Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > God’s Two Wills in Openness – March 19 debate  Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
262 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 6:43 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Bibilcally, though, Creation is ex nihilo. Were the change from the fall a change in "nature" that would parallel the idea (heretical) that God creates from stuff; as the Greeks said. But God creates ex nihilo, and therefore all stuff is "created ex nihilo." The created nature stays what it is. But the very real change that does happen because of the fall is a "distortion" -- a re-orientation, a dislocation of vines from the branch. Further, nothing is self-sustaining except God. Everything created ex nihilo either: (1) continues to exist--by God's words; or, (2) ceases to exist and vanishes; or (3) is vanished and created a second time in a different nature. What you seemed to be saying above, in saying that the devil had an evil "nature" is that he gor vanished and re-created. But neither you nor I think that. So, since the devil exists--eliminating #2--the divil continues to exist with a good nature that is warped by his free choice of truning away from God and trying to be a 'god' himself.


I don't think any re-creation (that's re creation, not recreation) is needed for a change in nature. Nature is how you think/act/react/weigh choices, etc. These can change. Paul talked about a new nature. Look at Citizen Kane and his charactral development.


Rosebud



inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 6:51 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
POWy, I looked up the cannons of Dordt and now I'm really confused




inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Back to Top
 

johnmd
Registered Member


Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 6:55 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by Laika

quote:
Originally posted by johnmd
It is no secret that Piper and his church boycotted the Post 9-11 city wide prayer meeting BECAUSE BOYDS CHURCH WAS PARTICIPATING. They were RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET!!!


Wow, I did not know that, doctor.




I think I noted from a prior post of yours you were in the Twin Cities area. This is what I heard from a Woodland Hills Church STAFF member I met at a conference I attended. I hope it is not true. If you go to WHC you could ask around the staff and verify what I heard if you know those folks well enough. The relationship between Piper and Boyd has certainly been strained to say the least. I have never met Piper but I understand his church is very ministry oriented and was very disappointed to here the deal about the prayer meeting. Again I really hope it is not true, but it makes me wonder with all the mean-spirited rheatoric toward Boyd and Open Theism over the years.

I am the first to admit that my own rhetoric is a bit PASSIONATE to say the least. However, the difference between being PASSIONATE and mean-spirited is in the attempt to destroy the argument and not the person. I would still willingly and gladly misister and pray along side of a 5-pointer and Piper despite our theological differences and would never consider REPEATEDLY going after the livelyhood of a man whom a majority of other like-minded evangelicals have reviewed and felt worthy to continue to teach and to minister over such issues as these. Again I hope it is not true but that is how it was presented to me.

If there others from WHC on the Board perhaps they could comment?

Blessings
John
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 7:02 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by Laika

I don't think any re-creation (that's re creation, not recreation) is needed for a change in nature. Nature is how you think/act/react/weigh choices, etc. These can change. Paul talked about a new nature. Look at Citizen Kane and his charactral development.


Two quick comments, Laika. Then I have to bring my kids somewhere.

1. St. Paul is talking about something more than just an improvement in moral character. That doesn't save. He's talking about being ACTUALLY grafted onto Christ, and sharing in the Life of God. We are dead, dead, dead. An actual death, burial and rebirth is necessary for us. (This is hugely different than C.K.)

2. What you are talking about, using "nature" to denote "thinking," "actions," or "choices" is just fine. Yes, as you say "those can change." But that's not what I've been talking about, nor Fr. Schmemann. The Devil's thoughts, actions and choices
"changed." But the "nature" with which he was created did not. That nature resulted from and was sustained by the logoi/word of God.

Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 7:40 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by johnmd
I think I noted from a prior post of yours you were in the Twin Cities area. This is what I heard from a Woodland Hills Church STAFF member I met at a conference I attended. I hope it is not true. If you go to WHC you could ask around the staff and verify what I heard if you know those folks well enough.


just visitors
quote:

If there others from WHC on the Board perhaps they could comment?


if there were, they wouldn't

best just drop the issue



inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Back to Top
 

Truth Aficionado
Registered Member




Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 7:47 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by Laika

quote:
Originally posted by johnmd
I think I noted from a prior post of yours you were in the Twin Cities area. This is what I heard from a Woodland Hills Church STAFF member I met at a conference I attended. I hope it is not true. If you go to WHC you could ask around the staff and verify what I heard if you know those folks well enough.


just visitors
quote:

If there others from WHC on the Board perhaps they could comment?


if there were, they wouldn't

best just drop the issue



"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."
Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 7:52 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."


That's a little too big for a throw pillow, could you edit it down?

Like

"Be Nice" -- Mom

Big Smile



inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Back to Top
 

Truth Aficionado
Registered Member




Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 8:03 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by Laika

quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."


That's a little too big for a throw pillow, could you edit it down?
Like

"Be Nice" -- Mom
Big Smile

Shoot, don’t get Mom mad Angry, she has a tendency to throw a shoe.
Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 8:27 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
How about a throw pillow with the first canon of Dordt on it?

Article 1: God's Right to Condemn All People

Would they sell like hotcakes?

What does "selling like hotcakes" mean anymore?



inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Back to Top
 

johnmd
Registered Member


Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 9:07 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Originally posted by Laika


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by johnmd
I think I noted from a prior post of yours you were in the Twin Cities area. This is what I heard from a Woodland Hills Church STAFF member I met at a conference I attended. I hope it is not true. If you go to WHC you could ask around the staff and verify what I heard if you know those folks well enough.

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


just visitors

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there others from WHC on the Board perhaps they could comment?

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


if there were, they wouldn't

best just drop the issue


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


"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."

Thanks for the reminder.
I head up a Christian Benolence ministry centered around evangelism and meeting physical needs. I work with mostly Calvinists and a few Arminians and the like. My experience is that ministering together and prayer brings the unity we all desire and God commands regardless of the nuances of our particular theologies. Sometimes I lose focus in these discussions of what is really important. I ultimately want to commend any gospel ministry, Piper or any other on this Board with thoughts different than mine.Smile

Blessings
John
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 10:04 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by johnmd

"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity."

Thanks for the reminder.
I head up a Christian Benolence ministry centered around evangelism and meeting physical needs. I work with mostly Calvinists and a few Arminians and the like. My experience is that ministering together and prayer brings the unity we all desire and God commands regardless of the nuances of our particular theologies. Sometimes I lose focus in these discussions of what is really important. I ultimately want to commend any gospel ministry, Piper or any other on this Board with thoughts different than mine.Smile

Blessings
John



AMEN!
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 10:09 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by Laika

How about a throw pillow with the first canon of Dordt on it?

Article 1: God's Right to Condemn All People



Here are two very wise, edifying things that are ACTUALLY in it:

  • Plantinga writes: Perhaps we might leave this section with a firm grasp of the Canon's teaching about the proper attitude for approaching these sensitive doc­trines. On the one hand, if we indulge the "rash presumption" that we are elect-while chattering idly about the damned in hell-we may be pretty sure that salvation has not yet come to our house. Casual assurance and light banter about these matters are canonically forbidden. On the other hand, we are not to fear God as if He were an enemy whom no humble seeking could find and no ardent desire placate. He is "a mer­ciful God [who] has promised that He will not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed" (Art. 16).


  • Plantinga writes: The God of grace seeks not to squelch, or crush, or quench, or break the tender frames and little lights of devout believers who struggle and doubt. He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust. That is why He has elected to come to us in Christ. Let all who wait for a season of richer grace spend some time following the Christ through passion and suffer­ing and doubt. Let them see to what lengths a lov­ing God will go in the profound work of rescuing His erring children.



LET EVERYONE, WITH THE APOSTLE PAUL, CONSIDER HIMSELF AS THE "FOREMOST OF SINNERS." That is a good place for us to begin our prayers before God!
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 10:17 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
From the perspective of Moral Gov't Theology, total depravity is entered into voluntarily (as opposed to inborn/inbred, as in the Augustinian-Calvinian view).

In addition, from the MGT point of view total depravity (entire sinfulness) derives from a state of the will, not a "nature." That said, MGT also posits a belief in physical depravity, by which they mean mortality and subject to physical infirmity/lack of perfect health. This physical depravity is a result of the Fall, and is an occasion (but not a cause) of actual sin. (I.e., one's natural desire for food may become the occasion of sinful activity such as gluttony, but the moral CHOICE to act in a gluttonous way is sin properly speaking).

In addition, MGT teaches that Satan retains the God-given power of contrary moral choice, and therefore is TOTALLY guilty for all his sinful activity from the beginning of his existence until now. As Jesus said, "he is a liar from the beginning, and the father of lies." That is, he has been choosing to lie ever since he first made the ultimate choice to sin against God.

Inasmuch as Satan retains free will (the power of contrary moral choice), God can hold him accountable for his actions, for they are in no way coerced except by power of his own ingrained habitual sinning. This also means that Satan could have chosen otherwise than to do as he has done, but has persistently chosen his selfish sinful path. Therefore, he is totally depraved, while still retaining the good qualities he was created with that make him a moral agent; i.e., intelligence, conscience (ability to know right from wrong), and will.

The same scenario is true for all moral agents. And so from the point of view of Moral Gov't Theology, it is accurate to say that all people, prior to their regeneration, are entirely committed to a pursuit of their own sinful (selfish) ways, and, as they retain the power of choice, are thus said to be voluntarily totally depraved.

This is not to say that they are necessarily as bad as they could be, but that the unregenerate are totally committed to doing evil, even if their actions may appear good to the external observer, because their HEART (ultimate intention) is committed to sin instead of righteousness.

But to refer to such moral depravity as a "sinful nature" is to confuse the nature of the physical (involuntary and necessitated) with the nature of the spiritual (voluntary).

My 2.5c



"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 10:31 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
For those who may be interested, the following links lead to a few of Charles Finney's lectures on Moral Depravity. Finney is the most famous advocate of Moral Gov't Theology:

http://twtministries.com/articles/11_born_sin/theo24.html

http://twtministries.com/articles/11_born_sin/theo23.html

http://twtministries.com/articles/11_born_sin/theo22.html

God bless,

John Earp



"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 10:36 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
PoW,

If I may interject, I really don't think Laika was saying there were two divine wills (one in Christ and one in the Father). What it seems to me he was saying was essentially what one of the councils (Chalcedon?) said: Christ had two wills, the divine and the human, and that his human will was at all times fully submitted to the divine will, which was the same, of course, as the Father's will.

Anyway, that's how I read Laika's diagram. Of course I could be wrong, and stand open to correction.

Sincerely,

John Earp



"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 10:42 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I should add that what really is the problem with the Augustinian-Calvinian scheme is not its notion that all people are sinful, but rather that all people have no moral ability to choose good over evil. If true, then bin Laden is blameless, as he is only doing what his God-given necessitated NATURE dictates!

Romans 1 reveals that sinners are unable because they are unwilling. (They did not WANT to retain the knowledge of God in their minds, etc.)



"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 1:19 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp

PoW,

If I may interject, I really don't think Laika was saying there were two divine wills (one in Christ and one in the Father). What it seems to me he was saying was essentially what one of the councils (Chalcedon?) said: Christ had two wills, the divine and the human, and that his human will was at all times fully submitted to the divine will, which was the same, of course, as the Father's will.

Anyway, that's how I read Laika's diagram. Of course I could be wrong, and stand open to correction.

Sincerely,

John Earp



I agree. I think the chart portrayed that. And that Laika thought that. But then what he'd write afterwards "threw it all up for grabs."
Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 3:11 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by johnmd
Thanks for the reminder.
I head up a Christian Benolence ministry centered around evangelism and meeting physical needs. I work with mostly Calvinists and a few Arminians and the like. My experience is that ministering together and prayer brings the unity we all desire and God commands regardless of the nuances of our particular theologies. Sometimes I lose focus in these discussions of what is really important. I ultimately want to commend any gospel ministry, Piper or any other on this Board with thoughts different than mine.Smile


Good job doctor but hang in there. You're still a leading candidate for rookie of the year honors.

Graft is always accepted. Eyebrow



inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Back to Top
 

Laika
Registered Member




Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 3:16 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp

PoW,

If I may interject, I really don't think Laika was saying there were two divine wills (one in Christ and one in the Father). What it seems to me he was saying was essentially what one of the councils (Chalcedon?) said: Christ had two wills, the divine and the human, and that his human will was at all times fully submitted to the divine will, which was the same, of course, as the Father's will.

Anyway, that's how I read Laika's diagram. Of course I could be wrong, and stand open to correction.


Yeah, what John said. Personally I don't think Jesus had two wills either. One God, one will. One Christ, one will, submitted to the Father's.



inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 4:04 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by Laika

quote:
Originally posted by John Earp

PoW,

If I may interject, I really don't think Laika was saying there were two divine wills (one in Christ and one in the Father). What it seems to me he was saying was essentially what one of the councils (Chalcedon?) said: Christ had two wills, the divine and the human, and that his human will was at all times fully submitted to the divine will, which was the same, of course, as the Father's will.

Anyway, that's how I read Laika's diagram. Of course I could be wrong, and stand open to correction.


Yeah, what John said. Personally I don't think Jesus had two wills either. One God, one will. One Christ, one will, submitted to the Father's.



JOHN: "What it seems to me (Laika) was saying was essentially what one of the councils (Chalcedon?) said: Christ had two wills, the divine and the human"

LAIKA: "Personally I don't think Jesus had two wills either."

PoW: SEE, JOHN!!!
Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 3/24/2004 4:57 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
LAIKA: "Personally I don't think Jesus had two wills either."

PoW: SEE, JOHN!!!



Okay, I think I see now where the misunderstanding has been. Laika's original diagram seemed to me to indicate both a divine AND a human will in Jesus.

That said this issue seems to me be an unresolvable conflict between logic and Scripture, for it is quite well known that Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, "Not MY will but THINE be done." So either He had his own will which was in a state of being resolved in this instance and thus was not automatically submitted to the Father's will, or this phrase, so pregnant with Christ's anxiety and distress, really cannot be taken literally.

Dr. Sanders, at last year's EEM conference, stated that commentators down through the centuries have simply said "Huh?" when confronted with Christ's prayer in the Garden.



"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 3/25/2004 2:00 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
www.roca.org/OA/143-144/143c.htm

quote:
Christ’s Prayer in the Garden
By Saint John (Maximovitch)

. . . .

What was Jesus praying about so fervently? What was He entreating the Heavenly Father, thrice falling with His face to the ground? "Abba, my Father, all things are possible to Thee. Oh, if Thou wouldst deign to take this cup away from Me! If possible let this cup pass by Me; nevertheless, not as I will but as Thou wilt, not My will but Thine be done. My Father, if this cup cannot bypass me, so that I will not have to drink of it, Thy will be done."

The Lord Jesus Christ was the God-Man. Both the Divine and the human nature, undergoing neither change nor fusion, "without confusion, without division" (dogma of the Council of Chalcedon) united in Him in one Person. In conformity to the two natures, the Lord also had two wills. As God, Jesus Christ was of one essence with God the Father and cf one will with Him and the Holy Spirit. But being perfect man, with a body and soul the Lord also had human feelings and will His human will was totally submitted to the Divine will.

The Lord submitted His human will to that of God and sought only to do the will of His Heavenly Father (John 5:30); His spiritual food was to do the will of Him that sent Me and to finish His work (John 4:34). And He had to accomplish a task equal to none, a task which was to astonish even insensible, inanimate nature. He was to redeem mankind from sin and death, and to reestablish man's union with God. The sinless Saviour was to lift upon Himself all of mankind's sin, so that He, Who had no sins of His own, would feel the burden off the sins of all mankind and would experience such sorrow over it, as can only perfect sanctity, which clearly senses even the slightest deviation from the commandments and will of God. In His holy and sinless humanity, He in Whom Divinity and humanity were hypostatically united was to experience all the horror of man's separation from his Creator, of sinful humanity's alienation from God, the source of sanctity and light. At this moment the depth of mankind's fall was to become exposed. The man who refused to obey God in Paradise but heeded the devil who defamed Him, was now about to rise against his Divine Saviour, to slander Him, and, having declared Him unworthy of life on earth, to hang Him on a tree between the earth and the sky, thus bringing Him under the curse of the God given law (Deut. 21:22-23). The sinless Holy One, rejected by the sinful world for which and from which He suffered, was to forgive mankind this evil deed and to raise His prayer to the Heavenly Father, imploring the Divine Truth to likewise forgive mankind, which had been blinded by the devil, for this rejection of their Creator and Saviour. Such a holy prayer could not remain unheard, such power of love could not but unite the source of love, God, with those who, at least now, would become aware of this love and. having understood how far their ways were from the ways of God, would now resolve to return to God the Father through the incarnate Creator.

. . . .



Back to Top
 

John Earp
Registered Member


Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
 
   Posted 3/25/2004 2:36 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
PoW,

With all due respect to Chalcedon, it is not clear to me how one person can truly have two wills, without also saying He had two minds, and was merely two persons in one body, which is another very unscriptural and illogical concept. It seems that the theologicians of Chalcedon in effect made Christ logically schizophrenic in affirming that He possessed two wills and two natures. But that's just my O.



"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 3/25/2004 3:34 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp

. . . it is not clear to me how one person can truly have two wills, without also saying He had two minds, and was merely two persons in one body, which is another very unscriptural and illogical concept. It seems that the theologicians of Chalcedon in effect made Christ logically schizophrenic in affirming that He possessed two wills and two natures. But that's just my O.


Two things:

1. It shows in your earlier post that we all have this unchallenged assumption that theology is a field of Logic. Theology, literally, is "a vision of God." And THAT is done in the heart. Those at Chalcedon had to USE logic, and defend against what might be done with it, but (I'm thinking of St. Basil and his statement that he KNEW the Holy Spirit was God by his experience of God. That's opposite of an intellectual puzzle.) the Creeds were NOT defending themselves -- they were defenind LIVE FAITH. At issue was how God had revealed himself, and how we encounter God. Contrast Basil to: "this issue seems to me be an unresolvable conflict between logic and Scripture." OUR problem is that we have, at times, conflated Scripture and logic. A.W. Tozer is a good tonic for avoiding that!!! Then: "Dr. Sanders...stated that commentators down through the centuries have simply said "Huh?" when confronted with Christ's prayer in the Garden." THAT is true more often in the West (Not only, and not throughout!) because of Scholastic expectations. TRUE Theology looks at that same scene with the heart.

COMMENTARY ON THAT IN A POST TO FOLLOW.


2. The second thing is this -- you said "without also saying He had two minds, and was merely two persons in one body..." That's just saying two brains. Or else it unearths some humanized expectations about the incarnation. The incarnation was ASSYMETRICAL. Deity held humanity "so close" to itself that the humanity IS the experience of the Son too. But while humanity is deified, deity is not humanized. Man became "god" but God did not change. In terms of Christ's person, he enhypostasized humanity--lived and does live as one of us, all the while being unchangingly God. That's VITAL for out salvation, because by becoming the TRUE VINE that we are grafted onto by the Holy Spirit Christ became "the way...the life." Buried, we are alive in Christ.

But Christ IS God, and shares coinherently in the ONE will of God. All the while now also "holding to himself" our human nature that "wills" as all natures do, after their own fashion. (A pine twig has both a different nature and a different will than a slate rock -- try to bend them both. Yet NEITHER has a "mind.")

Oh, #3 is a true mystery! That is the matter of Christ's ignorance, etc. And that shows us (according to A.W. Tozer, and the Eastern Fathers, etc...) that he voluntarily held back the glory of his divinity. For us, OUT OF LOVE, he walked our walk. He sufferec, not just on Calvary, but also from the moment of conception!


SOME REALLY GOOD, FROM THE HEART (AND WITH A GOOD HEAD) QUOTES FOLLOW!
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 3/25/2004 3:37 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel

www.roca.org/OA/143-144/143c.htm
Christ’s Prayer in the Garden
By Saint John (Maximovitch)


quote:
"Thou hast prayed that the voluntary cup of the redeeming Passion be removed as if it were not voluntary" (Sunday Matins, Tone 5, Canticle 8 of the canon), thus demonstrating two desires of two natures and asking God the Father to render His human will unwavering in its submission to God's will (Exact Exposition, 3:24). And there appeared an angel unto Him from heaven, strengthening Him [His human nature] (Luke 22:43). Nevertheless, while offering His self sacrifice, Jesus prayed with increased fervor, until He became bathed in a bloody sweat. And for His reverence and His constant submission to His Father's will, the Son of Man was heard.

    Thus strengthened and encouraged, Jesus rose from His prayer (Exact Exposition, lbid.). Now He was sure that His human nature would not waver any more, that soon the burden of human sins would be lifted from Him, and that, through His obedience to God the Father, He would bring to Him errant human nature. He walked up to His disciples and said, Sleep on now, and lake your rest Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray Me (Matt. 26:4546), rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation (Luke 22:46).

      Going forth to meet those who came after Him, the Lord voluntarily gave Himself into their hands. When Peter, anxious to defend his Teacher, struck the chief priest's servant with a sword and cut off his ear, the Lord healed the latter and reminded Peter that He is giving Himself into their bands voluntarily: Sheathe your sword, He said Am I not to drink of the cup which My Father gave Me? Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be? (Matt. 26:53). And, having voluntarily emptied the cup of sufferings of body and soul, Christ glorified God on the earth; He accomplished the task no lesser than the creation of the world itself. He restored fallen human nature, reconciled God and mankind, and made men partakers of the Divine nature (I1 Peter 1:4).

      Having accomplished the work which His Father had given Him to do, Christ was glorified also in His human nature with that glory which, as God, He had before the world was (John 17:5), and with His human nature He sat down on the right hand of God the Father from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool (Heb. 10:13).

      Having become the author of eternal salvation for all who obey Him (Heb. 5:9), even after His Ascension into Heaven He remains known "in two natures without confusion" (Sunday dogmatikon, Tone 6), "For Thou hast borne two wills according to each of Thy two natures, O Thou Who art Christ for ever" (Sunday canon, Tone 5, canticle 8). But His glorified body can no longer suffer and is in no need for anything, and likewise also His human will can in no wise depart from God's will. In this very, body Christ will come on the last day "to judge the living and the dead," after which, as King not only according to His divinity but also in His humanity, He will subject Himself with all His eternal kingdom to God the Father, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). 

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
262 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:33 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