Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Theotokos

Expand Messages
  • seamrog1935
    Simply, what did Calvin and our Reformed brethren say about Theotokos and the Romanist title Mother of God ? I looked in his Institutes but can t find much.
    Message 1 of 13 , Jun 28, 2002
      Simply, what did Calvin and our Reformed brethren say about Theotokos
      and the Romanist title "Mother of God"? I looked in his Institutes
      but can't find much. I am trying to refute a Romanist who is
      claiming the "Mother of God" title and Marian idolatry. (Calvin
      seems not to have distinguished between "dulia" and "latria".)

      Patrick
    • oldschoolpca
      About the title Theotokos . As I am a seminary graduate I have some good old books (not enough of course). I looked in the index to Reformed Dogmatics by
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 2, 2002
        About the title "Theotokos". As I am a seminary graduate I have some
        good old books (not enough of course). I looked in the index
        to "Reformed Dogmatics" by Heppe. Sure enough, there is at least 1
        Reformed theologian of the late 1600's who approved of the term.
        This was Riisen, who from the limited info I could glean from the
        book was a colleague of Turretin at Geneva (?). Anyway Riisen's
        magnum opus appears to use Turretin as a starting point.

        Title Theotokos (Greek) = Deipara (Latin) = God-bearer (more literal
        English) is not papal in origin. It was decided by the #3 General
        Council, Ephesus, that the denial by Nestorius archbishop of
        Constantinople that Mary could be called Theotokos was heretical,
        involving his heresy that tended to deny the unity of Christ's
        person. (Nestorius was willing to call Mary Christokos (bearer of
        Christ) but not Theotokos. I have even seen a quote from Nestorius
        that makes it obvious that his denial of the title was heretical,
        when N. said something like, "God is not a baby in a manger 3 days
        old".

        Of course any truth can be misused; and I think the truth that you
        can and should call Mary Theotokos is misused when used to develop
        the Mariology that the medieval church did, detracting from Christ as
        the only Mediator.

        =================================================================

        From: "Taylor, Judson" <judson@f...>
        Date: Fri Jun 28, 2002 4:36 pm
        Subject: RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Theotokos



        All I can say is that he consistently referred to her as the Virgin,
        but never as the Mother of God. He seems not to have cared much about
        Mary idolatry, but he does seem to dismiss the belief that she was
        assumed into heaven in his treatise on relics.
        -----Original Message-----
        From: seamrog1935 [mailto:wh.roberts@...]
        Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 3:16 PM
        To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Theotokos


        Simply, what did Calvin and our Reformed brethren say about Theotokos
        and the Romanist title "Mother of God"? I looked in his Institutes
        but can't find much. I am trying to refute a Romanist who is
        claiming the "Mother of God" title and Marian idolatry. (Calvin
        seems not to have distinguished between "dulia" and "latria".)

        Patrick
      • thebishopsdoom
        I wasn t going to write in on this one, but now that someone did, I think I ll throw in a couple cents... ... some ... The title was used in the 1500s by
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 3, 2002
          I wasn't going to write in on this one, but now that someone did, I
          think I'll throw in a couple cents...
          --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., oldschoolpca <no_reply@y...>
          wrote:
          > About the title "Theotokos". As I am a seminary graduate I have
          some
          > good old books (not enough of course). I looked in the index
          > to "Reformed Dogmatics" by Heppe. Sure enough, there is at least 1
          > Reformed theologian of the late 1600's who approved of the term.
          > This was Riisen, who from the limited info I could glean from the
          > book was a colleague of Turretin at Geneva (?). Anyway Riisen's
          > magnum opus appears to use Turretin as a starting point.
          The title was used in the 1500s by Luther:
          "Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: the mother of
          God. No one can say anything greater of her...."
          "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the
          mother of God...It is certain that Mary is the mother of the real and
          true God."
          "God is born...the child who drinks his Mother's milk is eternal; he
          existed before the world's beginning and he created heaven and
          earth...these two natures are so united that there is only one God
          and Lord, that Mary suckles God with her breasts, bathes God, rocks
          him, and carries him."
          (LUTHER'S WORKS [Jaroslav Pelikan] 24:107; 22:492-493)
          And while I do not personally have the work, I have seen a quote
          from a sermon on Mary ("Mary, the Mother of God and Ever Virgin") by
          Zwingli which I am assuming is genuine, from 1524, where he refers to
          her as the Theotokos as well as (like some other early
          refomers) perpetual virgin. Now, I am not aware offhand of any of
          the reformers who asserted the latter idea as dogma - though I do
          know that some of them did themselves believe that she was the "ever-
          virgin" and others likewise asserted dogmatically that the reference
          to "brothers" of Jesus had no bearing on the issue because they could
          mean "cousins." I do believe the fact that Mary and Joseph actually
          got married does have some bearing inasfar as nonconsummation
          and "marital celibacy" appears inconsistent with the ordinance of
          marriage and would at the least require a special revelation to
          command that one remain in such an estate. But of such a special
          command the Scriptures are silent and as there is no peculiar valid
          theological reason that I can see to assume that such an estate must
          have existed for Mary and Joseph, we have no reason to assume that
          such a special command was given to them. The case for asserting Mary
          as theotokos, however, was / is centered on Christological issues
          relative to Nestorianism and some other heresies in Christology. It
          is supposed that some shied from the term over time due to
          superstitious ideas that some fostered from some with regards to the
          idea of Mary being the mother of God.

          > Title Theotokos (Greek) = Deipara (Latin) = God-bearer (more
          literal
          > English) is not papal in origin. It was decided by the #3 General
          > Council, Ephesus, that the denial by Nestorius archbishop of
          > Constantinople that Mary could be called Theotokos was heretical,
          > involving his heresy that tended to deny the unity of Christ's
          > person. (Nestorius was willing to call Mary Christokos (bearer of
          > Christ) but not Theotokos.
          I think another question that might hit the same issue from another
          angle is: Who was the person that suffered and died on the cross? It
          delves into the same sort of issues relative to Christology as the
          question of who was the person birthed by Mary.
          - thebishopsdoom
        • mojomomoney
          If one really wants to understand, there is no one, say, in the Eastern Orthodox Church that holds to the idea that Mary is the Mother of the Father or the
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 6, 2002
            If one really wants to understand, there is no one, say, in the
            Eastern Orthodox Church that holds to the idea that Mary is the Mother
            of the Father or the Holy Spirit. Nor do they hold to the idea that
            she is the source of the Pre-eternal Son.
            Theotokos is a title used to defend a true Christology against all
            heretic notions of the person of Christ.

            Two of the most important issues that were discussed in the early
            church were the Trinity and the Incarnation. These issues are still
            central in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and to see Mary in the Icons,
            pointing to her Son, is to declare, without a massive theological
            discussion, what Christ's true nature is.

            The above issues, although no doubt important, do not get much
            emphasise among the Protestants. In fact, the Orthodox, Lutherans, and
            others consider Calvinism to err concerning the person of Christ, when
            one says, "this scripture concerns the divinity of Christ," or "this
            scripture concerns the humanity of Christ", as if He were two people
            plastered together as one. We(the Orthodox) do not try to explain that
            which is unexplainable and leave room for mystery. Christ is ONE
            person, with a divine and a human nature.

            What is also interesting to discuss is what kind of human nauture did
            Jesus posses? Did he have a "totally depraved" human nature just like
            the rest of us?(What do Calvinists believe in reguards to the human
            nature of Christ?) If Christ didn't have this "totally depraved" human
            nature like the rest of us then how could He save mankind? If it was
            totally depraved then how did He do good?(In other words, it's obvious
            that He couldn't have had a totally depraved nature, so then we don't
            either, which means that everyone has the potential to do good and evil)

            Hmmmmmmmm??????????

            --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., thebishopsdoom <no_reply@y...>
            wrote:
            > I wasn't going to write in on this one, but now that someone did, I
            > think I'll throw in a couple cents...
            > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., oldschoolpca <no_reply@y...>
            > wrote:
            > > About the title "Theotokos". As I am a seminary graduate I have
            > some
            > > good old books (not enough of course). I looked in the index
            > > to "Reformed Dogmatics" by Heppe. Sure enough, there is at least 1
            > > Reformed theologian of the late 1600's who approved of the term.
            > > This was Riisen, who from the limited info I could glean from the
            > > book was a colleague of Turretin at Geneva (?). Anyway Riisen's
            > > magnum opus appears to use Turretin as a starting point.
            > The title was used in the 1500s by Luther:
            > "Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: the mother of
            > God. No one can say anything greater of her...."
            > "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the
            > mother of God...It is certain that Mary is the mother of the real and
            > true God."
            > "God is born...the child who drinks his Mother's milk is eternal; he
            > existed before the world's beginning and he created heaven and
            > earth...these two natures are so united that there is only one God
            > and Lord, that Mary suckles God with her breasts, bathes God, rocks
            > him, and carries him."
            > (LUTHER'S WORKS [Jaroslav Pelikan] 24:107; 22:492-493)
            > And while I do not personally have the work, I have seen a quote
            > from a sermon on Mary ("Mary, the Mother of God and Ever Virgin") by
            > Zwingli which I am assuming is genuine, from 1524, where he refers to
            > her as the Theotokos as well as (like some other early
            > refomers) perpetual virgin. Now, I am not aware offhand of any of
            > the reformers who asserted the latter idea as dogma - though I do
            > know that some of them did themselves believe that she was the "ever-
            > virgin" and others likewise asserted dogmatically that the reference
            > to "brothers" of Jesus had no bearing on the issue because they could
            > mean "cousins." I do believe the fact that Mary and Joseph actually
            > got married does have some bearing inasfar as nonconsummation
            > and "marital celibacy" appears inconsistent with the ordinance of
            > marriage and would at the least require a special revelation to
            > command that one remain in such an estate. But of such a special
            > command the Scriptures are silent and as there is no peculiar valid
            > theological reason that I can see to assume that such an estate must
            > have existed for Mary and Joseph, we have no reason to assume that
            > such a special command was given to them. The case for asserting Mary
            > as theotokos, however, was / is centered on Christological issues
            > relative to Nestorianism and some other heresies in Christology. It
            > is supposed that some shied from the term over time due to
            > superstitious ideas that some fostered from some with regards to the
            > idea of Mary being the mother of God.
            >
            > > Title Theotokos (Greek) = Deipara (Latin) = God-bearer (more
            > literal
            > > English) is not papal in origin. It was decided by the #3 General
            > > Council, Ephesus, that the denial by Nestorius archbishop of
            > > Constantinople that Mary could be called Theotokos was heretical,
            > > involving his heresy that tended to deny the unity of Christ's
            > > person. (Nestorius was willing to call Mary Christokos (bearer of
            > > Christ) but not Theotokos.
            > I think another question that might hit the same issue from another
            > angle is: Who was the person that suffered and died on the cross? It
            > delves into the same sort of issues relative to Christology as the
            > question of who was the person birthed by Mary.
            > - thebishopsdoom
          • raging_calvinist
            ... Calvinists do not portray Christ as two people plastered together as one. The Westminster Confession holds forth the Protestant and Calvinistic doctrine
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 6, 2002
              > In fact, the Orthodox, Lutherans, and
              > others consider Calvinism to err concerning the person of Christ,
              > when one says, "this scripture concerns the divinity of Christ,"
              > or "this scripture concerns the humanity of Christ", as if He were
              > two people plastered together as one.

              Calvinists do not portray Christ as "two people plastered together as
              one." The Westminster Confession holds forth the Protestant and
              Calvinistic doctrine that Christ is ONE PERSON, having TWO NATURES
              (being both God and Man):

              "The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and
              eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when
              the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all
              the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without
              sin: being conceived by he power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of
              the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and
              distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably
              joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or
              confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the
              only Mediator between God and man." (WCF Ch.8, sec. 3).

              As for your objection that we hold that one Scripture may have
              particular reference to Christ's human nature, while another may
              refer to His divine nature, I freely admit that this may be the case,
              as it is IMPOSSIBLE for Divinity to grow, suffer, bleed, die, etc.,
              these things being proper only of Christ's human nature, yet it is
              the
              Divine Person who grew, suffered, bled, died, etc.


              From the Compendium of the Christian Religion:

              Q 32. What then has Jesus Christ done to save us?
              A. He has suffered for us, was crucified and died, was buried and
              descended into hell, that is, he suffered the torments of hell, and
              thus became obedient to his Father, that he might deliver us from the
              temporal and eternal punishment due to sin.

              Q. 33. In which nature has he suffered this?
              A. Only in his human nature, that is, in soul and body.

              Q. 34. What has then his Godhead contributed thereto?
              A. His Godhead, by its power, in such wise strengthened the assumed
              human nature, that it could bear the burden of God's wrath against
              sin, and deliver us from it.

              Likewise, the Heidelberg Catechism explains:

              16. Q. Why must He be a true and righteous man?

              A. He must be a true man because the justice of God requires that the
              same human nature which has sinned should pay for sin.[1] He must be
              a righteous man because one who himself is a sinner cannot pay for
              others.[2]

              [1] Rom: 5:12, 15; I Cor. 15:21; Heb. 2:14-16. [2] Heb. 7:26, 27; I
              Pet. 3:18.

              17. Q. Why must He at the same time be true God?

              A. He must be true God so that by the power of His divine nature[1]
              He might bear in His human nature the burden of God's wrath,[2] and
              might obtain for us and restore to us righteousness and life.[3]

              [1] Is. 9:5. [2] Deut. 4:24; Nah. 1:6; Ps. 130:3. [3] Is. 53:5, 11;
              John 3:16; II Cor. 5:21.


              And again, from the Westminster Larger Catechism:

              Q. 38. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?

              A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might
              sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite
              wrath of God, and the power of death, give worth and efficacy to his
              sufferings, obedience, and intercession; and to satisfy God's
              justice,procure his favour, purchase a peculiar people,[148] give his
              Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to
              everlasting salvation.

              Q. 39. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?

              A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might
              advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make
              intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow-feeling of our
              infirmities; that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have
              comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.

              Q. 40. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man
              in one person?

              A. It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and
              man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that
              the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us, and
              relied on by us as the works of the whole person.

              And so we see that the Reformed Doctrine does indeed distinguish
              those aspects of Christ which are proper to His human nature, and
              those things which are proper to His divine nature, and yet we do not
              confuse, confound, or combine, the two natures, though they exist in
              one person.

              > Christ is ONE person, with a divine and a human nature.

              Please quote one Reformed/Calvinist theologian, confession, or
              catechism which denies that Christ was one person with two natures.
              To deny this is heresy.

              > What is also interesting to discuss is what kind of human nauture
              > did Jesus posses? Did he have a "totally depraved" human nature
              > just like the rest of us?(What do Calvinists believe in reguards to
              > the human nature of Christ?)

              We believe that because Christ did not descend from Adam by ordinary
              generation, that the human nature of Christ was free from sin. I
              would consider the statement "Christ was totally depraved just like
              all mankind" to be blasphemous and heretical.

              > If Christ didn't have this "totally depraved" human nature like the
              > rest of us then how could He save mankind?

              No, if Christ did have this totally depraved nature, how could He
              save mankind? The sacrifice of Christ was WITHOUT blemish. He was,
              in His human nature, like us in all ways EXCEPT FOR SIN.
              2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 John 3:5.

              > If it was
              > totally depraved then how did He do good?(In other words, it's
              > obvious that He couldn't have had a totally depraved nature, so
              > then we don't either, which means that everyone has the potential
              > to do good and evil)

              So your argument goes like this:

              1. Christ did not have a totally depraved nature.

              2. Christ's human nature was/is in absolutely all things like our
              human nature.

              3. Therefore, our human nature cannot be totally depraved.


              Why stop there? Why not say,

              1. Christ did not have ANY SIN in His human nature.

              2. Christ's nature was/is in absolutely all things like our human
              nature.

              3. Therefore, our human nature cannot have sin.


              In both examples, #1 is correct. Christ was not totally depraved,
              nor did Christ have any sin in Him -- no original sin, no actual sin.

              In both cases, #2 is flatly incorrect and against the teaching of
              Scripture. This is why Paul in the book of Hebrews tells us that our
              High Priest was in all things like us except for one very important
              thing -- HE WAS SINLESS. Sinlessness and total depravity preclude
              one another, and therefore Christ, being sinless, could NOT be
              totally depraved.

              Because #2 was incorrect, #3 in both examples, being dependent on #2,
              is also incorrect.

              If you wish to attack the Bible doctrine of total depravity, I
              suggest you try a different angle.

              gmw.
            • mojomomoney
              ... particular reference to Christ s human nature, while another may refer to His divine nature, I freely admit that this may be the case, as it is IMPOSSIBLE
              Message 6 of 13 , Jul 6, 2002
                >>As for your objection that we hold that one Scripture may have
                particular reference to Christ's human nature, while another may
                refer to His divine nature, I freely admit that this may be the case,
                as it is IMPOSSIBLE for Divinity to grow, suffer, bleed, die, etc.,
                these things being proper only of Christ's human nature, yet it is
                the Divine Person who grew, suffered, bled, died, etc."

                The above is exactly the point of controversy between the Orthodox and
                the hetrodox sects of Protestants. You may reason the above correctly
                according to the "rules of logic", but the Incarnation and the Trinity
                are somehow "above" and beyond logic. In other words, there are
                mysteries concerning God that we do not understand, and that should
                not suprise us considering that we are limited and He is infinate. The
                fact is that Christ was/is unified as One person, and there is not a
                part of Him that died while the other part didn't die. There was not a
                part of Him that bled, while the other part didn't bleed. It is as
                absurd to say that I bled, but my soul didn't bleed, only I did. ?????
                There is a mystery about the Incarnation that we do not quite
                understand, and the above, which you have written, is a heresy that
                was refuted in the early church. I will have to look it up and find
                out what the name of your particular heresy is, but it is certainly
                not new, as most heresies aren't.

                God bless, and praise the real Jesus, the One of the scriptures and
                history!

                David Pryor
              • raging_calvinist
                ... Please provide something which indicates that the Protestants were asserting anything other than that Christ, the eternal Son of God, became man by taking
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 6, 2002
                  > The above is exactly the point of controversy between the Orthodox
                  > and the hetrodox sects of Protestants.

                  Please provide something which indicates that the Protestants were
                  asserting anything other than that Christ, the eternal Son of God,
                  became man by taking to Himself a true body and a reasonable soul,
                  and so is and continues to be both God and Man in two distinct
                  natures and one person forever, OR, please demonstrate why the
                  doctrine of the Protestants in this area is to be considered
                  heterodox.

                  > You may reason the above
                  > correctly according to the "rules of logic", but the Incarnation
                  > and the Trinity are somehow "above" and beyond logic. In other
                  > words, there are mysteries concerning God that we do not
                  > understand, and that should not suprise us considering that we are
                  > limited and He is infinate.

                  If you are suggesting that we are to have faith apart from knowledge
                  and understanding, then I strongly deny.

                  If you are saying that we cannot completely comprehend the hypostatic
                  union of Jesus Christ, then who can deny?

                  > The fact is that Christ was/is unified as One person, and there is
                  > not a part of Him that died while the other part didn't die. There
                  > was not a part of Him that bled, while the other part didn't bleed.

                  I am not seeking to divide Christ into parts. I fully agree that
                  Christ is one person (again, I challenge you to produce one Reformed
                  Creed or Confession or Catechism which suggests otherwise). But it
                  cannot be rightly said that it is proper to the divine nature to
                  bleed and die. That is proper to human nature only. Yet is is one
                  Christ that bled and died.

                  > It is as absurd to say that I bled, but my soul didn't bleed, only
                  > I did. ?????

                  Actually, that makes perfect sense. When you bleed, it is not your
                  soul, but your body, that bleeds. Yet is is proper to say that you
                  bleed. And with that, I'd like to leave this illustration alone, as
                  I do not want to suggest in any way that the divine nature is the
                  soul of Christ, while His body only is the human nature. That is
                  incorrect and heretical.

                  > There is a mystery about the Incarnation that we do not quite
                  > understand, and the above, which you have written, is a heresy that
                  > was refuted in the early church. I will have to look it up and find
                  > out what the name of your particular heresy is, but it is certainly
                  > not new, as most heresies aren't.

                  Yes, please, look it up. But before you do, could you please state
                  what exactly it is that I have said which you are challenging as
                  being heretical? Is it that Christ is one person, or that Christ has
                  two natures?

                  Oh! and look up the heresy of the Theopaschites while you're at it.
                  What you are suggesting smells like them.

                  > God bless, and praise the real Jesus, the One of the scriptures and
                  > history!

                  Rather than the jesus of the icons.

                  gmw.
                • thebishopsdoom
                  Well, for whatever its worth... ... and ... when ... It seems to my recollection that the distinguishing between that which was to be attributed to the divine
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jul 8, 2002
                    Well, for whatever its worth...
                    > The above issues, although no doubt important, do not get much
                    > emphasise among the Protestants. In fact, the Orthodox, Lutherans,
                    and
                    > others consider Calvinism to err concerning the person of Christ,
                    when
                    > one says, "this scripture concerns the divinity of Christ," or "this
                    > scripture concerns the humanity of Christ", as if He were two people
                    > plastered together as one.
                    It seems to my recollection that the distinguishing between that
                    which was to be attributed to the divine nature and that which was to
                    be attributed to the human nature was important in the battles in the
                    Eastern Church no less than the West, in combatting nestorianism,
                    monophysitism, monergism, and monothelitism. For example, the very
                    fact that Christ said, not my will, but thy will be done, meant to
                    the Eastern Church no less than the Western, that one must
                    distinguish betwixt the will of Christ's human nature and that of His
                    divinity, and certain things testified in Scripture as willed by
                    Christ (this one case in particular being the famous prooftext) were
                    to be definitively attributed to His human will, and NOT his divine
                    will. This was even further a case with regards to the monergistic
                    heresy, which logically leads to a denial of the impassibility of God.
                    Furthermore, the controversy between Lutherans and Reformed over the
                    question of whether Chist's human nature became ubiquitous and the
                    communication between the two natures was that of whether the
                    communicatio idiomatum was due to a communion of properties of the
                    one hypostasis or a communion of natures such that the human nature
                    of Christ had communicated to it the attributes of deity, including
                    those the Reformed regarded as incommunicable properties, and whether
                    the Lutherans in so communicating these properties did not cause the
                    human nature to cease to be in reality a human nature by introducing
                    confusion into the natures. The Calvinists rejected the Lutheran
                    doctrine of the communication in the genus of majesty. Furthermore, a
                    controversy was left open in terms of the redemption of mankind, for
                    if Christ redeemed humanity in the nature of man, for that nature to
                    be glorified through ubiquitization could open the door to the
                    concept of human nature being redeemed to ubiquitization by the
                    transforming of Christ's humanity, and we come dangerously close to
                    crossing the border between glorification and absorbtion of the
                    saints into the Godhead by the transformation of Christ in the
                    redemption of our human nature by the likewise transformation of our
                    nature in that redemption. To be sure the Lutherans objected and
                    stated that this wasn't true, and quoted the Byzantine church on the
                    deification of Christ's humanity, but it seems to me the same could
                    be said of deification of the believer (which had been meant as a
                    term for the glorification of the believer, whereby he enjoys the
                    communicable attributes of God such as holiness and blessedness and
                    everlasting life), becoming a partaker in those attributes which are
                    communicable to human nature, and the nature of Christ's humanity
                    receiving such communications as the Lutherans posit would still seem
                    to push for their communication to the glorified saints. Of the other
                    two communications, that of ascribing properties of each nature to
                    the hypostasis in the concrete, was agreeable to the Reformed. That
                    of attributing the work of Christ to the natures working in union I
                    have not personally put much study into and admit limited knowledge
                    of. What I do know is that the Lutherans argued that Christ's
                    official works are predicated to both natures, but they do agree that
                    Christ suffering, though predicated of both natures, may not be said
                    to have suffered in his divine nature, but only according to the
                    human nature, attempting to protect themselves from upholding either
                    the passibility of God or monergism. This "apotelismatic
                    communication" in the act is seen as both natures contributing to the
                    official acts of Christ as mediator, while agreeing that the
                    contribution differs according to the properties of the nature.

                    >We(the Orthodox) do not try to explain that
                    > which is unexplainable and leave room for mystery. Christ is ONE
                    > person, with a divine and a human nature.

                    But the Eastern Churches did find it necessary to explain certain
                    things relative to the relationship between the two natures and His
                    Person, as a result of, originally, nestorianism and monophysitism,
                    and secondly, over monergism (which was clung to by both of these
                    heresies and opposed by the Churches in both the East and the West),
                    and finally, over the monothelite heresy. It was in the East
                    especially where the issues had been raised that left the East to the
                    distinguishing between action, activity (the nature from which action
                    proceeds), act (the outcome of the action), and agent (the hypostasis
                    that uses the action) as they related to Christ. And the question of
                    whether action or will belonged to person or to nature was not left
                    as "room for mystery" even in the East, apophatic theology
                    notwithstanding, it was rather those who left the question open who
                    were suspected of heresy.

                    > What is also interesting to discuss is what kind of human nauture
                    did Jesus posses? Did he have a "totally depraved" human nature just
                    like
                    > the rest of us?(What do Calvinists believe in reguards to the human
                    > nature of Christ?) If Christ didn't have this "totally depraved"
                    human nature like the rest of us then how could He save mankind?

                    It was never regarded necessary that Christ inherit original sin. The
                    doctrine of total depravity merely states that sin has marred man's
                    whole nature. Christ need not take on the marred state of the nature
                    of man in order to redeem man from sin and to the incorruptibility of
                    final glorification.

                    >it's obvious
                    > that He couldn't have had a totally depraved nature, so then we
                    don't
                    > either, which means that everyone has the potential to do good and
                    evil)

                    That is incorrect. To state that Our Lord did not suffer from the
                    internal effects of original sin (though experiencing the noetic
                    effects upon the creation) has no bearing on whether or not man since
                    the Fall suffers from such internal effects. Adam also had not
                    suffered from such internal effects prior to the Fall, and they are
                    accidental to human nature as human nature, and the marks of that
                    whereby human nature needs to be redeemed, or a part of what human
                    nature is to be redeemed from, rather than being the nature itself
                    being redeemed. To argue that such an effect upon human nature must
                    be a part of the qualifications of the Mediatior in order to redeem
                    human nature is like arguing that if Christ will redeem sinners, he
                    must himself be a sinner, and that not experiencing personal sin,
                    Christ must only redeem those who never suffered sin. That is simply
                    not the case. Christ to redeem human nature from the effects of
                    original sin needs not experience the corruption of sin to do so, for
                    the corruption itself is not a part of the created nature of Adam
                    being redeemed, but rather that from which Adam and his posterity are
                    to be redeemed.

                    >>The fact is that Christ was/is unified as One person, and there is
                    not a part of Him that died while the other part didn't die.

                    Theothanatology aside for a moment, the unity of Christ's hypostasis
                    does not mean that when it states that Christ willed "if it be
                    possible let this cup pass from me" that it may be attributed to
                    either nature.
                    While the East was willing to take on such paradoxical expressions as
                    that Christ suffered divinely or performed miracles humanly, but
                    such was yet regarded orthodox only when it was understood that "the
                    eternal Son, begotten of the Father before all ages, died for us not
                    in His divine, but in His human nature" (Theodore of Abu Qurra, Mimar
                    8.18). "The natures can not be otherwise known than through their
                    actions, and it is impossible for a nature to be without its action"
                    (Doctrine of the Fathers 14.1). Without a genuine divine and human
                    action distinct from one another, the same as well with will, the
                    whole nature of man was not redeemed. The natures retain that which
                    is proper to themselves, though the agent is always the one
                    hypostasis of the Son. When Christ said, "not My will," the words
                    were uttered "as man" (Maximus the Confessor, Theological and
                    Polemical Orpuscula in MPG 91.81). While they were uttered by the one
                    hypostasis, that which is willed is of the human will, expressing its
                    desire to remain unified with the divine will (ibid.).
                    Secondly, the East likewise rejected the doctrine of the passibility
                    of the divine nature. It was the monophysite heretics who argued
                    (like a certain person who stated that raging calvinist was uttering
                    heresy by stating that Christ did not suffer in the nature of His
                    divinity) against that Chalcedonian dogma that Christ "died not in
                    His divine nature, but only in His human nature." (Theodore Abu
                    Qurra. Mimar. 8.18).
                    "The Word of God then itself endured all in the flesh, while His
                    divine nature which alone was passionless remained void of passion.
                    For since the one Christ, Who is a compound of divinity and humanity,
                    and exists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that part which
                    is capable of passion suffered as it was natural it should, but that
                    part which was void of passion did not share in the suffering. For
                    the soul, indeed, since it is capable of passion shares in the pain
                    and suffering of a bodily cut, though it is not cut itself but only
                    the body: but the divine part which is void of passion does not share
                    in the suffering of the body. Observe, further, that we say that God
                    suffered in the flesh, but never that His divinity suffered in the
                    flesh, or that God suffered through the flesh." (John of Damascus.
                    Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, lib. 3 cap. 26).
                    "In a similar way we say that He suffered and rose again, not that
                    the Word of God suffered blows or piercing with nails or any other
                    wounds in His own nature (for the divine, being without a body, is
                    incapable of suffering); but because the body which became His own
                    suffered these things, He is said to have suffered them for us. For
                    he was without suffering (apathes), while his body suffered.
                    Something similar is true of his dying. For by nature the Word of God
                    is of itself immortal and incorruptible and life and life-giving, but
                    since on the other hand, His own body, by God's grace, as the apostle
                    says (Heb. 2:9) tasted death for all, the Word is said to have
                    suffered death for us, not as if He Himself had experienced death as
                    far as His own nature was concerned (it would be sheer lunacy to say
                    or to think that), but because as I have just said, His flesh tasted
                    death. So too, when His flesh was raised to life, we refer to this
                    again as His resurrection, not as though he had fallen into
                    corruption--God forbid--but because his body had been raised again."
                    (Cyril of Alexandria's 2nd letter to Nestorius, read at the Council
                    of chalcedon in 451 and agreed upon as an expression of the holy
                    faith in our true and historical Lord Jesus Christ).
                    -thebishopsdoom
                  • mojomomoney
                    It s sort of funny, but I have to thank you for this post! What I was arguing was from my Lutheran experience,assuming that the Orthodox held to the same view
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jul 8, 2002
                      It's sort of funny, but I have to thank you for this post!
                      What I was arguing was from my Lutheran experience,assuming that
                      the Orthodox held to the same view of mystery.
                      If anything, you have guided me to the Orthodox view, and have showed
                      me the error of the Lutherans.

                      So, was Luther then led by Satan into error, as he must have held to
                      a faulty view of the person of Christ?

                      I also apologize for implying that any Calvinist (especially a raging
                      one) here is holding to a heresy on the nature of the person of Christ.
                      (Especially since I find that I need to be better informed before I
                      open my mouth)

                      But still there is an issue between the Orthodox, the Roman Catholics,
                      the Lutherans, and the Reformed on Christ being present in the elements
                      of the Eucharist.

                      David Pryor

                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., thebishopsdoom <no_reply@y...>
                      wrote:
                      > Well, for whatever its worth...
                      > > The above issues, although no doubt important, do not get much
                      > > emphasise among the Protestants. In fact, the Orthodox, Lutherans,
                      > and
                      > > others consider Calvinism to err concerning the person of Christ,
                      > when
                      > > one says, "this scripture concerns the divinity of Christ," or "this
                      > > scripture concerns the humanity of Christ", as if He were two people
                      > > plastered together as one.
                      > It seems to my recollection that the distinguishing between that
                      > which was to be attributed to the divine nature and that which was to
                      > be attributed to the human nature was important in the battles in the
                      > Eastern Church no less than the West, in combatting nestorianism,
                      > monophysitism, monergism, and monothelitism. For example, the very
                      > fact that Christ said, not my will, but thy will be done, meant to
                      > the Eastern Church no less than the Western, that one must
                      > distinguish betwixt the will of Christ's human nature and that of His
                      > divinity, and certain things testified in Scripture as willed by
                      > Christ (this one case in particular being the famous prooftext) were
                      > to be definitively attributed to His human will, and NOT his divine
                      > will. This was even further a case with regards to the monergistic
                      > heresy, which logically leads to a denial of the impassibility of God.
                      > Furthermore, the controversy between Lutherans and Reformed over the
                      > question of whether Chist's human nature became ubiquitous and the
                      > communication between the two natures was that of whether the
                      > communicatio idiomatum was due to a communion of properties of the
                      > one hypostasis or a communion of natures such that the human nature
                      > of Christ had communicated to it the attributes of deity, including
                      > those the Reformed regarded as incommunicable properties, and whether
                      > the Lutherans in so communicating these properties did not cause the
                      > human nature to cease to be in reality a human nature by introducing
                      > confusion into the natures. The Calvinists rejected the Lutheran
                      > doctrine of the communication in the genus of majesty. Furthermore, a
                      > controversy was left open in terms of the redemption of mankind, for
                      > if Christ redeemed humanity in the nature of man, for that nature to
                      > be glorified through ubiquitization could open the door to the
                      > concept of human nature being redeemed to ubiquitization by the
                      > transforming of Christ's humanity, and we come dangerously close to
                      > crossing the border between glorification and absorbtion of the
                      > saints into the Godhead by the transformation of Christ in the
                      > redemption of our human nature by the likewise transformation of our
                      > nature in that redemption. To be sure the Lutherans objected and
                      > stated that this wasn't true, and quoted the Byzantine church on the
                      > deification of Christ's humanity, but it seems to me the same could
                      > be said of deification of the believer (which had been meant as a
                      > term for the glorification of the believer, whereby he enjoys the
                      > communicable attributes of God such as holiness and blessedness and
                      > everlasting life), becoming a partaker in those attributes which are
                      > communicable to human nature, and the nature of Christ's humanity
                      > receiving such communications as the Lutherans posit would still seem
                      > to push for their communication to the glorified saints. Of the other
                      > two communications, that of ascribing properties of each nature to
                      > the hypostasis in the concrete, was agreeable to the Reformed. That
                      > of attributing the work of Christ to the natures working in union I
                      > have not personally put much study into and admit limited knowledge
                      > of. What I do know is that the Lutherans argued that Christ's
                      > official works are predicated to both natures, but they do agree that
                      > Christ suffering, though predicated of both natures, may not be said
                      > to have suffered in his divine nature, but only according to the
                      > human nature, attempting to protect themselves from upholding either
                      > the passibility of God or monergism. This "apotelismatic
                      > communication" in the act is seen as both natures contributing to the
                      > official acts of Christ as mediator, while agreeing that the
                      > contribution differs according to the properties of the nature.
                      >
                      > >We(the Orthodox) do not try to explain that
                      > > which is unexplainable and leave room for mystery. Christ is ONE
                      > > person, with a divine and a human nature.
                      >
                      > But the Eastern Churches did find it necessary to explain certain
                      > things relative to the relationship between the two natures and His
                      > Person, as a result of, originally, nestorianism and monophysitism,
                      > and secondly, over monergism (which was clung to by both of these
                      > heresies and opposed by the Churches in both the East and the West),
                      > and finally, over the monothelite heresy. It was in the East
                      > especially where the issues had been raised that left the East to the
                      > distinguishing between action, activity (the nature from which action
                      > proceeds), act (the outcome of the action), and agent (the hypostasis
                      > that uses the action) as they related to Christ. And the question of
                      > whether action or will belonged to person or to nature was not left
                      > as "room for mystery" even in the East, apophatic theology
                      > notwithstanding, it was rather those who left the question open who
                      > were suspected of heresy.
                      >
                      > > What is also interesting to discuss is what kind of human nauture
                      > did Jesus posses? Did he have a "totally depraved" human nature just
                      > like
                      > > the rest of us?(What do Calvinists believe in reguards to the human
                      > > nature of Christ?) If Christ didn't have this "totally depraved"
                      > human nature like the rest of us then how could He save mankind?
                      >
                      > It was never regarded necessary that Christ inherit original sin. The
                      > doctrine of total depravity merely states that sin has marred man's
                      > whole nature. Christ need not take on the marred state of the nature
                      > of man in order to redeem man from sin and to the incorruptibility of
                      > final glorification.
                      >
                      > >it's obvious
                      > > that He couldn't have had a totally depraved nature, so then we
                      > don't
                      > > either, which means that everyone has the potential to do good and
                      > evil)
                      >
                      > That is incorrect. To state that Our Lord did not suffer from the
                      > internal effects of original sin (though experiencing the noetic
                      > effects upon the creation) has no bearing on whether or not man since
                      > the Fall suffers from such internal effects. Adam also had not
                      > suffered from such internal effects prior to the Fall, and they are
                      > accidental to human nature as human nature, and the marks of that
                      > whereby human nature needs to be redeemed, or a part of what human
                      > nature is to be redeemed from, rather than being the nature itself
                      > being redeemed. To argue that such an effect upon human nature must
                      > be a part of the qualifications of the Mediatior in order to redeem
                      > human nature is like arguing that if Christ will redeem sinners, he
                      > must himself be a sinner, and that not experiencing personal sin,
                      > Christ must only redeem those who never suffered sin. That is simply
                      > not the case. Christ to redeem human nature from the effects of
                      > original sin needs not experience the corruption of sin to do so, for
                      > the corruption itself is not a part of the created nature of Adam
                      > being redeemed, but rather that from which Adam and his posterity are
                      > to be redeemed.
                      >
                      > >>The fact is that Christ was/is unified as One person, and there is
                      > not a part of Him that died while the other part didn't die.
                      >
                      > Theothanatology aside for a moment, the unity of Christ's hypostasis
                      > does not mean that when it states that Christ willed "if it be
                      > possible let this cup pass from me" that it may be attributed to
                      > either nature.
                      > While the East was willing to take on such paradoxical expressions as
                      > that Christ suffered divinely or performed miracles humanly, but
                      > such was yet regarded orthodox only when it was understood that "the
                      > eternal Son, begotten of the Father before all ages, died for us not
                      > in His divine, but in His human nature" (Theodore of Abu Qurra, Mimar
                      > 8.18). "The natures can not be otherwise known than through their
                      > actions, and it is impossible for a nature to be without its action"
                      > (Doctrine of the Fathers 14.1). Without a genuine divine and human
                      > action distinct from one another, the same as well with will, the
                      > whole nature of man was not redeemed. The natures retain that which
                      > is proper to themselves, though the agent is always the one
                      > hypostasis of the Son. When Christ said, "not My will," the words
                      > were uttered "as man" (Maximus the Confessor, Theological and
                      > Polemical Orpuscula in MPG 91.81). While they were uttered by the one
                      > hypostasis, that which is willed is of the human will, expressing its
                      > desire to remain unified with the divine will (ibid.).
                      > Secondly, the East likewise rejected the doctrine of the passibility
                      > of the divine nature. It was the monophysite heretics who argued
                      > (like a certain person who stated that raging calvinist was uttering
                      > heresy by stating that Christ did not suffer in the nature of His
                      > divinity) against that Chalcedonian dogma that Christ "died not in
                      > His divine nature, but only in His human nature." (Theodore Abu
                      > Qurra. Mimar. 8.18).
                      > "The Word of God then itself endured all in the flesh, while His
                      > divine nature which alone was passionless remained void of passion.
                      > For since the one Christ, Who is a compound of divinity and humanity,
                      > and exists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that part which
                      > is capable of passion suffered as it was natural it should, but that
                      > part which was void of passion did not share in the suffering. For
                      > the soul, indeed, since it is capable of passion shares in the pain
                      > and suffering of a bodily cut, though it is not cut itself but only
                      > the body: but the divine part which is void of passion does not share
                      > in the suffering of the body. Observe, further, that we say that God
                      > suffered in the flesh, but never that His divinity suffered in the
                      > flesh, or that God suffered through the flesh." (John of Damascus.
                      > Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, lib. 3 cap. 26).
                      > "In a similar way we say that He suffered and rose again, not that
                      > the Word of God suffered blows or piercing with nails or any other
                      > wounds in His own nature (for the divine, being without a body, is
                      > incapable of suffering); but because the body which became His own
                      > suffered these things, He is said to have suffered them for us. For
                      > he was without suffering (apathes), while his body suffered.
                      > Something similar is true of his dying. For by nature the Word of God
                      > is of itself immortal and incorruptible and life and life-giving, but
                      > since on the other hand, His own body, by God's grace, as the apostle
                      > says (Heb. 2:9) tasted death for all, the Word is said to have
                      > suffered death for us, not as if He Himself had experienced death as
                      > far as His own nature was concerned (it would be sheer lunacy to say
                      > or to think that), but because as I have just said, His flesh tasted
                      > death. So too, when His flesh was raised to life, we refer to this
                      > again as His resurrection, not as though he had fallen into
                      > corruption--God forbid--but because his body had been raised again."
                      > (Cyril of Alexandria's 2nd letter to Nestorius, read at the Council
                      > of chalcedon in 451 and agreed upon as an expression of the holy
                      > faith in our true and historical Lord Jesus Christ).
                      > -thebishopsdoom
                    • raging_calvinist
                      (Especially since I find that I need to be better informed before I open my mouth) Such zeal from one who confesses ignorance of the subject he speaks of!
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jul 9, 2002
                        "(Especially since I find that I need to be better informed before I
                        open my mouth)"

                        Such zeal from one who confesses ignorance of the subject he speaks
                        of!

                        Warning: Do not judge Luther's views by what Lutheran Theology
                        teaches. It rapidly lost it's resemblence to it's namesake.

                        gmw.


                        --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., mojomomoney <no_reply@y...>
                        wrote:
                        > It's sort of funny, but I have to thank you for this post!
                        > What I was arguing was from my Lutheran experience,assuming that
                        > the Orthodox held to the same view of mystery.
                        > If anything, you have guided me to the Orthodox view, and have
                        showed
                        > me the error of the Lutherans.
                        >
                        > So, was Luther then led by Satan into error, as he must have held
                        to
                        > a faulty view of the person of Christ?
                        >
                        > I also apologize for implying that any Calvinist (especially a
                        raging
                        > one) here is holding to a heresy on the nature of the person of
                        Christ.
                        > (Especially since I find that I need to be better informed before I
                        > open my mouth)
                        >
                        > But still there is an issue between the Orthodox, the Roman
                        Catholics,
                        > the Lutherans, and the Reformed on Christ being present in the
                        elements
                        > of the Eucharist.
                        >
                        > David Pryor
                        >
                        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., thebishopsdoom
                        <no_reply@y...>
                        > wrote:
                        > > Well, for whatever its worth...
                        > > > The above issues, although no doubt important, do not get much
                        > > > emphasise among the Protestants. In fact, the Orthodox,
                        Lutherans,
                        > > and
                        > > > others consider Calvinism to err concerning the person of
                        Christ,
                        > > when
                        > > > one says, "this scripture concerns the divinity of Christ,"
                        or "this
                        > > > scripture concerns the humanity of Christ", as if He were two
                        people
                        > > > plastered together as one.
                        > > It seems to my recollection that the distinguishing between that
                        > > which was to be attributed to the divine nature and that which
                        was to
                        > > be attributed to the human nature was important in the battles in
                        the
                        > > Eastern Church no less than the West, in combatting nestorianism,
                        > > monophysitism, monergism, and monothelitism. For example, the
                        very
                        > > fact that Christ said, not my will, but thy will be done, meant
                        to
                        > > the Eastern Church no less than the Western, that one must
                        > > distinguish betwixt the will of Christ's human nature and that of
                        His
                        > > divinity, and certain things testified in Scripture as willed by
                        > > Christ (this one case in particular being the famous prooftext)
                        were
                        > > to be definitively attributed to His human will, and NOT his
                        divine
                        > > will. This was even further a case with regards to the
                        monergistic
                        > > heresy, which logically leads to a denial of the impassibility of
                        God.
                        > > Furthermore, the controversy between Lutherans and Reformed over
                        the
                        > > question of whether Chist's human nature became ubiquitous and
                        the
                        > > communication between the two natures was that of whether the
                        > > communicatio idiomatum was due to a communion of properties of
                        the
                        > > one hypostasis or a communion of natures such that the human
                        nature
                        > > of Christ had communicated to it the attributes of deity,
                        including
                        > > those the Reformed regarded as incommunicable properties, and
                        whether
                        > > the Lutherans in so communicating these properties did not cause
                        the
                        > > human nature to cease to be in reality a human nature by
                        introducing
                        > > confusion into the natures. The Calvinists rejected the Lutheran
                        > > doctrine of the communication in the genus of majesty.
                        Furthermore, a
                        > > controversy was left open in terms of the redemption of mankind,
                        for
                        > > if Christ redeemed humanity in the nature of man, for that nature
                        to
                        > > be glorified through ubiquitization could open the door to the
                        > > concept of human nature being redeemed to ubiquitization by the
                        > > transforming of Christ's humanity, and we come dangerously close
                        to
                        > > crossing the border between glorification and absorbtion of the
                        > > saints into the Godhead by the transformation of Christ in the
                        > > redemption of our human nature by the likewise transformation of
                        our
                        > > nature in that redemption. To be sure the Lutherans objected and
                        > > stated that this wasn't true, and quoted the Byzantine church on
                        the
                        > > deification of Christ's humanity, but it seems to me the same
                        could
                        > > be said of deification of the believer (which had been meant as a
                        > > term for the glorification of the believer, whereby he enjoys the
                        > > communicable attributes of God such as holiness and blessedness
                        and
                        > > everlasting life), becoming a partaker in those attributes which
                        are
                        > > communicable to human nature, and the nature of Christ's humanity
                        > > receiving such communications as the Lutherans posit would still
                        seem
                        > > to push for their communication to the glorified saints. Of the
                        other
                        > > two communications, that of ascribing properties of each nature
                        to
                        > > the hypostasis in the concrete, was agreeable to the Reformed.
                        That
                        > > of attributing the work of Christ to the natures working in union
                        I
                        > > have not personally put much study into and admit limited
                        knowledge
                        > > of. What I do know is that the Lutherans argued that Christ's
                        > > official works are predicated to both natures, but they do agree
                        that
                        > > Christ suffering, though predicated of both natures, may not be
                        said
                        > > to have suffered in his divine nature, but only according to the
                        > > human nature, attempting to protect themselves from upholding
                        either
                        > > the passibility of God or monergism. This "apotelismatic
                        > > communication" in the act is seen as both natures contributing to
                        the
                        > > official acts of Christ as mediator, while agreeing that the
                        > > contribution differs according to the properties of the nature.
                        > >
                        > > >We(the Orthodox) do not try to explain that
                        > > > which is unexplainable and leave room for mystery. Christ is ONE
                        > > > person, with a divine and a human nature.
                        > >
                        > > But the Eastern Churches did find it necessary to explain certain
                        > > things relative to the relationship between the two natures and
                        His
                        > > Person, as a result of, originally, nestorianism and
                        monophysitism,
                        > > and secondly, over monergism (which was clung to by both of these
                        > > heresies and opposed by the Churches in both the East and the
                        West),
                        > > and finally, over the monothelite heresy. It was in the East
                        > > especially where the issues had been raised that left the East to
                        the
                        > > distinguishing between action, activity (the nature from which
                        action
                        > > proceeds), act (the outcome of the action), and agent (the
                        hypostasis
                        > > that uses the action) as they related to Christ. And the question
                        of
                        > > whether action or will belonged to person or to nature was not
                        left
                        > > as "room for mystery" even in the East, apophatic theology
                        > > notwithstanding, it was rather those who left the question open
                        who
                        > > were suspected of heresy.
                        > >
                        > > > What is also interesting to discuss is what kind of human
                        nauture
                        > > did Jesus posses? Did he have a "totally depraved" human nature
                        just
                        > > like
                        > > > the rest of us?(What do Calvinists believe in reguards to the
                        human
                        > > > nature of Christ?) If Christ didn't have this "totally
                        depraved"
                        > > human nature like the rest of us then how could He save mankind?
                        > >
                        > > It was never regarded necessary that Christ inherit original sin.
                        The
                        > > doctrine of total depravity merely states that sin has marred
                        man's
                        > > whole nature. Christ need not take on the marred state of the
                        nature
                        > > of man in order to redeem man from sin and to the
                        incorruptibility of
                        > > final glorification.
                        > >
                        > > >it's obvious
                        > > > that He couldn't have had a totally depraved nature, so then we
                        > > don't
                        > > > either, which means that everyone has the potential to do good
                        and
                        > > evil)
                        > >
                        > > That is incorrect. To state that Our Lord did not suffer from the
                        > > internal effects of original sin (though experiencing the noetic
                        > > effects upon the creation) has no bearing on whether or not man
                        since
                        > > the Fall suffers from such internal effects. Adam also had not
                        > > suffered from such internal effects prior to the Fall, and they
                        are
                        > > accidental to human nature as human nature, and the marks of that
                        > > whereby human nature needs to be redeemed, or a part of what
                        human
                        > > nature is to be redeemed from, rather than being the nature
                        itself
                        > > being redeemed. To argue that such an effect upon human nature
                        must
                        > > be a part of the qualifications of the Mediatior in order to
                        redeem
                        > > human nature is like arguing that if Christ will redeem sinners,
                        he
                        > > must himself be a sinner, and that not experiencing personal sin,
                        > > Christ must only redeem those who never suffered sin. That is
                        simply
                        > > not the case. Christ to redeem human nature from the effects of
                        > > original sin needs not experience the corruption of sin to do so,
                        for
                        > > the corruption itself is not a part of the created nature of Adam
                        > > being redeemed, but rather that from which Adam and his posterity
                        are
                        > > to be redeemed.
                        > >
                        > > >>The fact is that Christ was/is unified as One person, and there
                        is
                        > > not a part of Him that died while the other part didn't die.
                        > >
                        > > Theothanatology aside for a moment, the unity of Christ's
                        hypostasis
                        > > does not mean that when it states that Christ willed "if it be
                        > > possible let this cup pass from me" that it may be attributed to
                        > > either nature.
                        > > While the East was willing to take on such paradoxical
                        expressions as
                        > > that Christ suffered divinely or performed miracles humanly, but
                        > > such was yet regarded orthodox only when it was understood
                        that "the
                        > > eternal Son, begotten of the Father before all ages, died for us
                        not
                        > > in His divine, but in His human nature" (Theodore of Abu Qurra,
                        Mimar
                        > > 8.18). "The natures can not be otherwise known than through their
                        > > actions, and it is impossible for a nature to be without its
                        action"
                        > > (Doctrine of the Fathers 14.1). Without a genuine divine and
                        human
                        > > action distinct from one another, the same as well with will, the
                        > > whole nature of man was not redeemed. The natures retain that
                        which
                        > > is proper to themselves, though the agent is always the one
                        > > hypostasis of the Son. When Christ said, "not My will," the words
                        > > were uttered "as man" (Maximus the Confessor, Theological and
                        > > Polemical Orpuscula in MPG 91.81). While they were uttered by the
                        one
                        > > hypostasis, that which is willed is of the human will, expressing
                        its
                        > > desire to remain unified with the divine will (ibid.).
                        > > Secondly, the East likewise rejected the doctrine of the
                        passibility
                        > > of the divine nature. It was the monophysite heretics who argued
                        > > (like a certain person who stated that raging calvinist was
                        uttering
                        > > heresy by stating that Christ did not suffer in the nature of His
                        > > divinity) against that Chalcedonian dogma that Christ "died not
                        in
                        > > His divine nature, but only in His human nature." (Theodore Abu
                        > > Qurra. Mimar. 8.18).
                        > > "The Word of God then itself endured all in the flesh, while His
                        > > divine nature which alone was passionless remained void of
                        passion.
                        > > For since the one Christ, Who is a compound of divinity and
                        humanity,
                        > > and exists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that part
                        which
                        > > is capable of passion suffered as it was natural it should, but
                        that
                        > > part which was void of passion did not share in the suffering.
                        For
                        > > the soul, indeed, since it is capable of passion shares in the
                        pain
                        > > and suffering of a bodily cut, though it is not cut itself but
                        only
                        > > the body: but the divine part which is void of passion does not
                        share
                        > > in the suffering of the body. Observe, further, that we say that
                        God
                        > > suffered in the flesh, but never that His divinity suffered in
                        the
                        > > flesh, or that God suffered through the flesh." (John of
                        Damascus.
                        > > Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, lib. 3 cap. 26).
                        > > "In a similar way we say that He suffered and rose again, not
                        that
                        > > the Word of God suffered blows or piercing with nails or any
                        other
                        > > wounds in His own nature (for the divine, being without a body,
                        is
                        > > incapable of suffering); but because the body which became His
                        own
                        > > suffered these things, He is said to have suffered them for us.
                        For
                        > > he was without suffering (apathes), while his body suffered.
                        > > Something similar is true of his dying. For by nature the Word of
                        God
                        > > is of itself immortal and incorruptible and life and life-giving,
                        but
                        > > since on the other hand, His own body, by God's grace, as the
                        apostle
                        > > says (Heb. 2:9) tasted death for all, the Word is said to have
                        > > suffered death for us, not as if He Himself had experienced death
                        as
                        > > far as His own nature was concerned (it would be sheer lunacy to
                        say
                        > > or to think that), but because as I have just said, His flesh
                        tasted
                        > > death. So too, when His flesh was raised to life, we refer to
                        this
                        > > again as His resurrection, not as though he had fallen into
                        > > corruption--God forbid--but because his body had been raised
                        again."
                        > > (Cyril of Alexandria's 2nd letter to Nestorius, read at the
                        Council
                        > > of chalcedon in 451 and agreed upon as an expression of the holy
                        > > faith in our true and historical Lord Jesus Christ).
                        > > -thebishopsdoom
                      • mojomomoney
                        I know you delight in putting me down, but it is called wisdom. Your posting of those Saints that I delight it was a delicacy for me. Who am I to argue with
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jul 10, 2002
                          I know you delight in putting me down, but it is called wisdom.
                          Your posting of those Saints that I delight it was a delicacy for
                          me. Who am I to argue with 2000 years of Christianity? I thank you
                          for the quotes as I will treasure them!

                          I went to a very conservative Lutheran Church for a time, so I'd agree
                          with you for the most part, but I was interested in the real Luther.
                          Luther's Christology was related to his defense of Christ being
                          present in the Sacrament. Of course, you'd know that the Orthodox also
                          believe that Christ is present in the Sacrament, but we don't believe
                          in magic (hocus pocus). We don't define the point in time where Christ
                          becomes part of the sacrament, and we find it mysterious what happens
                          in the bread and the wine. We through scholasticism out the window and
                          just don't explain the mystery!

                          The fact is that you follow an innovation that came about 1500 years
                          after the Church has practiced the sacrament, so how are you any
                          different then an anabaptist, a quaker, or a religious liberal. You
                          invent stuff as you go along....

                          David Pryor

                          --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "raging_calvinist"
                          <ragingcalvinist@c...> wrote:
                          > "(Especially since I find that I need to be better informed before I
                          > open my mouth)"
                          >
                          > Such zeal from one who confesses ignorance of the subject he speaks
                          > of!
                          >
                          > Warning: Do not judge Luther's views by what Lutheran Theology
                          > teaches. It rapidly lost it's resemblence to it's namesake.
                          >
                          > gmw.
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., mojomomoney <no_reply@y...>
                          > wrote:
                          > > It's sort of funny, but I have to thank you for this post!
                          > > What I was arguing was from my Lutheran experience,assuming that
                          > > the Orthodox held to the same view of mystery.
                          > > If anything, you have guided me to the Orthodox view, and have
                          > showed
                          > > me the error of the Lutherans.
                          > >
                          > > So, was Luther then led by Satan into error, as he must have held
                          > to
                          > > a faulty view of the person of Christ?
                          > >
                          > > I also apologize for implying that any Calvinist (especially a
                          > raging
                          > > one) here is holding to a heresy on the nature of the person of
                          > Christ.
                          > > (Especially since I find that I need to be better informed before I
                          > > open my mouth)
                          > >
                          > > But still there is an issue between the Orthodox, the Roman
                          > Catholics,
                          > > the Lutherans, and the Reformed on Christ being present in the
                          > elements
                          > > of the Eucharist.
                          > >
                          > > David Pryor
                          > >
                          > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., thebishopsdoom
                          > <no_reply@y...>
                          > > wrote:
                          > > > Well, for whatever its worth...
                          > > > > The above issues, although no doubt important, do not get much
                          > > > > emphasise among the Protestants. In fact, the Orthodox,
                          > Lutherans,
                          > > > and
                          > > > > others consider Calvinism to err concerning the person of
                          > Christ,
                          > > > when
                          > > > > one says, "this scripture concerns the divinity of Christ,"
                          > or "this
                          > > > > scripture concerns the humanity of Christ", as if He were two
                          > people
                          > > > > plastered together as one.
                          > > > It seems to my recollection that the distinguishing between that
                          > > > which was to be attributed to the divine nature and that which
                          > was to
                          > > > be attributed to the human nature was important in the battles in
                          > the
                          > > > Eastern Church no less than the West, in combatting nestorianism,
                          > > > monophysitism, monergism, and monothelitism. For example, the
                          > very
                          > > > fact that Christ said, not my will, but thy will be done, meant
                          > to
                          > > > the Eastern Church no less than the Western, that one must
                          > > > distinguish betwixt the will of Christ's human nature and that of
                          > His
                          > > > divinity, and certain things testified in Scripture as willed by
                          > > > Christ (this one case in particular being the famous prooftext)
                          > were
                          > > > to be definitively attributed to His human will, and NOT his
                          > divine
                          > > > will. This was even further a case with regards to the
                          > monergistic
                          > > > heresy, which logically leads to a denial of the impassibility of
                          > God.
                          > > > Furthermore, the controversy between Lutherans and Reformed over
                          > the
                          > > > question of whether Chist's human nature became ubiquitous and
                          > the
                          > > > communication between the two natures was that of whether the
                          > > > communicatio idiomatum was due to a communion of properties of
                          > the
                          > > > one hypostasis or a communion of natures such that the human
                          > nature
                          > > > of Christ had communicated to it the attributes of deity,
                          > including
                          > > > those the Reformed regarded as incommunicable properties, and
                          > whether
                          > > > the Lutherans in so communicating these properties did not cause
                          > the
                          > > > human nature to cease to be in reality a human nature by
                          > introducing
                          > > > confusion into the natures. The Calvinists rejected the Lutheran
                          > > > doctrine of the communication in the genus of majesty.
                          > Furthermore, a
                          > > > controversy was left open in terms of the redemption of mankind,
                          > for
                          > > > if Christ redeemed humanity in the nature of man, for that nature
                          > to
                          > > > be glorified through ubiquitization could open the door to the
                          > > > concept of human nature being redeemed to ubiquitization by the
                          > > > transforming of Christ's humanity, and we come dangerously close
                          > to
                          > > > crossing the border between glorification and absorbtion of the
                          > > > saints into the Godhead by the transformation of Christ in the
                          > > > redemption of our human nature by the likewise transformation of
                          > our
                          > > > nature in that redemption. To be sure the Lutherans objected and
                          > > > stated that this wasn't true, and quoted the Byzantine church on
                          > the
                          > > > deification of Christ's humanity, but it seems to me the same
                          > could
                          > > > be said of deification of the believer (which had been meant as a
                          > > > term for the glorification of the believer, whereby he enjoys the
                          > > > communicable attributes of God such as holiness and blessedness
                          > and
                          > > > everlasting life), becoming a partaker in those attributes which
                          > are
                          > > > communicable to human nature, and the nature of Christ's humanity
                          > > > receiving such communications as the Lutherans posit would still
                          > seem
                          > > > to push for their communication to the glorified saints. Of the
                          > other
                          > > > two communications, that of ascribing properties of each nature
                          > to
                          > > > the hypostasis in the concrete, was agreeable to the Reformed.
                          > That
                          > > > of attributing the work of Christ to the natures working in union
                          > I
                          > > > have not personally put much study into and admit limited
                          > knowledge
                          > > > of. What I do know is that the Lutherans argued that Christ's
                          > > > official works are predicated to both natures, but they do agree
                          > that
                          > > > Christ suffering, though predicated of both natures, may not be
                          > said
                          > > > to have suffered in his divine nature, but only according to the
                          > > > human nature, attempting to protect themselves from upholding
                          > either
                          > > > the passibility of God or monergism. This "apotelismatic
                          > > > communication" in the act is seen as both natures contributing to
                          > the
                          > > > official acts of Christ as mediator, while agreeing that the
                          > > > contribution differs according to the properties of the nature.
                          > > >
                          > > > >We(the Orthodox) do not try to explain that
                          > > > > which is unexplainable and leave room for mystery. Christ is ONE
                          > > > > person, with a divine and a human nature.
                          > > >
                          > > > But the Eastern Churches did find it necessary to explain certain
                          > > > things relative to the relationship between the two natures and
                          > His
                          > > > Person, as a result of, originally, nestorianism and
                          > monophysitism,
                          > > > and secondly, over monergism (which was clung to by both of these
                          > > > heresies and opposed by the Churches in both the East and the
                          > West),
                          > > > and finally, over the monothelite heresy. It was in the East
                          > > > especially where the issues had been raised that left the East to
                          > the
                          > > > distinguishing between action, activity (the nature from which
                          > action
                          > > > proceeds), act (the outcome of the action), and agent (the
                          > hypostasis
                          > > > that uses the action) as they related to Christ. And the question
                          > of
                          > > > whether action or will belonged to person or to nature was not
                          > left
                          > > > as "room for mystery" even in the East, apophatic theology
                          > > > notwithstanding, it was rather those who left the question open
                          > who
                          > > > were suspected of heresy.
                          > > >
                          > > > > What is also interesting to discuss is what kind of human
                          > nauture
                          > > > did Jesus posses? Did he have a "totally depraved" human nature
                          > just
                          > > > like
                          > > > > the rest of us?(What do Calvinists believe in reguards to the
                          > human
                          > > > > nature of Christ?) If Christ didn't have this "totally
                          > depraved"
                          > > > human nature like the rest of us then how could He save mankind?
                          > > >
                          > > > It was never regarded necessary that Christ inherit original sin.
                          > The
                          > > > doctrine of total depravity merely states that sin has marred
                          > man's
                          > > > whole nature. Christ need not take on the marred state of the
                          > nature
                          > > > of man in order to redeem man from sin and to the
                          > incorruptibility of
                          > > > final glorification.
                          > > >
                          > > > >it's obvious
                          > > > > that He couldn't have had a totally depraved nature, so then we
                          > > > don't
                          > > > > either, which means that everyone has the potential to do good
                          > and
                          > > > evil)
                          > > >
                          > > > That is incorrect. To state that Our Lord did not suffer from the
                          > > > internal effects of original sin (though experiencing the noetic
                          > > > effects upon the creation) has no bearing on whether or not man
                          > since
                          > > > the Fall suffers from such internal effects. Adam also had not
                          > > > suffered from such internal effects prior to the Fall, and they
                          > are
                          > > > accidental to human nature as human nature, and the marks of that
                          > > > whereby human nature needs to be redeemed, or a part of what
                          > human
                          > > > nature is to be redeemed from, rather than being the nature
                          > itself
                          > > > being redeemed. To argue that such an effect upon human nature
                          > must
                          > > > be a part of the qualifications of the Mediatior in order to
                          > redeem
                          > > > human nature is like arguing that if Christ will redeem sinners,
                          > he
                          > > > must himself be a sinner, and that not experiencing personal sin,
                          > > > Christ must only redeem those who never suffered sin. That is
                          > simply
                          > > > not the case. Christ to redeem human nature from the effects of
                          > > > original sin needs not experience the corruption of sin to do so,
                          > for
                          > > > the corruption itself is not a part of the created nature of Adam
                          > > > being redeemed, but rather that from which Adam and his posterity
                          > are
                          > > > to be redeemed.
                          > > >
                          > > > >>The fact is that Christ was/is unified as One person, and there
                          > is
                          > > > not a part of Him that died while the other part didn't die.
                          > > >
                          > > > Theothanatology aside for a moment, the unity of Christ's
                          > hypostasis
                          > > > does not mean that when it states that Christ willed "if it be
                          > > > possible let this cup pass from me" that it may be attributed to
                          > > > either nature.
                          > > > While the East was willing to take on such paradoxical
                          > expressions as
                          > > > that Christ suffered divinely or performed miracles humanly, but
                          > > > such was yet regarded orthodox only when it was understood
                          > that "the
                          > > > eternal Son, begotten of the Father before all ages, died for us
                          > not
                          > > > in His divine, but in His human nature" (Theodore of Abu Qurra,
                          > Mimar
                          > > > 8.18). "The natures can not be otherwise known than through their
                          > > > actions, and it is impossible for a nature to be without its
                          > action"
                          > > > (Doctrine of the Fathers 14.1). Without a genuine divine and
                          > human
                          > > > action distinct from one another, the same as well with will, the
                          > > > whole nature of man was not redeemed. The natures retain that
                          > which
                          > > > is proper to themselves, though the agent is always the one
                          > > > hypostasis of the Son. When Christ said, "not My will," the words
                          > > > were uttered "as man" (Maximus the Confessor, Theological and
                          > > > Polemical Orpuscula in MPG 91.81). While they were uttered by the
                          > one
                          > > > hypostasis, that which is willed is of the human will, expressing
                          > its
                          > > > desire to remain unified with the divine will (ibid.).
                          > > > Secondly, the East likewise rejected the doctrine of the
                          > passibility
                          > > > of the divine nature. It was the monophysite heretics who argued
                          > > > (like a certain person who stated that raging calvinist was
                          > uttering
                          > > > heresy by stating that Christ did not suffer in the nature of His
                          > > > divinity) against that Chalcedonian dogma that Christ "died not
                          > in
                          > > > His divine nature, but only in His human nature." (Theodore Abu
                          > > > Qurra. Mimar. 8.18).
                          > > > "The Word of God then itself endured all in the flesh, while His
                          > > > divine nature which alone was passionless remained void of
                          > passion.
                          > > > For since the one Christ, Who is a compound of divinity and
                          > humanity,
                          > > > and exists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that part
                          > which
                          > > > is capable of passion suffered as it was natural it should, but
                          > that
                          > > > part which was void of passion did not share in the suffering.
                          > For
                          > > > the soul, indeed, since it is capable of passion shares in the
                          > pain
                          > > > and suffering of a bodily cut, though it is not cut itself but
                          > only
                          > > > the body: but the divine part which is void of passion does not
                          > share
                          > > > in the suffering of the body. Observe, further, that we say that
                          > God
                          > > > suffered in the flesh, but never that His divinity suffered in
                          > the
                          > > > flesh, or that God suffered through the flesh." (John of
                          > Damascus.
                          > > > Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, lib. 3 cap. 26).
                          > > > "In a similar way we say that He suffered and rose again, not
                          > that
                          > > > the Word of God suffered blows or piercing with nails or any
                          > other
                          > > > wounds in His own nature (for the divine, being without a body,
                          > is
                          > > > incapable of suffering); but because the body which became His
                          > own
                          > > > suffered these things, He is said to have suffered them for us.
                          > For
                          > > > he was without suffering (apathes), while his body suffered.
                          > > > Something similar is true of his dying. For by nature the Word of
                          > God
                          > > > is of itself immortal and incorruptible and life and life-giving,
                          > but
                          > > > since on the other hand, His own body, by God's grace, as the
                          > apostle
                          > > > says (Heb. 2:9) tasted death for all, the Word is said to have
                          > > > suffered death for us, not as if He Himself had experienced death
                          > as
                          > > > far as His own nature was concerned (it would be sheer lunacy to
                          > say
                          > > > or to think that), but because as I have just said, His flesh
                          > tasted
                          > > > death. So too, when His flesh was raised to life, we refer to
                          > this
                          > > > again as His resurrection, not as though he had fallen into
                          > > > corruption--God forbid--but because his body had been raised
                          > again."
                          > > > (Cyril of Alexandria's 2nd letter to Nestorius, read at the
                          > Council
                          > > > of chalcedon in 451 and agreed upon as an expression of the holy
                          > > > faith in our true and historical Lord Jesus Christ).
                          > > > -thebishopsdoom
                        • mojomomoney
                          One other point before I get kicked off the intollerant list: I apologized for not being better informed on the issue discuessed, and predictibly I am scoffed
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jul 10, 2002
                            One other point before I get kicked off the intollerant list:
                            I apologized for not being better informed on the issue discuessed,
                            and predictibly I am scoffed at.

                            You will know them by their fruits!

                            Reccomendation: Forget Justification and Covenenting for a few days
                            and read the Gospels. I know you see everything with Pauline
                            specticles, but try seeing with the eyes of Christ, and you will pray
                            for your enemies. You will learn to love and pray for those that
                            persecute you. You will worry about your own sins and not the sins of
                            your brother. This means that you will pursue the spiritual life of
                            putting on those things which will help you in eternity, such as love,
                            patience, kindness, hope, compassion for others, and so you will have
                            no room to be hostile and judge those who are not lock and step with
                            your TULIP...

                            God bless, and may He have mercy on us all!

                            David Pryor

                            --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "raging_calvinist"
                            <ragingcalvinist@c...> wrote:
                            > "(Especially since I find that I need to be better informed before I
                            > open my mouth)"
                            >
                            > Such zeal from one who confesses ignorance of the subject he speaks
                            > of!
                            >
                            > Warning: Do not judge Luther's views by what Lutheran Theology
                            > teaches. It rapidly lost it's resemblence to it's namesake.
                            >
                            > gmw.
                            >
                          • raging_calvinist
                            I apologized for not being better informed on the issue discussed, and predictibly I am scoffed at. Well, David, had you apologized and then shown you meant
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jul 10, 2002
                              "I apologized for not being better informed on the issue discussed,
                              and predictibly I am scoffed at."

                              Well, David, had you apologized and then shown you meant it by
                              refraining from posting further uninformed and ignorant things, your
                              apology may have been better received.

                              "Reccomendation: Forget Justification and Covenenting for a few days
                              and read the Gospels. I know you see everything with Pauline
                              specticles, but try seeing with the eyes of Christ, and you will pray
                              for your enemies."

                              Is this the answer? Is this how we will be able to see your point of
                              view? Throw out the doctrine of Justification by grace through
                              faith! Throw out the ordinance of covenanting! Oh, and stop acting
                              as if Paul was an inspired interpreter of the Gospels! Just read the
                              Gospels! (as if we cannot find justification by faith and Pauline
                              theology in them).

                              No thank you. ALL OF THE BIBLE, FOR ALL OF LIFE.

                              "You will worry about your own sins and not the sins of
                              your brother."

                              I am greatly concerned with my own sins. But when you come and try
                              to spread your sin in a public forum specifically designated as a
                              place to discuss Reformation principles, you should expect some
                              opposition.

                              "and so you will have no room to be hostile and judge those who are
                              not lock and step with your TULIP..."

                              I'm sorry, but we have not even discussed TULIP, have we? You were
                              quickly refuted in your ill-conceived attack on Total Depravity, but
                              other than that you haven't brought it up. Our disputes thus far
                              have not been over TULIP, have they?

                              gmw.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.