Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[37818]

Stop all of you. Accussing me of stuff that is not what I believe. The Son of God did not become a man until His incarntion. Before we go any further, please let me establish what I believe where my beliefs are orthodox and Biblical. Point by point first. You can all start by reading my profile.

[Pentecost]

Oh, I fully believe you are orthodox. I apologize if my statements implied that I thought you were. I do not apologize if my statements implied I think what you said was unorthodox... Because without better explanation I do.

[Leonhard]

Before we go any further, please let me establish what I believe where my beliefs are orthodox and Biblical. Point by point first. You can all start by reading my profile.

I took the liberty of taking these quotes and arranging them as a list, because in your profile they were arranged in a format that wasn't all that easy to get an overview on.

• I believe the one true God as one Person being the Father.
• I hold the trinity explanation of God being without beginning or end being three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
• That the Son of God is God's temporal agent in all things.
• Creation, and in both the appearing and reveling God to man.
• God being eternal and immutable.
• The only begotten Son being both eternal and temporal, being eternal, without beginning, in so being, not begotten nor made.
• So also being God's temporal agent as Creator (John 1:1-3.)
• I believe in the incarnation and virgin birth.
• In becoming man, not ceasing 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.

As it is, I think there's a lot of contradictions in this. You can't both hold that God The Father is simple identical with the one true God, and therefore is one person, and then later hold to the trinity of God being three persons. Not without an adequate explanation for how this is consistent. So while the second statement is fine, the first sentence right out of the bat is highly problematic. If you had written it like this "I believe that the person of the Father is the one true God." that might not be as problematicm that's orthodoxy; The Father is God.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Creation, and in both the appearing and reveling God to man." Its a completely broken sentence. There are severe grammar mistakes here, missing words, and even a typo. I can figure some of it out. I assume for instance you meant to write 'revealing' and not 'reveling'. However I only have a vague notion of what you mean this sentence to say, specifically. That Creation was by the Son (orthodoxy), and/or that Creation reveals the Son?

We all agree that God is eternal and immutable. However the Son isn't temporal. If the Son is temporal, then God is temporal and that simple isn't the case. God undergoes no change, and that is the same with The Son's divine nature. The Son in becoming incarnate took on a human nature, and that nature is subject to change of course, but His divine nature remained unchanged by this. And if you take the word 'begotten' to mean that The Son underwent a divine birth of sorts, then we're in agreement. Christ was not born of the Father in this way. However The Son is of the same substance as The Father and proceeds from The Father, and that He is the only one of that sort. This is what is meant by only-beg

"In becoming man, not ceasing being God." Minor quibble, you missed some words again, and a grammar mistake regarding tense. It should be "In becoming man, He did not cease being God."

[37818]

As it is, I think there's a lot of contradictions in this. You can't both hold that God The Father is simple identical with the one true God, and therefore is one person, and then later hold to the trinity of God being three persons. Not without an adequate explanation for how this is consistent. So while the second statement is fine, the first sentence right out of the bat is highly problematic. If you had written it like this "I believe that the person of the Father is the one true God." that might not be as problematic that's orthodoxy; The Father is God.

I believe the one true God as one Person being the Father.

My statement as I phrased it is based on Jesus' words in His prayer to the Father, ". . . And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, . . . ." -- John 17:3.

I have rephrased other parts in my profile statements. Left this one unchanged at this time. Your suggested wording, "I believe that the person of the Father is the one true God." Says the same thing.

[37818]

Your belief is unorthodox. Please change your faith designation accordingly.

What belief?

The Son of God was not of two natures until He became incarnate. He became man at the Incarnation - that's what "incarnation" MEANS!

I believe in the incarnation. That the Son of God in His temporal nature changing, not His divine nature. Merely adding another nature to the divine nature changes form only having a divine nature to not only having a divine nature. That defies immutability of the divine nature, in my understanding.

[37818]

Trinity
There is one living and true God, Creator of all things, eternally existing in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary being fully human and fully God. He lived a sinless life and through His substitutionary death, atoned for our sins. He was bodily resurrected and ascended into Heaven. He will return bodily, personally, and visibly.

Resurrection
We believe in the future bodily resurrection of all persons, the just and the unjust, and the Final Judgment.

Scriptures
All of the Scriptures (the Bible consisting of Old and New Testaments) to be the final authoritative source for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

Church
We believe in the Church universal, which is the living spiritual Body of Christ, of which all believers are members.

Administrator Remark
It is well understood that all participants on this forum will not or do not affirm the above Statement of Faith in part or whole. This is by no means a regulation for participation at TheologyWeb or in any way serves as a censor, through interaction we seek to learn and educate. The Statement of Faith is not intended to indicative a comprehensive statement of the doctrinal positions of any staff member, nor is it intended to be comprehensive about what is required to have sound doctrine. It is a minimum standard that serves to identify things which we believe are common denominators in Christianity and which we use to determine participation in Christian-only areas and profile designations of Christian. It is not intended to be an endorsement of the orthodoxy of any member.

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.
Amen

[Leonhard]

I have rephrased other parts in my profile statements. Left this one unchanged at this time. Your suggested wording, "I believe that the person of the Father is the one true God." Says the same thing.

Neat, its wonderful that you want to update your works. I try to learn as well.

However there's a difference between saying "The Father is God." and "God is The Father.", if there is no difference, then God is equivalent with the Father. They'd be in an identical relationship. This can't be the case for if A is B and C is B, in an identical relationship, then A is C. But then unfortunately you'd get that the Person of The Son is identical with the Person of The Father, which is a heretical position. So I think greater care with the logic there is needed.

The best fix is simple to strike the first sentence, and simple have "I hold the trinity explanation of God being without beginning or end being three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." As the first sentence.

[Adrift]

I believe in the incarnation. That the Son of God in His temporal nature changing, not His divine nature. Merely adding another nature to the divine nature changes form only having a divine nature to not only having a divine nature. That defies immutability of the divine nature, in my understanding.

I think I've seen you mention this before. Do you mind expounding on it a bit?

Tell me if I have this right:

You believe that Jesus has two natures.
You believe one nature is fully divine and one nature is fully human.
You believe in the incarnation.
You believe that Jesus' fully human nature is "temporal".

This is where it gets really confusing for the rest of us:
You do NOT believe that Jesus took on his human nature at his incarnation, instead you believe that both his divine and human natures are eternal.
The reason you believe both of Jesus' nature's are eternal is because you believe that Jesus taking on a second nature would somehow effect his characteristic of immutability.

Before I show you why this second part is confusing to the rest of us, and why it sounds unorthodox to us, could you confirm that I've accurately described your view?

[Adrift]

It speaks of the only-begotten, Not of being begotten. You are reading into the text what is not there.

What exactly is the distinction for you between the words "only-begotten" and "begotten" that you so strongly reject the word "begotten" in the Nicene Creed?

The communication breakdown seems to center on those two words, and specifically your issue with the word "begotten".

[37818]

What exactly is the distinction for you between the words "only-begotten" and "begotten" that you so strongly reject the word "begotten" in the Nicene Creed?

The communication breakdown seems to center on those two words, and specifically your issue with the word "begotten".

The second Psalm is a prophecy of the resurrection of the Son of God. The term "begotten" is used to refer to His resurrection, not His preexistence.

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee." -- Psalm 2:7.

". . . God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." -- Acts 13:33.

Also a couple things to note. That the Son was already the Son being "begotten." And "this day" refers to a time for the event.

Begotten - γεγεννηκα.

Only-begotten - μονογενη which is from γίνομαι with μόνος as a prefix to γίνομαι. Meaning a unique relative. [Abraham had two sons, but only Isaac was called his only-begotten: Hebrews 11:17.] It is used 9 times in the NT.

[Adrift]

The second Psalm is a prophecy of the resurrection of the Son of God. The term "begotten" is used to refer to His resurrection, not His preexistence.

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee." -- Psalm 2:7.

". . . God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." -- Acts 13:33.

Also a couple things to note. That the Son was already the Son being "begotten." And "this day" refers to a time for the event.

Begotten - γεγεννηκα.

Only-begotten - μονογενη which is from γίνομαι with μόνος as a prefix to γίνομαι. Meaning a unique relative. [Abraham had two sons, but only Isaac was called his only-begotten: Hebrews 11:17.] It is used 9 times in the NT.

I don't know if its because of your sentence structure, or because you're not really explaining it that well, but I don't see anything in the above post that really explains or highlights your rejection of the word "begotten" in the Nicene Creed. Maybe someone else can make sense of it though, and restate it so that it makes sense to me.

This doctrine that you have concerning the words "only-begotten" and "begotten", they're very...unique. Are you aware of that fact? Who taught you this curious bit of doctrine surrounding these two words?

Also, did you get a chance to read my other post?

[37818]

Neat, its wonderful that you want to update your works. I try to learn as well.

However there's a difference between saying "The Father is God." and "God is The Father.", if there is no difference, then God is equivalent with the Father. They'd be in an identical relationship. This can't be the case for if A is B and C is B, in an identical relationship, then A is C. But then unfortunately you'd get that the Person of The Son is identical with the Person of The Father, which is a heretical position. So I think greater care with the logic there is needed.

The best fix is simple to strike the first sentence, and simple have "I hold the trinity explanation of God being without beginning or end being three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit." As the first sentence.

God in the OT is presented as a single Person. All appearances of God in the OT was none other than the Son (John1:18).

In the NT a distinction is often made between our Lord Jesus Christ and God. We can note, that Thomas addressed Jesus as both (John 20:28).

Romans 1:7, ". . . Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Romans 15:6, ". . . That ye may with one mind [and] one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Corinthians 1:3, ". . . Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ."
1 Corinthians 8:6, ". . . But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him."
Ephesians 4:5, 6, ". . . One Lord, . . . One God and Father . . . ."

Jesus makes the distinction, "He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? . . . " The first word "LORD" referring to God, the second use referring to the Messiah being Lord, as distinct from God.

The theologian Van Til holds that God is both a person and persons. He is a staunch trinitarian.



These are just some of the reasons for my statement. It being better than the way Van Til argues it.

[37818]

I don't know if its because of your sentence structure, or because you're not really explaining it that well, but I don't see anything in the above post that really explains or highlights your rejection of the word "begotten" in the Nicene Creed. Maybe someone else can make sense of it though, and restate it so that it makes sense to me.

This doctrine that you have concerning the words "only-begotten" and "begotten", they're very...unique. Are you aware of that fact? Who taught you this curious bit of doctrine surrounding these two words?

The idea of being begotten denotes a beginning. Very simply the statement "begotten of the Father before all ages" is NOT Biblical. This is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures in any way. Had it read, "the only-begotten of the Father before all ages" I would be fine with that, because that concept is taught.

Here's a snip from the Nicene Creed:

"I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made."

That The Son is begotten means that He is consubstantial with the Father, and perfectly one with Him in essence, but not in person. Denying that The Son is begotten of the Father, is to deny that The Son is of the same substance as the Father, and therefore to deny God's simplicity in the Trinity.

I am going to rephrase this snippet to be more Biblical and as I believe:

"I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God, of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
not begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made."

Also, did you get a chance to read my other post?

I think I've seen you mention this before. Do you mind expounding on it a bit?

Tell me if I have this right:

You believe that Jesus has two natures.
You believe one nature is fully divine and one nature is fully human.
You believe in the incarnation.
You believe that Jesus' fully human nature is "temporal".

This is where it gets really confusing for the rest of us:
You do NOT believe that Jesus took on his human nature at his incarnation, instead you believe that both his divine and human natures are eternal.
The reason you believe both of Jesus' nature's are eternal is because you believe that Jesus taking on a second nature would somehow effect his characteristic of immutability.

Before I show you why this second part is confusing to the rest of us, and why it sounds unorthodox to us, could you confirm that I've accurately described your view?

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.

Look at John 1:1, 2, "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. . . ."

What is "with God" is not the same as God. Yet He "was God." He was both. Not the same Person, but the same God. v.3, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Identifying Him as God (Genesis 1:1).

Let us look at the concept of an uncaused cause. To be uncaused is to be eternal. A cause is temporal. Creation is a temporal act. Walking in the garden was a temporal act [". . . the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: . . ." -- Genesis 3:8.] The incarnation (John 1:14) was a temporal act. One God, who is more than one Person. ("us" Genesis 3:22.)

I believe the Son of God was always both eternal and temporal being God's temporal agent. Eternal in that the Son is God with the Father. "with God." "was God."

[JonathanL]

The idea of being begotten denotes a beginning.

The idea of being begotten as it is understood in the Nicene creed most definitely does not denote a beginning. Until you understand this basic point you will continue to misunderstand what the creed is saying when it affirms that the Son is begotten by the Father.

[37818]

The idea of being begotten as it is understood in the Nicene creed most definitely does not denote a beginning. Until you understand this basic point you will continue to misunderstand what the creed is saying when it affirms that the Son is begotten by the Father.

The ordinary use of the term "begotten" means to have a beginning. Parallels lines do not intersect. One can say "parallel lines intersect at infinity." So to use "begotten" in the phrase, "begotten of the Father before all ages," would have the same meaning as "not begotten." I think the phrase, "begotten of the Father before all ages" is better as "the only begotten of the Father before all ages." It was over the use of "begotten" that the writers of that Creed needed to say "begotten and not made." To argue against "not begotten and not made" only proves that the usage is bad. Besides not being used in Holy Scripture in that way ever. All I had asked for was Biblical support of that. That usage is extra Biblical.