On the Pope

Lee Harris writes an interesting article at the Weekly Standard about the Pope's recent lecture.

I don't like the Greek bent on it, but if that is what the Pope was talking about, then I think this article clears up a lot.

The Names of God

This is an interesting article about the names of God. Many of the Jehovah-[] names are about God, but they are not names of God. They are instead names of places and alters, or just statements describing God's character. The article is not long, so I commend it to you.

Free Theological Resources

Here's a link to Biblical Training.

Here's a link to Monergism.

Enjoy!

More Hypostatic Union

I think I have arrived at the point of understanding how "No one"..."but the Father" is consistent with the hypostatic union. In the ears of Jesus's hearers, they were not aware of the Trinity, yet. Therefore, "no one" is working with the people's current knowledge (or lack of knowledge) about the Trinity. In addition, Son must refer to the human nature of Christ for us to have an understanding of Christ that is consistent with the rest of Scripture.

Some other intersting concepts I had never heard of before...
-Jesus Christ is the name of the God-Man. Only the divine nature existed, before the incarnation, as the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. At the incarnation - boom - the God-man Jesus Christ, the Word became flesh, put on flesh, had a complete human nature (under the curse of Adam, but without the orignal sin) while maintaining a complete divine nature. Mind bending, but what an amazing thing we celebrate at Christmas. Even if Santa were able to zip from house to house to drop off presents in one night (he could always delegate, you know), the incarnation is by far a greater miracle and is worthy of our attention and reflection.
-Christ did not lose his human nature at the assension (and thus cease to become the Christ). His human nature was and is now glorified. His human nature was and is no longer under the curse of Adam.

Hypostatic Union and The Day and Hour

Through the exhortation of a brother in Christ, I have been learning about the Hypostatic Union. I am perplexed by a statement of Christ in Matthew 24:36 and I am wondering how this is reconciled with the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Jesus says, "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."

I would not have a problem if the Jesus said, "The Son does not know the day or the hour" because then we could say that he was speaking about his human nature. But he does not say this. He puts his statement in a negative form to exclude all persons, but a single member of the Trinity. And because he included, "the Son," it makes clearer the distinction that it is not his humanity he speaks of, but his distinction in the Trinity.

If I am unclear, the problem is this: how is Christ the fullness of God in His omniscience, knowing all things, and at the same time, not knowing the day nor the hour. If anyone suggests Monophysitim, I will call you on it. Please comment.

More on Ebryonic Stem Cell Research

I apologize for the long delay, but I have Internet now and will be able to respond to the thoughtful comments on one of my recent posts.

In order:

Paul, I agree that my knowledge of embryonic development is limited and that there may be a difference between an embryo and stem cells. I would then ask, what is the difference. Do the stem cells have a shell or are there other kinds of cells that make up the embryo at that time in the humans life? After I wrote my post, I did see an article in the National Review Online that expresses my opinion:

It is also not clear if cells removed from embryos at that very early stage do not themselves, when isolated, have the ability to develop as full individual embryos. The question here is whether embryo biopsy amounts to a form of induced identical twinning. That question, too, suggests the ethics of this proposed technique are very much in doubt.

It may be that stem cells do not a human make, but there is reason to suspect that it could.

Adam, For the sake of argument, couldn't fusion be the natural death (as opposed to unnatural death) of one of the souls, much like a miscarriage or the separation of conjoined twins where only one survives? Anyway, I know you weren't being definitive one way or the other, but we are talking about two viable organisms where only one results. And for your assurance about the twinning thing, here are some comments on twinning at Wikipedia:

Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of an existing, or previously existing human or growing cloned tissue from that individual. The term is generally used to refer to artificial human cloning: human clones in the form of identical twins are commonplace, with their cloning occurring during the natural process of reproduction.

Kaarlo, I do think that so long as embryos are intentionally created through IVF, and effort is not made for their survival (being placed in a womb) it is wrong. I also hold that is wrong to use research found through inhumane practices. It gives incentive for others to practice inhumanely such as those who do it in the name of the greater good. They need a clear message that their deeds, if made public, will be for nought. I thank you for making sure that I remain consistent with my views. By the way, could you email me your current address? We have contact information to send you.

Home