The word "incarnation"

Hi, sorry it's been a while. I'm very pleased and honoured that my post questioning the Holy Spirit's personhood as a "lover" in the Social Trinitarian "dance", was finally published on the trinities.org blog as a guest post. Until Dale offered, I would never have considered that a likely outcome, but it certainly did generate a good deal of discussion, and I hope also thought and reflection about what we claim must biblically be the case.

Today is a quick post from an online etymological dictionary site on the word "incarnation":

incarnation (n.)

c. 1300, "embodiment of God in the person of Christ," from Old French incarnacion "the Incarnation" (12c.), from Late Latin incarnationem (nominative incarnatio), "act of being made flesh" (used by Church writers especially in reference to God in Christ; source also of Spanish encarnacion, Italian incarnazione), noun of action from past participle stem of Late Latin incarnari "be made flesh," from in- "in" (see in- (2)) + caro (genitive carnis) "flesh" (see carnage). Glossed in Old English as inflæscnes, inlichomung. As "person or thing that is the embodiment" (of some quality, deity, etc.) from 1742.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=incarnation

Fruity!

Debate continues regarding the Wheaton College now-suspension of professor Dr. Larycia Hawkins and her comment about Muslims and Christians worshipping the same God. Various points of view have been put forward, ranging from "yes, you can say that" to "no you absolutely cannot say that", through "it really depends what you mean by worship" and still further twists in the debate. One point that has come up is the question of reference. If for a moment you could suspend the issue of what worship means, and substitute it for "refer to", then the "yes-you-can-say-that" party basically do gain ground. These referentials really get my head spinning... But what about fruit?

"Remember the fruit we ate yesterday, I just loved those apples, didn't you?"
"No! They weren't apples! They were pears!"

Same fruit?

Dale Tuggy (I think): Yes, they are the same fruit, but with serious differences in properties. One or both of these recollections has to be incorrect concerning the properties of this fruit.

If that analogy is applicable, then we assume that referring to God is a bit like referring to a category of item. But look what pops out the other end of the logic machine: The apple IS the pear! OK, no-one is saying that AN apple is A pear, for their properties verifiably and consistently differ. So the "apple" of person A is the "pear" of person B - this does indeed appear less ludicrous than initially appeared.

The case seems more obvious, until you look closer at the word WORSHIP. If this is understood as simply a mechanistic event, like singing, praying or bowing, then I think it can indeed be equated with the past event of eating the fruit. However, Dr Hawkins' statement is more in line with a more dynamic and experiential reality, which we could perhaps parallel in the fruit example with the word "savour". This then marks a point of departure from the static comparison, for the person savouring the pear and the person savouring the apple, regardless of the initial reality, are now indeed savouring different fruit, and not the same fruit.

See also: http://faithandscripture.blogspot.fr/2016/01/wheaton-college-dispute-varying.html