tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post6551545928459686795..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: Athanasius: on God, His Son/Word and the Godhead - part 1David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-11422067587113421362012-10-30T18:03:05.931-07:002012-10-30T18:03:05.931-07:00Jnorm,
“I have a book that might dispute that cl...Jnorm, <br /><br />“I have a book that might dispute that claim. For Fr Dragas who is a Saint Athanasius scholar and professor said in his book "Saint Athanasius of Alexandria: Original Research and New Perspectives"<br />http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Athanasius-Alexandria-Perspectives-Theological/dp/1933275006<br />quote<br />"The only evidence adduced by those who deny the expression treis hypostaseis to Athanasius is his statement in Ad Afros 4, where Athanasius identifies ousia, hypostasis and hyparxis. But this text does not deal with the question of one or three hypostaseis but with the existential meaning of the term which is rejected by the Arians at the synod of Ariminium."<br /><br />>>>This quote does not demonstrate the different meanings or definitions he had for each of those terms. <br /><br /><br />“But why are you picking on Saint Athanasius when you keep saying that a hypostasis must have it's own numeric nature?”<br /><br />>>>So what?Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-21237099796044917992012-10-30T18:02:54.721-07:002012-10-30T18:02:54.721-07:00Jnorm,
“I have a book that might dispute that cl...Jnorm, <br /><br />“I have a book that might dispute that claim. For Fr Dragas who is a Saint Athanasius scholar and professor said in his book "Saint Athanasius of Alexandria: Original Research and New Perspectives"<br />http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Athanasius-Alexandria-Perspectives-Theological/dp/1933275006<br />quote<br />"The only evidence adduced by those who deny the expression treis hypostaseis to Athanasius is his statement in Ad Afros 4, where Athanasius identifies ousia, hypostasis and hyparxis. But this text does not deal with the question of one or three hypostaseis but with the existential meaning of the term which is rejected by the Arians at the synod of Ariminium."<br /><br />>>>This quote does not demonstrate the different meanings or definitions he had for each of those terms. <br /><br /><br />“But why are you picking on Saint Athanasius when you keep saying that a hypostasis must have it's own numeric nature?”<br /><br />>>>So what? <br /><br /><br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-151600895148714672012-10-30T18:02:34.036-07:002012-10-30T18:02:34.036-07:00Jnorm,
“Do you see what I'm getting at? You ...Jnorm, <br /><br />“Do you see what I'm getting at? You made a similar mistake with the Fourth Ecumenical council, in thinking it was isolated from Saint Cyril of Alexandria, the formula of re-union, the Cappadocian Fathers......etc.”<br /><br />>>>With reference to Chalcedon and Cyril, you are wrong for the following 9 reasons: <br /><br />1. Cyril mentions "metaphysical transformation" (Cyril, McGukin, Christological Controversies, 187), as the definition of the hypostatic union. I was reading Cyril in all the rest of the later councils and for that reason (the very thing you are saying I didn’t do) I misunderstood Constantinople 553, The Capitula of the Council VII. <br /><br /><br />2. Cyril is rejected in the Council of Chalcedon under the clause that the natures are without mixture. <br /><br />3. Cyril's "Mia Physis" itself rejects two natures in one person. At the fourth session of Chalcedon "in two natures" was rejected (McGuckin 235) however due to Marcian’s threats it was settled as the default reading since there was nothing else anyone could agree on. (McGuckin 235, 236) <br /><br />4. Cyril’s “one Incarnate nature of the divine Word” was clearly rejected by Chalcedon 451 A.D. Yet many, if I can say most, Cyrilians thought Chalcedon was Nestorian. Alan Spence says,<br /><br />“How then are we to characterize the Definition of Chalcedon? Drawing on both<br />traditions it presented in confessional form the elements necessary for an<br />adequate or comprehensive Christology, which included the substantial unity of<br />Christ’s person and the full and active reality of both his manhood and his<br />Godhead. It is therefore a misunderstanding, I believe, to view it as a<br />framework within which a number of orthodox Christologies (including the<br />Alexandrian and Antiochene formulations) are possible. On the contrary, there<br />was no Christology to hand which was able to incorporate coherently its<br />various elements. Therein lay the Definition’s essential instability and the theological reason why the controversy lingered on in the centuries beyond<br />Chalcedon with such tragic consequences for the unity of the Church.”<br />Alan Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration John Owen and the Coherence of Christology (New York, T&T Clark, 2007), 147<br /><br /><br />5. Cyril's "One Enfleshed nature of the Logos" was a political move and effective one at that. I am not alone in this seeing that Chalcedon rejected it (McGuckin 213) and Cyril himself moved away from it later on (McGuckin 227). <br /><br /><br />6. The huge divisions between the Cyrilians i.e. Apollonarians, Monophysites, the<br />supporters of the Henotikon and the Chalcedonians. This came to such bitter division that<br />riots between them and the Chalcedonian monks in Constantinople 512 A.D. were incited<br />in such violent fashion that Monophysite houses were burnt and Monophysite imperial<br />commissioners were drove away with stones.<br /><br />7. Chalcedon was rejected by many in the West and most of the Eastern Church as<br />Nestorian and still is by the Oriental Orthodox who make up 26% of Orthodox<br />Christianity to this day;<br /><br />8. Those accused of heresy for denying the human nature and condemning Chalcedon i.e.<br />Flavian, Eutyches, Pope Leo I, Apollinaris, John the Grammarian, the Monophysites,<br />those who accepted the Henotikon, Severus, Emperor Anastasius, The Armenian Church<br />in toto in the 5th century, Timothy the Cat, and Philoxenus the Syrian Bishop to name a<br />few, were all understood to be Cyrilian<br /><br />9. Cyril of Alexandria bribed the court in Ephesus to have Nestorius condemned.<br />Stephen M. Ulrich in his article, The Lynching of Nestorius says,<br /><br />"After things had settled down in Constantinople, Theodoret came to Chalcedon<br />presenting views not far from those of Nestorius and found a considerable<br />amount of support. This may indicate that the support for Cyril's views may have<br />been artificially contrived through political alliances with Empress Pulcheria and<br />the wealth distributed by Cyril to members of the imperial court in the sum of<br />1400 pounds of gold shortly before the Council in 431. (Gregory 113)"Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-92132223777028482592012-10-30T18:02:09.221-07:002012-10-30T18:02:09.221-07:00Jnorm,
“Do you see what I'm getting at? You ...Jnorm, <br /><br />“Do you see what I'm getting at? You made a similar mistake with the Fourth Ecumenical council, in thinking it was isolated from Saint Cyril of Alexandria, the formula of re-union, the Cappadocian Fathers......etc.”<br /><br />>>>With reference to Chalcedon and Cyril, you are wrong for the following 9 reasons: <br /><br />1. Cyril mentions "metaphysical transformation" (Cyril, McGukin, Christological Controversies, 187), as the definition of the hypostatic union. I was reading Cyril in all the rest of the later councils and for that reason (the very thing you are saying I didn’t do) I misunderstood Constantinople 553, The Capitula of the Council VII. <br /><br /><br />2. Cyril is rejected in the Council of Chalcedon under the clause that the natures are without mixture. <br /><br />3. Cyril's "Mia Physis" itself rejects two natures in one person. At the fourth session of Chalcedon "in two natures" was rejected (McGuckin 235) however due to Marcian’s threats it was settled as the default reading since there was nothing else anyone could agree on. (McGuckin 235, 236) <br /><br />4. Cyril’s “one Incarnate nature of the divine Word” was clearly rejected by Chalcedon 451 A.D. Yet many, if I can say most, Cyrilians thought Chalcedon was Nestorian. Alan Spence says,<br /><br />“How then are we to characterize the Definition of Chalcedon? Drawing on both<br />traditions it presented in confessional form the elements necessary for an<br />adequate or comprehensive Christology, which included the substantial unity of<br />Christ’s person and the full and active reality of both his manhood and his<br />Godhead. It is therefore a misunderstanding, I believe, to view it as a<br />framework within which a number of orthodox Christologies (including the<br />Alexandrian and Antiochene formulations) are possible. On the contrary, there<br />was no Christology to hand which was able to incorporate coherently its<br />various elements. Therein lay the Definition’s essential instability and the theological reason why the controversy lingered on in the centuries beyond<br />Chalcedon with such tragic consequences for the unity of the Church.”<br />Alan Spence, Incarnation and Inspiration John Owen and the Coherence of Christology (New York, T&T Clark, 2007), 147<br /><br /><br />5. Cyril's "One Enfleshed nature of the Logos" was a political move and effective one at that. I am not alone in this seeing that Chalcedon rejected it (McGuckin 213) and Cyril himself moved away from it later on (McGuckin 227). <br /><br /><br />6. The huge divisions between the Cyrilians i.e. Apollonarians, Monophysites, the<br />supporters of the Henotikon and the Chalcedonians. This came to such bitter division that<br />riots between them and the Chalcedonian monks in Constantinople 512 A.D. were incited<br />in such violent fashion that Monophysite houses were burnt and Monophysite imperial<br />commissioners were drove away with stones.<br /><br />7. Chalcedon was rejected by many in the West and most of the Eastern Church as<br />Nestorian and still is by the Oriental Orthodox who make up 26% of Orthodox<br />Christianity to this day;<br /><br />8. Those accused of heresy for denying the human nature and condemning Chalcedon i.e.<br />Flavian, Eutyches, Pope Leo I, Apollinaris, John the Grammarian, the Monophysites,<br />those who accepted the Henotikon, Severus, Emperor Anastasius, The Armenian Church<br />in toto in the 5th century, Timothy the Cat, and Philoxenus the Syrian Bishop to name a<br />few, were all understood to be Cyrilian<br /><br />9. Cyril of Alexandria bribed the court in Ephesus to have Nestorius condemned.<br />Stephen M. Ulrich in his article, The Lynching of Nestorius says,<br /><br />"After things had settled down in Constantinople, Theodoret came to Chalcedon<br />presenting views not far from those of Nestorius and found a considerable<br />amount of support. This may indicate that the support for Cyril's views may have<br />been artificially contrived through political alliances with Empress Pulcheria and<br />the wealth distributed by Cyril to members of the imperial court in the sum of<br />1400 pounds of gold shortly before the Council in 431. (Gregory 113)"<br /><br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-1235725420344462752012-10-30T18:01:40.878-07:002012-10-30T18:01:40.878-07:00Jnorm,
“How did the people who gathered at Nicea...Jnorm, <br /><br />“How did the people who gathered at Nicea understand the words "human individuals"?”<br /><br />>>>There is no definition recorded in the documents of the First Ecumenical Council to answer that. <br /> <br />“How did they understand the analagies? I already quoted Saints Alexander(mostly written by the younger Athanasius) and Athanasius.”<br /><br />>>And I already proved that Athanasius was confused at the end of his ministry. <br /><br /><br />“I don't wanna repeat what I already mentioned up above and so I will just say that the unity of the Divine Persons is real in the sence that they are inseparable and undivided in a way we're not. Their Essence is simple and Indivisible, and they are Eternal and Infinit. <br /><br />Our unity can be nominal and notional at times, but such a thing isn't true with the Divine Persons!”<br /><br />>>You need to deal with the analogy of proportionality article first. <br /><br /><br />“You're going to have to explain this some more. I know you got this from Gordan Clark, but it's a foriegn language. So what do you mean by all this?”<br /><br />>>> The categories of divine and human are not mutually exclusive: Apophaticism. The categories of divine and human are also not Jointly exhaustive: An absolute Cataphaticism. The categories of divine and human proportionally overlap at the level of intellect and even at this level we do not have a full exhaustion. The exact area where divine and human ontology overlap is the objects of God’s knowledge. I am considering myself bent over backwards with how much detail I have given to every single statement you have made and frustrated at how ambiguous and dismissively you have answered mine. <br /><br />“Yes you addressed this, but your wrong in thinking that an Ecumenical council is isolated from the theology of a Church Father or Fathers and Witnesses.”<br /><br />>>Actually Chalcedon is a great example of how wrong you are. Cyril’s theology was changed greatly in this council as both Cyril and Nestorius were accepted on some levels and rejected on numerous levels. <br /><br />“What you said would be like if someone said "This issue is not about Saint Cyril of Alexandria. This is about the meaning of the Third Ecumenical Council."<br /><br />>>>Ha. There it is! You know very well the next council gave Cyril and Nestorius the red pen of fellowship. <br /><br />“Or if someone said:<br /><br />"This issue is not about Saints Sophronius and Maximus. This is about the meaning of the Sixth Ecumenical council." <br /><br /><br />>>>I have one word for you: Chalcedon. <br /><br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-61617886529696993252012-10-30T18:00:49.794-07:002012-10-30T18:00:49.794-07:00“2.) Is the Essence of the Source and the Emanatio...“2.) Is the Essence of the Source and the Emanation the SAME?”<br /><br />>>>No. One pertains to constitution; the other to activity. Ah, you are showing your latin commitments here. OOOOO, this fruit is getting rather juicy! On the Latin view, ADS, means that essence and existence, will, and activity are all the same. Have we unmasked Jnorm for the Papist he truly is? <br /><br /><br />“I'm not a philosopher and so you must explain what you mean by all this.”<br /><br />>>No problem. http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/analogy-of-proportionality-refuted-univocal-predication-defended/<br /><br /><br /><br />“So what would you call the humanity of Christ? What kind of nature(in your system)?”<br /><br />>>>Well, as in all human natures, the Genus from which the particular derives is an Idea in God’s mind. The particular with reference to essence is a rational being with a will. With reference to nature, more broadly glossed, you have a numerically singular physical body with a racial identity springing from one of the sons of Noah and a tendency towards good or evil in the genus of being. With reference to Christ, of course all his tendencies were directed towards the good, his racial identity sprung from Shem. <br /><br /><br /><br />“I also wondered what the difference was between the Gordan Clark view and the gnostic view?”<br /><br />>>No problem: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/gnosticism-compared-with-scripturalism-by-drake/<br /><br /><br />“If you want to claim the Nicene view as your own then you have to go by their understanding of "human individuals"<br /><br />>>>Well here is my problem. I already showed from Davis that Athanasius was still confusing being and hypostasis all the way to the end of his ministry and the next big philosopher is Boethius, and his definition of person is agreeable to my own. <br />. <br /><br />“as well as their analagies. This is why I quoted Saint Athanasius, and eventually Saint Alexander of Alexandria.”<br /><br />>>Seeing SAA was the mentor of Athanasius I see no improvement by appealing to him. <br /><br /><br />“Most EO books are still un-translated, but even if I were to find one you would still reject it because you reject Apophatic Theology. Your Clarkianism is purely Catophatic. Both Judaism and Christianity embrace a form of Apophaticism, and so if your philosophy of language can't integrate Apophaticism then it's foriegn to the ethos of Christianity.”<br /><br />>>> Dr. Clark spent 60 years in the professional sphere disproving the idea that Apophaticism was necessary to Christianity. What you should have stated is that Jewish Kabbalism and Anchoreticism is Apophatic. If taken consistently Apophaticism is Adoptionist, because it affirms the analogy of proportionality. See your buddy Perry Robinson’s article: http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/a-deformed-christ/<br /><br />And the quote from Grisham expositing Theodore, <br /><br />“the radical “other-ness” of God, he insisted that the divine and human natures could not be hypostatically joined without corruption of the divine, Theodore held that there is an inhering dualism in Christ’s person”<br /><br />The radical other-ness of God is the basis for Apophaticism. <br /><br /><br />“What does this have to do with Nicea and the Nicene view? You see, you were reading all kinds of things into the words "human individuals".”<br /><br />>>EVERYTHING! On my view the categories of divinity and humanity overlap at the level of intellect, the image of God; Thus providing the ontological groundwork for a hypostatic union and a proportional similarity in the language spoken about divine and human persons. <br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-41035484726117595392012-10-30T18:00:24.892-07:002012-10-30T18:00:24.892-07:00Jnorm,
"Not true, for I said this more than...Jnorm, <br /><br />"Not true, for I said this more than once:<br />quote<br />"In regards to homoousios...2 copper pennies...stream of water"<br /><br />>>>YET AGAIN, THIS CONVERSATION IS NOT ABOUT INANIMATE MATTER, IT IS ABOUT PERSONS! Drawing inferences from thoughtless physical objects simply re-affirms and provides foundation for my accusation that your theology proper is grounded on some kind of organic physical substance. I have already provided ancient representations that personhood, even divine personhood pertained to intelligent beings, not modes of physical inanimate objects. <br /><br /><br />“Drake said:<br />"and that is why you keep avoiding my question that I have typed out numerous times now: How do you explain your affirmation of one numeric nature while affirming three divine minds?"<br /><br /><br />[Jnorm] Because the Unity is in two ways:<br /><br />1.) Unity in Essence (Both the Son and Spirit are of the Father's Essence)<br /><br />2.) Unity in Communion as Persons (Perichoresis, The Father is In the Son and Spirit and the Son and Spirit are in the Father)”<br /><br />>>>LOL! This did not address a single letter of what I asked you. <br /><br /><br />“Drake said:<br />">>>Again, repeat again, you are collapsing the idea of inseparability with numeric unity."<br /><br />“Because it's true!” <br /><br />>>>Then you are by definition a monophysite! <br /><br /><br />“If the Divine Nature is both simple and Indivisible, than it's obviously a form of numeric unity.”<br /><br />>>>But the first affirmation is false. The divine nature is not simple. There is a nature will distinction and a distinction within thoughts. <br /><br /><br />“Our friend David made use of the word "infinity" to describe something similar. As seen in the other thread:<br />http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2012/09/basil-great-letter-cxxv-excellent.html<br />quote<br />"Me: For me, the "copper pennies" analogy must be restricted to the finite realm, while the stream/river analogy (I prefer lake/river) can be used to reflect infinity. Allow me to explain a be further...<br /><br />If one has an infinite, pure lake, and this lake produces an infinite, pure river from itself, then, I think we have an analogy from the natural order that is truly an apt description of the relationship between the Father and the Son; keeping in mind, of course, that the river's infinity is derivative."<br /><br />>>>The Nicene Creed never mentions God’s infinity. Secondly, I don’t believe in the infinity of the DN. That is Plotinus’ emanationism. <br /><br /><br /><br />“The Source and it's derivative are of the same essence and they are inseparable, and so it's a form of numeric unity.”<br /><br />>>>You just re-asserted your position. An assertion is not an argument. <br /><br /><br />“Drake, when you were talking to Ken, why, even you said:<br />http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2012/09/basil-great-letter-cxxv-excellent.html<br />quote<br />"">>>The sequence is logical not chronological. Man does have a category to explain it. It is an emanation (Christian sense not Plotinian) not a creation.""<br /><br />>>>And I clearly denied Plotinus’’ view of emanation thus denying infinitude to the DN. <br /><br />“Drake, if the Christian form of emanation means no creation”<br /><br /><br />>>>Who says that?<br /><br /><br />“1.) Is there any separation between the Source and the Emanation? If the answer is no then ask yourself”<br /><br />>>>Spatially, no, which is exactly the category you are thinking under, yet again, showing your view of DN is physical. Logically, no. Numerically with reference to cardinal numbers and numeric nature, yes. <br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-68775513699491275132012-10-30T02:15:28.245-07:002012-10-30T02:15:28.245-07:00Drake said:
">>I have already addressed...Drake said:<br /><b>">>I have already addressed this. This issue is not about Athanasius. This is about the meaning of the Nicene Creed."</b><br /><br />Yes you addressed this, but your wrong in thinking that an Ecumenical council is isolated from the theology of a Church Father or Fathers and Witnesses. What you said would be like if someone said "This issue is not about Saint Cyril of Alexandria. This is about the meaning of the Third Ecumenical Council."<br /><br />Or if someone said:<br /><br />"This issue is not about Saints Sophronius and Maximus. This is about the meaning of the Sixth Ecumenical council." <br /><br />Do you see what I'm getting at? You made a similar mistake with the Fourth Ecumenical council, in thinking it was isolated from Saint Cyril of Alexandria, the formula of re-union, the Cappadocian Fathers......etc.<br /><br />Yes, this is about the meaning of the Nicene Creed! Which is why we are also looking at Saint Athanasius. Just like how Native Americans some centuries didn't waste anything from the animals they killed, so we Orthodox have a tendency to look at everything when talking about Ecumenical councils! We look at the actual declaration itself along with it canons and theology or theologies from various Church Fathers. Some Church Fathers are more authoritative than others on certain issues for this very reason.<br /><br /><br /><br />Drake said<br /><b>"As I showed from Davis, Athanasius was still confused about “being” and “hypostasis” at the end of his ministry."</b><br /><br />I have a book that might dispute that claim. For Fr Dragas who is a Saint Athanasius scholar and professor said in his book "Saint Athanasius of Alexandria: Original Research and New Perspectives"<br />http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Athanasius-Alexandria-Perspectives-Theological/dp/1933275006<br />quote<br /> "The only evidence adduced by those who deny the expression treis hypostaseis to Athanasius is his statement in Ad Afros 4, where Athanasius identifies ousia, hypostasis and hyparxis. But this text does not deal with the question of one or three hypostaseis but with the existential meaning of the term which is rejected by the Arians at the synod of Ariminium."<br /><br /><br /><br /> But why are you picking on Saint Athanasius when you keep saying that a hypostasis must have it's own numeric nature?<br /><br /><br /><br />Drake said<br /><b>">>>So then you agree that God has a material body just like I thought from before! You think the distinctions among material bodies is erroneous precisely because you think God has one physical body. Thank you for proving my point! Now to the issue of personhood:"</b><br /><br />Where in the world did you get this idea from? I think I explained myself pretty well as to why your assertion is wrong. For whatever you say about me you will also have to say about those who gathered at Nicea. Thus, you will have to say about the real Nicene view. You see, you can't have it both ways! You can't attack me and claim to embrace Nicea.<br />Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-75672144636413220952012-10-30T02:14:01.248-07:002012-10-30T02:14:01.248-07:00Drake said:
"I understand that not all human ...Drake said:<br /><b>"I understand that not all human activity can be predicated of the divine, however, that does not exclude the proportion that can be predicated of the divine and that is the intellectual activity of man as I have made clear numerous times and you continue to ignore it- thus the Clarkian idea of the image of God."</b><br /><br />I didn't ignore it. I already mentioned that you were influenced by Gordan Clark. I also wondered what the difference was between the Gordan Clark view and the gnostic view? But regardless of all that, you were reading all this into the words "human individuals", when you shouldn't have.<br /><br />If you want to claim the Nicene view as your own then you have to go by their understanding of "human individuals", as well as their analagies. This is why I quoted Saint Athanasius, and eventually Saint Alexander of Alexandria.<br /><br /><br />Drake said:<br /><b>"And I’ll say another thing again that you will avoid answering again: What EO book on the philosophy of language can you provide as a standard reference to clear this up?"</b><br /><br /><br />Most EO books are still un-translated, but even if I were to find one you would still reject it because you reject Apophatic Theology. Your Clarkianism is purely Catophatic. Both Judaism and Christianity embrace a form of Apophaticism, and so if your philosophy of language can't integrate Apophaticism then it's foriegn to the ethos of Christianity. There is a podcast series by Fr. Hopko about "How we speak about God". I could be wrong, but I think he talks about the issue of language in two of the four podcasts.<br /><br /><br />Drake said:<br /><b>"Oh that’s right you don’t have one. But you see I do: Its called Language and Theology by Gordon Clark. He taught that man univocally participates in the objects of God’s knowledge not the manner of God’s knowing (essence) thus affirming the traditional analogy of proportion."</b> <br /><br /><br />What does this have to do with Nicea and the Nicene view? You see, you were reading all kinds of things into the words "human individuals". How did the people who gathered at Nicea understand the words "human individuals"? How did they understand the analagies? I already quoted Saints Alexander(mostly written by the younger Athanasius) and Athanasius.<br /><br />But in reading what you said I do see the distinction you're making between objects of God's knowledge vs manner of God's knowing(essence). At this point in time I don't know all of what this means, but it seems as if you have a way of separating God's Essence from something else.<br /><br /><br /><br />Drake said:<br /><b>">>>I have already addressed and agreed to this but you won’t show what you mean by “difference”."</b><br /><br />I don't wanna repeat what I already mentioned up above and so I will just say that the unity of the Divine Persons is real in the sence that they are inseparable and undivided in a way we're not. Their Essence is simple and Indivisible, and they are Eternal and Infinit. <br /><br />Our unity can be nominal and notional at times, but such a thing isn't true with the Divine Persons!<br /><br /> <br /><br />Drake said<br /> <b>"I have admitted that the two categories are not jointly exhaustive, but overlap at the level of intellect and when speaking of the particular persons of those categories connect univocally/ontologically at God’s objects of knowledge not the manner of his knowing."</b> <br /><br /><br />You're going to have to explain this some more. I know you got this from Gordan Clark, but it's a foriegn language. So what do you mean by all this?<br />Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-83098989394055100552012-10-30T02:11:49.162-07:002012-10-30T02:11:49.162-07:00Drake said:
">>>Again, repeat again,...Drake said:<br /><b>">>>Again, repeat again, you are collapsing the idea of inseparability with numeric unity."</b><br /><br />Because it's true! If the Divine Nature is both simple and Indivisible, than it's obviously a form of numeric unity. Our friend David made use of the word "infinity" to describe something similar. As seen in the other thread:<br />http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2012/09/basil-great-letter-cxxv-excellent.html<br />quote<br />"Me: For me, the "copper pennies" analogy must be restricted to the finite realm, while the stream/river analogy (I prefer lake/river) can be used to reflect infinity. Allow me to explain a be further...<br /><br />If one has an infinite, pure lake, and this lake produces an infinite, pure river from itself, then, I think we have an analogy from the natural order that is truly an apt description of the relationship between the Father and the Son; keeping in mind, of course, that the river's infinity is derivative."<br /><br /><br />The Source and it's derivative are of the same essence and they are inseparable, and so it's a form of numeric unity. Drake, when you were talking to Ken, why, even you said:<br />http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2012/09/basil-great-letter-cxxv-excellent.html<br />quote<br />"">>>The sequence is logical not chronological. Man does have a category to explain it. It is an emanation (Christian sense not Plotinian) not a creation.""<br /><br /><br />Drake, if the Christian form of emanation means no creation, no Demiurges, and no lesser quality or difference in Essence. then even you would have to believe in a form of numeric unity too! <br /><br />Ask yourself these questions:<br /><br />1.) Is there any separation between the Source and the Emanation? If the answer is no then ask yourself<br /><br />2.) Is the Essence of the Source and the Emanation the SAME? If the answer is yes, then you automatically have a form of numeric unity<br /><br /><br /><br />Drake said:<br /><b>">>>You typed it out but you did not show or define your distinctions."</b> <br /><br />I did both!<br /><br /><br /><br />Drake said:<br /><b>"Is it a proportional metaphor-analogy of proportion, an analogy of proportionality, a mutual exclusion? You don’t say. I have made the issue, as I do with all human ontological connection to the divine, an analogy of proportion."</b><br /><br />I'm not a philosopher and so you must explain what you mean by all this. All I know is that the Father and Holy Spirit never became Incarnate and that the Divine Essence is simple and indivisible, and David used the terms Infinit and Eternal, and so this is why the analogy breaks down. Thus the metaphor can only go but so far.<br /><br /><br />Drake said:<br /><b>"With reference to Christ’s humanity, the incarnation is not a participation but a hypostatic union, thus a human person is not participating in a divine person, but a divine person is personalizing a set of human faculties."</b><br /><br />So what would you call the humanity of Christ? What kind of nature(in your system)?<br />Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-21460184809305713722012-10-30T02:10:17.259-07:002012-10-30T02:10:17.259-07:00Drake said:
">>>This is becoming a c...Drake said:<br /><b>">>>This is becoming a complete circus! You do not believe in generic unity. Just because you typed out the words does not mean you have come to terms with the definition,"</b><br /><br /><br />Not true, for I said this more than once:<br />quote<br />"In regards to homoousios:<br /><br />1.) What is the difference between 2 copper pennies one foot away from each-other from that of a stream of water coming from a river? Both represent a form of homoousios, but one is divided where the other is undivided.<br /><br /><br />2.) What is the difference between 2 copper pennies one foot away from each-other from that of light and its radiance? Both represent a form of homoousios, but one is divided where the other is undivided."<br /><br />You completely avioded the point I tried to make with this. I also quoted Saint Athanasius in this:<br /><br /><br />http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xiv.ii.v.html<br />quote:<br />"Again, when the Bishops said that the Word must be described as the True Power and Image of the Father, in all things exact891 and like the Father, and as unalterable, and as always, and as in Him without division (for never was the Word not, but He was always, existing everlastingly with the Father, as the radiance of light),"<br /><br />But you ignored that too!<br /><br /><br /> I also quoted what he said the Creed meant by the term "One Essence"<br /><br />http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xiv.ii.v.html<br />quote:<br />"For bodies which are like each other may be separated and become at distances from each other, as are human sons relatively to their parents (as it is written concerning Adam and Seth, who was begotten of him that he was like him after his own pattern; but since the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father, and He and the Father are one, as He has said Himself, and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word, as the radiance stands towards the light (for this the phrase itself indicates), therefore the Council, as understanding this, suitably wrote ‘one in essence,’ that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and shew that the Word was other than originated things. For, after thus writing, they at once added, ‘But they who say that the Son of God is from nothing, or created, or alterable, or a work, or from other essence, these the Holy Catholic Church anathematizes"<br /><br /><br />You ignored this too! And so I did more than just type the words out. I also explained why.<br /><br /><br />Drake said:<br /> "and that is why you keep avoiding my question that I have typed out numerous times now: How do you explain your affirmation of one numeric nature while affirming three divine minds?"<br /><br /><br />Because the Unity is in two ways:<br /><br />1.) Unity in Essence (Both the Son and Spirit are of the Father's Essence)<br /><br />2.) Unity in Communion as Persons (Perichoresis, The Father is In the Son and Spirit and the Son and Spirit are in the Father)<br />Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-90630925776192267822012-10-22T22:09:00.426-07:002012-10-22T22:09:00.426-07:00Ryan,
Very interested in seeing what you think a...Ryan, <br /><br />Very interested in seeing what you think about my recent post:<br /><br />http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/2321/<br /><br /><br />especially the last sectionDrake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-4748236493544633542012-10-21T21:17:47.876-07:002012-10-21T21:17:47.876-07:00Ryan,
"True, but that the Son was caused do...Ryan, <br /><br />"True, but that the Son was caused does not imply that He cannot be a cause of the Spirit."<br /><br /><br />>>>Well it appear that the notion introduces time into the Godhead because in order for the Son to be a cause of the Spirit God would have to "FIRST" cause the Son and "NOW" that the Son is endowed with causal power he may subsequently cause the Spirit. Even taken in the logical order it subordinates the HS to the Son. This destroys true scriptural and orthodox subordination. True subordination has the Son and HS subordinate to the father at the level of person not nature, but if the Son caused the Spirit the hypostatic subordination of the Son to the Father would be lost thus losing their personal distinctions, the Son becomes a second Father, and the HS would then be subordinate to the Father and the Son. <br /><br />"It seems like you are suggesting that the only way the Son could be a cause of the Spirit is if causality is an attribute."<br /><br />>>>If the Son cause the Spirit and the Spirit did not cause the Son, this is admitted subordination of the Spirit to the Son. At the very least he would need to be the cause of some other divine person to retain equality with the Son. As Photius says, "For the procession of the Spirit from the Son is not contained in the procession from the Father.If we say this, then what does the Spirit gain which He did not already possess in His procession from the Father? For if it were possible for the Spirit to receive something and to declare what was gained, ******was He not imperfect without it?******"<br /><br />"Why can't it be a predicate shared with the Father but not an attribute?"<br /><br />>>>It affirms the imperfection of the Procession from the Father and asserts two processions,one from the Father and one from the Son. The former imperfect the latter perfect, and in doing so do we not then have a supremacy of the Son over the Father? <br /><br />"Can't the Father be the ultimate principle even if the Filioque is true?"<br /><br />>>>How could he be if his procession needs perfecting from the Son? Would not the Son and the Father be equals at the level of both hypostasis and nature then? <br /><br />"Or are you both saying that in this context, causality implies aseity?"<br /><br />>>>I amDrake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-23576943426003519132012-10-21T16:38:54.608-07:002012-10-21T16:38:54.608-07:00"Ubegotteness pertains to the person of the F..."Ubegotteness pertains to the person of the Father. That is his personal property. To be begotten is the son’s thus to be eternally caused."<br /><br />True, but that the Son was caused does not imply that He cannot be a cause of the Spirit. It seems like you are suggesting that the only way the Son could be a cause of the Spirit is if causality is an attribute. Why can't it be a predicate shared with the Father but not an attribute?<br /><br />Mark,<br /><br />"St. Paul also affirms One God the Father, BY whom are all things, and One Lord, THROUGH whom are all things, so causality is the property of the Father alone, for there can only be one ultimate principle, that is God."<br /><br />Can't the Father be the ultimate principle even if the Filioque is true? If so, then Paul's statement about the causality of the Father does not necessarily preclude the Son.<br /><br />Or are you both saying that in this context, causality implies aseity?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-2521145984911743642012-10-21T16:25:21.260-07:002012-10-21T16:25:21.260-07:00Ryan,
“I see the problem as it is posed is criti...Ryan, <br /><br />“I see the problem as it is posed is critical to the Filioque, but my question in that post was why couldn't "causality" be a common predicate of the Father and Son but not the Spirit.”<br /><br />>>>Ubegotteness pertains to the person of the Father. That is his personal property. To be begotten is the son’s thus to be eternally caused. <br /><br />“I recognize that causality cannot be an attribute. It cannot pertain to nature.”<br /><br />>>exactly. It pertains to the personhoood of the father. To be caused to the son. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-55275289171452734322012-10-21T16:17:35.659-07:002012-10-21T16:17:35.659-07:00Hi Ryan,
You said:"I see the problem as it i...Hi Ryan,<br /><br />You said:"I see the problem as it is posed is critical to the Filioque, but my question in that post was why couldn't "causality" be a common predicate of the Father and Son but not the Spirit"<br /><br />I am not a student of philosophy, from a biblical standpoint, I think 1)the name of God signifinies causality, namely, he exists becuase he exists, and Jehovah God is one Jehovah, so it excludes all other persons; 2)St. Paul also affirms One God the Father, BY whom are all things, and One Lord, THROUGH whom are all things, so causality is the property of the Father alone, for there can only be one ultimate principle, that is God.<br /><br />My two cents.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Mark徐马可https://www.blogger.com/profile/09841500062485778894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-60935041651879705002012-10-21T07:36:05.005-07:002012-10-21T07:36:05.005-07:00Drake,
"If the Father’s nature required to c...Drake,<br /><br />"If the Father’s nature required to cause a son, then this must continue infinitely with all three divine persons, and as we all know (I think I am still trying to convince Ryan of this) this is the fundamental problem of the Filioque."<br /><br />I see the problem as it is posed is critical to the Filioque, but my question in that post was why couldn't "causality" be a common predicate of the Father and Son but not the Spirit. I recognize that causality cannot be an attribute. It cannot pertain to nature.<br /><br />I any case, this is just a hypothetical. I don't actually lean towards the Filioque because the above seems like ad hoc justification for, at best, a mere possibility. Still, it requires a refutation.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-74328337550140456672012-10-21T03:47:01.842-07:002012-10-21T03:47:01.842-07:00Jnorm,
“What do you mean by the word "recei...Jnorm, <br /><br />“What do you mean by the word "received"?”<br /><br />>>>Theosis. You are going to try to play word games with Ryan on these issues and I’m going to nail you on it every time. I know your religion just as well as you do and these Jesuit games that you and Perry like to play at other Protestant websites is not going to work here. <br /><br />“What do you mean by the word Justification? Do you mean it in reference to Christ's Death or Resurrection? Or both?”<br /><br />>>>You are going to try to play the created vs. uncreated grace game and I can play this one too. Here is a question for you: What do you mean by the word energy? Are you referring to an uncreated object that pertains to the economy of salvation and yet at the same time constitutes God’s nature (distinct from essence) with reference to the ontological trinity? How is this not a flat contradiction? How is this not a complete collapsing of the ontological and economical trinity? <br /><br />“Also, what do you mean by the word "Grace"? Is it merely an attitude of God toward those he loves? Is it created? Or uncreated? Is it particular or universal?”<br /><br />>>>Oh, look at that: prediction fulfilled. Grace ad intra is a disposition of God towards a person pertaining to an eternal decree. As it is applied in the Economia, Grace is the Holy Spirit. Different graces are merely different operations of the HS-thus grace is uncreated-Edwards, Treatise on Grace. <br /><br /><br />“So what is Jesus then? If Drake believes in Three numeric natures in the Godhead because of how he interpreted""Three human individuals"" then what is Jesus post Incarnation?”<br /><br />>>>One hypostatized divine numeric nature that has personalized a logically unhypostatized numeric human nature. <br /><br />“Does Drake believe Jesus to be Two Numeric Natures? He must believe Jesus to have a human soul and mind, if not then he's in Big Time trouble!”<br /><br />>>>Jesus clearly has a human mind and btw, mind and soul are synonyms with us clarkians. <br /><br />“His interpretation of human individuals essentially being minds will cause problems with His Christology. For how will he avoid Nestorianism on one-hand or some form of Mono-physitism on the other? Especially Apollinarian Monophysitism?”<br /><br />>>>By affirming two minds, one divine, hypostatized and serving as the hypostasis of the human.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-75731410294077997392012-10-21T03:44:12.793-07:002012-10-21T03:44:12.793-07:00Jnorm,
“And so at the Incarnation, the Second Pe...Jnorm, <br /><br />“And so at the Incarnation, the Second Person of the Trinity became like us, and so no, it's not taking the human metaphor too far, for it's no longer a metaphor in regards to the second Person post Incarnation. But it would be taking the metaphor too far in regards to the Father and Holy Spirit!”<br /><br />>>>Your lack of precision continues to be taxing. Are you saying that the word generic unity is a metaphor when used of divine persons but literal when speaking of human persons? If so, is the metaphor an analogy of proportion or proportionality? That is, does the metaphor offer only a proportional univocal understanding of what a divine person is or is the metaphor itself a representation of a created object known as personhood? <br /><br />“So why did you take the metaphor too far?”<br /><br />>>>I need to know what you mean by metaphor before we go on. See the statement directly above. <br /><br />“It proves numeric unity of substance because the inseparableness of Same Nature is not like the insepableness of different Natures.”<br /><br />>>>1.I affirm logical inseparability. You as in most of your categories have no clear definition, and yours, IMO sound very much like an organic or some kind of physical inseparability. So let us get into this. On my view of inseparability (logical) it is logically necessary to the hypostasis (not nature; speaking logically not with reference to numeric substance) of the Father to have a Son. That relationship is a logical, eternal necessity, therefore they are inseparable. However, it is not an inseparability of nature. If the Father’s nature required to cause a son, then this must continue infinitely with all three divine persons, and as we all know (I think I am still trying to convince Ryan of this) this is the fundamental problem of the Filioque. So on my view the inseparability of the divine persons pertains logically to the hypostases not natures. Therefore, I reject the idea that the “inseparableness of Same Nature is not like the insepableness of different Natures” as an unproved assumption because inseparableness (with reference to divine persons) does not pertain to Same Divine Nature, it pertains to hypostases and inseparable-ness of Christ’s natures, human and divine, pertains to nature not hypostasis. <br /><br />2. Secondly, your assertion betrays your sacramentology because your view has the human nature of Christ very much, the same nature as the Logos’ as the human nature of Christ is said to be deified in the sense of acting like an omnipresent nature. <br /><br />“Drake, there is only ONE DIVINE NATURE!”<br /><br />>>>Then by definition there is only one mind, ergo, there in only one person. <br /><br />“Also, in regards to the human nature, do you believe Christ to have a human mind? If so it's of Nature!”<br /><br />>>>Yes. <br /><br />“This was settled in the 2nd council, in which the 4th council embraced and saw as Ecumenical! But you reject the second council, and so how can you embrace Chalcedon while rejecting the 2nd council?”<br /><br />>>>Because as we have already shown, there were confusions among the definitions.<br /><br /><br />“How can you attack Mind and Will being of Nature”<br /><br />>>>When did I attack that?<br /><br />“You are assuming we have the same interpretation of the word "Grace"!”<br /><br />>>>Irrelevant. You still believe in grace. <br /><br />“I already told you that I'm not a Roman Catholic! So why should I pick between imputation, impartation and infusion? Why must the options be limited to that? Why can't all the above also be an option? I'm just saying.”<br /><br />>>>Why didn’t you respond to your buddy Kabane the Christian committing himself to Sungenis’ view thus the Roman view? You very much believe in an infusion view. The object of infusion, that is what is infused in the believer, is different between you and Rome, but that is another issue.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-55519724324714171952012-10-21T03:40:02.033-07:002012-10-21T03:40:02.033-07:00Jnorm,
“Stop claiming to represent Nicea, then I...Jnorm, <br /><br />“Stop claiming to represent Nicea, then I'll stop criticizing your view.”<br /><br />>>>At this point you need to explain how three minds are consistent with your idea of singular numeric nature pertaining to cardinal numerics. <br /><br />“How did my accusation fail? Listen to what you said again! You said, ""because my distinction among individual humans is""<br /><br />Now what did I say? I said ""I told you that you were reading all kinds of extra stuff into their words of "human individuals""".<br /><br />Drake, you just proved me right! You read your personal view of individual humans into the words of Leo Donald David, and J.N.D. Kelly!”<br /><br /><br />>>>So then you agree that God has a material body just like I thought from before! You think the distinctions among material bodies is erroneous precisely because you think God has one physical body. Thank you for proving my point! Now to the issue of personhood:<br /><br />1.David and I already spoke about this issue: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/10/conservative-reformed-baptist-professor.html<br /><br />Drake: “I would be most interested in how you understand personhood.”<br /><br />David: “I have relied on Boethius' definition.”<br /><br />Drake: “Could you refer me to a book, article, or something on Boethius'definition?”<br /><br />David: “You asked and you shall receive:<br /><br />"Wherefore if person belongs to substances alone, and these rational, and if every substance is a nature, and exists not in universals but in individuals, we have found the definition of person: 'The individual substance of a rational nature.'" (Contra Eutychen, III – from the Loeb Classical Library, Boethius – The Theological Tractates & The Consolation of Philosophy, p. 85 – translated by Stewart, Radn & Tester.)==”<br /><br />Drake: “The substance of a rational nature, yeah I read that in Aquinas and in AA Hodge when I was studying for my Christology paper. Do you see any difference between that and consciousness? If so, what?”<br /><br />David: “Consciousness for sure, but more (IMHO), in that Boethius (as do most Eastern/Greek fathers), makes a clear distinction between οὺσία and ὑπόστασις, with οὺσία corresponding to what we would term being/essence/nature, and ὑπόστασις with person/individual. ”<br /><br />Drake: “Agree 100%. It's just that when I read McGukin on Christological Controversies he said that Cyril refused to equate personhood with consciousness.<br /><br />Also, if personhood is seated in consciousness would this not draw you away from the Pelagian idea of arbitrary action and arbitrary nature, putting personhood in being and ergo putting God in being demanding a denial of essence and energy?”<br /><br />After this David ceases response. I think I understood where you were coming from, but as we can see, my definition of person is quite ancient and as I have already established from Davis, Athanasius still had no established definition even at the end of his ministry. So you are left empty-handed with the idea that my definition of person is a mistaken reading into the Nicene Creed from its established definition of person because there is no established definition. <br /><br />“What is important is knowing why you thought it was ok to see the Godhead in exactly the same way as human individual minds(because your view sees human beings as essentialy individual minds)?”<br /><br />>>>Well you parenthetic statement answered your own question. <br /><br />“Before the Incarnation, the Son was just homoousios with the other Identities within the Godhead, however, after the Incarnation, He was also homoousios with us.”<br /><br />>>>Exactly. The same word that identified unity among individual humans was used to identify the unity among divine persons. Thus agreeing with me not you. <br />Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-12502366731929320432012-10-21T03:36:58.309-07:002012-10-21T03:36:58.309-07:00Jnorm,
“NOPE! We agreed of generic unity!”
>...Jnorm, <br /><br />“NOPE! We agreed of generic unity!”<br /><br />>>>This is becoming a complete circus! You do not believe in generic unity. Just because you typed out the words does not mean you have come to terms with the definition, and that is why you keep avoiding my question that I have typed out numerous times now: How do you explain your affirmation of one numeric nature while affirming three divine minds?<br /><br />“And I believed that a form of numeric unity was implicit, for it was already built in when one looks at the issue of simplicity as viewed by the Christians of the 4th century, and Divinity in general.”<br /><br />>>>Again, repeat again, you are collapsing the idea of inseparability with numeric unity. <br /><br />“I told you that you were reading all kinds of extra stuff into their words of "human individuals". I said you were taking the metaphor too far!”<br /><br />>>>You typed it out but you did not show or define your distinctions. Is it a proportional metaphor-analogy of proportion, an analogy of proportionality, a mutual exclusion? You don’t say. I have made the issue, as I do with all human ontological connection to the divine, an analogy of proportion. With reference to Christ’s humanity, the incarnation is not a participation but a hypostatic union, thus a human person is not participating in a divine person, but a divine person is personalizing a set of human faculties. I understand that not all human activity can be predicated of the divine, however, that does not exclude the proportion that can be predicated of the divine and that is the intellectual activity of man as I have made clear numerous times and you continue to ignore it- thus the Clarkian idea of the image of God. And I’ll say another thing again that you will avoid answering again: What EO book on the philosophy of language can you provide as a standard reference to clear this up? Oh that’s right you don’t have one. But you see I do: Its called Language and Theology by Gordon Clark. He taught that man univocally participates in the objects of God’s knowledge not the manner of God’s knowing (essence) thus affirming the traditional analogy of proportion. <br /><br />“This is why I kept saying that:<br /><br />1.) There was a difference between Divine Persons and human persons!”<br /><br />>>>I have already addressed and agreed to this but you won’t show what you mean by “difference”. I have admitted that the two categories are not jointly exhaustive, but overlap at the level of intellect and when speaking of the particular persons of those categories connect univocally/ontologically at God’s objects of knowledge not the manner of his knowing. <br /><br />“2.) I continuously quote Saint Athanasius, but you ignored it!”<br /><br />>>I have already addressed this. This issue is not about Athanasius. This is about the meaning of the Nicene Creed. As I showed from Davis, Athanasius was still confused about “being” and “hypostasis” at the end of his ministry. <br /><br />“3.) I continiously focused on unity by way of the modals that Christians always used when talking about their Triadology.”<br /><br />>>>And I focused instead on the meaning of the Nicene Creed. <br /><br />“Frustrating? You are the one claiming to represent something you can't really represent!”<br /><br />>>>You have failed to prove this. You have a lot of work to do. I am going to make a list of issues you need to address to prove your point.Drake Sheltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05925446446813424725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-50081649892196088782012-10-20T22:45:21.740-07:002012-10-20T22:45:21.740-07:00"Ok, If this is all you mean, then I accept, ..."Ok, If this is all you mean, then I accept, so let's go back to your Triadology now. What do you mean by what you say in regards to that?"<br /><br />Reread my reply to Justin at the beginning of this comment thread. It's crystal clear. Eternal generation involves a logical distinction, not a temporal one. There is not time at which a believer is unjustified even though faith causes justification. Similarly, there is no time at which the intra-Trinitarian relationships were something else even though eternal generation connotes derivation or causality in the Father's communication of the divine essence to the Son.<br /><br />"You seem to be saying that Logical distinctions are real distinctions too!"<br /><br />Of course. I said so from the beginning.<br /><br />"So what is Jesus then? If Drake believes in Three numeric natures in the Godhead because of how he interpreted ""Three human individuals"" then what is Jesus post Incarnation?"<br /><br />He is a divine person - thus, He has a divine nature - with an assumed human nature.<br /><br />Remember, a numeric nature is necessary for personhood, not sufficient. To say there are three divine persons, then, requires three numeric natures. It does not follow that two numeric natures predicable of Christ (one divine, one human) requires two persons. <br /><br />"Does Drake believe Jesus to be Two Numeric Natures? He must believe Jesus to have a human soul and mind, if not then he's in Big Time trouble!"<br /><br />As I understand it, Jesus HAS two numeric natures, not IS two numeric natures. The natures do not comprehend the Son, as they do not, for instance, entail His properties. Yes, Jesus has a human soul or mind. But the human nature is assumed. The Son did not assume a person, the Son assumed a human nature into His person.<br /><br />"His interpretation of human individuals essentially being minds will cause problems with His Christology."<br /><br />I believe his definition of person is a shorthand for "center or system of consciousness." The Son has two minds but only one system of consciousness. So it may be a bit imprecise to say a mind implies a person, but it's only relevant when talking about the Incarnation, as the Son is the only person whose system of consciousness involves more than one mind.<br /><br />Again, Drake can correct any misunderstandings I may have.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-79799113077108500202012-10-20T22:45:05.189-07:002012-10-20T22:45:05.189-07:00"Implicitly you did!"
False. In fact, j..."Implicitly you did!"<br /><br />False. In fact, just the opposite, for the point was to show that even your theology admits of a distinction between logical and temporal causation.<br /><br />"You are assuming we have the same interpretation of the word "Grace"!"<br /><br />No, I am assuming that you have *A* view of justification and that your view of justification involves *A* view of grace. The particular differences you protest for are NOT RELEVANT to the fact you have a view, period. I'm not asking you to answer according to my view; I'm asking you to quit stalling and admit that you have one of your own. Or are you so theologically inept that you are only able to tell me what you DON'T believe?<br /><br />"Why must the options be limited to that?"<br /><br />Why can't you just tell me your own view?<br /><br />"What do you mean by the word "received"?"<br /><br />LOL. You are ridiculous. I said received **however you want to qualify that**. I'm not trying to make you answer according to the Reformed view.<br /><br />"What do you mean by the word Justification? Do you mean it in reference to Christ's Death or Resurrection? Or both?"<br /><br />Again, irrelevant. The fact is, you have a view of justification and grace. You think grace is somehow conferred in justification. I don't know how you define grace or justification, but I don't need to know. Are you going to tell me that on your view, grace is not linked to justification? Please. Quit playing around. We both know you're just trying to evade my question.<br /><br />"What type of distinction would you call this?"<br /><br />A temporal one. If a believer can be unjustified, then time has elapsed between his coming to faith and his [initial] justification. Now, answer the question.<br /><br />"So you are calling Once Saved Always Saved or the Reformed P.O.T.S. a quote on quote ""logical-causal distinction""?"<br /><br />No. I am saying that if you deny a believer can be unjustified, you must agree that faith can cause justification without time elapsing. Thus, you would agree that a logical distinction can be made without a temporal one, which is just what our view of eternal generation entails. I have no idea how you inferred eternal security from anything I said. You must be losing it.<br /><br />"But don't you Reformed guys believe in secondary causes as played out in time and space? A chain in the process? Meaning, someone is suppose to preach the Gospel, the elect person hears the Gospel preached, the Holy Spirit indwells the elect Person, thus regenerating them according to you guys, the elect person is now able to have faith, and because of this the elect person in now justified."<br /><br />Of course there are secondary causes. The point is that time does not elapse between every single one. Regeneration causes faith, but there is no regenerate unbeliever. Faith causes justification, but there is no unjustified believer. Thus, there is a logical distinction without a temporal one.<br /><br />Do you think there is such a thing as an unjustified believer? No? But don't you think faith causes [initial] justification? Yes? Then you admit my point.<br /><br />"Would you call each step a logical-causal distinction without a chronological-temporal distinction?"<br /><br />Not each step, just the ones I mention above. Time obviously elapses between the preaching and believing of the gospel, for instance.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-9475815518119143272012-10-20T03:36:32.989-07:002012-10-20T03:36:32.989-07:00Ryan said
"As for your request, 1) merely mea...Ryan said<br /><b>"As for your request, 1) merely means that saving faith or belief in the gospel is a precondition for justification,"</b><br /><br />Ok, If this is all you mean, then I accept, so let's go back to your Triadology now. What do you mean by what you say in regards to that? <br /><br /><br />Ryan said<br /> <b>"not that there can be a time at which such a person can be considered not-justified. The latter is what 2) means."</b><br /><br />ok, so in Triadology you are not talking about this. Good!<br /><br /><br />Ryan said<br /> <b>"I haven't stated 3), so I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. It's not relevant to my argument"</b><br /><br />But if you are talking about "real distinctions" then shouldn't you talk about this as well? You seem to be saying that Logical distinctions are real distinctions too! Ok, I'm open to the idea, so let's go back to your Triadology.<br /><br /><br /><br />Ryan said<br /><b>"I could be wrong - Drake may confirm or deny - but it seems to me Drake has argued that a numeric nature is a necessary condition for personhood, not a sufficient condition."</b><br /><br />So what is Jesus then? If Drake believes in Three numeric natures in the Godhead because of how he interpreted <b>""Three human individuals""</b> then what is Jesus post Incarnation?<br /><br />Does Drake believe Jesus to be Two Numeric Natures? He must believe Jesus to have a human soul and mind, if not then he's in Big Time trouble!<br /><br />His interpretation of human individuals essentially being minds will cause problems with His Christology. For how will he avoid Nestorianism on one-hand or some form of Mono-physitism on the other? Especially Apollinarian Monophysitism?Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-8575966678070556672012-10-20T03:36:07.539-07:002012-10-20T03:36:07.539-07:00Ryan said:
"Who asked you to?"
Implicit...Ryan said:<br /><b>"Who asked you to?"</b><br /><br />Implicitly you did!<br /><br /><br />Ryan said:<br /><b>"Because arguing the contrary is facile. You and I both know that in some way, shape or form you think that justification entails the imputation, impartation, or infusion of grace."</b><br /><br />You are assuming we have the same interpretation of the word <b>"Grace"!</b> We do not! So once again, why should I pretend to be something I'm not? If I played your game then I wouldn't be able to stay true to what I am.<br /><br /><br />Ryan said:<br /><b>"Take your pick as to which it will be, it makes no difference to my point. But it would be nice if you would quit stalling and admit that."</b><br /><br />I already told you that I'm not a Roman Catholic! So why should I pick between imputation, impartation and infusion? Why must the options be limited to that? Why can't all the above also be an option? I'm just saying.<br /><br /><br />Ryan said:<br /><b>"Whichever you choose, I will ask the same question: is there such an individual as a believer who has not "received" - however you want to qualify that - the grace peculiar to justification?"</b><br /><br /><br />What do you mean by the word "received"? Do you mean it in the same way as receiving a smack on the face? Receiving a spanking? Or do you mean it in the way of a Tight End receiving the football? A child receiving a birthday gift?<br /><br />What do you mean by the word Justification? Do you mean it in reference to Christ's Death or Resurrection? Or both?<br /><br />Also, what do you mean by the word "Grace"? Is it merely an attitude of God toward those he loves? Is it created? Or uncreated? Is it particular or universal?<br /><br /><br />Ryan said:<br /><b>"If so, then are you not suggesting believers in the gospel could conceivably die condemned in sin?"</b><br /><br /><br />What type of distinction would you call this?<br /><br /><br /><br />Ryan said:<br /><b>" If not, then are you not implicitly admitting the fact that there may be a logical-causal distinction without a chronological-temporal distinction?"</b><br /><br />So you are calling Once Saved Always Saved or the Reformed P.O.T.S. a quote on quote ""logical-causal distinction""? But don't you Reformed guys believe in secondary causes as played out in time and space? A chain in the process? Meaning, someone is suppose to preach the Gospel, the elect person hears the Gospel preached, the Holy Spirit indwells the elect Person, thus regenerating them according to you guys, the elect person is now able to have faith, and because of this the elect person in now justified.<br /><br />Would you call each step a logical-causal distinction without a chronological-temporal distinction?Jnormhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06749159886390240183noreply@blogger.com