Help! What have I become?

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Dulle locates will in the hypostasis rather than the ousia. Orthodox trinitarians locate the will in the ousia rather than the hypostasis. The issue hinges on whether the will is a faculty of the person, or the nature.

This is why I usually find myself at odds with Dulle and those who take his approach. He (and they) are attempting to express Oneness theology within the framework of trinitarian theological presuppositions and terminology. The problem is that orthodox trinitarian theology is based on the paradigm of classical (pagan) Greco-Roman metaphysics and depends upon it. Scripture however asserts that the sophia or wisdom of the world (classical philosophy and religion) failed to acquire accurate knowledge of God, and by divine design. In other words, attempting to explain Biblical truth within the confines of pagan metaphysics necessarily produces error.

Biblically, Jesus had a will. He also submitted His will to the will of God: "Nevertheless, not my will, but Thine, be done." The human and the divine will seem here to be perfectly attested to as distinct things. Yet, Jesus ALWAYS did what was pleasing to the Father. Here the unity or dare I say ONENESS of Christ's will with God's will is also perfectly attested to. A Oneness Christology would seem to demand the Divine will was incarnate in, through, and indeed as the human will. Thus, in one sense, they are two distinct wills, but in another sense they are ONE will.

Another issue that needs to be addressed in these discussions is the equivocal meaning of "will". It can mean either the FACULTY of volition, or it can mean the actual volition or course of action chosen by the will, or it can mean simply a desire or "want-to" of the person, the flesh, the senses, the reason, the intellect, etc.

The terms he uses are in the Greek New Testament, aren't they? Unless the definition of them in the NT are different than the common koine definition.

Nevertheless, Christology are theories, and it is as good as it can get. I always adventure into it with a grain of salt. The theory formation process goes as follow: find evidences in the Bible, come up with some sensible theory (usually from a subset of the evidences), come back to the Bible and validate that the theory can explain all the evidences. The problem is that most of them end up conflicting with the evidences to some degree when tested.

Sometimes, I think it is just best to acknowledge a truth declared from the evidences and not try to form a sensible theory from them that can try to explain them all, and that can be used to predict behavior.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

The terms he uses are in the Greek New Testament, aren't they? Unless the definition of them in the NT are different than the common koine definition.

Nevertheless, Christology are theories, and it is as good as it can get. I always adventure into it with a grain of salt. The theory formation process goes as follow: find evidences in the Bible, come up with some sensible theory (usually from a subset of the evidences), come back to the Bible and validate that the theory can explain all the evidences. The problem is that most of them end up conflicting with the evidences to some degree when tested.

Sometimes, I think it is just best to acknowledge a truth declared from the evidences and not try to form a sensible theory from them that can try to explain them all, and that can be used to predict behavior.

Dulle discusses the location of the will as in the nature vs in the person. I don't see where the Bible holds that conversation. The "2 wills vs 1 will of Christ" argument originated in the 7th century when Emperor Heraclius attempted a compromise to restore the Monophysites to communion with the rest of the catholic churches. A debate ensued until eventually monothelitism (Christ had one will) was condemned as heretical.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Dulle discusses the location of the will as in the nature vs in the person. I don't see where the Bible holds that conversation. The "2 wills vs 1 will of Christ" argument originated in the 7th century when Emperor Heraclius attempted a compromise to restore the Monophysites to communion with the rest of the catholic churches. A debate ensued until eventually monothelitism (Christ had one will) was condemned as heretical.

I think what he says, if I understood him correctly, is that the human nature gives you the capability to will (as a human), but the person is what concretes it. I find it speculative, but so are Christology theories.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I think what he says, if I understood him correctly, is that the human nature gives you the capability to will (as a human), but the person is what concretes it. I find it speculative, but so are Christology theories.

I think there are several valid Biblical Christologies, as in Scriptural presentations of the person and work of Christ, but they avoid metaphysics and speculative theories derived from classical philosophy.

For example: Wisdom Christology, Christ as the Wisdom of God; Spirit Christology, Christ as the life-giving Spirit; Christ as Son of Man; Christ as Son of God; Christ as Logos; and so forth.

[Esaias]

What has become of this thread?

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What has become of this thread?

They all were Raptured out and I alone am here to tell thee. 😄

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What has become of this thread?

It may take another 10 years for the next post. He has lots of oneness relatives and friends according to his posts. It is kind of sad seeing he turned to unitarianism.