 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/27/2008 10:05 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/28/2008 1:23 AM (GMT -6) | | When Greg decides he's got a hammer in his hand, everything he sees is a nail.
If it's ancient, and it's written in Greek...it must be infected.
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 11/28/2008 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | | Who says this has anything to do with Harnack? You presume too much.
---
Greg says, "I have elsewhere suggested the problem can be avoided if we define “nature” as a “disposition” [following Jonathan Edwards] rather than a “substance” [see Trinity and Process, Lang, 1992]."
Do you guys think his work there adds anything intelligible to our conception of how Jesus is fully God and fully human? Post Edited (Corey) : 11/28/2008 7:41:49 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/28/2008 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | I missed the Harnack thing too, Corey. What's with that?
And yes on dispositions and Christology. That's D's PhD topic I understand. He's basically got his thesis written in bits and pieces all over this board.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/28/2008 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
Who says this has anything to do with Harnack?
Greg wrote:
"Now, I’m not suggesting the authors of Chalcedon consciously borrowed Neoplatonic terms, but neither do I think the parallels are coincidental."
Tom wrote:
"If it's ancient, and it's written in Greek...it must be infected."
Jaroslav Pelikan wrote:
" 1. There is probably no historical construct for which Harnack is better known than "the Hellenization of Christianity."6 Less than one percent of the way into his monumental work, on page 20 of what would be well over two thousand pages in the final edition, he stated flat-out: "Dogma is in its conception and in its structure a work of the Greek spirit on the ground of the gospel."7 Therefore he interpreted Gnosticism as "the acute secularization or Hellenization of Christianity."8 And he invoked the concept of Hellenization repeatedly as an "interpretive principle" for the historical explanation of various subsequent developments.9 As an intellectual and scholarly grandson of Adolf Harnack, who was the teacher of my teacher, I was deeply under the influence of this interpretive principle when I began; and it helped to shape From Luther to Kierkegaard (1950), my first book after the disseration, especially its interpretation of "natural theology."10 But as I was moving toward my magnum opus, that perspective on Hellenization and natural theology shifted profoundly. The shift made itself evident in many places in my works, but it was to reach its consummation in my Gifford Lectures at Aberdeen in 1992-1993, and in the periodic sentence with which I opened them:
It remains one of the most momentous linguistic convergences in the entire history of the human mind and spirit that the New Testament happens to have been written in Greek–not in the Hebrew of Moses and the prophets, nor in the Aramaic of Jesus and his disciples, nor yet in the Latin of the imperium Romanum; but in the Greek of Socrates and Plato, or at any rate in a reasonably accurate facsimile thereof, disguised and even disfigured though this was in the Koine by the intervening centuries of Hellenistic usage.11 "
Greg tries to win his arguement by patronizing the Patras/Fathers (pun intended). But they did know--they were educated (Basil, etc.). They chose the words that transformed the culture by bringing the BIBLICAL message into it.
Greg, like Bruce Shelly, is of a generation still directed by harnack's teaching.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/28/2008 9:59 AM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
Greg says, "I have elsewhere suggested the problem can be avoided if we define “nature” as a “disposition” [following Jonathan Edwards] rather than a “substance” [see Trinity and Process, Lang, 1992]."
Do you guys think his work there adds anything intelligible to our conception of how Jesus is fully God and fully human?
Can someone give me a short paragraphexplaining "disposition."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/29/2008 11:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Well...Bruce drew the Harnack tie pretty tight there... 
1) about what dispositions are. Being real short.
Dispositions are enduring trajectories of becoming that mediate between the possibilities and actualities of things...and the power of their concresence into "being". They are not "stuff", but coherent, stable ways of relationship that are open to variability.
2) Yes, Corey. I do think that dispositions REALLY help things...all the way around. Specifically for this subject, it's possible for one person (Christ-the-Logos) to demonstrate two ontologically distinct dispositional realities (divine and human) in the same movement of concrescence. This is assymetrical (divine to human), but it allows that in and through human dispositional actualization, God demonstrates God's divine reality "anew" It's just tripped that Greg didn't know about Essence/Energies and more of Maximus' concepts. If he would have brought those ideas into his thesis strongly, it would have been straight up bomb!
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/29/2008 4:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | So, of course God's unchanginness (from our perspective) does not eliminat personalness.
And, so it seems, what is said by 'suffered impassibly' does not cease its usefulness as an expression -- for what it is saying.
All this, it should be remembered, is from our perspective, baby-talk for our benefit.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/29/2008 4:22 PM (GMT -6) | |
One Love said...
. . .Specifically for this subject, it's possible for one person (Christ-the-Logos) to demonstrate two ontologically distinct dispositional realities (divine and human) in the same movement of concrescence. This is assymetrical (divine to human), but it allows that in and through human dispositional actualization, God demonstrates God's divine reality "anew"
I think I agree here -- and don't see any reason not to.
I like Athanasius' term "partative exegesis" to designate how in scripture sometimes one nature is highlighted at a time.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/29/2008 5:36 PM (GMT -6) | |
Good stuff, B. B: 1. model seems to lack room for existence of "before the foundation" if this is tried to take into consideration as a new trajectoryI don't know if I'm understanding you well here. Let me try though. In this model, God's dispositional essential existence is open to contingency...which allows for God's contingent expression. (This model doesn't accept God as "actus purus" ). In other words, God's mentation concerning Creation is not limited to God's actualization of Creation. He can think about Creation "before the foundation" with no problems. ************************************* B: 2. model seems to not reflect that while creation was not 'necessary' it can be considered to be an almost certainty of ecstatic love -- inevitable from our point of view.Actually, Jonathon Edwards was saying just this very thing...almost to the point of saying that creation was inevitable given the "uncontainable" love of God ad intra. I think that Greg makes good clarifications in Edwards such that Creation remains a grace-full act, where there is no sense of God needing Creation to be God as ecstatic love. **************************** B: So, of course God's unchanginness (from our perspective) does not eliminat personalness.Not at all. Actually, God is unchangably personal. I believe this does a lot when talking about God's ENERGIES (which are God.) It doesn't make sense to talk about God or God's actions as being some mysterious, impersonal force. ******************************** B: And, so it seems, what is said by 'suffered impassibly' does not cease its usefulness as an expression -- for what it is saying.Agreed. ************************************ OL: Specifically for this subject, it's possible for one person (Christ-the-Logos) to demonstrate two ontologically distinct dispositional realities (divine and human) in the same movement of concrescence. This is assymetrical (divine to human), but it allows that in and through human dispositional actualization, God demonstrates God's divine reality "anew"
B: I think I agree here -- and don't see any reason not to.
Awesome. 
********************************
B:
I like Athanasius' term "partative exegesis" to designate how in scripture sometimes one nature is highlighted at a time.
Cool.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." Post Edited (One Love) : 11/29/2008 4:39:30 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/29/2008 6:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/29/2008 10:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Celebrate good times...COME ON!
Let's get down, baby! 
I Love Music (1976 Studio)
O' Jays
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." Post Edited (One Love) : 11/29/2008 10:05:44 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/29/2008 11:08 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/30/2008 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:35 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 |
|
|