tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post7927860726115145308..comments2024-03-28T19:03:49.275+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Jesus obeyed the Father so wives would obey husbands?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-15736496371700522592011-01-23T18:06:54.439+13:002011-01-23T18:06:54.439+13:00Greetings David
The only difference in my view is...Greetings David<br /><br />The only difference in my view is that I wouldn’t tend to use “opposed to” where you do. I affirm Jesus fully human and fully divine (in spite of Peter’s reduction of that as a political solution – I have no issue with seeing God acting through messy politics, and flawed human motivation – in fact I struggle to find any non-flawed processes – including in the church!). And can see that expressed in different ways in your sentences. I have had wonderful fellowship (particularly) with Armenians (Oriental Orthodox) and understand how language can be understood differently by different peoples. Certainly in NZ we have little awareness of the history of Oriental Orthodoxy, and most, if they think about it at all, would be unaware of its significance a thousand years later than the 5th century most would think that diminished. I have personally seen their influence as far East as China – a wonderful possibility for dialogue still awaits there.<br />I would suggest that many Christians balk at understanding Jesus as fully human. Others as fully divine. I think the development and relationship with Islam is in that also – but that’s probably doctoral thesis, rather than blog-type comment.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31604403410343510442011-01-23T07:42:05.773+13:002011-01-23T07:42:05.773+13:00So I understand, Bosco, you are comfortable with t...So I understand, Bosco, you are comfortable with the Oriental Orthodox position, correct?<br /><i>In the one person of Jesus Christ, divinity and humanity are united in one nature, the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration.</i><br /><br />As opposed to the Chalcedon view;<br /><i>The humanity and divinity are exemplified as two natures and that the one hypostasis of the Logos perfectly subsists in these two natures.</i><br /><br />I am probably a Spongian;<br /><i>That in the person of Jesus Christ the disciples believed that they had encountered the living God.</i>Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74563851673541882302011-01-22T23:34:51.829+13:002011-01-22T23:34:51.829+13:00You are right, John, it is astonishing. Knowing Pe...You are right, John, it is astonishing. Knowing Peter Adams a little I imagine the ticking off was given deservedly!<br /><br />I also unsurprised that such a wise man makes no link in that article between the subordination of women and the Trinity!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-89181314667407642432011-01-22T23:12:04.762+13:002011-01-22T23:12:04.762+13:00Weren't the Chalcedonians pawns in ancient imp...Weren't the Chalcedonians pawns in ancient imperial power games?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-55802014340180579132011-01-22T22:46:53.518+13:002011-01-22T22:46:53.518+13:00I’m fine with the Chalcedonian minority, thanks Pe...I’m fine with the Chalcedonian minority, thanks Peter.liturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-16308847383179864692011-01-22T21:54:25.950+13:002011-01-22T21:54:25.950+13:00I've just read the Adam article, which is an a...I've just read the Adam article, which is an astonishing 'ticking off', especially from such a gentle man.<br /><br />Thanks for that!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-34850869841401365102011-01-22T19:45:09.229+13:002011-01-22T19:45:09.229+13:00So which crowd are you with, Bosco? The Docetists ...So which crowd are you with, Bosco? The Docetists or the Arians? :)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80739282625737755492011-01-22T19:11:04.772+13:002011-01-22T19:11:04.772+13:00Greetings
I think Sal Bateman may be confusing th...Greetings<br /><br />I think Sal Bateman may be confusing the immaculate conception of Mary with the virginal conception of Jesus?<br /><br />I also think the majority of Christians are either Arian or Docetist – be it Sydney, Melbourne, or elsewhere; this century or any other.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36208357223220323742011-01-22T14:52:01.919+13:002011-01-22T14:52:01.919+13:00Hi Sal Bateman (canoewolf),
Thanks for commenting ...Hi Sal Bateman (canoewolf),<br />Thanks for commenting (but please use at least your first, legal name).<br /><br />I do not think a receiver is automatically subordinate. My way of expressing that was to refer to a difference between men and women which applies for the whole of married life ... but I accept that it is hard to get it completely right when trying to come up with the best and also perfect analogy.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10719151208544586852011-01-21T23:44:23.786+13:002011-01-21T23:44:23.786+13:00Where I think your analogy falls down is the refer...Where I think your analogy falls down is the reference to women as 'sperm receivers'. This is automatically a subordinate view. Women produce the egg to which the sperm must join - thus an equal partner in the act of procreation. Moreover, the doctrine of the immaculate conception does not undermine the role Mary had biologically.canoewolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08851436133126854570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-86683063242812445092011-01-21T05:42:06.520+13:002011-01-21T05:42:06.520+13:00In some ways, Andrew, the significant challenge fo...In some ways, Andrew, the significant challenge for some theologians based in Sydney is not so much avoiding Arianism, but finding a theological method which rises beyond such a close adherence to texts from Scripture that it ends up looking like Arianism!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-1246842894007141872011-01-21T02:34:17.818+13:002011-01-21T02:34:17.818+13:00Hi Peter,
Just for a bit of added flavour to the t...Hi Peter,<br />Just for a bit of added flavour to the thread, our former Australian primate Peter Carnley held a collquium on this issue a number of years ago, entitled "Is the diocese of Sydney Arian?" Only problem was he didn't invite them to attend (it was in Melbourne), but invited the Principal of Ridley College Melbourne, Peter Adam, to respond. Before getting to the substance of his remarks, Peter Adam accused the Primate publicly of dishonoring Christ by using the event as a political attack rather than a genuine theological discussion! So, let's be a bit careful (as you were Peter) about throwing around accusations of Arianism. See the whole address here:<br />http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_119_1_Adam.pdf<br /><br />For people who usually hold to the Bible so strongly, those who use the eternal subordination argument as a model for husbands and wives are on pretty thin ground scripturally. (NB I'm not considering here the broader subordination debate, just its applicability to husbands and wives) Eph. 5 uses the model of Christ and the church for husbands and wives, not Christ and the Father. In 1 Peter 3, submitting to kings and rulers is used as a model. 1 Cor 11:3 is about as close as it gets, and yet many seem to believe the meaning is closer to "source" rather than "head". Not exactly a compelling case.<br /><br />PS To declare an interest, Andrew Moody (whom you link to) is from my home parish in Melbourne.Andrew Reidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-6108096838960818492011-01-21T00:09:36.527+13:002011-01-21T00:09:36.527+13:00Joshua Bovis,
excellent points.
One comment: w...Joshua Bovis, <br /><br />excellent points. <br /><br />One comment: while it is true that no one should make the leap from subordinationism to Eph 5:22 (though there are some texts that do suggest it 1 Cor 11), the subordination position does provide an important biblical principle: beings may be ontologically equal while functionally inequal. <br /><br />The Principle does establish a basis for suggesting that the submission of wife to husband does NOT, contrary to the egalitarian argument, imply an inequality of being between the two.Matt Kennedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10975005135486296368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60212108762866155912011-01-20T20:36:01.996+13:002011-01-20T20:36:01.996+13:00Thanks for wise comments, Joshua and Ron!Thanks for wise comments, Joshua and Ron!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74060781804343187402011-01-20T15:13:00.017+13:002011-01-20T15:13:00.017+13:00"Jesus' intercession is that the Father w..."Jesus' intercession is that the Father will accept us. In every instance the Father accedes to the Son's direction". - Peter Carrell -<br /><br />A very tricky supposition here Peter. The word about his intention - re the interaction between Jesus and The Father - is *intercession*. This does not equate with with the word 'demand'.<br /><br />In other words; The Father agrees to the request of Jesus, graciously<br />There is no question of submission.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpresscomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-28599156724541535352011-01-20T13:56:43.544+13:002011-01-20T13:56:43.544+13:00Peter,
Oh one more thing,
I am not certain that ...Peter,<br /><br />Oh one more thing,<br /><br />I am not certain that there is a direct correlation between the nature of trinitarian relationships and the relationship between husband/wife etc. <br /><br />Thus I think to use the relationship between the Father and the Son to buttress the case for male headship is a wee bit overstated. I think the case for male headship is clear without having to appeal to the divine nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-344324451519196102011-01-20T13:47:08.112+13:002011-01-20T13:47:08.112+13:00Peter,
My understanding of ESOTS (Eternal Subordi...Peter,<br /><br />My understanding of ESOTS (Eternal Subordination of the Son) is that the nature of the subordination is one of function, and it is not ontological. <br />Your question:<br /><b>how do we know that the mutuality within the Godhead (of God being God, rather than God as revealed to us as God who comes to us as creator and redeemer) is chiefly characterised by eternal subordination of the Son to the Father? </b> is a good one. <br /><br />A couple of comments:<br />1. After his resurrection, Jesus is given a seat that is subordinate to God. He is seated at the right had of the Majesty, the Power of God: [Hebrews 1:3; 8:1; Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69; Acts 5:31] <br /><br />2. The Father has bestowed the kingdom to the Son just as the Son will bestow the kingdom to his disciples (Luke 22:29). <br /><br />3. Jesus declares that he cannot give specific positions in the coming heavenly kingdom but only the Father has that authority. [Matthew 20:20-23 (Mark 10:35-40)]<br /><br />4.Jesus hands the kingdom to his Father and is eternally subjected to God. [1 Corinthians 15:24-28]<br /><br />These texts show that even though the Son has all authority over others (Matthew 28:18) this authority is not over his Father and that Jesus <i> always </i> receives the authority from his Father. He will give it back to his Father but he never bestows authority on his Father. Even though he has all authority over others, some authority will continue to be reserved for the Father alone, even in the Kingdom.<br /><br />Though as I said previously, Jesus subordination is functional not ontological.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59500939529267335862011-01-20T08:53:57.201+13:002011-01-20T08:53:57.201+13:00This is excellent and I think your analogy of moth...This is excellent and I think your analogy of mother/father dynamics is hugely helpful. I will update and suggest people read this. Thank you.Rev R Marszalekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831340057673771787noreply@blogger.com