Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Jesus: the one-natured God-Man

Forum Quick Jump

59 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

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

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/6/2008 7:48 AM (GMT -6)

Seriously. At least for me, Christianity makes so...much...more...sense...than it did even two YEARS ago! And delving into Orthodoxy has been KEY. (Thanks for everything, Bruce. Blessings, always!

)

See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 8/6/2008 7:50 AM (GMT -6)

I've now replaced the original .pdf with a lightweight optical character recognition (OCR) version.

http://www.spti.org/files/Jesus%20-%20the%20one-natured%20God-man.pdf

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/6/2008 7:56 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for all the legwork and time put into this, Corey. It was extremely helpful, sir. Still got you in prayer, homie!

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/6/2008 8:35 AM (GMT -6)

D: Does this mean you are gonna stop saying that I'm NESTORIAN because of my holding to the 4th and 6th Councils?

T: Sure: “D’s not Nestorian.”

You can call me Apollinarian, Pelagian, or whatever. I really don’t care anymore.

D: And does this mean that you will admit that your miaphysitism NECESSARILY LEADS to monothelitism where Christ-the-Logos is only seen to have ONE will corresponding to his ONE "nature"?

T: No. I won’t admit that. Partly because I don’t think we understand enough about natures and persons, and partly because I’m not convinced the two-natures view is wrong. I keep open accounts. I like some of what Leigh says. I didn’t say I’ve totally embraced everything he says. There are some unanswered questions I have for Leigh.

D: You and I have been going around this bush for about a year, homie. I'd like to know where we stand on this.

T: I'm standing at the foot of the Cross pleading for mercy and not pretending to know more than I really do. We're do I think WE stand? I think we have different understandings of God's PURPOSE for creating us and thus different understandings of the END STATE of glorification. I think you end up with creatures who are non-persons that (not 'who', since we end up being objectified on your view IMO) are determined in every particular by God's will and thus are reduced to a being a mere function of God. To the extent that this is what historical orthodoxy believes, I reject historic orthodoxy. To the extent historical orthodoxy rejects me as heretical for this, I welcome the label.

D: Can you at least see that I have the proponderance of evidence for my own belief in Christ's two-wills or his two-natures...instead of miaphysitism?

T: I’ve never denied that the two-natures view was the historical, orthodox view. I’ve never even ruled out its being right. I guess you still don’t grasp what it is I object to about your understanding of divine-human relationality. It’s certainly NOT the two-natures view of Christ.

D: It's now no wonder why Christians begin to convert to Historic Orthodoxy the more they find out about it.

T: Have you converted to historic Orthodoxy? Would the historic Orthodox Church agree you’ve converted to historic Orthodoxy?

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/6/2008 8:45:49 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/6/2008 8:48 AM (GMT -6)

Tom,

You disagree with two "wills" in Christ, one divine, one human.

You disagree with two "unities of consciousness" in Christ, one divine, one human.

Don't you?

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/6/2008 8:49 AM (GMT -6)

Say it.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/6/2008 9:20 AM (GMT -6)

Actually no. I don't disagree with two wills.

;o)

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 8/6/2008 9:27 AM (GMT -6)

I think this whole thing is pretense. WE CAN'T KNOW! ALL our model-making, whether today or centuries ago, is necessarily incomplete.

Just live in the tension.

Before God, in grace, we will with all our power to be that which He shows us we are.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/6/2008 9:33 AM (GMT -6)

Tom:
I don't disagree with two wills.

You don't disagree with the two wills...meaning the human will (inseparable from the human/non-divine "unity of consciousness" in the Jesus) being "freely obedient" at all times to the the divine will (inseparable from the divine "unity of consciousness" in Jesus) in the one divine humanity of the Incarnate Word, the Only Begotten Son of God?

You don't disagree with this?

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Post Edited (Love's Child) : 8/6/2008 9:39:11 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/6/2008 9:35 AM (GMT -6)

Corey:
I think this whole thing is pretense. WE CAN'T KNOW! ALL our model-making, whether today or centuries ago, is necessarily incomplete.

Just live in the tension.

Pretense? Don't you think that's a pretty strong word?

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 8/6/2008 9:41 AM (GMT -6)

Even as I reflect now on it, I'm not coming up with a better word to convey my thought. I think the claims being made do not qualify as "knowledge"; to say we know the nature of Christ, especially at this nuanced level, is pretense in my opinion.

Please know I don't intend to insult, and my tone is intended to be gentle and respectful.

Before God, in grace, we will with all our power to be that which He shows us we are.

Post Edited (Corey) : 8/6/2008 9:45:54 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/6/2008 9:52 AM (GMT -6)

How about "useful, truth-conducive, fictions"?

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 8/6/2008 10:01 AM (GMT -6)

Do you believe that? Chalcedon is a "useful, truth-conducive, fiction"?

Before God, in grace, we will with all our power to be that which He shows us we are.

Post Edited (Corey) : 8/6/2008 10:04:27 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/6/2008 10:33 AM (GMT -6)

Corey: I think this whole thing is pretense. WE CAN'T KNOW! ALL our model-making, whether today or centuries ago, is necessarily incomplete. Just live in the tension.

Tom: Right. That’s about where I am after all this. I tell ya. What I do think is important is that we’re able at least to make logical sense of God’s incarnating for honest inquirers. But beyond the ‘plausability’ of it, I don’t think we can really know much.

-------------

D: How about "useful, truth-conducive, fictions"?

Tom: If I understand Corey’s point, it would be just as illegitimate to claim that you ‘know’ they’re “fictions.” How is one a Christian if one KNOWS that the incarnation is a fiction? We’re presented with an event—the life and resurrection of Jesus and the life-changing power of his message—which leads inexorably to the conclusion that this man Jesus is God incarnate. It would take a lot to successfully show that this is an absolute impossibility. So I think we’re alright on the ‘logical’ status of the claim. But it would take more than any of us has to say, on the other end, just what the incarnation amounts to metaphysically, psychologically, ‘naturally’, etc. We can perhaps hit the goal in general terms, but to say we’ve struck the bull’s eye and have really captured the nuts and bolts of divine incarnation would be (I agree with Corey) pretentious. We can justifiably believe that Christ is God-incarnate without understanding/knowing the metaphysical nuts and bolts of how the incarnation went down.

--------------

D: You don't disagree with the two wills...meaning the human will (inseparable from the human/non-divine "unity of consciousness" in the Jesus) being "freely obedient" at all times to the the divine will (inseparable from the divine "unity of consciousness" in Jesus) in the one divine humanity of the Incarnate Word, the Only Begotten Son of God? You don't disagree with this?

Tom: Now you’ve gone beyond simply saying Jesus possesses all the kind-essential attributes of both divinity and humanity and that ‘will’ is a kind-essential property of both—ergo Jesus possessed two wills—to speculating on the relationship between these wills, the nature of the exercise of the human will, etc. etc. You want to say that unless one agrees with you on these speculations about the nature and exercise of the two wills and their precise relationship to consciousness, self-perception, etc., that one cannot legitimately claim to believe Jesus had two wills. But that just doesn’t follow.

Supposing Jesus had a divine and a human will helps explain some things that need explaining. But you want to ‘own’ this by saying only those who agree with you on these further points can be allowed to believe there even are two wills. Come on.

I can think it most likely, even firmly assert, that Christ had two wills without claiming to know much more beyond that.

You asked, if I believed that “the human will was freely obedient at all times to the divine will.” I’d say how I answer that would have something to do with knowing ‘who’ is exercising the human will of Jesus? I can agree that there are two ‘wills’ in Christ. I can’t agree that there’s any ‘person’ or ‘identity’ other than the eternal ‘Son’ who is responsible for the exercise of either will. One person. Let me ask you D, WHO exercises the human will of Jesus? The 'will' is moved by somebody. Who’s responsible for the exercise of the human will of Jesus?

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/6/2008 10:46:11 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/6/2008 10:34 AM (GMT -6)

Hey, I asked a question too! ;o)

D, have you converted to historic Orthodoxy? And would the historic Orthodox Church agree you’ve converted to historic Orthodoxy?

Tom

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/6/2008 10:51 AM (GMT -6)

Corey: Do you believe that? Chalcedon is a "useful, truth-conducive, fiction"?

Tom: I think D was exaggerating to make a point. He dudn't believe Chalecdon is a fiction. But he seems to think that if we go your route (i.e., admit we don't know HOW incarnation works) that we have to conclude Chalcedon is a fiction. But that doesn't follow. I hear you saying, "We can't really KNOW." That doesn't mean we KNOW Chalcedon is a big lie. It just means we can't sit on the inside of incarnation and observe it first-hand so as to say with any authority, "THIS is it! THIS is exactly what Christ was and how the divine and the human relate."

Or I'm misunderstanding both of you! That's possible.

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/6/2008 10:55:54 AM (GMT-5)

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 8/6/2008 11:27 AM (GMT -6)

I think we're on the same page, Tom. We're on the outside, looking in. Our perspective on the nature of Jesus NECESSARILY doesn't correspond to HIS perspective. At best, we have useful (whatever that means or how that might be measured -- is Leigh's model "unuseful"?) approximations. Our "knowledge" is always subjective, limited, incomplete; only God KNOWS objective truth.

I guess I'm mostly objecting here to D's sense of closure.

Before God, in grace, we will with all our power to be that which He shows us we are.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/6/2008 1:08 PM (GMT -6)

That's a good point, Corey --always a good point.

All we can know is what is revealed in Christ Jesus.

The Messiah suffered and died, and was glorified. For us and our salvation.

Corey said...
I think this whole thing is pretense. WE CAN'T KNOW! ALL our model-making, whether today or centuries ago, is necessarily incomplete.

Just live in the tension.

(o)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/6/2008 3:20 PM (GMT -6)

Tom:
Now you’ve gone beyond simply saying Jesus possesses all the kind-essential attributes of both divinity and humanity and that ‘will’ is a kind-essential property of both—ergo Jesus possessed two wills—to speculating on the relationship between these wills, the nature of the exercise of the human will, etc. etc. You want to say that unless one agrees with you on these speculations about the nature and exercise of the two wills and their precise relationship to consciousness, self-perception, etc., that one cannot legitimately claim to believe Jesus had two wills.

WTF?

...defining all this we likewise declare that in him are two natural wills and two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: “His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.”

------------------------------

I didn't make this up! shocked

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Post Edited (Love's Child) : 8/6/2008 3:36:17 PM (GMT-5)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/6/2008 3:25 PM (GMT -6)

"Two wills" can't be taken as being "will" in the modern psychological fashion.

(o)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/6/2008 3:39 PM (GMT -6)

Bruce:
"Two wills" can't be taken as being "will" in the modern psychological fashion.

"tropos" and "logos" , right?

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/6/2008 4:03 PM (GMT -6)

Love's Child said...
Bruce:
"Two wills" can't be taken as being "will" in the modern psychological fashion.

"tropos" and "logos" , right?

My mind is off this. Please explain.

(o)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/6/2008 4:42 PM (GMT -6)

Thoughts from Maximus...

"logos": faculty of willing

"tropos": hypostatic employment of the will

My take...

The Incarnate Word's "tropos" is the the PERSONAL WILL of Uncreated Logos of God (who is the fullness of all virtue)...and has no "gnomic distance" that leads to a created person. I believe this corresponds to the Incarnate Word's "uncreated 'I' ", the divine noetic faculty of Christ which pre-exists Jesus' human birth.

The Incarnate Word's "logos" is the natural HUMAN faculty of the HUMAN will towards what is good, namely God...that Christ took on when he took on human nature. I believe this corresponds to the Incarnate Word's "created 'I' ", the non-divine noetic faculty which is inseparable from Jesus' human/non-divine ego development and creaturely mind/brain interpenetration [self-as-spirit].

And there is no other person save the ONE Incarnate Word, Christ-the-Logos, "who" is responsible for the use of Christ's human will.

Make sense?

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 8/6/2008 4:48 PM (GMT -6)

Tom:
D, have you converted to historic Orthodoxy? And would the historic Orthodox Church agree you’ve converted to historic Orthodoxy?

1) As far as formally joining Eastern Orthodoxy, no. But I can definitely understand the movement towards it. I've almost come close, though. biggrin

2) All I can say is this: I've been told that my understanding of theosis, epiklesis, and Divine Liturgy (particularly as a Protestant) is more thorough than has been seen in long standing members in certain Orthodox churches. That may be taken with a grain of salt...but...

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/7/2008 1:12 AM (GMT -6)

D: And there is no other person save the ONE Incarnate Word, Christ-the-Logos, "who" is responsible for the use of Christ's human will.

T: Dude, this is what I've always said. There's one agent responsible for the exercise of both wills. That's why I'm fine with positing two wills. But as soon as you locate the determining agency for the human will in a created "I" not identical to the uncreated "I" of the Son, you will appear Nestorian to me. So when you say as you do a few posts back that the only way to posit two wills in Christ is to say the human will is "freely obedient" to the divine will, I'm going to object and say, "Well, what can 'freely' mean here IF it's the case that the Son is the only agent doing the determining of the human will?" If you think the human, non-divine, created "I" is that "agent" (that you're just not 'calling' a 'person') freely deciding to align his will to that of the Son's, then we have problems, because then you have at least a separable human individual (identical to what each of us is) in addition to the Son.

Actually I don't know why I posted this. This whole convo's worn me out.

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/7/2008 1:25:02 AM (GMT-5)

59 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:03 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