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
See more
See less

37818 Curiosities: Homoousios

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 37818 Curiosities: Homoousios

    This is a split from here

    Originally posted by 37818
    Originally posted by apostoli
    We disagree on the teaching of the homoousios (consubstantiality), whereby the Son, having been begotten by the Father derives his ousia (essence) from his Father (cp. Heb 1:3).
    Only in part. I hold that the Son does derive his ousia (essence) from His Father. I find the term "begotten" to be misleading and not used in this way in Holy Scripture, and as a concept lead to the error of Arius.
    You really do need to read Arius' letters to Eusebius of Nicomedia and Alexander of Alexandria. Like you, he refused to admit that the Son was begotten by the Father even though such is the plain statement of scripture.

    Originally posted by 37818
    Originally posted by apostoli
    We disagree on the teaching of the homoousios...
    Only in part.
    Your rejection of the Son having been begotten by the Father means you reject the teaching of the homoousios 100%.

    To be homoousios with anything one must be the natural offspring of that thing (ie: must be begotten). Thus Jesus having been begotten by the Father is homoousios with his Father (cp. Heb 1:3) concerning his theotēs (state of being God cp. Col 2:9), and upon his incarnation and conception in Mary, Jesus became homoousios with Mary and thus us, concerning his humanity.

    Originally posted by 37818
    I hold that the Son does derive his ousia (essence) from His Father.
    The Arians would have agreed with your idea, they too rejected the begetal of the Son by the Father thus they rejected the teaching of the homoousios with the Father and insisted on homoiousios.

    * Given you reject the biblical witness that the Father begot the Son, the only way the Son could derive his ousia from the Father is if he was a creation, and the ousia was an endowment (nb: the Son's Godhead is determined from his ousia).

    * In other threads you have demanded that the Son as Son has without interval existed as Son. In which case, it was impossible for the Father to endow the Son with his ousia. If you now decide to allow an interval for the investiture then the Son underwent change and by your definition/s isn't God.
    Last edited by apostoli; 08-17-2015, 04:50 AM.

  • #2
    * Given you reject the biblical witness that the Father begot the Son, the only way the Son could derive his ousia from the Father is if he was a creation, and the ousia was an endowment (nb: the Son's Godhead is determined from his ousia).
    That is false.

    No one on Tweb has proved any such holy scripture that requires the only-begotten Son of God to have been begotten in any way in order to be the only-begotten from God the Father before all ages.

    I hold the only-begotten of Son of God was always and was always was God with God His Father.
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

    Comment


    • #3
      Corrected statement:


      I hold the only-begotten Son of God was always and was always God with God His Father.
      Last edited by 37818; 08-17-2015, 04:53 PM.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        Originally posted by apostoli
        * Given you reject the biblical witness that the Father begot the Son, the only way the Son could derive his ousia from the Father is if he was a creation, and the ousia was an endowment (nb: the Son's Godhead is determined from his ousia).
        That is false.
        Which bit?

        1. In many posts of yours and even here you acknowledge you reject the scriptural witness that the Son is the only begotten of his Father.
        2. It is a fact that ousia can only be attained by inheritance (natural offspring) or endowment (creation). Which is why the non-Niceans rejected the term homoousios, prefering the term homoiousios.
        3. The Church teaches in the homoousios that the the Father is the source and cause of the Son's ousia and the Spirit's ousia. Their Godhead defined from the ousia imprinted upon them by the Father.

        Everytime you are incapable of offering any support for your silliness from any source you run for cover and shout "false" with absolutely no substantiation, which indicates you have no justification. It just makes you look like a complete moron...so if you feel something is false substantiate your accusation or don't make the accusation in the first place...

        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        No one on Tweb has proved any such holy scripture that requires the only-begotten Son of God to have been begotten in any way in order to be the only-begotten from God the Father before all ages.
        No proof needed, it is a simple matter of grammar - monogenēs has only one indicative meaning. Consider Luke 8:38 where it is rendered "only child" or Luke 7:12 where we read of the "only" son of his mother or see Luke 8:42, 9:38; Hebrews 11:17. As even you should be able to read and see that in each case the word refers to the only child (offspring) of someone. A.John uses monogenēs when he speaks of the Son of the Father, it is most often translated "only begotten". If you retain your prejudice against the words "only begotten Son" then you have a problem because that is the sensible meaning of the Greek. If you want you can change John 1:14 to read "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only child of the Father,) full of grace and truth".

        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        I hold the only-begotten of Son of God was always and was always God with God His Father.
        Thats lovely! It is a pity you don't actually believe what you say. In your posts you repetitively deny that the Son is the Father's "only-begotten" so apparently you are just playing the serpent, just tickling the ears.... (nb: to be only begotten, means to be the only offspring of someone/thing, thus the Son was begotten of the Father as scripture makes plain and as anyone with eyes can clearly see and perceive).

        It is painfully obvious you reject the teaching that the Son is the Father's natural offspring! So you plainly make it obvious that you reject the Church's teaching on the homoousios. Always remember that if the subject is not natural offspring then it cannot be homoousios with anything.
        Last edited by apostoli; 08-18-2015, 02:50 AM.

        Comment

        widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
        Working...
        X