Re: [asa] Signing off this thread - Random and natural vs intelligence

At 04:51 PM 11/9/2007, mlucid@aol.com wrote:

>I overstepped my bounds, Janice. Lets just say that the intelligent
>design debate is diminish to whatever extent we try to humanize the Creator.
>
>-Mike (Friend of ASA)

@@ I don't know what you mean when you say you "overstepped your bounds."

We aren't "humanizing" the Creator when we recognize that the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct centers of conscious
thought. (Three "Whos" and One "What")

All heresy begins with misdefining the Godhead and it goes downhill
from there.

Re: the Athanasian Creed: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/athanas.htm

"....The paradox of the unity and the Trinity of God is affirmed in
the face of modalism, which attempted to solve the paradox by
insisting on the unity while reducing the Trinity to mere successive
appearances, and the Arians, who tried to resolve the difficulty by
rejecting a unity of essence by dividing the divine substance.

The second section of the Athanasian Creed expresses the church's
faith in the incarnation by affirming the doctrinal conclusions
reached in controversies regarding the divinity and the humanity of
Jesus. The creed does not hesitate again to affirm a doctrine which
in human experience is paradoxical, that in the incarnation there was
a union of two distinctly different natures, the divine and the
human, each complete in itself, without either losing its identity.
Yet the result of this union is a single person. The creed thus
repudiates the teachings that Christ had but one nature
(Sabellianism), or that the human nature was incomplete
(Apollinarianism), or that the divine nature was inferior to that of
the Father (Arianism), or that in the union of the two natures the
identity of one was lost so that the result was simply one nature
(Eutychianism).

It has been said that no other official statement of the early church
sets forth, so incisively and with such clarity, the profound
theology that is implicit in the basic scriptural affirmation that
"God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself."

  The somewhat technical case of its phraseology notwithstanding, the
concern of the Athanasian Creed is to assert a conception of the
Triune God which is free from anthropomorphic polytheism and a
conception of the incarnation which holds in tension the vital data
concerning Christ's humanity and divinity.

It is this doctrinal perspective which lends significance to the
clauses at the beginning and end of the two parts of the creed
("whoever wishes to be saved must think thus" about the Trinity and
the incarnation). They do not mean that a believer must understand
all theological details to be saved or that he must memorize the
language of the creed.

What is intended is the fact that the Christian faith is distinctly
Christocentric, trusting in Christ as Savior. The church knows no
other way of salvation and therefore must reject all teachings which
deny his true deity or his real incarnation.

The creed does not specify the authority, either the Bible or church,
upon which it makes its affirmations. However, it is a scriptural
creed because it uses the ideas and sometimes the words of Scripture.
It is a church creed because it is a consensus within the Christian
fellowship. The Athanasian Creed remains a superb compendium of
Trinitarian and Christological theology and offers itself as a ready
outline for catechetical purposes in keeping with its original
intent. ~ J F Johnson

~ Janice

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
>To: Kirk Bertsche <Bertsche@aol.com>; mlucid@aol.com
>Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>Sent: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:51 am
>Subject: Re: [asa] Signing off this thread - Random and natural vs
>intelligence
>
>At 12:20 PM 11/9/2007, Kirk Bertsche wrote:
>>Interesting points. I would simply point out that it is perfectly
>>accurate, both biblically and theologically, to use a personal
>>pronoun to refer to a personal God. ~ Kirk
>>
>>On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:25 AM, <mailto:mlucid@aol.com>mlucid@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>"... Jesus as the Son of God is the only "who" to whom humans can
>>>accurately attribute such a pronoun. -Mike (Friend of ASA.)
>
>
>@ So you say. Let's see:
>
>
>EXCERPT: "...There remains one question: can it be shown that the
>Holy Spirit is a person as Jesus the Word was? Is it justified to
>see the Spirit as a "distinct center of conscious thought" as the
>creedal statements affirm? At first glance, it may be easy to object
>that with no incarnation of the Spirit, there is no direct evidence
>of the Spirit as a person. The Spirit could just be a "force with
>you" and impersonal, an effect of God. Why not be a Binitarian?
>There are no statements, as from Jesus, where the Spirit prays to
>the Father. Or are there?
>
>Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we
>know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself
>maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
>
>If the Spirit is not a separate person, how does he intercede? But
>here is the classic text for the personhood of the Spirit:
>
>Acts 5:3, 9 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine
>heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price
>of the land?...Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have
>agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of
>them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
>
>Is it possible to lie to or test, to disobey or to grieve, an
>impersonal force? (See also Acts 16:16, Eph. 4:30) Or:
>
>John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will
>guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but
>whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you
>things to come.
>
>Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy
>Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I
>have called them.
>
>Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay
>upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...
>
>Hebrews 3:7 Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will
>hear his voice...
>
>1 Tim. 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
>times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
>spirits, and doctrines of devils;
>
>Luke and Darth's "Force" didn't have anything to say, but the Spirit
>does, and even uses personal pronouns (Acts 13:2).
>
>Pushback: The Bible has trees speaking [Ps. 96:11-12; Is. 55:12],
>and hands and feet speaking [1 Cor. 12:15-16]. It also has names
>rotting [Prov. 10:7], land vomiting [Lev. 18:25] and blood crying
>out [Gen. 4:10]. So what if the Spirit speaks also?
>
>This objection doesn't make the grade: These passages are clearly in
>poetic/allegorical genres, whereas the above verses are straight
>narrative discourse; furthermore, verses where land vomits or blood
>cries is also clearly allegorical, since land and blood have no
>mouth, but a spirit is a living and active force and has a means to
>speak. At the same time, neither land nor blood ever has such a wide
>variety of active and interpersonal-relation verbs applied to them.
>Blood cries out, but no one has ever "lied" to blood or had it
>intercede for them in prayer. The Spirit is indeed the quiet member
>of the Trinity in terms of the reports we have; he was not
>incarnated among men and converses with them even now only inwardly.
>But he clearly does speak, and that's not what an impersonal force does.
>
>Pushback: 1 Tim. 2:5 says, For there is one God, and one mediator
>between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. If the Holy Spirit were a
>person co-equal with the Father and Son it would be an affront to
>exclude him from some intermediary position.
>
>This objection simply doesn't grasp the meaning of the term
>"mediator". It was originally a business term, broadened to mean any
>mediator. The word is used by Paul elsewhere to refer to Moses (Gal.
>3:19) and in Hebrews 1:6: "But now hath [Jesus] obtained a more
>excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better
>covenant, which was established upon better promises." (See also
>9:15, 12:24) The word refers to a specific function of
>administration, not merely a go-between. The Spirit did not and does
>not serve this function.
>
>Pushback: The word "spirit" is neuter in gender. How can an "it" be a person?
>
>John's Gospel twice refers to the Holy Spirit in a masculine gender:
>15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from
>the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the
>Father, he shall testify of me: John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the
>Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he
>shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall
>he speak: and he will show you things to come. Helpfully the last
>passage also clarifies the nature of the relationship of the Spirit
>to the Father; the Spirit "proceeds" as Wisdom does.
>
>Pushback: But other objects are assigned gender in the Bible. Even
>today we refer to objects like ships in the feminine!
>
>Those who offer this objection -- which I have found -- fail to
>provide examples of objects in the Bible being assigned gender. The
>idea about ships has no bearing unless one provides evidence that a
>"spirit" was referred to thusly even without any notion of personality.
>
>Finally, there are Trinitarian formula which place the Spirit on a
>par with Father and Son (Matt. 28:19, 2 Cor. 13:14). Some may object
>that there is nothing that says that the Spirit is a person in these
>passages, but it is the burden of proof upon the replier to show
>that personality is not part of the Spirit's makeup."
>
>Excerpted from: The Holy Spirit and the Trinity Relationship by
>James Patrick
>Holding
><http://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.html>http://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.html
>
>~ Janice
>
>
>----------
>Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free
><http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970>AOL
>Mail!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 11 22:20:12 2007