Originally posted by 37818
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 37818 View PostAdding a human nature changes the nature of the one becoming human. Prove otherwise.
All causes are temporal. It takes change to cause change. Prove otherwise.
The Son being a different person than God. Being "with God." Not the same person as God.
I believe the Son being human has two natures, being both God and man. So how then is my Biblical understanding as it is make me lost?
Prove this understanding of yours for Acts 13:32-33 and context.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThe Son of God is Yehwah of the OT. Yehwah is not a begotten god.
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?
Originally posted by 37818 View PostA timeless causation is identical with not being caused. If you do not understand this, then the only thing you then need to understand is that is what I understand. Timeless causation = never being caused at all.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI do not see how the Son being eternal and Yahweh precludes him from being begotten of the Father. In fact, it's completely irrelevant, as far as I can see.
You have not shown this to be the cause. I believe that the Father begetting the Son in eternity is an example of timeless causation.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThen what does it matter that I think differently. Believing that that the only begotten Son who is co-eternal with the Father, is not begotten to be so. You can phase it like that if you want to. But to me it means the same as not being begotten.
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThat is nonsense. There is no evidence of any cause not to be temporal, that is, to be a change causing a change. Omnipotence requires temporality it is meaningless.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI do not see how the Son being eternal and Yahweh precludes him from being begotten of the Father. In fact, it's completely irrelevant, as far as I can see.
You have not shown this to be the cause. I believe that the Father begetting the Son in eternity is an example of timeless causation.
Leave a comment:
-
Also, if the Son is not begotten by the Father, several things would seem to follow. One, it becomes inexplicable how it is that the Son and the Father share the same essence, since if the Son is the source of His own essence (instead of the Father communicating this essence to Him eternally and timelessly) it would seem to follow that there are two sources of divinity (three if you also deny the procession of the Holy Spirit) which would seem to give us not three persons in one being, but three persons in three beings.
Two, if the Son is not begotten by the Father, it is not clear to me how the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship can be affirmed. The doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son (That is, the teaching that the Son is eternally begotten by the Father) explains how the Son can be equal with the Father, because the Son shares in the Fathers being and divinity, but it also explains why He is the Son, rather than being the Father, on account of Him being begotten, rather than begetting.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThe Son is not an effect of the Father any more, in this case, than the Father being an effect of the Son. Being the same Eternal. The same Yehwah.
Originally posted by 37818 View PostAll causes are temporal.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostWhich is wrong.
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.
This is philosophically incoherent and not Biblical. Is God the Father an Uncaused Cause? Does HE have two natures?
Wrong. Again, you misconceive the two natures of Christ. Your post here makes it clear you are in grievous error about this, and are unorthodox.
No, "Today I have begotten you" in Acts 13:33 does not refer to the resurrection of Christ, which makes no sense. Resurrection is not birth! Instead, it refers to the promise mentioned in verse 32 - that the Messiah would be born.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DesertBerean View PostGood. Now, how does this reflect on your view that the Son had two natures, one eternal and one temporal, since he did not assume the human aspect until his incarnation?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostGreat, I hold to the eternal Sonship of the second person of the Trinity as well. I believe that the eternal source/origin/cause of the Son's being/substance and divinity is the Father, and since the Father is eternal so too must the Son be eternal, since a cause can not exist without it's effect.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostNot 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.
The Son who in time "this day" God says, "I have begotten you." Speaking of His bodily resurrection, declaring His Son's Sonship (Romans 1:4). That term "begotten" in regards to God and His Son is not being used any other way. Explain otherwise then, if possible. Exegetically "begotten" refers to Christ's resurrection (Acts 13:33). Anything else would be eisegetical.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
I can't be. However, when you state implying that that the Son has always had a human nature, that is a heretical statement.
Why should it ever be the case? How can you manufacture a contradiction from silence? If what is stated is compatible with scripture, even if the wording is not found there, how can it be a contradiction?Last edited by 37818; 03-07-2015, 02:17 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostBut not all issues are essential to salvation.
The how can you be sure my view is heresy?Originally posted by 37818 View PostI hold the Son of God as the Logos always had two natures.
That the trinity of God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, is eternal and has no beginning.
It can be so. But that is not always the case.
Either the issue of eternal Sonship is a matter of salvation or it is not. Even though I believe that the Son of God was always the Son. In agreement with that meaning of the Nicene Creed. I do not believe that concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son is a matter of salvation. Though I reject that view, holding to the view of eternal Sonship.Last edited by One Bad Pig; 03-07-2015, 01:13 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View Post"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. " -- Philippians 2:5-8.
Leave a comment:
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Leave a comment: