Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    So there is no common ground? I believe in one God. I believe that God is the Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit. I believe the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit are three different persons. I believe the Bible (66 books).

    What did I say that is not true?
    That Jesus did not assume or add his human nature at the incarnation through Mary, but that Jesus had two natures before his incarnation; An "eternal" divine nature (which is true), and another nature that you call a "temporal" nature (which is not true). You then suggest that this "temporal" nature changed into his human nature at the incarnation.
    Quote me.
    Now I believe the Son of God only became human in the incarnation. That the Son of God has two natures, an eternal one, and temporal one. His human nature was a change in His temporal nature. And as the resurrected, now immortal man, He is "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." temporal but not temporary. He was always also eternal, and that never changed.


    I believe the Son of God was always both eternal and temporal being God's temporal agent.


    Not when I was explicit that was before the incarnation that the Logos always had two natures. Prior to the incarnation the Logos was nevertheless in the form of God. His eternal nature never changed. In His temporal nature, in which He as God created heaven and earth (John 1:3). Creation is a temporal act of God. He being the only begotten became human (John 1:14) is a temporal act. When He being the LORD God walked in the garden of Eden, that was a temporal act before His incarnation. He the Logos is the Uncaused Cause. Uncaused being eternal, being a cause it being temporal. Uncaused Cause is to have two natures. Eternal is a differnet nature than being temporal. He was both. Understand? His incarnation becoming human now forever, does not change this either. Since only how his temporal nature was, it only needed to change, and that is being temporal in nature, in that, is not a change. How He was temporal changed. How He was "with God" changed. That He "was God" never changed.


    Give the holy scripture.
    Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

    Hebrews 2:14-17 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
    I believe in the incarnation and virgin birth. In becoming man, He did not cease being God. That He lived a holy sinless life, died on the cross for sins of all men. And was buried and rose bodily as the first immortal man. Ascending into the heaven of heavens to be our mediator until He returns at His second coming.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      This was a favorite Arian proof-text (granted, the LXX reads "The LORD created me in the beginning of his way...").


      Source: Kevin Giles. The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (Kindle Locations 418-425). Kindle Edition.


      A historical example of one text leading the church into error is seen in the Arian debate, specifically on the question of the generation of the Son. The Arians of the fourth century constantly appealed to one text, Proverbs 8:22, in their "authorized version," the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), to prove that the Son, identified with personified Wisdom in this verse, was created in time by God the Father. In Greek the text does speak of the creation of Wisdom in time, but none of the Nicene fathers would allow this interpretation.17 For them the whole of Scripture made it clear that the Son was not a creature brought forth in time. This one discordant text, they argued, had to be interpreted in the light of what was primary and foundational in scriptural revelation. The renowned Reformed New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, noting how Christians often major on one text,I" makes the startling conclusion that "the fountainhead of all false biblical interpretation and of all heresy is invariably the isolation and the absolutising of one single passage.""

      © Copyright Original Source



      Note however how none of the Nicene fathers argued that Proverbs 8:22 didn't speak of the Son, but rather that the Arians misinterpreted the verse because they ignored passages in the Bible which clearly showed that the Son was eternal.
      ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        I believe in the incarnation and virgin birth. In becoming man, He did not cease being God. That He lived a holy sinless life, died on the cross for sins of all men. And was buried and rose bodily as the first immortal man. Ascending into the heaven of heavens to be our mediator until He returns at His second coming.
        I know you believe all of that. You also believe that Jesus had two natures before the incarnation. That isn't an orthodox view.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          I know you believe all of that. You also believe that Jesus had two natures before the incarnation. That isn't an orthodox view.
          That "orthodox" view knows nothing for or against it. It is silent. What it does profess, and I agree with, the Son of God has two natures being both fully God and becoming fully man.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            That "orthodox" view knows nothing for or against it. It is silent.
            It isn't silent, and certainly not on this matter. If it were silent we wouldn't have been having this discussion.

            What it does profess, and I agree with, the Son of God has two natures being both fully God and becoming fully man.
            It also professes that Christ assumed or added his second nature at his incarnation. That is the orthodox view that you challenge.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              It isn't silent, and certainly not on this matter. If it were silent we wouldn't have been having this discussion.
              Give one citation where they mention a pre-incarnate nature is not allowed? It is agreed that the Son had a pre-incarnate divine nature, being "of one essence with the Father.". The fact is saying the "the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages." is a different characteristic from the Father. I see it as another nature, in being the Son as distinct from the Father. While still being the same God as the Father.


              It also professes that Christ assumed or added his second nature at his incarnation. That is the orthodox view that you challenge.
              I never challenged that the incarnation became His seconded nature. I only asserted that there was another nature which was changed in the adding the incarnation. Not His divine nature had changed. If He only had a divine nature, I have argued then in that case, it did change being alone.
              Last edited by 37818; 03-11-2015, 02:21 PM.
              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                Give one citation where they mention a pre-incarnate nature is not allowed? It is agreed that the Son had a pre-incarnate divine nature, being "of one essence with the Father.".
                Are you playing games 37818 or do you really not understand the argument against your position? Why in the world would I want to find a citation that says that a pre-incarnate nature is not allowed? Of course a pre-incarnate nature is allowed! In keeping with orthodox belief, I believe that Jesus had ONE (1) pre-incarnate nature. A divine nature.

                You believe that Jesus had TWO (2) natures before his incarnation. That is not orthodox belief.

                I never challenged that the incarnation became His seconded nature.
                I don't know what this means. Who said that you "challenged that the incarnation became His seconded nature"? What I said that you challenged was that "Christ assumed or added his second nature at his incarnation."

                I only asserted that there was another nature which was changed in the adding the incarnation.
                This sentence its a little nonsensical, because an incarnation is not a thing that can be added. Its a process.

                At any rate, the view that there was another nature other than Christ's divine nature -- a nature that you call a "temporal" nature, and that you claim existed before the incarnation (that changed at the incarnation) -- that view is unorthodox.

                Not His divine nature had changed. If He only had a divine nature, I have argued then it did change being alone.
                I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this to you, but maybe if I put it in all caps.

                I UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT JESUS' DIVINE NATURE CHANGED AT THE INCARNATION.

                I NEVER thought you thought that. So you can stop repeating it like I didn't realize it. Okay?

                The issue that I have with your view is your belief that Jesus had TWO (2) natures before the incarnation, and that one of those natures (HIS TEMPORARY NATURE) changed at the incarnation. THAT IS UNORTHODOX. Jesus DID NOT have TWO (2) natures before his incarnation. He had ONE (1) nature before his incarnation. That one nature was divine.

                And the orthodox view is that at the incarnation Jesus assumed a second nature without changing the divine nature. I went into how that is possible in post #133, but instead of engaging that reply you hand waved it away and said it didn't make sense to you.
                Last edited by Adrift; 03-11-2015, 02:45 PM.

                Comment


                • Adrift.

                  Please make clear why the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages . . . begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, being begotten does not constitute a different nature from the Father's nature. Seen they both are one being the one divine nature?

                  I see two natures. One makes the Son distinct from the Father.
                  Last edited by 37818; 03-11-2015, 04:04 PM.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                    Adrift.

                    Please make clear why the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages . . . begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, being begotten does not constitute a different nature from the Father's nature. Seen they both are one being the one divine nature?
                    I have no idea what you're asking me here. It is you who are challenging the orthodox view on the two natures of Jesus, not me. Its your claim that Jesus has TWO (2) natures before the incarnation. The orthodox view is that Jesus had only ONE (1) nature before the incarnation and TWO after the incarnation.

                    The reason the early church formulated the concept of Jesus' two natures (1 before the incarnation, 2 after the incarnation) has to do with Jesus retaining his full divinity, in light of his adding a full humanity. You've taken the doctrine of the Two Natures of Jesus Christ, that was postulated specifically to explain the incarnation in light of the fact that Jesus is immutable in his divinity, and you've added to it, you've twisted it, and you've made it far more complex than it ought to be.

                    I see two natures. One makes the Son distinct from the Father.
                    I would agree that having two natures (AFTER THE INCARNATION) is one of the things that makes the Son distinct from the Father.
                    Last edited by Adrift; 03-11-2015, 04:41 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      I have no idea what you're asking me here. It is you who are challenging the orthodox view on the two natures of Jesus, not me. Its your claim that Jesus has TWO (2) natures before the incarnation. The orthodox view is that Jesus had only ONE (1) nature before the incarnation and TWO after the incarnation.
                      No. I do not believe traditional orthodox view is orthodox on all things. So far my understanding is been dismissed with "its not orthodox." And comes across as vilification rather than correction.
                      The reason the early church formulated the concept of Jesus' two natures (1 before the incarnation, 2 after the incarnation) has to do with Jesus retaining his full divinity, in light of his adding a full humanity. You've taken the doctrine of the Two Natures of Jesus Christ, that was postulated specifically to explain the incarnation in light of the fact that Jesus is immutable in his divinity, and you've added to it, you've twisted it, and you've made it far more complex than it ought to be.
                      Jesus having two natures in His incarnation, I do not see it as an issue. Since it is true.

                      Your understanding of "with God" came across as problematic. Since being "with" someone is not the same as being that someone. And the Son is not the Father. And the Son's deity is the Father. Two Persons the same God. Having the same nature as God "was God." So was both other than God and God too. The implication being He had and has nature which was not God. "The same was in the beginning with God." In the incarnation (v.14) which being a man is not God. But He did not cease being God. How He was "with God" changed.
                      "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." I understand two natures here, before the incarnation.




                      I would agree that having two natures (AFTER THE INCARNATION) is one of the things that makes the Son distinct from the Father.
                      The Son of God was always distinct from God. Even though being the Son He was also equal to God as God. Subordinate as the Son but equal as God.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                        No. I do not believe traditional orthodox view is orthodox on all things.
                        Its obvious that you don't believe that. But in light of that admission, shouldn't you change your faith tag so that people can identify you from those who do believe that the traditional orthodox view is orthodox on all things (especially the nature of Christ)?

                        So far my understanding is been dismissed with "its not orthodox." And comes across as vilification rather than correction.
                        I've corrected you several times now, and even warned you about the consequences of where your beliefs will lead you. You've chosen to hand wave them away.

                        Jesus having two natures in His incarnation, I do not see it as an issue. Since it is true.
                        You're playing games again. The issue, as I've repeated many times now, isn't that Jesus has two natures (which is the orthodox view), its that Jesus only had ONE (1) nature before his incarnation and then TWO (2) natures after his incarnation. You do not accept this. You believe instead that Jesus had TWO (2) natures before and after his incarnation. That is the issue.

                        Your understanding of "with God" came across as problematic. Since being "with" someone is not the same as being that someone.
                        John 1:1 is saying that Jesus and the Father have an interpersonal relationship and share a divine nature/essence.

                        And the Son is not the Father. And the Son's deity is the Father. Two Persons the same God. Having the same nature as God "was God."
                        Yes.

                        So was both other than God and God too.
                        More correctly, other than the Father, and God too.

                        The implication being He had and has nature which was not God.
                        Incorrect. Jesus assumed his second nature at the incarnation.

                        How He was "with God" changed.
                        If you are asserting that Jesus was sent, then yes, how he was with God changed. But his divine nature that he shares with God did not change.

                        "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." I understand two natures here, before the incarnation.
                        Whelp. You're wrong. Or at least, you're wrong according to orthodox doctrine on Jesus' Christology.




                        The Son of God was always distinct from God. Even though being the Son He was also equal to God as God. Subordinate as the Son but equal as God.
                        Yes. The Son of God is distinct from the Father in a number of ways including the particular roles they play within the Trinity, their respective relationship with one another, and their relation to creation.

                        Comment


                        • Like I said...He's dug himself a very deep hole and won't admit it.
                          Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                          Comment


                          • There are two things I feel I must note here, first, the reason 37818 that you have proposed for coming up with this second nature pre-incarnation is that you seem to think that if a being only has one nature, then an inherent quality of that nature must be that it is the only nature, which is false. Adding a human nature would not change the God nature unless that was a quality held by the God nature, which is not the usual understanding at all. An imperfect example is that if I am standing alone at a bus stop I have the quality of being alone, but it is not part of my nature to be alone, and so if someone joins me in waiting, I am no longer alone, but I retain my nature. Therefore, the idea that I needed an unmentioned essentially meaningless second person waiting with me before the person mentioned in my narrative arrived so as to make sure I never lost the quality of being alone, is pointless. And further, if we are adding arbitrary qualities to the nature of God, then one might say that the divine nature of the Son changed because the union changed from being between divine and temporal to divine and human, which is just as much a change as the one you are seeking to avoid. The orthodox understanding is the only one that may be logically held here.

                            My second point is more of a question. What is the temporal nature, can you name some qualities of it? Is it mentioned in Scripture other than your proof text of John 1:1-2? Which is properly understood imo, in the idea that Jesus was both God and with another who was God, aka the Father, or the Spirit. Which removes the perogative to imagine how Jesus could have been both God and with Himself without a second nature, because this text is not referring to his nature, it is referring to his essance of oneness within the Trinity, but distinctness from the Father, and Spirit.
                            Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                              My second point is more of a question. What is the temporal nature, can you name some qualities of it?
                              If I'm understanding 37818's view correctly, part of his thinking that Jesus had some sort of temporal nature before the incarnation is tied to his mistaken belief that the divine characteristic of immutability is static rather than dynamic. He seems to think that the divine nature cannot, of itself, do anything in time. It can't create, and it can't interact with its creation, because to do so, in his opinion, would necessitate change. So he came up with this concept of God having some stop-gap nature that would allow him to be in time, while the divine nature just chilled out. But that's clearly not what's in mind by the traditional view of God's immutability.

                              Speaking to this in defense of the doctrine of God's immutability from (primarily Open Theist) detractors, the professor of religion at Pepperdine University, Ron Highfield writes,

                              Source: Great Is the Lord: Theology for the Praise of God by Ron Highfield

                              What shall we say to these criticisms? First, let us deal with the critics' descriptions of the traditional doctrine. All of the critics mentioned present the tradition as if it were saying that God is unrelated, static, cold, aloof, unresponsive, and dead. But, as we have already seen, this caricature bears little resemblance to the God of the church fathers, Augustine, Aquinas, and orthodox Protestantism. For them, God is not "static" -- a term that applies to something that has potential for movement but is stuck in its present state -- but pure act. God's immutability is not the immutability of a rock but the immutability of a perfectly dynamic and unlimited life. ...God's immutability does not render him unrelated and aloof; rather, it guarantees his ability to be absolutely present as our totally reliable Creator. If God were not immutable, he could not come near to us -- as in the incarnation -- without being changed by the relationship. God could not be himself for us. Far from making God unresponsive and dead, his immutability assures us that God is life itself without any admixture of death (that is, mere potentiality). God is eternally and proactively our good in every situation.

                              © Copyright Original Source

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DesertBerean View Post
                                Like I said...He's dug himself a very deep hole and won't admit it.
                                No. I'm not digging the hole. But I am being pushed in to one that was already dug, not by me.

                                There is a saying:

                                "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity." -- Rupertus Meldenius

                                Now I see this disagreement on the preexistent nature of Christ before His incarnation to be a secondary issue. Not a matter, necessarily regarding salvation. Now if this disagreement leads to denial of some essentials of the faith, then in that case it is a problem.

                                The church teachers were teaching the Son of God being the only-begotten was do to some kind of being begotten of the Father before all ages. Which the person known as Arius is attributed to have written or said, "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he [the Son] had his substance from nothing."

                                My view is the only-begotten is of the Father before all ages, not begotten, not made. That the Nicene Creed intention is to quell the false view of Arius, saying "begotten, not made."

                                It is my understanding that the Biblical use of the term "begotten" regards to the Son of God is a prophecy of His bodily resurrection (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33). Signifying that Christ is the Son of God (Romans 1:4).

                                If this "hole" is do to my asking for the Biblical basis for "begotten of the Father before all ages." I have no disagreement with the intent. Just that it is unique as as fare as I can discern not Biblical. And as an interpretation not a matter against salvation to those who accept that in that creed. That "hole" has been here a lot longer, before I asked (4th century). Arius' error is based of this unbiblical notion of being "begotten of the Father" before creation.
                                Last edited by 37818; 03-12-2015, 09:13 PM.
                                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X