The Light of Tabor: Notes Toward a Monistic Christology, Lecture 4

The penultimate chapter in this year's Stanton Lectures, again recorded--with questionable success--by the diabolical contraption known as the "Owl."

[@Landbeorht]

DBH looking good

[@kevinreddington4251]

Seriously looks like he’s lost a ton of weight. Very good to see him healthy.

[@colingallagher1648]

thanks for all these

[@johnmallonee2088]

When will the “For Dummies” version of the lecture be available? 😮. And for much of Hart’s published work as well …

[@superfreak777]

Never, but familiarising yourself with the metaphysical and theological terrain by reading and listening to those of scholastic lineage, and conversing with those doing the same, over several years, should be sufficient to follow him in all but the most particular details.

[@RootinrPootine]

Some of his books are for gen pub and some are more academic books. Experience of god is for general public, it may seem hard but it’s actually very patient and repeats key ideas very often and you can keep rereading it, it’s not obscure keep at it.

[@Aaron-xb4rq]

David, why does the Church use adoption language if man is always already both divine and human by nature (i.e., inherently christic)? Aren't we by nature as Christ quotes, "gods, sons of the Most High"?

[@leavesinthewind7441]

Well, Romans and Ephesians both use adoption language too. But, of course, even “huiopoiesis” or “huiothesia” is simply a claim made on another person of kindred nature, and it has many shades of application in Greek.

[@Aaron-xb4rq]

​@@leavesinthewind7441It just seems that in the common Orthodox teaching the scales are often tipped to "being made gods by grace" at the expense of the recognition of man's inherent, divine-human nature, as if man could become something that he isn't always already by nature. I can't express how hopeful and appreciative I am to hear what you've shared in these talks. Thank you!

[@leavesinthewind7441]

@@Aaron-xb4rqof course it is by grace. But the great error is to imagine that grace and nature are opposed principles. Grace is nothing but the loving restoration of a wounded nature to fullness.

[@Aaron-xb4rq]

@@leavesinthewind7441 Precisely. With this understanding, would you also say that the purpose of the incarnation was not (as is commonly taught) to unite ontologically separate divine and human natures?