Monday, December 29, 2014

On The Problem of Language & The Incarnation

I find it very difficult to explain to people how I think about the Trinity and the Incarnation. My primary doctrines are more or less just orthodox and mainstream. I believe in the Trinity, I believe that God put on flesh (was literally 'incarnated') in Jesus Christ. The simple fact of the matter is that I think that Jesus was truly ALL human and ALL divine. That Jesus was both almost painfully ordinary and beyond our imaginings. No humanizing of Jesus in any way offends me...for it  just makes it that much more profound that He was, in fact, God. Nor do I deny that Jesus was in any ways 'special'. I don't think we are all God in the same way He was...I don't think anyone, anywhere, was God in the way He was. If you don't believe that God has or exercises coercive power, then believing there was only one possible Incarnation makes a lot MORE sense. Jesus was the culmination of a long process, and we cannot expect Him to 'happen' again any time soon.

But when I get into the mechanics of all this, people lose me. That is partly because I reject substance ontology. I think relations are more fundamental than objects. Because people speak and think in substance ontology naturally, because of the way English has developed, explaining to people what I mean by all of this can be frighteningly difficult.

Here I've compiled a list of posts and explanations that hopefully will make things clearer. If you read through all of this and still have questions, feel free to post them here, on my Facebook page, or on my Twitter @JoshuaOrsak.

Here I try to get into the difference between substance and relational ontology and how it changes our views on the Trinity and the Incarnation:

Here is an essay from seminary on the same subject:

This is a section from an unpublished book of mine on process pneumatology, and how process thought changes our view of the Holy Spirit

This shows how modern relational ontology changes or views of the Incarnation without necessarily destroying them:

I hope these are helpful.

No comments:

Post a Comment