God the Son didn't have a human nature.—RC Sproul

[Gxg (G²)]

My understanding is that the major NT Christological texts see Jesus as the way God becomes present with us. God was in Christ reconciling the world. So it seems to me that whatever your philosophical terms (and I'm not particularly happy with the traditional ones) it needs to see God as being present through the human being in such a way that it is actually God acting.
.

In many respects, it's really a matter of noting whether all of the Holy Trinity is involved in the Incarnation in order for it to be valid - or if all parts of the Trinity (which ALWAYS have communion with each one another) are all involved on the same level at all times. And with the Incarnation, it was not an illusion -

​

I appreciate how it was stated here (for brief excerpt)...more shared there on how Nestorius had changes in language due to the changes he perceived in what others were saying:

Nestorius and the Antiochene tradition understood the term hypostasis from an Aristototelian sense, “as a material reality bound up in its species.” The hypostasis is an individual representation of the nature but does not necessarily have a substantive existence. In other words, it is immaterial. Nestorius used the term prosopon to refer to the concrete person or substantive existence. Therefore, the argument was presented in an atmosphere of terminological confusion, which escalated the polemics and alienated both parties in the process. Baum accurately defines Nestorius’ terminology in that “[the term] ‘person’ [prosopon] denotes the external appearance and ‘hypostasis’ the inner reality.

In Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius, he wrote, “Two different natures came together [in Christ] in a hypostatic union, in order to form a unity.”Because Nestorius understood the term ‘hypostatic’ as a non-material (nature) existence prior to the coalescing of the natures into the prosopon, the concept of a ‘hypostatic union’ made little sense and appeared to mix the natures. From Nestorius’ perspective, Cyril’s Christological mechanism distorted the natures by combining them into an indistinguishable amalgamation. As a result, Nestorius angled his attacks toward Cyril as if Cyril was arguing for a restricted Apollinarian (logos-sarx) position. If the two natures in Christ were to make a substantive exchange, meaning if the logos ousia admitted entrance to the anthropos ousia, and if the anthropos ousia admitted entrance to the logos ousia, each nature would cease to be what it is and would result in a divine/human hybrid (i.e. Apollinarianism). Milton Anastos accurately summarizes Nestorius’ position with these words: “Uncreated God the Word, who is eternal, cannot be transformed into that which is created (body), nor can the human body of Christ be changed into the ousia of God the Word. Nestorius was confused by the terminology used by Cyril. They were explicating their arguments using the same words but with different meanings. The misunderstanding between Cyril and Nestorius was primarily because Nestorius believed Cyril downplayed the significance of Christ’s humanity.​

That said, something to be said on seeing that language can make it appear as if one is advocating more than what they are saying. In example, I am a person. I have a name - and I have a body, as well as a spirit. When I die, my body will be in the grave and will not be ressurected until Jesus returns. Till then, my body will be present in the ground. However, my spirit will go to the Lord when I pass - and even though my body is in another place, the essence of who I am is not present there. If John Smith (called John Smith at birth/going by that name when identifying himself in his preaching...but also called "J Smooth" for his rap/musical skills ) ...if John Smith has a funeral, others can note that the physical side of John Smith (the Body) is right there in front of everyone - but J Smooth the musician/the music he made under that label is not present because his spirit/being is no longer present in the Body of John Smith.

It's all the same person - the same unit - and no multiple personalities going on. But differing aspects of who they are or were are not present. In the same kind of way, the reason others such as Nestorius can say what they did on the two natures being ONE person (even though they are separate) is because he was always speaking in a dual sense. When Christ died, he offered his Spirit into the hands of the Father - and yet while he died and his body was in the grave, He (Christ) was in the Father. Till his body was raised from the grave RESURRECTED IN POWER (Romans 1:7-14), with the Spirit of God bringing him forth.

No one would dare advocate "But you're advocating TWO Persons by saying one's spirit is with the Father when they die!!" because we already know the reality of dual senses. Nestorius did as well - and hence, he had no problem saying Jesus could die in regards to being God/Incarnated....but he also did not have issue seeing that Christ had one aspect of his nature dormant (even if you give it a name to distinguish it from the other aspect of who Christ was - no different than someone having multiple titles to describe differing aspects of who they are and yet not having it assumed they are multiple people simply because of differing descriptions to describe who they are...their thoughts vs. their physicality, their soul vs. their skills, etc.). Nestorius believed that Christ could truly die and that God (as Christ in his humanity ) could cease...but God (as Christ in his DIVINITY) could never cease being self-existent or perishing.

Jesus, in one aspect of his being/identity, was able to experience what humans could. Jesus was hungry (Matthew 4:2), Jesus was thirsty (John 4:6; John 19:28), Jesus cried (Luke 19:41; John 11:35) and Jesus sweat (Luke 22:44). We are to always take seriously where John says “The Word became flesh”..with that same Apostle noting in his second epistle to be aware of others advocating against that when he said “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 8). It is most likely the case that he was speaking against Cerinthus in his comments - but that's besides the point. The bottom line is that the Incarnation was truly real - God was present, in the form of Christ...a HUMAN nature and a DIVINE nature all in one. But certain things happen in one side of his nature that the other side did not do - and understanding that is key.

Tertullian noted it best when saying “How will all this be true in Him, if He was not himself true—if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again? [I mean] this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, [a flesh] which knew how to be born, and how to die, human without doubt, as born of a human being” (On The Flesh of Christ)

“Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil....Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins
of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Hebrews 2:14-18)

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in
every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15)

“In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, without loud cries and tears, to
him who was able to save him from death...” (Hebrews 5:7)

There can be no escaping the reality that Jesus is God and not merely an entity meant to show us who God is - but Nestorius did not advocate that Jesus was.

As it concerns Docetism, Nestorius was far from that (even though his wording led to the idea of Nestorianism which needed to be condemned and even Nestorius agreed with that condemnation). For Nestorius was not in any denial that God become man or that Christ has come in the flesh - and its generally a false scenario whenever people argue that Nestorious was docetic in his views by noting that God became a man in the form of Christ Jesus, even though Jesus was separate in distinction from the Father (regardless of the fact that he and the Father were one - John 5, John 7, etc.). Nestorius well understood that Divinity and Humanity were united together and that it was not simply an illusion - but that is neglected on many fronts due to the language issue. Nestorius and his followers were already against things such as Eutychianism, which is a form of Docetism. ..and as mentioned earlier, we know that Nestorius, who was still alive in 451, accepted the Tome of Leo which condemned Docetism as well.


Docetism, if one is not careful on clarifying the language one uses, can easily arise when there's confusion. We don't wish to advocate other prominent Docetic teachers (like Maricon who advocated Jesus' humanity was an illusion, that he appeared to be truly human but was not) or tread in that territory.

We obviously are not to go with Docetism that says Christ's body was just an illusion - but noting where the Body was real and noting that Christ could still live even as part of him died is not the same as Doceitism ....to argue otherwise would be like someone accusing someone of saying my body "didn't exist" because of them telling others I was in Heaven with Christ even as they see my casket and know I'm not fully there at the moment. For Nestorius, he wanted to both avoid Arianism (claiming Christ was NOT God /always eternal or pre-existent ) and respect Christ's full humanity...and his heart was showing one Christ with two natures present in one individual - noting that the 'twofold Christ' is displayed in John 2:19, which says, 'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.' ...and noting in his first letter to Cyril of Alexandria 'Does he not call himself both a destroyable temple and God who raises him up? And if it was God who was destroyed - and let that blasphemy be shifted to the head of Arius! - the Lord would have said, “Destroy this God and in three days I will raise him up.”

This concept of duality is already present today in practical ways. As Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (based in Reformed thought, like Sproul) noted in Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith :

“When we are talking about Jesus’ human nature, we can say he ascended to heaven and is no longer in the world (John 16:28; 17:11; Acts 1:9-11). But with respect to his divine nature, we can say that Jesus is everywhere present.” “Particularly striking is the scene on the Sea of Galilee where Jesus was asleep in the stern of the boat, presumably because he was weary (Matt. 8:24). But he was able to arise from his sleep and calm the wind and sea with a word (Matt. 8:26-27)! Tired yet omnipotent! Here Jesus’ weak human nature completely hid his omnipotence until that omnipotence broke forth in a sovereign word from the Lord of heaven and earth.” “In a similar way, we can understand that in his human nature, Jesus died (Luke 23:46; 1 Cor. 15:3). But with respect to his divine nature, he did not die, but was able to raise himself from the dead (John 2:19; 10:17-18; Heb. 7:16).”​

Others have advocated similar ideologies - although more so within the Pentecostal or Charismatic world ( as noted in Kenosis, Christology, and Bill Johnson, Part I | CrossWise ). Much of it (for many) comes down to understanding what others think of Philippians 2 and what it meant for Christ to lay aside grasping equality with God in his life..

 

[hedrick]

[/INDENT][/INDENT]Instead of fighting about this where we obviously disagree, perhaps jettisoning the term "Nestorianism" for a minute will be helpful.

Let us use, instead, the more general "Docetism," which can refer, in its general meaning, to any incarnation-denying heresy.

Believing Christ has, or is, two distinct persons: Docetism.
Two distinct υποστάσεις: Docetism.
Two distinct foundations: Docetism.
Two distinct subsistences: Docetism.
Two distinct supposits: Docetism.
Two distinct ultimate agents: Docetism.

Agree, or disagree?

Disagree. Docetism says that Jesus wasn't an actual human being, but was God only appearing to be human. Two persons isn't typically docetic. It has other problems, but that's not one of them.

 

[hedrick]

Treating the incarnation of Christ as the assumption of just Aristotle's primary substance, or just Aristotle's kind-nature, both seem unsatisfactory, at least in the treatments with which I've been presented.

Thomas Flint explains the former by attributing a primary substance to Christ named "Created Human Nature", which would be a complete mere human guy if he were not assumed in the incarnation (so there are possible worlds in which the man Jesus lived a sinless life without incarnating the Word). Now, this is obviously a problem.

I don't think so. The man Jesus was created specifically to show us God. I don't think such a sinless person could have developed from the normal course of human births. So I don't think there's any possible world in which someone identical to Jesus was not the incarnation.

 

[hedrick]

Some of what Nestorius noted seemed to be in line with the ideology expressed in the Early Church that LIFE ITSELF could never die....as it concerns God being unable to ever be defeated. Hence, for Nestorius, his ideology led him to advocate plainly that Christ was God and Christ could die - but when it came to God the Father and the rest of the Trinity, they could never be extinguished.

Perhaps. You're right that the letters I looked at were in the context of a disagreement with Cyril. So he may have been concerned with statements by Cyril that seemed to attribute things to one nature that don't make sense.

My concern about it is that the whole point of the incarnation is that in the human being Jesus we see God. We don't see God in spite of his humanity, as if the humanity trades off with the God, so that when he's acting as God he's least human. Rather, the incarnation affects our idea of what God is. God for Christians is one whose nature is expressed in incarnation.

Now it's obvious that God doesn't disappear from heaven for 3 days. But still, God experiences death through his incarnation. And furthermore, God is from the beginning a God who will die for his people. His death isn’t accidental, but rather the whole point of the Trinity is that the Son is an essential element of God from before all worlds.

In the middle of arguments people can say strange things. Perhaps it’s not fair to judge Nestorius. But I’d like to make sure that someplace he acknowledges that God really does go through death, in some appropriate sense, and furthermore that the incarnation affects the nature of God. God is not a Greek unmoved mover, but is from the beginning a God who can die.

Indeed I’d argue that saying God can’t die because he can never be defeated is dubious. In the NT Jesus’ death is taken to be his triumph. His crucifixion is seen as his enthronement.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Perhaps. You're right that the letters I looked at were in the context of a disagreement with Cyril. So he may have been concerned with statements by Cyril that seemed to attribute things to one nature that don't make sense.

My concern about it is that the whole point of the incarnation is that in the human being Jesus we see God. We don't see God in spite of his humanity, as if the humanity trades off with the God, so that when he's acting as God he's least human. Rather, the incarnation affects our idea of what God is. God for Christians is one whose nature is expressed in incarnation.
.

Very true - we see who God is through the person of Christ and what humanity was meant to strive for in the example of Christ, who suffered all things man went through (outside of sin, of course) - but when we see Him acting as God, it's not so much a matter of him humanity trading off/being least human as much as it's a matter of him showing a side that mankind simply does not have.....the humanity taking a back-seat so that the other side of Christ that makes Him unique shines through.

Matthew 17:2-4 / Matthew 17

The Transfiguration

1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.


4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

6 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7 But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.”

Luke 9:28-39/Luke 9:32-34 Luke 9



The Transfiguration

28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. 31 They spoke about his departure,[a] which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem.32.

​

The Transfiguration shows that His Passion was voluntary, that He ascended the Cross out of his own free will. For it was the veil being pulled back before the apostles as they saw Christ for WHO He really was..... In the Transfiguration, the fullness of who Jesus was had been demonstrated..as His glory was often veiled, with many times in light of His miraculous doings/actions (from calming the sea to multiplying food and turning water to wine) often not being understood and the disciples themselves choosing to harden their hearts ( Mark 8:16-18 Mark 8 Mark 6:51-53 / Mark 6 _...and this is something that must be acknowledged whenever people say that Christ was not both fully God and yet Man simultaneously whenever it comes to His identity.

But again, even if saying one feels God did not make the Humanity of Christ take a back-seat at times, there is still the reality of where kenosis occurred and aspects of who Christ were did not shine as strongly at times - Philippians 2 noting this when pointing out how Christ came as a servant and laid aside his FULL abilities for a time before being glorified.

• Kenosis - Christ "emptied Himself" (Philippians 2:7)
  
  
  
• 
  
  [*]DOCTRINE OF THE KENOSIS IN PHILIPPIANS 2:5-8
  [*]
• DOCTRINE OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION AND KENOSIS
  
• Berean Bible Church: The Kenosis of Epaphroditus - Philippians 2:25-30
  
• Journal of Applied Missiology (Vol. 2, No. 1) -- Christ And Kenosis: A Model For Mission
  
  
• The Poured-Out Life: The Kenosis Hymn in Context
  
• Living Wittily: Kenosis, the Love of God, and a Way of Seeing the World Unselfishly.

[/LIST]

Now it's obvious that God doesn't disappear from heaven for 3 days. But still, God experiences death through his incarnation. And furthermore, God is from the beginning a God who will die for his people. His death isn’t accidental, but rather the whole point of the Trinity is that the Son is an essential element of God from before all worlds.

Indeed.

Some have noted this when it comes to the fact that God the Father can never lose connection with God the Son - thus, as it concerns the nature of the Trinity, what is experienced in one is felt by the other. And thus, it was not a matter of God not feeling the pain and suffering of Jesus on the Cross when Jesus (as God) died - all are interconnected and yet beyond explanation. So when saying Jesus died and yet God the Father didn't die, we don't need to assume in human terms as if God the Father was unable to experience death - for what's shown clearly is the God (able to do all things ) could die..

And yet it's also seen that as God, Christ could not have death hold him down. This is seen in Acts 2:24 when the Apostle Peter noted "24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him"

It's not our role to try to quantify things. We must always remember that Jesus assumed the prerogatives of deity, as he claimed to have control over the eternal destinies of people (John 8:24; cf. Luke 12:8–9; John 5:22, 27–29), to have the power to answer prayer (John 14:13–14; cf. Acts 7:59; 9:10–17), and to have the right to receive worship and faith due to God alone (Matt. 21:16; John 14:1; cf. John 5:23).

In the middle of arguments people can say strange things. Perhaps it’s not fair to judge Nestorius. But I’d like to make sure that someplace he acknowledges that God really does go through death, in some appropriate sense, and furthermore that the incarnation affects the nature of God. God is not a Greek unmoved mover, but is from the beginning a God who can die.

Seeing that Nestorius already noted repeatedly that God really does go through death and he did so by sending His Son Jesus, I don't think there'd be need trying to ensure Nestorius said as you were looking for. Noting where God's nature as eternal and undying (as occurred throughout the Incarnation) is not opposite from noting that God experienced death when it came to the incarnation.

God felt the pain Christ went through and it was not something that was fake. And it was His desire to die for us from the beginning. As another noted, Adam and man was with perfect communion with the Lord and yet to a degree, He may've been unable to see the Lord as He was fully when it comes to love since the ultimate expression of love is seen in being able to give up one's life for another, John 15:12-14/John 15, 1 John 3:15-17 / 1 John 3.

Indeed I’d argue that saying God can’t die because he can never be defeated is dubious. In the NT Jesus’ death is taken to be his triumph. His crucifixion is seen as his enthronement

Jesus in his death will always take a focus of dominance - it is BY his death that death itself is conquered......and Jesus NEVER was defeated at any point when he died. He experienced physical death - but that was never a matter of permanent defeat, due to the nature of the Trinity.


N.T Wright did a good job of breaking that down...

N.T. Wright - Kingdom and Cross: The Forgotten Message of the Gospels - YouTube

You're Included - N.T. Wright: How God Became King (Part 1) - YouTube

You're Included - N.T. Wright: How God Became King (Part 2) - YouTube

Part of God in his majesty is being unable to be defeated - one of the reasons why God in his victory is so glorious..

Acts 4:11
You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One.[a]'[b] 27Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people[c] of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Acts 2:23 Acts 2:4
22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him

John 11:49-51 / John 11
Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."
51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53So from that day on they plotted to take his life




​

Christ was not a victim of circumstances...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

God really does go through death, in some appropriate sense, and furthermore that the incarnation affects the nature of God. God is not a Greek unmoved mover, but is from the beginning a God who can die.

There were always views in place in the early church that provided the background for understanding the ways that what Christ experienced was unique to his role in the Trinity and yet connected with the fact that God was able to die and be affected - one of those views being Panentheism as well as several other things. Some of this has been shared on before, as seen here:

I recommend studying how "impassibility" was understood in the ancient Mediterranean. It is a mistake to see God as some unmoving, unchanging sphere; at the same time it is also a mistake to understand God's emotions as identical to ours.

We also need to be careful how we understand God's changelessness. Does this mean he doesn't change at all? How then did He create? How did He become incarnate? Does it rather mean that God's essence, that is, what God is, does not change?

Here is interesting reading on the matter:

MYSTAGOGY: The Impassibility of God and the Church Fathers

I think it's unfortunate when people try to disconnect Christ from the Father as if He (in his expressions of emotions) was not reflecting what the Lord felt.

John 14:9
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
John 14:8-10 / John 14

Colossians 1:15
[ The Supremacy of the Son of God ] The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Colossians 1:14-16 /Colossians 1

Hebrews 1 Hebrews 1:5


God’s Final Word: His Son

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

​

I thought this article was good:

Not a Rock - It is often charged that the doctrine of impassibility leaves us with an emotionless rock of a God. From the outset it ought to be made clear that to teach that God is impassible is not to deny that God has an emotional life with cares, joys, loves, and so forth. Impassibility does not mean impassivity any more than immutability means immobility. Both are caricatures and misunderstandings of the classical doctrine. Just as the doctrine of God’s immutability or changelessness is not a teaching about a static, stone God, but a God so perfectly overflowing with life that any “change” could only tend towards a lesser state, so the doctrine of impassibility is statement about the perfection of God’s emotional life, his sovereignty over it, not its absence. Anybody who teaches otherwise, both critic and advocate, has been misled on the subject. In the early Fathers, to teach that God was impassible was to teach that God did not have “passions”, or unrestrained feelings ungoverned by reason or will that could simply sweep over him. A passion was thought of as a sort of violent, semi-physical force that could move a person without the consent of their reason or will, or a sinful inclination. To deny that this can happen is to say that God’s emotional life is under his own control and will not erupt violently in irrational or sinful ways. God is not an emotional teenager.​

The Beauty of the Impassible God (Or, Is God an Emotional Teenager?) | Reformedish

God's love, anger, wrath, mercy, temperance, jealousy, they are real Divine Energies of God. Is that not the faith of the Holy Fifth Council of Constantinople?

If man is created in the image of God, are not emotions an analogy or image of something in God, or the way God acts?

So no, the Father and Holy Spirit do not have chemical emotions, because they are supraphysical. But if we call our human fathers "Father" in virtue of God, what do we call human emotions, emotions, in virtue of?

One could say that impassibility means that God is not acted upon or provoked against his will, from without. But we also believe that God is eternally humble, and in many times and many ways, has humbled himself to interact with us. So your question might be re-phrased, "can God react?" Well, I think the Scriptures are clear that he has at least providentially reacted, although he facilitated the ability to act on the part of creatures in the first place. And God certainly acts in authentically diverse ways, with zeal, with love, mercy, wrath, forbearance, beneficence, etc. And human emotions are analogous to these energies.

When the Logos became incarnate, he became passable through his humanity. And I would think that his Divine Zeal and Divine Mercy shone forth through his humanity and human emotional faculties, because the image and its prototype are not opposed.

If God is infinite and the universe is finite, then the universe must be "within" God. Michio Kaku (ironically, an atheist) wrote a book called Hyperspace that, quite unintentionally, described God's "physical" relationship with the universe from a purely scientific POV.

Although I tend to favor other views, Panentheism has always seemed to be the most reasonable way of seeing things since the Lord is distinct from creation--sustaining it---and yet He is outside of it. Panentheism deals with how all there is not only emanates from God..but is experienced by Him as well. Its the idea that one’s not to worship an animal or a tree since it’s not the creator–but on the same token, as Chasidism ascribes to, the animal being abused is felt deeply by the Lord. He hurts with it as much as it does since that creation is directly connected to Him (As its being sustained by Him) and consequently He can feel it—just as he does with all suffering and pain in the world whenever injustice occurs (more shared here in #1, #91 and #92 ).



Its by His Grace that all men have rain....for in his Providential Grace, He shows grace/care for all his creatures...allowing others to survive by sending rain on the JUST and the Unjust (Matthew 5:45)....and Christ in the scriptures is portrayed as the INSTRUMENT of creation, "sustaining all things by His powerful word", (Colosians 1:16-7, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:3)---and whom by immanence is fully present in even the smallest atom....with all things connected to Him

Panentheism is the idea that the entire universe is part of God, But God is greater that the universe. God is omnipresent and transcendent – that is, God contains the entire cosmos but the entire cosmos does not and cannot contain God. He is omnipresent because his uncreated energies permeate all Creation, generating and sustaining it. And He is transcendent because his uncreated essence is inaccessible to us – it is wholly beyond Creation.

Kinda like my cells and molecules and blood and other things in my body are part of myself, but I am much greater than those…and I cannot be seen in them….yet I am omnipresent through them, as I created them at my conception and sustain them throughout my life. God transcends creation as I transcend my body. Intelligence is everywhere.

I personally see no issue with supporting Biblical Panentheism and the concept of God being outside of the world and yet connected deeply to it/all within

Panentheism does not begin soteriologically with God’s special presence to some but with the universal presence to all, moving from thence toward the theories of special presence. It seeks to give the right perspective & focus in the face of evil. For instead of pulling away from those things that do not now manifest the nature of God fully, panentheism suggests the picture of transforming and healing them, as a healthy body might heal itself from an injury.

In this line of thought, the rapist still is being sustained by the Lord’s power even though God may not approve of His actions/decide to dwell with him…with God’s heart being to see the rapists REDEEMED and trusting in Him since even the Rapists was made in the image of God/given as aspect of the Divine….and the message of repentence/forgiveness and grace is where that process of healing can begin for the rapist, the murderer or any other aspect where decline has begun.


Even though in some ways He chooses to be disconnected from it, he is still connected to it intimately. The same goes for what was noted earlier when it comes to decline in the natural world, especially in cases where the natural world has been raped. Panentheism would suggest that God desires for healing to occur rather than the world to be abandoned altogether/demolished…

....Christ said that even the sparrows do not fall outside of God’s care—as well as why He made clear that even the Ravens look to God for food ( Psalm 104:18-22, Psalm 147:8-10, Matthew 6:25-27, Luke 12:23-25 etc )

This is why many Panentheist have noted that Paul made a point in Romans to discuss how its not just humankind that’s redeemed…but all of creation as well, described as “groaning” and “suffering” rather than being indifferent to it all. The Eastern Fathers and some medievals have written profoundly on the cosmic dimensions of the Incarnation and Redemption (as did St. Paul).

Saint Gregory Palamas , and many others held all things are sustained by the energies of God . By the act of creation ( the energy ) of God the cosmos , humans , ect , are sustained by His energy .

Panentheists make a qualitative, not quantitative distinction between God and the universe. Their position is very much like the idea of Divine Personalism, espoused as far back as the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon. In order to have a full view, there are different models you have to use simultaneously to capture what panentheists are talking about. One is a mother/womb analogy and another is a mind/body analogy. God’s character is perfectly good, and that character conditions the universe but doesn’t determine it. We can distinguish between the mind and the body without thinking them completely separate. A womb is within a mother, but we can make a distinction between a mother and the womb she contains. (What happens to the baby doesn’t necessarily ‘happen’ to the mother, though it affects the mother).

By the logic of many against Panentheism, if a person has cancer that cancer somehow becomes reflective of that person’s character, or implies that a person doesn’t have control over who they are as a person. IMHO, God’s mind and Spirit remain the ground of all that is good, and beautiful and ordered for that matter, even if it is true that the physical universe fails to perfectly reflect that goodness, or beauty, or order. God and the universe, for the panentheist do not form an UNDIFFERENTIATED unity.

In some ways, one could also see some descriptions of panentheism to be a description of "occasionalism", which posits that Theos is the sustaining cause of each and every moment of the cosmos' existence, as if the Theos were in fact creating the cosmos at each, smallest unit of time.

After reading this thread, I can't get the song "He's got the whole world in His hands ..." out of my head

One of the most powerful songs in existence....and so glad I was taught it when I was younger . Amazed seeing the amount of people truly impacted by that song, as I was taught it when I was younger and attending Catholic Elementary school:

• He's got the whole world...African Children's Choir

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Docetism says that Jesus wasn't an actual human being, but was God only appearing to be human. Two persons isn't typically docetic. It has other problems, but that's not one of them.

Agreed, as it can be akin (when trying to connect issues) to one saying "Surgeons use knives and yet there are criminals who are doctors" and then saying a gang member using knives is a Surgeon. The premise does not support the conclusion (Formal fallacy). Docetism is not something that Nestorius really supported....

 

[James Is Back]

Can we not stretch the page please it makes reading the posts tough? If you're going to post a youtube video remove the s in the http protocol.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Can we not stretch the page please it makes reading the posts tough? If you're going to post a youtube video remove the s in the http protocol.

May wish to Check your own screen before jumping to conclusions - everyone's screen is different and none of the videos have the s in them. It has happened before on my own when I've had the screen wide in normal mode and nothing was wrong on anyone else's - but there's a way to adjust your screen in the event that it does happen

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Indeed it's not clear to me that the creation hymn in Hebrews 1 was intended to apply specifically to just the divine nature of Christ. The distinction between natures has to be made in order to protect against certain misunderstandings. But by and large the NT isn't so neat. I think Hebrews envisions Christ "as a whole" involved in creation. This obviously isn't true literally. Jesus was born in 3 BC or whatever. But in some conceptual sense God was always his Father, and creation was done with him.

The battle of trying to summarize an Infinite God into finite terms when it comes to how he interacts with the world....

 

[Cappadocious]

Disagree. Docetism says that Jesus wasn't an actual human being, but was God only appearing to be human.

Docetism is any denial that God has become man (that Christ has come in the flesh). There is a specific form (Jesus was an apparition/spirit) and a general form (God didn't become man because X).

Two subsistence Christology is docetic because it argues that God did not become man, rather that God was attached, united to a man; or that Divinity united to Humanity producing a composite facade.

 

[Cappadocious]

I don't think so. The man Jesus was created specifically to show us God.

The man Jesus is God, not a created entity meant to show us God.

 

[hedrick]

Treating the incarnation of Christ as the assumption of just Aristotle's primary substance, or just Aristotle's kind-nature, both seem unsatisfactory, at least in the treatments with which I've been presented.

Thomas Flint explains the former by attributing a primary substance to Christ named "Created Human Nature", which would be a complete mere human guy if he were not assumed in the incarnation (so there are possible worlds in which the man Jesus lived a sinless life without incarnating the Word). Now, this is obviously a problem.

I would argue that something like it is inevitable. The 6th council, in response to the monothelites, said that Christ had a distinct human will with distinct human "operation." It speaks of the human nature as an actor: “For each form (μορφ&#8052 does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh.”

By the time a "nature" has a will and does things, the nature is being treated as some kind of substance. I'm willing to go with Aquinas and say that it's not a hypostasis because it doesn't have an existence independent of the incarnation. There's no way the specific human that is Jesus could have developed in the normal course of human history had God not created him as a specific vessel for the incarnation. But that doesn't make him less than a human being.

Personally I think the whole early Church was implicitly docetic. They tried to avoid calling Jesus an actual human being, but slowly got pushed into realizing that he is. The 6th Council recognized it implicitly. But they were committed by tradition to calling Jesus a "nature." This resulted in words being pushed outside their normal meanings. This is probably inevitable when dealing with God, but I think in this case the language was more opaque than necessary.

Because I'm not as committed to tradition as you are, I don't have any problem taking a critical view of the councils, and seeing just how much a role dysfunctional church politics had on the development of doctrine. If there hadn't been so much politics, the mainstream church might have been able to use more of Theodore's language, and come up with somewhat more transparent language.

We need to say that God is actually the subject of Jesus' nature and actions. But we need to do this in a way that doesn't deny that Jesus is a full human being, with an actual human name.

 

[hedrick]

Gxg: I looked at the critical sections of the Bazaar of Heraclides. I agree with you that the overall impression is orthodox.

 

[Cappadocious]

I would argue that something like it is inevitable. The 6th council, in response to the monothelites, said that Christ had a distinct human will with distinct human "operation." It speaks of the human nature as an actor: “For each form (μορφ&#8052 does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh.”

The council also affirms that Jesus's Person is Hypostatic (along with Constantinople II). As Jesus's Person is hypostatic, it is the ultimate supposit of all properties predicated of "the Word" (Pope St. Leo's imprecise language for the Logos's Divinity which the Council is quoting), and the flesh (his humanity).

Christ's humanity includes a human will, human powers, and human operations; but this does not imply that Christ's humanity is an ultimate agent, a hypostasis, or a subsistence. If it did, then I would be multiple hypostaseis, myself. Being a mere human, I have diverse powers, operations and will---concious and unconcious operations, chosen and automatic, myriad volitional impulses (often contradictory), etc.; not to mention numerous dynamic body parts ultimately predicated of my Person (e.g. "My hand holds the pencil" commonly implies "I hold the pencil via my hand.")

By the time a [primary] "nature" has a will and does things, the nature is being treated as some kind of substance.

...by Aristotle's time?

I'm willing to go with Aquinas and say that it's not a hypostasis because it doesn't have an existence independent of the incarnation. There's no way the specific human that is Jesus could have developed in the normal course of human history had God not created him as a specific vessel for the incarnation.

What, then, does Created Human Nature lack, such that there are no possible worlds in which Created Human Nature lives a mere human life as a hypostasis?

But that doesn't make him less than a human being.

It makes him less of a fool to the Greeks, that's for sure.

Personally I think the whole early Church was implicitly docetic. They tried to avoid calling Jesus an actual human being, but slowly got pushed into realizing that he is.

I don't think there's any basis for this conclusion in Church History, but that's a long discussion.

The 6th Council recognized it implicitly. But they were committed by tradition to calling Jesus a "nature."

The 6th Council had no tradition of calling Jesus a nature. They had a tradition of calling Jesus God who is a man, the man who is God, God in human flesh, one of the Holy Trinity, the Logos incarnate.

Because I'm not as committed to tradition as you are, I don't have any problem taking a critical view of the councils, and seeing just how much a role dysfunctional church politics had on the development of doctrine.

If by tradition you mean the Gospel that Christ has come in the flesh, then I am committed to that. If you mean some idealized version of Church History, not at all. From my view, I am the one defending against NeoPlatonic rationalizations which rend the Gospel.

If there hadn't been so much politics, the mainstream church might have been able to use more of Theodore's language, and come up with somewhat more transparent language.

"Better true confusion than false certainty."

We need to say that God is actually the subject of Jesus' nature and actions. But we need to do this in a way that doesn't deny that Jesus is a full human being, with an actual human name.

Yeah, we already said it right back in Constantinople I, though:

Jesus=a man=the Christ=True God=one of the Holy Trinity

 

[Tzaousios]

Personally I think the whole early Church was implicitly docetic. They tried to avoid calling Jesus an actual human being, but slowly got pushed into realizing that he is. The 6th Council recognized it implicitly. But they were committed by tradition to calling Jesus a "nature." This resulted in words being pushed outside their normal meanings. This is probably inevitable when dealing with God, but I think in this case the language was more opaque than necessary.

"Docetic" in relation to what? When examined within the historical context, it would appear that the early Church argued in such an extreme manner to counter the opposite extreme of the combined Gnostic and Arian tendencies to associate Christ with the Demiurge rather than the Eternal Logos, on the one hand, and to reduce him to a created being, on the other.

A similar, parallel comparison could be made with the manner in which Augustine attacked the Pelagians. In order to combat the Pelagian extreme, Augustine's positions often appear to be rather "Calvinistic" in nature, even though he never subscribed to the hallmark Calvinist doctrine of double predestination.

 

[Metal Minister]

"Docetic" in relation to what? When examined within the historical context, it would appear that the early Church argued in such an extreme manner to counter the opposite extreme of the combined Gnostic and Arian tendencies to associate Christ with the Demiurge rather than the Eternal Logos, on the one hand, and to reduce him to a created being, on the other.

A similar, parallel comparison could be made with the manner in which Augustine attacked the Pelagians. In order to combat the Pelagian extreme, Augustine's positions often appear to be rather "Calvinistic" in nature, even though he never subscribed to the hallmark Calvinist doctrine of double predestination.

Just going to throw this out there, because it's a topic for another thread, but double predestination is not a "hallmark calvinistic doctrine". In fact it's a nonsense term invented by those who disagree with calvinism. Leaving a fallen man to the inevitable outcome of his fallen nature is not "predestining" him to hell. It's allowing him to get there on his own. Sorry, like I said, topic for another thread!

 

[Tzaousios]

Just going to throw this out there, because it's a topic for another thread, but double predestination is not a "hallmark calvinistic doctrine". In fact it's a nonsense term invented by those who disagree with calvinism. Leaving a fallen man to the inevitable outcome of his fallen nature is not "predestining" him to hell. It's allowing him to get there on his own. Sorry, like I said, topic for another thread!

Where are you getting this from? There is a historical and conceptual distinction between double and single predestination. I would suggest reading up on Augustine, Luther, and Calvin to understand this.

What you have described above is single predestination. Double predestination is when God specifically chooses the saved and the damned rather than merely leaving the reprobate to their punishment.

 

[PaladinValer]

Where are you getting this from? There is a historical and conceptual distinction between double and single predestination. I would suggest reading up on Augustine, Luther, and Calvin to understand this.

What you have described above is single predestination. Double predestination is when God specifically chooses the saved and the damned rather than merely leaving the reprobate to their punishment.

As a fellow historian along with Tzaousios (who holds a more advanced degree than I do), I assent to this fact.

Hyper-Calvinism comes into play in terms of sufficiency and efficiency, as well as passivity and activity when it comes to condemnation and Lapsarian beliefs. Double Predestination is clear in John Calvin's writings, which are based on a bit of a quotemine of St. Augustine of Hippo and were rejected by Luther, who favored along with most other Christians, Singular Predestination theology.

It is debated whether John Calvin really accepted supralapsarianism, with the majority of scholars saying he didn't, but it is clear that his immediate successor, Theodore Beza, did.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Gxg: I looked at the critical sections of the Bazaar of Heraclides. I agree with you that the overall impression is orthodox.

Cool that you read sections on the Bazaar of Heraclides - there is actually another place elsewhere that one can get the full version of it (as seen here and here as well as The Bazaar of Heracleides - * Nestorius - Google Books).