http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2007/11/12/the-second-person-in-person/

Fred Sanders over at scriptoriumdaily has a great series on the Ecumenical Councils which might be of interest.

Tom

Truth is, D, I don’t think we know—or any certainty—what the facts are about how the psychology of God-incarnate is to be properly parsed out. We ought to say, I agree, that the Son continued to fulfill his divine prerogatives as Logos in sustaining creation. If that means some kind of two-minds Christology, fine. But I don’t know if we can do much more than assert that at the some kind of level (if you know what I mean). I’m very suspicious of claims to have parsed—viz., mapped—it out in detail.

Also, I still don’t see where you differentiate between the human in Christ and the human in us in terms of the elements constitutive of the human experience and their operations. By that I mean what accounts for the rise of non-divine personhood in us but not in Christ. Is it ‘parts’ or ‘operation of parts’ (or both)? See what I mean? It seems to me you posit the same ‘parts’ and the same ‘operation’ (by operation I mean ‘how one perceives and relates’), so that you have a perfect carbon copy of a fully ‘operational human being’ in Christ who is ‘in bi-polar asymmetrical relationship to’ the Logos so that this becomes the model for how we relate to God. The result is that the same things are said about ‘how’ the divine and the human relate whether one is talking about Christ or you or me. And that’s a problem for me.  If the very same ‘bi-polar asymmetrical relationship’ obtains in both, then both ARE the same thing. But we’re obvious not God-incarnate. For us to NOT be God-incarnate there has to be some substantial difference in ‘part’ and/or ‘operation’ determinative of divine-human relationality as instantiated by Christ and as instantiated by us. Not everything that is true of us-in-relationship-to God would be true of Christ’s humanity-in-relationship-to the Father. But this difference in what’s true about these relationships requires a real difference in the relationships. And I still don’t see what difference in relating you maintain between the two.

I also have reservations about the whole “what’s not assumed is not redeemed” argument of Athanasius (and onward). I don’t think the humanity which Christ assumed is itself the redemption and reconciliation of all human beings. The reason I question this is that it’s primarily (I don’t want to say ONLY) PERSONS who need to be redeemed and reconciled, and human persons is precisely what Christ does NOT assume.

Tom

D-

From the same book, about Nestorius’ view of the synapheai which ‘conjoins’ the person (prosopon) of the Logos and the human person (prosopon) into the one subject who is Christ:

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

As a result of this synapheia the prosopa of two distinct and unaltered ousiai are united so intimately by graceful love, given by the Logos, received and reflected back by the man, that the eyes of faith can recognize one single Christ presented to the church’s contemplation, with but a single will and intelligence, inseparable and indivisible. This intimate union and singleness of subjectivity comes about not because all distinctions between essences have been abolished in a ‘physical’ synthesis, but because of the depth and rigor of the relationship of love. This one Christ [not the Logos, not the human prosopon, but the two conjoined realities into one single being] is the prosopon of the union. As Nestorius says:

“He is the subject of the two natures which are separated in essence, but united by love, and in one and the same prosopon.”

The synapheia involved such perfect unanimity in the life of Christ that the spiritual subjectivity of the prosopon of union was ‘as it were’ one single being.

…Here was a single prosopic reality, that composite reality of Christ, who combined and related in himself the utterly distinct essences of God and Man, with both continued to abide intact throughout the incarnation.

These are, accordingly, not Two Sons as far as Nestorius was concerned: that is not two independently conceived personal centers in Christ. He knows that this was a regular charge against him by his opponents and he was most concerned to answer it. He says, for example:

“I did not say that the soul was one and God the Logos another. What I said was that God the Logos was by essence one thing, and the Temple (Jn. 2.19-21) by essence another, but that there was one Son by conjunction (synapheia).”

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

When I first read this bit on Nestorius, I thought, “Aha! Now here's what we want to say about the union of God and us non-divine persons.” But the more I thought on it I tended to reject the idea. Nestorius is on record as having rejected the idea himself. Nobody but Christ could have embodied this sort of snapheia, he said. In other words, if Nestorius is allowed to be his own interpreter as to what synapheia means, he’d no doubt reject the notion that his synapheia permits us to understand the human in Christ as a “son in the Son.” The very application you want to make in our case. No doubt Nestorius is confused and poorly words himself. I see that more and more. My point is that if I want to use ‘synapheia’, I’ll have to MEAN something by it other than what Nestorius meant. For him it was historically unique. And for me, Nestorius description doesn't express the relationship as I see it.

I’d object to all the bold parts that describe this synapheia. Not what I would say about the perfected us. With this synapheia you have one subject, a single prosopic reality, not two personal centers, etc.

T

It's just like Calvinists who say that God knows the future exhaustively "in such a way that..." people have freedom.  Now, as SOON as you hear that "in such a way", what does YOUR mind think?  That's exactly what Cyril thought when Nestorius said it.

Post Edited (One Love) : 5/9/2009 9:22:21 AM (GMT-5)

Let's look again at Nestorius' concepts...

--Conjunction by interrelation of ontologically distinct prosopa "founded on the freedom of mutual love, not the necessities of nature

--Indwelling

--Appropriation

--Habituated possession of the human prosopon by the prosopon of the Logos--at the level of prosopon not of ousia"

--The Logos binding himself to a human prosopon in an intimate love union, "without destroying any of the free capacities of the human life he graces with his unlimited power and presence."

--An "association rooted in the 'good pleasure' of God, that is, God's grace, favour, and loving delight wherewith he commits himself to the life of a man."

Again, looking through the lenses of bi-polar assymetrical relational unity between Divine Presence and human believer, these all seem to fit RIGHT WITH Eckhart's points.

Post Edited (One Love) : 5/9/2009 9:36:47 AM (GMT-5)