Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[37818]

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.

[Adrift]

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.

[37818]

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.

[Adrift]

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.

[37818]

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.

[Adrift]

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.

[JonathanL]

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.

[37818]

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.

[JonathanL]

I had typed "what" for the word "want."

Thank you for the clarification.

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." -- John 1:18.
All appeances of God is the Son.
"Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." -- Isaiah 6:5.
". . . shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." -- Isaiah 6:10.
". . .These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." -- John 12:41.

All appearances of God/YHWH in the OT might be of the Son (and I would be inclined to agree with you on that), but that does not mean that all references/mentions of YHWH/God in the OT is of the Son. Proverbs 8:22 is not an appearance of the LORD, but rather a reference, which means that you cannot use the fact that no one has seen the Father to argue that it couldn't possibly refer to Him.

[37818]

Huh?

I had typed "what" for the word "want."

Your refusal to connect Jesus with God's Wisdom seems to be connected with your belief that YHWH in the OT always denote the Son. Do you have any reasons for this claim? While I do not deny that YHWH sometimes refer to the Son, there are instances where it undeniably refers to the Father, such as Psa 2:7 and 110:1

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." -- John 1:18.
All appeances of God is the Son.
"Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." -- Isaiah 6:5.
". . . shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." -- Isaiah 6:10.
". . .These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." -- John 12:41.

[JonathanL]

I did. You seem not to what to acknowledge it.

Huh?

The Son of God is the Yehwah of the OT.

Your refusal to connect Jesus with God's Wisdom seems to be connected with your belief that YHWH in the OT always denote the Son. Do you have any reasons for this claim? While I do not deny that YHWH sometimes refer to the Son, there are instances where it undeniably refers to the Father, such as Psa 2:7 and 110:1

[One Bad Pig]

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.
The LORD meaning Yehwah. The Son is Yehwah who possessed all things.

This was a favorite Arian proof-text (granted, the LXX reads "The LORD created me in the beginning of his way...").

[One Bad Pig]

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." -- 2 John 9.

Sure.

In my view all three are the one Yehwah.

Sure.

All three are the One uncaused.

Not possible. If all three were uncaused, there would be three Gods, not one.

Only the Son is the uncaused cause.

This makes absolutely no sense (and is contradictory to your last assertion, to boot).

[Adrift]

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.

[37818]

When are you going to deal with the fact that the New Testament writers and Jesus Himself makes the connection between Wisdom and the Son?

I did. You seem not to what to acknowledge it.

The Son of God is the Yehwah of the OT. That the connection is that He as God possesses her.
"But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." -- 1 Corinthians 1:24.
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." -- John 1:3.