In asserting the heretical two person view of Nestorianism as the only logical one, Sean Gerety in the comments at the God's Hammer blog cannot help repeating himself over and over again. His mantra is, "Both Roger and Cliffton both used Cheung's definition and the reason I don't like it is because it doesn't explain anything and repeating it over and over does not give it any additional meaning." As if repeating Nestorian views over and over again gives Nestorianism additional meaning? I am continually amazed at the lack of charity on the part of the neo-Nestorians while they themselves have free reign to commit every logical fallacy in the book. I am impressed.
Odd that Gerety keeps repeating his own heresy over and over again as if saying it enough times will make the orthodox position somehow irrational. The fact is Nestorianism was rejected in the first century for good reason. It undermines the deity of Jesus Christ and it is ultimately irrational.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost;
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen.
Posts
2 comments:
The problem with some folks is they cannot admit that they are not omniscient. Assuming that everything has some sort of rational explanation is one thing but actually finding what that rational explanation is is quite another. An ant cannot comprehend the English language but that does not mean that English is irrational. In the same way just because God has a rational understanding of all that exists, including all the Christian doctrines and theology, does not entail that every human being will understand Christian theology or even that theologians will be able to adequately answer every single objection to the orthodox position.
While some folks think Nestorianism is the answer to technical problems associated with the hypostatic union in Christ, they neglect to see that Nestorianism is even more problematic. For one, it denies the full deity of Christ and divides Christ into a human person and a divine Person and never the twain shall meet.
Notwithstanding the problem of explaining the divine impassibility and the incarnation, the hypostatic union most closely matches the biblical evidence. That is especially true since Scripture never distinguishes between Christ and the Logos but rather speaks of Him as one Person by using pronouns that are singular masculine in context. There is text that distinguishes between the Father and the Son and the Spirit but not one that distinguishes Jesus from the Logos, the Son of God. Jesus is God in the flesh.
I'm going to be re-examining Gordon H. Clark's two books, The Trinity, and, The Incarnation. It might be that Clark's view is compatible with the idea that Christ has two wills, which is the orthodox view.
Post a Comment