Originally posted by One Bad Pig
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
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostAdrift 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostThe 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?
He was "with God." John 1:2. Meaning?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostOne 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostMy 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?
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostIf 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?
"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.
So, no. Wisdom is not what the Son of God possessed, the Son of God is God's Wisdom.
"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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post"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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWithout "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.
Originally posted by 37818 View PostYes.
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWithout 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.
.
So, no. Wisdom is not what the Son of God possessed, the Son of God is God's Wisdom.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post"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.
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?
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.
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>
.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostOK. That I though we agreed that was meant. The fact is to qualify that is meant, "not made," needed to be added.
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThe Father is the divinity of the Son of God.
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWe 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).
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostMy 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?
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?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostIt's YOUR assertion. YOU prove it.
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.
Again, you're dodging my point. Is the Son God?This is philosophically incoherent and not Biblical. Is God the Father an Uncaused Cause? Does HE have two natures?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostThe 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.
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?
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.
Leave a comment:
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Leave a comment: