Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[37818]

I think I'll take the consensus of a large number of people who spoke and thought in Greek and had to deal with vigorous counter-arguments all the time over your independent second-language at best formulation (which, I note, uses and neglects to correct the adulterated Roman Catholic version which adds to scripture).

OK. Specifically?

[37818]

Adrift answered this pretty well, I think.

I disagree that the Son is the uncaused cause; He is begotten of the Father, Who alone is unoriginate; the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. If all three are uncaused causes, then we no longer have a trinity, but a triad.

"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.

In my view all three are the one Yehwah. All three are the One uncaused. Only the Son is the uncaused cause. John 1:3. Colossians 1:16-17.

[37818]

The whole point of the orthodox view (that Jesus assumed a second nature at his incarnation) is that his divine nature DID NOT CHANGE. In other words, by taking on a second nature, a fully human nature, the divine nature was left untouched. Jesus' divine nature retained its immutable characteristic.

If His nature was only being God immutable, how can His Person change to have an added nature of any kind? He could not actually become human. That would be a change from only being God in nature to not only being God in nature.

Your unique view that Jesus had a beginningless in-time nature running alongside his beginningless outside-time nature runs into all sorts of issues:

First of all, your view that Jesus had some sort of "temporal" nature, pre-incarnation, that CHANGED into a human nature is completely unnecessary and extraneous. It makes the simple doctrine of Jesus assuming a second nature far more complicated than it needs to be. Moreso than the official orthodox doctrine of the church, it seems that your view points to a Jesus who is mutable. By attempting to safeguard against what you fear about the orthodox doctrine, you're actually making things worse.

How?

Second of all, this view of a pre-incarnate second nature robs Jesus of his humanity. The whole point in saying that Jesus assumed his human nature at the incarnation is that he was like us in every way. How can Jesus be like us if in fact he had a pre-existing "temporary" nature that changed into a human nature?

He became really human. It was not a mere added facade of Him not changing to become human.

He was "with God." John 1:2. Meaning?

[One Bad Pig]

One form of the current traditional 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. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The following is corrected based on the Bible:

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, the Only Begotten 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. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I confess one baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I think I'll take the consensus of a large number of people who spoke and thought in Greek and had to deal with vigorous counter-arguments all the time over your independent second-language at best formulation (which, I note, uses and neglects to correct the adulterated Roman Catholic version which adds to scripture).

[One Bad Pig]

My understanding. From not being human to becoming human is a change from being in the form of God to becoming the from of a man. Philippians 2:5-7. How He was "with God" changed. John 1:2, 14.



How would you characterize being "with God" differently from Him also being in the form of God prior to His change to become human?

Adrift answered this pretty well, I think.

No, I did not I did not dodge your, My answer being that the Son was also other than God. My meaning being, no, the Father does not have two natures. That the Son is the uncaused cause. John 1:3.

I disagree that the Son is the uncaused cause; He is begotten of the Father, Who alone is unoriginate; the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. If all three are uncaused causes, then we no longer have a trinity, but a triad.

[37818]

One form of the current traditional 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. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The following is corrected based on the Bible:

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, the Only Begotten 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. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I confess one baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[37818]

If something has already been defined as timeless/eternal it is impossible for it to be understood in terms of created, or "made".




Is he also the source of the Son's being/essence?

The Son is Yehwah.
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. . . ." -- Acts 10:43.

"I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour. . . ." -- Isaiah 43:11.

I disagree. Jesus himself refers to himself as Wisdom in Luk 11:49, and Paul calls Jesus God's Wisdom in 1 Cor 1:24. I would rather side with Jesus Himself, and Paul on this issue.

Source: Kevin Giles. The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (Kindle Locations 792-801). Kindle Edition.

We can again endorse the church fathers' identification of the Son of God with divine Wisdom because the writers of the New Testament do the same thing. Contemporary critical scholars generally agree that the New Testament writers make this identification. For example, John depicts the preexistent Logos, or Son, in terms of the Jewish understanding of personified divine Wisdom. Like Wisdom he is from the beginning (Jn 1:1; cf. Prov 8:22-23; Sir 24:9; Wis 6:22); the agent of creation (Jn 1:2; cf. Prov 8:27-30; Sir 1:4; 24:9; 43:26); descended from heaven to dwell among people (Jn 3:17; cf. Prov 8:31; Sir 24:8; Bar 3:3; Wis 9:10); to reflect the glory of God (Jn 1:14; 2:11; cf. Wis 7:25); to be the light that comes into the world (Jn 8:12; cf. Wis 7:26); and to be born of God (Jn18:37;40 cf. Prov 8:25).41 Paul also identifies the Son with divine Wisdom.42 In 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30, Paul explicitly calls Christ "the Wisdom of God," and in Colossians 1:15-20 he designates Christ as "the image of God," "the firstborn over all creation" (Col 1:15 TNIV), the agent of creation (Col 1:16), "the beginning" (Col 1:18) and the "fullness of God" (Col 1:19), all attributes or activities predicated of divine Wisdom. In Hebrews 1:1-3, the author of the epistle similarly speaks of the Son in terms of divine Wisdom to develop a christological argument reflecting Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:3 (109:3 LXX).43 Here the Son is again depicted as the agent of creation (Heb 1:2) and the "reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being" (Heb 1:3; cf. Wis 7:26).

© Copyright Original Source

So, no. Wisdom is not what the Son of God possessed, the Son of God is God's Wisdom.

Wisdom is she.

"Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: . . ." -- Proverbs 1:20.

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.

"Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars: . . ." -- Proverbs 9:1

[Adrift]

"not made" was not added to the creed as a qualification to begotten, it's added there for contrast. It's saying that the Son is begotten, rather than being made, it's not qualifying begotten. The word begotten is already qualified by the phrase "of the Father before all worlds/ages" which already defines it to be timeless/eternal, so there is no need to qualify it further.

Yeah, it seems to me that the Athanasian Creed confirms this ancient understanding when it says, The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. They seemed to have understood that "begotten" was something entirely different from "made" or "created". I mean, the whole point of the Nicene Creed was to repudiate Arianism, which taught that Jesus was created by God. Why would a creed that is contrary to that assertion, in the end declare it?

[JonathanL]

Without "not made" the phrase "of the father before all worlds/ages," "begotten" can be understood as being "made" the only-begotten Son before all worlds/ages.

If something has already been defined as timeless/eternal it is impossible for it to be understood in terms of created, or "made".

Yes.

Is he also the source of the Son's being/essence?

Without a beginning and without an end to time. Infinite time. It was analogous.
No. Wisdom, she was is what the Son of God as Yehwah possessed.

.

I disagree. Jesus himself refers to himself as Wisdom in Luk 11:49, and Paul calls Jesus God's Wisdom in 1 Cor 1:24. I would rather side with Jesus Himself, and Paul on this issue.

Source: Kevin Giles. The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (Kindle Locations 792-801). Kindle Edition.

We can again endorse the church fathers' identification of the Son of God with divine Wisdom because the writers of the New Testament do the same thing. Contemporary critical scholars generally agree that the New Testament writers make this identification. For example, John depicts the preexistent Logos, or Son, in terms of the Jewish understanding of personified divine Wisdom. Like Wisdom he is from the beginning (Jn 1:1; cf. Prov 8:22-23; Sir 24:9; Wis 6:22); the agent of creation (Jn 1:2; cf. Prov 8:27-30; Sir 1:4; 24:9; 43:26); descended from heaven to dwell among people (Jn 3:17; cf. Prov 8:31; Sir 24:8; Bar 3:3; Wis 9:10); to reflect the glory of God (Jn 1:14; 2:11; cf. Wis 7:25); to be the light that comes into the world (Jn 8:12; cf. Wis 7:26); and to be born of God (Jn18:37;40 cf. Prov 8:25).41 Paul also identifies the Son with divine Wisdom.42 In 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30, Paul explicitly calls Christ "the Wisdom of God," and in Colossians 1:15-20 he designates Christ as "the image of God," "the firstborn over all creation" (Col 1:15 TNIV), the agent of creation (Col 1:16), "the beginning" (Col 1:18) and the "fullness of God" (Col 1:19), all attributes or activities predicated of divine Wisdom. In Hebrews 1:1-3, the author of the epistle similarly speaks of the Son in terms of divine Wisdom to develop a christological argument reflecting Psalm 2:7 and Psalm 110:3 (109:3 LXX).43 Here the Son is again depicted as the agent of creation (Heb 1:2) and the "reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being" (Heb 1:3; cf. Wis 7:26).

© Copyright Original Source

So, no. Wisdom is not what the Son of God possessed, the Son of God is God's Wisdom.

[37818]

"not made" was not added to the creed as a qualification to begotten, it's added there for contrast. It's saying that the Son is begotten, rather than being made, it's not qualifying begotten. The word begotten is already qualified by the phrase "of the Father before all worlds/ages" which already defines it to be timeless/eternal, so there is no need to qualify it further.

Without "not made" the phrase "of the father before all worlds/ages," "begotten" can be understood as being "made" the only-begotten Son before all worlds/ages.

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that you're saying that the Father is the source of the Son's divinity. Is that correct?

Yes.

Infinity and eternal/timeless are not the same thing, so I'm not sure why you brought up the instances of two infinite parallel lines.

Without a beginning and without an end to time. Infinite time. It was analogous.

And the usage of the word "begotten" to signify the relationship between the Son and the Father in eternity can be supported by Proverbs 8:22-31, especially 25 where Wisdom is said to have been brought forth "Before the mountains were settled, . . ." <snip>

No. Wisdom, she was is what the Son of God as Yehwah possessed.

.

[JonathanL]

OK. That I though we agreed that was meant. The fact is to qualify that is meant, "not made," needed to be added.

"not made" was not added to the creed as a qualification to begotten, it's added there for contrast. It's saying that the Son is begotten, rather than being made, it's not qualifying begotten. The word begotten is already qualified by the phrase "of the Father before all worlds/ages" which already defines it to be timeless/eternal, so there is no need to qualify it further.

The Father is the divinity of the Son of God.

I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that you're saying that the Father is the source of the Son's divinity. Is that correct?

We disagree. Do you understand infinite equal distant lines intersect? They intersect at infinity. Meaning they never intersect. So I understand the truth of your argument, even if you do not accept or understand my view. Again, my objection is to the non-Biblical use of "begotten." It is my understanding that term as used regarding the Son of God refers to His resurrection from the dead (Acts 13:33).

Infinity and eternal/timeless are not the same thing, so I'm not sure why you brought up the instances of two infinite parallell lines.

And the usage of the word "begotten" to signify the relationship between the Son and the Father in eternity can be supported by Proverbs 8:22-31, especially 25 where Wisdom is said to have been brought forth "Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills" (NASB rendering). Given that the NT writers themselves identify the Son with God's Wisdom (Luk 11:49 and 1 Cor 1:24) making the connection between Proverbs 8:22-31 and Jesus is completely warranted. And since Wisdom is said to have been brought forth(begotten), it follows that one can use such a term to signify the relationship that the Son has with the Father in eternity.

[Adrift]

My understanding. From not being human to becoming human is a change from being in the form of God to becoming the from of a man. Philippians 2:5-7. How He was "with God" changed. John 1:2, 14.



How would you characterize being "with God" differently from Him also being in the form of God prior to His change to become human?

The whole point of the orthodox view (that Jesus assumed a second nature at his incarnation) is that his divine nature DID NOT CHANGE. In other words, by taking on a second nature, a fully human nature, the divine nature was left untouched. Jesus' divine nature retained its immutable characteristic.

Your unique view that Jesus had a beginningless in-time nature running alongside his beginningless outside-time nature runs into all sorts of issues:

First of all, your view that Jesus had some sort of "temporal" nature, pre-incarnation, that CHANGED into a human nature is completely unnecessary and extraneous. It makes the simple doctrine of Jesus assuming a second nature far more complicated than it needs to be. Moreso than the official orthodox doctrine of the church, it seems that your view points to a Jesus who is mutable. By attempting to safeguard against what you fear about the orthodox doctrine, you're actually making things worse.

Second of all, this view of a pre-incarnate second nature robs Jesus of his humanity. The whole point in saying that Jesus assumed his human nature at the incarnation is that he was like us in every way. How can Jesus be like us if in fact he had a pre-existing "temporary" nature that changed into a human nature?

[37818]

It's YOUR assertion. YOU prove it.

My understanding. From not being human to becoming human is a change from being in the form of God to becoming the from of a man. Philippians 2:5-7. How He was "with God" changed. John 1:2, 14.

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

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.

How would you characterize being "with God" differently from Him also being in the form of God prior to His change to become human?

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

No, I did not I did not dodge your,

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

My answer being that the Son was also other than God. My meaning being, no, the Father does not have two natures. That the Son is the uncaused cause. John 1:3.

[37818]

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.

OK. That I though we agreed that was meant. The fact is to qualify that is meant, "not made," needed to be added.

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?

The Father is the divinity of the Son of God.

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.

We disagree. Do you understand infinite equal distant lines intersect? They intersect at infinity. Meaning they never intersect. So I understand the truth of your argument, even if you do not accept or understand my view. Again, my objection is to the non-Biblical use of "begotten." It is my understanding that term as used regarding the Son of God refers to His resurrection from the dead (Acts 13:33).

[37818]

Then what is the Father?

Yehwah.