute the fetus to the ‘person’ of the Son because (a) no fetus can be a person relating consciously, and there’s no sensible argument for saying the Son IS consciously experiencing himself as a fetus in Mary’s womb. I don’t see that Orthodoxy requires the fetus to be self-consciously aware of his surroundings in order to say the Son is ‘hypostatically’ realized in his humanity at that point. So the question is, what’s it really mean to say the Son is hypostatically/personally united to a fetus? How’s the ‘hypostatic’ nature of the Son get instantiated in a fetus? Well, it doesn’t, not at that point. And this is what we have to try to make sense of.
So what’s it MEAN to say that the human state of “being a fetus” is taking up or embraced by the Son? It can’t mean the conscious hypostatic existence is going on, as if the Son is in the womb saying, “Cool, so this is what it’s like to be a fetus.”
When Dwayne and I were manic a few years ago over Christology and I thought he was Nestorian and he thought I was Apollinarian, we finally found a way to make some sense of the emergence of hypostatic/personal identity in human being and how to apply that to the Son. I can’t find the thread or even recall how I expressed it, but there was a post at the end of our struggle where I laid out how I thought God had certain relational protocols by which he maintained the space necessary for distinctly human hypostases (persons) to emerge in us whereas in Christ’s case there had to be a change in one or more of these protocols by which means God’s relation to Jesus did not eventuate (as it universally does in our case) in the emergence of non-divine personal identity but rather in the emergence in human consciousness of the very subjectivity of the Son. We can’t say exactly HOW that happens, but my point is that you don’t need Joseph to NOT contribute sperm to get that. All you need is for God to relate to the conceived Christ in vitro in such a way that precludes the emergence of a subjectivity other than the Son’s own. So what I think it means to identify the fetus in Mary’s womb with the Son is just to say that God commits to relating to THIS fetus, in every stage of its history, in such a way that the Son’s subjectivity assumes this space as his own hypostatically.
So why the virgin birth at all then? To me, it’s as much for Mary and Joseph as for anybody. The virgin birth prepares THEM to be an appropriate space where the emerging consciousness and identity of Jesus can be shaped and molded by others WHO ALSO recognize the hypostatic origins and uniqueness of this baby. It’s not about biology at all (virginal conception or otherwise). It’s about taking steps to secure the most secure environment possible for the growing Christ. The virgin birth clearly marks Jesus off as utterly unique and holy. But it’s not because something biological about male sperm would have made it impossible for God to relate the same unique way he did in fact relate to Jesus in order to preclude the emergence of non-divine subjectivity.
If God can navigate the relational matrix of hypostatic emergence in Christ differently than he does so in us, and if this doesn’t require virginal conception per se, then what's wrong with a more adoptionistic christology, say, one that has the Son stepping into Jesus in infancy or childhood?
The problem is that the biological hypostases of Jesus prior to his adoption by the Son would already have been well into formation. Enculturation begins at birth. Heck, it even begins in vitro. The emergence of hypostasis-personhood in human beings can be deeply imprinted by experience in the womb and immediately after birth in the first moments of bonding with the mother. So if the emerging awareness of personal identity in Jesus is to be that of the SON, then God the relational protocols that define the differences between us and Jesus have to kick in from conception onward.
I wanted to say this first and then hear what Dwayne says about the Copts.
Tom
"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/29/2011 7:57 AM (GMT -6) | | | So I'm saying incarnation IS a process if by incarnation we mean the event(s) by which the Son's own identity emerges into human consciousness. BUT it's not a process if by incarnation we mean the measure of unique protocols adopted by God to secure that emergence; those are settled on and fully engaged from conception onward.
Tom
"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) : 10/29/2011 8:05:27 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2011 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Good stuff, Corey. I LOVE when you chip in, bro!! 
Corey:
I'd want to explore the possibility that the incarnation was a process, not a single event that occurred completely at the moment of conception. What heresy do I run into there?
None, I wouldn't thing. In one sense, the incarnation was a process that began with Creation's origin itself. In that way, it was definitely a process. Even our deification can be seen as an "extension" of the Incarnation...so the process STILL continues! If you are speaking more specifically about the process of incarnation AS SUCH, then I'd agree with what Tom said above.
**********************************
Corey:
I've been sympathetic to the Coptics and their view on God-Man: "The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos" as St. Cyril called it, and which St. Athanasius used before him. In other words, there is precedent for non-chalcedonian understanding of this doctrine within the ancient tradition. Does that help here?
1) Though Cyril used the language that he did, he was still decidedly dyothelite. That is to say, that he firmly believed in the "two-minds" and "two-wills" in Christ, each corresponsive to the uncreated and created realities within Jesus. Right, Tom?
2) We talked about this a while ago, actually.
I think Tom and I would agree that it's ok to say that the "one nature" of the Incarnate Logos spoken of in miaphysitism is ITSELF a bi-polar assymetrical relational unity between the uncreated and created in the Incarnate Logos. By claiming the irreducbility of the relationship between the two ontologically distinct realities in Christ, we can make this claim meaningfully: the one relational "nature" of divine humanity. It is this relational "nature" of divine humanity that we participate in via theosis. At the same time, dyothelitism (the two-wills, two realms of consciousness corresponsive to the uncreated and created realities in Christ's one divine person) is also affirmed.
The difference between Tom/Dwayne and Greg/Paul (and other evangelical kenoticists) right now is that Greg/Paul are currently miaphysitism-cum-MONOthelites...when Tom/Dwayne miaphysitism-cum-DYOthelites.
3) Miaphysitism doesn't help if it leads to monothelitism, which is a blatent heresy condemned in the totality of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.
Love you, brother! Glad to hear from you.
D
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/29/2011 8:30:00 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2011 8:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | Basically, WE have what the Copts DIDN'T have: A Loderian, relational way of expressing what they were TRYING to say.
Miaphysitism need NOT morph into monothelitism.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/29/2011 8:13:47 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2011 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | And you bring up an excellent point, Corey.
For the life of me, I can't see how an evangelical kenoticist can be ANYTHING BUT a monothelite. Think about it. If the post-Immaculate Conception Jesus is exhaustively localized only to his human nature, then wither any real type of dyothelitism? The dyothelitism is to EXPLAIN how the ONE divine person (God the Son/Word/Logos) can be upholding the universe by the power of his word...while simultaneously dwelling in Mary as an human embryo. As I've shown, evangelical kenoticists end up saying that there's only ONE TRUE WILL in Jesus, the exhaustively localized divine mind and will of the Logos. And it's this divine mind and will that keeps the interpersonal relationships of the Trinity going while the Incarnate Word is a zygote in the womb of Mary.
In short, evangelical kenoticists MUST LOGICALLY be monothelites, at least post-Immaculate Conception and pre-Ressurection!
That's why this view is so problematic. It necessitates MULTIPLE heresies within it.
--------------------------------------
After moving to Carthage, Maximus (the Confessor) studied several Neo-Platonist writers and became a prominent author. When one of his friends began espousing the Christological position known as Monothelitism, Maximus was drawn into the controversy, in which he supported the Chalcedonian position that Jesus had both a human and a divine will. Maximus is venerated in both Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity. His Christological positions eventually resulted in his torture and exile, soon after which he died. However, his theology was vindicated by the Third Council of Constantinople and he was venerated as a saint soon after his death.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/29/2011 8:26:40 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2011 8:55 AM (GMT -6) | | OMG. I thought got this thought. I don't like it.
"If the American Evangelical Church were the human body and Chalcedonian Christianity were the human body's healthy immune system...evangelical kenotic christology would be like H.I.V. to that human body. Our contemporary church situation is the analogical A.I.D.S. "
DANG!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/29/2011 8:59:03 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2011 9:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Wanna see something scary? (Ala Dan Ackroyd in the movie "The Twilight Zone"  )
The NAE says they represent 30 million people, right? That's their OWN claim.
Now think about the World Evangelical Alliance.
World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) is a global ministry working with local churches around the world to join in common concern to live and proclaim the "Good News of Jesus" in their communities. WEA is a network of churches in 128 nations that have each formed an evangelical alliance and over 100 international organizations joining together to give a worldwide identity, voice and platform to more than 600 million evangelical Christians. Seeking holiness, justice and renewal at every level of society - individual, family, community and culture - it's aim is uniting to transform the nations so that God is glorified.
Christians from ten countries met in London in 1846 for the purpose of launching, in their own words, "a new thing in church history, a definite organization for the expression of unity amongst Christian individuals belonging to different churches." This was the beginning of a vision that was fulfilled in 1951 when believers from 21 countries officially formed the World Evangelical Fellowship. Today, 150 years after the London gathering, WEA is a dynamic global structure for unity and action that embraces 600 million evangelicals in 128 countries. It is a unity based on the historic Christian faith expressed in the evangelical tradition. And it looks to the future with vision to accomplish God's purposes in discipling the nations for Jesus Christ.
Now...WATCH THIS..and think about this, given my NAE email exchange about their trinitarian affirmation, ok?
Here's the trinitarian affirmation for the WEA...they believe in...
"We believe...[in] One God , eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"
Wait a second. What was NAE's again?
"We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
Hmmm...it's the same affirmation.
So, chances are that the SAME PROBLEM (ie. evangelical kenotic christology's acceptance and acceptability) exists in the WEA as in the NAE...but on a much, much broader scale.
Think about that today, my friends.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/29/2011 9:09:57 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2011 9:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
The problem is that when some say the word "Jesus" they mean to speak of the PERSON OF THE SON whose humanity happens to be their beginning point of contact (to WHOM we can also predicate omniscience and omnipresence) while others use "Jesus" to speak specifically of the HUMAN NATURE of the son (to WHICH we cannot also predicate omniscience and omnipresence).
It's a language problem, I think. At this point I always think this...
Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary, is the Incarnate "John 1:1" Word of God the Father by the Power of the Holy Spirit.
This solves a LOT of the issue.
That FORCES one to think of the DIVINE PERSONAGE of the Incarnate Son/Word...AND...it's helpfully trinitarian.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 10/29/2011 9:27:48 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 97 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:51 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 |
|
|