tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post7798690422448547110..comments2011-05-20T17:44:41.206-04:00M. Jay Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14196144533530725736noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post-83384055290975716802008-05-30T16:32:00.000-04:002008-05-30T16:32:00.000-04:00

Thanks for the recommendation Roger. I'll get that from Amazon ASAP.

M. Jay Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14196144533530725736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post-483276566010884272008-05-30T16:14:00.000-04:002008-05-30T16:14:00.000-04:00

By the way, Jay, I'd recommend reading Gordon Clark's book, <I>The Incarnation</I>, if you can find the time. It will provide you with some serious “sharpening,” if you know what I mean. I’m sure you won’t agree with a number of his conclusions, but it will definitely challenge you to think through what you believe in greater detail. If you don’t want to buy it, simply email me your postal

rgmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18350892815584257304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post-33947470469531480182008-05-30T14:07:00.000-04:002008-05-30T14:07:00.000-04:00

Thanks Roger. It is always a pleasure to discuss Christian doctrine with you. I appreciate your humility and tenacity. Many Christians find hard thinking about God to be superfluous. I think it is an essential part of our call to discipleship. <BR/><BR/>Your tough questions helped me think about Chalcedonian Christology a bit deeper than I had done before. Thanks for the sharpening my friend!<BR/

M. Jay Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14196144533530725736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post-39556183637207073712008-05-29T23:25:00.000-04:002008-05-29T23:25:00.000-04:00

Hi Jay,<BR/><BR/>I really want to thank you for the time and effort you put in explaining the Chalcedonian Definition to me. I have to admit that your explanation is very persuasive, and the doctrine makes much more sense to me than it had previously. As I said before, I hadn’t rejected the Chalcedonian Definition at this point; I was merely questioning some things and playing “devil’s advocate”

rgmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18350892815584257304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post-13639524698505425392008-05-29T17:07:00.000-04:002008-05-29T17:07:00.000-04:00

Roger,<BR/><BR/><I>I don’t quite see how what I said amounts to a non-sequitur. If the only person <B>in the incarnation</B> is the divine Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity (as Chalcedon affirms), then it necessarily follows that the incarnate Christ is only a divine person; He is not a human person in any sense at all.</I><BR/><BR/>The non-sequitur comes with the preposistional phrase "in

M. Jay Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14196144533530725736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post-5500040995305830312008-05-29T15:11:00.000-04:002008-05-29T15:11:00.000-04:00

Hi Jay,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for getting back to my questions. I’m glad to hear that you had a nice vacation. You wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>I'm tracking with you all the way up to the em dash. From that point forward, I think you have constructed a non-sequitur.</I><BR/><BR/>I don’t quite see how what I said amounts to a <I>non-sequitur</I>. If the <I>only</I> person in the incarnation is the divine Logos,

rgmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18350892815584257304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post-21100942511635788752008-05-28T23:08:00.000-04:002008-05-28T23:08:00.000-04:00

Roger,<BR/><BR/>Yes. This is the Chalcedonian understanding of the person of Jesus Christ. <BR/><BR/>I apologize for not responding sooner. I spent some time preparing a response today. It is what follows.<BR/><BR/>Hi Roger,<BR/><BR/>I apologize for not responding to your post sooner. I've been vacationing with the family this weekend and just got back into the office. That doesn't normally stop

M. Jay Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14196144533530725736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post-26438665484220092822008-05-28T14:55:00.000-04:002008-05-28T14:55:00.000-04:00

Hi Jay,<BR/><BR/>I was just reading Robert Reymond’s treatment of the Chalcedonian Definition in his <I>Systematic Theology</I>, and his main point <I>seems</I> to be the same as yours. He writes:<BR/><BR/>“Jesus was personal, as a man, by virtue of the union of his manness in the person of the Son. In other words, as a person, the Son of God gave personal identity to the human nature which he

rgmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18350892815584257304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post-63750373895508461702008-05-23T14:07:00.000-04:002008-05-23T14:07:00.000-04:00

I’m reposting this because I’m not sure if it went through when I posted it yesterday. If there’s a reason why you don’t want to post it please let me know. My email is rgmann@kc.rr.com<BR/><BR/>Thanks<BR/><BR/>Hi Jay,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your response. Please bear with me, and I’ll try to explain the difficulties I see with the Chalcedonian Definition a little better. I’m not in any way trying

rgmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18350892815584257304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post-5410161555129162892008-05-22T14:36:00.000-04:002008-05-22T14:36:00.000-04:00

Hi Jay,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your response. Please bear with me, and I’ll try to explain the difficulties I see with the Chalcedonian Definition a little better. I’m not in any way trying to say that I have this all figured out (or trying to trip you up in your answers), I’m just trying to think through these difficulties and bounce some ideas off you.<BR/><BR/><I>You wrote: <B>it wasn’t merely a

rgmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18350892815584257304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post-23525619272842406062008-05-21T23:34:00.000-04:002008-05-21T23:34:00.000-04:00

Also, I forgot to mention this: You referenced the portion of the translation of the definition I originally posted which reads: "the characteristics of each nature being preserved and <B>coming together to form one person</B>."<BR/><BR/>This translation is a bit misleading. It is not as if there was no person until the two natures came together to form it. As you say, the eternal Son has always

M. Jay Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14196144533530725736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post-42714783753361478852008-05-21T23:31:00.000-04:002008-05-21T23:31:00.000-04:00

Hi Roger,<BR/><BR/>Let me begin by saying that the church has historically viewed the incarnation of the Son of God as mystery of mysteries. The <I>Chalcedonian Definition</I> is not as much meant to explain the incarnation as it to give us the boundaries of what we must say about it, on the one hand, and cannot say about it on the other. What we must say is that Jesus Christ was one person with

M. Jay Bennetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14196144533530725736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20164035.post-32019966004742473392008-05-21T13:18:00.000-04:002008-05-21T13:18:00.000-04:00

<I>The distinction of natures [divine and human] being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form <B>one person</B> and subsistence, not as parted or separated into <B>two persons</B>, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.</I><BR/><BR/>Hi Jay. I have to admit that this part of the

rgmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18350892815584257304noreply@blogger.com