Ship of Fools: Incarnation?

Thread: Incarnation? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025960

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

The title of this thread derives from a comment made by Firenze who was responding to the thread "Born a child and yet a king". = the arrival of the royal baby.

My comment assumed a theological response which never came on that Purgatorial thread. Perhaps here is a better place.

The discussion went as follows:

Firenze: said "Posh couple have baby equates to the Incarnation?

My response:

Nobody in their right mind would equate the birth of the prince with the incarnation of the Prince of Peace. I certainly wasn't.

But

Is not ours an incarnational faith?

In the OT the King was regarded both as "son of God" (Psalm 2) and even as "messiah". In both roles the king was supposed to be God's agent and the instrument of God's purpose.

In other words God accomplishes His purpose through human agencies.

And could it not be that whenever some man or woman embodies God's Truth and Justice and Mercy and Love then is that some sort of "incarnation"?

Why keep the word to refer only to the incarnation of God in Christ. It has a wider reference. And I cannot help but quote Norman Pittenger in his book 'The Word Incarnate'. He said;

"The incarnation of God in Christ is focally, but not exclusively true of him. He is indeed crucial and definitive, but what is seen there is pervasively true of the whole cosmos.

Jesus is not an isolated entrance or intervention of God into a world which is otherwise without His presence or action. Rather, he is as man, a climactic and definitive point for God's presence and action among men in a world in which God is always present and ceaselessly active. Jesus is not the supreme anomaly, he is the classic instance"

How does this resonate (or not) with Shipmates?

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
My comment assumed a theological response which never came on that Purgatorial thread. Perhaps here is a better place.

It depends. Kerygmania being the place for discussion of Biblical passages and themes, is there a particular text regarding the Incarnation that you'd like to focus on, or at least to get us started?

Mamacita, Kerygmania Host

[ 25. July 2013, 02:14: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Is not ours an incarnational faith?

John 14:6:

quote:
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Yes, it is an incarnational faith, but that means we worship God Incarnate, not that we can be like incarnations of God ourselves. God became Incarnate when Jesus was born and Jesus is the only begotten of the Father - the rest of us don't and can't qualify. If it were otherwise, the Christian faith would be no more incarnational than other faiths which also strive to embody divine qualities.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I have no problem at all with the idea that God incarnates a little bit in us every time we follow in the way that Jesus called His Kingdom.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

I have no problem with the concept I think you have in mind, but I am interested in preserving some term for expressing the unique relationship between Jesus and God, which is different in kind rather than in degree from the relationship you or I can have with God.

No matter how much God might be present with me, there will still be a complete distinction between our identities - I will never be even a little bit the same person as God. For most Christians, though, there is no similar distinction between the identities of Jesus and God the Son. It seems to me to be useful to have a term defined to refer to this concept, and so far, "incarnation" seems to be the best candidate.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Why keep the word to refer only to the incarnation of God in Christ. It has a wider reference. And I cannot help but quote Norman Pittenger in his book 'The Word Incarnate'. He said;

"The incarnation of God in Christ is focally, but not exclusively true of him. He is indeed crucial and definitive, but what is seen there is pervasively true of the whole cosmos.

Jesus is not an isolated entrance or intervention of God into a world which is otherwise without His presence or action. Rather, he is as man, a climactic and definitive point for God's presence and action among men in a world in which God is always present and ceaselessly active. Jesus is not the supreme anomaly, he is the classic instance"

How does this resonate (or not) with Shipmates?

Hmm, I rather like that. It reminds me of the idea that we Christians are all God's 'idol' in some sense; like statues of the pagan gods contemporaneous with early Israel (indeed, like the gods in some faiths today), we are intended to bring God into the world in some sense (idol-making ritual description). The words translated 'image' and 'likeness' in Genesis (demuth and tselem IIRC) are the exact same words used by ancient Israel to describe pagan idols.

It also chimes with the New Testament message that we are to work with God to bring about his kingdom on earth. Jesus said 'the kingdom of God is near' and, to some extent, it is his followers who will bring it about, as we do God's will and establish his way of doing things in our communities, our spheres of influence.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

If we're adopted children of God, and the body of Christ, this surely implies an incarnational presence of God in us.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
W Hyatt: I have no problem with the concept I think you have in mind, but I am interested in preserving some term for expressing the unique relationship between Jesus and God, which is different in kind rather than in degree from the relationship you or I can have with God.

I do believe that the relationship between Jesus and God is unique, I'm just not sure if we should have a term for it. Surely it would be beyond anything our words could describe.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If we're adopted children of God, and the body of Christ, this surely implies an incarnational presence of God in us.

No, it implies the presence of the Holy Spirit in us. How can God Incarnate be inside us? What is he, a parasite?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mudfrog:No, it implies the presence of the Holy Spirit in us.

To be honest, I don't really see a difference between the Holy Spirit being in us, or God being incarnate in us.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Mudfrog:No, it implies the presence of the Holy Spirit in us.
To be honest, I don't really see a difference between the Holy Spirit being in us, or God being incarnate in us.

Because 'incarnate' means 'made flesh, not 'within flesh'.

Jesus never said that God would be incarnate in us, he said that the Spirit, once with us, would be 'within us'. I don't know about you but i certainly do not have a divine and human nature.

Your definition of incarnation is faulty, I suggest; you imply that Jesus being God incarnate merely means that God was incarnate 'within the man' as opposed to 'as the man'.

[ 25. July 2013, 14:30: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mudfrog: Because 'incarnate' means 'made flesh, not 'within flesh'.

To be honest, within the way I live my faith these disctinctions are rather irrelevant. What exactly happens between God and the 'flesh', I'm sure that every time I'd try to describe it in words I'd come up short. I'm perfectly happy with leaving it a Mystery.

To me, the important thing about the Incarnation is that God suffers with us. Whether that is the Holy Spirit or some other part of the Trinity isn't of much concern to me. I guess I leave it up to the Three Persons to decide that between them [Biased]

quote:
Mudfrog: I don't know about you but i certainly do not have a divine and human nature.

As a matter of fact I think we do. I believe that besides our human nature, we may have a glimpse of the divine nature within us from time to time, in a humble and imperfect way. It happens every time we manage to overcome our egoism and enter the Kingdom of God a little bit.

quote:
Mudfrog: you imply that Jesus being God incarnate merely means that God was incarnate 'within the man' as opposed to 'as the man'.

I very much believe that within Jesus, God became man.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I very much believe that within Jesus, God became man.

Whereas I (along with millions of traditional, credal Christians) believe that AS Jesus, God became man. The creed says the Son was "made man" not "made to be within a man."

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mousethief: Whereas I (along with millions of traditional, credal Christians) believe that AS Jesus, God became man. The creed says the Son was "made man" not "made to be within a man."

As, within, whatever. I'm starting to realize that I'm really bad in arguing prepositions.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
W Hyatt: I have no problem with the concept I think you have in mind, but I am interested in preserving some term for expressing the unique relationship between Jesus and God, which is different in kind rather than in degree from the relationship you or I can have with God.
I do believe that the relationship between Jesus and God is unique, I'm just not sure if we should have a term for it. Surely it would be beyond anything our words could describe.

I have no illusions that the term (which is just a single word) could adequately describe the reality, but that is hardly grounds for discarding the term.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
W Hyatt: I have no illusions that the term (which is just a single word) could adequately describe the reality, but that is hardly grounds for discarding the term.

I guess so. If you want to use a term to differentiate how God is wasin¹ Jesus from how He is wasin us, then that's ok by me.

---
¹ A new preposition I just invented for the English language, combining the meanings of 'within' and 'as'. I'm starting to like it already [Biased]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

A simple question.

If, in Jesus, we have two natures in one person then how do we avoid the obvious implication that in some circumstances it was the Divine nature in him accomplishing things and in other circumstances it was Jesus acting purely in terms of his human nature.

Thereafter we have to ask whether Jesus could ever be for us an Example if he had access to resources which we do not have.

In other words Chalcedon, to my mind, raises more questions than it solves.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

But the two natures are perfectly, integrally fused in and as a single person. One nature doesn't act without the other: functionally it as though there is but a single nature: one Christ, fully human and fully divine.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

That is not how it is preached.

I heard a sermon recently in which the preacher argued that the storm was stilled in virtue of Jesus' divine nature.

And I am not sure just what your post asserts. How does two natures integrated enable us to do what Jesus commanded?

We have a single nature. If obeying the Sermon on the Mount is only possible to someone both human and divine then of what use is Jesus to us?

The impression is given of a single person having what, in analogical terms, is a Reserve tank which can be switched on in emergencies.

Mere humans dont have such a Reserve tank.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Well, in stilling the storm, the human nature of Christ did not cease to exist for the moment, with only the divine nature operating. The one Christ is the product, so to speak, of the two natures operating as one.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
shamwari: Thereafter we have to ask whether Jesus could ever be for us an Example if he had access to resources which we do not have.

The way I read the story about the Temptation of Christ, I understand that at least in some way He had the same struggles and temptations as we did.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
If, in Jesus, we have two natures in one person then how do we avoid the obvious implication that in some circumstances it was the Divine nature in him accomplishing things and in other circumstances it was Jesus acting purely in terms of his human nature.

Thereafter we have to ask whether Jesus could ever be for us an Example if he had access to resources which we do not have.

I heard a talk about this exact question a few weeks ago! The guy was coming from the perspective that Jesus didn't have access to resources beyond us, i.e. that all the miraculous things he did were as a result of his full, complete human nature (empowered by the Holy Spirit), not from his divine nature.

The argument went: 'Jesus is holy as a human person because the Spirit is at work in his life, making him holy.' In the same way, the Spirit is at work in our lives, making us holy. It's not that Jesus has an unfair advantage, being the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

The divine nature didn't make the Incarnate Word somehow immune from experiencing temptation, since he wasn't just God occupying a human body, but rather a human whom we also profess to have been the Second Person of the Triune God. This, I think, gets into the mystery of the Incarnation: it can't be fully explained. The other solution, of course, is simply to say that Jesus of Nazareth was a human person who was able to uniquely identify with God as his Father. That, of course, isn't what orthodox Christianity professes.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras: This, I think, gets into the mystery of the Incarnation: it can't be fully explained.

I guess this is about as close as I want to get in trying to describe the relation between the human and divine nature of Christ.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

South Coast Kevin put it right.

Simply to take refuge in "all is a mystery" does not satisfy people today.

They want to know whether it is reasonable to assert this or that.

To take refuge in a 4th Cent ( and Greek dominated philosophical assertion) and conclude that all is mystery is not enough.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
shamwari: South Coast Kevin put it right.

Simply to take refuge in "all is a mystery" does not satisfy people today.

They want to know whether it is reasonable to assert this or that.

To take refuge in a 4th Cent ( and Greek dominated philosophical assertion) and conclude that all is mystery is not enough.

Um, what?? [Confused]

I'm not really in the business of satisfying the people of today.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Well, either you try to engage with the Chalcedonian definition and to maintain doctrinal orthodoxy despite doubts and questions, or you resort to a heterodox understanding of who and what Jesus is.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Why?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If we're adopted children of God, and the body of Christ, this surely implies an incarnational presence of God in us.
No, it implies the presence of the Holy Spirit in us. How can God Incarnate be inside us? What is he, a parasite?

Thank you for correcting me. Like LeRoc, I think that the imagery in practice makes little difference, as we accept and welcome God within us.

If God performed miracles through Moses and Elijah, and they were men, why would God not perform miracles through Jesus? If his human form and nature were completely aligned to his spirit, who is the Holy Spirit, then he is both the Son of God and a human being. I think.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras: Well, either you try to engage with the Chalcedonian definition and to maintain doctrinal orthodoxy despite doubts and questions, or you resort to a heterodox understanding of who and what Jesus is.

Whoa, I had to open three Wikipedia windows just to understand that sentence.

I agree with the Chalcedonian Definition insofar that I believe in the two Natures of Christ. For the rest, the Definition is far too descriptive to me of things that in my opinion can't be described. If that makes me a heterodox, then so be it.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I try to engage with Chalcedon.

But it is far too 'static' for me and I cant accept that formularies framed in 4th Cen Greek philosophical categories are necessarily true for all time.

Did the Holy Spirit cease to inform our understanding at Chalcedon?

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If we're adopted children of God, and the body of Christ, this surely implies an incarnational presence of God in us.
No, it implies the presence of the Holy Spirit in us. How can God Incarnate be inside us? What is he, a parasite?
Thank you for correcting me. Like LeRoc, I think that the imagery in practice makes little difference, as we accept and welcome God within us.

If God performed miracles through Moses and Elijah, and they were men, why would God not perform miracles through Jesus? If his human form and nature were completely aligned to his spirit, who is the Holy Spirit, then he is both the Son of God and a human being. I think.

In orthodox, historic Christianity, Jesus is not just the Son of God, but the incarnate God the Son -- God Hiimself, Second Person of the Triune Godhead. We can certainly come up with alternative ways of understanding The identity of Jesus, but those will not be the understanding of the orthodox Fathers. This doesn't even mean our alternative understandings would be wrong, but these would not be the doctrine of the historic Church.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras: This doesn't even mean our alternative understandings would be wrong, but these would not be the doctrine of the historic Church.

I'm cool with that. I have no problem with being outside the doctrine of the historic Church.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

This is a general theological discussion (certainly an interesting one) rather than one centered on any passage from the Bible, and as such is better suited to Purgatory. With the consent of the Purg hosts, I'm transferring it there.

Mamacita, Keryg Host

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
A simple question.

If, in Jesus, we have two natures in one person then how do we avoid the obvious implication that in some circumstances it was the Divine nature in him accomplishing things and in other circumstances it was Jesus acting purely in terms of his human nature.

Natures don't do things, people do.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I agree with the Chalcedonian Definition insofar that I believe in the two Natures of Christ. For the rest, the Definition is far too descriptive to me of things that in my opinion can't be described. If that makes me a heterodox, then so be it.

I think the point of the Chalcedonian Definition is far more to rule out two positions that do try to be descriptive. It is only descriptive in so far as it has to be to rule out narrow descriptions.

The controversy that led up to the Definition happened when Nestorius said, you cannot say that Mary is the Mother of God; it is wrong because this is how Jesus is.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think the point of the Chalcedonian Definition is far more to rule out two positions that do try to be descriptive. It is only descriptive in so far as it has to be to rule out narrow descriptions.

The Councils seem to do this quite a lot (sadly, IMO). They aren't about getting closer to the truth, so much as defining what isn't the truth and thus categorising those who hold to the non-truth positions as heretics. Pfft.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

As onlie begetter of this thread, my response to its thesis would be -

...Mercy has a human heart,
Pity a human face,
And Love, the human form divine,
And Peace, the human dress...

Cruelty has a human heart,
And Jealousy a human face;
Terror the human form divine,
And Secresy the human dress.

It is all and only human: both good and evil comprise The/A Divine Image.

It follows that what others would see as a theological problem strikes me more as an imaginative or creative one. How do you conceive of the psyche of an individual simultaneously limited and time bound and omnipotent and transcendent? That we can think of thinking about such a being does not to me prove its existence, sith our erected wit maketh us to know perfection... - but let's not get into Sir P Sydney.

Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :

I've been thinking about this thread all day and the question that is buzzing around my head is this:

Is the Incarnation about identity rather than about functionality?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
I've been thinking about this thread all day and the question that is buzzing around my head is this:

Is the Incarnation about identity rather than about functionality?

It's about personal essential being. You cannot express incarnation unless you are the incarnation.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Wah-hoo! shamwari! What a great dialectic.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0