Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[One Bad Pig]

The Son of God is Yehwah of the OT.

Then what is the Father?

[One Bad Pig]

Adding a human nature changes the nature of the one becoming human. Prove otherwise.

It's YOUR assertion. YOU prove it.

All causes are temporal. It takes change to cause change. Prove otherwise.

This doesn't even come close to addressing my point.

The Son being a different person than God. Being "with God." Not the same person as God.

Again, you're dodging my point. Is the Son God?

I believe the Son being human has two natures, being both God and man. So how then is my Biblical understanding as it is make me lost?

You keep saying that, but you never argue from this position when you discuss the two natures of the Son.

Prove this understanding of yours for Acts 13:32-33 and context.

What are you trying to do, give me so much work that I'll give up and go away? I refuted YOUR assertion from context.

[JonathanL]

The Son of God is Yehwah of the OT. Yehwah is not a begotten god.

The Son of God is not a begotten God if by begotten we mean that the Son has a beginning. But that is not what we mean.

The teaching that the Son is begotten by the Father means that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Father. Do you deny that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Father, or do you hold that the source of the Son's essence and divinity is the Son Himself?

A timeless causation is identical with not being caused. If you do not understand this, then the only thing you then need to understand is that is what I understand. Timeless causation = never being caused at all.

You are confused because you think that being caused necessary implies change, which it does not. There is nothing to understand, because your identification of timeless causation with never being caused at all is confused. A more proper way to explain it would be that a timeless causation is an example of causation where the cause and effect exists simultaneously with no temporal change between the cause and effect.

[37818]

I do not see how the Son being eternal and Yahweh precludes him from being begotten of the Father. In fact, it's completely irrelevant, as far as I can see.

The Son of God is Yehwah of the OT. Yehwah is not a begotten god.

You have not shown this to be the cause. I believe that the Father begetting the Son in eternity is an example of timeless causation.

A timeless causation is identical with not being caused. If you do not understand this, then the only thing you then need to understand is that is what I understand. Timeless causation = never being caused at all.

[JonathanL]

Then what does it matter that I think differently. Believing that that the only begotten Son who is co-eternal with the Father, is not begotten to be so. You can phase it like that if you want to. But to me it means the same as not being begotten.

Then you do not understand what the Nicene creed means when it affirms that the Son is eternally begotten.

That is nonsense. There is no evidence of any cause not to be temporal, that is, to be a change causing a change. Omnipotence requires temporality it is meaningless.

And your understanding of causation is confused. A cause and effect relationship in no way or form necessitates change. For example, me being created in the image of God is the cause of me being a rational being and having free will, and this cause and effect relationship is not one that is characterised by change.

[37818]

I do not see how the Son being eternal and Yahweh precludes him from being begotten of the Father. In fact, it's completely irrelevant, as far as I can see.

Then what does it matter that I think differently. Believing that that the only begotten Son who is co-eternal with the Father, is not begotten to be so. You can phase it like that if you want to. But to me it means the same as not being begotten.

You have not shown this to be the cause. I believe that the Father begetting the Son in eternity is an example of timeless causation.

That is nonsense. There is no evidence of any cause not to be temporal, that is, to be a change causing a change. Omnipotence requires temporality it is meaningless.

[JonathanL]

Also, if the Son is not begotten by the Father, several things would seem to follow. One, it becomes inexplicable how it is that the Son and the Father share the same essence, since if the Son is the source of His own essence (instead of the Father communicating this essence to Him eternally and timelessly) it would seem to follow that there are two sources of divinity (three if you also deny the procession of the Holy Spirit) which would seem to give us not three persons in one being, but three persons in three beings.

Two, if the Son is not begotten by the Father, it is not clear to me how the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship can be affirmed. The doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son (That is, the teaching that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father) explains how the Son can be equal with the Father, because the Son shares in the Fathers being and divinity, but it also explains why He is the Son, rather than being the Father, on account of Him being begotten, rather than begetting.

[JonathanL]

The Son is not an effect of the Father any more, in this case, than the Father being an effect of the Son. Being the same Eternal. The same Yehwah.

I do not see how the Son being eternal and Yahweh precludes him from being begotten of the Father. In fact, it's completely irrelevant, as far as I can see.

All causes are temporal.

You have not shown this to be the cause. I believe that the Father begetting the Son in eternity is an example of timeless causation.

[37818]

Which is wrong.

Adding a human nature changes the nature of the one becoming human. Prove otherwise.

No. This may be the root of your error. You seem to classify the two natures of Christ as "eternal" and "temporal." That is wrong. The two natures of Christ are God and man. Yes, creation was in time - but it was as God that He created.

All causes are temporal. It takes change to cause change. Prove otherwise.

This is philosophically incoherent and not Biblical. Is God the Father an Uncaused Cause? Does HE have two natures?

The Son being a different person than God. Being "with God." Not the same person as God.

Wrong. Again, you misconceive the two natures of Christ. Your post here makes it clear you are in grievous error about this, and are unorthodox.

I believe the Son being human has two natures, being both God and man. So how then is my Biblical understanding as it is make me lost?

No, "Today I have begotten you" in Acts 13:33 does not refer to the resurrection of Christ, which makes no sense. Resurrection is not birth! Instead, it refers to the promise mentioned in verse 32 - that the Messiah would be born.

Prove this understanding of yours for Acts 13:32-33 and context.

[37818]

Good. Now, how does this reflect on your view that the Son had two natures, one eternal and one temporal, since he did not assume the human aspect until his incarnation?

Is eternal the same nature as temporal? Uncaused is eternal in nature. All causes are temporal. The uncaused cause has two natures. But is One being. (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17, this is the Uncaused Cause.)

[37818]

Great, I hold to the eternal Sonship of the second person of the Trinity as well. I believe that the eternal source/origin/cause of the Son's being/substance and divinity is the Father, and since the Father is eternal so too must the Son be eternal, since a cause can not exist without it's effect.

The Son is not an effect of the Father any more, in this case, than the Father being an effect of the Son. Being the same Eternal. The same Yehwah.

[One Bad Pig]

Not when I was explicit that was before the incarnation that the Logos always had two natures.

Which is wrong.

Prior to the incarnation the Logos was nevertheless in the form of God. His eternal nature never changed.

Yes.

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.

No. This may be the root of your error. You seem to classify the two natures of Christ as "eternal" and "temporal." That is wrong. The two natures of Christ are God and man. Yes, creation was in time - but it was as God that He created.

He the Logos is the Uncaused Cause.

Yes.

Uncaused being eternal, being a cause it being temporal. Uncaused Cause is to have two natures.

This is philosophically incoherent and not Biblical. Is God the Father an Uncaused Cause? Does HE 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.

Wrong. Again, you misconceive the two natures of Christ. Your post here makes it clear you are in grievous error about this, and are unorthodox.

That He "was God" never changed.

True.

The Son who in time "this day" God says, "I have begotten you." Speaking of His bodily resurrection, declaring His Son's Sonship (Romans 1:4). That term "begotten" in regards to God and His Son is not being used any other way. Explain otherwise then, if possible. Exegetically "begotten" refers to Christ's resurrection (Acts 13:33). Anything else would be eisegetical.

No, "Today I have begotten you" in Acts 13:33 does not refer to the resurrection of Christ, which makes no sense. Resurrection is not birth! Instead, it refers to the promise mentioned in verse 32 - that the Messiah would be born.

[37818]

I can't be. However, when you state implying that that the Son has always had a human nature, that is a heretical statement.

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.

Why should it ever be the case? How can you manufacture a contradiction from silence? If what is stated is compatible with scripture, even if the wording is not found there, how can it be a contradiction?

The Son who in time "this day" God says, "I have begotten you." Speaking of His bodily resurrection, declaring His Son's Sonship (Romans 1:4). That term "begotten" in regards to God and His Son is not being used any other way. Explain otherwise then, if possible. Exegetically "begotten" refers to Christ's resurrection (Acts 13:33). Anything else would be eisegetical.

[One Bad Pig]

But not all issues are essential to salvation.

Agreed.

The how can you be sure my view is heresy?

I can't be. However, when you state

I hold the Son of God as the Logos always had two natures.

implying that that the Son has always had a human nature, that is a heretical statement.

That the trinity of God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, is eternal and has no beginning.

Ok.

It can be so. But that is not always the case.

Why should it ever be the case? How can you manufacture a contradiction from silence? If what is stated is compatible with scripture, even if the wording is not found there, how can it be a contradiction?

Either the issue of eternal Sonship is a matter of salvation or it is not. Even though I believe that the Son of God was always the Son. In agreement with that meaning of the Nicene Creed. I do not believe that concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son is a matter of salvation. Though I reject that view, holding to the view of eternal Sonship.

Ok.

[DesertBerean]

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. " -- Philippians 2:5-8.

Good. Now, how does this reflect on your view that the Son had two natures, one eternal and one temporal, since he did not assume the human aspect until his incarnation?