Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

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

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 3/15/2010 10:01 PM (GMT -6)

I know you guys already processed through this here more than a year ago. But I'm just now catching up (a little anyway). I've been wandering around Wikipedia and was interested not only about the East and West in christendom, but also about the Coptics, etc. I was quite interested to learn that they reject Chalcedon.

Anyway, I'm wading through this, and my impression at this point is that miaphysitism seems to resonate better for me than the formulation of chalcedon does.

Where have you guys landed on some of this stuff? What do you think of Cyril of Alexandria and his position?

I'm going to order this book.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/16/2010 6:18 AM (GMT -6)

I loved McGuckin's book. Really good. You'll like it. It clarified some issues for me. There would have been no Chalcedon without Cyril. He IS Chalcedon. The book helped clarify the key terms and, most importantly, how different factions used those terms to mean different things. A lot of the time they were just talking past each other. Cyril did a LOT before and after Chalcedon to reach out to groups who were suspicious of his use of those terms, and he managed to bridge the gap most of the time.

Miaphysitism resonates better with me a lot of the time too, Corey. I think there is a legitimate sense in which it's more helpful to talk of the 'nature' of the hypostatic union (with its divine attributes and its human attributes). There's that paper "The One-Natured God-Man" by (can't remember his name). I think at the heart of those at Chalcedon was the concern to avoid turning Christ into a tertium quid, a "third thing." You have chemical mixtures where two solutions are combined but they each retain their distinctive attributes and then you have some that combine chemically to form a third something that's neither of the two solutions that went into it. Cyril (and Orthodoxy) basically said that what's essentially divine about the person of the Son wasn't sacrificed in taking on the attributes of human being...nor were the human attributes turned into something else when taken up by the Son. Each 'set of attributes' remains distinctly divine and human (though united inseparably in the one Son). The Copts basically agree that the Son is both fully divine and fully human, they just didn't like the language of "two natures" because for them it made more sense to say any one PERSON had a single set of all that person's attributes...whether some are divine and some are human dudn't matter...they're all still THAT one person's attributes. And the Copts have a point. From the perspective of the one person, all his attributes belong TO that one person. But from the perspective of NATURE, one can distinguish further two sets of attributes, one that is uniquely divine and one that's uniquely human. I think whether one calls himself Chalcedonian or Miaphysite depends on what errors one wishes to avoid. I can see advantage in both terms.

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 3/16/2010 8:35 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks, Tom. What you said makes a lot of sense to me: it's a matter of context, of what they happen to be arguing against at the time.

Kind of like how in some circles I'm considered a liberal, and in others I'm considered conservative.

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 3/16/2010 8:37 AM (GMT -6)

That article is by Leigh, and we discussed a bit here.

Corey
Five with a Four-wing

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893

Posted 3/16/2010 8:39 AM (GMT -6)

D commented on that thread that miaphysitism inevitably leads to monothelitism. Not sure I buy that, unless you want to assert that all Copts are monothelites.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/16/2010 9:34 AM (GMT -6)

I don't see how a miaphysite can believe in two wills in the Incarnate Word (meaning hold to the 4th and 6th Ecumenical Councils). I would think that they would say that there is only ONE will associated with the ONE divine person of the Son in the "ONE (mia) nature of the Word of God incarnate."

Monothelitism (a Greek loanword meaning "one will" ) is a particular teaching about the divine and human relate in the person of Jesus, known as a Christological doctrine, that formally emerged in Armenia and Syria in 629 AD. Specifically, Monothelitism teaches that Jesus Christ had two natures but only one will. This is contrary to the more common Christology that Jesus Christ has two wills (human and divine) corresponding to his two natures. Monothelitism is a development of the Monophysite position in the Christological debates. It enjoyed considerable support in the 7th century before being rejected as heretical.

Just show me how a miaphysite can be a dythelitist at the same time.

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/16/2010 9:42:48 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 2:14 AM (GMT -6)

Hmmm...it would appear I've been mistaken. It appears that you CAN be a dythelite and a miaphysite.

From here...

3. Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite (sunqetoj) by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy.

4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone (th qewria monh).

5. Both families agree that He Who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos incarnate.

...

7. The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of "one nature of the incarnate Logos" ("mia fusij tou qeou Logou sesarkwmenh" ) , since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is "in thought alone" (th qewria monh). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77, 184-201), to Eulogius (PG 77, 224-228) and to Succensus (PG 77, 228-245).

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

Sounds good to me...as long as it's clearly understood that each "natural energy and will" possessed by the Incarnate Word (corresponsive to the Holy Spirit and human spirit in Him) is related to ontologically distinct "spheres of consciousness" operating in the Only Begotten Son. In other words, God the Son's created volitional, noetic, and mental energies of His humanity were NEVER involved in His uncreated activity as Omnipresent Creator Logos; at the same time, the Uncreated volitional, noetic, and mental energies of God the Son was ALWAYS involved in all of His localized creaturely activity as Incarnate Word AND his non-localized Creator activity...both via the Holy Spirit.

If a miaphysite can hold that belief, then miaphysitism doesn't necessitate monothelitism...and I was wrong.

Cool.

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/17/2010 2:44:54 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 2:54 AM (GMT -6)

I was re-looking at the site that Corey posted...about the Copts rejecting Chalcedon. I saw this...

After the Union, Christ was no longer in two natures. The two natures became united into one nature without separation, without confusion and without change. Thus He was at the same time perfect God and perfect man. This is the union of the natures in the Incarnation. After the union Christ is not two persons or two natures. but one Person, one incarnate Nature of God the Son, with one will, but being at once divine and human. If you separate the natures after the union and say that Christ is in two natures, you will be confronted with serious problems. You will have to admit, for instance, that Christ was crucified merely as a man and that therefore he did not redeem the world, for God alone is able to accomplish the world's redemption. In brief, it is held that Christ, in acting, acted as a united being, not separately as man or separately as God.

Uh, oh...maybe I was right the first time! icon_smile_shock

This is exactly what I thought would have been said (one person, one nature, one will)...but perhaps some other miaphysites that work it out some other way...for the sake of unity with the EO. Hmmm...

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/17/2010 2:59:59 AM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 3:18 AM (GMT -6)

THE NATURE OF CHRIST
H.H. Pope Shenouda III

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

The One Will and the One Act

Has the Lord Christ two wills and two actions, that is a Divine will and a human will, as well as two actions, that is, a divine act and a human act? As we believe in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos, as St. Cyril the Great called it, likewise:

We believe in One Will and One Act:

Naturally, as long as we consider that this Nature is One, the Will and the Act must also each be one. What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen by the human nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever between the will and the action of both.

The Lord Jesus Christ said: "My meat is to do the Will of Him that sent Me to finish His work. " (Jn. 4:34). This proves that His Will is the same as that of the Father. In this context, He said about Himself "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do, for what things soever He does, these also does the Son likewise. " (Jn.
5:19).

He does not seek for Himself a will that is independent of that of the Father. Consequently He Says "Because I seek not Mine Own Will, but the Will of the Father,who has sent Me. " (Jn. 6:38).

It is obvious that the Father and the Son in the Holy Trinity have One Will, for the Lord Jesus Christ said: "I and My Father are One," (Jn. 10:30).

Hence, since He is one with Him in the Godhead, then He is essentially one with Him concerning the Will. Again, the Son, in His Incarnation on earth, was fulfilling the Will of the heavenly Father. Thus it must be that He Who united with the manhood had One
Will.

In fact, Sin is nothing but a conflict between man’s will and God’s. But remember that our Lord Jesus Christ had no sin at all. He challenged the Jews saying: "Which of you convicts Me of Sin?. " (Jn. 8:46). Therefore, His Will was that of the Father.

The Saints who are perfect in their behavior achieve complete agreement between their will and the Will of God, so that their will becomes that of God, and the Will of God becomes their will.

And St., Paul the Apostle said "But we have the mind of Christ. "(1 Cor. 2:16). He did not say that our thoughts are in accord with the mind of Christ, but that "we have the mind of Christ", and here the unity is stressed.

If this is said about those with whom and in whom God works, then how much more the unity between the Son and His Own manhood would be in all that is related to the will, the mind and the power to act! He, in Whom the Divine nature has united with the human nature, a Hypostatic and Essential union without separation-not for a second nor a twinkle of an eye,

If there was not unity between the Will of the Divine nature of Christ and His human nature, this would have resulted in internal conflict. Far be it from Him! How then could Christ be our guide and our example... to follow in His footsteps (1 Jn. 2:6)?. The complete righteousness which marked the life of our Lord Jesus was due to His Divine as well as His Human will.

The same is true of the salvation of mankind, the message for which Christ came and said: "For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost. " (Matt. 18:11). This is the same Will of the Father who ‘Loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. " (I Jn. 4:10). Thus, the crucifixion was the choice of the Divine as well as the human nature. Had it not been One Will, it would not have been said that Christ died by His Own Will for our sake.

Since the Will is One, the Act is necessarily One.

Here we do not distinguish between the two natures.

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 3:28 AM (GMT -6)

We talked about this stuff on THIS thread too...

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

Posted By : One Love - 4/5/2009 5:30 AM

Hey, Tom. Thanks for typin' all of that out. Good reading!

Here's what I see, Tom. You and I are pretty much replaying the whole Nestorius/Apollinarius thing.

I, like Nestorius, am concerned that we affirm that the immutable DUALITY of the Incarnate Word's self-experience because of the ontological distinction within him (Uncreated Holy Spirit and created human spirit). The Unique Incarnate Word is fully divine and fully human, meaning his experience must encompass the fullness of both perspectives. If it is true that 1) the experiences and interpretations of human "spirit" are NOT to be directly associated with the perspective of the Holy Spirit and 2) God the Son never ceases being Creator Logos during Incarnation, then, in my mind, there HAS to be TWO ontologically distinct "realms of consciounsess" that the One Eternal Son is able to work with at the same time, via his TWO spiritual realities, his natural HUMAN spirit and his natural HOLY Spirit. This is why the Church has affirmed that God the Son as Incarnate Word has two wills (human and divine), corresponsive with the two ontologically distinct natures.

You, like Apollinarius and Cyril, are concerned about the immutable UNITY of the Incarnate Word's self-experience because there is only ONE hypostasis that instantiates the Incarnate God, Jesus...and that hypostasis is the Uncreated Person, God the Son. There is no created hypostasis that instantiates Jesus' being in Mary; Jesus is not the product of human procreation, biological or technology. He is ONLY the product of the Incarnation of God's Word through Mary. This preserves not only the unity of his activity as God and Human, but also his uniqueness among all other humans. This is why the Church has affirmed that God the Son as Incarnate Word has one person (divine) as the hypostasis of Jesus.

I am concerned that your pressing of the Incarnate Son's unity leads you towards Apollinarianism, via replacing Jesus' created individual human spiritual reality with the Uncreated Logos Himself to keep that singularity of subjectivity...leading to a "one-will/mind" Christology.

You are concerned that my pressing of the Incarnate Son's duality leads me towards Nestorianism, via effectively having two self-relational realities in Jesus...leading to a "two-subject/person" Christology.

Does this sound right to you? reading

***************************************************************************

Posted By : Tom - 4/5/2009 5:42 AM

Yeah, that's about it.

Just finished McGuckin's book. Just reading through Cyril's letters and writing now.

Tom

*****************************************************************************

Posted By : One Love - 4/5/2009 5:43 AM

That's why I say what I do...

God the Son's human will and human mind was NEVER involved in His creatio continua activity as Omnipresent Creator Logos, while at the same time, the Divine Will and Divine Mind of God the Son was ALWAYS involved in all of His localized human activity as Israel's Messiah via the Holy Spirit.

Basically, I don't believe that the emergent relationship of Baby Jesus' mind/brain relational unity was responsible for constantly creating all of Creation while he slept in the manger! rotfl

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler

Posted By : Tom - 4/5/2009 5:45 AM

I'd say that as well, D.

T

*****************************************************************************

Posted By : Tom - 4/5/2009 6:02 AM

I don't see why we can't posit one-will and also say that the human mind of Christ wasn't consciously administering/sustaining the universe but that the divine mind was. You'd need two minds to make this distinction, but not necessarily two wills.

We'll see.

T

*****************************************************************************

Posted By : One Love - 4/5/2009 6:10 AM

Tom:
I don't see why we can't posit one-will and also say that the human mind of Christ wasn't consciously administering/sustaining the universe but that the divine mind was. You'd need two minds to make this distinction, but not necessarily two wills.

Ok. Let's lay things out.

1. Jesus has a non-divine (human) spirit and divine Spirit.
2. Jesus has a non-divine (human) mind and divine mind.
3. The ontological distinction between the human and divine in Jesus is immutable.

Now, let's ask the question: How is "will" involved with the "spirit" and "mind"? IS there involvement to you, Tom?

See, Tom, whatever you decide HAS to give explanatory power to this statement:
"Not MY will (God the Son), but YOUR Will (God the Father) be done!"
In the Trinity, God the Son's will IS God the Father's Will. There is ONE WILL in the Trinity, Tom. So, on the level of the Divine Mind, there is no possible contestation of wills. But in the text, Jesus is clearly saying "NOT MY WILL", meaning he's willing to subordinate his OWN will to his understand of God the Father's Will through human faith. (Drops of blood!) The only way this makes sense, Tom, is if God the Son has an ACTUAL HUMAN WILL linked with the use of a HUMAN MIND (to contemplate God's Will for him and what that meant) and a HUMAN SPIRIT (The "eye of the soul" that is the "organ of faith" in all human beings) that can authentically be freely submitted to the DIVINE WILL of the Trinity.
Tell me if Cyril deals with this... reading

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler


Post Edited (One Love) : 4/5/2009 5:20:27 AM (GMT-5)

Posted By : Tom - 4/5/2009 6:19 AM

Fear not my child.

I think I can agree to two-wills. Yeah. If qualified VERY carefully (like everything in the stinkin' history of these issues).

You'll be happy to know that I have no qualms about the term 'theotokos' (again, if qualified as Cyril does). I don't LIKE the phrase "as is" because it is SO open to misunderstanding as to die the deaths of a thousand qualifications. But properly understood, I got no problems with it.

T

Posted By : One Love - 4/5/2009 6:22 AM

Tom:
Fear not my child.

I think I can agree to two-wills. Yeah. If qualified VERY carefully (like everything in the stinkin' history of these issues).

You'll be happy to know that I have no qualms about the term 'theotokos' (again, if qualified as Cyril does). I don't LIKE the phrase "as is" because it is SO open to misunderstanding as to die the deaths of a thousand qualifications. But properly understood, I got no problems with it.

::: peeks head out of sand:::

(Timid voice) "You...you mean it? Really? "

Can I celebrate now?

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."

"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler

Posted By : Tom - 4/5/2009 6:25 AM

I have to admit two wills (duo thelemata) if the divine Son is to exercise the divine will in sustaining the universe omnisciently without Jesus consciously choosing to do so. I'm less sure on how to divide up 'energies' and 'operations'. What I don't want to do is suppose that the human will of Jesus in its natural movement was self-determining apart from the divine person and will of the Son. But I think I'm OK on it.

Tom
Post Edited (Tom) : 4/5/2009 5:31:13 AM (GMT-5)

Posted By : One Love - 4/5/2009 6:29 AM

Tom:
What I don't want to do is suppose that the human will of Jesus in its natural movement was self-determining apart from the divine person and will of the Son. But I think I'm OK on it.

Alright! (Curbed enthusiasm) rotfl

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/17/2010 1:28:27 AM (GMT-5)

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 4:55 AM (GMT -6)

Insomia...

Oh well...

Thoughts...

There is a bi-polar assymetrical relational unity between Holy Spirit and human spirit that is INHERENT in fully realized humanity. Why? Because of the "one nature of the incarnte Logos" that is "inhominization" aspect of humanity's archetype. Remember, humanity is created with the Incarnate Word eternally in mind. It was always INTENDED for human reality to co-operate with divine reality in the way shown in Jesus. It was always intended that the human spirit could be empowered by the Holy Spirit to worship God as "Abba"...that the human heart could be "one with the Lord in spirit." Jesus laid that template down for this bi-polar assymetrical relational spiritual unity in humanity...as an Uncreated Person who took on particularized human existence.

Now for why the Incarnation is so important to Theosis. Tom said...

The Copts basically agree that the Son is both fully divine and fully human, they just didn't like the language of "two natures" because for them it made more sense to say any one PERSON had a single set of all that person's attributes...whether some are divine and some are human dudn't matter...they're all still THAT one person's attributes. And the Copts have a point. From the perspective of the one person, all his attributes belong TO that one person. But from the perspective of NATURE, one can distinguish further two sets of attributes, one that is uniquely divine and one that's uniquely human.

In other words, a person has attributes that may be divine and/or creaturely (and thus, ontologically distinct in their operation)...but all those attributes still have the person as locus of integrity. That's cool. Now, here's the question: Can a non-divine person have divine and non-divine attributes? Off the top of my head, I'd say "yes" because the glorified human person will have glory and incorruptibility by Grace which belong to God by nature. This doesn't make the non-divine person into a divine person at all; it says that divine attributes can be perpetually received by the non-divine person from God the Holy Spirit as gift...such that a non-divine person can have creaturely attibutes (limited perspective, etc) as well as divine attributes (eternity, incorruptibility, etc)

Now, why is this possible? Because of the Incarnation. If the natural potential for "spirit-to-Spirit" union in human existence where not made available through the "prototype" of the Incarnate Word, we would have any chance for experiencing divine life...OR interpersonal relationality with God. None.

But here's why the two wills/two minds thing is so important. The whole bi-polar assymetrical relational unity in human existence ESSENTIALLY deals with the relationship of complementarity between Holy Spirit and human spirit in particularized human existence. As I see it, for the way of deification to be open to "us" (such that a human person could have divine and human attributes)...it would HAVE to be the case that the ontologically distinct "spheres of consciousness" that correspond to the arenas of human spirit activity and Holy Spirit activity in can operate in particularized human existence without collapsing one into the other.

If God the Son hadn't planned from eternity to take on genuine human noetic and mental faculty, then it would have been inevitable that deification would closed to human persons. But that ain't all. If Jesus had only one will that directly corresponded to his divine personage, then even IF one dodged the charge of Apolinarianism (by saying the Jesus actually had a human "heart" ), you'd be hard pressed trying to get away from functional monophysitism as a whole. Why? Because you'd have to explain how Christ's humanity WOULDN'T get totally swallowed up in his divinity...and how Christ's choice to freely lay down his life for the sake of his God was made as a REAL human being, using REAL human faith. Because Jesus, as an uncreated Person, used real human faith in obedience unto death in the power of the Spirit, WE as created persons have that same ability as human beings who are homoousias with the Incarnate Word. Again, this would NOT be available to us WITHOUT humanity's having the Incarnate Word "in mind" from the very begining.

Yeah...

So...how does this look? Well...first the template...

Fully Actualized Human Existence:
Subject
Holy Spirit
Human Spirit
Divine Will/Mind
Human Will/Mind
BPARU Function or Bi-polar assymetrical relational unity

Next, the Template Setter...

Christ:
One divine person
Holy Spirit ("rests" in the Son naturally)
Human spirit (taken on with human "flesh" )
Divine Will/Mind (One Will of the Trinity)
Human Will/Mind (the "faith OF Jesus", evidenced in Gethsemane)
Incarnation, Condescension

Finally, us...

Christian:
One non-divine person
Holy Spirit ("rests" in the "son-in-the-Son" by Grace)
Human spirit (natural aspect of human existence)
Divine Will (Paraclete, Christ's Spirtual Presence)
Human Will (the "faith IN Jesus", evidenced by Paul)
Theosis, Ascension

Because of who Christ is as Incarnate Word, we can be SURE that a way has been made for human persons to actually "partake in the divine nature."

Anyways, some thoughts...

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/17/2010 5:04:42 AM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/17/2010 9:44 AM (GMT -6)

Hey D,

Several quick comments.

1) We have to get together soon.
2) We’re did all the jobs in the Twin Cities go? I’m job hunting with no luck.
3) Promise me you’ll at least start taking to Amos or somebody about the prospects of a PhD. It doesn’t cost anything to talk. You’ll get some good ideas from it and will be able to make better choices when the time comes. Don’t wait to at least start investigating.

So…

4) I get the reason why the immanent trinity is said to possess one will. But I want to qualify this (as Zizy does) by saying each divine person disposes its identity via that will in ways unique to that person. So you still have three unique determinations of will in the immanent trinity. All three identities/persons “concur” in/with the others in the disposing of identities, yes, but since personhood and the disposition of volition are inseparable (Zizy), we should say there are acts of the (one) will which are ‘volitionally unique’ to each divine person. Persons determine the disposition of will. Distinct persons give you distinct determinations of volition.

5) Could a non-divine person have divine and non-divine attributes? I don’t necessarily disagree with your answer that human persons CAN possess divine attributes (like incorruptibility) by grace. That’s cool. I guess this question conjures up different concerns for me, and I can see how it might motivate a “no” answer. For example, human and divine attributes are possible for the divine person of the Son via a hypostatic union where “two natures” are joined. So divine and human attributes are possessed by a single person by possessing two natures, divine and human. If this is a sort of model for us, then shouldn’t you say there’s a similar hypostatic union of a divine nature and a human nature in each of us as non-divine persons? Do we come to possess two wills? Two minds? I realize the answer will be, “We only participate in some divine natural attributes, those compossible with being human.” But I can see how somebody might answer your question with “No, it’s not an ‘other than human’ possibility to be incorruptible. When human beings are incorruptible, they don’t take on a second nature in addition to their human nature. They remains one-natured beings. So incorruptibility must be a NATURAL capacity for HUMAN being via the divine image/likeness (I don’t distinguish between imagine and likeness like the Orthodoxy; too much Hebrew and too many hermeneutical/exegesis classes!).

I just want to avoid saying our coming to possess divine attributes (like incorruptibility) is the other side of a single coin and the Son’s coming to possess human attributes is the other side, as if there’s a one-for-one correspondence between the two, the only difference between the Son is a divine person adding human attributes and we’re human persons adding divine attributes but everything else is the same. Everything else isn’t the same. We never come to unite in our single non-divine persons two natures. Incorruptibility becomes an attribute of our human natures. Interesting, eh? This is why I never let myself stray too far from Ronald Leigh’s article. I wouldn’t agree with him in saying Chalcedon is flat out wrong. I might say Chalcedon’s very right concerns can be accommodated as well (or better?) via a qualified one-nature Christology (like the Oriental Orthodox).

6) I see how much the doctrine of atonement/salvation precedes Christology. But everybody admits that. The early Church formed its Christology based on its experience of salvation and atonement. They asked, “Who must Jesus be in order for it to be the case that he saves us like he saves us?” So the WORK of Christ was assumed first, then the PERSON of Christ determined on that basis. That much is history.

But I’m still inclined to Abelard’s Moral Influence theory of the atonement (see Vincent Brummer too). I think the Cross affects its goal in us by demonstrating how our sin impacts God and how God suffers on account of us. THIS is what we must perceive before we can repent. That's all the metaphysical requirement I can see for being reconciled to God. So I just don’t get HOW it is that no relational intimacy or fulfillment with God is possible for us if God doesn’t incarnate (sans the whole concern for sin and forgiveness). Once you posit the divine image/likeness, and God working at all levels via the logoi, all that’s needed is for us to choose to move toward our logos, period. God would not reject relationship with anyone who so chose. And the logoi ARE already the Logos in creation. So now the Logos HAS to also become a created being before ANY created being can choose to move toward fulfillment of its own logos? It seems to deny that creation is already a sacrament and that the universe is in a sense an incarnation of God; it’s all God’s energies and logoi at work. So I’m not seeing the argument for “The energies and logoi within free human beings are NOT enough. God HAS to be incarnate for any of that stuff to work.” But HOW’S that the case? King David wasn’t intimate with God because God had not yet incarnated?

At the same time, I DO think God’s original plans for creation included the incarnation (apart from all considerations of redemption from sin). So I have to explain WHY that is.

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 11:56 AM (GMT -6)

1) Yes, we do.

2) Sorry, bro. Stuff's tight right now. Ask me how I know!

3) I promise, dude. For real.

4) Cool with that.

5) Tom:
I can see how somebody might answer your question with “No, it’s not an ‘other than human’ possibility to be incorruptible. When human beings are incorruptible, they don’t take on a second nature in addition to their human nature. They remains one-natured beings. So incorruptibility must be a NATURAL capacity for HUMAN being via the divine image/likeness (I don’t distinguish between imagine and likeness like the Orthodoxy; too much Hebrew and too many hermeneutical/exegesis classes!).

and...

We never come to unite in our single non-divine persons two natures. Incorruptibility becomes an attribute of our human natures. Interesting, eh?

Let's put it this way: Incorruptibility is a natural capacity for human being BECAUSE of how human beings were designed in the image of the True Image...including the Holy Spirit being inseparable from human composition. In other words, the reason that human beings remain "one-natured" beings even after glorification is because, in fully realized humanity, "partaking in the divine nature" actually COMPLETES--not negates--one's human nature, At the same time, any divine attribute we "possess" is purely continually received GIFT from from God by the Holy Spirit, just like everything else.

Remember Alexei Nesteruk...

In Greek Patristic literature, it was a prevailing view that the state of human being as it exists in the natural environment includes the body, soul (including the dianoia as an analytical part of the soul), and spirit [Spirit's note: the "eye of the soul", St. John of Damascus], which had never been dissociated from the Holy Spirit. Human spirit stands here for the nous (spiritual intellect, the organ of faith), linking the human person to its dynamic relationship to God and to the world. It is natural congeniality with God, which is articulated by the presence of the Holy Spirit in human being. But the Holy Spirit is the creator of both body and soul, whose unity forms a particular human person. The presence of the Holy Spirit in human constitution thus makes the human person open upward through it's calling to the Divine as its destiny. Without the Spirit, the Greek Fathers assert, the human being is incomplete and imprisoned through the conditions of the created nature. V. Lossky reaffirms this point by saying that "the distinction between person and nature reproduces in humanity the order of divine life, expressed by the dogma of the Trinity."

and...

Christ, our idea about Christ, is the perfect model by reference to which we can answer the question about who we are. He is the man, "the first-born of every creature," (Col. 1:15), the archetype of which every human being is, in terms of his or her potentialities, the image. The difference between Christ and us is that Christ is eternally God's son, while we are God's sons because we are created in the image of Christ's divine humanity. To be a son of God is to have the Divine as the determining element of our being, that is, to be inherent in the divine hypostasis. It is precisely this that makes us human and that constitutes our humanity. To the degree to which we fail to attain a full realization of this, we fail to be human.

Not to mention Kallistos Ware's thinking in "The Orthodox Way"...

The image and likeness signify orientation, relationship. As Philip Sherrard observes, "The very concept of man implies a relationship, a connection with God. Where one affirms man one also affirms God." To believe that man is made in God's image is to believe that man is created for communion and union with God, and that is he rejects this communion he ceases to be properly man. There is no such thing as "natural man" existing in separation from God: man cut off from God is in a highly unnatural state. The image doctrine means, therefore, that man has God as the innermost center of his being. The divine is the determining element in our humanity; losing our sense of the divine, we lose also our sense of the human.

6)Tom:
So I’m not seeing the argument for “The energies and logoi within free human beings are NOT enough. God HAS to be incarnate for any of that stuff to work.” But HOW’S that the case? King David wasn’t intimate with God because God had not yet incarnated?

I think you are missing my point....and it's in the Nesteruk quote above. King David had his very potential for intimate communion with God that he did (to the degree he actualized it) ONLY BECAUSE he was "created in the image of Christ's divine humanity", like every other human being. If it were not for humanity being in the "image of the Image", humanity would NOT be able to "know God" at all.

Feel me?

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/17/2010 12:11:08 PM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/17/2010 1:20 PM (GMT -6)

D: Let's put it this way: Incorruptibility is a natural capacity for human being BECAUSE of how human beings were designed in the image of the True Image...including the Holy Spirit being inseparable from human composition.

T: Right.

D: King David had his very potential for intimate communion with God that he did (to the degree he actualized it) ONLY BECAUSE he was "created in the image of Christ's divine humanity", like every other human being.

T: Right again. So that leads to my question. Given this natural affinity and likeness between divine and human being (as God's being our very interiority, and the logoi being the indestructible ground of possibility, etc.), why is the incarnation NECESSARY to our fully actualizing our purpose? Forget sin and evil for the moment, OK? Just going with the our good createdness in the image of God, what does the incarnation per se make possible for my becoming one with God that isn't already possible via my God-given nature and freedom to follow the grace in nature? Again, let's say there was not fall and human beings just slowly and freely disposed themselves Godward as image bearers, AND let's say God never incarnates, ever. You'll want to say human beings could NEVER be fulfilled/deified/glorified (because God never incarnated). Why would you say that?

I know this is off Corey's subject (two wills/two natures thing). Sorry.

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 2:04 PM (GMT -6)

Tom:
You'll want to say human beings could NEVER be fulfilled/deified/glorified (because God never incarnated). Why would you say that?

I think that I'm trying to say this: The unique way that the Holy Spirit works with the created order in humanity is grounded in God's willing the Incarnation from before Creation. Without the Incarnation as God's Archetype for humanity, we humans would NOT be what we are in our unique potential for communion with God and expressing divine life.

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 2:06 PM (GMT -6)

Wow. Kallistos Ware has a great quote on the Incarnation. Wanna see it?

Yeah, you should see it. Page 70-71.

Last few sentences.

The Incarnation, then, is not simply a way of undoing the effects of original sin, but it is an essential stage upon man's journey from the divine image to the divine likeness. The true image and likeness of God is Christ Himself; and so, from the very first moment of man's creation in the image, the Incarnation of Christ was in some way already implied. The true reason for the Incarnation, then, lies not in man's sinfulness but in his unfallen nature as a being made in the divine image and capable of union with God.

Exactamundo. reading

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/17/2010 2:12:01 PM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/17/2010 2:15 PM (GMT -6)

D:I think that I'm trying to say this: The unique way that the Holy Spirit works with the created order in humanity is grounded in God's willing the Incarnation from before Creation. Without the Incarnation as God's Archetype for humanity, we humans would NOT be what we are in our unique potential for communion with God and expressing divine life.

T: Right. I get that. I guess I'm trying to peel back the layers and figure out WHY God cannot create sentient, personal others without this intention to incarnate. Surely God has to envision/contemplate the substance and purpose for creatures he creates. No doubt. But what PART does incarnating (or intending to incarnate) have to do with God and creatures coming into fullest intimacy? Can God not even conceive of personal others whom he creates and relates to apart from conceiving of his own incarnation? Why? I mean, I think i can conceive of God's creating us in his image and relating to us, and our becoming fulfilled and glorified all without God's being incarnate. So I must be missing something if I can conceive of this, because I understand you (and orthodoxy) to be saying there simply is no creation and perfection of personal others apart from God's incarnating into creation. It just seems strange to ADD this requirement to our perfection IF we've already admitted that the creatures in question already bare God's imagine/likeness. See what I mean?

Is my question not clear?

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/17/2010 2:21 PM (GMT -6)

Ware: The Incarnation, then, is not simply a way of undoing the effects of original sin, but it is an essential stage upon man's journey from the divine image to the divine likeness. The true image and likeness of God is Christ Himself; and so, from the very first moment of man's creation in the image, the Incarnation of Christ was in some way already implied. The true reason for the Incarnation, then, lies not in man's sinfulness but in his unfallen nature as a being made in the divine image and capable of union with God.

Tom: Right. I'm understanding the CLAIM. I'm not seeing the REASONING behind it. WHY does God have to incarnate in order for creatures made in his image to grow into the full expression of that image? What's the incarnation DO for unfallen human beings that's essential/necessary to their fullness?

The only thing I can think of is saying that necessary to having created personal others who are intimate with God, God has to create them in his (personal) image, and there's no way to do this without God also sharing the nature of the imagine bearers. God literally CAN'T stamp his image in us without becoming one OF us. We literally can't bear God's image if he doesn't bear ours (in a sense, you know what I mean). This means that God CAN'T personalize us apart from incarnating. But a) Why should that be? and b) How's it apply to alllll those who lived prior to the incarnation?

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

Post Edited (Tom) : 3/17/2010 2:25:17 PM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 2:30 PM (GMT -6)

Tom:
WHY does God have to incarnate in order for creatures made in his image to grow into the full expression of that image? What's the incarnation DO for unfallen human beings that's essential/necessary to their fullness?

The only thing I can think of is saying that necessary to having created personal others who are intimate with God, God has to create them in his (personal) image, and there's no way to do this without God also sharing the nature of the imagine bearers. God literally CAN'T stamp his imagine in us without becoming one OF us. But a) why should that be? and b) how's it apply to alllll those who lived prior to the incarnation?

a) Perhaps the only way the fullness of God the Holy Spirit could be given to the sentient creature (the complete union of the uncreated universal and created particular) is via the hypostatic union of divine personage and created order...and Creation was made with this in mind. The Incarnation is a metaphysical grounding for this possibility. Maybe we don't need to know any more than that.

b) The Incarnation is an "eternal event" in that it circumscribes creation, including humanity. The only reason Abraham could perceive God like he did...is because the spirit-to-Spirit connectivity was already made possible by the "eternality" of the Incarnation.

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 2:34 PM (GMT -6)

"I Am...Immanuel."
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God

"Amen! You are Immanuel!"
The Christian

...Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit."

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/17/2010 2:40:38 PM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 2:44 PM (GMT -6)

You've gotta admit, Tom. This shows a HELL of a lot of investment on God's part...just to have interpersonal relationship with "others."

Wow.

Surprisingly close!

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/17/2010 2:47:30 PM (GMT-5)

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 3/17/2010 2:56 PM (GMT -6)

D: a) Maybe we don't need to know any more than that.

T: Naahhhhh.

D: b) The Incarnation is an "eternal event" in that it circumscribes creation, including humanity. The only reason Abraham could perceive God like he did...is because the spirit-to-Spirit connectivity was already made possible by the "eternality" of the Incarnation.

T: Probably something like this is the answer. Our bearing the imagine of God JUST IS God's intent to incarnate. I just don't see WHY it is that this is the case.

T

KIXYTΘEMTA

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 3:00 PM (GMT -6)

D: b) The Incarnation is an "eternal event" in that it circumscribes creation, including humanity. The only reason Abraham could perceive God like he did...is because the spirit-to-Spirit connectivity was already made possible by the "eternality" of the Incarnation.

T: Probably something like this is the answer. Our bearing the image of God JUST IS God's intent to incarnate.

Yep.

*****************************************

Tom:
I just don't see WHY it is that this is the case.

Is there any better place to play the "God As Mystery" card? Heh... lol

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 3:02 PM (GMT -6)

On the cool, this is a significant part of why I believe that "acquisition of the Holy Spirit" is the HIGHEST PRIORITY for Christians. Without Christ's Presence by His Spirit, we can (and will) do nothing. We are DESIGNED that way.

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

“On the walls of the catacombs in Rome there is sometimes painted the figure of a woman praying, the Orans. She is gazing towards heaven, her open hands raised with the palms upwards. This is one of the most ancient of Christian ikons. Whom does she represent—the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Church, or the soul at prayer? Or perhaps all three at once? However, it is interpreted, this ikon depicts a basic Christian attitude: that of invocation or epiclesis, of calling down or waiting upon the Holy Spirit.

There are three main positions that we can assume with our hands, and each has its own symbolic meaning. Our hands may be closed, our fists clenched, as a gesture of defiance or in an effort to grasp and to hold fast, thus expressing aggression or fear. At the other extreme our hands may hang listlessly by our sides, neither defiant nor receptive. Or else, as a third possibility, our hands may be lifted up like those of the Orans, no longer clenched by open, no longer listless but ready to receive the gifts of the Spirit. An all-important lesson upon the spiritual Way is understanding how to unclench our fists and to open our hands.

Each hour and minute we are to make our own the action of the Orans: invisibly we are to lift our opened hands to heaven, saying to the Spirit, Come.

The whole aim of the Christian life is to be a Spirit-bearer, to live in the Spirit of God, to breathe the Spirit of God.”

Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way, pp. 89-90

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

"To receive the Spirit is to receive God himself, because in the Spirit the Gift and the Giver are one. Through this communion with the Spirit we don’t become divine but we are nevertheless united to God while remaining a (radically transfigured) creature. This, Torrance contends is the proper understanding of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis. Torrance also likes to explain the indwelling of the Spirit as “interiorizing” because we are redeemed from our “inturned and ingrown existence” through his possession of our subjectivities by actualizing God’s own knowledge of himself in us and so turning our spirits “outward and upward to God."

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/17/2010 3:50:35 PM (GMT-5)

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 3/17/2010 3:16 PM (GMT -6)

Thought:

With all the obvious intentionality and personal investment God had in creating humans, can we understand why God would say "You shall not murder"? Living maliciously towards humans is just depreciating all of God's personal sacrifice (perfectly expressed in the Cross of Christ) ...and a marginalization of human potential. Saying "Yeah, yeah...we are fearfully and wonderfully made. Yeah, yeah, God loves us. Man, #*&@ all that! We gon' kill anyways."

Damn.

And yet God unconditionally loves us anyways. Wow.

I tell you...If all this ain't a VERY good reason to worship the Triune God, I just don't know what is!

Yeah...yeah...God is great...Yeah...yeah...God is good...

Lord Jesus, have mercy.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/17/2010 3:28:58 PM (GMT-5)

37 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:27 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