Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[37818]

I don't know if its a matter of salvation. That's up to Christ. But I do know that rejecting the orthodox doctrine on the nature of Christ can lead to other issues that may indeed compromise right teaching that leads to salvation.

I know I am now saved (Ephesians 2:8-9) That I now know I have eternal life (1 John 5:1, 9-13).

That's not really relevant to our discussion.

Oh, but it is: "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. . . ." -- 2 John 9 (Also John 8:24)

I didn't merely say your view was not orthodox. I explained in quite a bit of detail why it isn't orthodox. And no, correct teaching on the nature of Christ is not secondary.

So are you saying orthodox does not need to be according to God's word?

You sure you want to say that Jesus is not God? See, this is the sort of compromise I'm talking about.

You are not understanding. Jesus was fully a human. Which is not to be God (Numbers 23:19). Yet He was also fully God (John 5:18). If He was not God, He would be a sinner being a man (Mark 10:18; Hebrews 4:15).

The relationship between the Son and the Father is Two distinct Persons who share One divine Nature. You're confusing Persons with Natures.

No I am not confusing Persons with Natures. Where John 1:1 says "was God" refers to natures. Where John 1:1, 2 says "with God" refers to Persons. One who is "with God" is not the Person God.

So you don't think that John 1:1 is referring to the Son with the Father?

Of course is refers to the Son with the Father. The Son "of God." The Father is God. The Son is "of God." But the text says "with God" it is not saying it in the form "with the Father." Indicating being someone else than God. They are both the same God. Two Persons. The Son is not God apart from God.

Wrong. The orthodox view is that his human nature IS his second nature.

It is His second nature now and forever (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 13:8).

That's what every unorthodox person claims.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

So your admit being unorthodox?

Seriously, do you think I set out to believe what I should know is not true? I believe the word of God. Show me from the Bible. I have tried to convey what I believe is Biblical. And that what is truly Biblical is truly orthodox. If it be contrary to the Bible it is then not orthodox.

Understood. So you are confirming that you don't believe that John 1:1 has the Son and the Father in mind. That's interesting.

I understand the Son and Father is in mind. But text does not use "with the Father" rather "with God" making it explicit twice (v.1 and v.2) emphasizing that the Word was someone else beside God. And also was God too (v.1 and v.3). That is what it says.

[Adrift]

Again you have blown what I said into what I was not saying. You keep reading meanings into things which is not there.

Take your understanding of the standard orthodox nature of Christ. [I am assuming you understand that much correctly.]
Subtract simply the concept of being "begotten" before all ages.
Agree with the truth that the only-begotten is the only-begotten of the Father before all ages.
Leaving everything else believed intact.
Add a nature which is not the same as God before the incarnation. So the Son who is the only-begotten, is both "with God" and "was God."
Everything else is to remain the same. Incarnation, full deity of Christ etc.
Can you do that in your mind?

I have absolutely no problem understanding that you are making an issue out of the word "begotten" in the Nicene Creed that no one else here has an issue with, and I have no problem imagining that Jesus had an in-time second nature before his incarnation, which turned into a human nature at the incarnation (even though that isn't the case). I've repeated your argument back to you a number of times throughout this thread, so its strange that you repeat it again and again as though I didn't know it. And I never said your view negates salvation (though, I suppose it could).

[37818]

Sort of a weird dissonance you have going on with this post. You don't think the doctrine on the nature of Christ is an essential of the faith, yet you seem to agree that the church was correct in nipping Arianism in the bud...a heresy that rejected the orthodox teaching on Christ's nature.

Clearly the doctrine on the nature of Christ is not secondary. If it were, then Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and the cult I was brought up in would not be considered nearly as heretical as they currently are.

There's no doubt that the doctrine of the trinity and the nature of Christ is complicated and can be hard for us to wrap our minds around sometimes, but I'm pretty sure this is one of those primary doctrines that we want to keep straight. As I mentioned earlier, messing around with this orthodox teaching has the potential to lead you into some trouble spots in other areas.

Again you have blown what I said into what I was not saying. You keep reading meanings into things which is not there.

Take your understanding of the standard orthodox nature of Christ. [I am assuming you understand that much correctly.]
Subtract simply the concept of being "begotten" before all ages.
Agree with the truth that the only-begotten is the only-begotten of the Father before all ages.
Leaving everything else believed intact.
Add a nature which is not the same as God before the incarnation. So the Son who is the only-begotten, is both "with God" and "was God."
Everything else is to remain the same. Incarnation, full deity of Christ etc.
Can you do that in your mind?

Now with only those changes - how does that negate salvation?

[Adrift]

Are you saying this a matter of salvation? Why?

I don't know if its a matter of salvation. That's up to Christ. But I do know that rejecting the orthodox doctrine on the nature of Christ can lead to other issues that may indeed compromise right teaching that leads to salvation.

If you were to explain to someone how to have salvation, and know for sure, what would you explain?

That's not really relevant to our discussion.

Merely saying something is not orthodox is not an argument. It is to vilify. That does not correct anything. If it is not a matter of salvation. It is a secondary issue.

I didn't merely say your view was not orthodox. I explained in quite a bit of detail why it isn't orthodox. And no, correct teaching on the nature of Christ is not secondary.

Fact, before His incarnation, He was "with God" meaning He was not God.

You sure you want to say that Jesus is not God? See, this is the sort of compromise I'm talking about.

Yet He "was God." Two natures. What nature would He have being in the "form of God" "was God" and not being God in being "with God?"

The relationship between the Son and the Father is Two distinct Persons who share One divine Nature. You're confusing Persons with Natures.

The text does not say "Father" but "with God."

So you don't think that John 1:1 is referring to the Son with the Father? Another compromise?

His human nature became His second nature.

Wrong. The orthodox view is that his human nature IS his second nature.

What is being called orthodox is not orthodox.

That's what every unorthodox person claims.

Again, the text does not say "the Father" but "with God." Indicating He was also someone other than God.

Understood. So you are confirming that you don't believe that John 1:1 has the Son and the Father in mind. That's interesting.

[37818]

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.

Immutability is the characteristic of truth. What is immutable is static. God's omniscience is static. Truth is immutability. The relationship of God the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit allows change/mutability. That is on the account of the temporal relationship of God to the Son of God.

"And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." -- Mark 1:11.
" And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." -- Mark 9:7.
"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." -- Acts 1:7.
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." -- Mark 13:32.

[Adrift]

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.

Sort of a weird dissonance you have going on with this post. You don't think the doctrine on the nature of Christ is an essential of the faith, yet you seem to agree that the church was correct in nipping Arianism in the bud...a heresy that rejected the orthodox teaching on Christ's nature.

Clearly the doctrine on the nature of Christ is not secondary. If it were, then Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and the cult I was brought up in would not be considered nearly as heretical as they currently are.

There's no doubt that the doctrine of the trinity and the nature of Christ is complicated and can be hard for us to wrap our minds around sometimes, but I'm pretty sure this is one of those primary doctrines that we want to keep straight. As I mentioned earlier, messing around with this orthodox teaching has the potential to lead you into some trouble spots in other areas.

[37818]

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)?

Are you saying this a matter of salvation? Why? If you were to explain to someone how to have salvation, and know for sure, what would you explain?

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.

Merely saying something is not orthodox is not an argument. It is to vilify. That does not correct anything. If it is not a matter of salvation. It is a secondary issue.

You're playing games again.

You are not making any sense.

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.

Fact, before His incarnation, He was "with God" meaning He was not God. Yet He "was God." Two natures. What nature would He have being in the "form of God" "was God" and not being God in being "with God?"

John 1:1 is saying that Jesus and the Father have an interpersonal relationship and share a divine nature/essence.

Yes.

More correctly, other than the Father, and God too.

The text does not say "Father" but "with God."

Incorrect. Jesus assumed his second nature at the incarnation.

His human nature became His second nature.

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.

Yes, I have said this.

Whelp. You're wrong. Or at least, you're wrong according to orthodox doctrine on Jesus' Christology.

What is being called orthodox is not orthodox.

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.

Again, the text does not say "the Father" but "with God." Indicating He was also someone other than God.

[37818]

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)?

Are you saying this a matter of salvation? Why? If you were to explain to someone how to have salvation, and know for sure, what would you explain?

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.

Merely saying something is not orthodox is not an argument. It is to vilify. That does not correct anything. If it is not a matter of salvation. It is a secondary issue.

You're playing games again.

You are not making any sense.

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.

Fact, before His incarnation, He was "with God" meaning He was not God. Yet He "was God." Two natures. What nature would He have being in the "form of God" "was God" and not being God in being "with God?"


[quote]
John 1:1 is saying that Jesus and the Father have an interpersonal relationship and share a divine nature/essence.[quote]Yes.

More correctly, other than the Father, and God too.

The text does not say "Father" but "with God."

Incorrect. Jesus assumed his second nature at the incarnation.

His human nature became His second nature.

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.

Yes, I have said this.

Whelp. You're wrong. Or at least, you're wrong according to orthodox doctrine on Jesus' Christology.

Well maybe at this point what is being called orthodox is not orthodox.

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.

Again, the text does not say "the Father" but "with God." Indecationg He was also someone other than God.

[37818]

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.

[Adrift]

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

[Pentecost]

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.

[DesertBerean]

Like I said...He's dug himself a very deep hole and won't admit it.

[Adrift]

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.

[37818]

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.

[Adrift]

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.