Two Persons in One Nature & the Atonement

everbecoming2007 · Jan 2, 2016

Cappadocious said:
You've given three examples and told me that hypostases can stand in different relations to one another. But this isn't a definition of hypostasis that you can contrast to nature.

Well there is only so far that I in particular can define these things for you, and that probably goes for the tradition in general. All I can tell you is that the divinity is not differentiated by relations like the persons/hypostases are -- it is but one divinity.

Cappadocious said:
Ok. Because typically "Godhead" is another word for "Divinity" which would not be identical to the Trinity.

I have heard it used in both senses: here I have used it to refer to the Trinity since I have referred to the divine substance of the Godhead.

Cappadocious said:
Right, but what is the metaphor indicating in this instance?

"Three in one, one in Three:" there are three persons in one God. That is, there are three persons with one divine essence.

Cappadocious said:
By "humanity" do you mean the general human nature we share, or the particular human nature of Christ? That is part of the ambiguity.

Jesus offered up his particular human nature. So far as I know he also offered up ours since he shared that nature in common with us.

Cappadocious said:
I suspect this has to do with differences in our understanding of what sacrifice is in the Judeo-Christian tradition and what Calvary accomplished. The Messiah is a divine king who is the suffering servant. The fact that he is God himself offering himself to God is significant. He is both the Righteous Man and the Divine One who is that Righteous Man. These can be separated in contemplation but not actuality.

To be more blunt I don't think God said, "I need a spotless human!" and Jesus runs up and says, "I've got humanity to fill that slot, plus some other stuff!" and God replied, "leave the other stuff, I'll just take the humanity for the purposes of your act here." That would ignore the significance of WHO is doing the offering and how the union of divinity and humanity is part of the goal of creation and salvation itself.

For us Psalm 1 is not talking about some man or other who fulfill's God's demand for a righteous man. It is talking about one particular man, Christ himself, and any who do so through him.

I'm not really following this very well and also do not think you are explaining well at all my understanding of Jesus' offering.

I've also noticed that you still did not answer the question I keep asking and so it is still making it difficult for me to interpret what sense you think Jesus offered up divinity in atonement.

Cappadocious · Jan 3, 2016

everbecoming2007 said:
Well there is only so far that I in particular can define these things for you

I worry, then, how you can throw around the word hypostasis without having an idea of what a hypostasis is. It'd be like if I said Christ is three dorfts in two quadlums, then said that the three dorfts aren't identical and relate to one another. Yeah, that helps, but it doesn't give me the sort of explanatory power I'd hope for.

everbecoming2007 said:
All I can tell you is that the divinity is not differentiated by relations like the persons/hypostases are -- it is but one divinity.

And it exists only insofar as the Trinitarian Persons exist, who each have or exemplify or essentially participate in (what have you) the divinity.

And you're treating substance, nature and essence as the same, right?

everbecoming2007 said:
Jesus offered up his particular human nature. So far as I know he also offered up ours since he shared that nature in common with us.

So he offered up his particular human nature and with it general human nature and creaturehood as such. Ok. But since his particular nature is grounded in his hypostasis, it cannot be discerned apart from him except in contemplation alone. In actuality it cannot be discerned apart from him.

everbecoming2007 said:
I'm not really following this very well and also do not think you are explaining well at all my understanding of Jesus' offering.

Ok, sorry.

everbecoming2007 said:
I've also noticed that you still did not answer the question I keep asking and so it is still making it difficult for me to interpret what sense you think Jesus offered up divinity in atonement.

I think Christ offered himself with all of his attendant properties, powers, operations, attributes, circumstances, etc. to/back to God in order to unite God with man and creator with created, etc. This includes his divinity.

Hoghead1 · Jan 3, 2016

The Trinity has always been a very confusing issue. For example, Gregory of Nazianzus stated that many were confused on what exactly is the Holy Spirit and the Scripture makes no clear statement here. The problem is that the early church viewed God as a static monad. Therefore, it was very difficult to introduce into God the complicated machinery and relationships of the Trinity, as God was thought of as wholly simple and nonrelational.

everbecoming2007 · Jan 16, 2016

I've been away from the forum for a while and have lost track of the thread. I'll be following it again but I strongly suspect there have been theological problems with both sides of this debate including in some of my own posts and will have to study more about this before I offer too many more comments. I will say that the personhood of Jesus is certainly distinct from his human nature: the person of Jesus pre-exists the humanity.

I am still not convinced it is proper to offer up the divinity of the persons of the Trinity in atonement.

ewq1938 · Jan 16, 2016

everbecoming2007 said:
I've been away from the forum for a while and have lost track of the thread. I'll be following it again but I strongly suspect there have been theological problems with both sides of this debate including in some of my own posts and will have to study more about this before I offer too many more comments. I will say that the personhood of Jesus is certainly distinct from his human nature: the person of Jesus pre-exists the humanity.

Yes, except the name Jesus was not used for him pre-incarnation so it is more accurate to call the pre-incarnated one the Word instead of Jesus.

I am still not convinced it is proper to offer up the divinity of the persons of the Trinity in atonement.

Of course not. Divinity is not needed in the sin atonement sacrifice. The life of the animal/person was what was sacrificed. What Jesus needed to be was sin free and to give up his human life to be able to pay for the sins of all others who come to him in repentance. Divinity was not "given up" in this process.

Hoghead1 · Jan 17, 2016

I am having two major problems with what has been said so far. First, it seems that the penal-substitutionary theory of the Atonement is being insisted upon. It should be stressed that this is but one theory of the atonement, so that we do have other options to explore. And I believe we should look elsewhere. Why? this penal theory is contradictory. God is loving and therefore wants to forgive, which means at a minimum the remission of punishment, but God really isn't all that forgiving and so needs some one to really take it out on. God takes it out on Jesus, who is truly innocent, but has become the whipping boy to take the punishment that rightfully belongs to us. Maybe in the medieval period this was considered justice to have someone innocent punished to alleviate the prince from having to undergo that. However, I consider it most unjust. I consider God here as unloving; for when you truly love someone, you do not coerced them by threats of punishment.
The traditional doctrine of the two natures of Christ is being insisted upon. The problem I have is that this doctrine denies that God can experience any emotion, let alone suffering. In that case, I cannot see how God could be all-knowing and loving, as apparently God is but another version of Aristotle's Unmoved M over, who has no empathic responsiveness to ourselves. Only a suffering God can help.

Cappadocious · Jan 20, 2016

I've never claimed penal substitution, fyi.

Hoghead1 · Apr 12, 2016

Well, I definitely am not, Cappa. I don't know where you are getting that idea. Can you give me some specific references in my posts where you are having trouble?

Search

Search

Two Persons in One Nature & the Atonement

everbecoming2007

Well-Known Member

More options

Cappadocious

Well-Known Member

More options

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member

More options

everbecoming2007

Well-Known Member

More options

ewq1938

I love you three.

More options

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member

More options

Cappadocious

Well-Known Member

More options

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member

More options

Similar threads