 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > For Tom: Just Go With Me On This... | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/31/2008 8:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | Tom:
Do you really think I need to 'repent' of this?
I would strongly suggest your consideration of the matter. It's THAT important.
But that's not saying that it changes ANYTHING about the Great Commandments and living in those with each other. We're cool. Nuthin' but love between us.
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/31/2008 7:47:30 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/31/2008 8:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, Zwingli had it right I believe. Is that Greg’s view too? Smart guy.
D: And neither you OR Greg seem to value the faith of the Theotokos for what it implies epicletically. Neither of you can do that either. How can you? (Fr. Hopko was right about there being a theological REASON for a lack of reverence for the Theotokos among Christians!)
Tom: Dude, look, next to Abraham (the Father of our faith), I stand in awe and amazement of Mary. Simply wonderful. Beautiful. A constant challenge and example for how one ought to respond to God when God asks something of us.
D: I bet this view of things directly applies to what you think about Christian RELICS, too...right?
Tom: I appreciate icons. Didn’t used to. But when I saw what they were intended to be, how they were intended to function (in a largely illiterate culture), I came to appreciate them. I read and study, so I don’t use them. As for relics, what would you suggest? Christian animism?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/31/2008 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | |
D: And they (you and Greg's theological perspective) DON'T INCLUDE "epiclesis" or "theosis" in the orthodox sense...for either of you.
Tom: Correct. I don’t think there’s room for me in orthodox views on these issues.
Man...
Well, "Paul." I guess this is where you and me ( "Barnabas" ) REALLY part ways...
hmmm... 
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/31/2008 7:59:44 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/31/2008 9:08 AM (GMT -6) | | D: I kid you not, man. For the EO and others, to NOT have the epicletic moment is to DENY the full reality of the Eucharist. It's CENTRAL in what Nesteruk means in continual "participation in the ressurected Lord." This means it's central in ECCLESIOLOGY...and to so also to ESCHATOLOGY. Serious stuff.
Tom: Yeah, tradition will do that to ya!  Is it ONLY Evangelicals who need to dry-dock my friend?
D: Well, "Paul." I guess this is where you and me ("Barnabas") REALLY part ways... Tom: On this issue at least, I guess. D: Wow. Making Christian relics liken unto "Christian animism?" Tom: No no, Bro. I'm 'fishing'...I asked what you would suggest with regard to relics, animism? If not animism, then what? Is there an icon-like function for relics? Cool. If so, fine. But I don't locate Christ's presence IN the icon or IN the relic. If that's what the EO does, I'll beg to differ. Sorry. But if they just emply them as encouragements for our memory and learning, a point of contact that calls the realities themselves to mind, fine. I don't mind. I have a picture of Anita and my kids on the wall beside me. I don't think they're IN the picture at all. But the picture brings them to mind, and once brought to mind, THEN I dispose myself to them in prayer, in the perception of their meaning for me and so an enjoyment of them from afar. Zwingli, smart guy. Too bad he died on the battle field with a rifle in his hand, hmm? Tom
Post Edited (HumanHypostasis) : 1/31/2008 8:11:45 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/31/2008 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Worlds apart in perspective...
...but in ONENESS through love.
Koinonia
How about that, hmmm?
I love you, man. 
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/1/2008 8:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's something.
Tom would say that a human spirit is the created, perspectivally-limited, surpassably-beautifu, energetic dispositional locus of "a sentient, self-reflecting, value perceiving, meaning conferring, and freely disposing center of experience who is held accountable for her choices" that is of human (ie. non-divine) nature. It is from the human spirit that freedom, choice, and the noetic express themselves in human nature.
I think Tom would agree with this. Right, Tom?
Ok.
This would essentially be the same as the idea of a human "nous" or "heart" (generally speaking)
Now the question becomes very, very pertinent. It's not just some trivia...
Did Jesus have a human spirit/nous/heart (like his mother, the Theotokos), from whence his human will FREELY CHOSE God's will and was FREELY OBEDIENT to God's will?
Chalcedon and Constantinople say yes!
Now...what does it mean to say that Jesus DOESN'T HAVE a human "person" in his human hypostatic existence (anhypostasis/enhypostasis)...but that he DOES HAVE everything else that a human "person" has: a human body, a human mind, and a human spirit/nous/heart? There's a significant implication. See, Jesus didn't have two PERSONS in his ONE human hypostasis. He had only ONE PERSON...and that was the Logos. But, contra Apollinarius, the Logos did NOT...repeating...DID NOT "assume the place of" the human spirit/nous/heart in Jesus. Apollinarius basically said "one human spirit/nous/heart<=>one human person." But orthodoxy says that Jesus had a human spirit/nous/heart...with no corresponding human person. He became a individualized, particularized human hypostasis WITHOUT being a created human "person"
But something interesting...
Christ's human will was HELD RESPONSIBLE AND PRAISEWORTHY for it's FREE choice to do the Father's will being "obedient unto death." When Christ's gave up his human spirit/nous/heart on the cross, it was FREELY GIVEN...in perfect obedience to the Father's will. Christ was "self-emptying" in both his person (Logos) and in his FLESH (human "heart" ).
What does it mean that Christ's human "heart" was seen as praiseworthy for being obedient to God...when, given the hypostatic union with the Logos, Jesus' human spirit, having no gnomic element, could do no less than to be perfectly obedient to the PERSON of God the Logos?
Moreover, does this imply that there is a capacity of the human spirit/nous/heart to in COMPLETE SELF-GIVING/SELF-EMPTYING to be a "terminus" of God's divine will...such that the human spirit/nous/heart can become, through POVERTY OF SPIRIT, a "living extension" of Christ...through continual particpation in the risen Christ by grace through epicletic faith?
Maybe?
In the Spirit of Christ, BE Christ to every "Christ" you see when you look at yourself and other human beings. "Insofar as you've done to the least of these..." Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 2/2/2008 12:18:54 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/1/2008 1:38 PM (GMT -6) | | D: Tom would say that a human spirit is the created, perspectivally-limited, surpassably-beautiful, energetic dispositional locus of "a sentient, self-reflecting, value perceiving, meaning conferring, and freely disposing center of experience who is held accountable for her choices" that is of human (ie. non-divine) nature. It is from the human spirit that freedom, choice, and the noetic express themselves in human nature.
I think Tom would agree with this. Right, Tom?
Tom: Tom would say he has no idea just WHAT the human ‘spirit’ is. Really. I said long ago, let’s get away from ‘nouns’ and just describe a way of relating, perceiving, and choosing. If you keep it narrative, I know better what it is I want to say. If you make it about vocabulary, then we have to cover 2,000 years of debates and changes and linguistics.
D: But something interesting... Christ's human will was HELD RESPONSIBLE AND PRAISEWORTHY for it's FREE choice to do the Father's will being "obedient unto death."
Tom: Absolutely not. The ‘will’ is just a faculty of nature, a ‘what’ of nature. The only thing that can be ‘responsible’ or ‘praiseworthy’ is a ‘who’, a ‘subject’. No ‘what’ can ‘bear responsibility’ for choice. When we commit a crime, we don’t blame the faculty of ‘will’. We blame ‘persons’, ‘subjects’. Persons alone are ‘responsible’.
T
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/2/2008 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | D: But something interesting... Christ's human will was HELD RESPONSIBLE AND PRAISEWORTHY for it's FREE choice to do the Father's will being "obedient unto death."
Tom: Absolutely not. The ‘will’ is just a faculty of nature, a ‘what’ of nature. The only thing that can be ‘responsible’ or ‘praiseworthy’ is a ‘who’, a ‘subject’. No ‘what’ can ‘bear responsibility’ for choice. When we commit a crime, we don’t blame the faculty of ‘will’. We blame ‘persons’, ‘subjects’. Persons alone are ‘responsible’.
The human spirit/nous/heart is the LOCUS of human choice and self-understanding, biblically speaking. You can't have a BIBLICALLY INFORMED idea of "spirit" without saying that, Tom...whatever you vaguely understand human spirit to mean. If Jesus is fully human, he can be hypostatically constituted no differently. So, by saying that Christ had a fully human spirit/nous/heart (contra any Apollinarianism), we are saying that it was RESPONSIBLE BEFORE GOD as a human spirit, having a nature COMMON with all humans...without saying that there are TWO PERSONS inside Jesus (contra Nestorianism). Christ himself SHOWED US how to be responsible before God in his very life as Incarnated Word. This is why I say that Christ demonstrated his freedom (and covenantal commitment) BOTH in his divine person and in his human flesh (including the human "heart" ).
But an Apollinarian cannot say this. An Apollinarian would say that for Jesus to have a human spirit/nous/heart NECESSITATES Jesus having a human person that corresponds with that human spirit/nous/heart...and that this MUST MEAN that the Logos "assumes the place of" the human spirit/nous/heart in Jesus as the seat of self-consciousness and choice of Jesus.
Yeah...
In the Spirit of Christ, BE Christ to every "Christ" you see when you look at yourself and other human beings. "Insofar as you've done to the least of these..." Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 2/2/2008 10:40:22 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/6/2008 6:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Talked to Greg and Paul again today. Early morning meeting. Don't think they'd mind me sharing this.
I got both of them to confirm the following:
1) Speaking of just Greg. Within Greg's metaphysic, it IS in the realm of possibility to self-dispose oneself into being a "terminus of God's creative act". He agreed with me that there IS a way to have functional theological deterministIC synergism going on within Greg's reconstructed process metaphysic (following Neville). He doesn't agree with the position, BECAUSE he disagrees with the telos I'm giving. Like you, Tom, Greg doesn't want human beings being "mere extensions" of God. (His words) Interestingly enough, Greg HIMSELF said that it was INDEED a matter of what a person thought God's telos was that determined where one comes out on this issue. (And speaking of telos...it became quite apparent that epiklesis and theosis were not a part of Greg's theological process much, if at all. Despite all this, he DEFINITELY says that it's not outside of the metaphysic itself. Got that on record. Just email and ask him today!
And
2) Speaking to both Paul and Greg, it IS within biblical teaching, evangelically speaking, to talk about a person who decides to FREELY CHOOSE to totally submit themselves (body, mind, and spirit) to Christ's Spirit, such that "Christ-in-us" wills and does his good pleasure in us deterministICally as a vehicle of divine providence. A person who is a "slave to righteousness". It is NOT unorthodox OR unevangelical to have this as our telos as Christians. (When I showed Greg the citation from Dallas Willard about we get to a point where, speaking of our own willpower, "we hardly notice any exercise of it, though it is fully dedicated to carrying out God's purposes in every respect." , he was surprised that Willard [pretty much an open theist] would say such a thing and SOOO wanted to disagree with it...but it was RIGHT THERE.
To clarify...
It's METAPHYSICALLY viable for this "free slavery" to Christ to occur (Greg)...
AND...
it's BIBLICALLY and THEOLOGICALLY viable for this "free slavery" to occur (Greg and Paul).
So...just wanted to let you know, Tom.
In the Spirit of Christ, BE Christ to every "Christ" you see when you look at yourself and other human beings. "Insofar as you've done to the least of these..." Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 2/6/2008 5:30:04 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/7/2008 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/7/2008 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 121 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:11 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 |
|
|