If God is Creator, what does this mean for His Creatures? Talk about the means and ends of the divine action, then, simply expresses the relations between finite events and beings as God himself wills them, though naturally from the standpoint of their reference to a future that transcends their finitude. We will have to support and expound this more fully later Here we may simply state that the temporal order in which creaturely things and events stand as such enables us to describe their relation to the divine action in terms of a plan (Isa. 5:19, etc.) —
This is actually a footnote to discussing St Ephram the Syrian’s view.
Adoptionism is the belief that Christ was born human, not of a virgin (to most historic adoptionists, but not all), was not pre-existent, lived an exemplary and sinless life in accordance with Jewish law and because of this was, at some point in his later life, commonly at his baptism or at resurrection, was then adopted by God and became divine. To be clear this means that Jesus was not born divine, was not “the Word made flesh”, and by it’s nature rejects all models of substitutionary atonement and also is at odds with the Christian understanding of the
Unfortunately, many today seem to insist upon the finality of our modern ideas. If it is new, it is without suspicion. If it is old, historic, or another adjective used to immediately cast doubt upon its value, then it is pointless. It is disproven. It is antiquated. Thus, many seek to find value in the ever changing thought processes of our modern society. They miss so much. Yesterday, I was challenged to ponder something by world renowned theoretical physicist and Orthodox scholar, Richard Rohr. He writes, Jesus was fully human, just as he was fully divine at the same
A subversion of faith is being contemplated among you, hostile to both apostolic and evangelical doctrines, and hostile to the tradition of the truly great Gregory and of those who followed after him up to the blessed Musonius, whose teachings are of course still fresh in your minds even now. For the evil of Sabellius, long ago stirred up, but extinguished by the tradition of that great man, these men are attempting to revive, who from fear of exposure are now fashioning those dreams against us. But do you, bidding farewell to those heads heavy with wine, which the
The Christian Ed director at our local UMC congregation has started a nifty advent idea. Each day, we have a verse or so from the Gospel of St. John to cause to consider. We are give responses, usually ours. But, I am going to choose this time to draw out voices from the Great Tradition. I’m not so sure the author of John’s Gospel was unlettered. His keen sense of philosophy, his use of allegory, and his knowledge of the Scriptures places him pretty high in the educational ladder. However, I do think the better “miracle” is found in
My interest in the concept of personhood is multifarious as I believe it will help in building a proper theology for various elements in our society and Church. In reading Vincent of Lerins, I happened upon this chapter from his Commonitory (ch14). Unlike Tertullian’s less defined, or unrefined, persona in describing the Father, Son, and Spirit, Vincent (a proper Saint) uses persona differently. BUT inasmuch as we often use the term person, and say that GOD in a person was made man, we must take very great care, lest we seem to say that GOD the WORD took on Him our properties