Theology Club: Open Theism and Genesis 1

themuzicman

Well-known member
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.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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:

Lon

Well-known member
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.'
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
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"
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
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.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
"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.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
You're going to wind up hanging on to someone's toes if you keep flip flopping:

you said:
Again, the human nature is indeed personal, but with a personhood from above.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-jesus-take said:
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.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
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.)
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.)
Rank heresy.

"took himself a human person, forming one person from two persons" is contrary to Chalcedon's warnings of mixing, confusing, dividing, separating the two natures.

Again, will is attached to nature, not to person. The human nature is impersonal (not a person). This in no way means there cannot be two wills as will is associated with the nature.

You are all over the place with your odd views and now resort to making up new creedal statements. Please speak with your pastor and ask him what he thinks of the statement: so he took to himself a human person, forming one person from the two. Sigh.

AMR
 

Lon

Well-known member
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.
I 'think' I do have a clear idea. :think: If man was commanded to do something, he is not free to disobey.
Again, you need to go look at what Open Theism actually claims. These verses in no way affect free will.
"Without me you cannot do any one thing" doesn't affect freedom of will? What could you do without Christ? Any one thing?
Sounds like Calvinism.
"God is Spirit" is Calvinism? I hope to God it is Open Theology as well. "God is not physical Acts 7:48." I hope to God it is part of Lutheran belief as well. God's ways are different than our ways? Isaiah 55:8-9
I pray Catholics believe the same thing. Can we surmise things about God wrongly as finite men and/or sinners? If not, I'd not need a Savior nor need to study to show myself an approved workman. I pray to God we all are seeking to be approved workmen. What was Calvinistic? :idunno:

Free will doesn't mean unlimited ability. Surely you're intelligent enough to grasp that distinction.
Surely I do, but I want to know in what sense 'you' think we are free. All I have said with a few supporting points, was that I think "subdue" as a directive describes a command Adam and Eve "weren't" free to disobey. When pushed, I do agree with you of sorts, because they were perfect, thus the world was indeed more open to them. They had not but one command to subdue the earth and the other to avoid the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. I guess I'd even say that it supports your point they had a 'free' will at that point. My only contention is that I don't think it supports Open Theism in that passage.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Rank heresy.

"took himself a human person, forming one person from two persons" is contrary to Chalcedon's warnings of mixing, confusing, dividing, separating the two natures.

Again, will is attached to nature, not to person. The human nature is impersonal (not a person). This in no way means there cannot be two wills as will is associated with the nature.

You are all over the place with your odd views and now resort to making up new creedal statements. Please speak with your pastor and ask him what he thinks of the statement: so he took to himself a human person, forming one person from the two. Sigh.

AMR

Maybe you should define "person", as it's clearly not defined like the rest of us define it.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
I 'think' I do have a clear idea. :think: If man was commanded to do something, he is not free to disobey.

Umm... Adam was free to disobey... And DID. He wasn't free from consequences, but that doesn't mean he couldn't.

(That's a major Bzzzzzzt.)

"Without me you cannot do any one thing" doesn't affect freedom of will? What could you do without Christ? Any one thing?

People around the world live their entire lives without Christ. They do lots of things.

You see, this is what it known as "bad exegesis", in that you ignore what Jesus is actually speaking about so you can talk about what YOU want to talk about.

Are you going to dispute that people around the world live their entire lives without Christ?

(Another Bzzzzzt.)

"God is Spirit" is Calvinism?

OK, troll, you're done.

Have a nice life.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
"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

If Christ is not fully human like me, then his sacrifice was in vain, and it cannot propitiate my sins.

And you've just confirmed, yet again, that you directly contradict Chalcedon.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Maybe you should define "person", as it's clearly not defined like the rest of us define it.
Asked and answered:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...nd-Genesis-1&p=4679570&viewfull=1#post4679570

We must avoid anachronistically importing how "the rest of us define" person when speaking of the theological doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation. Modern notions do not work well in this arena and will lead to the errors you are flirting around with now.

The simple litmus test of a proper understanding of the incarnation is the answer to the question "Could the person we call Jesus have existed without the overshadowing of Mary by the Holy Spirit?"

There is only one right answer: No.

Why? Such a person known as "Jesus" to have existed without the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit would have been the result of natural union between man and woman, thereby he would have been yet another fallen man just as you or I were at our birth. Such a fallen man would have been in need of the Good News, the works of God alone for his re-birth just all us sinners require.

The human nature of Our Lord was not an inherited fallen human nature.

Unlike us, Our Lord did not participate in Adam's sin (we all sinned in Adam just as if we were really there, hence we are born sinners who sin), so the corruption and guilt of Adam's fall were not transmitted to Our Lord's human nature. We need to remember that sin is not essential to the human nature qua nature. Sin is not an entity in itself; sin is always related to a law. Corruption of a person is not material; it is moral. The seat of morality lies within our will. Our will lies within our nature.

Our Lord took on Him our human nature's sinless infirmities, such as hunger, grief, thirst, weariness, and the like (Rom. 8:3), submitted to poverty and want (Matthew 8:20), endured assaults and temptations of Satan (Hebrews 4:15), together with the contradiction, reproach, and persecution of a wicked world (Hebrews 12:3). He did so such that He might take the sting out of all the afflictions of His people (Romans 8:28), and sympathize with them in their troubles (Isaiah 63:9).

No such a Person could have existed unless this Person was the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

AMR
 
Last edited:

Lon

Well-known member
Umm... Adam was free to disobey... And DID. He wasn't free from consequences, but that doesn't mean he couldn't.

(That's a major Bzzzzzzt.)
Depending on how you define 'free.' I dislike it, when discussing the will. "Responsible" will is much better imho.

People around the world live their entire lives without Christ. They do lots of things.
Out of His Will. There is a difference.
You see, this is what it known as "bad exegesis", in that you ignore what Jesus is actually speaking about so you can talk about what YOU want to talk about.
Not what I did. Read 'a difference' above. You are strawman-ning it again.
You... are just being combative for no real reason.
AMR



Are you going to dispute that people around the world live their entire lives without Christ?

(Another Bzzzzzt.)
Nope. Are you going to continue to play the 'simpleton' role? I'm not going to buzz you, but will not waste my time, but ignore you.



OK, troll, you're done.

Have a nice life.
Mutual at this point. This is not the section for inane banter, Muz.
 
Last edited:
Top