User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37

Thread: Open Theism and Genesis 1

  1. #16
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,928
    Thanks
    3,112
    Thanked 2,857 Times in 1,729 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147670
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    No, I've stated that there is one person, and that both the divine AND human are personal.
    You have also stated:
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Denying the human person of Christ is a violation of Chalcedon.
    There is no human person of Christ. You are not using words carefully. The Person of Jesus Christ is the Person of God the Son. You admitted this, as well you should.

    What are you actually trying to say each time you say "both the divine and the human {natures} are personal"? You keep complaining about those two linked items, yet both plainly state that the human nature assumed by the Person of God the Son was impersonal. Further, the author plainly state that by "impersonal" it is meant that the Person of God the Son did not assume another Person, for that would be the nonsense of two Persons. Why are you struggling with this and trying to make it mean more than it states?

    AMR
    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; April 10th, 2016 at 01:06 AM. Reason: grammar
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    — Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    theophilus (December 21st, 2016)

  3. #17
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56721
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    You have also stated:


    There is no human person of Christ. You are not using words carefully. The Person of Jesus Christ is the Person of God the Son. You admitted this, as well you should.

    What are you actually trying to say each time you say "both the divine and the human {natures} are personal"? You keep complaining about those two linked items, yet both plainly state that the human nature assumed by the Person of God the Son was impersonal. Further, the author plainly state that by "impersonal" it is meant that the Person of God the Son did not assume another Person, for that would be the nonsense of two Persons. Why are you struggling with this and trying to make it mean more than it states?

    AMR
    As you do with scripture, you also tear my comments form context in an attempt to cover your own heresy.

    I was referring to the personal aspect of the human nature of Christ, which you deny.


    Maybe you could answer this question: How does the impersonal have a will?

    Or this: Is Christ's human nature like our human nature?
    Last edited by themuzicman; April 11th, 2016 at 07:45 AM.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  4. #18
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,928
    Thanks
    3,112
    Thanked 2,857 Times in 1,729 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147670
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    As you do with scripture, you also tear my comments form context in an attempt to cover your own heresy.
    I was referring to the personal aspect of the human nature of Christ, which you deny.
    Maybe you could answer this question: How does the impersonal have a will?
    Or this: Is Christ's human nature like our human nature?
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    As you do with scripture, you also tear my comments form context in an attempt to cover your own heresy.

    I was referring to the personal aspect of the human nature of Christ, which you deny.

    Maybe you could answer this question: How does the impersonal have a will?

    Or this: Is Christ's human nature like our human nature?
    How is it you claim I deny something that you have yet to explain? You claim I take your comments out of context, yet you have not provided a single contextual element other than to keep saying "personal aspect of the human nature". Unpack that with some examples or more explanation versus leaving it to the reader to read your mind.

    As to your question about Jesus' human nature and our own, His human nature was just like our human nature except for the corruption of sin.

    The use of impersonal in this discussion means that which is not a person. The word is not being used to mean something is irrelevant or insignificant.

    The will of a Person is associated with their nature. Jesus, one Person, has two natures, therefore, two wills. Sp if you want to say Jesus' human nature is personal to Him, no one is arguing with you. So is His divine nature personal to Him. But these statements alone can mean many things to the reader. What do you mean? For example, by "personal to Him" do you mean, "really important", as in someone "taking this or that personally"?

    Your usage of "impersonal" in a complaining fashion implies you have not understood how the word was being used. Again, the only meaning in this discussion was that it meant that which is not a person. Period. You repeat over and over Jesus' human nature was personal to Him, yet you stop there and expect someone to grasp what you mean.

    This leaves me with being only able to assume that when you speak of "personal aspects of the human nature" you can only mean Our Lord possesses the fullness of physical, mental, and spiritual components of humanity. Now where have I denied such? So, if you want to say Jesus' human nature is personal to Him along these lines, no one is arguing with you. So the same may be said of His divine nature.

    If you mean something else, then please explain, preferably with examples.

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    — Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    theophilus (December 21st, 2016)

  6. #19
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56721
    Sorry, but you're off into the absurd, now. You claim that Christ's humanity is "impersonal", and then insist that all the elements of the human person are still there. Yes, Christ is one person, but he has every aspect of the human nature, including the personal.

    Maybe you could try this one: Are human beings impersonal?
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  7. #20
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,928
    Thanks
    3,112
    Thanked 2,857 Times in 1,729 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147670
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    Sorry, but you're off into the absurd, now. You claim that Christ's humanity is "impersonal", and then insist that all the elements of the human person are still there. Yes, Christ is one person, but he has every aspect of the human nature, including the personal.

    Maybe you could try this one: Are human beings impersonal?
    Why not simply provide examples of what you mean with "personal" instead of playing twenty questions? You obviously have an opinion so get on with it.

    Human beings are not impersonal. The human nature taken up by our Lord was not a human being, for then we would have the being of God the Son, the Logos, as well as the being of a human, which would be two beings, that is Two persons, in the Incarnate Christ. That is error for Persons act, natures are. You get this and are just being combative for no real reason.

    Now answer a simple question of my own: Do you deny the anhypostasis and enhypostasis? Try not to get wrapped around the axle these linked items and just focus on the distinctions being made between anhypostatic (not personal in itself) and enhypostatic (personalized by union with the eternal person of the Son).

    If you deny, an explanation for your reasons would be much appreciated.
    The notion that the human nature assumed by God the Son was an individuated human being that could exist outside the assumption by the divine God is an error—a very dangerous one. Your cavils are not with me nor with Calvinism. Your complaints are directed to the church that has spoken on the matter in response to many heresies:

    "Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ.."

    Jesus Christ participates perfectly in two natures, divine and human; he possesses the fullness of human life in all its physical, mental, and spiritual components; his two natures are not combined into a third kind of nature; but they are nonetheless united in one person.

    A. A. Hodge on the topic:
    Spoiler
    The same Person is called God because of his divinity, while it is affirmed that he shed his human blood for his Church. Again: while standing among his disciples on the earth, he says. “The Son of man, which is in heaven.” Here the same Person, who is called Son of man because of his humanity, is declared to be omnipresent — that is, at the same time on earth and in heaven — as to his divine nature. This, of course, implies absolute singleness of Person, including at once divine and human attributes.

    Again: the Scriptures teach us that this amazing personality does not centre in his humanity, and that it is not a composite one originated by the power of the Spirit when he brought the two natures together in the womb of the Virgin Mary. It was not made by adding manhood to Godhead. The Trinity is eternal and unchangeable. A new Person is not substituted for the second Person of the Trinity, neither is a fourth Person added to the Trinity. But the Person of Christ is just the one eternal Word, the second Person of the Trinity, which in time, by the power of the Holy Ghost, through the instrumentality of the womb of the Virgin, took a human nature (not a man, but the seed of man, humanity in the germ) into personal union with himself. The Person is eternal and divine. The humanity is introduced into it. The centre of the personality always continues in the eternal personal Word or Son of God.

    Let me illustrate this by your personality and mine. We consist of soul and body, two distinct substances, but one person. This personality, however, is not composed of the union of soul and body at birth. The personality from the first to the last centres in the soul, and is only shared in by the body. By soul we mean only one thing — that is, an incarnate spirit, a spirit with a body. Thus we never speak of the souls of angels. They are pure spirits, having no bodies. Put a spirit in a body, and the spirit becomes a soul, and the body is quickened into life and becomes a part of the person of the soul. Separate soul and body, as death does, and the soul becomes a ghost and the body becomes a corpse. When death takes place the body passes out of the personality, is called “it,” and is placed in the grave; while the soul, still continuing the person, goes at once to be judged of God. At the resurrection the same personal soul will return and take up the same body once discarded, and, receiving it again into its personality, will stand before God a complete man.

    So the divine Word, which from eternity was the second Person of the Trinity, did eighteen hundred years ago take, not a human person, but a human nature into his eternal personality, which ever continues, not a human person nor a divine-human person, but the eternal second Person of the Trinity, with a human nature embraced in it as its personal organ.


    For your further study:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830815376
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080544422X

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    — Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    theophilus (December 21st, 2016)

  9. #21
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56721
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Human beings are not impersonal. The human nature taken up by our Lord was not a human being, for then we would have the being of God the Son, the Logos, as well as the being of a human, which would be two beings, that is Two persons, in the Incarnate Christ. That is error for Persons act, natures are. You get this and are just being combative for no real reason.
    That's all we need to see. Jesus wasn't a human being, thus he isn't fully man. Denial of Chalcedon. That's heresy, folks. Don't really need to see anything else.

    After thinking for a moment, that's a denial of 1 Corinthians 15, as well, as a human being wasn't resurrected, either, and thus any hope of other human beings being resurrected is gone, too. Your faith is in vain, AMR.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  10. #22
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,928
    Thanks
    3,112
    Thanked 2,857 Times in 1,729 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147670
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    That's all we need to see. Jesus wasn't a human being, thus he isn't fully man. Denial of Chalcedon. That's heresy, folks. Don't really need to see anything else.
    No, your view is two beings existed in the Incarnation. Two Persons. This is manifest Nestorian error and long denounced by the church.

    You continue to lay charges at my feet but refrain from answering any questions I have posed. I suspect the reason is that once you answer plainly the errors you are entertaining will be made public. So cavil all you desire at my expense, but your lack of substantive explanations are not going unnoticed.

    AMR
    Last edited by Ask Mr. Religion; April 16th, 2016 at 03:51 AM.
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    — Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    theophilus (December 21st, 2016)

  12. #23
    TOL Subscriber Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    8,236
    Thanks
    1,685
    Thanked 3,346 Times in 2,017 Posts

    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1670926
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I think one of the best cases for Open Theism is found in the creation of man...
    the idea that man may do as he wishes implies an open future. If the future is already fixed, then God has actually determined what man will do, and man wouldn't really have dominion.

    Thus, the very creation of the earth and God's giving dominion over it to man tells us that God created the universe with an open future.
    "Subdue the earth" was a 'directive.' More free would have been no directive whatsoever. Therefore, I think Genesis less supportive of Open Theism, than moreso. It isn't a 'freedom' to subdue, but a command to do it.

    "Free" entails autonomy where as John 15:5 and Colossians 1:17 mandate, and more, express without alterable possibility, that man cannot be free.

    Most often, I think Christians get caught up in physical theology which is not God's reality. He is NOT a physical being but Spirit.
    What I see happen, very often, is that physical man (you and I) will only conceptualize a spiritual truth from our own perspective.
    It is not wrong to do so, but it is limiting and so many of our conclusions, bound by that limitation, will end up wrong.

    When God creates man, He made Him with many limitations, so "open" or "free" are generally closed terms regarding us. They are restricted terms, at best, applied to man and cannot be otherwise. God is truly the only freewill agent and unrestricted agent in our universe and beyond it. This by necessity means man cannot be but severely limited nor but qualified-somewhat as 'free.'
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    Ktoyou (April 15th, 2016),theophilus (December 21st, 2016)

  14. #24
    TOL Legend Ktoyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Alabama and Florida
    Posts
    8,761
    Thanks
    1,839
    Thanked 5,256 Times in 3,748 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147698
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Monothelites held that Christ had only one will; but will belongs to nature, and given that Christ had two natures, He must also have two wills. That is quite clear in Scripture from the prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane. .......
    AMR
    This is it. If Jesus had one nature He would have not feared death. His sacrifice would have been without meaning. We see Jesus on the cross expressing two natures. "Why did you forsake me" and "it is finished"
    Quote Originally Posted by marhig View Post
    Christian theology isn't to be in Christ.


    So, what?

    believe it!

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ktoyou For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (April 16th, 2016),theophilus (December 21st, 2016)

  16. #25
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56721
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    No, your view is two beings existed in the Incarnation. Two Persons. This is manifest Nestorian error and long denounced by the church.
    Since I haven't stated that there are two persons, you're making a false accusation, here.

    OTOH, you have clearly denied that Jesus is a human being as stated above, and you've contradicted Chalcedon very clearly. (Indeed, you appear to be flirting with Docetism, but that's other heresy.)

    You continue to lay charges at my feet but refrain from answering any questions I have posed. I suspect the reason is that once you answer plainly the errors you are entertaining will be made public. So cavil all you desire at my expense, but your lack of substantive explanations are not going unnoticed.

    AMR
    Now answer a simple question of my own: Do you deny the anhypostasis and enhypostasis? Try not to get wrapped around the axle these linked items and just focus on the distinctions being made between anhypostatic (not personal in itself) and enhypostatic (personalized by union with the eternal person of the Son).
    I think by identifying these views as heretical, I've answered your question.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  17. #26
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56721
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    "Subdue the earth" was a 'directive.' More free would have been no directive whatsoever. Therefore, I think Genesis less supportive of Open Theism, than moreso. It isn't a 'freedom' to subdue, but a command to do it.
    You clearly have no idea what "Open Theism" is, or what kind of freedom it purports. The fact that God gives dominion and commands us to subdue is a clear indicator of free will. The fact that man is given direction doesn't change that at all.

    "Free" entails autonomy where as John 15:5 and Colossians 1:17 mandate, and more, express without alterable possibility, that man cannot be free.
    5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
    17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
    Again, you need to go look at what Open Theism actually claims. These verses in no way affect free will.

    Most often, I think Christians get caught up in physical theology which is not God's reality. He is NOT a physical being but Spirit.
    What I see happen, very often, is that physical man (you and I) will only conceptualize a spiritual truth from our own perspective.
    It is not wrong to do so, but it is limiting and so many of our conclusions, bound by that limitation, will end up wrong.
    Sounds like Calvinism.

    When God creates man, He made Him with many limitations, so "open" or "free" are generally closed terms regarding us. They are restricted terms, at best, applied to man and cannot be otherwise. God is truly the only freewill agent and unrestricted agent in our universe and beyond it. This by necessity means man cannot be but severely limited nor but qualified-somewhat as 'free.'
    Free will doesn't mean unlimited ability. Surely you're intelligent enough to grasp that distinction.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  18. #27
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,928
    Thanks
    3,112
    Thanked 2,857 Times in 1,729 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147670
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    I think by identifying these views {anhypostatic/enhypostatic} as heretical, I've answered your question.
    Therein is your error. Your argument is with Christendom, not me.

    When speaking of Person the church always understands the word to mean that a person is an independent entity, indivisible, rational, incommunicable, not sustained by another nature but possessing in itself the principle of its operation. The Second Person of the Trinity took up a human nature, not a human person implying possession of independent existence. When speaking of the Trinity and the Incarnation one of the problems in understanding the patristic use of person is that we anachronistically import modern psychological concepts into the idea of person—versus how the word was used by the church in denouncing heresies—in a way that would lead to one of the many possible errors you are now entertaining.

    Tolle lege...

    Donald Macleod, The Person of Christ:
    Christ took human nature, but he did not take a man. He took the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7), but not a servant. He did not even take an existing human genotype or embryo. He created the genotype in union with himself, and it’s ‘personality’ developed only in union with the Son of God . . . [H]e is a divine person who, without ‘adopting’ an existing human person took our human nature and entered upon the whole range of human experiences.

    Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics:
    The humanity taken up into the person of the Logos is, then, not a personal man but human nature without personal subsistence.

    Fred Sanders, Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology:
    On the one hand, the human nature of Jesus Christ is in fact a nature joined to a person, and therefore enhypostatic, or personalized. But the person who personalizes the human nature of Christ is not a created human person (like all the other persons personalizing the other human natures we encounter); rather it is the eternal second person of the Trinity. So the human nature of Christ is personal, but with a personhood from above.

    Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons:
    Classical Christology, under the illuminating guidance of Cyril of Alexandria, explained this in relation to the twin concepts of anhypostatos and enhypostatos . This was further developed by Severus of Antioch and John of Damascus. By ‘anhypostatic’ it was asserted that in the assumption of the flesh the human nature of Christ had no independent hypostasis or subsistence apart from the event of the incarnation, apart from hypostatic union, which ruled out any adoptionist error. By ‘enhypostatic’, however, it was asserted that in the assumption of the flesh the human nature of Christ was given a real concrete hypostasis or subsistence within the hypostatic union—it was enhypostatic in the incarnate Son or Word of God—which ruled out any Apollinarian or monophysite error. The concepts of anhypostasis and enhypostasis are complementary and inseparable.

    Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical dictionary of theology: Second Edition:
    Further controversies were yet to arise before the mind of the church could be made up as to how the human nature could indeed retain its complete humanity and yet be without independent subsistence. It was Leontius of Byzantium who advanced the formula that enabled the majority to agree on an interpretation of the Chalcedonian formula. The human nature of Christ, he taught, was not an independent hypostasis (anhypostatic), but it was enhypostatic, i.e., it had its subsistence in and through the Logos.

    Bromiley, G. W., D. Orthodoxy, and D. M. Baillie. “Christology.” Ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised 1979–1988:
    F. Eutychianism After the condemnation of Nestorius at Ephesus (431) the opposite extreme was again reached in Eutyches of Alexandria, who pressed the unity of Christ to the point of a unity of nature rather than of person, thus absorbing the human nature into the divine. In answer to this new Docetism, and to the whole problem of divine and human natures in one person, the Council of Chalcedon (451) finally achieved the balanced statement that in Christ two natures are united in one person or hypostasis, without confusion, conversion, division, or separation. In explanation of the possibility of true humanity without an independent hypostasis (anhypostatic), as Cyril of Alexandria has already urged against Nestorius, it was taught by Leontius of Byzantium that the human nature of Christ is enhypostatic, i.e., that it has its substance in and through the lógos.


    Considered in itself and abstracted from its personalizing by the eternal person of the Son, the human nature of Jesus Christ is simply human nature, and is not personal. The human nature of Christ, therefore, is both anhypostatic (not personal in itself) and enhypostatic (personalized by union with the eternal person of the Son).

    The humanity of Jesus had no existence apart from the incarnation of the Word (John 1:1,14). Again, the human nature is indeed personal, but with a personhood from above. In short, in the Person of Our Lord there is one who (person - Divine Logos) and two whats (natures - divine and human).

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    — Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    theophilus (December 21st, 2016)

  20. #28
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56721
    You're going to wind up hanging on to someone's toes if you keep flip flopping:

    Quote Originally Posted by you
    Again, the human nature is indeed personal, but with a personhood from above.
    Quote Originally Posted by http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-jesus-take
    Enter the theological term anhypostasis. The Greek word hypostasis had come to refer in the early church discussions to what we’d call personhood—whether in the Trinity or in the two-natured person of Jesus—and so the negating an- prefix was added to signify that, considered on its own (apart from his divinity), Jesus’ humanity is impersonal.
    Fred Sanders, Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective: An Introductory Christology:
    On the one hand, the human nature of Jesus Christ is in fact a nature joined to a person, and therefore enhypostatic, or personalized. But the person who personalizes the human nature of Christ is not a created human person (like all the other persons personalizing the other human natures we encounter); rather it is the eternal second person of the Trinity. So the human nature of Christ is personal, but with a personhood from above.
    However:

    Donald Macleod, The Person of Christ:
    Christ took human nature, but he did not take a man.
    Heretical. Not fully man.

    Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics:
    The humanity taken up into the person of the Logos is, then, not a personal man but human nature without personal subsistence.
    Heretical. Not fully man.

    By ‘anhypostatic’ it was asserted that in the assumption of the flesh the human nature of Christ had no independent hypostasis or subsistence apart from the event of the incarnation, apart from hypostatic union, which ruled out any adoptionist error.
    Inaccurate, attempting to resolve the problem by appealing to previous text, which doesn't posit an "impersonal" human nature.


    I think the problem you have is that you seem to think that "Reformed Theologians = Christendom." This is clearly not the case. You might try getting out of that bunker once in a while.
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  21. #29
    Over 1500 post club themuzicman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,788
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 96 Times in 78 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    56721
    What your view fails to do, AMR, is consider that just as God the Son took to himself a human nature, without conflation in the natures, and yet having one person, so he took to himself a human person, forming one person from the two, without conflating the two.

    Only in this was can Christ be fully human and fully God. (for that matter, only in this way can there be two wills in Christ. When you make the human nature impersonal, you remove the will.)
    I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.

    2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  22. #30
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    5,928
    Thanks
    3,112
    Thanked 2,857 Times in 1,729 Posts

    Blog Entries
    143
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147670
    Quote Originally Posted by themuzicman View Post
    You're going to wind up hanging on to someone's toes if you keep flip flopping:
    Context to the use of "impersonal" in the quotes carries with it discussions that deny the human nature was a person, hence the use "impersonal". When reading "the human nature is personal, but with a personhood from above" it is pointedly noting that the person qua person is from the divine Logos.

    "Did not take a man" - meaning did not take a person, like you are a man.
    "not a personal man" - meaning did not take a person, like you are a personal man

    You know what is being stated and just want to play at being obtuse.

    There is nothing about Reformed theology at work here. These are the teachings of the church councils. Your quibble is with Christendom, as is the quibble of all open theists.

    AMR
    WARNING: Embedded link content that may be in my post above or the many embedded links my sig below are not for the faint of heart.



    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    — Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  23. The Following User Says Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    theophilus (December 21st, 2016)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us