 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Practical Polytheism | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2012 12:47 PM (GMT -6) |   | "However, John Hick and others have charged the proponents of this strategy with saving coherence at the price of orthodoxy."
At least someone could call a spade a spade.
God rest you, Dr. Hick.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2012 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2012 12:57 PM (GMT -6) | | | Reposting from this thread...
"...[C. Stephen] Evans makes use of a strong social trinitarian notion in suggesting that, while the divine Word was incarnate, his sustaining work was 'carried on by the other Persons' (C. Stephen Evans, 'The Self-Emptying of Love', 259)
Edwin Chr. van Driel
Chapter 11: "The Logic of Assumption"
Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God
C. Stephen Evans
Page 267, Note 4.
----------------------------------------------
So, what can be AFfirmed and CONfirmed about this?
Dr. C. Stephen Evans clearly said that, post-Incarnation, God the Son as zygote ceases to actively (consciously) and interpersonally reciprocate (therefore consummate, as it were) the Father's self-communicating, self-giving love towards Him in the Spirit.
This is NOTHING SHORT OF positing the cessation of the uncreated trinitarian intimate interpersonal relationships that preceded and grounded Creation. This is the absolute annihilation of the Triunity of God. You don't get more anti-Chalcedonian than this.
----------------------------
"Some analytic philosophers of religion and philosophical theologians (notably Stephen T. Davis, C. Stephen Evans and Ronald J. Feenstra) defend a modified version of kenotic Christology, one that they think does not contradict the major creedal Christological statements."
--Tom McCall
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/7/2012 1:11 PM (GMT -6) | | D: Dude did a WHOLE DISSERTATION on this...and missed it. Even though he himself believes in "logos asarkos", he didn't see how the main kenotic premise is fundamentally Anti-Chalcedonian.
T: Well, you ASKED him about where the eternal person of the Logos was when Jesus was a zygot...AND HE ADMITTED...
"GEEE, THAT'S INTERESTING. I'VE NEEEEEEEVVVER EVEN THOUGHT about THAT..."
...after alllllll his reading in the Fathers. Wow.
And nobody on his review board thought about it.
I'm telling ya, Evangelicals do Christology EXCLUSIVELY with the ADULT JESUS in mind, as if he beamed down from the USS Enterprise.
But I have to admit something I don't understand ... Jesus IN THE WOMB has pretty much been where I STARTED thinking about the incarnation and the Trinity. I mean, it's ALWAYS been first about what it means for the eternal Son to incarnate AS THAT (a zygot). Like the Fathers say, that baby in Mary's womb is God's flesh. So how do so many Evangelicals not even SEE it?
T
"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg Boyd Post Edited (Tom) : 3/7/2012 12:19:43 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2012 1:16 PM (GMT -6) | | | Now if this ain't scholastic embarrassment, I just don't know what is!
Tom:
I'm telling ya, Evangelicals do Christology EXCLUSIVELY with the ADULT JESUS in mind, as if he beamed down from the USS Enterprise.
Both McCall AND Evans tried to do that. Even going to Jesus as Child. I had to hold the line at immediately post-Incarnation. They truly HAD NOT thought about it.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/7/2012 12:19:35 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/7/2012 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Here is C. Stephen Evans getting ready to LOWER HIS HEAD IN DISAPPOINTMENT when D drives the Sword of Allah into his heart...
Notice how small (see his two fingers) he says the eternal Son became in Mary’s Womb before the Son---poof---disappears.
And in all of this he “Preserves the Person”?
Hahahaha!
"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2012 1:37 PM (GMT -6) | | | Such an expert, he was to be...
-----------------------
..the two views of Christology under discussion (classical and kenotic) both have a sizeable following within mainstream historic orthodox and evangelical theology today, and to date there is no indication that either side is throwing down the theological gauntlet and accusing the other side of clearly violating a dogma (and therefore of falling into “heresy”). Among proponents of Kenosis are such evangelical heavy weights as Gordon Fee, Stephen Davis, Millard Erickson, C. Stephen Evans, Gerald Hawthorne, Ronald Feenstra, and Cornelius Plantinga. ... The Christology debate basically splits evangelicals down the middle – or close to it. And it has, thus far, been treated by the vast majority on both sides as a doctrinal controversy over the very complex dogma that states “Jesus is both fully God and fully human, which both sides affirm with gusto. Second, practically speaking, this sort of issue (unlike the situation in the early centuries) would have serious difficulties ever gaining any real theological traction among the Christian“masses” (laity), and if this doesn’t happen, then, even if the scholars did start getting really testy with each other, it would most likely remain an in-house academic debate. The only way for it to “go viral” (so to speak) like the Openness controversy, would be if slogans like “the Classical view denies Jesus’ humanity,” or “the Kenotic view denies Jesus’ deity” swept through the church. But this would have to be ignited by the theologians on both sides and, again, neither side is playing that card against the other at this point. Raising hard questions for each other – yes. But no charges of explicit “heresy” so far, as was the case with the Openness debate...
In regard to the theological issues at the heart of the matter: In the last few days of poking around a bit, I’ve discovered that the questions you raise with regard to Kenoticism’s ability to affirm the early Christological creeds, on one hand, and avoid the early Trinitarian/Christological heresies, on the other hand, have been raised within the ranks of evangelical modified kenoticists themselves over the last few years, and engaged quite seriously. It appears to me that the engagement on this question by modified kenoticists has moved significantly beyond Millard Erickson’s earlier engagement both in terms of depth and nuance. From what I’ve found so far, probably the most exhaustive study of this question to date (from a pro kenotic view) appears to be that of Thomas McCall’s 2004 PhD dissertation on this very topic, titled: “Modified Kenotic Christology, the Trinity, and Christian Orthodoxy.” ... In his dissertation, he argues that the modified doctrine of kenotic Christology held by evangelicals today falls within the bounds of both biblical and early Christian creedal orthodoxy. He specifically considers whether a modified kenoticism falls prey to the early Trinitarian/Christological heresies of Arianism, Apollinarianism, Monophysitism, Monotheletism, or Tritheism, and argues that a properly construed kenoticism can avoid each of these. From what I am hearing, McCall’s dissertation has taken the conversation on this question to a completely new level of reflection and nuance. I’ve ordered a copy of it so that I can work through the arguments myself. I’d encourage you and Tom to find a copy as well, as things have moved beyond Erickson, et al. in terms of the defense of the orthodoxy of a modified kenosis model. The other recent work that has set a new standard for conversation on the kenosis model is C. Stephen Evans, ed., Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to see this yet, but several of the essays in the book engage the types of questions you and Tom are raising. Most significant is Stephen Davis’s essay, “Is Kenosis Orthodox?” Between this book and McCall’s dissertation, people who know more about these things than I do...are telling me that the concerns of “heresy” regarding Kenosis have been adequately answered in quite specific detail. Now, of course, these arguments may not persuade those who hold to the classical view to move toward kenoticism. But it appears that arguments like the ones offered in these studies have helped demonstrate that this really is a doctrinal level debate, and that modified kenotic models are able to remain within the parameters of creedal orthodoxy in terms of affirming the essential Christological dogma. (I am looking forward to reading them myself and reflecting on these things once again.)
 BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2012 2:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Yeah. I'm putting in a request with the NCU librarian (I can still make inter-library loan requests) for McCall's dissertation. It should be here in a week or two.
I gotta see this for myself.
That's cool. But I'm like what does it matter? He specifically told me--off the cuff, obviously--that kenoticists could "push back" on the claim that Jesus' zygotic human nature would provide no true context for conscious reciprocation of the Father's love, post-Incanation and thus continuation of personal being. He said they could claim that there was some "basal rationality" in a ZYGOTE such that it would render continuous God the Son's reciprocation love to the Father in the Spirit, pre- and post-Incarnation.
This was C. Stephens Evans FIRST answer to me. The mysterious "brute fact", remember?
You know what Evans ENDING UP saying.
We are talking a GROUPING OF CELLS in a human womb, y'all.
For Evans or McCall to even suggest that a simple human zygote could be maintain interpersonal reciprocation of the love of the Father in the Spirit...smacks instantly as Apollinarianism in spirit at least. No Christian who understood Chalcedon would ever make such a suggestion.
Am I lyin', Tom?
In other words, the only "out" that McCall could see for the kenotic view at that point was an inherently heretical position. See that?
Jesus as God the Son in a human suit, then-currently in the form of a human zygote. An "Avatar" incarnation, like you beautifully described before, Tom. But never losing interpersonal relationship with the Father in the Spirit...as a human zygote.
That zygote would need a cape. 
So...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/7/2012 1:09:49 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2012 2:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Ask yourself this. Knowing what you know about the Fathers...and knowing all that we've discussed about the kenotic position...
What possible case could anyone make to you the kenoticism (the functional annihilation of the Triunity of God) was possibly orthodox doctrine?
Tom McCall, included.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/9/2012 8:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
I know D has said that theosis is impossible apart from a particular view of the incarnation. I don't even understand what he means by that. I suspect the reason why most Christians don't make much of particular views of trinitarianism is because they not only see no practical difference in them, but they find them more or less counter-intuitive in the first place.
D: Ok. I'll show you. If I were to say that Jesus, being the Incarnate Word of God the Father by the Holy Spirit, clearly demonstrates to us that Divine Presence is a definitive aspect of fulfilled human nature, would their view of the Incarnation be able to handle that? In other words, if I were to say that Jesus, son of Mary, PROVES that God is NEVER, EVER separate from humanity by it's very design--that it is an ONTOLOGICAL ERROR to believe that God and humanity even can be dichotomized...would their view of the Incarnation supply the reasoning for that? This understanding reality of re crucial to theoria, and therefore to theosis.
I don't see how that could be so with any NON-Chaledonian view. Any other view effectively collapses one into the other: either divinity overwhelms humanity (like monistic idealism) or divinity is specifically limited to humanity (like kenoticism).
Could that Catholic guy you mentioned ever explain how Divine Presence is actually NATURAL to human existence by way of Jesus?
See what I'm saying, Jeff?
J: First of all, the Catholic fellow is outside of anything recognizably Christian. To hate the Father and love the Son is to ultimately embrace a view of theism that is NON-benevolent. It is to blindly hope that the Son will prevail over the Father in a way that an ancient pagan would blindly hope his own god would prevail over other gods. But the belief of Catholics (at least some) that the Son still does the will of his mother certainly makes such confusion easy to fall into during times of sorrow and pain.
Our hope is not blind. First, it's consistent with intuitive benevolent/competent theism per se. Second, it's based on overwhelming personal experience that seems to be most plausibly explained as divinely-caused (what else explains our joy IN suffering for loving others?). Third, it's defensible in terms of bona-fide inductive/analogical evidence. Other theologies that depend on scriptures for doctrines are woefully inferior in inductive evidence. And theistic views that depend merely on philosophy tend to be so incomplete as to be unable to account for warranted belief in terms of sufficient benevolent/competent design. One could rob elements from Judaeo-Christian theism, but that would mean that Judaeo-Christian theism has that evidence in its favor to be added to all the other inductive evidences.
Now back to the view of the incarnation. I don't see how my view of the incarnation rules out theosis. Indeed, by my view, the incarnation may have been required for fulfilled human nature even IF a Fall never occurred. But inevitable sin and mortality render the incarnation seemingly necessary, regardless. I'm just not seeing how the two mind view of the 2nd Person adds anything to that explanation.
Once we have to posit the grace/benevolence of God as grounds for theosis, some aspect of theosis is grounded in divine POWER. So I can't see that divine power plus my view rules out theosis. And I can't see how either of our incarnational views PER SE (i.e., independent of benevolent/competent design/intent) prove that theosis is true. Both of us, it seems, have to appeal to divine POWER and GRACE in addition to the possibility of divine incarnation to completely explain the inevitability of theosis. Indeed, to the extent that you depend on the volitional embracing of theosis by creatures, that TOO is a necessary condition of theosis.
Even Greg's view works to account for theosis, as far as I can tell. It just entails a less benevolent and/or competent view of theism than our view. I haven't re-read the whole NT looking for show-stoppers for UR. But I can't imagine the exegetical problems for UR being greater than the exegetical problems Greg is creating, and only to end up with a view that is so much less inspiring anyway.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 3/9/2012 8:35:10 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/9/2012 8:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
If the 2-mind view literally proves theosis in the sense that theosis can be deduced from it, I need to see the syllogism. I'm just flat not seeing it.
IMO, The 2 mind view is just the Chalcedonian view, expressed in the implication of dual, yet ontologically distinct realms of consciousness (uncreated/created) within the one person, the Incarnate God the Word/Son, Jesus Christ. What the Chalcedonian view of Incarnation shows is that humanity is DESIGNED such that it is meant to be theandric, having the Holy Spirit as a dimension of fully human existence.
Can your view of Incarnation demonstrate that point?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/9/2012 8:27 PM (GMT -6) | | D, I don't think my view proves deductively that humanity was meant to be theandric, but I think any Christian teleological view would find it natural to infer that humanity IS designed to be theandric. That's because creation, as a teleological project, has an expiration date. Otherwise, it's not a teleological project at all. Nothing seems more natural to me than that LFW would cease to be mandatory for harmonious relationship with God. Otherwise, even UR doesn't make sense. How can there be knowable UR if continued peace with God is continually conditional? It seems more natural to me to see an end to the need for volitional conditionality of peace with God. And what other than the view that we will partake of the divine nature does that? Or is that even what you mean by "theandric?"
On the other hand, I don't see how your view proves it either. THAT the 2nd Person now has two distinct conscious streams of experientiality doesn't imply anything about other humans necessarily. No one proposition by itself proves anything deductively. Moreover, I don't know how you're abstracting a "created" aspect to the 2nd stream of consciousness. In short, to my mind, only beings are created--not reference frames, mental states, etc. And you don't even claim the 2nd Person is a being in the first place. So I'm still not following your thought.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/10/2012 1:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
D, I don't think my view proves deductively that humanity was meant to be theandric, but I think any Christian teleological view would find it natural to infer that humanity IS designed to be theandric. That's because creation, as a teleological project, has an expiration date. Otherwise, it's not a teleological project at all. Nothing seems more natural to me than that LFW would cease to be mandatory for harmonious relationship with God. Otherwise, even UR doesn't make sense. How can there be knowable UR if continued peace with God is continually conditional? It seems more natural to me to see an end to the need for volitional conditionality of peace with God. And what other than the view that we will partake of the divine nature does that? Or is that even what you mean by "theandric?"
We CAN "partake of the divine nature" because of the original way God created humanity and it's relationship to the Holy Spirit of God with the Incarnation in mind. Basically, human constitution itself was arranged with the Incarnation in mind. In other words, humanity was designed to have a "incarnational" and "God-bearing" relationship with the Holy, thus making way for the Incarnation. The RECIPROCAL EFFECT of this is that WE (the Church) can be an "extension" of the Incarnational Presence of God by way of a "Spirit-bearing" relationship with the Holy.
God became human...so that humanity could become god...and realize it's theandric nature by theocentricity.
I have a hunch this human constitution is the source of the universal human sense of the eternal, infinite, or transcendent...even the beautiful. That sensus divinus or whatever. Basically, humanity has the Holy as an aspect of it's self-relationality. (Exactly what Kierkegaard was saying!)
If a person's christology cannot allow for this (which Chalcedonian Christianity does just fine), then it's deficient to that degree.
In other words, Jeff, everything you are saying is ABSOLUTELY GOLDEN...but the view of the Incarnation is just incomplete to the degree it doesn't CORRECT the ontological dichotomy that "despair" places on a human being's perceived relationship to the Void and the Holy.
Make sense?
Different quotes from Alexi Nesteruk. Light from the East.
"Humanity is not just a purpose of creation; it can be understood only in the context of the promise of God for its salvation as constituting the locus point of the meeting of God and God's creation, as the mediating agency that is supposed to bring the whole universe through it's knowledge to the new creation. This implies that the purpose of the universe is not human beings considered in their natural condition, but unique creatures in whom the Logos of God is indwelling and who are chosen to transfigure the universe by bringing it to the ultimate union with God."
-------------------------------
"Thus, when Christianity affirms that the world was created by the Word-Logos of God and that through the Logos everything was made, it effectively affirms that the natural existence of the world is existence in the personhood of God, that is, in his hypostasis; this means the whole creation is brought to unity in the hypostasis of the Logos and that the link between God and the world is nonnatural (i.e., nonontological, nonphysical, nonbiological, etc.), but hypostatic, which can be expressed as the relationship between the Divine and the world in the personhood of God.' In other words, the world is 'hypostatically inherent in the Logos” which means that 'a personal relationship with God cannot be excluded from human nature and is identical to fully realized human existence.' "
-------------------------------
"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, 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.' "
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/10/2012 12:26:58 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/12/2012 5:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
if an event/experience can "burn up" prior events/experiences so that they effectively never happened, then open theism is in trouble.
If that's the case, then Romans 8:18 functionally destroys open theism. Paul says ALL the suffering of this present age was not to be COMPARED to what was coming after it. Basically he was saying that whenever the glory is revealed to us, all the suffering of the world before then will be an AFTERTHOUGHT. Literally. Isn't that exactly what he's saying?
"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us."
But I didn't associate my belief in open theism with THEODICY actually, but based upon Greg's trinitarian reconstruction of Hartshorne's process metaphyic. Same with you, right, Tom?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/12/2012 5:33:06 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 50 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:58 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 |
|
|