|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Christ our God?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, my bad ...
@Daronmedway - how long have you got?
In essence it boils down to Orthodox accusations that the Reformed are confusing 'person' and 'nature' ...
I'll find some links if you want to go through it all with your Ovaltine or Horlicks (do they still make that?). It'll either send you off to sleep or have you in a rage. I'm not sure I'm cruel enough to do either to you ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But in fairness, some interesting points raised that I'd not considered before.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I can see what you are getting at, daronmedway and wince whenever I hear some evangelicals talk of 'God and Jesus' as if somehow God the Son is subordinate in some ontological sense to God the Father.
I'm not sure exactly how you're using "ontological" here, but God the Son is in fact begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is a hierarchy of sorts. The Father is the source, in some sense or other, whether through begetting or proceeding, of both the Son and the Spirit.
This is true as long as we keep in mind that this "begetting" and "procession" are eternal and that there was never a "time" in which the Son and Spirit were missing from the Godhead. I think I perhaps detect in MT's post the Eastern emphasis on the monarchy of the Father. Yet within the Trinity itself none of the Persons is subordinate to the other. I was actually going to point at earlier that arguably the most metaphorical language of all in our Trinitarian formulations is that of so-called begetting and proceeding. Finally, of course, MT understandably gives a formulation that does not take the Filioque into account, something with which I wouldn't quibble but which some others would obviously wish to tweak.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
This: This I give you to share, and to defend all your life, the one Godhead and power, found in the three in unity and comprising the three separately; not unequal, in substances or natures, neither increased nor diminished by superiorities or inferiorities; in every respect equal, in every respect the same; just as the beauty and the greatness of the heavens is one; the infinite conjunction of three infinite ones, each God when considered in himself; as the Father so the Son, as the Son so the Holy Spirit; the three one God when contemplated together; each God because consubstantial; one God because of the monarchy. No sooner do I conceive of the one than I am illumined by the splendor of the three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the one. When I think of any one of the three I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking of escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of that one so as to attribute a greater greatness to the rest. When I contemplate the three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the undivided light. - Gregory of Nazianzus.
[ 06. November 2014, 13:32: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Agreed.
What I'm saying in the light of
"My understanding was that Jesus (the incarnate Son) ascended into heaven, where he sitteth at God's right hand, etc. If he was absolutely the same as God the Son (i.e. God), then he wouldn't be sitting next to him ..."
incoherently by Holy Smoke, is that Jesus - God the Son incarnate - didn't ascend to sit next to God the Son.
[ 06. November 2014, 21:17: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I suspect that Gamaliel is referring to the idea that there is submission within the co-equality of the Trinity. And of course we have that fillioque jazz in the mix. But yes, I can certainly see that in some sense the Father is preeminent.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I can see what you are getting at, daronmedway and wince whenever I hear some evangelicals talk of 'God and Jesus' as if somehow God the Son is subordinate in some ontological sense to God the Father.
I'm not sure exactly how you're using "ontological" here, but God the Son is in fact begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is a hierarchy of sorts. The Father is the source, in some sense or other, whether through begetting or proceeding, of both the Son and the Spirit.
This is true as long as we keep in mind that this "begetting" and "procession" are eternal and that there was never a "time" in which the Son and Spirit were missing from the Godhead. I think I perhaps detect in MT's post the Eastern emphasis on the monarchy of the Father. Yet within the Trinity itself none of the Persons is subordinate to the other.
Is submission incompatible with co-equality? The 'monarchy' of the Father - as you put it - suggests perhaps not. quote:
I was actually going to point at earlier that arguably the most metaphorical language of all in our Trinitarian formulations is that of so-called begetting and proceeding. Finally, of course, MT understandably gives a formulation that does not take the Filioque into account, something with which I wouldn't quibble but which some others would obviously wish to tweak.
Quite.
[ 06. November 2014, 22:19: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
This is true as long as we keep in mind that this "begetting" and "procession" are eternal and that there was never a "time" in which the Son and Spirit were missing from the Godhead.
Absolutely. Since time does not apply to God, everything God is, God is, and there was never a time when God wasn't something He is now, and vice versa.
quote:
I think I perhaps detect in MT's post the Eastern emphasis on the monarchy of the Father.
I have never heard that term. Not at all sure what it means. What I would say (indeed, what I did say) is that the Father is in some sense the source of both the Son and the Spirit. Something not true of the Spirit or of the Son.
quote:
Yet within the Trinity itself none of the Persons is subordinate to the other.
I have no quibble with this.
quote:
I was actually going to point at earlier that arguably the most metaphorical language of all in our Trinitarian formulations is that of so-called begetting and proceeding.
Absolutely. But (a) it's what we have, and (b) it's a metaphor FOR something, that presumably is somehow gotten across in a meaningful way by the metaphor. You can take the biology out of the begetting, but you can't take the one-is-the-source-of-the-other out, without completely abandoning the metaphor entirely.
quote:
Finally, of course, MT understandably gives a formulation that does not take the Filioque into account, something with which I wouldn't quibble but which some others would obviously wish to tweak.
And no doubt ingoB will show up to trash the Orthodox again and prove why the entire concept of the Trinity collapses into a gibbering monad without the double procession. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And no doubt ingoB will show up to trash the Orthodox again and prove why the entire concept of the Trinity collapses into a gibbering monad without the double procession.
Pre-emptively announcing what bad stuff other posters will do is a clear personal attack; you should know better. Stop it.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So there was never a ... time when God the Son hadn't been incarnate and isn't incarnate and isn't being crucified right now alongside being conceived?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So there was never a ... time when God the Son hadn't been incarnate and isn't incarnate and isn't being crucified right now alongside being conceived?
Martin, you have never been able to get your head around eternity. But the principle is quite simple. Eternity is to time like you looking at a painting. Just because you can see simultaneously both what is on the left side of the painting and what is on on the right (*), does not somehow intermingle these spatial distinctions within the picture. Likewise, the Logos in eternity simultaneously lives the birth as Jesus Christ, the growing up, the adult mission, the crucifixion, the death, the resurrection, the ascension to heaven and the residing in heaven since then. But that the Logos is simultaneously in all these events as the Person of Jesus Christ does not somehow intermingle the temporal distinctions within the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus still was a baby before a man, and a man before his mission, and on a mission before being crucified, and crucified before raised, and raised before ascending, and ascending before taking His place in heaven. One perspective does no more violence to the other than saying that you see the entire picture but that within the picture some things are more to the left than to the right.
A perhaps more interesting point is that God had always decided to incarnate, but that it still was a real decision. Basically, an eternal decision does not divide time into a before and after, but rather logic into the possible and the actual. To say that God decided to become Jesus Christ does not imply that He made up His mind (at some point in time), but rather that He realised eternally one possibility (and not another).
(*) Yes, I'm well aware that our perception of being able to see a large piece of the world all at once is an illusion generated by the brain out of rapid saccades of the eyes. However, accurate neuroscience and physiology is really not the point here...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I think Martin is asking whether Orthodox/Catholic doctrine considers the incarnation and subsequent ascension, glorification and session of God the Son as the God-man changed the nature or substance of the Trinity in some way.
[ 07. November 2014, 13:09: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'd say not submission but congruence or unity of will.
Sure. But is it plausible that the Son's willing subordination to the Father is an expression of "eternal congruence" and "unity of will" between them and an eternal outworking of their co-eqaulity within the economy of the Trinity?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've not yet looked up the postings and notes on the issue of alleged Calvinist Christological and Trinitarian defects, daronmedway but I will get around to it ...
Suffice to say that it's partly to do with the issues you've highlighted but there was some other stuff in there too ...
I'm not necessarily attributing any credence to these objections - but they have been raised by former Calvinists who are now Orthodox and it may be part and parcel of their conversion/assimilation process ... ie. finding as much as they can possibly take issue with as far as their former affiliation goes ... the convertitis syndrome ...
But I'll dig some of it out. I does make my brain ache, though, I must admit and by and large, whatever tradition we're talking about, I'm always wary of the possibility of people exaggerating the apparent wrongs of their former position when they move on to pastures new ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The minutiae of the various dogma - can it explain how and why Jesus prayed to God?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The minutiae of the various dogma - can it explain how and why Jesus prayed to God?
Jesus generally prayed to his Father, who of course, is God. Why wouldn't God the Son pray to the Father, the person to whom he was (and is and always be) united in love? Jesus didn't stop being a member* of the Trinity when became incarnate.
* (is "member" allowed)
[ 07. November 2014, 15:53: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
* (is "member" allowed)
That actually gets to the heart of it for me. These definitions are so complicated to get one's head around. Every time I think I understand it, it seems that I walk into another trap. I'm reminded of trying to get my head around that light is both a wave and particle. It's as if the ways we talk about it are too limited because we are stuck in our world just now.
Ingo said above about getting one's head around eternity. Have we these capacities?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
The Orthodox have got this one all sewn up; get one word wrong and they act like Parisians scoffing at an Englishman trying to speak French.
[ 07. November 2014, 16:21: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Of course, they 'invented' it ...
No, seriously, but there is a point to be made here. We can only talk about the Trinity using the language/terminology we've all inherited from the Orthodox.
Or, perhaps more broadly, the paleo-Orthodox undivided Orthodox/Catholic (coterminous) Church of the first Millenium.
Although there were some divergences in Western/Eastern vocabularies and understandings before the Schism of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magersfontein Lugg
Shipmate
# 18240
|
Posted
Thinking a bit more on this. (And really enjoying the comments)
Before the birth of Jesus I can't see - what was the difference between the second and third persons of the Holy Trinity?
A daft question, yeah, but...
What were the attributes of the 2nd person and how do they differ from the Holy Spirit?
Posts: 104 | From: Bottle Street | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It's an interesting question but ultimately an unanswerable one.
Also, does it really matter?
Surely orthodox/Orthodox (small o/Big O) theology teaches that whilst the Persons of the Godhead are distinct, they share a congruence of attitudes (as it were) and intent.
If I can put it crudely, I can't envisage the Second Person of the Trinity 'falling out' or disagreeing with the Third Person of the Trinity ... as though aeons and aeons ago or in the vast expanse of Eternity there was ever some kind of difference of opinion or divergence ...
God the Holy Spirit is referred to as 'the Spirit of Christ' - 1 Peter 1:11 and Romans 8:9.
The scholars and NT Greek experts among us will be able to unpack those references.
However, they would appear to suggest that the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity share a congruence in terms of attributes - if we can put it this way then the Holy Spirit is a 'Christ-like' Spirit ... he acts in the way that Christ does ... with the same compassion, grace, insight and everything else that we see revealed in God the Son.
I can't see how it can be otherwise, nor, to be quite honest, what there is to be gained in trying to 'unpack' and speculate about this particular point.
'The things revealed belong to us ...'
Surely it's sufficient that 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us ...' - with all that this entails - and that the Blessed Holy Spirit of God has been poured out and is active in our world?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Indeed IngoB, I've never got my empty little head, in the patronized, wee-wee end of the pool, beyond now. Just now. I've never understood how every Planck tick of eternity all HAS to be concurrent (and yeah, how many Planck ticks in a God tock?). Now. As opposed to there just being now. And I NEVER will. Every tick tocked. No freedom, no creativity, no love, nothing but one big Bender. Every frame of the movie of eternity back and forwards from now. Even when God grants me brains bigger than yours in the resurrection. I still won't have to believe it.
You do.
If He tells me that all of 'future' 'eternity' 'has' 'happened', I''ll' just have to believe Him. But some part of me ... just 'never' 'will'.
Whereas you have no doubt at all.
And it has NOTHING to do with intellect. Or faith.
Just the limits of disposition. Of invincible ignorance.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think Martin is asking whether Orthodox/Catholic doctrine considers the incarnation and subsequent ascension, glorification and session of God the Son as the God-man changed the nature or substance of the Trinity in some way.
How can you change something that is not in time?
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
* (is "member" allowed)
That actually gets to the heart of it for me. These definitions are so complicated to get one's head around.
I'm not sure what's so complicated. One essence, three persons.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Orthodox have got this one all sewn up; get one word wrong and they act like Parisians scoffing at an Englishman trying to speak French.
And all Protestants are knuckle-dragging morons. FFS.
quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
Thinking a bit more on this. (And really enjoying the comments)
Before the birth of Jesus I can't see - what was the difference between the second and third persons of the Holy Trinity?
A daft question, yeah, but...
What were the attributes of the 2nd person and how do they differ from the Holy Spirit?
The second person is begotten. The third person proceeds. The second person was slain before the foundations of the world. The third person was not. The second person was always incarnate as the God-Man. The third person never was.
Again, "before the birth of Jesus" implies you are looking at God as being in time. The incarnation has a before/after aspect from our perspective, but for God it is an always/ever.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Again, "before the birth of Jesus" implies you are looking at God as being in time. The incarnation has a before/after aspect from our perspective, but for God it is an always/ever.
Which is why singing Felix culpa (O Happy Fault) during the Paschal Vigil Mass Exsultet is daft.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Only in the poetic sense.
Not the woodenly literal.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I heard the event of the crucifixion described as 'a blessed sacrament'. It was real, it actually happened, but it revealed an eternal and permanent truth.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, it happened once, half way through eternity. It isn't happening now and it didn't happen an eternity ago and it won't happen at the end of time.
Unless your narrative requires that.
In which case God bless you.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Yes, the cross happened once and for all.
But sacrifice and death as a principle, as 'essence' in the Godhead is eternal. God knows death personally as an eternal attribute.
In the Garden of Eden God told Adam not to eat the fruit or else he would die.
The serpent, correctly, said that eating the fruit would open their eyes to the knowledge (intimate experience) of good and evil.
After the Fall, God said that Adam and Eve had 'become like one of Us, to know good and evil.'
These things together show that intimate acquaintence with death is an eternal part of God's being - the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
When Adam fell he took that death into his own image and likeness - which is why the opposite of the human condition, of sin and death, is eternal life.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think you were being rather over-earnest in response to daronmedway's quip, Mousethief.
I saw the funny side of it.
And it's not as if the quip doesn't ring true. The Orthodox seem to have a stock in trade of dotting people's 'i's and crossing their 't's when it comes to the Trinity - and that's no bad thing.
That doesn't mean that the rest of us aren't allowed to rib the Orthodox gently about that - which is what daronmedway seems to be doing.
I've not seen anything on this thread so far, whether from East or West that requires pistols at dawn ...
But our mileages may vary.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
Thinking a bit more on this. (And really enjoying the comments)
Before the birth of Jesus I can't see - what was the difference between the second and third persons of the Holy Trinity?
What were the attributes of the 2nd person and how do they differ from the Holy Spirit?
Jonathan Edwards - following Augustine - has it that the Son is the image of the Father and the Spirit is the eternal bond of love between the Father and Son, who proceeds from the Father.
[ 08. November 2014, 13:54: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Not the mirror?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
...that is the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not the mirror?
No, not the mirror; the image itself. There's is no mirror because the image is a person; a person who is the exact representation of the Father's being.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not the mirror?
Oh, I see what you mean. You're suggesting that the Holy Spirit might in some sense be understood as the mirror by which Christ images the Father. Interesting. But probably not orthodox.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'm going to suggest that people may implicitly mean different things when they refer to Jesus, Christ, and God the Son/the eternal Logos/Second Person of the Trinity. Further ISTM that the confusion involves category errors, to wit: when some people speak of Jesus, they mean a biological man born into history; when some people speak of Christ, they mean - at the most orthodox - the God-Man of the hypostatic union of Eternal Logos with human organism who was incarnate of the Virgin Mary (but in other cases they may simply be conflating a humanised Jesus with a title (Christ); and the trickiest or most ambiguous part is what they mean by the Second Person of the Trinity/God the Son/Eternal Word in relation to Jesus. Is there perhaps a tendency to forget/ignore that the hypostatic union is permanent, with the glorified humanity of Christ Jesus being incorporated once and for all into the Godhead, so that God the Son and the incarnate Christ are in fact absolutely the same?
So where do you get that from? My understanding was that Jesus (the incarnate Son) ascended into heaven, where he sitteth at God's right hand, etc. If he was absolutely the same as God the Son (i.e. God), then he wouldn't be sitting next to him, surely, neither would he come again (in person, presumably) to judge the quick and the dead.
See my response above. Further, per Quicunque Vult, the Incarnation involves the taking of the manhood into God, rather than the transformation of divinity into man. God takes humanity into Himself; at the Ascension, the hypostatically unified Christ - God the Son united with the human nature - takes this humanity back into the internal being of the Triune Godhead.
That doesn't answer my objection - in fact, all you're doing is quoting orthodox doctrine at me. You're an Anglican, if I recall - how about some Scripture and Reason, rather than medieval speculation? And does anybody really still hold to the QV these days - I've never heard it said in Oxford.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Holy Smoke, indeed I am arguing the orthodox doctrine of the Church Catholic, and not mediaeval but Patristic. No dogma, no Church Catholic. The question would be what is essential doctrine, I.e., dogma. I would say the formulations of the undivided Church in respect to Christology and Trinitarianism are indispensable and de Fidiei. They are irreducible minimums. They are outworkings of scripture together with theological reasoning.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Holy Smoke, indeed I am arguing the orthodox doctrine of the Church Catholic, and not mediaeval but Patristic. No dogma, no Church Catholic. The question would be what is essential doctrine, I.e., dogma. I would say the formulations of the undivided Church in respect to Christology and Trinitarianism are indispensable and de Fidiei. They are irreducible minimums. They are outworkings of scripture together with theological reasoning.
OK, my view is that we use reason, scripture, and tradition to try to determine the underlying truths behind the Christian religion; you presumably see reason principally as a tool to refine and explicate the truths which you believe have already been established in orthodox doctrine. My issue with the latter is that I don't see any non-self-referential (i.e. non-circular) way of justifying the orthodox position.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I suppose I use reason/lived experience on an entirely different level theologically, and that is basically one of dealing with the problem of theistic belief itself. To me, theism precedes Christianity and in a sense is superordinate to it. For that, my views are more in line with C20 Christian existentialists like - and primarily - Paul Tillich.
However, at the level of the "personal" God and the Christian Catholic religion, I uphold the established dogma of the Fathers of the Undivided Church.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magersfontein Lugg
Shipmate
# 18240
|
Posted
Christ the Universal King yesterday - the Feast I mean was yesterday, made me think more on this. Christ of the Universe existing beyond time.
I find it mind blowing and far from the 'Jesus, Jesus,my boyfriend..' type of spirituality.
However, is this way of talking of Christ found in hymns or in worship texts. Maybe I translate in my head those, when they say 'Almight and All poswerful...' to mean God the Father when it may or could mean different.
Posts: 104 | From: Bottle Street | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
