Enjoy
Posted on 06/14/2005 4:01:43 PM PDT by sionnsar
A discussion Starter from Peter Toon
There was a time when the word “individual” was only an adjective and referred to one specific thing –e.g., an individual drop of rain, or an individual flavor/ texture of a fruit, or an individual person, or an individual page of a book, and so on . Now it is increasingly used as a noun for a human being, often to indicate a single human being as one unit of a community or society and distinct from all other “individuals.” Also it may be used to indicate a specific human being as having a uniqueness and thus different from all others – “John is a real individual.”
There have been many objections during the last century or so to the use of the word as a synonym for a single human being, especially where no contrast between one human being and others is implied. For example, take, “Three individuals were placed under arrest,” or “The local Mayor will make time for any individual who wants to talk to her/him.” In these cases, some argue (rightly, I judge) that it is better to use the nouns “people” or “person.”
In fact, it is probably the case that the use of “individual” for “person” increased in the cold war years when the West was standing against the collectivism of communism. It became the fashion to speak of the importance of the individual person (which became quickly “the individual” and thus achieved a kind of sanctity as a word).
For Christians, Jesus is unique, and not merely in one aspect, but in many. He alone is God become man without ceasing to be God. He alone as a man lived a totally perfect life of love for others. He alone is the One Mediator between God the Father and the human race. And so on.
The Church of God in her official dogma and doctrine has spoken of him as “One Person made known in Two Natures, Divine and Human “ (Council of Chalcedon, 451; and the Athanasian Creed from 5th century). Although the word “individual” can be used of him as an adjective (e.g., “ as distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost, he is an individual Person, even though he has the one identical Nature with the Father and the Holy Ghost”), it is not wise at all to use “individual” as a noun of him. Certainly, as the Messiah and Saviour, he stands apart from all others of the human race, but he is not an “individual” in the modern sense, for he is a corporate man, a representative man, the new Israel, and the second and new Adam. That is, he is totally bound by God’s design and covenant to those whom he came to identify with and save. He is a Person who in his Personhood is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Also in this same Personhood he is one with the human race for he is One Person made known in two natures, divine and human. Through his human nature he is one with mankind and especially so with the elect.
This being so, holy mother church has guided her members to speak of human beings also as persons, that is, persons with one nature, human, and with a unique human personality, rooted in that human nature, which is made in the image and after the likeness of God. (see e.g., in the classic editions of The Book of Common Prayer where candidates for baptism are called “persons”).
So it is not wise for the Church or preachers or Christian teachers to use the word “individual” as a noun to refer to a person made in the image and after the likeness of God. For, properly speaking, though each of us is an individual person, we are not strictly individualities, for we are united in the order of nature by blood and genes with our families/kith and kin and in the order of grace we are united with the members of the Body of Christ, who are our brethren for eternity! And as made in the image of God we reflect in our personhoods the tri-Personal Nature of God. Certainly each of us has to respond to God’s word and grace and this is an individual action, but it is the action of an individual person not an “individual.”
And, further, if we do insist on using it as a noun of a precious human being, then we need to be sure that we use it only in order to make a contrast which is both reasonable and is in accord with the basic Christian view of man/humanity. Perhaps it is best to avoid the word altogether as a noun for we do after all have other words to use. [Try going a week without using the word as a noun for a human being.]
Of course, we live in a society where “individualism” is rife and where the declared rights of “individuals” and the self-worth of “individuals: is taken for granted. The basis of this type of post-Enlightenment thinking is that the basic unit of any society is “the individual” and by the free choice of “individuals” a society or even church is formed. By voluntary association distinct “individuals” choose to create together a unit, or society, or church or whatever.
Christianity has a very different view – at least in its biblical theology, which knows no individualism as such. The primary unit is on the one side the representative Man (Adam and then Christ) in whom is contained the race of man or the elect of God, and on the other the family (be it the so-called extended family, or the tribe, or in Israel, the twelve tribes as One). Any member of these unities is an individual member or person but not an individual as such.
In the Church a person is baptized not only into union with Christ himself but also simultaneously into his Body, and thus each baptized believer is one member united to many members. And each member is an individual person, an individual Christian, not an individual in isolation! By Christian nurture and education, the Church seeks to make each of us aware that while we are individual persons with individual responsibility we are nevertheless not isolated units for we are inter-related. Rather, we are related units and we find our fulfillment and vocation in rightful unions and associations and vocations with others! Our individual talents are by the grace of God used for the common good and to fulfill duties to family, community, nation and local church.
Jesus was not an individual in his earthly ministry and in heaven now as our King, Priest and Prophet, he is not an individual, even though he possesses human nature perfected and glorified. He is a Person, an unique Person but a Person, eternally related to the Father and the Holy Ghost in Love in the Holy Trinity. We who are his brethren, because adopted by his Father as his children, are likewise not individuals but persons, each of us (by grace alone) having a personal relation with the Father, through and in Jesus. Thus we avoid and reject modern individualism for we belong to the fellowship and communion of the saints in glory.
June 14, 2005 petertoon@msn.com
Briefly, the distinction between "individual" and "person" is as follows:
The INDIVIDUAL is characterized and defined/ defines himself in terms of his differences from other individuals. Individualism is inherently and inevitably atomistic (hence profoundly contrary to human nature -- see below). Where it is the dominant functional philosophy, society is always in flux between the extremes of anarchy and collectivism (which is the revenge human nature takes on radical individualism), leaving man with a choice between the life of the solitary wasp or that of the hive.
The human PERSON, though unique, is defined in terms of his relation to other human persons. We come to know ourselves and to be ourselves in relation to others. Which is another way of saying that man is an inherently social being. Apart from a society, he is something less than human.
This inherent social nature is perhaps the most important aspect of the
image of the Triune God in man. One consequence of this is that man can only find personal fulfillment in communion with God. This fulfillment takes place -- and can only take place -- in the society of the Church "which is the blessed company of all faithful people," which is why the Church is in principle prior to any person's relationship with God. Thus the church is not a voluntary society constructed of individual believers, but an organic reality into which we are called by God and in which he brings us to faith.
What I meant by "pity" is that I'll be off for a while and won't be able to participate on this excellent forum.
Thank you all!
How does writing good fictions make somebody a big boy of Bible studies?
You've touched upon the same issue that first came to my mind. The use of the word 'individual' begs the question. Granted that most people who use the term, generally mean something other than the explicit semantic definition, this point touches upon a general point of view that may be more endemic to our Western thinking than we might perceive.
The New Testament definitely refers to the anthropology of man in terms of body, soul and spirit. The trichotomous composition of Adam prior to the fall and of the second Adam, as well as those who are regenerated in the spirit at the point of being born-again.
We are still appointed to suffer the first death, a separation of soul from body. The term 'individual' might induce some complicated fallacies if argued to explicitly, because man is not in-divisible, but rather very divisible. Discernible aspects of body, soul and spirit are the crux of understanding the Christian way of life, an occupation with Christ, and taking on the mind of Christ.
I have found it more appropriate when using the term 'person', to mean the syntactic understanding of the object. St Thomas and Boethian definitions are probably more appropriate. The original Greek reference to a mask as used in Greek plays or 'face to face' offers some insight.
Interesting point.
Enjoy
What a lame attempt at an insult.
Who is the cartoonist? AJA?
david shrigley
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.