Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
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
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
-
. . . 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
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostThis was a favorite Arian proof-text (granted, the LXX reads "The LORD created me in the beginning of his way...").
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostI 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI know you believe all of that. You also believe that Jesus had two natures before the incarnation. That isn't an orthodox view.. . . 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 PostThat "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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostIt isn't silent, and certainly not on this matter. If it were silent we wouldn't have been having this discussion.
It also professes that Christ assumed or added his second nature at his incarnation. That is the orthodox view that you challenge.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 PostGive 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.".
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 only asserted that there was another nature which was changed in the adding the incarnation.
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 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 PostAdrift.
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?
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.Last edited by Adrift; 03-11-2015, 04:41 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI 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.
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 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 PostNo. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 PostMy second point is more of a question. What is the temporal nature, can you name some qualities of it?
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,
Comment
-
Originally posted by DesertBerean View PostLike I said...He's dug himself a very deep hole and won't admit it.
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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Larry Serflaten, 01-25-2024, 09:30 AM
|
432 responses
1,967 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 09:43 AM
|
Comment