The Nestorian Bible?

“[I’he] whole of Scripture is the product of the divine activities which enter it, not by superseding the activities of the human authors, but by working confluently with them, so that the Scriptures are the joint product of divine and human activities, both of which penetrate them at every point, working harmoniously together to the production of a writing which is not divine here and human there, but at once divine and human in every part, every word and every particular.”

B.B. Warfield, “The Divine and Human in the Bible,” The Presbyterian Journal, May 3, 1894.

“[T]he organic nature of Scripture…implies the idea that the Holy Spirit, in the inscripturation of the Word of God, did not spurn anything human to serve as an organ of the divine. The revelation of God is not abstractly supernatural but has entered into the human fabric, into persons and states of being, into forms and usages, into history and life. It does not fly high above us but descends into our situation: it has become flesh and blood, like us in all things except sin. Divine revelation is now an ineradicable constituent of this cosmos in which we live and, effecting renewal and restoration, continues its operation. The human has become an instrument of the divine, the natural has become a revelation of the supernatural; the visible has become a sign and seal of the invisible. In the process of inspiration, use has been made of all the gifts and forces resident in human nature.”

Herman Bavink, Reformed Dogmatics I, 442-443

9 Responses to The Nestorian Bible?

  1. photios says:

    Monophysitism locates the union of human and divine at the level of nature.

    Cyrillians locate the union of human and divine at the level of person.

    Nestorians locate the union of human and divine at the level of the object that is willed or coordinated by one to the other.

  2. Fr. John says:

    You lost me again- yet further! LOL Please elucidate, using only Freshman H.S. vocabulary, IYP.

  3. photios says:

    I think the point that Perry is trying to make is that there is not an intrinsic relation, by dent of the person, between the human and divine in the enscripturation process. Rather it appears that the union is in the ‘object of will,’ the product of enscripturation, rather than in the human person itself. There would be an intervening attribute of “decree”, “predestination” between the human and divine. This is why it is Nestorianism, anthropolocal style.

    Photios

  4. Fr. John says:

    Well, I’ll be honest, and say you lost me in the comments. IS what Warfield and Bavinck completely incorrect? Does the Orthodox Church teach differently on the transmission of Scripture from godly men, indwelt by the Holy Ghost?

    I would hazard to guess that is the question others would ask, upon seeing Calvinist writers quoted on this blog….

  5. Maniacal laughter? I assume this has something to do with the Sith Lord/Apprentice (Palpatine/Vader) thing you two have going on here…

  6. Hehehe..read the next post. One of my favorites.

  7. Photios,

    Patristic ordo: Observe the personal acts of Christ/God—>Make deductions about God and man from active natural powers.

    Dialectical M.: Make deductions from the general idea of something drawn from the norms of sense-perception or observed kinesis within the fallen world—->Start doing theology.

  8. Is person some-“thing” that you attribute to a nature? Or is a nature predicable of a person? It seem like all the difference in the world can be made with that simple ordo.

    Photios

  9. If Persons are part of the content or subsumable under the category of nature, then Nestorianism is necessary to avoid perceived Monophytism in Christology & Monergism necessary to avoid perceived Pelagianism or the identification of the created and uncreated natures in divine-human relations. An act can only be ascribed to one and only one subject, and there can be no wholly human and wholly divine act; this is what happens when one starts with general concepts rather than the reality of the acting subject (Christ.)

%d bloggers like this: