yet without sin?
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, george murphy wrote:
>
> Allen Roy wrote:
>
> > From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> > > What Allen posted concerning the soul is standard SDA teaching, usually
> > > described as "soul sleep." I consider the claims special pleading. The
> > > nonreductionistic monism of Nancey Murphy and others happens to overlap
> > > it. As I and Paul noted some time back, the latter group
>ignores all the
> > > scriptures that do not fit their view.
> >
> > It isn't clear whom you mean by "the latter group." If you are
>refering to
> > SDAs, I'd be happy to consider the scriptures that "do not fit
>their view."
> >
> > I will here go further and state
> > > that nonreductive monism cannot accommodate the incarnation. I have
> > > submitted a paper to EPS arguing this point.
> >
> > The incarnation was unique. Jesus was fully God who took on human nature,
> > and so, was also fully human. Unlike us, He had a dual nature
>-- divine and
> > human, but he never used his divine nature while living on earth. He
> > depended fully upon the Father for everything. Because Jesus is
>God, there
> > is no way that he could become exactly like us -- of a single nature. He
> > was Divine, that put on humanity. We are just human.
> >
> > Jesus was tempted just as we all are, in all ways. It may even have been
> > harder for Him to live a life of full dependence upon God,
>because He could
> > have done things on His own that we could never do. For instance, Satan
> > tempted Him to turn stones to bread so that He could abate his
>hunger. That
> > would never be a temptation for any of us because we could not turn stones
> > to bread no matter how hard we tried.
> >
> > Jesus' dual nature in no way implies that we have a dual nature.
>Salvation
> > does not require for Jesus to quit becoming divine to become human. All
> > that matters is that he lived a sinless human life only using the same
> > resources that are available to us.
>
> I don't know if anybody in this discussion is making the
> error I'm going
> to point out but it's worth noting because it is common. Even C.S.
> Lewis, as he
> later admitted, came close to it at one point.
> The classical teaching that Christ is one person in two
>natures means
> that both his human and his divine natures were _complete_ - i.e., there is
> absolutely nothing proper to genuine humanity or genuine deity that
>is missing.
> The divine Logos did _not_ take the place of the mind, soul, spirit &c or
> anything else in Christ. He had a fully human body, mind, and
>everything else
> that pertains to human nature. Just what everything _is_ that
> pertains to human
> nature is an anthropological question that doesn't have to be
>settled in order
> to make this statement. If we have souls then Jesus does. If we
>are body-soul
> unities then so is Jesus.
>
> Shalom,
>
> George
>
> George L. Murphy
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> "The Science-Theology Interface"
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 19 2002 - 18:07:15 EDT