If St. Peter can do it, Jesus' miracles don't tell us anything special about Jesus as a man...
What a good topic for Transfiguration Sunday!
This argument is used to show that, in particular instances, what Jesus did, e.g. walk on water, was done by others, e.g. St. Peter, so this is no proof Jesus' flesh is divinized.
The problem goes back to the question of "what" instead of "whom". My reformed interlocutors insist that the "who" has little to do with anything the "what" can do. In the example of walking on water, Jesus did it because of who he is while Peter did it because of Jesus. It is not like a force or energy outside of Jesus kept him walking on water, he did himself based on his own power as God in the flesh. Peter was able to walk on water because his faith in Jesus sustained him--until he doubted. If Jesus walked on water because of a different "whom" then per force we have two persons in Jesus Christ, as opposed to two natures. The difference between the "who" of St. Peter and the "who" of Jesus Christ can be shown by Jesus' statements about himself, such as "...You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23), "For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." (John 6:55). I could supply more examples, but suffice it to say there is something intrinsic in Jesus that makes his miracles of a different kind from those done for e.g. Daniel or St. Peter. Now, if the miracles of e.g. Daniel and those of Jesus Christ really are the same, I would ask who sustained Jesus Christ on the water? I don't want to hear about a "nature" because a nature doesn't do anything--a nature is not a personal actor while a person is.
Is there any indication in Scripture that the "who" of Jesus Christ makes a difference as to his humanity as compared to others?
"Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper." (John 13:3-4)
Since as the divine Son, the Word already had all godhead, it is evident that St. John here is speaking of giving all things into Jesus' hands according to his human nature. Thus as the God-Man, Jesus has all that God has as per his nature. (q.v. Matt 11:27, Matt 28:18)
"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11)
As above, as the divine Son, the Word already was entitled to be worshipped as God. But when God became man, it is now appropriate to worship a man as God. The worship rightly given to God as Spirit is also rightly given to the flesh and bone man, Jesus Christ, which means what is God's by right also belongs to the man Jesus Christ by right. Put another way, the man Jesus Christ is capable and welcomed into the full communion of the trinity.
"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." (John 17:5)
As above, this pertains to his human nature not his divine nature; so Jesus Christ, the Man, has all the glory he had before he became incarnate. And part of this glory is omnipresence.
Unless one wishes to assert that omnipresence is not part of God's glory.
Related post: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/02/one-more-response-to-edward-reiss.html
Cathapol makes some similar points: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/02/transubstantiation-question-ii.html
29 comments:
Jesus did it because of who he is while Peter did it because of Jesus.
Right. Jesus performed a miracle ON THE WATER. It's at least as likely as there being sthg about Jesus' person/body that can float or sthg. It's not like Peter had a divine attribute of flotation.
Is it then more likely that Peter somehow leaked divine attributes when he began to sink in the water? Come on.
You have no evidence that "the water remained constant" any more than you have that he received some divine attribute of weightlessness, as if that were a divine attribute to begin with (divinity doesn't involve matter in its essence anyway - God, a divine being, creates matter). Your whole idea is badly flawed.
I could supply more examples, but suffice it to say there is something intrinsic in Jesus that makes his miracles of a different kind from those done for e.g. Daniel or St. Peter.
Yes. He is God. Doesn't mean that therefore His body can be multilocational.
As above, this pertains to his human nature not his divine nature
??? It pertains to HIS PERSON. You don't worship a NATURE. Sheesh. I don't think you can even get out of your own way in this one.
Seriously, my friend. Baptist. Hear it calling your name. All the good stuff, none of the monophysite nonsense.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Rho,
"It pertains to HIS PERSON. You don't worship a NATURE. Sheesh. I don't think you can even get out of your own way in this one.
Seriously, my friend. Baptist. Hear it calling your name. All the good stuff, none of the monophysite nonsense."
No one said anything about worshiping a nature. But it is OK to worship a divine human person, which Jesus Christ is. There is no other person who is in any way entitled to worship, because Jesus is God. It is apparent you don't know much about Christology or you wouldn't have made such a basic error. And as one who said the Incarnation really blows your mind in your own thread, I find it odd you would try and give lessons on Christology.
"Yes. He is God. Doesn't mean that therefore His body can be multilocational. "
That is, after all, the only positive argument you have raised--God's flesh cannot be in more than one place at a time because apparently God is limited by the laws of nature when he assumes flesh. Eph. 4:10 says "he", meaning the person Jesus, fills all things. You, who don't really understand the Incarnation, say otherwise because you would instruct his Apostle as to what a human body can be. I will stick with the Apostle. :-)
Who else in history has walked on water by his own power? Who else in history has raised the dead by his own power with a mere command?
You are also left with saying "God can't...." Are you really comfortable saying that about someone who made food appear out of nowhere, indeed, who made the Universe out of nothing?
Yes, of course we worship a divine person. Exactly. And that person is in one place at any given time.
And I don't know what I said that led you to think I consider others worthy of worship (except obviously for the Father and the HS Who are also persons).
I will also stick with Eph 4:10 - as I keep saying and as you keep evading, Jesus was just as much God on the roads of Galilee as He is now. And just as much in one physical location.
Yes, there are plenty of absurd things that language can express that are not possible. Can God make it so that He never existed? Can He erase the Holy Spirit from existence? Can He become a Quadernity?
Of course not. Neither can He make human nature into divine nature without...you know...making it DIVINE.
BTW, I don't know if I'd link to CathApol. Have you even read his 'interaction' with me? It's pretty sad.
Rhology,
Eph. 4:10 says that Jesus Christ fills all things. That would be "multi locality" right there. If you think the idea is absurd, what was the Apostle Paul trying to say?
"Neither can He make human nature into divine nature without...you know...making it DIVINE"
I have not been saying that human nature becomes divine nature, what I have been saying is that Jesus Christ has a divinized human nature because he is a divine person. This was observed at the Transfiguration where the Apostles say his own glory, as opposed to the reflected glory seen on Moses' face. We see this in his doing miracles, how he describes his own flesh, that all the fullness of the divinity dwells in him bodily, and that he fills all things. None of these things are "normal" for human beings. In any case, the argument that we see others do miracles so Jesus' miracles don't tell us about his human nature is off base, because we are talking about different beings. On the one hand we are talking about Prophets and Apostles, and on the other hand we are talking about someone who is God in the flesh. For this reason alone we should be careful in saying that God cannot do something he tells us he did, even if it violates our logic. An example is, as above, the fullness of the divinity dwelling in Jesus Christ.
"BTW, I don't know if I'd link to CathApol. Have you even read his 'interaction' with me? It's pretty sad."
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
Yes, He fills all things, with His Spirit, His power, His knowledge. SPIRITUALLY. You're not going to argue that spiritual isn't real, are you?
Since He fills it spiritually, yet He is present in ONE LOCATION because He is a man. A man! Why is not an omnipresent man not monophysitism right there?
If Christ has a divinised human nature (which is, like I said, monophysite), then it is just as correct to say that He has a humanised divine nature.
Far, FAR better to say He has a divine nature and He has a human nature. Like I do, and like you need to.
Well, we can agree on one thing - Windsor is a stopped clock. But as badly as you've addressed my arguments, he's done yet worse.
Rhology,
"Yes, He fills all things, with His Spirit, His power, His knowledge. SPIRITUALLY. You're not going to argue that spiritual isn't real, are you?"
Can you see how this divides the person? Can you see how this means you believe you can see Jesus' humanity over here and his divinity over there? I now you are tired of hearing me talk about Calvin, but this is why he said the whole Christ is omnipresent but not everything in Christ is omnipresent. This means, logically, that the fullness of the Godhead is not in Jesus bodily--it overflows. It means the "whole Christ" is not omnipresent, part of the person is and part of him is not.
I don't see any other way to look at this other than the person is divided.
Finally, your reading of the text would mean that Jesus' divine nature didn't fill everything, since the glorification, like his subordination, is according to his human nature.
"If Christ has a divinised human nature (which is, like I said, monophysite), then it is just as correct to say that He has a humanised divine nature."
Please see my comment on the other thread. Your conclusion is not necessary.
Edward,
Can you see how this divides the person?
I can see what you're getting at, I really can. The thing is, I'm referring to Him fulfilling all of that through unseen power, and by extension by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. This approach (correctly) sees biblical data such as "fills all things" as SPIRITUAL REALITIES, and as a bit of a metaphor. The alternative is Docetic, as I've explained before. I'm going with the former.
Can you see how this means you believe you can see Jesus' humanity over here and his divinity over there?
Hopefully my above explanation will clarify why that's not the case, but I hadn't put it that way before, so no harm done. I'm glad to be able to elucidate. In point of fact, your position takes Jesus' humanity and makes it EVERYWHERE, yet somehow nowhere. Your position can't even figure out what it's supposed to affirm.
This means, logically, that the fullness of the Godhead is not in Jesus bodily--it overflows.
Like I've said probably no less than 10 times now, the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily NOW just as much as it did during the times between His birth and His crucifixion.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Rhology,
"Like I've said probably no less than 10 times now, the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily NOW just as much as it did during the times between His birth and His crucifixion."
And yet, according to you, part of the fullness does not dwell in Jesus Christ bodily because part of his person is only "SPIRIT!", because his body is localized.
Actually you're wrong, Ed: omnipresence is not communicable, because it is an attribute descriptive of divine nature, in which creatures can't share. Just like uncreated-ness (beggining-less-ness), for instance. There are divine energies in which we can share (such as the fruits of the Holy Spirit listed by Saint Paul, immortality, etc), but not in attributes proper to the divine essence. (Sorry).
-- Lucian
part of the fullness does not dwell in Jesus Christ bodily because part of his person is only "SPIRIT!", because his body is localized.
1) ?? For the 6th time, just as much fullness of deity dwells in Jesus Christ bodily NOW as when He was walking around with camel poo on His sandals on the streets of Galilee.
2) What's this about "part of His person"? That makes zero sense. Jesus Christ is 100% man and 100% God.
3) What's this about "only" Spirit? Have you ever answered my oft-posed question as to whether you consider the spiritual to be real? Now I'd like to add to it - what is it about spirit that makes it inferior? (That's the only implication I can take from the "only" in your question.)
Rhology,
"What's this about "part of His person"? That makes zero sense. Jesus Christ is 100% man and 100% God."
You are equivocating here. It is you, not I, who says that Jesus' divinity is at places where his humanity is not (SPIRITUAL!), and then assert you believe in one undivided Christ.
And I have answered your question. You just missed like you did your own arguments in favor of teleportation.
Get a grip.
, who says that Jesus' divinity is at places where his humanity is not
No, I DON'T say that - that's precisely my point. I'm sorry you're having trouble getting it. HE IS A PERSON WITH 2 NATURES. HE IS IN ONE PLACE AT ANY ONE TIME.
Does that help clarify?
BTW, you've never answered:
1) ?? For the 6th time, just as much fullness of deity dwells in Jesus Christ bodily NOW as when He was walking around with camel poo on His sandals on the streets of Galilee.
with anything close to a defense of your position, and you didn't answer:
3) What's this about "only" Spirit? Have you ever answered my oft-posed question as to whether you consider the spiritual to be real? Now I'd like to add to it - what is it about spirit that makes it inferior? (That's the only implication I can take from the "only" in your question.)
Rhology,
"No, I DON'T say that - that's precisely my point. I'm sorry you're having trouble getting it. HE IS A PERSON WITH 2 NATURES. HE IS IN ONE PLACE AT ANY ONE TIME.
Does that help clarify?"
It is now. You deny the deity of the person Jesus Christ.
QED
I'm sorry, Ed, but Rho is right: omnipresence is an attribute of His divine essence, not of His humanity. He is therefore uncircumscribable as regards His divinity, and contained insofar His humanity is concerned.
-- Lucian
Lucian,
I actually got the idea from Acolyte. Though it is possible I misunderstood him.
Lucian,
Regarding Jesus' omnipresence, here is what I was thinking about:
"Consequently, it seems possible for the human body, divinely empowered to be accessible and participatable to a plurality of locations without being spatially limited to any one of them."
This was more or less what I was getting at regarding Jesus' omnipresence. Having said that, I can see how someone could believe I meant Jesus' body is sort of spread out on the Universe like jam on toast.
So, from my saying:
HE IS A PERSON WITH 2 NATURES. HE IS IN ONE PLACE AT ANY ONE TIME.
Edward deduces:
You deny the deity of the person Jesus Christ.
Ummm, K. Even though nobody could doubt that I've said over and over that His divine nature was the original one and has always been.
Rhology,
The problem for you is this: Calvinism teaches that when the Logos became man a new person came to be--Jesus Christ the God-man. And because of this, the human nature of the God-man is not really God at all, but a mere human nature, as your claims here have amply brought out. This is why Calvinists do not give a simply "yes" answer to the question: Is shaking Jesus' hand shaking God's hand? It is always qualified, as Steve Hayes stated in his blog entry--shaking Jesus' hand is to shake a human hand. So, part of the person is not divine, period, while another is divine. Indeed, his human nature has no special qualities at all, again as is amply brought out by your comments, and to maintain it does have special qualities is to become "Monophysite".
So I would ask, if Jesus Christ is in only one place at any given time, how is "he", i.e. the person Jesus Christ, in any meaningful way God since omnipresence is a quality of God? If, as you say, the person is in two natures, (and I agree BTW), how can you maintain the divinity of the person if you assert that his divinity is present where his humanity is not and not therefore divide the person?
This is why I say you deny the divinity of the person of Jesus Christ. You may say that his divinity is God, but that is a useless tautology. Just repeating the words "Jesus is God" is not good enough, because even Arians claimed that, though with qualification.
Please see here my response.
Rhology,
Your "response" is to merely re-state your opinion. That is OK, but you don't seem to grasp that what you say in certain parts undermines what you say in other parts. Regarding Shaking Jesus' hand, you repeat your trope of stating that the person is divided while claiming he is one person. You claim you don't state Jesus' divinity is present where his humanity is not, and yet maintain that he is not present in his humanity e.g. in the Lord's Supper. Your Christology is incoherent because you divide the person and assert the person is united. This is easy to show because you assert one person Jesus Christ and yet elsewhere this united person is without one of his natures. That is a division, plain for all to see even if you choose to deny it. (Shall I cite you again to show yo uhow you don't even follow your own arguments? Remember teleportation?)
If you cannot grasp such elementary logic there is not much I can do about it. You also apparently are not up on Calvinism, and are also unaware of where your Christology dovetails with yours. In other words, Calvin's argument is your argument, even if you protest otherwise.
It must be very difficult for you to kick against the goads.
Show me precisely where I argue that "elsewhere this united person is without one of his natures". Go for it.
Rhology,
From this thread:
"Since He fills it spiritually, yet He is present in ONE LOCATION because He is a man. A man! Why is not an omnipresent man not monophysitism right there?"
He spiritually fills the universe, yet his body is present in one location. That is a division of the united person because there is a place his divine nature is where his human nature is not--in your own words.
But in case you claim I am taking this out of context, since this division is the foundation of much of your argument:
From Calvin's framing of the question about the Incarnation--i.e. Jesus' body, is flawed"
"He is omnipresent in that He is omniscient and -potent, and His Spirit is everywhere and sees everything."
His spirit is present everywhere, but his body is not because it is in one place, remember?
Q.E.D.
And how did I argue that He spiritually fills the universe?
Rhology,
You need to stop "shooting from the lip" and be more careful about your claims and what you say:
"Yes, He fills all things, with His Spirit, His power, His knowledge. SPIRITUALLY. You're not going to argue that spiritual isn't real, are you?
Since He fills it spiritually, yet He is present in ONE LOCATION because He is a man. A man! Why is not an omnipresent man not monophysitism right there?"
This could have been found by you with a simple search, and it is from the same post I cited earlier.
Good grief. Just admit you were caught. I have to say that over all you are not very careful with arguments and quotes. And this makes it difficult to take seriously your claims you "refute" anyone, as well as your characterization of how any discussion is going.
Really, it does. Especially since you don't admit when you are caught.
Get a grip.
On the contrary, you've just reversed your indictment of me. I identified "spiritually" as through the Holy Spirit in our interaction, and in His omniscience and omnipotence.
Nothing to do with Him in Himself.
You have failed. Thanks for playing. Maybe think about correcting your own screwed up theology?
Rhology,
My theology is fine, it is your intellectual honesty which I question.
Now you are changing your claim. You stated he fills all things--the "he" in question being the God-man according to basic grammar; now you claim he fills all things through the Holy Spirit--a different "he" from the Son. That confuses the persons in, I dare say, an heretical manner. Your Christology and now your triadology is hopelessly confused. Your doctrine leads inexorably to the second person of the Trinity not being God because the second person of the Trinity does not fill all things.
Perhaps you should follow Calvin more closely, as his doctrine has many fewer problems than yours.
Edward,
I haven't changed my view - you just forgot that I said that, or you didn't read it. I'm not sure which, as you've proven over and over again to be at least one comment behind.
Steve Hays said the same thing. Did you forget him too? Christ's omnipresence is metaphorical, spiritual, especially since the question of location for a spirit is a category jump.
Post a Comment