“Steve....you posted some interesting thoughts, but might you take a stab at responding to the questions I asked in my blog post? I would like to know how you think Calvinism deals with the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus and His human nature.”
Paul McCain is alluding to the following statement, which I’ve numbered for clarity of reference:
“I found the quote that follows these remarks to be a helpful insight into Calvinist thinking on the Lord's Supper. My quick response to their "how" question about our Lord's human nature is simply this:”
“1....how was it possible for the Risen Lord to suddenly "appear in the midst of them" among His disciples on Easter?”
These accounts resemble OT Christophanies or theophanies, where the Lord would suddenly appear to people out of nowhere. Such apparitions did not require a hypostatic union. Hence, the Easter appearances do not, in this respect, tell us anything about the nature of the glorified body.
“2.What was His human nature doing after the Resurrection? Was it omnipresent with Him?”
The gospels don’t tell us where Christ was in-between his appearances.
I deny that his human nature is omnipresent. For that matter, I deny that his divine nature is literally omnipresent.
The relation is analogous to the mind/body relation. The soul doesn’t literally occupy the body, as if it took up a certain volume of space within the body.
There is an interface between body and soul. The body can influence the soul, and the soul can act upon the body. How that is, we don’t know, since we’re only acquainted with the effect.
In any event, how does invisibility prove ubiquity? How does appearing and disappearing, coming and going, prove omnipresence?
“3.Or was Jesus hiding out until the Ascension?”
Why not?
“4.How did His human nature ascend?”
His ascension resembles the translation of Elijah, which did not require a hypostatic union.
In addition, Christ was a wonder-worker. If he could perform nature miracles, he could presumably perform a nature miracle on himself. So one need not attribute his powers to the powers of his body. They were the powers of his omnipotence.
“5.Or what about the Transfiguration? It seems that was a pretty amazing event for His human nature, a foretaste of what was to come during His glorification?”
This event resembles the Mosaic halo. Yet that nimbic aura did not require a hypostatic union.
“6.How is God able to create everything out of nothing?”
This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Gene’s point was not about logical possibility in general, but the internal logic of Lutheran theology.
“7.How is a Virgin able to conceive?”
Same answer as #6.
“8. How is that some are saved, and not others?”
Because God elects some, but reprobates others.
“9.Finally, how is it that Christ fills all things, and yet, not, apparently, according to the Calvinists with also His human nature, which is forever joined to the divine nature, see Eph. 4.”
Calvinism doesn’t deny the indissoluble character of the hypostatic union.
But in Eph 4:10, taken in context, the fullness of Christ is a metaphor for his universal dominion.
Steve, thanks for your response. I'll comment on it as I move through it.
ReplyDeleteThese accounts resemble OT Christophanies or theophanies, where the Lord would suddenly appear to people out of nowhere.
>>>But, as I'm sure you will agree, "resemble" is not "the same as" -- for there was no Incarnation, there was no Personal Union, the Son of God had not taken on human flesh. So, I'm left wondering why you believe citing Theophanies from the OT are helpful.
>>Such apparitions did not require a >>hypostatic union.
I'm not sure what you are referring to "apparitions" -- the post-Resurrection appearances or OT appearances? If OT, because there was no Personal Union, no Incarnation, no...they did not "require" a hypostatic union. If you are referring to post-Resurrection appearances then I would have to raise quite a concern. The fact is that once our Lord took on human flesh that human flesh was always united to the Divine Person of the Son of God, therefore, you can not mean to suggest that the Human Nature of Christ was not with the Divine Nature during the "apparitions" -- a word with which I'm mightily uncomfortable. These were true appearances of the Theanthropic Savior, the God-man, who made it a point to reveal to His disciples precisely His glorified and resurrected human nature.
>>Hence, the Easter appearances do >>not, in this respect, tell us >>anything about the nature of the >>glorified body.
Actually they tell us quite a lot and your argument here is not holding together, since you base it on OT theanthropic appearaces, which have nothing actually to do with this.
>I deny that his human nature is >omnipresent. For that matter, I >deny that his divine nature is >literally omnipresent.
Therefore you are guilty of Christological heresy, Nestorianism to be precise. Thank you for illustrating my point about Calvinism.
“4.How did His human nature ascend?”
>>His ascension resembles the >>translation of Elijah, which did >>not require a hypostatic union.
Again, you err by trying to explain the Personal Union and its consequencs on the basis of non-Incarnational events.Your response again illustrates how you are forced to separate the two natures in order to sustain your post-facto cosmology and philosophy and metaphysics for that matter.
Thank you for so clearly proving my point about Calvinism, and further allowing me now to make clear the chief error of Calvinism: Christological heresy.
Therefore you are guilty of Christological heresy, Nestorianism to be precise. Thank you for illustrating my point about Calvinism.
ReplyDeleteHow so?
According to Chalcedon: "the distinction of natures [is] in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature [are] preserved and [come] together to form one person and subsistence."
It is a characteristic of the divine nature to be omnipresent, while it is a character of the human nature to be limited in presence. If the characteristics of each are preserved, how does Steve's position in any way fall into Nestorianism? Steve does not posit two persons, nor does he divide the natures in a way contrary to Chalcedon.
For, just as Chalcedon can say, "as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin," can't Steve say, "as regards his Godhead, omnipresent, but yet as regards his manhood his presence is spatially limited."
Hey,
ReplyDeleteCan someone provide a link for the starting point for this discussion. Interestingly I just wrote an article over at my blog that deals in part with this issue. I'm clearly not as intelligent as either of you so I'd like to read the original discussion and see how closely I hit the issues.
Thanks a lot,
mike
Mike:
ReplyDeleteThis discussion began when Steve and I critiqued Antonio on the Free Grace Movement. Paul McCain took that as an opportunity to propagate his ad nauseam argument about Christology. Gene Bridges then replied to McCain, to which McCain responded in comments. Steve then posted this article, which received many comments. The lasted post has come from the comments on that article.