OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 24, 2014, 06:56:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Was the Incarnation a "Change" in God?  (Read 2776 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #45 on: November 22, 2011, 10:58:32 PM »

Quote
Christ was only ignorant in the limitations of earthly life.

Not true. Look at the hymnography I referred to earlier. And how many times do we come across mention of Christ knowing the thoughts of others in the Gospels?
I said ignorant, not "completely with knowledge or ability of any kind." Think of it this way, are clairvoyant Athonite Elders omniscient?
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #46 on: November 22, 2011, 11:02:54 PM »

Get your tangential omniscience up outta my thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28594.0.html
Sorry. LBK, we can continue this in the other thread if you like.
Logged
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #47 on: November 22, 2011, 11:25:26 PM »

How many is "a lot"? Which ones?
St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril, Clement of Alexandria, St. Justin Martyr, St. John Crysostom, St. Ireneaus, I'm sure there are others who could be named.

Even though they disagree with Play-Doh in some aspects, one of things they definitely share with him is the assumption that perfection is changelessness, it's what drives all the hemming and hawing over passages such as the healing of the woman with the issue of blood.

Why is something meaningless because it is didactic? And why do some folks around here seem so uncomfortable with any of our Lord's actions having a didactic purpose?
It's meaningless because it doesn't teach us anything useful. What are we supposed to learn? That Jesus knows how to to ask a fake question? What was He trying to teach?

Where does it say that in the Scriptures or the Fathers?

Philippians 2:5-8 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

How is being all-knowing taking our likeness? Your view makes Him little more than God in a meat suit.

Um... you did.
No, omniscience is just something God happens to have.

So Anselm's the new bogeyman?
Yes, he lives in my closet and points at me menacingly.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,060


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #48 on: November 22, 2011, 11:50:20 PM »

A lot of Church Fathers were Platonists

How many is "a lot"? Which ones?

Every change is from one perfect state to another.

'Change' from A to A is not change.
God's Divine Energies are all "perfect", yes? God's Divine Energies are myriad, not simple. God's Divine Energies do not act the same way at all times (the earth wasn't always flooded, King David's son wasn't born pre-smitten, etc)

Therefore "Divine Perfection" (perhaps we should say glory instead) can move from one manifestation of perfection to another manifestation of perfection and there is a change but at the same time there is not a change *depending on the sense in which the word 'change' is used.

God became materially mutable; Change.
God died; Change.
God was "mastered by grief"; Change.
God was acted upon by thirst and hunger and altered by his environment; Change.
God the Son was and is the Word, was obedient unto death, humble, and faithful to Israel; No change.

would you say God changed "when" He created?
Unless you posit that the Divine Energies have always created creation (which would imply pre-existent matter), then in some sense a change occurred.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 11:50:47 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #49 on: November 22, 2011, 11:51:42 PM »

A lot of Church Fathers were Platonists

How many is "a lot"? Which ones?

Every change is from one perfect state to another.

'Change' from A to A is not change.
God's Divine Energies are all "perfect", yes? God's Divine Energies are myriad, not simple. God's Divine Energies do not act the same way at all times (the earth wasn't always flooded, King David's son wasn't born pre-smitten, etc)

Therefore "Divine Perfection" (perhaps we should say glory instead) can move from one manifestation of perfection to another manifestation of perfection and there is a change but at the same time there is not a change *depending on the sense in which the word 'change' is used.

God became materially mutable; Change.
God died; Change.
God was "mastered by grief"; Change.
God was acted upon by thirst and hunger and altered by his environment; Change.
God the Son was and is the Word, was obedient unto death, humble, and faithful to Israel; No change.

would you say God changed "when" He created?
Unless you posit that the Divine Energies have always created creation (which would imply pre-existent matter), then in some sense a change occurred.

You people are winning me over.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #50 on: November 23, 2011, 10:06:00 AM »

How many is "a lot"? Which ones?
St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril, Clement of Alexandria, St. Justin Martyr, St. John Crysostom, St. Ireneaus, I'm sure there are others who could be named.

I'll take their opinion over yours any day.

Even though they disagree with Play-Doh
How mature.
in some aspects, one of things they definitely share with him is the assumption that perfection is changelessness,
that's not Platonism; that's logic.
it's what drives all the hemming and hawing over passages such as the healing of the woman with the issue of blood.

Cite an example of "hemming and hawing".

Why is something meaningless because it is didactic? And why do some folks around here seem so uncomfortable with any of our Lord's actions having a didactic purpose?
It's meaningless because it doesn't teach us anything useful. What are we supposed to learn? That Jesus knows how to to ask a fake question? What was He trying to teach?

That He is both God and man?

Where does it say that in the Scriptures or the Fathers?

Philippians 2:5-8 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

That passage says nothing about losing omniscience.

How is being all-knowing taking our likeness? Your view makes Him little more than God in a meat suit.

Your view makes Him little more than just a meat suit.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,700


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #51 on: November 23, 2011, 10:48:00 AM »

"Unchangeable, yet All-Changing" St. Augustine, "Confessions"
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #52 on: November 23, 2011, 11:07:01 AM »

"Unchangeable, yet All-Changing" St. Augustine, "Confessions"

Exactly. Not either one or the other, but both at the same time. Both transcendent and immanent.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Knee V
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 227



« Reply #53 on: November 25, 2011, 04:50:44 PM »

52 replies and not one mention of Chalcedon? Wassup wit dat?

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #54 on: November 25, 2011, 08:14:33 PM »

To argue that such things as creation of time and a world of change involve a change in time's Creator smuggles temporality into the being of God, which is, of course, a very fashionable assumption these days. Still, on the classical understanding it is not necessary to view incarnation or creation as involving change sub specie aeternitatis:

Quote from: Hans Kung
“Let us put it once more sub specie temporis: On the basis of our temporal images we can speak of a time in which the Son of God had ‘not yet’ become man… And now sub specie aeternitatis: When we reason from the viewpoint of God’s eternal manner of existence, we must abandon transitory and temporal conceptions. God has time in its fullness without end; His time is not fragmented into a sequence of present, past, and future. Rather it is the unity of the before, the now, and the hereafter –of beginning, middle, and end. It is erroneous to conceive of the divine Logos as if He had ‘already’ become man in some ‘pre-temporal’ eternity, just as it would be wrong to imagine that the divine Logos had ‘not yet’ become man in some ‘pre-temporal’ eternity. From this viewpoint there is no such thing in God Himself as an eternity before the incarnation. This would amount to dissolving eternity into an interior time of unlimited duration… On the basis of our temporal images we can ask: What is the Son of God before the incarnation? From the standpoint of eternity, however, the most we can ask is: What would the Logos be without the incarnation? –a question possibly helpful in formulating the absolutely free graciousness of the incarnation. In the realm of eternity, it is impossible to speak simply in the strict sense of a non-incarnate Logos, of a prehistorical, pre-Christian, or post-Christian epoch. In this connection, all terms expressing a “pre” (like predetermination, prevision, predestination, pre-existent Christ) easily mislead, since they result, often unconsciously, in the application of inferior temporal images to God’s eternity. We must not overlook the primacy in knowing which existent act has over all forms of potency. To think of God’s knowing as first focused on the yet-undefined, on the potential and possible and only thereafter on the actual and the real, on the final existential definiteness of things, is an anthropomorphism. It is deceiving to imagine that for God knowledge of possibilities (possiblilia) could be an anterior prerequisite for knowing existing things or for deciding to create them. Equally deceiving is the notion that God’s knowledge of what is necessary in His person (for instance, His omnipotence or the Trinity of Persons) could be an anterior prerequisite for knowing what is free in Himself (for example the human nature of the Son).
Logged

Silly Stars
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #55 on: November 25, 2011, 08:36:20 PM »

52 replies and not one mention of Chalcedon? Wassup wit dat?

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

Now that Chalcedon has been brought up... Wink

In His letter to Succensus Bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria, Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote:
  ‘Considering, therefore, as I said, the manner of His incarnation we see that His two natures came together with each other in an indissoluble union, without blending and without change, for His flesh is flesh and not divinity, even though his flesh became the flesh of God, and likewise the Word also is God and not flesh, even though He made the flesh His own according to the dispensation. Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm the joining into a unity by saying that he was of two natures, but after the union we do not separate the natures from one another, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons but we say that there is one Son, and as the holy Fathers have said, there is one φυσις [nature] of the Word (of God) made flesh.


Emphasis mine. Brackets mine.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 08:50:57 PM by zekarja » Logged

Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.076 seconds with 37 queries.