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

RE: Theotokos

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.