Comments on Nielsen's Nook: 4. "God Suffered in the Flesh" (2 of 2)

A-4236,First off, thank you for making such a thou...

2006-05-21T19:04:00.000-07:00

A-4236,

First off, thank you for making such a thoughtful post. It was my hope to gain such interaction and as you are providing here. I have just finished finals and am in the process of moving and going to graduation this week, so bear with me a response is coming, which I hope will be mutually beneficial.

Van Til does not make the distinction between the ...

2006-05-19T12:06:00.000-07:00

Van Til does not make the distinction between the essence of God and his energies. CVT generally follows the Latin tradition concerning divine simplicity so that the distinctions are attributes, or judgments of our mind about a simple entity and not a different in the entity.

For the Easterners, the energies are really distinct, that is, they are not different in the sense that they are judgments made by us, but different apart from our judgments about God. They are different things in God.

The same general view as CVT holds can be found in Bavink, as well as Hodge, Warfield, Dooyweerd, Kuyper, or Vos. Bavink expressly rejects the essence/energies distinction of the Easterners as do practically all of the Reformed writers who knew of it.

Calvin's gloss on 2 pet 1:4 is fairly typical of westerners. The participation is extrinsic and so consequently is his notion of union. It is intentional or a coordination of wills willing a common object. That notion of union is what seems to make Calvin's insistence that the humanity of Christ cannot be present on the altar possible. Unfortunately it also jeopardizes Chalcedonian Christology at the very least.

If we don't become the divine nature, that seems not to take the passage in a straightforward way. Why not? Well because divine nature for Calvin and the Latins denotes only the divine essence. To participate in the divine essence then would be to become it. Second, it certainly seems to be the case that we become the divine nature for we become immortal as God is, and righteous, just as he is, etc.

If we are made in the image and Christ is the image and Christ is God, then if we are conformed to that image in terms of being "like" God then we cannot be made like God without implying Arianism. This is why Athanasius argued that union with Christ, plus deification implies that Christ is God. If we are not deified then either we aren't truely united to Christ in an intrinsic way or Christ isn't God. That is, we are not made like God, we are made God or divine.

If we reject the notion that God is a simple essence and therefore are able to gloss the notion of the divine nature as wider than essence, what is the problem with saying with Athanasius that we become deity?

When you write that we only participate in Christ, do you mean his humanity? If so, I don't see how this helps since his humanity is deified and filled with the divine energies/glory which he manifests on Mt. Thabor and at the Resurrection and God's glory is not a created temporary effect. Jn 17:5

Again, your interaction is valued here. Thank you...

2006-05-15T07:32:00.000-07:00

Again, your interaction is valued here. Thank you. Cornelius Van Til, makes a distinction for us that seems to be the essence of the distinction between energies and essence. He aruges that we cannot know God as he is but only in so far as God reveals himself to us (energies). The Westminster Confession of Faith to which Van Til held puts it like this:
----------
"The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
----------
As I mentioned in my response to your post on the Pseudo-Dionysius chapter in Meyendorf's book, you won't find the words essence and energies here but you will find the concepts. That is to say, the distance between Creator and creature is so great (unknowable) that God had to accommodate himself to us so that we can know him at all. That accommodation is in the form of covenant, which is a historical outworking (energies). I think you will find Herman Bavinck, Gerhardus Vos, and others from the Dutch Reformed tradition upholding similar notions.

Calvin's doctrinal center is "Union with Christ" and he certainly believed the Conciliar definition. Exegetically 2 Peter 1:4 (... ἵνα διὰ τούτων γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως ...) argues for participation or fellowship in the divine nature, not that we ourselves become the divine nature. κοινωνοὶ being modified here by the genitive feminine singular words θείας ... φύσεως (divine...nature). Participation is something for which Calvin has argued in his notion of "Union with Christ". It is the idea that man in God's image has lost God's likeness in sin, though retained God's image, and in Christ we find that humanity has been united to the Image of God who is truly like God. For example, Thomas asks, "Lord when will you show us the Father." Jesus replies, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." It is in this union that we are made like God, participating in the divine nature because we can only participate in Christ, not part of him.

Let me know if you see holes in this. I realize we are coming from differing perspectives but I want to do my best to make sure that where we differ you at least find my critique charitable and that the arguments I present as yours are recognizable as such. Thanks again for taking the time to interact.

I don't know think that the Reformed view would be...

2006-05-14T23:20:00.000-07:00

I don't know think that the Reformed view would be the same as theosis because the Reformed do not have a doctrine of energies or a real distinction between the essence and energies in God. Just look at how Reformed exegetes deal with 2nd Pet 1:4. Do you become the divine nature or not? Along with Rome, & the Lutherans, the Reformed say "no."