 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > "SUFFERED IMPASSIBLY" | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/7/2004 5:42 AM (GMT -6) |   | I don't think that you have done any work on this. And THAT is part of what I consider "sincerity."
You said "Jesus said that He was making us one with the Father as He is one with the Father." But what does THAT mean. And by contrast, what does "know God, even His essence" MEAN?
Can you know (versus 'know about') a campfire in its essence? If so, what would make that possible?
Do you "know" (versus 'know about') the essence of the Sun, or just its actions/energies?
Does that make you feel unjustly or unlovingly limited?
You say, and up to where I end quoting I agree, that "He loves us and wants the closest relationship with us..." But the problem is that you, up to this point, show no understanding of what knowing "as He is" -- "in his essence" really is!
How are you going to approach this in such ignorance? Lack of groundwork is tripping you up.
The POINT of the Fathers saying that we can know God "in his energies" -- and that is his "devine uncreated" energies, meaning that it is really God directly and not some created intermediary -- is to make a RADICAL STATEMENT of the intimacy that we can, are called to, and should have -- but often don't due to sin -- with God!!!!
But you express that this as a DEPRIVATION. And that indicates how far off the issue you have been up till now!
So, to get on subject, answer these questions:
- Can you know (versus 'know about') a campfire in its essence? If so, what would make that possible?
- Do you "know" (versus 'know about') the essence of the Sun, or just its actions/energies?
Then, another matter will come up. As I understand the "Social Theory" of the Trinity, it lacks compared to Orthodoxy (The Eccumenical Councils) in the area of the Trinity "knowing in essence." I quoted from Ware above: "God is not simply a single person confined within his own being, but a Trinity of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom ‘dwells’ in the other two, by virtue of a perpetual movement of love. God is not only a unity but a union." The Social Theory, as people have described it on this site -- perhaps with an Open Theist slant(?), is lacking in this area of knowing in essence: it only has commonality, and not sharing.
I just shared much more than it seemed to me that you did in your two posts.
I have found some very lucid explanatory passages by Basil, and am willing to share them. But unless you will not reading and thinking about what has already been posted, and posting an interaction with it, how can I post anything else for you?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/7/2004 8:23 AM (GMT -6) | | You added some stuff while I was replying, so I'll try to address it. quote:
You said "Jesus said that He was making us one with the Father as He is one with the Father." But what does THAT mean. And by contrast, what does "know God, even His essence" MEAN?
Does the Son know the Father in essence? If so, we also can know the Son in the same way. I don't like the distinction of essence/energy much less the idea that we are unable to know the essence. The dichotomy seems to serve simply to preserve the idea of God's transcendence. Excuse me, absolute transcendence. But that Jesus would invite us into the same kind of relationship as He has with the Father indicates that God does not absolutely transcend us in the sense of us knowing God. The incarnation and the cross are evidence that God is not absolutely transcendent. If He was, we would have no hope.
quote:
But the problem is that you, up to this point, show no understanding of what knowing "as He is" -- "in his essence" really is!
He is loving, powerful, wise, holy, and ultimately sovereign. Any more is just extrapolation of these. quote:
The POINT of the Fathers saying that we can know God "in his energies" -- and that is his "devine uncreated" energies, meaning that it is really God directly and not some created intermediary -- is to make a RADICAL STATEMENT of the intimacy that we can, are called to, and should have -- but often don't due to sin -- with God!!!!
But you express that this as a DEPRIVATION. And that indicates how far off the issue you have been up till now!
The Orthodox view is a deprivation. A diprivation of knowledge of God's essence. Isn't it? Are you saying that we are not deprived of that? The stuff about knowing God's energies I agree with. (Except I don't agree with the distinction between energy and essence.) What if I were God and only let you know my left side? It's still me, but it's not all of me. The Orthodox view has part of God hidden. Jesus doesn't.
quote:
Then, another matter will come up. As I understand the "Social Theory" of the Trinity, it lacks compared to Orthodoxy (The Eccumenical Councils) in the area of the Trinity "knowing in essence." I quoted from Ware above: "God is not simply a single person confined within his own being, but a Trinity of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom ‘dwells’ in the other two, by virtue of a perpetual movement of love. God is not only a unity but a union." The Social Theory, as people have described it on this site -- perhaps with an Open Theist slant(?), is lacking in this area of knowing in essence: it only has commonality, and not sharing.
I don't know how you got that the Social Trinity lacks in regard to the Persons knowing each other in essence. The Social Trinity does not neccesarily divide God into two parts like the Orthodox view does, so the point is moot in the first place. But whatever the closest relationship is defined as, the Social Trinity is not, as far as I know, without such relationships. The Social Trinity can be accurately described as "not only a unity but a union" or "a Trinity of three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom ‘dwells’ in the other two, by virtue of a perpetual movement of love". Maybe it's just a certain representation of it that has given you this idea. I posted on it before. I'll try to dig it up.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/7/2004 8:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I don't agree with C. S. Lewis on a whole lot, but I think this quote comes close to how I understand the third Person of the Trinity.quote:
God is not a static thing - not even a person - but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance. The union between the Father and Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is also a Person. I know this is almost inconceivable, but look at it thus. You know that among human beings, when they get together or in a family, or a club, or a trade union, people talk about the "spirit" of that family, or club, or trade union. They talk about its "spirit" because the individual members, when they are present, do really develop particular ways of talking and behaving that they would not do if they were apart. It is as if a sort of communal personality came into existence. Of course, it is not a real person: it is only rather like a person. But that is just one difference between God and us. What grows out of the joint life of the Father and Son is a real Person, is in fact the third of the three Persons who are God.
Jonathan Edwards is more complicated but also more precise.
quote:
God's idea of himself [the Son] is absolutely perfect and therefore is an express and perfect image of Him, exactly like him in every respect; there is nothing in the pattern [Father] but what is in the representation [Son] - substance, life, power nor any thing else, and that in a most absolute perfection of similitude, otherwise it is not a perfect idea.
It's pretty obvious that Edwards pull a lot of this from Heb 1:3. He also decribes the relationship of the Spirit within the Trinity.
quote:
There proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other....The deity becomes all act, the divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of subsistence, and there proceeds the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.
While I don't agree with everything in these quotes, they are just about the best descriptions I can find of what I mean by the social trinity. Hopefully, I will take an afternoon and, with much plagiarism, write my own version.
It seems to me that this version is more about how God is a trinity then the Eastern view which emphasizes how God acts as a trinity. It like the West emphasizes God being three and acting as one, and the East emphasizes God being one and acting as three. I suspect PoW will deny this, but it's the impression I get from reading his recommend sites.
I suppose this is that afternoon.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/7/2004 9:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: "why...do you believe it?"
PoW: Well, the answer to "why" is that I want to believe what is true. And I want to avoid presuming that just because I want to believe something that it then is true. (Perhaps this is a smaller issue than you seem to think it is.)
Sahid: "your so far unsupported stances."
PoW: Then you have to interact with the "supported stances" of the other people whom I have quoted. It doesn't matter if they are not my words. YOU need to INTERACT with them!
But, then I have used my own word too, as you addressed next.
Sahid: Your BTW comment actually pertains and I am happy to address it.
PoW: Good.
Sahid: No, I can only know about the sun. I can only see the actions or effects of the sun...
PoW: NOW you are getting somewhere. That Basil quote is in the wings.
But you feel this deprives you, if it is applied to God. And you have not noticed in my quotes where it says: "When man participates in the divine energies, he is not overwhelmed by some vague and nameless power, but he is brought face to face with a person." AND: "A closer union than this between God and His creation there could not be. God Himself became one of His creatures." AND: "God’s energies, which are God Himself, permeate all His creation, and we experience them in the form of deifying grace and divine light. Truly our God is a God who hides Himself, yet He is also a God who acts — the God of history, intervening directly in concrete situations."
The PSALMS talks about this: "In thy Light... shall we see light." (Psalm 35:10). It does not say we will merge with your light and become god by nature. But the scriptuers witness that we can 'become god' by grace. that Orthodox theolgian St. Peter wrote that we are invited "to become partakers of the Divine Nature" (2 Peter 1:4) And that is 'energetically' and not in essence. (We don't become one of the trinity, quad.., or whatever.) "St. Basil the Great described man as 'the creature who has received an order to become god.'" www.geocities.com/afrikaans_ortodoks/leesstof/introduction.html
NOW, AS TO "WHY" I 'BE-LIVE' THIS...
I KNOW FIRSTHAND THAT THE "FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT" IS NOT JUST ME MIMICKING A LIST OF CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE TIPICALY ASSOCIATED WITH GOD AND GODLINESS. I KNOW FIRST HAND THAT IT IS THE SPIRIT WORKING IN ME TO DEVELOP OUT OF THE RAW-MATERIAL THAT IS ME, BY RESTORING, RENEWING AND DEVELOPING (FROM THAT MARRED 'IMAGE,' AND INTO THE 'DIVINE LIKENESS') A NEW CREATION.
WHAT MATTERS "TO ME" IS THE WORK GOD DOES IN ME: CHRIST IN ME.
NOT SOME 'WARM AND FUZZY' ENCOUNTER THAT MIGHT BE PRETENED TO BE MORE -- WHICH SEEMS LIKE NOT ACCEPTING A PRESENT THAT IS GREAT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LIVE UP TO OUR PRECONCEPTIONS OR EGO-STANDARDS!
Sahid: ...but that is because the sun is (1) not personal and (2) very hot i.e. inhospitable.
PoW: Dare I say that 'logically' this can't matter.
Arguing with Eunomius, Basil said that "the essence of God is 'unbegotten', but 'the unbegotten' is not the essence of God." There is a differenc. (Eunomius argued, based on his stipulation that he could know God 'in essence' that since God is unbegotten--an extra-biblical term--that therefore, unbegotten DEFINED God; and therefore, the Son could not be God, but lesser, and the Spirit not even personal. THAT is what led St. Basil into the whole issue, and resulted in his "On the Holy Spirit.") So, Basil writes: quote:
We say that we know the greatness of God, his power, his wisdom, hiw goodness, his providence ofer us and the justness of his judgements; but we do not know his essence.... We say that we know our God from his activities but o not presume to approach his essence. his activities descend to us, but his essence remains inaccessible. (Ep.234.1)
TGB argued on this forum, righteously, that noting that God reveals through his energies is false. And 'amen' is said to that. And "theology" is what begins only after revelation is concluded. But a lot of ink has also presumed that "God has to do" such and such... (Like Job, disappointed when one attribute of God was set on the shelf--justice--for another--mercy--to shine the light of his glody!) Might I add, that the traditions of Medieval Scholasticism, that tries to put everything into formulas, then tries to talk about "balancing" justice and mercy, not realizing that doing so is in a long line of Western theologies habit of considering "substance" ahead of "person." And it is the personal God that is revealed to us through his actions.
Sahid: God, however, is both personal and hospitable.
PoW: AND "revealed" to us! (Ponder what that expression means!)
Sahid: The knowing of God isn't like seeing and feeling the sun.
PoW: But how often that analogy has been used. And how utterly Biblical the image of Light is: "In thy Light... shall we see light" (Psalm 35:10).
Sahid: God's Spirit can relate to our spirit without the akwardness and distance of the merely physical.
PoW: And nothing has been said to the contrary! But to "relate" is to act. And that includes both the physical and the spiritual (as we are a psycho-somatic unity).
I hope you will feel encouraged by this exchange. I want to relate to you that I do!
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/7/2004 9:21 AM (GMT -6) | |
WOW. GOOD GOING. HOW AM I GOING TO KEEP UP WITH YOU?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/7/2004 9:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: "three seats of consciousness or persons."
PoW: I'm having to do some resource-searching, as I'm not expecting to find "three centers of consciousness" much; but do some. quote:
http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/proper/selfgivinggod.htm
God’s own revelation as Holy Trinity is remarkably unique: a holy and perfect God who in three centers of consciousness manifests the deepest realities of personhood, each member thinking, feeling and choosing in relationship to one another in terms that far surpass our deepest understanding of intimacy.
AND quote:
www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/ _PDFArchives/editors-choice/EC1W0102.pdf
Ankerberg
But that appears to the out of the Social Theory. And I'm continuing to look, more than half expecting the Orthodox view to be different, and anticipating the Social Theory to place the essence ahead of the persons, the common essence providing the unity and not the Father himself.
SEE THIS BOARD'S CONTRIBUTION TO GOOGLE: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1468
"Meph's CRAZY Take on the Trinity" (Lead Post!) quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mephi2K
Meph Has Crazy Thought About The Ineffable Trinity
IGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTIT
IGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTIT
IGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTIT
IGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTIT
IGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTITIGOTIT
I FRIGGIN GOT IT!!!!!!!!
Well, I think I do...er..umm....
Thank you, Al! Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou...well, you get it. I read that Lossky stuff...and got some inspiration. Actually, a flash of mania, if you will. Check it out.
This has to go into VERY brief parts. First I will detail what I think the social model entails. Then, I will detail the Eastern Orthodox view entails. Next, I will talk about the benefits and problems of each. Lastly I will propose an idea that I think reconciles the two.
The Social Model:
What this entails is that there are 3 different persons or "centers of willing" that exist in a ever-existing RELATIONSHIP with each other where life and love are constantly given and received. This is based largely upon the statements of Jesus that illustrate relationship with the Father that ANTEDATED the Incarnation into human history. This usually gets extrapolated to the idea that there was an interpenetrating relationship between EACH of the members of the Trinity such that the Trinity would be necessarily indivisible.
The Orthodox View:
This entails that there is one "ousia" but three "hypostases". The crucial unifying factor/principle is the FATHER, from whence the Son is "generated" and the Spirit "proceeds"
There is no process or interchange between the "persons"
Issues:
Now here's what I think the concern of the Orthodox is. As I see it is the CENTRALITY OF PERSONALITY (though not necessarily PERSONS) and biblical realism. As I'm understanding things, the Eastern Orthodox idea of the Trinity is trying to preserve an idea of a CONCRETELY personal triune God that, on one hand, is NOT a product or instance of some principle that constitutes the unity of the Godhead...and on the other hand, is NOT a product of persons that just HAPPEN to have something in common. In other words, one idea (ie threeness or oneness) CANNOT be placed in priority above the other.
Page 44 break on the Lossky website:
[quote]The goal to which apophatic theology leads— if, indeed, we may speak of goal or ending when, as here, it is a question of an ascent towards the infinite; this infinite goal is not a nature or an essence, nor is it a person; it is something which transcends all notion both of nature and of person: it is the Trinity.
Catch what's being said. The intent is NOT to get to some type of essence by philosophical reflection because, the author believes, we will ALWAYS end up subsuming God to some type of principle that ANTEDATES the Trinity logically. Also the intent is NOT to get to some type of idea of "individuals" within the Trinity, because we will end up making God's unity an EMERGENT PROPERTY of interactions between persons. Since this is the case, we can now EASILY see the problem that Al has with the social model. When we look at the social model by itself, it seems to violate what Orthodox seeks...in the direction of placing the PERSONS above the ESSENCE. The relationality of the persons would have to be seen as the EMERGENT ESSENCE. This seems to subsume the personality of the Trinity underneath the PRINCIPLE that supposedly undergirds the relationality. (Ain't that right, Al?)
Now, here's how I see it. The social model has it right in that love IS a relational concept that only has real meaning in relationship. This is the only way that some of the ideas of love being exchanged between Jesus and the Father make sense. But it does fall into the problem of exalting the PERSONS above the essence, basically making the divine essence an EMERGENT quality from the relations themselves. A big no-no for the Orthodox. NOt only that but it seems to not place PRIORITY of divine willing as emerging from the Father. It gives the impression that a divine triumvirate is continually going on where each person gives EQUAL say. This would seem to go against the Orthodox view of there only being ONE divine will.
The Orthodox have it right in that insisting that the FATHER be the unifying factor of the Trinity preserves the unity AND diversity in a way that doesn't subsume the oneness to threeness or vice versa. But this falls into the problem of trying to really assert HOW 1) divine love between the persons operates and 2) the distinction of VOLITION between Father and Son so evident in Scripture can exist intelligibly.
Well, that last one is not a problem.
BUT "Meph" has other questions for me (I have also been "Fred" and "Al2Si2H4O9"), and not a lot of patience to wait the several days it would take me to find him an answer that I felt I could stand by!
-----------------------------------------------
Sahid: The Holy Spirit is the relationship between the Father and Son and is also a person.
PoW: I see Augustin here. Or 'one of him' at least. I've seen vestiges of that in some Russian theologians, and outright refutation in Greeks. I trust the Greeks (Lossky--need a link?) more, but also appreciate what is being said in undertones by the Russians.
Big problem, with this and the filoque, is the lessening of personhood of the Spirit. If the Russians were to say that they Spirit "IS" the relationship between the Father and the Son, I think that their 'overtone' would be that this is the ongoing reality. I don't really think they would every speak that way in terms of origins. And its that origination matter in Augustine that gets it condemne (I think) as heretical. The Spirit IS NOT (as I think Augustine says) reduced to being the energy of love between the Father and Son. Truly the Spirit is a Person/hypostasis. But there is a great tension in the two parts of your sentence.
(You show in your work on this a lot of thought!)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/7/2004 10:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
quote:
AND "revealed" to us! (Ponder what that expression means!)
You mean partially revealed, right? His essence hasn't been revealed has it?
Correct. Does that mean your checking what I intend to mean; or that you think this too? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/7/2004 10:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Not a source I'm greatly familiar with. Written by someone who's not Orthodox, so I'm not 100% on this--won't guarantee. But the issues seem all there:
quote:
http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/proper/selfgivinggod.htm
On the other hand, the Cappadocian Fathers of the fourth century — Basil of Caesaria, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa (the formulators of Eastern trinitarianism) — envisioned God not so much as some divine essence in three subsistencies, but rather as a divine family that could be spoken of as Adam, Eve and Seth, or Peter, James and John. Whereas each member of the Godhead was understood as possessing the same nature, the Eastern Church has continually stressed the primacy of the relationships between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.10 It was believed that if Christ and the New Testament are God’s culminating revelation, then our understanding of the Trinity must center on the personal inter-relatedness witnessed so clearly in such texts as John 14-17.
But if one stresses the three divine persons, how then is the unity of the Godhead to be defined? For much of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, as for an increasing number of scholars in the West, the unity of the Trinity is to be found in perichoresis, the inner habitation (or coinherence) of each divine person in the other.11 That is, each member of the Godhead in some sense indwells the other, without diminishing the full personhood of each. The essential unity of the Godhead, then, is found both in their intrinsic equality of divine characteristics and also in the intensely personal unity that comes from mutual indwelling.
Whereas Western theology tended to begin with the unity and nature of God and then sought to explain the three persons, the East began with the three persons and then sought to resolve the nature of their unity. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, therefore, it is out of the Godhead’s personal relatedness that all else flows: the creation of angels, man in the imago dei, and the great plan of redemption — all in order that finite beings might enter into the joyous fellowship of the Holy Trinity. Put another way, creation and salvation begin and end with God’s self-givingness, both internally (each to the other within the Godhead) and externally (the Triune God to all creation). And so, in the most profound sense as Trinity — and finally only as Trinity — God is love.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/7/2004 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: You added some stuff while I was replying, so I'll try to address it.
PoW: I'll try.
Sahid: But that Jesus would invite us into the same kind of relationship as He has with the Father indicates that God does not absolutely transcend us in the sense of us knowing God.
PoW: Then the matter at hand is HOW that is accomplished, even how it was planned. (Not how you would like to imagine it being possible. You haven't said <1>how it is possible, or even <2>what "it" is in composition.)
Sahid: The incarnation and the cross are evidence that God is not absolutely transcendent.
PoW: But that says nothing about the distinction between creature and creator. It only says that God transcended it, and that he can transcend it. IMPLICIT IS THAT THAT TRANSENDING IS *NECESSARY* -- WHAT DOES THAT INFER?
Sahid (AS TO...what knowing "as He is" -- "in his essence"): He is loving, powerful, wise, holy, and ultimately sovereign.
PoW: Around here those are called the OMNIs.
BUT, love in an action, power, 'wisdom' is expressed in action, holy is relative, sovereign too.
Sahid: Any more is just extrapolation of these.
PoW: Sound stuck. Again, those are REVELATIONS and not the unknowable essence.
PoW: Fathers (make the) RADICAL STATEMENT of the intimacy that we can, are called to, and should have. ... But you express that this as a DEPRIVATION.
Sahid: The Orthodox view is a deprivation ... of knowledge of God's essence.
PoW: There is no deprivation of knowledge OF God (not "about" -- THIS IS A DIFFERENTIATION TO TAKE SERIOUSLY).
Sahid: The Orthodox view has part of God hidden.
PoW: No, just recognizes that we are limited. We are. And that's no slight on God--don't make it out to be, please!!! I'm not equal to God.
Jesus doesn't (hide part of God).
PoW: At any one point, even the Christ might display one aspect (justice or mercy) at a time.
Sahid: ...divide God into two parts like the Orthodox view does...
PoW: That God is divided up into two parts is not true. Anymore than the Sun's light is alien to the Sun.
It's Biblical, though, that in His Light we see light. God reveals himself, and we know his revelation itself, and not directly that which the revelation reveals. The revelation is not an alien substitute. But it is not the essence either.
But you don't have to like that. You don't have to be convinced. And its not my intent to convince you, or anyone else. That's not my objective.
Pax,
PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/7/2004 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I suppose this is that afternoon.[/font=Book Antiqua]
Thanks. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/7/2004 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: I think the biggest problem for the Orthodox view is that it is self contradictory. It uses different words (ousia and hypostases) but what do they mean, really? I get hypostases, but ousia... I mean what is my essence except what and who I am. But what and who I am is my hypostases.
PoW: First, Orthodox theology is not school-theology. It is not a "system." Its two central goals, historically, have always been Scripture and defense of the faith. I say historically, because when you look at someone, say Cyril of Alexander (against Nestorias) he changes his terms depending on what is mose effective. If you will give Orthodox theology at least an academically objective look, you will have to take history into strong account!!! Not being "school-theology" it does not try to construct systems. Being biblical and faithful are more important. So the terms you mentioned DID flip-flop; and that's simply historical fact. It is also historicla fact that later they were cotified into something useful. You don't seem warm to the idea of respecting history.
Sahid: I think its a false dichotomy invented to keep God absolutely transcendet, something Jesus proved that He is not.
PoW: OK.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/7/2004 10:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: The last guy you quoted says things differently than I've heard Orthodox views stated. He seems to be allowing for three seats of consciousness in the Orthodox view. His Adam, Eve, Seth thing doesn't sound Orthodox to me, but whatever. I think I'd agree to a compromise of his "East" and "West" views.
PoW: The last guy I don't trust. I also don't like the Adam/eve/seth thing. Though its used historically, I think he might have misshandled it.
Sahid: We are being made one with the Son like the Son is one with the Father. For me to agree with you is to say that the Father has only partially revealed Himself to the Son.
PoW: But have you said HOW "We are being made one with the Son like the Son is one with the Father?"
Sahid: And like you, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to Greeks first when it has to do with the New Testament or maybe even Jewish culture at the time, but when it comes to theology, they are probably the most inherently suspect group.
PoW: Interesting. But in PRACTICE they scouted our heresies much quicker, and developed "antibodies" to deal with them, and drew lines in the sand as anathema's to say "don't drink here" for their flocks.
It was, then, in the West that those very heresies and their decendents ravaged so badly. The East has ALWAYS needed renewal. But they did not ever require a Re-FORM-ation.
They come from a philosophical framework that is so close to being in harmony with the Bible but subtly different that they might be the post inherently prone to doing bad theology that looks good.
GOTTA GO DO CEMENT WORK OUTSIDE.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/8/2004 6:42 PM (GMT -6) | | John Behr, "The Nicene Faith: One of the Holy Trinity", page 288
quote:
Every attempt at understanding God depends upon his prior revelation and is a reflection on that revelation. The "inaccessibility" of the essence should not be taken to imply that the "essence" is something other than what is known through the activities. Some terms arrived at through reflecting on the activities of God, addording to Basil, express positively something "prestine" in God (such as saying that God is good, just, the creator, etc.), while other terms refer to what is absent in God (netative terms, such as unbegotten, incorruptible, invisible, etc.). None of these terms, however, denote the very being or essence of God, and so there is no reason to regard any one of these aspects as more consistutive of his being than any other: "There is no single name which suffices to embrace the whole nature of God and expresses it satisfactorily" (Eun. 1.10). Neither type of name describes God himself independently from us, but only refers to him as he has revealed himself, and as we have perceived this revelation and reflect upon our perception. Or rather, as Basil puts it, from both of these sets of names, the negation of what is not fitting and the confession of those which apply, "as sort of imprint of God is enfraved in us."
:)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/8/2004 6:51 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/9/2004 3:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Reading Behr on Basil this morning -- something interesting.
To SOME the Word "is" bridegroom. Those are the most pure, and that relationship is possible and appropriate.
But to SOME OTHERS the Word "is" physician. Those need him to act towards him that way.
See?
He is sharing His relationship with us. But the difference is us. Like the last post I quoted in, we only know part. But the limitation is us.
And I was thinking -- yes I do have a few thoughts of my own. Since we make such a big deal valuing "free will" and not "determinance," this should not be such a big surprise!
God created us for relationship, not absorbsion.
So, in what way are "the energies are the same as the essence?" In that they are true, and ARE uncreated, and divine, and Personal actions of God towards us, they are "the same" (which is quickest to appreciate by saying they are not false or contradictory). Is "physician" true? Yes! Is "bridgroom?" Yes again. But as in the energies/activities of God we only know some "aspects" at a time, and only what we personally can, in that way the scale and completeness can be said, and should, to be different.
But rest assured that "then" we shall see him face to face. And also accept that we don't really know what that will be like.
It doesn't have to be a politically correct corelation of essence to energies: it just has to be personal, and what we can handle. And what we can handle, C.S.Lewis suggested, might grow.
PERHAPS... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/9/2004 10:02 AM (GMT -6) | | So the energies and essence both are and are not the same? I don't know. Personally I know that I'm being fixed, but I still mess up. But whatever relationship Jesus has with the father I have and will have in fullness. If knowing His essence means being absorbed into Him and losing identity, then... well... Lets just say the social Trintiy is a whole lot easier to understand, so it's got that going for it. I've found God to be very complicated and confusing until I ask for help and He removes the blindness, then things make perfect sense and I feel stupid for not seeing it in the first place. I guess I'm bias to theories that reduce down to a simple truth (usually love), because I think God has made us to relate to Him, not to have everything fly over our heads. quote:
He is sharing His relationship with us. But the difference is us. Like the last post I quoted in, we only know part. But the limitation is us.
This is what I still disagree with. Sort of. If their is a limitation on us, it's either from God, Satan, or us. I don't think God would prevent closeness. If Satan tried, God would fix things or stop him; that's what the cross is. If we did it, it's either sin or not. If it's sin God can fix it. If it's not sin, then what is it? A value neutral choice? But if it's a choice, it's not a limitation. I just think it makes a lot more sense to say Jesus restored relationship, all of it. Maybe that is what your saying. But if we can't know God's essence (who He truly is) the relationship is not... I don't know the word, but you can sometimes tell when someone is talking with you and it's just small talk; you're not really relating with them. I don't know.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/9/2004 10:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
But whatever relationship Jesus has with the father I have and will have in fullness.
BLUNTLY, THAT'S BOTH SHODDY HANDLING OF GOD'S WORD, AND OUTRIGHT "B.S." NOTHING IN THE BIBLE SAYS WHAT YOU ARE MAKING THE TEXT TO MEAN. ("If knowing His essence means being absorbed into Him and losing identity, then... well...") THAT SOUNDS OUTRIGHT HINDU. | | Back to Top | | |
| 217 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:19 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 |
|
|