On to another thought...

When I try to think about what creativity will be "in heaven" I eventually come back to what Hopko said about true art now, that it has elements within it of 'creation,' 'fall,' and 'redemtion. (Hopko used different words but described the same thing.) Even horrible subjects in art might contain truth of how far the fall, and intensity calling for hope for rescue--Hopko said.

IN HEAVEN some of these may not be necessary.

So that's my thought.

I didn't really follow D's longer sentence either, B, but whatever it was saying, it didn't provide me an answer to my questions, which I think were pretty clear. D thought my question "Who determines the exercise of the 'freedom' which Zizy says characterizes fulfilled human existience?" was a 'simplisitic' question.

I'm not sure what's simplistic about wanting to know the identity of the one responsible for a human being's exercise of will (especially if we’re being described as free, unique, and unrepeatable). Just what is it that's free, unique, and unrepeatable? This is a simplistic question?

As I said, we are either free, unique, and unrepeatable PERSONS-in-relation to God and others OR we are the person of the Logos determining himself in free, unique, and unrepeatable ways through our NATURES (via our natural capacities). In the latter case WE provide the embodied NATURE and the SON provides the PERSON who brings this embodied nature to fulfillment. I see this essentially as D's position.

In the former case (my position), we become the persons we were created to be only in-relation-to Christ. Our self-perception or self-understanding does not "converge" or "conform" to or "become" the self-understanding of the Son (that threatens created freedom and personal uniqueness and unrepeatability). We're only free, unique, and unrepeatable AS PERSONS. Zizy is absolutely clear on that. NATURE is what's COMMON, what can be enumerated. It's what we all share. But the PERSON is not repeatable or enumerable. He/She is unique and unrepeatable. If each of us is to become a free, unique, and unrepeatable entity, then we become free, unique, and unrepeatable PERSONS. But we can’t be this IF all of us are each the same person of the Son.

At best, in D’s case what free, unique and unrepeatable may mean is what I said above, that the only PERSON in view is the Son who freely determines himself in each of us in ways he doesn’t determine himself in any other human being so that in a sense one can say I come to embody a freely determined expression of the Son’s PERSON or identity which is free because the Son determined it freely and creatively, and which is unique and unrepeatable because Son only expresses his personal identity THIS way a single time in me (and so with each of us uniquely). So for D the seat, the ‘wherein’ of the freedom, uniqueness, and unrepeatability of human existence is the person of the Logos. The freedom in question is the Son’s freedom, as are the uniqueness and unrepeatability the Son’s own personal attributes manifested in and through us (in unique and unrepeatable ways).

That’s D’s view as I understand it. My view of course is radically different. I think each of us is a free, unique, and unrepeatable person distinct from the person of the Son but who derive our personhood, our personal existeince, from relating to the Son. We can't get our identities from any other created entity or relationship. Only God can tell us WHO we are. But that WHO is a free, unique, unrepeatable and non-divine person.

Zizzy lays out defining characteristics of 'person' (free, unique, and unrepeatable). So it seems safe to me to reason from the fact of our being freely creative, unique, and unrepeatable that we are also persons.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/11/2008 5:38:52 AM (GMT-5)

You can't give up, D.

You haven't answered my last two questions from page 7.

Tom said...

How do you think your mentioning 'creation, fall, redemption' specifically addresses personhood?

 

 

 

Tom said...

. . . If D doesn’t believe this much, then I guess I’ll never get his view so long as he keeps insisting that the incarnation (ONE person, TWO natures) is THE model for all divine-human relationality.

Does D think that in Christ the divine and the human related interpersonally, that they are ‘persons-in-relation’? I hardly think so. Well, if the incarnation is THE model, then neither can WE be non-divine persons in-relation-to the tripersonal God.

 

What do YOU think D believes B? Come on, tell me. Let me hear someone else summarize D's view.

 

When I read this above I found it dizzying. My answer is that if that's what D. is saying then I don't know.

For me, with regard to the incarnation, I keep it much more simple:  THAT mankind could be joined by the divine Son shows that we are intended for relationship with God in the first place. That tells me that any dispondency or pessimism is unnecessary, and that the Gospel is for me.

The incarnation is the model FOR HUMANITY of our being joined to Christ's salvation in the Holy Spirit. I learned the fourty-dollar word "enhypostasized" and took it to mean that the "en" meant that we were made benificiaries of the hypostasis of God the Son, and could therefore benefit from the uncreated life of the Trinity -- through the grace of Jesus Christ by his Spirit.

That's all I expect to see.

Tom, you seem to get something very complicated from D. -- judging from what you wrote. Totally snows me.

I'm not saying one way or another whether he's saying all that or not. I'm just saying that when I come to that topic that I don't expect to see all that complication.

.

Maybe you'd better respond, Dwayne.

Post Edited (plato's_playdough) : 4/12/2008 7:04:53 AM (GMT-5)

Tom: …as he keeps insisting that the incarnation (ONE person, TWO natures) is THE model for all divine-human relationality. Does D think that in Christ the divine and the human related interpersonally, that they are ‘persons-in-relation’? I hardly think so. Well, if the incarnation is THE model, then neither can WE be non-divine persons in-relation-to the tripersonal God.

B: When I read this above I found it dizzying. My answer is that if that's what D. is saying then I don't know….Tom, you seem to get something very complicated from D. -- judging from what you wrote. Totally snows me.

Tom: It’s not complicated B. In Christ you have one person, two natures, right? One divine person, the Logos, having both a divine and a human nature. That’s it.

OK so far?

The question then is this, B. In OUR case, when WE each are glorified, fulfilled, fully realized—whatever—in heaven...

Will the same thing be true of each of US as is true of the incarnate Logos?

That is, are you, or WILL you be, one divine person (the Son) with two natures, one divine and one human (with YOU providing the human nature and the embodied occasion for this union of the divine and human)?

OR

Are you (or will you be) a person other than the person of the Son? That is, are you personally distinct from God? Yes or no? (I fail to see the complexity that makes you dizzy.) Distinct—not divided, independent, or self-sufficient—just distinct, that is, not one and the same person.

I realize there’s a big discussion that gets very complicated over HOW human beings each come to be persons “in” Christ. I’m LESS concerned with this for now. I have never suggested that we generate our own personal existence or identities independently of God. No need to fear on that score. We do derive our identities ecstatically, that is, by moving out from ourselves in-relation-to others. And we cannot ultimately derive our identities (our free, unique, and unrepeatable selves) from any of the relations we enjoy to other created beings. We are only ultimately personally fulfilled by “relating in love to God” (Zizioulas), who alone can ground the irreplaceability and permanence of our identities. This is how the trinitarian persons possess their unique identities too. I don’t disagree with any of this. All I have ever argued for is the personal distinction between us and God, between fulfilled human being in-relationship-to divine being. That’s all.

I understand D to deny the personal distinction I'm arguing for. But I’ll let D confirm that or not so we can be sure.

Is whether or not we are personally distinct from God really that complex an issue? I don't think so. I was done with this issue three months ago. But I've stayed in it to stake my claim against what I've understood D to be arguing. But it looks now like D's fundamental claim hasn't yet been understood by any of us.

B: THAT mankind could be joined by the divine Son shows that we are intended for relationship with God in the first place. That tells me that any dispondency or pessimism is unnecessary, and that the Gospel is for me.

Tom: Love it.

B: …we were made beneficiaries of the hypostasis of God the Son, and could therefore benefit from the uncreated life of the Trinity -- through the grace of Jesus Christ by his Spirit. That's all I expect to see.

Tom: I agree.

B: I'm not saying one way or another whether he's saying all that or not.

Tom: Then you’re not sure WHAT D’s arguing for, which is kinda good for me because it means I’m not alone responsible for D’s wanting to give up!

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/12/2008 8:14:02 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (plato's_playdough) : 4/12/2008 9:20:47 AM (GMT-5)

B: Like I said, I don't think you or I will have two natures. My one person has its own nature, and can BENEFIT FROM the divine nature. So, NO. I answer "no" to the first part.

Tom: OK then, we’re on the same basic page. That’s ALL I want to say essentially. Given what you’ve just said, B, nothing more than that, just as simply as you expressed it, are we to be considered heretics by the EO?

B: The second question is: "am I personally distinct from God. My answer is "yes." Person is an interesting word. When I think about it I always forget that there is a word "hypostasis" too. Person means that while I'm individually myself I am fashioned for and operate truly when I'm in communion with others. That is true of me with respect to God too.

Tom: Precisely.

B: Further, "person" is not a state that I can have in-myself!

Tom: Right!

B: A branch is only a branch when it is attached and nurished by the Vine. If it’s disconnected it's just a stick. So...my distinctness is given me by God, in trust, with obligation (parable of the talents). (Tom's bold/italic)

Tom: We cannot generate our own personal existence or permanent identities. We only possess this AS we’re linked relationally in love to God. Right.

But I would add a tiny bit here though, B. We DO (or at least WILL) have something to contribute to what’s distinctive about us IF we freely determine something of the shape of the expression of our love. This freedom we exercise will mark us uniquely. But we determine it. Of course, we can only do so because God endows us with such freedom. And we can only exercise such freedom in freely LOVING ways by being related to God in love—but still, what’s unique about us isn’t determined or “given to me by God” (as you say, though I get your point), it’s at least partly determined by us. Do you see my point?

B: But I'd not choose to use the word "Self-sufficient of myself, either with respect to me and others, or me and God.

Tom: Right. I was denying that we’re self-sufficient too. We can’t be that. Only God can generate his own personal existence. As much as I fuddle in my seat about the monarchy of the Father, I think Zizioulas is right to insist on it (even if Zizy needs Papanikolaou’s correction regarding this point—see my post on Being with God: Freedom and Personhood).

T

Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 4/12/2008 12:14:59 PM (GMT-5)

Please remember that Jesus is human in EVERY WAY THAT WE ARE.

Post Edited (plato's_playdough) : 4/12/2008 12:20:16 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 4/12/2008 12:30:16 PM (GMT-5)