Experimental Theology Two

Up until the Council of Chalcedon in 451, there were several competing views concerning how to understand the nature of Christ. The two main non-heretical theories were monophysitism (one nature which is divine) and the Chalcedonian definition or the hypostatic union (two natures, one divine and one human).

For the purposes of this experiment let’s use Gordon Clark’s definition of ‘person’ and apply it to every individual who has lived on earth throughout Biblical history.  Clark’s definition of ‘person’ is ‘a complex of propositions’.

If every man is an individual unique complex of propositions which includes everything about him, body and soul, every facet of his being, how would Christ, the Logos, be beyond this definition.  If He is not reasonably beyond this definition, how might it change our understanding going forward?

Is it worth the effort to try to know and understand our Lord and our own person-hood perhaps a little bit better?  What is the worst that can happen?  We come out with a better handle on truth whichever way it goes!

Comments welcome!

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s