Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!ukma!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Help me understand these Scriptures Message-ID: Date: 16 Nov 90 10:43:46 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics Lines: 165 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I find our moderator's comments almost as distressing as the false doctrine of the Watchtower Society. He says: > It is unfortunate that the term "person" was used to describe his union with >the Father, because it suggests to 20th Cent. readers that the eternal >Logos and the man Jesus are being claimed to be the same person, i.e. >to have the same personality, knowledge, etc. This is really confusing the language that is used regarding the trinity in the ecumenical creeds. Nowhere do the creeds say that Christ and the Father are one person. They say, in fact that we worship one God in three persons, and three persons in one God (Athanasian Creed). But we say that Christ is 'of one substance with the Father', and the Athanasian Creed says we worship one God in three persons ... without confusing the persons or dividing the divine substance. I think our moderator was trying to discuss the union of the two natures in Christ, divine and human. However the creeds do not speak of this as a union of the Father with human nature, but simply that Christ is true God and true man. This union truly is difficult to understand. Fortunately it is not necessary for us to understand it, but we should believe it. In a way our salvation depends on this article of faith, because as a man Christ died as our substitute. This is why God can accept his righteousness as our righteousness. As God, Christ's sacrifice has value sufficient to cover the sins of all humanity; this is necessary for our salvation, for in Psalm 49 we read: No man can redeem the life of another or to give to God a ransom for him -- the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough-- that he should live on forever and not see decay. Our moderator further writes: >My own feeling is that the union is best thought of as a functional one. >That is, Jesus is God for us because God made Jesus' actions his own. >God saw to it that Jesus' character and life were what is needed to >reveal himself to us, and asks us to consider Jesus as his own >presence with us. This appears to deny that Jesus was 1. Conceived by the Holy Spirit 2. Of one substance with the Father 3. uncreated, unlimited, eternal (Athanasian Creed) o It makes it appear as though Jesus earned his divinity. But in Philippians 2 we read that Jesus let go of his divine glory (but not his divinity) and humbled himself to become a man, 'making himself nothing'. Christ's humiliation began with his incarnation! The Apostle's and Nicene Creeds both describe his humiliation, beginning with conception, and ending with his burial. Then they describe his exaltation: resurrection, ascenscion, sitting at the right hand of the Father, judging the living and the dead. Incidentally, Lutherans believe that a proper understanding of the personal union of God and man in Christ is important for understanding the real presence of Christ's body in the Lord's supper. This is treated in some length in the Formula of Concord, Article 8, the Person of Christ. A good summary statement is found in Affirmative Thesis #12: "Christ is, and remains to all eternity, God and man in one indivisible person. Next to the holy Trinity this is the highest mystery, as the apostle testifies (1 Tim 3:16), and the sole foundation of our comfort, life, and salvation." David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "He who craves a precious treasure Neither cost nor pain will measure; But the priceless gifts of heaven God to us hath freely given. Tho' the wealth of earth were proferred, Naught would buy the gifts here offered: Christ's true body, for thee riven, And His blood, for thee once given." --Schmuecke dich, o liebe Seele, v. 3 --Johann Franck, 1649. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [I'm sorry if my comment about Jesus' union with the Father appeared to be heretical. I was trying to reply to a message that explicitly raised the issue of the relationship between Jesus and the Father. In order to keep the message within reasonable bounds, I wanted to avoid trying to explain both the Incarnation and the Trinity in one message. I am aware that JW's do not believe in the Trinity either, but I thought the issues raised in that posting were most relevant to the Incarnation. So I simply ignored the distinction between the Father and the eternal Logos. While properly speaking it is the Logos that is incarnated, Jesus himself says "I and the Father are one". Thus it seems that our concept of the Incarnation must allow for the Father to be involved. Since the actions of any of the Persons of the Trinity involve all of them, I believe this is proper. While the creeds may not talk about a union between Jesus and the Father, I believe Jesus' language in John is sufficient justification for my carelessness. I'm not sure how to respond to your other comments. When I talked about a functional union between the two natures, it was my intention to be describing an orthodox approach. You have quoted a couple of phrases that properly speaking characterize one of the natures involved in the union. I certainly believe that when regarded as God, Christ was "of one substance with the Father" and "uncreated, unlimited, eternal". (I'm not going to talk about "conceived by the Holy Spirit", because I don't think we have an issue there.) Of course when regarded as man, he was created (or at least born), limited, and mortal. I presume you heed the warning of Chalcedon not to confuse the two natures... The question is how one person can be properly regarded as both man and God. In effect you say that we need not understand it but should accept it as an article of faith. This position, like your attack on me for not explaining every technical point of theology at once, is going to make intelligent responses to people outside the orthodox tradition nearly impossible. Furthermore, it opens us into directly to the attack that these doctrines are completely abstract and un-Biblical, and supports the suspicion of many Christians that if we can't give some at least halfway satisfactory explanation of what we mean by two natures united in one person, the doctrine probably has no meaning at all. I believe we have to be willing to say something beyond a simple repetition of the words of the creeds, and that my obligation to talk to people like Steve is worth the risk that almost anything I say is going to look like heresy to somebody. My suggestion was that the union should be regarded as a functional one. By this I mean that Jesus functions as God on earth. I intend this to have several implications, including - that Jesus reveals God. When we look at Jesus we see God. - that Jesus' actions are God's. Christians have generally regarded the cross as God's self-sacrifice. This makes sense only if Jesus' suffering is God's. - that God was personally present among us in Jesus I think I see why you saw adoptionism in this, but I didn't intend it that way. I didn't mean to say that God decided that Jesus was a particularly good guy, and so he would make him the Messiah. Rather, I believe Jesus was intended from the beginning to be God's vehicle for being present on earth. In computer terms, the eternal Logos is the Son's "native implementation", and Jesus is his implementation in flesh. That it is possible for there to be an implementation of God in flesh tells us something about God. Certainly many concepts of God would not allow for this. If God were utterly transcendent, then it would be nonsense to think of it. But God is both Father and Son, and the Son was capable of being made flesh. We have to be very careful about talking about personal union. Let me try to say again what may not have gotten through because of my mention of union between Jesus and the Father. The term "person" as used in the ancient creeds does not have quite the modern meaning. The items that we think of as being part of a person are regarded in the creeds as part of the natures. If we think of the eternal Logos and a human being as being a single person in the modern sense of person, we are going to think that they share a single will, a single memory, etc. This is not what was meant. In the case of the will, it is explicitly heretical (at least if you accept the Third Council of Constantinople). It will lead to docetic concepts, in which Christ does not have a finite human mind. I am willing to say that in some sense the union is "personal": God was personally present among us through Christ. But I'm not sure this is what was actually meant by talking about one "person". That was a translation of the Greek hypostastis, which had a technical meaning in neo-Platonic philosophy. --clh]