Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Christology: The Unchartered Openness Issue

Forum Quick Jump

197 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/7/2001 10:49 AM (GMT -6)

Harold, for you, good buddy, the link is PC://3-1/2_floppy.handtyped.ouch

...but for all others, here is the last part that I REALLY wanted to share from the same book and chapter as the other three.

I FELT INTENSELY THE WORDS (IN BLUE)IN THE THIRD-TO-LAST PARAGRAPH.

==================================================

From Bishop Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Way", chapter 4--God as Man
(pp78-80)

Obedient unto Death

Christ's Incarnation is already an act of salvation. By taking up our broken humanity into himself, Christ restores it and, in the words of another Christmas hymn, "lifts up the fallen image". But in that case why was a death necessary? Was it not enough for one of the Trinity to live as man on earth, to think, feel and will as a man, without also having to die as a man?

In an unfallen world the Incarnation of Christ would indeed have sufficed as the perfect expression of God's ongoing love. But in a fallen and sinful world his love had to reach our yet further. Because of the tragic presence of sin and evil, the work of man's restoration was to prove infinitely costly. A sacrificial act of healing was required, a sacrifice such as only a suffering and crucified God could offer.

The Incarnation, it was said, is an act of identification and sharing. God saves us by identifying himself with us, by knowing our human experience from the inside. The Cross signifies, in the most stark and uncompromising manner, that this act of sharing is carried to the utmost limits. God incarnate enters into all [all/i] our experience. Jesus Christ our companion shares not only in the fullness of human life but also in the fullness of human death. "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Isa. 53:4) -- [i[all our griefs, [i[all our sorrows. "The unassumed is unhealed": but Christ our healer has assumed into himself everything, even death.

Death has both a physical and a spiritual aspect, and of the two it is the spiritual that is the more terrible. Physical death is the separation of man's body from his soul; spiritual death, the separation of man's soul from God. When we say that Christ became "obedient unto death" (Phil. 2:8), we should not think only of the bodily sufferings which Christ endured at his Passion -- the scourging, the stumbling beneath the weight of the Cross, the nails, the thirst and heat, the torment of hanging stretched on the wood. The true meaning of the Passion is found, not in this only, but much more in his spiritual sufferings -- in his sense of failure, isolation and utter loneliness, in the pain of love offered but rejected.

The Gospels are understandably reticent in speaking about his inward suffering; yet they provide us with certain glimpses. First, there is Christ's Agony in the garden of Gethsemane, when he is overwhelmed by horror and dismay, when he prays in anguish to his Father, "If it is possible, let this cup pass from me" (Matt/ 26:39), and when his sweat falls to the ground "like great drops of blood" (Luke 22:44). Gethsemane, as Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev insisted, provides the key to our whole doctrine of the Atonement. Christ is here confronted by a choice. Under no compulsion to die, freely he chooses to do so; and by this act of voluntary self-offering he turns what would have been a piece of arbitrary violence, a judicial murder, into a redemptive sacrifice. But this act of free choice is immensely difficult. Resolving to go forward to arrest and crucifixion, Jesus experiences, in the words of William Law, "the anguishing terrors of a lost soul . . the reality of eternal death". Full weight must be given to Christ's words at Gethsemane, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death" (Matt. 26:38). Jesus enters at this moment totally into the experience of spiritual death. He is at this moment identifying himself with all the despair and mental pain of humanity, and this identification is far more important to us than his participation in our physical pain.

A second glimpse is given us at the Crucifixion, when Christ cries our with a loud voice. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46). Once again, full weight should be given to these words. Here is the extreme point of Christ's desolation, when he feels abandoned not only by men but by God. We cannot begin to explain how it is possible for one who is himself the living God to lose awareness of the divine presence. But this at least is evident. In Christ's Passion there is no play-acting, nothing is done for outward show. Each word from the Cross means what it says. And it the cry "My God, my God..." is to signify anything at all, it must mean that at this moment Jesus is truly experiencing the spiritual death of separation from God. Not only does he shed his blood for us, but for our sakes he accepts even the loss of God.

"He descended into hell" (Apostles Creed). Does this mean merely that Christ went to preach to the departed spirits during the interval between Great Friday evening and Easter morning (see 1 Pet. 3:19)? Surely it has also a deeper sense. Hell is a point not in space but in the soul. It is the place where God is not. (And yet God is everywhere!) If Christ truly "descended into hell", that means he descended into the depths of the absence of God. Totally, unreservedly, he identifies himself with all man's anguish and alienation. He assumed it unto himself, and by assuming it he healed it. There was no other way he could heal it, except by making it his own.

Such is the message of the Cross to each one of us. However far I have to travel through the valley of the shadow of death, I am never alone I have a companion. And this companion is not only a true man as I am, but also true God from true God. At the moment of Christ's deepest humiliation on the Cross, he is as much the eternal and living God as he is at his Transfiguration in glory upon Mount Tabor. Looking upon Christ crucified, I see not only a suffering man but suffering God.

ScottEmerson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 17

Posted 12/10/2001 9:58 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Scott Emerson God took a chance in endowing Himself with the temptations of humanity in the form of Christ. Christ was, indeed, a human being, but until he actively chose to sin, (which I believe he never did), he wouldn't become a "sinner."

Doc Wholly agree Scott. But the issue at hand is COULD Christ have become "a sinner"? And if he could have, if indeed "God took a chance" with him, then do we not have to render some intelligible account of what might have happened HAD THE CHANCE FAILED? Can you supply such an account?

Had it failed, I think God would have tried again. Until then, (if I would be alive), I assume that I would still be searching for animals to sacrifice or something.

If we grant that Christ had free will (which would be a necessity in order to be fully human), he must have been given the chance to fail, as I see it. Period.

Who knows? What if that Maccabeus fellow in the intertestamental period was God's first choice who ended up failing? How do we not know someone failed as the Messiah, until Christ got it right? (I didn't say "until God got it right" - I'm trying to rectify the sound of that in my mind still.)

Very interesting question, indeed, coach. (Mind calling you "coach?") I'll have to ponder it a bit!

SEC

SEC

------------------------
Nobody teaches a plant to grow. If I water and care for her, she grows on her own. - F. Perls

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/10/2001 11:55 AM (GMT -6)

Doc: you were right (or generous) to take my reverence to "blazing" or "flaming" heresy as colorful. And you pointed out well that as with lots of things it took the church a while to sort out stuff. But with respect to the matter of to whom Christ offers they DID come to conciliar consensus: and it shows in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. I bet it would be very hard to argue that the Orthodox Church is not united on that, since they all use the liturgy ascribed to him. here are Hopko (Dean of St. Vladamir's O. Sem.) comments along with the Liturgy's words:

When you start getting into it it becomes, naturally, confusing, as Christ is God. (I've seen it unpacked nicely. But too many names in one plot confused this small brain.) But what is NOT TRUE becomes clear. Christ did not get sacrificed by an angry God. Christ took on our sin and our death voluntarily. He is Judge because of what He did.

PoW

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/10/2001 6:08:48 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/10/2001 2:21 PM (GMT -6)

POW: Good words on Christ unifying all things in himself. I love that "mystical" aspect of the EOC. I'm also totally in agreement with Christ revealing the loving heart of God, not appeasing the wrathful heart of God.

Scott: (You can call me "coach" if you want -- I'm flattered.) I think you're initially speculations about Christ perhaps being the second (or fifteenth?) attempt at an incarnation, and/or that God would have tried again had Jesus failed, are the courageous ways a person has to be willing to go if you're going to admit that the incarnation might have failed. But three things:

1) The implications for this are radical, and it doesn't square easily with the New Testament texts which read like this all happened "when the time had come." Also, remember that there are serious constraints, flowing from the OT, about who can and cannot be a candidate for Messiah. E.g. he must be Jewish, line of David, born in Bethlehem, etc...

2) If the incarnation could have failed, are we not straddled with a Nestorian Christology? How was Jesus ONE person if the Son of God could have aborted the Incarnation?

3) Is moving in this direction necessary? You say that to be fully human is to have libertarian free will. But is this the case? We shall presumably be most fully human in heaven, yet we shall (most agree) not possess libertarian free will in the sense that we could choose against God.

So, it seems to me that it is not essential to being a full human that we have libertarian freedom. We shall have it in the eschaton. The reason we have it now, I submit, is that we are NOT yet fully human. We are in a probationary stage of existence within which we choose (and must be able to choose) whether we will be born into the Kingdom (and thus be fully human) or born outside the kingdom (and thus be much less than human).

Now, I would argue that we "mere" humans MUST go through a probationary stage, and thus must be endowed with libertarian freedom, in order to BECOME beings whose character is solidified in love toward God. But this, I maintain, is because we are essentially contingent beings.

Jesus, however, is the GOD-man. As to his character, I would argue, he is NOT contingent, for God's character is not contingent. Hence, he WAS what we shall BE (in terms of character). He is "the eschatological human." He is the one true full human being.

He was the one human who was from the start solidified in his character toward God, and hence NOT on probation.

What do you think?

Doc
b)

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/10/2001 2:36 PM (GMT -6)

Hi all-

I'm still on the road but have just a second.

I was wondering whether this discussion about Christology might provide an opportunity to talk about libertarian free will in general. Here’s what I mean…

Open theists argue that when we deliberate between options the decision-making process has integrity. That is, our deliberating betokens not merely an epistemological issue (e.g., we believe ourselves genuinely free to choose between possibilities) but an ontological issue (e.g., the possibilities we consider are viewed as possibilities by God as well). Fine.

Now Doc is arguing that Christ’s temptations were merely epistemological. That is, when he deliberated between options (in this case morally significant options) it is enough that he only believed himself free to choose either one. But the reality (ontologically speaking) is that the sinful options were not really options at all.

Doc’s answer I suppose is that Christ’s morally significant options need not represent equally possible alternatives because we’re not attributing libertarian free will to him anyway. I guess I’d like to discuss a little bit more the definition and psychology of temptation.

My daughter and I were talking about this the other day and she insisted that if Christ had access (via an impeccable, non-contingent nature) to resources we don’t (which was an interesting way for a 16 year old to put it), then Christ doesn’t really win where we should win but don’t. Here’s an analogy I gave her that kind of popped into my mind.

Let’s suppose each human being is required by God to travel through life from start to finish on $500.00 cash. Going into a deficit is sin. We all begin life with $500.00 cash and universally wind up going into deficit. Christ arrives on the scene. He has 100 million dollars (actually an infinite amount of cash) in his account he CAN draw upon if he needs to, but he doesn’t know this. All he knows is that he has the same $500.00 cash in his hands that everyone else has. And the fact is he makes it through life on THAT $500.00. He never goes into deficit, never needs to draw upon his ontological reserve. He wins where and in precisely the same way that the first Adam should and could have. His impeccability doesn’t give him an advantage we don’t have.

Does this analogy stand? Anybody?

For Modes and Mephi it won’t because morality cannot be predicated to Christ’s action, about which I hope to post again if I get some time this week. Like I said earlier, I’m out of town.

Tom

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 12/10/2001 2:38 PM (GMT -6)

Check it out, Doc. Could you please explain to me the details about WHY God's "character" is NOT contingent? PLEASE be as explanatory as you are able. In another thread, I tried to show how why I believe this need not be the case. In that thread, I suggest that you may not be applying the thought of "dispositions" I'm really looking for WHY you think this is so. If you need to, please check my posts on the "Insomniac" thread. Thanks.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 12/10/2001 2:47 PM (GMT -6)

Tom said (after his analogy):

quote:
Does this analogy stand? Anybody?

Please check my earlier post on this thread and see what you think of the ideas presented. I think you may find the ideas similar.

Toma also said:

quote:
For Modes and Mephi it won’t because morality cannot be predicated to Christ’s action, about which I hope to post again if I get some time this week.

If you take a good look at my ideas, I think that you will see that it works out well EITHER WAY (whether you take a more nominalistic view of "sin" or not) Really ponder it.

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 12/10/2001 3:06 PM (GMT -6)

Brief thought on the "epistemological" thing:

I don't see how Doc's line of thinking works at all. Let's think about it now. Doc wants to postulate a human being with a "solidified" omnibenevolent character. Don't we see what this entails? (For a taste, see my musings on the "Greatest Possible Human Being" in the "Insomniac" thread in the Problem of Evil forum.) This means essentially that there would be NO epistemological problem AT ALL. To, me this seems just like trying to tempt a person to do something using chocolate as the temptation...when the person has been irrevocably conditioned to LOATHE chocolate! Feelin' me? It would be LUDICROUS. In this case, the ontological grounding of Jesus' morality would NECESSARILY override the epistemological! The MOST that Doc could hope for is Jesus never doing anything bad...and then, upon self-reflection, wondering WHY that is. Example: the movie "Unbreakable" with Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson. The show is about a guy that comes to the realization that he has some superpowers like invulnerability. The guy (Willis) has ALWAYS had the powers and their benefits, but because of circumstances never really thought about it...until he runs into Samuel L. Then that's when stuff starts happening. Samuel asks questions like:

1) Can you ever remember gettting sick or breaking a bone?
2) Can you ever remember getting hurt like breaking the skin?
3) Do you ever remember feeling extra-sensitive around certain people?

and questions like that. Questions that get Willis self-reflective. Willis first answers "Well, of COURSE, I have. Everyone has." But upon REALLY thinking about it, he discovers that he cannot. As a matter of fact, he CAN remember some slightly wierd things happening! He slowly comes to understand the truth that he is superhuman. In the case of Willis in this movie, the epistemological problem was only his LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of the powers that he always possessed. The epistemological problem was NOT that Willis had the powers but didn't know he had them...and as a result could "really" be hurt.

THE SAME THING APPLIES HERE. Even if we say that Jesus wasn't genuinely self-reflective about his sinlessness until later (presuming its ontological in nature), it STILL doesn't hold that Jesus could "really" have moral dilemmas. Remember, Jesus's omnibenevolence would be his "power" and that power would NOT be negated just because he was ignorant of it. See what I'm saying??

This is why I think Doc's idea of Jesus having GENUINE moral struggles being an ONTOLOGICALLY omnibenevolent being...JUST because his lack of self-understanding...is quite implausible. Just some thoughts.

Tom, ARE YOU GONNA CALL ME OR WHAT???

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/10/2001 3:53 PM (GMT -6)

The matter of Christology first came up when I heard my pastor give a sermon on Christ's suffering, or more specifically his BURIAL.

The pastor had a previous career as a professional actor, during the years that he had lapsed from the faith of his youth. Later he used that experience to do dramatic renditions of a famous American preacher, taking the show on the road. He is always interesting to listen to. But on this occasion, while departing from his script in a fashion that us 40-somthings will recognize as "pulling a Ron Reagan" he jumped into heresy. The image of Christ's body in the tomb seemed momentarily so pregnant with potential pathos. (How's that, Semeia?) And out came the image, in dramatic words, of how stinky Christ's body would have been before the Resurrection. Ooops!

Something was wrong. Yet something was right too. And I didn't know enough to do more than make what seemed like good guessed. And that bugged me.

I just could not, under any conditions accept the image of Christ's body rotting. Not with the verses firmly in memory about Christ not suffering his bones broken. At the Father's will! I intuited that the two were incompatible. (Best not to mess with God the Father.) But something seemed right was that Christ took our condition -- vulnerability and weakness -- upon himself. But I had no background to know whether this second guess was right. (Again, that bugged me.)

I promptly e-mailed a friend and former colleague of mine who had taught at a Baptist college with me. He had a M.Div. and Ph.D. in Philosophy, both from the Boston area. I suggested to him that Christ had taken up our propensity for death -- our mortality. (I didn't agree with the rotting business--so I didn't mention it.) He really did not like the idea of Christ being weakened that way.

But I couldn't let go the idea, that what I was able to remember about Christ's feeling what I felt, experiencing a suffering that was "mine", that it had to mean lots, and had to be concreted into something vivid. I just wondered how far it went. (Bugged...)

As it happened, another man, a pastor, a graduate of Oral Roberts University in fact, and now an Orthodox priest, that both lives near me and had actually done his pastoral internship (pre-Orthodoxy) with under my father-in-law in another state was available to ask.

He was pleased to learn form me that his mentor's son was now an Orthodox priest too. Posing the matter of Christ's suffering. He pointed me to (typed into e-mail) a portion of Myendorff's Byzantine Theology (Fordheim Univ. Press) that says:

The Aphthartodocetae denied that man by nature was corruptible. since Christ is the New Adam and the truly "natural" man, His humanity was indeed incorruptible. In rejecting Aphthartodocetism, the Orthodox affirmed (1) that the inheritance of mortality from Adam was not an inheritance of guilt, and (2) that the Logos voluntarily assumed, not an abstract ideal manhood, but our fallen humanity, with all the consequences of sin, including corruptibility. Opposition to Aphthartodocetism certainly contributed to preserving a clearer notion of Christ's real and full humanity.

Weird name, "Aphthartodocetism." Something only seminary graduates like to spout. (I know "feldspars" and "silicates.")

That priest recommended the Byz. Theo. book, and another by Meyendorff, "Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. I got both. (The later has a jacket quote by Pelikan about it being the "only satisfactory study in a Western language of the crucial development of Christology [after Chalcedon]...") Both were very good for me.

But the one thing that I want to share is that I learned that throughout the "development of Christology" what was really going on was a struggle to make sure that theology aided in getting and keeping folks SAVED. Heresy, it turns out to this pedestrian, is what threatens salvation. Or what threatens to lessen our relationship and experience of/with God. Turns out theology is not abstract stuff. (Explains why the real young St. Nicholas, at the 3rd Council, boxed Arias' ears and knocked him down!)

So THAT seems what should guide our radar the most, especially when it comes to Christology. I do think that intellectual curiosity is wonderfully important. I think following ones intuition a bit, and then TESTING it with orthodoxy is also vital -- kind of like, in my experience, 'sounding the depths' of the mythical unconscious. (Semeia and Icon, that is a Western construct; the Eastern has a whole different landscape...) Road-testing what one knows, for grasp and for truth, can mean saying: "well, of...then isn't... We should do that, carefully, while like a mountain climber keeping more than one hold at a time while seeking new ones; yet one HAS to seek what is tied to one's very salvation and relationship to God!!!

So. . . "... Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man ..." (Nicean Creed) we search these things.

PoW

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/10/2001 4:12 PM (GMT -6)

Doc said:

quote:
. . .We shall presumably be most fully human in heaven, yet we shall (most agree) not possess libertarian free will in the sense that we could choose against God.

So, it seems to me that it is not essential to being a full human that we have libertarian freedom. We shall have it in the eschaton. The reason we have it now, I submit, is that we are NOT yet fully human. , , ,

Yet this "libertarian free will" (I'm really stupid and slow with terms...) seems 180-degrees from "Free will" in the followingarticle.

Just thought I'd bring that up!!!

quote:

quoting....

The response of the Virgin Mary to the information of the archangel that she would be granted to give birth to Christ was expressive: "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord. Let it be to me according to thy word" (Luke 1:38). Here the obedience of the Virgin Mary to the saying of the archangel shows, but also her obedience to God, for an event that was odd and strange for human logic. Thus her logic is submitted to God's will.

Some maintain that during that moment all the righteous people of the Old Testament, but also all of humanity awaited with anxiousness to hear the Virgin Mary's response, fearing that she might refuse and not obey God's will. They maintain that because every time when man is in such a dilemma, precisely because he has freedom, he can say the yes or no, as furthermore occurred in the case of Adam and Eve, the same thing could occur with the Virgin Mary. However it was not possible for the Virgin Mary to refuse, not because she didn't have freedom, but because she had real freedom.

Saint John Damascus makes a distinction between a natural and an opinionated will. One has an opinionated will when he is distinguished by the ignorance of a thing, by the doubt and in the end the incapability of selection. This refers to a wavering as to what to do. One has a natural will when he is lead in a natural manner, without wavering, without ignorance, to the realisation of the truth.

So it seems, that the natural will is associated with "wanting", whereas the opinionated will with the "how to want", and furthermore when it is done with doubts and wavering. Consequently the natural will comprises the perfection of nature, whereas the opinionated will comprises the imperfection of nature, since it presupposes a person who does not have knowledge of the truth, is not certain about what he must decide.

So even though Christ had two wills, due to the two natures, the human and divine nature, nevertheless he had a natural will, from the viewpoint we are studying here and of course, He did not have an opinionated will. As God He always knew the will of God the Father and there was no doubt and no wavering in Him. The Saints experience this by grace also, especially by the Virgin Mary. Because the Virgin Mary had reached theosis, for this reason it was impossible for her to reject God's will and not yield to the incarnation. She had perfect freedom, and for this her freedom always acted naturally and not unnaturally. We because we have not reached theosis have an imperfect freedom, the so-called opinionated will, for this reason we waver as to what to do. Her question "how shall this be to me, because I know no man" (Luke 1:34), shows humility, the weakness of the human nature, but also the strangeness of the matter, because there were miraculous conceptions in the Old Testament, however not seedless ones.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/10/2001 4:38 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi, "sinlessness" is a really, really weird word!!! Kind of like a "flashdark." Absence of falling short? Like I said, weird.

Tom wrote: Now Doc is arguing that Christ’s temptations were merely epistemological. That is, when he deliberated between options (in this case morally significant options) it is enough that he only believed himself free to choose either one. But the reality (ontologically speaking) is that the sinful options were not really options at all.

Tom is right, I believe, in wording it that Christ's unity of will with the Father -- the unity of his human will with the divine will which the Son shares with the Father and the Spirit -- IS an "ontological" matter. Zizioulas argues IN "Being as Communion" that Communion is an ontological category!As you head on off down the rapids, do you want INSIDE that boat or OUTSIDE of it?
Are you, Tom, or you, Mephi, wishing that Christ the God-man, the incarnate Logos could have broken Communion and "dissolved" (???) the Trinity?

I seem to disagree with the two of you and maybe Doc too that Moral accomplishments mean anything here. I agree 100% with Doc as he says that Christ is the first whole man. Right now I don't think those two positions of his have to go together. (Not that I'm a good thinker, but just that I reverence other things I know.)

While I'm ranting......who says the Risk of God had to be numerical, like something Las Vegas places odds on. I understand "risk" to be "price" -- and it COST!!! Striking to me about he Bruce Willis issue is the inversion that Christ, instead of remembering more clearly his divinity as he was crucified experienced the OPPOSITE in experiencing the absence -- as Ware says, somehow -- of divinity, of fellowship with the Father! WoW!!!

pOw...

JohnHutchison
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 1

Posted 12/10/2001 10:43 PM (GMT -6)

Doc, I agree that Jesus is the "eschaton man"--in that He is what we will be in heaven except I don't think we will be God like He was fully God (and fully man.) (Gosh, I see now why some posts are really long since you have to be careful how you write things explaining everything.)

Does Paul shed any light on this in Romans 5:12-22? In the passage he says that Adam was a pattern of the one to come. The one to come being Jesus.

I have read, and I apologize for the lack of traceability, some authors who offer biblical views of who Adam was, who Christ is, who man is in Adam, and who man is in Christ. I know this will sound like Federalism or Covenant theology, but Doc's quote reminded me of something in the recesses of my mind regarding something I have read:

Doc says: "So, it seems to me that it is not essential to being a full human that we have libertarian freedom. We shall have it in the eschaton. The reason we have it now, I submit, is that we are NOT yet fully human. We are in a probationary stage of existence within which we choose (and must be able to choose) whether we will be born into the Kingdom (and thus be fully human) or born outside the kingdom (and thus be much less than human)."

So here goes an attempt:

Adam was created a perfect human. Adam was in a state of equipoise towards good and bad. He chose sin. Paul convinces me (and the Father's curse in Ge 3) that through this one sin, death entered the world. Since then all men are born with an inherent sin nature. (This is getting Calvinistic perhaps.) Anyway, Adam was on conditional/probationary footing, and he failed; therefore, he mucked it up for the rest of us (seems unjust in our perhaps limited conception of justice, but it happened.) So in comes the Knight on the white horse to save the damsel in distress. Or less poetically, Jesus saves His bride.

But how can He do so? He comes as Adam first came though not in a state of libertarian freedom but in a state of compatibalist freedom. But how can Jesus save us? Will just living a sinless life do it? In Hebrews it says that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. For some reason God determined sacrifice, e.g. blood/life sacrifice, as the way of forgiveness. If He could've done it any other way, He would have. Anyway, Paul says that God did it--presented Jesus as a sacrifice--to demonstrate His justice, so as to be just and the One who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Sounds mean to squeamish ears, but God says so.

Could He have sinned? No, for then He would not be spotless or unblemished Lamb. If the "risk incarnational" scenario is true, and He could have sinned, how does that square with the nature of God who is sinless and cannot sin. Jesus was fully God and fully man. He was born as the final version: a man fully integrated with God (but the exception in His case is that He is God. We will not be, yet we will be fully in God. A really nice promise that I look forward to God fulfilling.)

Here is a wacky idea I got from Arthur Custance I think. The father determines whether a child is male or female genetically, I think (as in providing the Y chromosome. Makes sense since if a woman had a Y chromosome to pass down, she would not be a woman. But I do not know much about biology, so if I am wrong, please correct me.) And the father also supplies the blood type of the child, I think. So what was Jesus' blood type? I know this sounds silly, but the mystery of the Incarnation is just that: a mystery.

What I am getting at is that perhaps Jesus was the second Adam as covenant or federal theology suggests. I know this might be old school thinking, but Jesus is not a human like we are a human. We are man only. He is the one and only God-man.

I should quit since I am in over my head. Besides, I do not think my internet filter is even going to let some of the words I typed come through except as blanks. Oh well, another attempt running into the wall of infinity.

In joy the day,

John

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/11/2001 12:23 AM (GMT -6)

JOhn, you've been thinking! I bet you get some interesting responses. Since I posted so much, I'll just slide in one contribution for your reading interest. Since you said three places:

seems unjust in our perhaps limited conception of justice
presented Jesus as a sacrifice--to demonstrate His justice
Sounds mean to squeamish ears, but God says so.

for fun, you can follow thisLINK to an Estern Orthodox theologian (Univ. of Thessolonika, Greece) who gives a very traditional view that is not Calvinistic/Augustinian.

What do you think?

PoW

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/11/2001 5:17 PM (GMT -6)

This is aLINK to "The Jesus Prayer and the Incarnation" thread.

ScottEmerson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 17

Posted 12/12/2001 5:26 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Scott: (You can call me "coach" if you want -- I'm flattered.) I think you're initially speculations about Christ perhaps being the second (or fifteenth?) attempt at an incarnation, and/or that God would have tried again had Jesus failed, are the courageous ways a person has to be willing to go if you're going to admit that the incarnation might have failed. But three things:

Okay, thanks coach. I'll admit that your post is giving me a headache right now as I am moving to Florida this weekend and have all KINDS of things on my mind right now... That said, let's dive in, shall we?

quote:

1) The implications for this are radical, and it doesn't square easily with the New Testament texts which read like this all happened "when the time had come."

Here my perspective would be, in assuming the initial premise as true (which I'm not sure if I do or not...), that the passages were written after Christ had fulfilled his mission. Thus the language "when the time had come." Had he failed, we wouldn't have such words.

quote:

Also, remember that there are serious constraints, flowing from the OT, about who can and cannot be a candidate for Messiah. E.g. he must be Jewish, line of David, born in Bethlehem, etc...

So then perhaps several generations down the road, one of Joseph's great-great-great-great grandchilden could have fulfilled the prophesies. I can't think of any offhand that would put a monkey wrench in that.

quote:

2) If the incarnation could have failed, are we not straddled with a Nestorian Christology? How was Jesus ONE person if the Son of God could have aborted the Incarnation?

Perhaps I am closely aligned with Antiochenes, who stated that God dwelt in Christ, but didn't eclipse his humanity. For the sake of argument, such a dysphysitical (is that right - "two natures?") manner of viewing Christ would seem to fit well with the Gospel, especially John's words. In this way, the human could have failed, at which time the Son could have returned to his place in heaven, waiting to try again, similar in a way to the way the Spirit left Saul. From what I understand, Nestorian theology spoke of two persons, instead of two natures. For my purposes, it is easier to explain my initial premise by using natures. Does this make sense?(I feel like Marvin from HHGTTG right now - "I have a splitting headache...")

quote:

3) Is moving in this direction necessary? You say that to be fully human is to have libertarian free will. But is this the case? We shall presumably be most fully human in heaven, yet we shall (most agree) not possess libertarian free will in the sense that we could choose against God.

So, it seems to me that it is not essential to being a full human that we have libertarian freedom. We shall have it in the eschaton. The reason we have it now, I submit, is that we are NOT yet fully human. We are in a probationary stage of existence within which we choose (and must be able to choose) whether we will be born into the Kingdom (and thus be fully human) or born outside the kingdom (and thus be much less than human).

Now, I would argue that we "mere" humans MUST go through a probationary stage, and thus must be endowed with libertarian freedom, in order to BECOME beings whose character is solidified in love toward God. But this, I maintain, is because we are essentially contingent beings.

And I suggest (although this may be influnced by by readings of Milton, of which I wrote a senior thesis four years ago) that who is to say we couldn't reject him when up in heaven? If the angels were able to, why couldn't we? Who is to say that the whole creation-salvation isn't to repeat itself? Of course, that's all just a fun game to play inside one's head.

Some questions, though. Why should we presume that we should be fully human in heaven? Will we not be transcended of various parts of our humanity? Is sin nature implicit in humanity, and if so, why will that not transcend to the escheton? Perhaps we need to find a nice Biblical definition of humanity, or "true" humanity.

I will agree with your contingent of us being probationary beings; that is, we have to choose which direction we want to go. However, your next paragraph does not necessarily lead from the prior one.

quote:
Jesus, however, is the GOD-man. As to his character, I would argue, he is NOT contingent, for God's character is not contingent. Hence, he WAS what we shall BE (in terms of character). He is "the eschatological human." He is the one true full human being. He was the one human who was from the start solidified in his character toward God, and hence NOT on probation.

Agreed that God's character is not contigent. However, if we're dealing with two natures here, Christ's humanity may have been. I would phrase your sentence as "he BECAME what we shall BE (in terms of character). He BECAME 'the eschatological human.' He BECAME the one true full human being." Where is your proof that he was like that from the start? Did he now grow in wisdom? If he did, did he have an imperfect wisdom? How does that reflect on God.

The psalm that Paul writes says that "Jesus, though he was God, did not cling to his rights as God" and so on. Perhaps what he means is that he "took a chance" by becoming human.

I talked to a buddy of mine last night about this and he said this: "If Jesus couldn't have sinned, why in the world was he tempted?" That brings forth a good question, I think.

Just some thought. I think I'm going to lie down now!

SEC

------------------------
Nobody teaches a plant to grow. If I water and care for her, she grows on her own. - F. Perls

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/12/2001 1:50 PM (GMT -6)

John, I like and agree with all you said. I think you've hit on the one helpful aspect of classical federalist theology. I would, however, speak of Adam as "innocent" but NOT perfect. If he was "perfect," he wouldn't and couldn't have sinned.

Scott: I really appreciate the imagination you bring to the theological enterprise. I in principle strongly agree with your attempt to say (in effect) "well, lets use our imagination on conceive of ways God could have carried things out had the way God IN FACT carried things out failed." Bravo. I think most of the classical objections to Open Theism can be handled with a little imagination! And I admit to sensing the plausibility of your saying Jesus BECAME what we shall BECOME.

But (yes, there's always a but)...

1) In the case of the incarnation I don't think we CAN imagine a plausible scenario of what would have happened had Christ failed... and

2) I remain convinced that the suggestion that Christ could have failed is incurably Nestorian. It suggests that the union of God and man in Jesus is a matter of WILL, not personal identity, and this is precisely what the Church wanted to rule out in ruling out Nestorianism.

Now, having said THAT, I am NOT saying that your view is necessarily wrong for this reason. Creeds are important, but not absolutely authoritative. So, if you say, "Well find, I'm Nestorian. So what?" I don't have a good comeback -- other than pointing out the negative consequences of Nestorianism. And these you feel you can answer.

Best wishes in your move to Sunnyville

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/12/2001 4:54 PM (GMT -6)

Quoting Bishop Kallistos WARE: "Christ lives out his life on earth under the conditions of the fall. He is not himself a sinful person, but in his solidarity with fallen man he accepts to the full the consequences of Adam's sin."

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

Many know that I don't know much. In Christology I know slowly. I had to read very carefully over a long time. The principle that the cure must match the need is a good one to keep in hand...I'll testify to that, at least!

Reading this from Doc again, I like it as much as the first time!

==============================

quote:
Doc: How does the simple past fact that one human "did it" give us hope now? Is it not the PRESENT reality of the Holy Spirit working in us and the new nature we have "in Christ" what grounds our hope? And is it not the PROMISE that we SHALL BE as Jesus was, and is … we shall be "conformed to the image of Christ," what inspires us on?

Here is, I believe, another important dimension to understanding Christ as fully human: he is OUR FUTURE. He is humanity, eschatologically defined. And what shall we be eschatologically? We shall be defined by God's love, without the capacity of falling. We shall be defined by the settled reality of the love of the triune God, not by the probation we are now in. And we shall be FULLY HUMAN.

And NOW, I think, we are getting somewhere in terms of how Jesus could be Fully God and Fully Human. He REVEALS the fullness of God and humanity, eschatologically defined.

Blessings
Doc

I also appreciated some of these very much, from Mephi:

quote:
Mephi: So, when we behold him, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM...and LIKE HIM we shall be fully human. We shall be like Adam and Eve SHOULD have been (if you believe in an actual Adamic couple): free beings who utilize their freedom in constant pursuit of God's aims.

POW: Amen

Mephi: Did the Incarnational event "change" the perichoretic nature of the Trinity? Was the Trinity after the Incarnation the EXACT same as before the Incarnation? REALLY think about it now. Read some of Jesus' statements. I'm gonna love this

POW: YES, basing this quickly, and solely on St. Maximus the Confessors three (3) incarnations of the Logos. (If you remember those posts)

More Doc:

Doc: We will be so thoroughly transformed from God in us, before us and around us that we will never fall. ....in perfect comformity with God's will. . . .In my view, Jesus was this from the start. . . By infusing himself into our condition, he opened the door for us to be infused into his. We shall become -- and in principle already are -- what he always was. We shall be fully human.

PoW: Amen!

Then.....

Like Meph, I have no idea what "compatibilistic" freedom means.

quote:
Meph: Though I see some similarities, there is a major difference. What do you mean by compatibilistic freedom? The only thing I can see is that you mean the exercise of personal choice that is EXHAUSTIVELY, COMPLETELY determined by something. The "something" you want to posit is the SOLIDIFIED CHARACTER. Like the "greatest possible human being" that I mused about on the other thread.

Are you saying that the whole point of God introducing "free will" into His creation was for libertarian freedom to become compatibilistic towards Him? If this is indeed what you mean that I have to strongly DISAGREE. I believe that the point is NOT for libertarian freedom to become compatibilistic. The point for ALL existing "persons" is for libertarian freedom to ALWAYS be exercised God-ward.

But I really don't know if I need to know either!!!

Mephi: In my treatment of Jesus, I don't assume a solidified God-ward character. I assume a POWER OF WILLING that consistently presses God-ward, despite all odds.

POW: AMEN -- and I assume this speaks of the Human nature and will of Christ. I might add (or does this change what he is saying?) that it is not some meritorious (Nestorian?) willing--to earn, of course, "merits"--but rather Christ's human will and divine will united in his one Person following the Will of the Father that the Son shares in, and thereby suffering for my/our sins. What Doc mentions of "personal identity is vital, and also Christ's suffering.

Ware, in the "Jesus Prayer" LINK/thread follows out on the speculation of what-if-we'd-not-sinned." He points out that while we can't know, we've reason to conclude that The Son would still have IDENTIFIED with us incarnately (Can I make up such a word?). But sin required the Christ to IDENTIFY with us in our Death too!

Did I get Meph straight; or did I twist his words?

On another aspect, I think I join forces with Mephi...

Mephi: Don't you see that the enduring reality that you are looking for need NOT be any type of ontological moral "substance"? It can be a "disposition" TOWARDS being good. And as you know, "disposition" though influential, are NOT DETERMINATIVE. Thus, one could say that Jesus has the "disposition" towards acting in a God-ward manner...and due to his being divine...has the effective power of willing to ACTUALIZE that disposition adequately? See what I'm saying? Break that book back out, Doc! LOL!

POW -- I'm lost in the terms and details. But I do run back to the comments by Romanadies on Theodore of Moptusia!

Not wanting to pin Doc down, and HOPING that I'm not butchering him out of context:

Doc (12/04/2001 : 1:40:15 PM ): But how much of a risk is it for a being who CANNOT SIN to trust his own ability to choose not to sin?

POW - Though I may not know exactly what Doc means by "Morally Significant", my guess is that when one emphasizes "risk" -- as opposed to the "identity"/identification I quote Doc on above -- that is all you are left with. I believe that the article on Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology by Romanides is significant. Theodore of Moptusia. . .basically focused on morality as merit: that Christ by his good behavior......

quote:
(from: "Hightlights in the debate over Theodore of Moptustia's Christology" by John S. Romanides)

quote: "Faced with the need to combat determinism in both its ethical and cosmological or philosophical forms, it seems that a Syrian theological tradition was created which emphasized the superiority of what is done according to will as over against what is done by nature. What is done by nature can neither be praised nor rewarded nor justly punished, whereas what is done by will is indicative of a higher form of life. A man who realizes his own freedom to will what is good can occupy himself with meritorious works, on the one hand, for the reward of eternal life, and at the same time become instrumental for the betterment of society. Such a moralistic foundation would overcome the pessimism of pagan religions and philosophies and at the same time would be conducive to building up the moral stamina of the Roman Empire. Within such categories there would automatically be a strong tendency to think of divine adoption primarily as a reward which comes at the end of a process of meritorious living and the Biblical doctrine of grace and sin would become subordinated to this principle. The grace of God would not be so much a gift bestowed upon man in order to liberate him from the enemy, but a reward bestowed upon him because he has fulfilled the law. The destruction of Israel's enemies would not be the work of God's glory, but rather the work of Israel who would thereupon be rewarded with the glory of God for such meritorious efforts. Such an inversion of the Biblical pattern is perhaps the most characteristic feature of Theodore's Christology. In this respect Galtier is entirely wrong in claiming that the sole initiative for the incarnation lies with the Son of God. For Theodore, God unites Himself by will to the assumed man, but this union. is dependent on God's foreknowledge of the assumed man's merits. Theodore could not imagine that one could preserve both the freedom of God and Christ otherwise."

So, I'm still seeing that maybe there is a tendency for openness folk to try and link up the meritorious risk-of-failure into something salvific? I sure gotta cheer Doc in trying to bring this to the surface, then.

Like I said at the start. I don't know much, and I learn slowly. But I like to feel my way through things. For me, I'm settled with the conciliar view of the Orthodox. But I find that I understand the significance, and its implications for the Christian life more and more as I go.

Thanks for this board.

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/14/2001 5:21:14 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/12/2001 5:07 PM (GMT -6)

This is aLINK to "The Jesus Prayer and the Incarnation" thread again.

I think that the ideas expressed about the Incarnation in that piece co-resonate with some of the things that Doc has brought out.

PoW

Magneton
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132

Posted 12/13/2001 7:10 AM (GMT -6)

Much of the discussion seems to point to a POWER that Christ had to overcome temptation: a power that we now lack, but will have when we are "like him" in heaven. To me this suggests an ontological difference in his human nature; a kind of "Superman" rather than a "fully human" person. It also suggests ontological changes in our nature that will give us the power to exhibit Christlike character.

I'd like to suggest a different approach, suggesting that it is a LOVING RELATIONSHIP with the Father that set Jesus apart as a man, that gives us victory over sin, and that will be complete in heaven. The emphasis in Christ's character and our transformation then is on right relatedness rather than ontological differences.

I find that when I sin, it is not because of a POWER failure. It generally takes relatively little energy (either kinetic energy or otherwise) to do the right thing - to do what God wants me to right now (often it's "just" a matter of keeping my eyes aimed where they belong). My failure to do his will is rather because I'm not concerned at that moment about the hurt that I am inflicting on God. I'm not sufficiently aware of God's presence and DON'T LOVE HIM enough (I'm not sufficiently concerned about the effect of my actions on God). The real WEAKNESS in a sinful event is an unwillingness or inability to bring God's perspective into the situation, not that I'm overpowered by the temptation itself.

Here's a personal example. Although I have hurt those closest to me in many ways, there are ways of harming them that are simply unthinkable, owing to my relationship of love for them. It dawned on me that I can't recall ever having a lustful thought or fantasy about my daughters, now grown. Because I love them so much, the thought of doing something that would wound them for life is utterly abhorrent; it is unthinkable. (Sadly I have not had the same consideration for others, for whom this loving relationship didn't exist. Much has been said about pornography, for which "relationship" can be taken out of the equation completely.) Further, as I develop my loving relationships, the "list" of ways of hurting them that are unthinkable grows larger. I'm not growing "stronger" to enable me to overcome temptation, but I am growing in closeness and love for them.

In a similar way, the extent to which we overcome sin, which is an offense against God, is the extent that we are aware of the reality of God's presence, and are committed to a LOVING RELATIONSHIP with him. As an expression of this love, we will want to do what pleases him rather than what hurts him: certain offenses become unthinkable. Really loving God is the hard part; acting on it is the easy part.

I'm not denying that there are genuine power encounters in the spiritual realm. One dimension of the Spirit's work in our lives is indeed to bring supernatural power to enable what is humanly impossible. I'm just saying that in the everyday temptations of life, truly loving God in that moment and desiring to please him rather than hurt him is what overcomes. I'm getting into deep water here, and perhaps abusing what is meant by the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Perhaps what we call the Spirit's power in overcoming temptation is our response to the awareness of his presence, rather than some kind of reinforcement of our spiritual superstructure that makes us impervious to temptation. I suppose that means that the Spirit's effect on us is usually epistemological rather than ontological.

I'm not saying we "do it in our own strength," but that strength is not the primary issue.

Jesus' sinlessness, i.e. his unfailing performance of the Father's will, was based on a perfect love for the Father. Any idea presented to Jesus that would hurt the Father was unthinkable to him. He had the "POWER" to sin, but no MOTIVATION to do so. In a technical sense he "could have" sinned, but there's no way it was going to happen. He "could" but he "wouldn't."

The way I see heaven is that when we are in God's presence, the awareness and awe of his glory will be so great, that to do the slightest thing that is not pleasing to him would be unthinkable. Like Christ, we will still have the "POWER" to sin, but no MOTIVATION to do so. Thus rather than character solidification, the process is better described as relationship solidification.

Although it is very common in the literature, I find talk that Christ was fully human (I agree) but we are not (?) confusing. Mephi came closest to explaining this:

quote:
What if to be completely "Christlike" involved primarily two features:

1) the complete realization of one's human freedom
2) the use of said freedom in all cases towards God's teleological aims.

I would focus on right-relatedness rather than humanness, and fine-tune this to:

1) the complete realization of a loving relationship with God
2) acting in that love towards God's teleological aims.

In other words, becoming Christlike is not becoming more fully human (whatever that means), but becoming rightly related to God. The process of sanctification then becomes primarily a matter of getting into God's presence, and reflecting on the mutual love in that relationship, and to respond accordingly in our actions.

The model is resting in his presence, rather than "growing stronger" or "adding to my tool belt." (Gotta read Seeing Jesus again!)

Magneton

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Jesus

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/14/2001 2:33 AM (GMT -6)

Magneton, I agree with everything you said -- and might add that you said it very well. Your point about sin and harming loved ones is really insightful. (Indeed, you suggested to me a new reframing strategy for helping fathers out of pornography! Isn't it revealing to become aware that a behavior that is absolutely revolting, directed toward someone you love, is a pleasure to someone you don't care about? It shows that the power of sin is a lack of love, toward God and others).

However, I'm not sure there is a dichotomy between saying Jesus had "the power" to overcome temptation, on the one hand, and that Jesus overcame temptation because of his relationship to the Father, on the other. It of course depends on the concept of "power" you are using. LOVE isn't a physical power, but it is ultimately THE POWER. Have you never heard the song by -- hmmm, what was the band...? Oh yes, Hewy Lewis and the News (I think) -- entitled "POWER OF LOVE." (Don' need money/ don't need pain/ don't need no credit card to ride this train/ but you'll happy baby when you've found/ its the power that makes the world go round... that's that power of love). . I think that ultimately, love is THE POWER OF OMNIPOTENCE.

Anyway, great insight.

Thanks for all the affirming words, POW. I think I must be eastern orthodox at heart.

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Edited by - GregBoyd on 12/14/2001 08:26:53 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/14/2001 2:44 AM (GMT -6)

Christology forces our hand methodologically, I think. The basic issue of Christology is a methodological one. Its like this:

The apparent contradiction of affirming Jesus is fully God and fully man results from STARTING with an a priori understanding of God and an a priori understanding of Human and trying to squish them together. More specifically, we start with an assumption about God's greatness and try to fuse it with an assumption about humanities smallness, and get this unintelligible being who crams both into his identity.

But what if we rather START all our thinking about God and humanity with Christ. He IS our definition of true God and true humanity. If we do this, we arrive at a radically different understanding of God and humanity.

God's deity is not in competetion with Jesus' humanity, but is defined by it! God's greatness IS the crucified Jew. His power is the crucified Jew. His character is the crucified Jew. His glory is the crucified Jew. His beauty is the crucified Jew. HIs joy and his pain is the crucified Jew. His triune self relationship is the crucified Jew. In short, HIs deity is the crucified Jew.

And our humanity, once perfected, is defined "in " the crucified Jew. We are "in Christ." We are holy in the crucified Jew. We are perfect love in the crucified Jew. We are uncorruptible in the crucifed Jew. We are the bride of God in the crucified Jew. We are eternally dancing with the triune God as we are in the triune God, by virtue of being in the crucified Jew.

Jesus defines what it is to be true God and true humanity. He is the perfect "image" of God and man.

Think about it.

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 12/14/2001 3:36 AM (GMT -6)

Doc said:

quote:
But what if we rather START all our thinking about God and humanity with Christ. He IS our definition of true God and true humanity. If we do this, we arrive at a radically different understanding of God and humanity.

God's deity is not in competetion with Jesus' humanity, but is defined by it! God's greatness IS the crucified Jew. His power is the crucified Jew. His character is the crucified Jew. His glory is the crucified Jew. His beauty is the crucified Jew. HIs joy and his pain is the crucified Jew. His triune self relationship is the crucified Jew. In short, HIs deity is the crucified Jew.

And our humanity, once perfected, is defined "in " the crucified Jew. We are "in Christ." We are holy in the crucified Jew. We are perfect love in the crucified Jew. We are uncorruptible in the crucifed Jew. We are the bride of God in the crucified Jew. We are eternally dancing with the triune God as we are in the triune God, by virtue of being in the crucified Jew.

Jesus defines what it is to be true God and true humanity. He is the perfect "image" of God and man.

Semeia: I'm putting this on my calendar, 12/14/2001: TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH DOC!

And I really like what Magneton said, too...

What is happening to me? I can't start AGREEING with people on this board - that's not half the fun! Oh well, I'll just wait five minutes, I'm sure something will come up...

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 12/14/2001 5:48 AM (GMT -6)

Mag,

Let me kick around some ideas. First of all, I agree with a very large amount of what you are saying. Especially about the "relationship" thing. What I'm wondering is this: HOW was Jesus (outside of ALLL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS who have ever and will ever exist) able to exist in a "perfect love" relationship with the Father? Now notice that when you ask this question, the quagmire comes up all over again.

Was it the ontological position of Jesus as God the SON (Second part of the Trinity) that enabled Him to have a "perfect love" relationship with God WHILE he was a human being?

OR...

Was it Jesus' power of willing to CONTINUE the love relationship that he had had with the Father before after the Son became a human being?

You end up coming back to ontological necessity vs actual CHOICE. Always. Now, the way you frame things is great. But I'm just showing that, when all is said and done, the crux of the issue still remains.

The chief difference between my ideas and yours are that yours are grounded on the terms of relationship. (which is cool) However, one thing that is stated over and over again in open view theism is that love ITSELF is predicated on CHOICE. No choice, no love (in Doc's case, for contingent beings) We enter into or continue relationships by actions of CHOICE. Because human beings are habituating creatures, these choices, over time, form our "character" However, it all starts out as exertion of will. You make LOVE the goal and the motivation behind the power of willing. And I would agree that FOR THOSE BEINGS WHO CHOOSE GOD. If you notice though, I separated the complete realization of human freedom from God's teleological aims. This was simply because at the end of this thing, some people will have the complete realization of their human freedom...but NOT be with God. (Hell) This is a very important consideration. So, I would say that "the complete realization of a love relationship with God" can only be facilitated by my #1 and #2. Your #2, I believe, is automatically ASSUMED in your #1 because if one were not acting in love towards God's teleological aims, then there would be NO "complete realization" of the God-human love relationship. See what I'm saying?

Having said all this, I found your stuff real tight. Nice emphasis on relationship.

_____________________________________________

Doc said:

quote:
But what if we rather START all our thinking about God and humanity with Christ. He IS our definition of true God and true humanity. If we do this, we arrive at a radically different understanding of God and humanity.

Actually, if we are specifically speaking of christology, then I don't see how we'd end up in anything but one vicious circle. See, now, the whole thing has just been pushed to another level. Instead of starting with a priori ideas of God and humanity, we start out with a priori ideas about what it means for Jesus to be the consummate revelation of God and humanity...which for you obviously means that God and humanity can ONLY be defined correctly in terms of the crucified man, Jesus, EXCLUSIVELY. Your view is christocentric to the core, but to a slightly disturbing degree, in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that things will get bent towards SOMETHING in hermeneutical practice...and many people want to be everything towards Christ, because of his being the consummate revelation of God. Fine, well, and good. However, there is a HUUUUUGE difference in the following two statements (at least for me)

1. God's power, love, and beauty are REVEALED in Christ.

2. God's power, love, and beauty ARE Christ.

There's a huge difference in my mind. Your words, to me, are like a lover gushing over his beloved...which is GREAT when speaking in that context. HOWEVER, if we are going to speak with theological specificity, then your words may be grossly inadequate. If I were to do christology as you suggest, I would have no need of even looking at my anthropology, harmartiology, or THEOLOGY proper to inform it. All I need say is:

Jesus is the perfect "image" of God and man.

...and that would be that. As a matter of fact, if I were to take your thinking to its logical conclusion, my christology (which would be quite short) would NECESSARILY have to inform my anthropology and theology proper to the point of alteration. This is distinct from the interdependent nature of theological categories. I solidly agree with that. (Isn't that the way God's "attributes" are to be studied, the systematicians tell us?) Your idea, however, would be like spokes on a tire wheel, where christology would be in the center. I can understand being primarily Christo-centric (in the 'tire wheel' fashion) when it comes to certain hermeneutics. But I'm unsure about the implications that your idea entails.

[Digression: As you well know, some theologians start their systematics with THEOLOGY PROPER while others may start with bibliology (Scripture) while other, more liberal minds may even start with anthropology. From you take, it seems that you would have us begin with christology and work outward from there, if we were to be completely consistent. I have serious reservations about that.]

I believe I understand that heart of what you mean to say: "Wanna see and know the most important things about God? Look at Jesus. Wanna see humanity in its truest height of capacity? Look at Jesus." However, in my mind, the implications of your words far outrun that. Maybe it's just me.

Well, that's about it. Holla.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - Mephi2K on 12/14/2001 10:51:51 AM

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 12/14/2001 5:53 AM (GMT -6)

Last minute thought:

Hmmm, Doc. Isn't it the case that your radical christocentricity is what primarily guides your entire theological framework in the first place? Well, at least, you're consistent! LOL

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/14/2001 7:00 AM (GMT -6)

. . .

(To Meph below. I put this here to save my place so whatever I say will be close to that which I found stimulating. And YES, we are one the same page, going the same direction, all those things!!!)

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/14/2001 4:18:56 PM

197 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:32 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