Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > WOW!!

Forum Quick Jump

81 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 3/30/2008 1:01 PM (GMT -6)

D: To say that God the Father was a different INDIVIDUAL "center" of self-determination and self-consciousness that was DISTINCT from the God the Son's INDIVIDUAL "center" of self-determination and self-consciousness....AND that BOTH Father and Son are DISTINCT from the INDIVIDUAL self-determination of God the Spirit...is to get into MAJOR problems. It is not the case that the Father's existence is a different individual existence from that of the Son or the Spirit.

Make sense?

Z: Yeah, I just disagree.

I agree that the Father is the "fount of the trinity and personhood". (Not aseity; I've found no reason to believe or disbelieve in aseity; it's a moot point/vain philosophy IMO.) But I fail to see the MAJOR problems you refer to. I also fail to see why we should call the Father, Son, and Spirit "persons" under your view. This seems like a very clumsy way of saying what you are trying to say, since under your view the "persons" of the Trinity are not very much like the "persons" of everyday language. Hypostasis is better because it gives us more distance from everyday language, but I still don't understand what hypostasis means if not person. That's my own problem though. I'll do some looking.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/30/2008 2:45 PM (GMT -6)

Sahid said...
This seems like a very clumsy way of saying what you are trying to say, since under your view the "persons" of the Trinity are not very much like the "persons" of everyday language. Hypostasis is better because it gives us more distance from everyday language, but I still don't understand what hypostasis means if not person. That's my own problem though. I'll do some looking.

http://www.lasvegasorthodox.com/library/history/century/Church_History_05_The_Fifth_Century.htm

The Chalcedonian definition states that Jesus Christ is indeed the Logos incarnate, the very Son of God "born of the Father before all ages." It affirms that the Virgin Mary is truly Theotokos since the one born from her "according to the flesh" in Bethlehem, is the uncreated, divine Son of God, one of the Holy Trinity. In His human birth, the Council declared, the Word of God took to Himself the whole of humanity, becoming a real man in every way, but without sin. Thus, according to the Chalcedonian definition, Jesus of Nazareth is one person or hypostasis in two natures - human and divine. He is fully human. He is fully divine. He is perfect God and perfect man. As God, He is "of one essence" (homoousios) with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. As man, He is "of one essence" (homoousios) with all human beings.

The union of divinity and humanity in Christ is called the hypostatic union. This expression means that in the one, unique person of Christ, divinity and humanity are united in such a way that they are neither mixed together and confused, nor separated and divided. Christ is one person Who is both human and divine. The Son of God and the Son of Mary is one and the same person.

(o)

Sahid
Megistered Rember

Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013

Posted 3/30/2008 7:41 PM (GMT -6)

Ok, I've done a little looking. I can't find any definition of person, persona, or hypostasis that excludes the willing capacity. Nor can I find a definition of nature, physis, or ousia that includes the willing capacity. But to be fair, I couldn't find the reverse either. So far as I can tell, the former words refer to "who" it is and the later words refer to "what" it is. I place will in the "who" category. When I'm grading papers, I look at the name on the paper to see "who" did the work - not "what" did the work. It was not Miguel's human nature that answered #3 correctly; it was the person Miguel. People exercise will, not natures. If an individual appears to have more than one decision making center, we say they have multiple personalities, not multiple natures.

Now maybe Aristotle or Plato or Athanasias or Gregory used ousia to refer to nature so that will is included and used hypostasis to refer to the person minus the will. Maybe. And maybe doing such a thing had some sort of value at the time. Maybe... But if that's true, our use of language has drastically changed since then, and our confessions of faith should be translated so that they say what they were intended to say.

But if decision-making is not a personal activity, what is? I've thought of will as a (if not the) essential characteristic of personhood. I don't think that puts me very far into left-field.

Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/30/2008 10:36 PM (GMT -6)

Read the first half of your post, Zack, and liked it.

You'll be agreeable to know that the podcast by Steve and Bill pointed to Will being from the person, and not dictated by nature. Following...we can CHANGE God's will by persistent prayer, while this does NOT mean that God changes. We can reconcile this by saying that God does not diminish his love or his holiness (I'm guessing the former is will and later is nature.) when he modified his plans for Hezekiah. Will changed in its details, but God's purpose continued.

(o)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/30/2008 10:39 PM (GMT -6)

Sahid said...
. . .
Now maybe Aristotle or Plato or Athanasias or Gregory used ousia to refer to nature so that will is included and used hypostasis to refer to the person minus the will. Maybe. And maybe doing such a thing had some sort of value at the time. Maybe... But if that's true, our use of language has drastically changed since then, and our confessions of faith should be translated so that they say what they were intended to say.

But if decision-making is not a personal activity, what is? I've thought of will as a (if not the) essential characteristic of personhood. I don't think that puts me very far into left-field.

Find a time when you can work your way through those three podcasts (4, 5, 6) and I think you will be glad you did.

(o)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/31/2008 10:34 AM (GMT -6)

Zach, I misplaced/posted a response for you (regarding 'will') over on the "The Opennness of God's Will and Tom's Daughter's Pottery" thread (page 2). If you wanna check it out.

T

81 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:03 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual