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 DesertBerean View PostPhil 2:6 - 8?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostCould you please clarify? Are you saying that people who say the Son is begotten of the Father believes in the "concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son"?
Leave a comment:
-
I do not believe that concept that the eternal second Person of the Trinity became the Son is a matter of salvation.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostEither 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostEveryone thinks their view is biblical. The Arians argued from scripture too. Does that make them orthodox?
You're right, your view is incomprehensible to me.
The question is, what do you mean by "the eternal Sonship of Christ"?
Correction: you deny what, in your opinion, contradicts the word of God. You appear to have an idiosyncratic definition of 'contradicts' which you seem to think sometimes means "does not appear explicitly in."
Let's not open that can of worms here. I don't worry about who's saved; I let God handle that.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostMy view is Biblical. And Biblical is orthodox.
You do not understand my view.
I do not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ.
I do not deny the trinity explanation. The only thing I deny is that which contradics the word of God. Now I do not misapprehend the use of "begotten" in "begotten of the Father before all ages." I originally asked for its Biblical basis. Since none is forthcoming, no one here has a clue.
Here is my question for you, How is this nuance a matter of knowing one has eternal life?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostYou are wrong. The word can have that meaning as testified by the needed qualification in the creed, "begotten, not made."
That's not a qualification of the word begotten. The creed is saying that the Son is begotten, rather than being made.
It is not saying "the Son is begotten, but by begotten we don't mean in a sense that he is created" rather, it is saying something closer to "the Son is begotten, as opposed to being made/created".
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostYes you do, you do misapprehend that word in that you keep insisting repetitively that it means that Christ came into existence at some point. That it denies the eternal and unchanging reality of his deity. That's not how the word is meant to be used. No Church Father, or any respected theologian following the Creeds formulation in the Nicene Council to mean that. In fact I'm not even sure you'd find lay Christians actively believing this.
You seem to insist on it for some reason.
Originally we weren't sure what exactly you were arguing. We now know that you merely the expression that uses 'begotten'. If you had actually denied that The Son was begotten of the Father, in the way its used int he Creed, then you'd have implicitly engaged in a heresy. You'd be believing in Jesus not as he exist. It would make you a material heretic. Since this is not he case you're not a heretic.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Leonhard View PostI don't know whether believing that The Son has a temporal part to Him even before His incarnation is heresy. Certainly you believe that The Son was completely, and utterly without change prior to the incarnation? And during the Incarnation, changed only in the sense that He gained a human nature, in addition to His divine nature?
Leave a comment:
-
I originally asked for its Biblical basis. Since none is forthcoming, no one here has a clue.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostMy view is Biblical. And Biblical is orthodox. You do not understand my view. I do not deny the eternal Sonship of Christ. I do not deny the trinity explanation. The only thing I deny is that which contradics the word of God. Now I do not misapprehend the use of "begotten" in "begotten of the Father before all ages."
You seem to insist on it for some reason.
Here is my question for you, How is this nuance a matter of knowing one has eternal life?
I don't know whether believing that The Son has a temporal part to Him even before His incarnation is heresy. Certainly you believe that The Son was completely, and utterly without change prior to the incarnation? And during the Incarnation, changed only in the sense that He gained a human nature, in addition to His divine nature?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostYou do not have an orthodox understanding of the incarnation, because you misapprehend the meaning of begotten as used and have a flawed understanding of time. The Incarnation does not impact the immutability of the Son's divine nature. You are, of course, free to dispute the meaning of begotten, but in doing so you are rejecting the orthodox position.
Here is my question for you, How is this nuance a matter of knowing one has eternal life?
Leave a comment:
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Leave a comment: