PDA

View Full Version : Discussion - Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)



Pages : [1] 2

Knight
September 21st, 2007, 04:01 PM
This thread is dedicated to discussion regarding the unique One on One between Ask Mr Religion (AMR) and Bob Enyart.

Bob Enyart invited (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1520320&postcount=137) AMR to take a shot at answering the 50 questions that Bob had asked Dr. Lamerson in Battle Royale X (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21711).

AMR has begun answer the 50 questions in the One on One (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41620) so we can discuss their conversation here as it develops.

I like to call this One on One....

One on One - Enyart vs. AMR (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41620)
Battle Royale 10.50

Or possibly....

One on One - Enyart vs. AMR (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41620)
Battle of the actual likeness avatars

Ask Mr. Religion
September 21st, 2007, 04:34 PM
In case I am pressed for time, let me pre-respond :) to the usual crowd now:

godrulz: "No, it is not a nuanced motif and I disagree with what {so and so} writes."

Knight: "You misquoted me in stating..."

Clete: "Sticks and stones may break my bones..."

PastorKevin: "Yes, yes, you are a 'man of God' and a 'preacher', but..."

Muz: "Your exegesis errs once again, in that..."

stipe: "Huh?"

Philetus: "Sorry, but someone will have to quote you for me to see anything you post."

Yorshik: "Now exactly who is sitting at the table across from me?"


:e4e:

Get on with it now.

Knight
September 21st, 2007, 04:43 PM
:chuckle:

Vaquero45
September 21st, 2007, 05:03 PM
In case I am pressed for time, let me pre-respond :) to the usual crowd now:

godrulz: "No, it is not a nuanced motif and I disagree with what {so and so} writes."

Knight: "You misquoted me in stating..."

Clete: "Sticks and stones may break my bones..."

PastorKevin: "Yes, yes, you are a 'man of God' and a 'preacher', but..."

Muz: "Your exegesis errs once again, in that..."

stipe: "Huh?"

Philetus: "Sorry, but someone will have to quote you for me to see anything you post."


:e4e:

Get on with it now.


What a bunch of hoi polloi!





Couldnt resist, if this gets deleted I'll understand. :)

Yorzhik
September 21st, 2007, 05:09 PM
In case I am pressed for time, let me pre-respond :) to the usual crowd now:

godrulz: "No, it is not a nuanced motif and I disagree with what {so and so} writes."

Knight: "You misquoted me in stating..."

Clete: "Sticks and stones may break my bones..."

PastorKevin: "Yes, yes, you are a 'man of God' and a 'preacher', but..."

Muz: "Your exegesis errs once again, in that..."

stipe: "Huh?"

Philetus: "Sorry, but someone will have to quote you for me to see anything you post."


:e4e:

Get on with it now.
I take it I don't respond fast enough to make your list?

Ask Mr. Religion
September 21st, 2007, 06:56 PM
I take it I don't respond fast enough to make your list?oops!

See edited original post.:(

CabinetMaker
September 21st, 2007, 07:14 PM
Knight,

Given the length of AMR's response to just the first two questions, I think you better start looking for more storage space!

Chileice
September 21st, 2007, 07:24 PM
Knight,

Given the length of AMR's response to just the first two questions, I think you better start looking for more storage space!

That may be true, but at least he has tried to grapple with the problems. I do hope not all of the answers are this complex and long.

Chileice
September 21st, 2007, 07:34 PM
I think AMR makes a good point:
Unsettled theists spend a great deal of time and effort whining that somehow the past 1500 years of theological study and doctrine holds that God is not interested in relating to His creatures.

People had living loving relationships with God long before Open Theism came along. I think back on my grandfather as an excellent example. He was born in the early 1890s and had a great relationship with Christ from his youth.

I also have to laugh a bit at AMRs designation of Open Theism as Unsettled theists. It kind of smacks of the same smack he doesn't like from Open Theists.

Servo
September 21st, 2007, 07:57 PM
I think AMR makes a good point:
Unsettled theists spend a great deal of time and effort whining that somehow the past 1500 years of theological study and doctrine holds that God is not interested in relating to His creatures.

People had living loving relationships with God long before Open Theism came along.




Wrong! Open theism never "came along", it always was...
That is what the closed theists can't seem to grasp.

The authors of the Bible were open theists. It wasn't until Greek Pagan philosophy came along that this whole "fate" thing started.

Evoken
September 21st, 2007, 08:03 PM
The authors of the Bible were open theists. It wasn't until Greek Pagan philosophy came along that this whole "fate" thing started.

Your first sentence is a mere assertion. Surely you can point to us when this philosophy "came along" and "corrupted" things?


Evo

Evoken
September 21st, 2007, 08:05 PM
Please...please...don't say St. Augustine!

Sorry about the double post, seems I can't edit in this thread.


Evo

Servo
September 21st, 2007, 08:07 PM
Plato.

Evoken
September 21st, 2007, 08:16 PM
Plato.

Who corrupted things? At what point?


Evo

Knight
September 21st, 2007, 08:21 PM
Lets not get into any drawn out debates in this thread.

Lets use this thread to comment about the posts being made in the One on One. If you want to debate a point that was made in the One on One maybe it would be best to open up a new thread.

Sound fair?

PKevman
September 21st, 2007, 10:19 PM
Wow. Hang on everyone, I am counting the Bible verses that AMR cited and discussed in his responses. Man it's going to take all night...........

PKevman
September 21st, 2007, 10:22 PM
1..........

PKevman
September 21st, 2007, 10:24 PM
1..........
1..........

Wait, for someone to say:


God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man.

There just HAS to be more Scriptural references to the beginning of his arguments. There just HAS to be.....

PKevman
September 21st, 2007, 10:29 PM
we can know things about God

AMEN! I agree with AMR wholeheartedly! And WHERE do we go to know those things? Do we go to the really nice sounding big words of theologians (all of which I understood completely by the way)

Or do we go to the Word of God???


unsettled theism is all about man defining God in his own terms

Great AMR! I am sure in your two responses so far where you make such a HUGE deal about definitions that you would show some Scriptures to back up your arguments.

:think:

:idea:
Let's give AMR the benefit of the doubt. Back to counting.....


1........

1........

WOW! ONE Bible verse is all we find from someone who accuses Open Theists of basing all of their definitions on the thinking of MEN such as Sanders rather than on the Bible.

Nice try AMR, I sure hope the rest of your answers do better than these! :)

And for the record-let me say that I think AMR did a better job of answering than Lamerson did!

PKevman
September 21st, 2007, 10:35 PM
Ok so maybe AMR's ONE Bible verse is all it took for all of his definitions given to be proven Biblical and Bob's and the positions of Open Theists to be proven unBiblical. Maybe it was a heavyweight verse? What was it?

John 14:9
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

This is a WONDERFUL verse no doubt! But wherein lieth the stone cold proof that AMR's definitions are Biblical and Open Theist's are not? No Open Theist who is teaching the Bible correctly would deny that Jesus was the perfect representation of the Father. So this verse has absolutely nothing to do with Open vs. Settled Theism.

So AMR's one Bible verse quoted did not support his given accusation that Open Theists base their thinking on the teaching of men rather than on the Word of God. In fact all of his two long answers were centered around man-made definitions and NOT the Word of God! Pretty telling I think. But I digress......... :think:

Chileice
September 22nd, 2007, 07:08 AM
Ok so maybe AMR's ONE Bible verse is all it took for all of his definitions given to be proven Biblical and Bob's and the positions of Open Theists to be proven unBiblical. Maybe it was a heavyweight verse? What was it?

John 14:9
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

This is a WONDERFUL verse no doubt! But wherein lieth the stone cold proof that AMR's definitions are Biblical and Open Theist's are not? No Open Theist who is teaching the Bible correctly would deny that Jesus was the perfect representation of the Father. So this verse has absolutely nothing to do with Open vs. Settled Theism.

So AMR's one Bible verse quoted did not support his given accusation that Open Theists base their thinking on the teaching of men rather than on the Word of God. In fact all of his two long answers were centered around man-made definitions and NOT the Word of God! Pretty telling I think. But I digress......... :think:

I don't think his argument is flawed just because it has only one verse specifically quoted. He also quoted Isaiah without citing the quotation. But he makes a very valid point throughout and here is a key paragraph in my opinion:

It is erroneous to state that all of God’s attributes flow from His righteousness. As inferred immediately above, every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God. When discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other.

I believe we err, even in human terms, when we try to seperate out the varying aspects of human personality from the whole being. We are beings with traits, is any one trait the well from which all the rest of our being springs? I don't think so. God is righteous because he is God. He is not God because he is righteous.

Clete
September 22nd, 2007, 08:00 AM
Ugh!

These "answers" are going to be nearly impossible for me to read through!

PK, You might get to a higher number if, instead of counting Bible references, you count either guilt by association fallacies or totally unsupported assertions or totally off the topic "answers" to Bob's questions.

One thing I've noticed so far (besides the ridiculously dishonest use of the pejorative term "unsettled theism" and the fallacious association of Open Theism with cults, both of which are intentionally dishonest debate tactics) is that AMR is not reading the context of Bob's questions and thereby ensuring that his "answers" will be mostly a waste of time as they will, at best, be answers to somewhat different questions than the ones actually asked by Bob of Dr. Lamerson in the original debate. Something I wouldn't permit as this is whole exercise was intended to be an appendage to Battle Royal X. One would hope that such an exercise would be on the same topic as the original work.

As an example of what I'm talking about, in "answer" to BEQ2, AMR never even brought up the Scripture which Bob quoted in the debate which comes right out and says that God's thrown (i.e. His authority) is founded upon His righteousness. He never even brings it up! How can AMR's essay on the Calvinist doctrine be considered an answer to Bob's question if he never addressed the very thing that prompted the question in the first place, namely the Scriptures? His "answer" to the questions amount to nothing more than an essay on the simplicity of God, a Calvinist doctrine which has nothing at all to do with the question asked.

Further, AMR is basically begging the question in these "answers" of his. The debate is effectively about whether Calvinism is true or not. AMR presumes the truth of that which is in question and "answers" these questions as though Calvinism is the undisputed truth. The effect is that his posts are turned from answers to Bob's questions into merely a Calvinist taking an opportunity to shoot his mouth off endlessly about what his various doctrinal positions are.

So far, all TOL is doing is providing free E-publishing privileges to a narcissistic Calvinist who is clearly in love with his own rhetoric and has been looking for a venue where he is allowed to endlessly ramble on while presenting his doctrine under any pretext he can come up with. So far these are not answers, there just so many doctrinal essays which have used Bob's questions as convenient jumping off points to what is going to be a very wide variety of doctrinal topics.

Of course those who are already in agreement with AMR will love these essays and rave about the profundity and complex thoroughness, Chileice being the first manifestation of this. And since AMR's ridiculous verbosity gives his posts an appearance of substance the Open Theist's claim that he hasn't really answered any of the questions, while true, will come off as shallow and disingenuous. As a result, I predict that if allowed to continue unchecked, AMR will, with these so called "answers" of his, hand his side of the debate a victory, albeit an unsubstantial and purely emotional one.

Resting in Him,
Clete

PKevman
September 22nd, 2007, 09:19 AM
I don't think his argument is flawed just because it has only one verse specifically quoted. He also quoted Isaiah without citing the quotation. But he makes a very valid point throughout and here is a key paragraph in my opinion:

It is erroneous to state that all of God’s attributes flow from His righteousness. As inferred immediately above, every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God. When discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other.

I believe we err, even in human terms, when we try to seperate out the varying aspects of human personality from the whole being. We are beings with traits, is any one trait the well from which all the rest of our being springs? I don't think so. God is righteous because he is God. He is not God because he is righteous.

The point is that we err, even in human terms, when we try to define God outside of the direct revelation wherby He has given us to know Him: The Bible!

AMR makes some very serious allegations against Open Theists and fails to back them up with the Scriptures. Instead he does exactly what Bob says in the debate in the first place. He provides a bunch of man-made definitions and explanations as the foundation of his argument. For all of his ranting and raving, the Biblical attributes of God (living,loving,personal, relational,&good) are what is taught in the Scriptures and not the pagan Greek attributes that AMR defends (Omni's & Im's).

This debate shouldn't be about what any person (Bob, Samuel Lamerson, AMR, etc...) thinks about how God should be defined. It should be about how does GOD DEFINE HIMSELF in His Word! That is what Bob drove home in this debate, and if AMR has any chance at all to get out of this without looking like a complete idiot he is going to have to discuss the Scriptures themselves. The problem he has is that when this is done, the Scriptures support the Open View of God. So AMR has to spend his first two "answers" (which aren't actually answers at all) propping up his doctrine on man-made definitions! I merely commented on how ironic that is considering he leveled the accusation against us that we rely on the teaching of men and that Open Theism is a humanist idea. Yet we are the ones continually pointing back to the Bible!

PKevman
September 22nd, 2007, 09:24 AM
Ugh!

These "answers" are going to be nearly impossible for me to read through!

PK, You might get to a higher number if, instead of counting Bible references, you count either guilt by association fallacies or totally unsupported assertions or totally off the topic "answers" to Bob's questions.

One thing I've noticed so far (besides the ridiculously dishonest use of the pejorative term "unsettled theism" and the fallacious association of Open Theism with cults, both of which are intentionally dishonest debate tactics) is that AMR is not reading the context of Bob's questions and thereby ensuring that his "answers" will be mostly a waste of time as they will, at best, be answers to somewhat different questions than the ones actually asked by Bob of Dr. Lamerson in the original debate. Something I wouldn't permit as this is whole exercise was intended to be an appendage to Battle Royal X. One would hope that such an exercise would be on the same topic as the original work.

As an example of what I'm talking about, in "answer" to BEQ2, AMR never even brought up the Scripture which Bob quoted in the debate which comes right out and says that God's thrown (i.e. His authority) is founded upon His righteousness. He never even brings it up! How can AMR's essay on the Calvinist doctrine be considered an answer to Bob's question if he never addressed the very thing that prompted the question in the first place, namely the Scriptures? His "answer" to the questions amount to nothing more than an essay on the simplicity of God, a Calvinist doctrine which has nothing at all to do with the question asked.

Further, AMR is basically begging the question in these "answers" of his. The debate is effectively about whether Calvinism is true or not. AMR presumes the truth of that which is in question and "answers" these questions as though Calvinism is the undisputed truth. The effect is that his posts are turned from answers to Bob's questions into merely a Calvinist taking an opportunity to shoot his mouth off endlessly about what his various doctrinal positions are.

So far, all TOL is doing is providing free E-publishing privileges to a narcissistic Calvinist who is clearly in love with his own rhetoric and has been looking for a venue where he is allowed to endlessly ramble on while presenting his doctrine under any pretext he can come up with. So far these are not answers, there just so many doctrinal essays which have used Bob's questions as convenient jumping off points to what is going to be a very wide variety of doctrinal topics.
Of course those who are already in agreement with AMR will love these essays and rave about the profundity and complex thoroughness, Chileice being the first manifestation of this. And since AMR's ridiculous verbosity gives his posts an appearance of substance the Open Theists claim that he hasn't really answer any of the questions will come off shallow and disingenuous. As a result, I predict that if allowed to continue unchecked, AMR will, with these so called "answers" of his, hand his side of the debate a victory, albeit an unsubstancial emotional on.

Resting in Him,
Clete


I agree with most of what you say here Clete. The only thing I don't agree with is I don't think AMR will be able to wrest victory from this no matter how many words he uses. Calvinism is untrue and in the end it will always lose when the Bible is held up against it.
AMR might claim a victory but it will ring hollow when his own foundation has already been shown to be faulty and lacking Biblical substance! Bob will be able to refute AMR's "answers" in mere minutes per question while AMR spends days upon days writing out these long-winded posts. Bob already knew that was going to happen and said so himself. :)

EDIT: Let me state that I also agree with Clete in that AMR should keep his answers confined to within the context of Battle Royale X and attempt to answer the questions based upon WHY the questions were asked in the first place. Bob did not agree to do this to start up a whole new Battle Royale with AMR replacing Lamerson, I don't believe.

Evoken
September 22nd, 2007, 02:08 PM
As an example of what I'm talking about, in "answer" to BEQ2, AMR never even brought up the Scripture which Bob quoted in the debate which comes right out and says that God's thrown (i.e. His authority) is founded upon His righteousness. He never even brings it up! How can AMR's essay on the Calvinist doctrine be considered an answer to Bob's question if he never addressed the very thing that prompted the question in the first place, namely the Scriptures?

The Scripture you mention is not part of the question, which is what AMR agreed to answer. If we are to follow you reasoning then AMR should actually respond to all the complete entries made by Enyart in the debate, for they lead in some way or the other to the questions he asks. If the verse were actually part of the question, then your objection would be valid, but it is not so there are no grounds for this objection.



His "answer" to the questions amount to nothing more than an essay on the simplicity of God, a Calvinist doctrine which has nothing at all to do with the question asked.

The simplicity of God is not a Calvinistic doctrine. Where did you get that from? Are you like all other unsettled theists who use the term "Calvinism" in a derogatory way to encompass all classical theists and not just real Calvinists?



Further, AMR is basically begging the question in these "answers" of his. The debate is effectively about whether Calvinism is true or not. AMR presumes the truth of that which is in question and "answers" these questions as though Calvinism is the undisputed truth.

Apparently you have not read the title of the One on One thread: "A Calvinist's response...". What do you want AMR to do? To first establish the truth of Calvinism and then answer the questions? That is not what he agreed to do, and if he did that you would be complaining that he is not answering the questions and is writing instead an "essay on the Calvinist doctrine". Seems like AMR is in a lose-lose situation with you.



The effect is that his posts are turned from answers to Bob's questions into merely a Calvinist taking an opportunity to shoot his mouth off endlessly about what his various doctrinal positions are.

His three responses so far have sufficiently answered Enyart's questions and go farther in that AMR spends a much needed time explaining the concepts involved to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.



As a result, I predict that if allowed to continue unchecked, AMR will, with these so called "answers" of his, hand his side of the debate a victory, albeit an unsubstancial emotional on.

All you are doing with your post is to poison the well Clete, this is dishonest, specially since you did not even take the time to point out the numerous "fallacies" in AMR's responses you alluded to in the opening sentences of your post.


Evo

Evoken
September 22nd, 2007, 02:11 PM
Bob did not agree to do this to start up a whole new Battle Royale with AMR replacing Lamerson, I don't believe.
[/FONT][/SIZE]

Exactly. The agreement is that AMR will write a response to the questions only, not to the whole entry. So, AMR cannot be blamed because he did not respond to something that was not part of the question involved.


Evo

Ask Mr. Religion
September 22nd, 2007, 02:18 PM
I don't think his argument is flawed just because it has only one verse specifically quoted. He also quoted Isaiah without citing the quotation. But he makes a very valid point throughout and here is a key paragraph in my opinion:

It is erroneous to state that all of God’s attributes flow from His righteousness. As inferred immediately above, every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God. When discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other.

I believe we err, even in human terms, when we try to seperate out the varying aspects of human personality from the whole being. We are beings with traits, is any one trait the well from which all the rest of our being springs? I don't think so. God is righteous because he is God. He is not God because he is righteous.Indeed! :first:

Ask Mr. Religion
September 22nd, 2007, 03:05 PM
Exactly. The agreement is that AMR will write a response to the questions only, not to the whole entry. So, AMR cannot be blamed because he did not respond to something that was not part of the question involved.
Evo
Correct!

BE posed the following challenge (emphasis mine):

Thus, I offer an alternative:

Right here on TOL is my Open Theism Debate with Dr. Lamerson. He was EXTREMELY unresponsive to the questions I carefully composed and posted in numerical order, BEQ1 - BEQ50.

Either of you can read that debate and answer those questions. And then, if you would, post all 50 questions (full text of each), with your answers (please be direct, I directly answered all of Lamerson's questions), in a single post, and I'll make a commitment to reply.
You would be doing the Settled View camp a service, since, after many have read that debate, they have no idea what answers there may be to many of those questions, since Lamerson was so unresponsive and left many completely unaddressed.
-Bob Enyart
I believe I have met the conditions, save one, to the posed challenge. I am not posting all my answers to 50 questions in a single post. I doubt vBulletin will even support such a lengthy post. As my first three answers indicate, the answers require lengthy discourse.

I have the text of all 50 questions. I post that text in all of my answers for all to see. They can be checked in the original BR X thread. I have read the BR X thread numerous times. I have all 194 pages of the BR X reformatted, spell checked, indexed for rapid searches, and saved on my hard drive. I refer to it often as I post my answers. Hence, I understand fully what the underlying context and agenda of the 50 questions are and my response incorporates that foundation where appropriate. Nevertheless, the challenge was not a debate challenge. It was a challenge to answer 50 questions. Period.

BE wanted full answers. He decried the answers he received from Lamerson. He is getting his wish now in my answers. That some here don't appreciate the so-called 'bully pulpit' that has been extended is irrelevant and frankly speaks to the unwillingness of many to fully and accurately understand the Reformed position.

I predict by the time I have answered all 50 questions, there will be not a few here that will have a clearer understanding of the Reformed doctrines they spend so much time inaccurately portraying. It is my hope that my answers will ferment a more reasoned dialog between unsettled theists and orthodox theists.

As for the term, 'unsettled theism', I remind everyone that there is only one logical antonym to the word 'settled', as in 'settled theism'. Perhaps if open theist proponents had adopted the more accurate phrase, 'classical theism' to describe the orthodox position, they would not now have to endure the 'unsettled' label. But, as I have noted in my responses and elsewhere, the unsettled theist makes much hay by using unwarranted derisive terms when discussing any doctrine they disagree with. It appears from some comments herein that these same persons can dish it out, but cannot take it. :cry:

I know that so many here have come to expect nothing less than an irenic attitude from the classical theist in these forums, all the while having to endure vitriolic 'truth-smacking' attitudes from their opponent. Lamerson irenically responded to BE in all of his posts. What Dr. Lamerson got in return from BE was anything but a response in kind. I willingly swallowed the bait Nang hung out there with full foreknowledge of where things would end up when I agreed to BE's proposal. Giving my opponent a taste of his own medicine was an opportunity I could not pass up.

As I am fond of saying, "you choose the behavior, you have chosen the consequences." Deal with it.:box:

Lon
September 22nd, 2007, 08:30 PM
Wrong! Open theism never "came along", it always was...
That is what the closed theists can't seem to grasp.

The authors of the Bible were open theists. It wasn't until Greek Pagan philosophy came along that this whole "fate" thing started.

LOL!


(sorry sorry sorry, this was absolutely hilarious-next to my only warning, this one will continue to bring a great smile to my face. Thanks, I needed this)

Servo
September 22nd, 2007, 08:49 PM
LOL!


(sorry sorry sorry, this was absolutely hilarious-next to my only warning, this one will continue to bring a great smile to my face. Thanks, I needed this)

Glad to help another moron with no point.

Lon
September 22nd, 2007, 09:02 PM
Wow. Hang on everyone, I am counting the Bible verses that AMR cited and discussed in his responses. Man it's going to take all night...........


1..........

LOL again!

Let me help...

1)"...our Scriptural relationship is defined from God downward to man, versus the humanistic pining of the unsettled theist upward to God..."

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.
For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)
2) The Scriptures tell us that God is indeed immutable, but that He nevertheless notices and is affected by the obedience, plight or sin of His creatures.

Mal 3:6 For I am Jehovah, I change not. Because of this you sons of Jacob are not destroyed.
Psa 89:34 I will not break My covenant, nor change the thing that has gone out of My lips.
3)God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man

Heb 8:11 And they shall not each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest.
Psa 119:9 BETH: With what shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your Word.

4)"So here and now, let’s put an end to the rhetoric that only unsettled theism understands God’s desire to have a relationship because He loves us."



1Jn 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God has in us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.

These seem to be scripture to me. I don't want to accuse you of complaceny, red herrings, strawmen etc. These all came very readily to mind.

Servo
September 22nd, 2007, 09:14 PM
LOL again!

Let me help...

1)"...our Scriptural relationship is defined from God downward to man, versus the humanistic pining of the unsettled theist upward to God..."

2) The Scriptures tell us that God is indeed immutable, but that He nevertheless notices and is affected by the obedience, plight or sin of His creatures.

3)God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man


4)"So here and now, let’s put an end to the rhetoric that only unsettled theism understands God’s desire to have a relationship because He loves us."




These seem to be scripture to me. I don't want to accuse you of complaceny, red herrings, strawmen etc. These all came very readily to mind.

Can God change His mind? Yes or no? Not looking for a book or even a paragraph. YES or NO?

More than that answer means you have no clue about OT.

Lon
September 22nd, 2007, 09:15 PM
Glad to help another moron with no point.


Moronic point? Really. I don't blame you, it is a parroting response but it is so blatantly unhistorical. I overlook your ignorance, but please, don't overlook it yourself. This is a response where you shouldn't listen to those who purport this idea.
I can start posting scriptures and early church fathers and you can show me the OV supports to this assertation. Usually I get "Who cares what the fathers thought?" which is a rich rebuttal to the obvious. Hopefully you're up to that challenge :)

To begin with, do you have any early church father quotes to support historicity of OV off the bat? It seems you should for such an assertation. I'm ready whenever you are (maybe needs a separate thread - "Early church fathers supported OV theology"). Please send me a PM when you start it with a link :)

Servo
September 22nd, 2007, 09:20 PM
Moronic point? Really. I don't blame you, it is a parroting response but it is so blatantly unhistorical. I overlook your ignorance, but please, don't overlook it yourself. This is a response where you shouldn't listen to those who purport this idea.
I can start posting scriptures and early church fathers and you can show me the OV supports to this assertation. Usually I get "Who cares what the fathers thought?" which is a rich rebuttal to the obvious. Hopefully you're up to that challenge :)

To begin with, do you have any early church father quotes to support historicity of OV off the bat? It seems you should for such an assertation. I'm ready whenever you are (maybe needs a separate thread - "Early church fathers supported OV theology"). Please send me a PM when you start it with a link :)

:yawn:

So intimidating you are. Read this battle (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21711) and get back to us with more of your brilliance.

Mr. 5020
September 22nd, 2007, 09:22 PM
Moronic point? Really. I don't blame you, it is a parroting response but it is so blatantly unhistorical. I overlook your ignorance, but please, don't overlook it yourself. This is a response where you shouldn't listen to those who purport this idea.
I can start posting scriptures and early church fathers and you can show me the OV supports to this assertation. Usually I get "Who cares what the fathers thought?" which is a rich rebuttal to the obvious. Hopefully you're up to that challenge :)

To begin with, do you have any early church father quotes to support historicity of OV off the bat? It seems you should for such an assertation. I'm ready whenever you are (maybe needs a separate thread - "Early church fathers supported OV theology"). Please send me a PM when you start it with a link :)
Lets not get into any drawn out debates in this thread.

Lets use this thread to comment about the posts being made in the One on One. If you want to debate a point that was made in the One on One maybe it would be best to open up a new thread.

Sound fair?

Clete
September 22nd, 2007, 10:46 PM
I agree with most of what you say here Clete. The only thing I don't agree with is I don't think AMR will be able to wrest victory from this no matter how many words he uses. Calvinism is untrue and in the end it will always lose when the Bible is held up against it.
Well I can't disagree. Whatever victory is won, if any, will be superficial at best, of course.


AMR might claim a victory but it will ring hollow when his own foundation has already been shown to be faulty and lacking Biblical substance!
I would not have used the word "might" in this sentence.


Bob will be able to refute AMR's "answers" in mere minutes per question while AMR spends days upon days writing out these long-winded posts. Bob already knew that was going to happen and said so himself. :)
You know I hadn't given any thought to Bob's response to these "answers" AMR is giving. The fact that AMR is doing little more than spewing every Calvinist doctrine he can figure out how to tie to one of Bob's questions, no matter how far removed from the context of the question, does lend Bob the same latitude in his responses to these "answers". Bob will have an opportunity to respond to far more of the Calvinist error than he would have otherwise had.


EDIT: Let me state that I also agree with Clete in that AMR should keep his answers confined to within the context of Battle Royale X and attempt to answer the questions based upon WHY the questions were asked in the first place. Bob did not agree to do this to start up a whole new Battle Royale with AMR replacing Lamerson, I don't believe.

Quite right!

If AMR ignores the context of the questions he is not answering the questions at all, thus my use of the quotation marks whenever referring to AMR's "answers".

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
September 22nd, 2007, 11:03 PM
Can God change His mind? Yes or no? Not looking for a book or even a paragraph. YES or NO?

More than that answer means you have no clue about OT.


"No" God does not change His mind. To say "Yes" would be a gross generalization on my part.

You will not find a scripture that says "God changed His mind." It is a colloquial term. We never actually 'change our minds.'

Better asked: Does God move to our supplications? "Yes, He does." This all goes back to a discussion of Foreknowlege which has been repeatedly discussed.

Lon
September 22nd, 2007, 11:10 PM
:yawn:

So intimidating you are. Read this battle (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21711) and get back to us with more of your brilliance.

LOL, Been there....

(Sorry, been reading Knight's humor posts lately which has me in a humorous mood).

I do think it would be a great discussion in all seriousness. If you believe the OV has tenure in any of the early church it would be reflected in the Father's writings so I think it would be a profitable thread (not sure if we'd coax many readers).

Lon
September 22nd, 2007, 11:16 PM
Originally Posted by Lon
Moronic point? Really. I don't blame you, it is a parroting response but it is so blatantly unhistorical. I overlook your ignorance, but please, don't overlook it yourself. This is a response where you shouldn't listen to those who purport this idea.
I can start posting scriptures and early church fathers and you can show me the OV supports to this assertation. Usually I get "Who cares what the fathers thought?" which is a rich rebuttal to the obvious. Hopefully you're up to that challenge

To begin with, do you have any early church father quotes to support historicity of OV off the bat? It seems you should for such an assertation. I'm ready whenever you are (maybe needs a separate thread - "Early church fathers supported OV theology"). Please send me a PM when you start it with a link Originally Posted by Knight (a.k.a. owner of the site)
Lets not get into any drawn out debates in this thread.

Lets use this thread to comment about the posts being made in the One on One. If you want to debate a point that was made in the One on One maybe it would be best to open up a new thread.

Sound fair?

Which is why I opted to suggest another linked thread?

I agree to not rabbit-trail here.

Clete
September 22nd, 2007, 11:39 PM
The Scripture you mention is not part of the question, which is what AMR agreed to answer. If we are to follow you reasoning then AMR should actually respond to all the complete entries made by Enyart in the debate, for they lead in some way or the other to the questions he asks. If the verse were actually part of the question, then your objection would be valid, but it is not so there are no grounds for this objection.
Nonsense!
It is not necessary for AMR to response to "all the complete entries made by Enyart in the debate" in order for him to answer the questions IN CONTEXT.

If he ignores the context he isn't answering the question, plain and simple.


The simplicity of God is not a Calvinistic doctrine. Where did you get that from?
Well from AMR for one! :freak:
Why didn't you ask him this question, I wonder? :think:

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are the real culprits of course but the doctrine is commonly held throughout Calvinism. In fact, Calvinism is little more than Reformed Augustinian theology. The doctrine of Divine Simplicity is one of those doctrines Bob referred to in the debate when he mentioned how the Reformation parted from Rome but not from the Greeks.

For more information about the doctrine read the following article...

Divine Simplicity (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-simplicity/)


Are you like all other unsettled theists who use the term "Calvinism" in a derogatory way to encompass all classical theists and not just real Calvinists?
Yes! That is, unless given some reason to believe that the individual is Arminian. Generally if a person quacks like this particular sort of duck he's either a Calvinist or a Catholic and since Catholics are usually pretty easy to spot the term Calvinist works in most situations rather nicely. Even people who don't call themselves Calvinists believe most of these things because of John Calvin any and so the term really isn't as inaccurate as you would probably like to think it is even in your own case.


Apparently you have not read the title of the One on One thread: "A Calvinist's response...". What do you want AMR to do? To first establish the truth of Calvinism and then answer the questions?
Yes! That's exactly what I want AMR to do! Not the whole of Calvinism of course but at least that portion of it which he intends to use as arguments against Open Theism. You see this is why it is important to acknowledge the context of these questions. Without doing so it isn't a response one would give in a debate, its merely a Calvinistic commentary. It seems perfectly clear to me that the intent was to have AMR respond to the questions as he would have had he been in Lamerson's place debating against Bob in Battle Royale X, which would be an interesting exercise both for AMR and for all the rest of us. As it is, so far, AMR has had all the fun in the world getting to write his brains out about his theology and the rest of us are going to check out in about another 2 or 3 "answers" of the sort that have been offered so far because frankly no one gives a crap about reading the "Ask Mr. Religion Commentary on Classical Theism" blog.


That is not what he agreed to do, and if he did that you would be complaining that he is not answering the questions and is writing instead an "essay on the Calvinist doctrine". Seems like AMR is in a lose-lose situation with you.
AMR is a lying fool who wouldn't know an honest response to a debate question if it bit his nose right off his face. AMR lost this before he ever started it as far as I am concerned. He has precisely zero credibility with me as either a scholar, a Christian nor even as a man.


His three responses so far have sufficiently answered Enyart's questions and go farther in that AMR spends a much needed time explaining the concepts involved to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.
He didn't answer Bob's question number two at all. He never even addressed it. He answered a question but it wasn't Bob's.


All you are doing with your post is to poison the well Clete, this is dishonest, specially since you did not even take the time to point out the numerous "fallacies" in AMR's responses you alluded to in the opening sentences of your post.
My comments were based on material that is there for everyone to read for themselves and I predicted a victory (of sorts) for AMR if he is permitted to continue his current course. I hardly think that hardly counts as poisoning the well, although I do not deny that I am AMR's enemy and make no pretensions of being objective.

And please don't tempt me to actually delineate each of AMR's fallacious comments, it wouldn't go well for your side and I think you know that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
September 22nd, 2007, 11:44 PM
As I am fond of saying, "you choose the behavior, you have chosen the consequences." Deal with it.:box:

Did anyone else notice this "return evil for perceived evil" policy of AMR's?

:think:

godrulz
September 23rd, 2007, 12:23 AM
In case I am pressed for time, let me pre-respond :) to the usual crowd now:

godrulz: "No, it is not a nuanced motif and I disagree with what {so and so} writes."


Get on with it now.

I usually describe Greek grammar as nuanced (semantical range of meaning for words).

I usually describe the two motifs as some of the future is open/unsettled, while other aspects is settled by God's intentions and ability to bring these to pass. This takes both of our proof texts at face value, while closed theism must make one set figurative, without warrant.

I tend more to agree with so and so.

AMR: Have you heard of Calvinism's God lisps?

http://www.untothebreach.com/CalvinAccommodation.html

Scripture does not mean what it says (at least the open theism verses) because God is talking baby talk to us?! Cmon.

You accuse OT of elevating attributes. We know that God is love, but it seems to me that you elevate hyper-sovereignty above other attributes (verse for 'God is sovereign'? Yes He is, but other attributes are more predominant).

Lon
September 23rd, 2007, 12:23 AM
BEQ1: Do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change (for example, as Ware says, especially to allow for true relationship)?

AMRA-BEQ1: "On the contrary...I was unaware that the relationship a Christian has with God was not already a true relationship. Inexplicably it has only been in the last twenty years or so that some philosophers masquerading as theologians (PBS: Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders) resurrected earlier humanistic writings, wrapped them in some biblical double-speak, hoping to set everyone straight, including apparently God Himself."

Q1 is directly addressed in my opinion. Perhaps it is an OV perspective that discounts the answer? I'm seeing it as addressed.


BEQ2: Do you agree that righteousness is the foundation of God’s sovereignty.


AMRA-BEQ2a: "No I do not, nor should anyone who understands the nature of God’s attributes."

Lamerson (same question - SAL-BEQ2): "I believe that the true attributes of God are inseparable. We cannot speak of one attribute as being the ground for another simply because they are both necessary."


Psa 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

This in my mind seems to be saying something different from Enyart's question. He is equating and that can be a slippery slope. The Psalmist is saying that God is just and righteous. He rules because He is God (righteously, because He is righteous). I'm in agreement with Lamerson and AMR here. There is no reason to read 'into' the text.


AMRA-BEQ2b: "In summary, when discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other. This is the most egregious error of unsettled theism. God’s attributes are very real determinations of His Divine Being, that is, qualities that inhere in the being of God. God’s perfections are God Himself as He has revealed Himself to mankind. God’s attributes are not parts composing the Divine Essence. The whole essence is in each attribute, and the attribute in the essence. We should not conceive of the divine essence as existing by itself, and prior to the attributes. God is not essence and attributes, but in attributes. Indeed, knowledge of the attributes carries with it knowledge of the essence."

This seems a fair and accurate address of the question to me.



BEQ3: Do you agree that the five divine attributes of living, personal, relational, good, and loving, are more fundamental and take precedence over matters of location, knowledge, stoicism, power, and control?

AMRA-BEQ3: "No, I do not...To be clear, we have absolutely no warrant to elevate any one of God’s attributes above another. Nor do we have a warrant to fixate, as do unsettled theist’s, upon one attribute at the expense of all of the others."

Again I see a clear answer here that directly responds to the question. I think it can simply be answered by all with another question:

"Is it more necessary for a police chief to be 'relational' or 'able'?"
"Is it more necessary for a nuclear physicist to be relational or able?"

If you are like me, you want more information. If we add "...to do his job?" to the end of each it colors our answer significantly. I agree here with Lamerson and ARM.
Moses, after asking "Who am I to say has sent me?"
"I AM" was the answer that said God would be all Moses needed Him to be. All attributes there at Moses' need. God's attributes do not change, 'my' need changes and He is and always is what we need Him to be. There are no jokers, no wild-cards in this discussion.

Lon
September 23rd, 2007, 12:55 AM
Divine Simplicity

Good link with good philosophical presentation but I think he'd have to go into the P1 & P2 discussion for strength of his counter because he merely suggests a different approach rather than weighing them alternatively.

Chileice
September 23rd, 2007, 06:26 AM
I think the problem most Christians have, including Calvinists and Open Theists is that we can't live with ambiguity and do it well. I think that in this life we will never fully be able to explain God or understand him and NO hermeneutic that we build will ever be able to fully enfold the complexity and simplicity of almighty God. I think AMR really did a good job in this post. He just needs to remember that it applies equally to Calvinists as it does to Open Theists.


The choice of a theological and hermeneutical key on any biblical topic will inevitably reflect the pre-understanding of the interpreter and not the objective teaching of Scripture. The use of such a key is also inconsistent with the evangelical doctrine of plenary inspiration. Including all texts on a given subject allows each text to have its distinctive input and avoids interpretations that are slanted by human bias. God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent as Psalm 139 so beautifully recognizes (Psalms 139:1-16). To allow any of these other qualities to overshadow God’s love would be equally misleading as allowing the greatness attributes (omnipresence, omnipotence, etc.) of God to overshadow His love.

We ALL have a human bias based on our own experiences and needs. I find it interesting that Jesus did not just say he was the door. Some people needed a door. Others needed a fountain of living water, others needed him to be the light of the world or to share the yolk with them. He is and does all of those things, but we tend to focus on the aspect that was most helpful to us in our need and we try to universalize that one aspect or attribute above all others.

Evoken
September 23rd, 2007, 07:22 AM
Nonsense!
It is not necessary for AMR to response to "all the complete entries made by Enyart in the debate" in order for him to answer the questions IN CONTEXT.

If he ignores the context he isn't answering the question, plain and simple.

Here is what you said: "As an example of what I'm talking about, in "answer" to BEQ2, AMR never even brought up the Scripture which Bob quoted in the debate which comes right out and says that God's thrown (i.e. His authority) is founded upon His righteousness. He never even brings it up!"

Your objection is founded on the fact that AMR did not bring up some particular thing (the Scripture cited by Enyart) in answer to a question that did not include such a thing. Lamerson didn't bring it up either. In fact, doing so is not strictly necessary to address BEQ2 and as I said in my previous post, AMR agreed to answer the questions only.

Should he answer the questions in context? Sure, but that does not means that by doing so he is forced to include in his responses something Enyart said beyond the questions he asked. And as you can see in AMRA-BEQ4, he is doing so anyway.



Augustine and Thomas Aquinas are the real culprits of course but the doctrine is commonly held throughout Calvinism. In fact, Calvinism is little more than Reformed Augustinian theology. The doctrine of Divine Simplicity is one of those doctrines Bob referred to in the debate when he mentioned how the Reformation parted from Rome but not from the Greeks.

Not to derail the thread into this subject, but that God is simple is something that has always been believed by The Church, even long before St. Augustine or St. Thomas came along. And in fact, the greeks had certain errors on their idea of God which the early Fathers rebuked, while at the same time they acknowledged the elements of truth they had and attributed their origin both to divine inspiration and to the prophets of the Old Testament.

By saying that the doctrine is Calvinistic, you are implying that it either originates from Calvinism or that it is exclusive to it. But this is not true when it comes to God's simplicity.



Yes! That is, unless given some reason to believe that the individual is Arminian. Generally if a person quacks like this particular sort of duck he's either a Calvinist or a Catholic and since Catholics are usually pretty easy to spot the term Calvinist works in most situations rather nicely. Even people who don't call themselves Calvinists believe most of these things because of John Calvin any and so the term really isn't as inaccurate as you would probably like to think it is even in your own case.

Last time I checked, the majority of Arminians are classical theists, that is, they believe in the attributes of God rejected by unsettled theists. So, it is simply inaccurate to label all classical theists as Calvinists. Even without taking Arminians into consideration it is inaccurate to include Catholics within the "Calvinist" label.

As far as John Calvin goes, I came into any serious contact with him and Calvinism long after I was Catholic.



It seems perfectly clear to me that the intent was to have AMR respond to the questions as he would have had he been in Lamerson's place debating against Bob in Battle Royale X, which would be an interesting exercise both for AMR and for all the rest of us.

Perhaps so, but you have to remember that AMR does not necessarily agrees with everything Lamerson said or even with the manner he said it. So, there should be some flexibility as to allow him to explain things on his own terms and make any additional commentary he feels is necessary. The agreement was not that AMR would simply be Lamerson taking another shot at answering Enyart's questions.



As it is, so far, AMR has had all the fun in the world getting to write his brains out about his theology and the rest of us are going to check out in about another 2 or 3 "answers" of the sort that have been offered so far because frankly no one gives a crap about reading the "Ask Mr. Religion Commentary on Classical Theism" blog.

The only advice I gave to AMR when he agreed to respond to Enyart's questions was that he be as succinct as possible in his responses. So, I understand what you mean and I would not like things to turn out the way you perceive them to be now. That said, I believe that in the first few posts, since there is the need to clarify certain things, we are to expect longer responses. Later on, I believe, we are going to see more compact replies that presuppose what he stated early on.



He didn't answer Bob's question number two at all. He never even addressed it. He answered a question but it wasn't Bob's.

I disagree, here is the question and both Lamerson's and AMR's answers:

BEQ2: Do you agree that righteousness is the foundation of God’s sovereignty?

SAL-BEQ2: I believe that the true attributes of God are inseparable. We cannot speak of one attribute as being the ground for another simply because they are both necessary.

AMRA-BEQ2: No I do not, nor should anyone who understands the nature of God’s attributes. The attributes of God appear to be a primary source of the doctrinal errors of unsettled theism, whereby its proponents spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to redefine and prioritize God’s very nature [....] In summary, when discussing how God can be righteous, loving, omnipotent, etc., we must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes.

Lamerson does not clearly states wether he agrees or disagrees, and provides no explanation for why God's attributes are inseparable. AMR on the other hand, clearly answers the question in the negative and then proceeds to explain the reasons why God's attributes are inseparable. You may not agree with his answer, you may not like the length of his response or the fact that he spends some time defining the concepts involved, but to say that the question was not addressed is incorrect.



And please don't tempt me to actually delineate each of AMR's fallacious comments, it wouldn't go well for your side and I think you know that.

Go ahead, isn't that what this thread is for?


Evo

Clete
September 23rd, 2007, 08:03 AM
Should he answer the questions in context? Sure,...

Enough said.

Clete
September 23rd, 2007, 12:50 PM
AMR's "answer" number five is rather silly.

He basically complains that Bob ignores the rest of the Psalm and so quotes it all for us as if it does something to support the Settled View, which it obviously does not.

At the end he talks about the evidence being in. What evidence? The Psalms? Its difficult to know for sure what he's referring to since AMR didn't explain how the Psalms helps his position or refutes Bob's use of the passage in support of that which it plainly states. Bob never suggested that God did not reign nor did he suggest anything else that is in contradiction to the context of the Psalm. Further the statement that God's thrown is founded upon His righteousness is repeated in at least one other place. The context of neither suggests any reason for us to believe that they do not mean exactly what they say. Indeed, where would be the reason for rejoicing in the reign of God if the idea that God's authority is founded on His righteousness were not so?

Does AMR deny that God's thrown is founded upon His righteousness? One would have to conclude that he does based on this so called "answer" to BEQ5, which by the way is more of an answer to BEQ2 than that which he actually wrote in AMRA-BEQ2.

This is only "answer" five!! :noway:

:yawn:

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
September 23rd, 2007, 05:00 PM
BEQ4: Will you retract your criticism that my Attributes Hermeneutic was “so broad as to be virtually pointless?” Now that you've seen my NOAH interpretation method demonstrated again by using it in the exact same way I did in my first post to resolve an apparent conflict in Pauline passages, but this to answer your question about Judas. Please remember, I am not here asking you if you agree with the method, but just if it is a clear method.

AMRA-BEQ4 - "Unsettled theism hermeneutics present numerous problems for the orthodox historical-grammatical approaches to hermeneutics...all orthodox classical theists reply that this kind of selective interpretation hardly deserves the name of hermeneutics or exegesis. The proper name to be given to unsettled theism’s NOAH, JONAH, etc., is hermeneutical malpractice."

The question was specifically addressed to a Lamerson comment. It might have been better to have reworded this question or eliminated for AMR, but I believe AMR answers it directly by supporting Lamerson's statement and then explaining that support.


BEQ5: Which describes something deeper within God, descriptions of Him that are dependent upon His creation, or descriptions of God that are true within God Himself, apart from any consideration of man?

AMRA-BEQ5 -"Firstly, as posed, your question assumes descriptions of God “dependent upon His consideration” are somehow linked to “any consideration of man”. They are not."

BEQ5 is similar to BEQ3:
"Do you agree that the five divine attributes of living, personal, relational, good, and loving, are more fundamental and take precedence over matters of location, knowledge, stoicism, power, and control?"
Again the answer is virually the same and AMR addresses it in a like manner. Anyone lost at the end isn't reading carefully and missed the initial statement AND the virtual similarity or rephrasing of the question. That it is asked twice in virtually the same way? :nono: <dunno>


BEQ6: Which is greater, God’s sovereignty over creation, or God’s love?

AMRA-BEQ6 - "Likewise, my answer to you question is that there is no attribute of our perfect God that has primacy over another attribute."

"... I am certain that most unsettled theists do not fully understand God’s love."

I'd augment this statement with "...as revealed in traditional hermenutics."
or in some other way indicate that this was a comparative statement.

Where is the broken record/dead horse icon? :stuck:

Shall I start counting the same question for repetition here? Perhaps BE wanted every nuance of answer.

Lon
September 23rd, 2007, 06:01 PM
BEQ1: Do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation?

AMRA-BEQ1 - No

BEQ2: Do you agree that righteousness is the foundation of God’s sovereignty?

AMRA-BEQ2 - No

BEQ3: Do you agree that the five divine attributes of living, personal, relational, good, and loving, are more fundamental and take precedence over matters of location, knowledge, stoicism, power, and control?

AMRA-BEQ3 - No

BEQ4: Will you retract your criticism that my Attributes Hermeneutic was “so broad as to be virtually pointless?”

AMRA-BEQ4 - No

BEQ5: Which describes something deeper within God, descriptions of Him that are dependent upon His creation, or descriptions of God that are true within God Himself, apart from any consideration of man?

AMRA-BEQ5- NoBiblical/traditional foundation to the question

OR a rephrase to Q3

AMRA-BEQ3,5 - No

BEQ6: Which is greater, God’s sovereignty over creation, or God’s love?

*see answers 3 and 5

godrulz
September 23rd, 2007, 06:36 PM
We cannot pit sovereignty vs love, I agree (AMR). The root problem is a wrong understanding of hyper-sovereignty in Calvinism, not that Open Theists reject sovereignty in favor of love. Likewise, a wrong understanding of sovereignty and free will leads to wrong conclusions. There is a way to resolve these tensions, and it is not Calvinism :noid:

AMR will object to my assertions, so I point him to my 1000s of posts and the wealth of non-Calvinistic theology through the centuries.

In fairness, AMR should read and quote John Sander's Second Edition (I am rereading it now) of 'The God who risks'. He has responded to his critics and changed or clarified ideas over time from the first edition.

Ask Mr. Religion
September 24th, 2007, 12:01 AM
We cannot pit sovereignty vs love, I agree (AMR). The root problem is a wrong understanding of hyper-sovereignty in Calvinism, not that Open Theists reject sovereignty in favor of love. Likewise, a wrong understanding of sovereignty and free will leads to wrong conclusions. There is a way to resolve these tensions, and it is not Calvinism Good to see you agree to something every now and then.

The "root problem" is unsettled theism's misunderstanding and mis-characterizations of God's sovereignty, which inheres God's love. A point that unsettled theist's will not appreciate for they remain locked in one of God's attributes at the expense of all others. Hence they diminish the full revelation of God to His creatures.


AMR will object to my assertions, so I point him to my 1000s of posts and the wealth of non-Calvinistic theology through the centuries.
Your 1000s of posts are merely more assertions. The wealth of non-Reformed literature you refer to is Arminian in nature. Unsettled theists claim to not be Arminian, hence the wealth of non-Reformed literature relevant to the discussion comprises the paltry works of philosophers masquerading as theologians: Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders.


In fairness, AMR should read and quote John Sander's Second Edition (I am rereading it now) of 'The God who risks'. He has responded to his critics and changed or clarified ideas over time from the first edition.If you are reading the book, then illuminate us all with Sanders' newfound insights. I am having enough trouble playing wack-a-mole with the ever-moving theologies of unsettled theism herein. :chuckle:

godrulz
September 24th, 2007, 12:07 AM
Arminians and Open Theists are free will theists, not determinists. We disagree about simple foreknowledge and exhaustive definite foreknowledge, but have more in common than differences (soteriology, etc., and certainly more than with Calvinists...TOL Enyart OT distance themselves from Arminianism). Calvinists argue against Arminians on many of the points that they also disagree with Open Theists over. I would say OT are similar to Arminians as opposed to Calvinists. The John Sander's link you had on your email forum classified these things. Have you refuted that link somewhere? I was pleased to agree with Sanders over Ware, if you care.

Is your 'one on one' a monologue? Where is Pastor Enyart's contribution? You have substance and style, even if you are still wrong:p

Ask Mr. Religion
September 24th, 2007, 01:54 AM
Is your 'one on one' a monologue? Where is Pastor Enyart's contribution? You have substance and style, even if you are still wrongPer the terms of the proposal, Enyart is under no obligation to respond to anything until I have finished answering all of his questions. Enyart (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1520320&postcount=137) has agreed (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1520341&postcount=144)to respond to my single question (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1520336&postcount=142) regarding the eschaton I posed in another thread (see the three links in this post) after I have answered all of his BR X questions. The One on One was not to be a debate in the spirit of BR X. So, yes, it is a monologue that I am enjoying. In effect, I am trading 50 responses for 1. Not a bad deal in my opinion, assuming I get an honest response.

Clete
September 24th, 2007, 06:47 AM
We cannot pit sovereignty vs love, I agree (AMR). The root problem is a wrong understanding of hyper-sovereignty in Calvinism, not that Open Theists reject sovereignty in favor of love. Likewise, a wrong understanding of sovereignty and free will leads to wrong conclusions. There is a way to resolve these tensions, and it is not Calvinism :noid:
godrulz,

Why do you shoot your mouth off giving credence to liars and heretics without using your brain first? I swear sometimes you, as an ally to the Open View, are more destructive than any enemy anyone ever had!

Which came first, God's love or God's sovereignty over creation?

Did not God love long before He was ever sovereign over creation?

Was the act of creation as great as God's love or isn't it so that God created BECAUSE of His love and for the sake of it?

Was it not Love Himself which created? God is not sovereign over love, that would be saying that He is sovereign over Himself, which wouldn't make any sense at all. God is however very definitely sovereign over creation. Thus God's love is much greater than His sovereignty over that which was created by and because of His love.

Please think it through before agreeing with AMR! I have found almost nothing that he says to be worthy of giving that much credence too and I don't just say that because I hate him but because everything he says is a convoluted mess of question begging nonsense that bears very little or no resemblance to Biblical Christianity.


AMR will object to my assertions, so I point him to my 1000s of posts and the wealth of non-Calvinistic theology through the centuries.

In fairness, AMR should read and quote John Sander's Second Edition (I am rereading it now) of 'The God who risks'. He has responded to his critics and changed or clarified ideas over time from the first edition.
Now this was an excellent point! You've pointed out just the sort of error that AMR is prone to making, only it isn't really an "error" as that term, at least in my mind, suggests it was done on accident, which I don't believe is the case with AMR. It would be more accurate in his case to say that you've pointed out just the sort of lie that AMR like to tell in support of his theology.

Resting in Him,
Clete

chatmaggot
September 24th, 2007, 06:50 AM
Mr. Religion,

Your answer to the question:


BEQ6: Which is greater, God’s sovereignty over creation, or God’s love?

Was:


"...all of God’s commandments were the great commandments"

Does the command to obey the Sabbath stand equal with healing someone (loving your neighbor)?

Did God's command to obey the Sabbath take precedence to loving your neighbor or did loving your neighbor take precedence over the Sabbath?

Or...did the command to obey the Sabbath take precedence over circumcision...or did circumcision take precedence over the Sabbath?

How can all laws be the greatest when some laws had to be broken to obey others?

Doesn't that imply that some commands are greater than others?

Chileice
September 24th, 2007, 07:35 AM
Per the terms of the proposal, Enyart is under no obligation to respond to anything until I have finished answering all of his questions. Enyart (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1520320&postcount=137) has agreed (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1520341&postcount=144)to respond to my single question (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1520336&postcount=142) regarding the eschaton I posed in another thread (see the three links in this post) after I have answered all of his BR X questions. The One on One was not to be a debate in the spirit of BR X. So, yes, it is a monologue that I am enjoying. In effect, I am trading 50 responses for 1. Not a bad deal in my opinion, assuming I get an honest response.


I must say that you are certainly earning that answer. I don't know too many people who have the time or the gumption or both to respond to all 50 questions. I have enjoyed reading your comments, even if I don't comment on them all. I'm not convinced that Calvinism is the response to Open Theism, but I give you credit for doing a bunch of hard work for the benefit of all of us, even your detractors.

Chileice
September 24th, 2007, 07:41 AM
godrulz,

Why do you shoot your mouth off giving credence to liars and heretics without using your brain first? I swear sometimes you, as an ally to the Open View, are more destructive than any enemy anyone ever had!

A gentle answer turns away wrath. Maybe Godrulz remembered that verse from Sunday School. You don't have to be confrontational to disagree. In fact he may be more of an asset for the cause than someone who just discounts everything the other guy says as a lie.



Please think it through before agreeing with AMR! I have found almost nothing that he says to be worthy of giving that much credence too and I don't just say that because I hate him but because everything he says is a convoluted mess of question begging nonsense that bears very little or no resemblance to Biblical Christianity.

I think most people will see that AMR is trying to be fair and is trying to be biblical as he interprets the Scripture. Saying you hate someone just because of their theology seems to cross out your words about God and his love.

Ask Mr. Religion
September 24th, 2007, 08:14 AM
It is obvious that this thread will not likely foster open communications, for anyone who may think that some of my responses in the 1:1 thread are on point will be subjected to much verbal abuse.

This is the common tactic of a cult-like mentality--to berate presumed members (allies) of the group that disagree with the group's dogma. Keeping everyone holding to the party line is essential for such groups. Those that step outside of the boundaries of mandated behavior are quickly shut down.

See here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1234193&postcount=203) for another example of how this behavior works.

Ask Mr. Religion
September 24th, 2007, 09:00 AM
Mr. Religion,
Does the command to obey the Sabbath stand equal with healing someone (loving your neighbor)?

Did God's command to obey the Sabbath take precedence to loving your neighbor or did loving your neighbor take precedence over the Sabbath?

Or...did the command to obey the Sabbath take precedence over circumcision...or did circumcision take precedence over the Sabbath?

How can all laws be the greatest when some laws had to be broken to obey others?

Doesn't that imply that some commands are greater than others?
The Scriptures are clear in affirming Christ's words cited in my 1:1 response:

Mat 22:37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the great and first commandment.

This first commandment summarized the first table of the law written on the stone tablet.

Mat 22:39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

This second commandment summarized the second table of the law written on the stone tablet.

In the next verse of Matthew 22 Christ clearly stated that all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments, i.e., all the Old Testament develops and amplifies these two points: love for God and love for others, who are made in God’s image.

The context is not the many ritualistic Mosaic laws, e.g., circumcision, but the Decalogue. If we obey Christ's words, in effect, we will keep all of the commandments. Is murder a greater sin than stealing? Is adultery a lesser sin than murder? To our human minds, we answer 'yes'. To God, all sin is grievous sin. God does not wink at what we think are the lesser sins. That some sins carry a greater burden of guilt is clear (e.g., John 19:11), but the penalty is the same for the unregenerate.

godrulz
September 24th, 2007, 09:18 AM
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down...

AMR: Before creation, we know that God is love in His triune relations. What was He sovereign over? Is Clete correct that sovereignty is tied to creation only (I had not thought of it that way, but that may have some merit...ties into providence/rule over creation, not eternity past?).

chatmaggot
September 24th, 2007, 09:39 AM
...To God, all sin is grievous sin. God does not wink at what we think are the lesser sins. That some sins carry a greater burden of guilt is clear (e.g., John 19:11), but the penalty is the same for the unregenerate.

I agree that some sins do carry a greater burden of guilt...but is the penalty the same for all sins?

Could you comment on 1 John 5:16-17

16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

Also, are you saying that although some commandments take precedence over others that doesn't mean they are greater?

Ask Mr. Religion
September 24th, 2007, 10:05 AM
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down...

AMR: Before creation, we know that God is love in His triune relations. What was He sovereign over. Is Clete correct that sovereignty is tied to creation only (I had not thought of it that way, but that may have some merit...ties into providence/rule over creation, not eternity past?).Trying to equate sovereignty and love, then choosing between them is incorrect reasoning, as I argued in my One on One response. You are correct to agree.

It is an apples and oranges comparison. Sovereignty is simply one of the perfect expressions of God's attributes. God is sovereign because He is "greater than all Gods" (2 Chronicles 2:5) and "he is good" (Psalms 107:1). Recall that under these two classifications are the following attributes:

‘our God is greater than all gods’ (2 Chronicles 2:5)
- self-existence (Exodus 3:14; John 5:26; Jeremiah 2:13; Psalms 36:9)
- eternity (Psalms 90:2; Isaiah 57:15; Hebrews 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:17)
- immensity (1 Kings 8:27; Romans 8:38, 39)
- omnipresence (Psalms 139:7-10; Jeremiah 23:23, 24)
- omniscience (Hebrews 4:13; 2 Chronicles 16:9; Isaiah 46:9-11)
- omnipotence (Matthew 19:26; Genesis 17:1; Jeremiah 32:17; Isaiah 40:28; Ephesians 1:11; Revelations 19:6)
- incomprehensibility (Psalms 36:5-6; Romans 11:33, cf. 34-35; Job 11:7)
- absoluteness (1 Timothy 6:15; Romans 1:25)
- infinity (Ephesians 1:23; Jeremiah 23:23-24; Psalms 139:7-12; Psalms 147:5; Job 11:7-9)
- transcendence and immanence (Isaiah 57:15; Psalms 139:7-10; John 8:23)
- time and space, time-space (Psalms 90:1-2; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Romans 8:39; 1 Kings 8:27)

‘Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good’ (Psalms 107:1)
- holiness (Psalms 99:9; Psalms 51:11; Isaiah 57:15; Psalms 105:42; Psalms 89:35)
- righteousness (Psalms 11:7; Titus 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:13; Psalms 89:14; Psalms 119:137; Romans 3:21; Revelations 16:4-7)
- truth (John 17:3; Jeremiah 33:6; 2 Samuel 2:6; Exodus 34:6; John 1:17; Romans 3:4)
- faithfulness (Deuteronomy 7:9-11; Deuteronomy 32:4; Jeremiah 16:19; Psalms 89:18; Psalms 19:7; Deuteronomy 6:26)
- love (1 John 4:19; 1 John 4:12; John 4:8)
- mercy (Psalms 145:15-16; Psalms 106:1; Psalms 136:11; Acts 14:17)

Sovereignty is not an attribute of God. Sovereignty is an expression of the attributes of God. He is sovereign because He is eternally omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, holy, righteous, merciful, love, etc. To say that God is sovereign because God is love, or that God was love before He was sovereign, is very imprecise, for it makes the mistake I have argued against in several responses: that of giving primacy to one of God's attributes over the other. It bears repeating: every positive attribute of God inheres in all positive attributes of God.

Ask Mr. Religion
September 24th, 2007, 10:37 AM
I agree that some sins do carry a greater burden of guilt...but is the penalty the same for all sins?

Could you comment on 1 John 5:16-17

16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. 17All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

Also, are you saying that although some commandments take precedence over others that doesn't mean they are greater?Yes, this passage often arises in this discussion.
We cannot say for certain what exactly the “sin leading to death” is. Some interpretations are:

1. Refers to persistent sin by a believer that is unconfessed. E.g., 1 Corinthians 11:30

2. Some believe murder is the sin referred to and that we should not feel empowered to pray for the murdering Christian given God’s statement that “whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed.”

3. Others believe the sin referred to is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, i.e., attributing the works of the Spirit to the devil. (There is even some disagreement here on the unpardonable sin. Some hold that it was attributing the miracles of Christ to the devil.)

4. Still others hold that the sin referred to was some special sin such as that committed by Moses or Aaron, Ananias and Sapphira, where God summarily judged them.

5. Lastly, some hold that the sin referred to is apostasy as it best fits the context. In Hebrews 6 we see that this sin leads to death. Anyone that commits this sin has no way of escape, since “they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.” In the entire Epistle, John has the Gnostis in view. These false teachers had at one time enjoyed the Christian fellowship. They had professed to be believers. They had intellectually known the facts of the Good News, but they turned away from Christ and accepted a teaching which denied His deity and the sufficiency of the atonement. Here we see that a Christian is not at liberty to pray for the restoration of such person because God has already indicated that they have sinned unto death.

Clearly, the words, a sin that does not lead to death, can be easily misunderstood. All sin ultimately leads to death, but the expression “that does not lead to death” (mē pros thanaton) should be understood in the sense, “not punished by death.” The distinction is between sins for which death is a quick consequence and sins for which it is not.

Clete
September 24th, 2007, 11:59 AM
A gentle answer turns away wrath. Maybe Godrulz remembered that verse from Sunday School. You don't have to be confrontational to disagree. In fact he may be more of an asset for the cause than someone who just discounts everything the other guy says as a lie.
Or maybe godrulz speaks before he thinks.


I think most people will see that AMR is trying to be fair and is trying to be biblical as he interprets the Scripture. Saying you hate someone just because of their theology seems to cross out your words about God and his love.
God hates people because of their theology too Chileice. You should try it sometime. Being Godly can be pretty cool.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Post 59 counts as one of those fallacies you were so interested in the other day.

Clete
September 24th, 2007, 12:11 PM
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down...

AMR: Before creation, we know that God is love in His triune relations. What was He sovereign over. Is Clete correct that sovereignty is tied to creation only (I had not thought of it that way, but that may have some merit...ties into providence/rule over creation, not eternity past?).

I didn't not suggest that God's sovereignty "is tied to creation only" as you put it. I was merely being consistent with the question that Bob asked that AMR was supposed to be trying to answer. Bob asked...


BEQ6: Sam, which is greater, God’s sovereignty over creation, or God’s love? [emphasis added]

I don't see how God's sovereignty would apply with meaning to anything other than the creation but the point is that I was not trying to make a new argument, I was simply being consistent with the question as asked by Bob in the debate.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
September 24th, 2007, 12:32 PM
Any chance that 1 John 5:16-17 is referring to capital crimes when is speaks of "sins leading to death"? The chapter has a lot of legal jargon in it like witness, testimony, etc. and so it would seem to fit.

Also not only is not all sin is the same, but neither are the punishments for them. God is not unjust folks! That is to say that the real God, the God of Scripture in not unjust. The so called god of Calvinism is, of course, anything but just.


Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Lon
September 24th, 2007, 01:18 PM
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down...

AMR: Before creation, we know that God is love in His triune relations. What was He sovereign over. Is Clete correct that sovereignty is tied to creation only (I had not thought of it that way, but that may have some merit...ties into providence/rule over creation, not eternity past?).

I believe you are correct here. He had love in mind in creating. AMR's point holds up well here however, we'd be guessing. It is meaningful to discuss this, but ultimately when we extrapolate/reason/deduce it isn't inductive and we proceed carefully.

Great response to the thread and topic.

Lon

chatmaggot
September 24th, 2007, 06:01 PM
Mr. Religion,

In your answer to:


BEQ11: As in my section, How to Falsify Openness, can you indicate how Scripture could theoretically falsify (prove wrong) the Settled View?

You state:


These chosen or elect individuals are purposed to become monuments to God’s love for all of eternity.

To whom are those lucky people that God predestined to be saved before the foundation of the world monuments? The angles? Himself? Each other?

How monumental is it to for God to advertise (i.e. set up as a monument) those people who had no choice but to be saved...because they could do nothing otherwise?

Do people follow Christ with the hope that they are going to be one of those preselected in the "before the foundation of the world" lottery?

Ask Mr. Religion
September 24th, 2007, 08:12 PM
To whom are those lucky people that God predestined to be saved before the foundation of the world monuments? The angles? Himself? Each other?

How monumental is it to for God to advertise (i.e. set up as a monument) those people who had no choice but to be saved...because they could do nothing otherwise?

Do people follow Christ with the hope that they are going to be one of those preselected in the "before the foundation of the world" lottery?The elect are the saved who receive God's gift of saving grace form the hearing of the Good News, regenerating them to belief and faith.

I have been answering your questions sincerely. Assuming a conversation is taking place.

So I am always disappointed when the tone takes a sudden turn towards sarcasm and flippancy for no apparent reason. You ask questions. I answer them. You ask more. I answer them. Wham! Out of the blue you become belligerent.

Do I know you? Have we ever communicated before? Have I personally offended you in the past? What?

SOTK
September 24th, 2007, 08:36 PM
Hey, AMR,

Great job in the 1:1 brother! :up: I am very much enjoying your responses to Enyart's questions!

Lon
September 25th, 2007, 12:24 AM
BEQ7: Since Sam’s answer (SLA-BEQ1) restated my question, I am asking you to answer it again, without using the word “total.” Sam answered, “Since Bob cites Dr. Reymond’s text, I will say that the doctrine as it is set forth by Reymond does not need total reformulation.” My question is, “Do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs reformulation in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change (for example, as Ware says, especially to allow for true relationship)?”

AMRA-BEQ7 - "If God changes, especially through the actions of unsettled theists with libertarian free will, we are not worshipping the same God today that was worshipped by Abraham—God has changed from something He was in the time of Abraham. God tomorrow will be different than God today, and so on."

I like how BE has reworked the question so AMR could address it as opposed to BEQ4 was specifically addressed to Lamerson's response.

AMR does a nice job of analyzing the question and giving meaningful response of not only his answer, but the 'why's' of that answer.


BEQ8: Sam wrote, “In the section on God as unchangeable in his being, Dr. Reymond cites no less than 24 passages of Scripture!” I’m having a hard time identifying those passages in Section 7 of his systematic theology book (pp. 153-203), and I would be thankful if you could just cite a list of these proof-texts for God being “unchangeable in his being.”

AMRA-BEQ8 - "I take issue with the “proof texts” characterization, for you are fully aware of the treatment given to the texts in question by the author in question. From the 1998 Second Edition, of Reymond’s A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Chapter 7, pages 153-203 the verses you have requested are as follows"

AMR didn't miss this characterization and answers the question.
I'm embarrassed for BE that he wasn't able to 'find' these verses as readily


BEQ9: Do you agree with me that the classical doctrine of utter immutability needs to be clearly taught as now reformulated in order to explicitly acknowledge that God is able to change, even if only, for example, as Ware says, to allow for true relationship?

AMRA-BEQ9 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
I do not believe the orthodox definitions of immutability need any reformulations. Therefore I do not believe any changes in the curricula of orthodox seminaries needs to be changed. What needs to be changed is the clear misunderstandings of unsettled theism about this topic.

Speaks clearly.


BEQ10 I think AMR could have skipped a couple of these question but for the agreement. This one wasn't necessary to address and was Lamerson/Enyart context merely


BEQ11: As in my section, How to Falsify Openness, can you indicate how Scripture could theoretically falsify (prove wrong) the Settled View?

AMRA-BEQ11 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
"My preferences to show that classical theism is theoretically false would be to prove that TULIP is not coherent, as follows..."

I think this was a nice leveling ground question from BE for mutual discussion.

chatmaggot
September 25th, 2007, 05:09 AM
The elect are the saved who receive God's gift of saving grace form the hearing of the Good News, regenerating them to belief and faith.

I have been answering your questions sincerely. Assuming a conversation is taking place.

So I am always disappointed when the tone takes a sudden turn towards sarcasm and flippancy for no apparent reason. You ask questions. I answer them. You ask more. I answer them. Wham! Out of the blue you become belligerent.

Do I know you? Have we ever communicated before? Have I personally offended you in the past? What?

What are you talking about? When did I become belligerent? I too thought we were having a conversation. My questions are asked in all seriousness.

I do not know why you think I became sarcastic. I did use bold...but only for clarification. Did you mistake the bold for sarcasm and belligerence?

I too am disappointed that you feel this way. I guess that is one of the downfalls of text conversations...you never get a perfect feel for the tone.

Anyways, you still never anwered the question. Who are the saved monuments too? You stated who the saved were...but not to whom they are monuments.

Clete
September 25th, 2007, 06:10 AM
chatmaggot,

AMR is the only one allowed to use sarcasm and to ask questions designed to win a debate.

AMR thinks that any question of him that he cannot answer without contradicting himself is some sort of trick question, asked sarcastically and/or belligerently. Don't worry about it. It only means that you've won whatever debate you were having at the time the whining started.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
September 25th, 2007, 06:15 AM
In response to AMR's continued fallacious and intentionally dishonest association of Open Theism with "the cults", I post the following link. It is a substantive response to an obviously vacuous attempt to discredit Open Theism by way of using the guilt by association fallacy that AMR knows is inaccurate. If AMR believes Open Theism to be a cult, let him show it to be one with substantive argumentation. Of course he can't do that and obviously isn't going to stop employing the fallacy and so I recommend anyone who counts themselves honest to read the following...

Is Open Theism Christian Theism (http://www.opentheism.info/pdf/sanders/openness_christian_theism.pdf)

(Click here for html version (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:IyVbh1nHQp0J:www.opentheism.info/pdf/sanders/openness_christian_theism.pdf+Is+Open+Theism+Chris tian+Theism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us))

CabinetMaker
September 25th, 2007, 08:38 AM
BEQ16: Does the Incarnation show that God the Son divested Himself in some significant degree of knowledge and power, but explicitly not of His goodness?

AMRA-BEQ16 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
No. Christ is God and cannot divest himself of any of His attributes. Thus, Christ did not divest Himself of knowledge or power. As I argued in AMRA-BEQ2, the attributes of God are identical with His being. For God to divest Himself of any of His attributes, He would not be the simpliciter God, but a composite God that is decomposable, divisible into parts. Yet God is pure actuality, thus having no potentiality, for that which has potential can be divided. If God could be divided, then God could be changed, as would be the case if He were able to divest Himself of some of His attributes. A divisible God is changeable, therefore not an immutable God. This is contrary to the Scriptural revelation of God.

I think AMR is wrong here. Jesus said Himself that only God the Father knows when the End Times will come. Jesus did not know so Jesus does not have the same knowledge as God the Father. It would seem that Jesus did divest Himself of some of Gods attributes.

chatmaggot
September 25th, 2007, 08:57 AM
I think AMR is wrong here. Jesus said Himself that only God the Father knows when the End Times will come. Jesus did not know so Jesus does not have the same knowledge as God the Father. It would seem that Jesus did divest Himself of some of Gods attributes.

I agree. He states that a divisible God is changeable and that can't be because we "know" that God is immutable.

God did "divide" Himself. He divided Himself into Spirit and Flesh at the incarnation. There was a time when God wasn't flesh...and then He was. That is a change.

Chileice
September 25th, 2007, 09:25 AM
What are you talking about? When did I become belligerent? I too thought we were having a conversation. My questions are asked in all seriousness.

I do not know why you think I became sarcastic. I did use bold...but only for clarification. Did you mistake the bold for sarcasm and belligerence?

I too am disappointed that you feel this way. I guess that is one of the downfalls of text conversations...you never get a perfect feel for the tone.

Anyways, you still never anwered the question. Who are the saved monuments too? You stated who the saved were...but not to whom they are monuments.

I didn't detect sarcasm either. I think maybe AMR expects to get it because he has gotten it on several occassions on different threads. But I really didn't see where AMR was coming with his comments, either.

Yorzhik
September 25th, 2007, 09:51 AM
I don't think using the term "unsettled theism" is too bad. Just as long as one is accurate, and perhaps adds something to make it clear, like: "unsettled (but not completely unsettled) theism." Seems like a lot to type if you ask me, though.

PKevman
September 25th, 2007, 10:05 AM
How screwy is it to say that Jesus did not change when He became an infant baby?

PKevman
September 25th, 2007, 10:18 AM
I find the following statements to be just nutty, and one of the reasons Calvinism is so easy to expose as false teaching:


As for His essential being the Logos was exactly the same before and after the incarnation. The verb egeneto in John 1:14 does not mean that the Logos changed into flesh, and that His essential nature was altered. It simply means that He took on that particular character; that He acquired an additional form, without in any way changing His original nature. He remained the infinite and unchangeable Son of God.

"He remained the infinite and unchangeable Son of God"?

:idea: God the Son had been an infant baby from eternity past........
:idea: God the Son cried and googooed and spit up from eternity past..... OR maybe He didn't really cry and googoo and spit up. Maybe He just sat up and started spouting out Scriptures as an infant baby?
Seriously, how could becoming an infant baby not be a change for the Creator of the universe? How could it NOT be divesting Himself of some of the divine attributes? Either He was a real infant baby or He wasn't a real infant baby!

If God the Father AND God the Son cannot change, then why does it say:

Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

1. If God the Son cannot change, how could He grow in wisdom and stature?
2. If God the Son cannot change how could He grow in favor with men?
3. If God the Son cannot change how could He grow in favor with God?
4. If God the Father cannot change, how could his favor FOR God the Son increase?

These 4 common sense questions completely annihilate AMR's post #16.

Clete
September 25th, 2007, 10:35 AM
I was in a hurry when I posted post #75 and actually cited the wrong fallacy! My mistake - sorry for any confusion that might have caused. Fortunately my mistake is easier to correct than AMR's. The post has been corrected. It is his association of Open Theism with "the cults" that the article I linked to refutes, not his use of the silly and intentionally inaccurate term "unsettled view".

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ask Mr. Religion
September 25th, 2007, 11:03 AM
I do not know why you think I became sarcastic. I did use bold...but only for clarification. Did you mistake the bold for sarcasm and belligerence?


To whom are those lucky people...monuments?
...How monumental is it...people who had no choice but to be saved...preselected in the "before the foundation of the world" lottery?Not sarcasm? Not belligerence? You think God's holy acts are a lotto? You think God's elect are robots without choice? You denigrate God's decree as not monumental? Please, sir, I do know sarcasm when I see it, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing I have communicated to you warranted the tone of your words quoted here. :chew:


Anyways, you still never answered the question. Who are the saved monuments too? You stated who the saved were...but not to whom they are monuments.The saved are monuments to the glory of God, which is His ultimate purpose for all that He does.

Yorzhik
September 25th, 2007, 12:21 PM
Lon,

Could we expect you to get upset with a comment that chatmaggot made? Would an innocuous comment like this seem rude to you?

Here's the exchange... AMR sure seemed to take it hard.



To whom are those lucky people...monuments?
...How monumental is it...people who had no choice but to be saved...preselected in the "before the foundation of the world" lottery?


Not sarcasm? Not belligerence? You think God's holy acts are a lotto? You think God's elect are robots without choice? You denigrate God's decree as not monumental? Please, sir, I do know sarcasm when I see it, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing I have communicated to you warranted the tone of your words quoted here. :chew:

Clete
September 25th, 2007, 12:23 PM
Just answer the questions AMR and stop being a cry baby about someone's "tone"!

If his questions weren't right on target they wouldn't be getting under your skin so badly.

The fact is that there is no glory in saving people who could not have gone to Hell had they wanted too and there is no denying that the Calvinist doctrine of election amounts to the ultimate cosmic lottery.

Now either refute it or live with it and stop being such a pansy.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. This is the exact same road AMR took me down shortly after he arrived here. I have little doubt that chatmaggot is soon to be AMR's newest enemy and that AMR will declare that his accusations of belligerent sarcasm where true from the start and decide that chatmaggot is no longer worthy of his time.

chatmaggot
September 25th, 2007, 12:52 PM
Not sarcasm? Not belligerence? You think God's holy acts are a lotto? You think God's elect are robots without choice? You denigrate God's decree as not monumental? Please, sir, I do know sarcasm when I see it, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing I have communicated to you warranted the tone of your words quoted here. :chew:

The saved are monuments to the glory of God, which is His ultimate purpose for all that He does.

Anyways, let's move on. I admit. I am a sarcastic jerk and the reason for by posts are not to gain understanding but rather to make people mad. My "cosmic lottery" was not an attempt at being sarcastic, I was making an analogy.

Mr. Religion,

You stated:


...but a composite God that is decomposable, divisible into parts. Yet God is pure actuality, thus having no potentiality,...

This seems to contradict your statement:


...He acquired an additional form...

How can something that is immutable acquire? Could you comment please?

Lon
September 25th, 2007, 01:02 PM
Lon,

Could we expect you to get upset with a comment that chatmaggot made? Would an innocuous comment like this seem rude to you?

Here's the exchange... AMR sure seemed to take it hard.

Maybe it is Chat's avatar and handle? Hard to tell. I don't know. Sometimes I color another's comment by thread context ("the 'crowd' is bashing me"). When other's see it in me I chalk it up to misunderstanding and/or poor communication on my part. I got neg repped on this thread already, because of lack of clarity in my initial post :*(

I pos repped him back just to give him a nicer day.

AMR is the source for getting to the bottom of your query

Lon
September 25th, 2007, 01:10 PM
Anyways, let's move on. I admit. I am a sarcastic jerk and the reason for by posts are not to gain understanding but rather to make people mad. My "cosmic lottery" was not an attempt at being sarcastic, I was making an analogy.

Mr. Religion,

You stated:



This seems to contradict your statement:



How can something that is immutable acquire? Could you comment please?

It could be Jim Carrey and maggots are jerks (no, wait, that was Steve Martin and maggots are just doing their job).

Anyway...

I had a similar discussion with Clete. My clock does not change (discounting entropy) but the display changes. It goes through a routine and in that it doesn't vary (24hours in succession).
We didn't come to conclusion on our discussion, but the statements "The clock changes/does not change" were the focal point of that discussion. I chalked the difference up to semantics and our mutually poor attempt to explain both the immutable/changing facets of the clock.

Not sure if that helps, but when we are discussing God as He "Changes not" and is responsive to us, I think some of the similar semantic discussion can lead to a similar confusion/disagreement: Changes/doesn't change

chatmaggot
September 25th, 2007, 01:12 PM
Maybe it is Chat's avatar and handle? Hard to tell. I don't know. Sometimes I color another's comment by thread context ("the 'crowd' is bashing me"). When other's see it in me I chalk it up to misunderstanding and/or poor communication on my part. I got neg repped on this thread already, because of lack of clarity in my initial post :*(

I pos repped him back just to give him a nicer day.

AMR is the source for getting to the bottom of your query

I changed my avatar so as to not confuse others in the future.

Lon
September 25th, 2007, 01:56 PM
I find the following statements to be just nutty, and one of the reasons Calvinism is so easy to expose as false teaching:



"He remained the infinite and unchangeable Son of God"?

:idea: God the Son had been an infant baby from eternity past........
:idea: God the Son cried and googooed and spit up from eternity past..... OR maybe He didn't really cry and googoo and spit up. Maybe He just sat up and started spouting out Scriptures as an infant baby?
Seriously, how could becoming an infant baby not be a change for the Creator of the universe? How could it NOT be divesting Himself of some of the divine attributes? Either He was a real infant baby or He wasn't a real infant baby!

If God the Father AND God the Son cannot change, then why does it say:

Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

1. If God the Son cannot change, how could He grow in wisdom and stature?
2. If God the Son cannot change how could He grow in favor with men?
3. If God the Son cannot change how could He grow in favor with God?
4. If God the Father cannot change, how could his favor FOR God the Son increase?

These 4 common sense questions completely annihilate AMR's post #16.

Hello PK,

Part of your refrain continues to extrapolate to absurdity (which can be said to be a problem from both perspectives).

This steers us very nearly to extreme perceptions of one another. Perhaps it is true that our disagreements have us declaring the other false, for the rhetoric certainly points that way but I've always (okay, no, I've fallen into this trap from time to time as well) tried to be careful about asking questions rather than jumping to the extreme. If I carry OV perception to its invariable conclusion I come up with similar extremity. So perhaps a few clarifying questions will steer this back on track if you will indulge me:


:idea: God the Son had been an infant baby from eternity past........
Is this what you think AMR believes? I might see the attempted levity, but generally it humor works best when it is applied to a true statement, otherwise it is mischaracterization and attack which is only fun and funny for the bully on the playfield who's a little dim (this type of humor).


:idea: God the Son cried and googooed and spit up from eternity past..... OR maybe He didn't really cry and googoo and spit up. Maybe He just sat up and started spouting out Scriptures as an infant baby?

Is this the classic/traditional perspective or an extrapolation based on that perspective? The reason I'm asking is because I don't think we could put AMR's name/stamp on this assumption, do you?


These 4 common sense questions completely annihilate AMR's post #16.

I realize you were sharing levity but it is lost in mischaracterization and that dim/bullying humor approach. IMHO, you might have elicited a response with direct questions and IHO, I don't think you've addressed the post at all yet in comment or question except for the initial:

"He remained the infinite and unchangeable Son of God"?

I think it is similar to Chat's question so of course, asked meaningfully, expresses the need for clarification in elucidation.

Nang
September 25th, 2007, 02:28 PM
AMR,

It is my observation that one can evaluate the worth of their service to the Lord by the amount and kind of opposition one generates. So far, friend, you are on the high road!

It is not only my prayer that God will give you the time and energy and wisdom to continue and finish answering Enyart's questions, but that all those who read, will do so with humble spirits, and that the Lord will cause us all to be willing to learn as the Scriptures are discussed.

This is not a game, where winning is all that matters.

This is a most holy exercise, that all participants should approach in great reverance and awe.

It is a great privilege to be trusted to handle the things of God and to be given glimpses into the depths of His riches communicated through revelations found in the written Word.

We cannot learn and be blessed, unless we honor the subjects discussed, and show love and patience with each other.

AMR has begun a good work in a good spirit and with much wisdom. He deserves our respect and our thanks and decent input and interaction, here in the Grandstands.

When Mr. Enyart answers, the same courtesies will be expected.

Meanwhile, may God richly bless and edify each of us, according to our faithfulness to read through, and meditate upon the Scriptures presented by AMR.

Nang

Ask Mr. Religion
September 25th, 2007, 02:51 PM
I changed my avatar so as to not confuse others in the future.Maybe that was adding to the 'tone' I was receiving. Anyway, as you said we will move onward. I see the topic of the nature of Christ from my 1:1 response, is a source of confusion to some. Will clarify things later today for everyone.

Clete
September 25th, 2007, 02:58 PM
It could be Jim Carrey and maggots are jerks (no, wait, that was Steve Martin and maggots are just doing their job).

Anyway...

I had a similar discussion with Clete. My clock does not change (discounting entropy) but the display changes. It goes through a routine and in that it doesn't vary (24hours in succession).
We didn't come to conclusion on our discussion, but the statements "The clock changes/does not change" were the focal point of that discussion. I chalked the difference up to semantics and our mutually poor attempt to explain both the immutable/changing facets of the clock.

Not sure if that helps, but when we are discussing God as He "Changes not" and is responsive to us, I think some of the similar semantic discussion can lead to a similar confusion/disagreement: Changes/doesn't change
The point you seem to be unable to grasp is that in Augustinian/Calvinist style immutability God cannot go through any sort of routine. No such comment like "God changed/does not change" could ever be made in the Augustinian worldview.

Resting in Him,
Clete

chatmaggot
September 25th, 2007, 03:10 PM
AMR,

It is my observation that one can evaluate the worth of their service to the Lord by the amount and kind of opposition one generates. So far, friend, you are on the high road!



Do you really believe that?

According to your logic...Bob Enyart is on an even HIGHER ROAD because of all the opposition that he generates.

Again, do you REALLY believe that ones worth is evaluated by the amount of opposition they generate...or just those people you agree with that generate opposition?

Clete
September 25th, 2007, 03:41 PM
AMR,

It is my observation that one can evaluate the worth of their service to the Lord by the amount and kind of opposition one generates. So far, friend, you are on the high road!
David Koresh must really have been a great guy then, huh?!

Knucklehead! :hammer:

Nang
September 25th, 2007, 04:07 PM
do you REALLY believe that ones worth is evaluated by the amount of opposition they generate?

Uh .. .that is not exactly what I said, is it?

Nang

Lon
September 25th, 2007, 05:23 PM
The point you seem to be unable to grasp is that in Augustinian/Calvinist style immutability God cannot go through any sort of routine. No such comment like "God changed/does not change" could ever be made in the Augustinian worldview.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Perhaps that was indeed, my point of confusion (i.e. not the OV perception but my own, as you see it). Clearly it is a matter of perception for the misperception. I'm willing to take a second look but don't forget I'm on the lower end in the club and may need it 'splained a tad more (No idea why I went into Ricky Riccardo-mode).

Lon
September 25th, 2007, 05:25 PM
Nang did say '...and KIND of opposition...'

:cloud9:

:rain:

chatmaggot
September 25th, 2007, 05:27 PM
Uh .. .that is not exactly what I said, is it?

Nang

You said in post #91:


...one can evaluate the worth of their service to the Lord by the amount and kind of opposition one generates. So far, friend, you are on the high road!

So I guess not. I left out "of their service to the Lord". Does that change anything? If so how?

Please explain.

Clete
September 25th, 2007, 07:26 PM
Perhaps that was indeed, my point of confusion (i.e. not the OV perception but my own, as you see it). Clearly it is a matter of perception for the misperception. I'm willing to take a second look but don't forget I'm on the lower end in the club and may need it 'splained a tad more (No idea why I went into Ricky Riccardo-mode).

This will glaze your eyes over (I guarantee it) but just read the first paragraph of the following...

Augustine on Divine Immutability (http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/Blackwell-proofs/MP_C32.pdf)

Note that the word "accidental" as used in the above refers to something that arising from extrinsic causes, like, for example the movement of a clocks hands (or the movement of anything for that matter).

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
September 25th, 2007, 07:52 PM
This will glaze your eyes over (I guarantee it) but just read the first paragraph of the following...

Augustine on Divine Immutability (http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/Blackwell-proofs/MP_C32.pdf)

Note that the word "accidental" as used in the above refers to something that arising from extrinsic causes, like, for example the movement of a clocks hands (or the movement of anything for that matter).

Resting in Him,
Clete

Thanks. I'll look it up.

Nang
September 25th, 2007, 07:57 PM
You said in post #91:



So I guess not. I left out "of their service to the Lord". Does that change anything? If so how?

Please explain.



Shouldn't have to . . .

Lon
September 25th, 2007, 08:13 PM
This will glaze your eyes over (I guarantee it) but just read the first paragraph of the following...

Augustine on Divine Immutability (http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/Blackwell-proofs/MP_C32.pdf)

Note that the word "accidental" as used in the above refers to something that arising from extrinsic causes, like, for example the movement of a clocks hands (or the movement of anything for that matter).

Resting in Him,
Clete

I thought it was going to take awhile to read. You are right and one would hope regarding the 'glazing' that it is poor translation work.

For our discussion, you said extrinsic would be the hands, but I believe his discussion would place those intrinsically within the nature of the clock and therefore not subject to extrinsic change. Extrinsic would be my setting it, setting the alarm, or busting it. Augustine gave Sonship and Fathership and hair color as example to this intrinsic value against extrinsic change (his term 'accident'). So he equates 'sameness' as intrinsic movement which is a good distinction for our discussion and perhaps gives meaning to our Changes/doesn't change exchange.

Clete
September 25th, 2007, 08:42 PM
I thought it was going to take awhile to read. You are right and one would hope regarding the 'glazing' that it is poor translation work.

For our discussion, you said extrinsic would be the hands, but I believe his discussion would place those intrinsically within the nature of the clock and therefore not subject to extrinsic change. Extrinsic would be my setting it, setting the alarm, or busting it. Augustine gave Sonship and Fathership and hair color as example to this intrinsic value against extrinsic change (his term 'accident'). So he equates 'sameness' as intrinsic movement which is a good distinction for our discussion and perhaps gives meaning to our Changes/doesn't change exchange.

No you do not understand what is being said. Anything that can be lost from a thing is not intrinsic to the thing. The movement of a clock can be stopped and is therefore not intrinsic to the clock but is rather accidental too it. If you read far enough Augustine makes this point using the color black in a raven's feather as an example.

This is a common error people make when they want to think that no one could really deny that God can change in some way, but the fact is that Augustine and then Luther who was an Augustinian monk, and then Calvin after him believed that God is, to use an intentionally redundant phrase, utterly immutable, or as Augustine himself put it "He [God] remains altogether unchangeable.

The question then is how did they reconcile such a belief with the incarnation and other undeniable Christian doctrines. The answer is that they did not. They made no attempt to do so because they saw need to do so. They merely accepted the incongruity as a limitation of the human mind and not as a real contradiction, despite having no evidence to that effect. If you asked Luther, as you might ask a typical Calvinist today, "Do you believe that God become flesh and dwelt among us?" they would answer "Yes, of course!" and if you then asked them if God is immutable they would likewise answer in the affirmative and if you then asked them how both can be true, if they are consistent (which most Calvinist now a days are not) they will answer with a simple, "I do not know.". They have no trouble and even expect to live with antinomy and find it odd that someone would object to it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lon
September 25th, 2007, 09:24 PM
BEQ12: Are foreordination and foreknowledge the same thing?

AMRA-BEQ12 - "No they are not...From these misunderstandings, we see incorrect statements such as the following:

Necessity of a hypothetical inference...
If God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter cannot refrain from sinning. (Incorrect)

The interpretation above wrongly interprets God's foreknowledge as impinging upon Peter's moral free agency. The proper understanding is:

The necessity of the consequent of the hypothetical..Necessarily, if God foreknew Peter would sin, then Peter does not refrain from sinning. (Correct)
...the actions of moral free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place."

I think AMR has done a brilliant treatment here. It may not be agreed upon, but for me it opens the further discussions concerning it wide open. (Did I just say 'open?' )


BEQ13: Is my conclusion from FDR true that, “prophecies of future events do not inherently provide evidence of foreknowledge?”

AMRA-BEQ13 - "Your conclusion is correct as you have stated it above. Prophecies of future events are not in and of themselves evidence of foreknowledge."

This is a nice premise for further discussion. It accurately identifies the tip of the iceberg. If I am counting correctly this is 'affirmative' #1


BEQ14: Is it theoretically possible for God to know something future because He plans to use His abilities to bring it about, rather than strictly because He foresees it?

AMRA-BEQ14 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
No, this is not possible. As discussed in AMRA-BEQ12 God foreordains all that is to come to pass. As a necessary consequence, God foreknows because He as foreordained.

This one would have been tricky merely for the vague idea of 'theoretically.' I woudn't quite know how to answer a theoretical. AMR discarded the hypothetical and I think it more accurately addressed the issue of contention than I would have thought to answer, so again kudos to him. By the way, I think in some ways this discussion is better than the Lamerson/Enyart debate because both have had more time w/o the Battle time restraints.


BEQ15: Is NOAH a clear and specific method of interpretation: The New Openness-Attributes Hermeneutic resolves conflicting explanations by selecting interpretations that give precedent to the biblical attributes of God as being living, personal, relational, good, and loving, and by rejecting explanations derived from commitment to the philosophical attributes of God such as omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, impassible, and immutable.

AMRA-BEQ15 - "NOAH is not a clear and specific method of interpretation. Please review my answer and rationale for so stating in my previous AMRA-BEQ4 response."

There is redundancy here ( # AMRA-BEQ4). (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1533966#post1533966)Again, saving BE time from editing and allowing some questions to be grouped in agreement might have helped move things along. Perhaps in the rebuttals :)


BEQ16: Does the Incarnation show that God the Son divested Himself in some significant degree of knowledge and power, but explicitly not of His goodness?

AMRA-BEQ16 - "No. Christ is God and cannot divest himself of any of His attributes."

Both a good question and answer here. I'd hope this will get some good meaningful interaction because it is one of the heavy-weight questions in theology needing really clear and thorough discussion. Philippians 2:6-12 comes to the forefront along with the other scriptures AMR cited. This discussion question is in introductory stages in my assessment. Lamerson (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=838885#post838885) and Enyart (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=841685&postcount=18) took the discussion here. I didn't see it addressed in depth. Perhaps it isn't necessary. Lamerson answers with a line similarly found (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1535845#post1535845)in AMR's repsonse. BE skipped it altogether in redress. Perhaps Enyart/Lamerson/AMR are in agreement upon that particular?

Lon
September 25th, 2007, 09:49 PM
No you do not understand what is being said. Anything that can be lost from a thing is not intrinsic to the thing. The movement of a clock can be stopped and is therefore not intrinsic to the clock but is rather accidental too it. If you read far enough Augustine makes this point using the color black in a raven's feather as an example.

This is a common error people make when they want to think that no one could really deny that God can change in some way, but the fact is that Augustine and then Luther who was an Augustinian monk, and then Calvin after him believed that God is, to use an intentionally redundant phrase, utterly immutable, or as Augustine himself put it "He [God] remains altogether unchangeable.

The question then is how did they reconcile such a belief with the incarnation and other undeniable Christian doctrines. The answer is that they did not. They made no attempt to do so because they saw need to do so. They merely accepted the incongruity as a limitation of the human mind and not as a real contradiction, despite having no evidence to that effect. If you asked Luther, as you might ask a typical Calvinist today, "Do you believe that God become flesh and dwelt among us?" they would answer "Yes, of course!" and if you then asked them if God is immutable they would likewise answer in the affirmative and if you then asked them how both can be true, if they are consistent (which most Calvinist now a days are not) they will answer with a simple, "I do not know.". They have no trouble and even expect to live with antinomy and find it odd that someone would object to it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The problem I'm seeing is the assessment that the hands are not an intrinsic part of that conveyance. God as relational to us isn't extrinsic of Himself that I see. He remains consistently God in perfection as He relates to my needs. He has already, the right tool for the right job. God already has all, there is no need to go out and buy a specialized tool because God already has it all Heb 7:26 .

It goes back to our discussion of 'ready' vs. 'already' as it relates to foreknowledge/foreordination.

Again I see our respective assumptions in this discussion. A garage can have every tool imaginable but as every new car comes out, new tools need to be made. I think OV omnicompetency has the garage with a foundry and ready for contingency.
The traditional view has the tools already anticipated and made. The future hasn't happened yet/future is known discussion is at the crux of our immutability discussion. In both scenarios the tools are there when needed, it is just how they got there that is the focal point of discussion.

(Ignore my analogy as it breaks down. I'm just trying to put some handles on our discussion).

I like your intrisic/extrinsic analogy on the change discussion. It helps me get a bit more of grasp on why we are unable to get to meaningful discussions between us. I believe you are correct with many in living with antinomy or paradox. We all do this to some degree (at least I do) and not just in theology considerations.

Ask Mr. Religion
September 26th, 2007, 03:40 AM
AMRA-BEQ16 - "No. Christ is God and cannot divest himself of any of His attributes."

Both a good question and answer here. I'd hope this will get some good meaningful interaction because it is one of the heavy-weight questions in theology needing really clear and thorough discussion. Philippians 2:6-12 comes to the forefront along with the other scriptures AMR cited. This discussion question is in introductory stages in my assessment. Lamerson (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=838885#post838885) and Enyart (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=841685&postcount=18) took the discussion here. I didn't see it addressed in depth. Perhaps it isn't necessary. Lamerson answers with a line similarly found (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1535845#post1535845)in AMR's repsonse. BE skipped it altogether in redress. Perhaps Enyart/Lamerson/AMR are in agreement upon that particular?
I have updated my response to include more explanation based upon some comments in this thread. See here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1535845&postcount=19).

My hands trembled as I prepared these upates, as they always do when discussing the greatest mystery of God. I pray I have done the topic some justice for the reader.

Clete
September 26th, 2007, 06:44 AM
The problem I'm seeing is the assessment that the hands are not an intrinsic part of that conveyance.
It isn't actually the hands that we are talking about but rather the movement of those hands. But either way the argument holds. Just as I can stop the hands of a clock from moving I can likewise remove the hands from the clock! I could also remove the face or just the numbers or perhaps a gear, whatever it doesn't matter. That which can be lost from a thing IS NOT intrinsic to that thing.

Did you read that part where Augustine was talking about the raven's feather being black and how if the feather eventually turned to dust that certainly along the way it will have at some point lost the quality of being black? In effect the raven's feather is only a conglomeration of accidental parts whereas God, having no parts has nothing about Him that is accidental to Him and is therefore utterly immutable.


God as relational to us isn't extrinsic of Himself that I see.
That's why you aren't a Calvinist.


He remains consistently God in perfection as He relates to my needs. He has already, the right tool for the right job. God already has all, there is no need to go out and buy a specialized tool because God already has it all Heb 7:26 .
But the Calvinist would insist that even this sort of "movement" in God is figurative, anthropomorphic or whatever. God does not do jobs with or without tools of any sort. Talking about God in such parlance is perhaps useful to us as humans but does not convey any real truth about God that is not analogical in nature - according to the Calvinist.


It goes back to our discussion of 'ready' vs. 'already' as it relates to foreknowledge/foreordination.

Again I see our respective assumptions in this discussion. A garage can have every tool imaginable but as every new car comes out, new tools need to be made. I think OV omnicompetency has the garage with a foundry and ready for contingency.
The traditional view has the tools already anticipated and made. The future hasn't happened yet/future is known discussion is at the crux of our immutability discussion. In both scenarios the tools are there when needed, it is just how they got there that is the focal point of discussion.
I'm afraid that you very simply do not understand the focal point of the discussion at all. Keeping in mind that you've only made an analogy here and in keeping with that same analogy, no Calvinist would agree that God is in need an tools of any sort and that while such analogies might help us to relate to God because of our limited ability to comprehend God's perfection, it must be kept firmly in mind, according to the Calvinist, that such discussions do not pertain to anything real within God, for in Him there is no potentiality but rather He is pure actuality. Everything God does, God is. Every such "tool" He would use must be understood to be part of His very being and nature for God has no parts and is altogether immutable.


(Ignore my analogy as it breaks down. I'm just trying to put some handles on our discussion).
I just love that you said this in this way because the Calvinist believes that nearly everything we say about God is only analogous to His reality and that such analogies break down at whatever point you run into problems concerning His immutability (as well as the other Omni and IM attributes).


I like your intrisic/extrinsic analogy on the change discussion. It helps me get a bit more of grasp on why we are unable to get to meaningful discussions between us. I believe you are correct with many in living with antinomy or paradox. We all do this to some degree (at least I do) and not just in theology considerations.
God is logic (John 1) and as such no contradiction can exist with either Him or a correct theological worldview. Paradoxes I can live with, antinomies I cannot. Such should be the attitude of all Christians.

Resting in Him,
Clete

CabinetMaker
September 26th, 2007, 08:50 AM
I have updated my response to include more explanation based upon some comments in this thread. See here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1535845&postcount=19).

My hands trembled as I prepared these upates, as they always do when discussing the greatest mystery of God. I pray I have done the topic some justice for the reader.
I don't see anything that substantially changes the fact that Jesus said no man, including Himself, knows when the Father start the end times. The following verse is not addressed in your post and would seem central to it.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=36&version=31&context=verse)
[ The Day and Hour Unknown ] "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

If Jesus cannot divest Himself of that knowledge and Jesus is God, then Jesus must know when those times will begin. The fact that Jesus said He doesn't know forces you into one of two possibilities;


Possibility one, Jesus does not know and has therefore divested Himself of some of Gods knowledge.
Possibility two, Jesus lied about not knowing.Which do you think is the more likely possibility?

Nang
September 26th, 2007, 10:48 AM
I don't see anything that substantially changes the fact that Jesus said no man, including Himself, knows when the Father start the end times. The following verse is not addressed in your post and would seem central to it.
[B]


You answer your own question. Jesus said "no man" is to possess this knowledge. And Jesus spoke vicariously as a man.


If Jesus cannot divest Himself of that knowledge and Jesus is God, then Jesus must know when those times will begin. The fact that Jesus said He doesn't know forces you into one of two possibilities;


Possibility one, Jesus does not know and has therefore divested Himself of some of Gods knowledge.
Possibility two, Jesus lied about not knowing.Which do you think is the more likely possibility?

Neither of these are correct.

AMR gave careful answer to this question, including the following statement:

"Consequently, from the verses above we see Christ was not laying aside divine attributes but was laying aside divine glory and dignity. This was a change of role and status, not essential attributes or nature."

The fact that Christ came as a man and submitted His will to the will of the Father, does not mean that Jesus Christ divested Himself of volition. So too, Christ came as the Son to fulfill the office and role as federal head and representive of men given to Him by the Father. He purposefully did not exceed that office and role, in submission to the Father.

He honored the Father by restricting His knowledge to what has been given to mankind. Such knowledge fits only the role of God, and is not for any man to know.

This does not mean Jesus Christ divested Himself of omniscience, but simply that He kept that knowledge within the realm of the Godhead, as the Father willed.

"The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever; that we may do all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29

It is sinful for man to strain against these sovereign restrictions. It is not for man to know all the things of God. It is God's exclusive right to reveal to mankind only what He wills men to know.

And God the Father does not privilege mankind to know the date or hour of the end of this world; thus Jesus Christ, while manifesting and representing a humanity, maintained the superiority and sovereignty of God over all men.

I would recommend you reread AMR's answer to [URL="http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1535845&postcount=19"]BEQ16. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=36&version=31&context=verse)

Nang

Ask Mr. Religion
September 26th, 2007, 11:08 AM
I don't see anything that substantially changes the fact that Jesus said no man, including Himself, knows when the Father start the end times. The following verse is not addressed in your post and would seem central to it.

If Jesus cannot divest Himself of that knowledge and Jesus is God, then Jesus must know when those times will begin. The fact that Jesus said He doesn't know forces you into one of two possibilities;
Possibility one, Jesus does not know and has therefore divested Himself of some of Gods knowledge.
Possibility two, Jesus lied about not knowing.Which do you think is the more likely possibility?
I updated the 1:1 response. The updated portion is as follows:

There were two components of the humiliation of Christ.

First, He put aside His divine majesty (Isaiah 53:1-3; John 17:5) and assumed humanity in the form of a servant, the son of man (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 3:15; John 4:34; John 15:15; John 5:19; Romans 5:19).

Second, Christ became subject to the law’s demands and curses (legally responsible for our sins and liable to the curse of law); His life became obedient in actions and suffering to the limits of a shameful death. This state of Christ is seen described in Galatians 4:4.

Thus when we encounter verses such as Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 they must be understood that Christ was speaking as the as the son of man, and not as the Son of God. As Son of God, Christ knew all the purposes and designs of the Father, for they were purposed in Him. Just as He knew from the beginning that He would be betrayed and who would betray Him, Christ, the Son of God, must also fully know the appointed day of Judgment ordained by God the Father.

We see in the Scriptures that Christ grew in wisdom as a child (Luke 2:52), yet during the ‘last week’ apparently expected a fig tree to have some fruit when it had none (Matthew 21:19-20). Christ appears sometimes to have asked questions to gain information (Luke 8:45-46) and said He did not know the time of His second advent (Mark 13:32), information known only to the Father. And we have all the reports of His growth in physical stature, physical wants, and so on (e.g., Luke 2:7; John 4:6; Matthew 4:4, John 19:28). We also find that it was plain that Christ was never more in one place at the same time, for He traveled on foot most of the time.

What these observations really only emphasize is the point that the creeds make: that Christ was very man. Not that in important ways He was not uniquely different Man (He was, for example, without sin). Nor do they show that He was a mere Man. What they show is that even though the Person was the Logos, the Second Person of the Godhead, as that Person, He did not employ all the powers of deity in the state of humiliation, and as regards the human nature, Christ renounced the independent use of His perfect attributes except as specially occasioned by the Father’s will.

Ask Mr. Religion
September 26th, 2007, 11:13 AM
I posted my response not aware that Nang had already replied. Was pleased to see that we are consistent. Whew! ;)

Ask Mr. Religion
September 26th, 2007, 11:25 AM
"The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever; that we may do all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29

It is sinful for man to strain against these sovereign restrictions. It is not for man to know all the things of God. It is God's exclusive right to reveal to mankind only what He wills men to know. Indeed. Whenever I find myself speaking about the Incarnation or the Godhead, I fear that in my ignorance I will bring dishonor to the glory of God. I ask for His forgiveness of my lack of discernment wherever I have erred. No person can fully apprehend these matters and I doubt we will ever fully know them even in our glorified state in eternity.

These topics are holy topics and should be approached with humility and reverence. When I see such matters being treated flippantly it saddens me, and shames us all as creatures of God.

Clete
September 26th, 2007, 11:38 AM
Lon,

See the post immediately before this one (including the post of Nang's which AMR quotes) for an excellent real world example of how Calvinists treat rational incongruities. There is simply no need, in their minds, to have a rational worldview. Whatever they teach is truth and both bother them with the details.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Bob needs to post a partial response soon or else I fear I might die of boredom with these so called "answers" of AMR's. Sheesh! How can anyone older than 10 believe this nonsense?!

Lon
September 26th, 2007, 11:44 AM
It isn't actually the hands that we are talking about but rather the movement of those hands. But either way the argument holds. Just as I can stop the hands of a clock from moving I can likewise remove the hands from the clock! I could also remove the face or just the numbers or perhaps a gear, whatever it doesn't matter. That which can be lost from a thing IS NOT intrinsic to that thing.

Did you read that part where Augustine was talking about the raven's feather being black and how if the feather eventually turned to dust that certainly along the way it will have at some point lost the quality of being black? In effect the raven's feather is only a conglomeration of accidental parts whereas God, having no parts has nothing about Him that is accidental to Him and is therefore utterly immutable.

I'll have to go reread again (maybe I can find a better translator :) ) but yes I read the raven feather portion. I gathered he was saying if the part can be removed it is 'accidental' (extrinsic in that it is no longer part of the raven) whereas all of God's relational responses would be considered intrinsic thus unchanging. I thought your extrinsic/intrinsic expression (sorry, I said 'analogy' in the previous post)was meaningful. Initially I thought you were expressing a shared understanding rather than a disagreement because it is a nice separation line for change/immutable in discussion.


That's why you aren't a Calvinist.
I'm not sure a Calvinist would disagree with my statement but you could be correct. Remember I've not been a 5 pointer in the past and I'm a slow mover as I only embrace what I can express and align with Scripture.



But the Calvinist would insist that even this sort of "movement" in God is figurative, anthropomorphic or whatever. God does not do jobs with or without tools of any sort. Talking about God in such parlance is perhaps useful to us as humans but does not convey any real truth about God that is not analogical in nature - according to the Calvinist.
I agree with your assessment and I don't disagree with analogical expression as necessary for our limited capacity. As a glass cannot hold the entire ocean, I cannot contain knowledge of God. Analogy is necessary in this relationship.



I'm afraid that you very simply do not understand the focal point of the discussion at all. Keeping in mind that you've only made an analogy here and in keeping with that same analogy, no Calvinist would agree that God is in need an tools of any sort and that while such analogies might help us to relate to God because of our limited ability to comprehend God's perfection, it must be kept firmly in mind, according to the Calvinist, that such discussions do not pertain to anything real within God, for in Him there is no potentiality but rather He is pure actuality. Everything God does, God is. Every such "tool" He would use must be understood to be part of His very being and nature for God has no parts and is altogether immutable.
I understand the distinction and limitation you express over my analogy.



I just love that you said this in this way because the Calvinist believes that nearly everything we say about God is only analogous to His reality and that such analogies break down at whatever point you run into problems concerning His immutability (as well as the other Omni and IM attributes).


God is logic (John 1) and as such no contradiction can exist with either Him or a correct theological worldview. Paradoxes I can live with, antinomies I cannot. Such should be the attitude of all Christians.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Jesus expressed ideas in Parable (analogy) albeit His were better than mine will ever be.
My glass of sea water works well in my mind as to finite comprehending infinite. The glass can accurately contain the essence of the ocean but it is easy to understand it isn't everything in the ocean. Whales would be wholly outside of the perception and ability to grasp. We could anologically discuss a whale as a massive krill-type being, but it isn't accurate to the conception, merely analogous.

Antinomy is hard. I see Judas hanged himself/spilled his guts as antimony. My reasoning extrapolates logically to paradox, that his guts spilled after degradation, but it is expressed in antinomy. I think what we are focusing on tends to be our differences. You may be correct that Calvinism/OV are continuing against one another in paradigms that cannot meet in the middle. Extremes, after-all are like this (republican/democrat liberal/conservative). Perhaps the Arminian, moderate, and libertarian are feeling comfortable right about now. At times extremes are dead on the money, but the middle is where either has to convey and discuss or eventually get to the other side. Christ was both extreme and mutual depending on the topic and audience. He was very blatant at times with truth, but He often spoke to the mutual (middle ground) for conveyance. We may be at extremes, but our discussion is meaningful in mutuality, not watered down, but for conveyance and understandability.

In Him

Lon

CabinetMaker
September 26th, 2007, 11:47 AM
You answer your own question. Jesus said "no man" is to possess this knowledge. And Jesus spoke vicariously as a man.Look at the verse again Nang, that is not what it says.

Originally Posted by Matthew 24:36
[ The Day and Hour Unknown ] "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Note that the verse says no one knows not even the Son. He was not speaking as a man, He was speaking as the Son of God.

Clete
September 26th, 2007, 11:51 AM
Look at the verse again Nang, that is not what it says.

Originally Posted by Matthew 24:36
[ The Day and Hour Unknown ] "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Note that the verse says no one knows not even the Son. He was not speaking as a man, He was speaking as the Son of God.


Boy! I sure am glad that AMR's answer was consistent with Nang's! Whew! :chuckle:

CabinetMaker
September 26th, 2007, 11:51 AM
I updated the 1:1 response. The updated portion is as follows:

There were two components of the humiliation of Christ.

First, He put aside His divine majesty (Isaiah 53:1-3; John 17:5) and assumed humanity in the form of a servant, the son of man (Isaiah 42:1; Matthew 3:15; John 4:34; John 15:15; John 5:19; Romans 5:19).

Second, Christ became subject to the law’s demands and curses (legally responsible for our sins and liable to the curse of law); His life became obedient in actions and suffering to the limits of a shameful death. This state of Christ is seen described in Galatians 4:4.

Thus when we encounter verses such as Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 they must be understood that Christ was speaking as the as the son of man, and not as the Son of God. As Son of God, Christ knew all the purposes and designs of the Father, for they were purposed in Him. Just as He knew from the beginning that He would be betrayed and who would betray Him, Christ, the Son of God, must also fully know the appointed day of Judgment ordained by God the Father.

We see in the Scriptures that Christ grew in wisdom as a child (Luke 2:52), yet during the ‘last week’ apparently expected a fig tree to have some fruit when it had none (Matthew 21:19-20). Christ appears sometimes to have asked questions to gain information (Luke 8:45-46) and said He did not know the time of His second advent (Mark 13:32), information known only to the Father. And we have all the reports of His growth in physical stature, physical wants, and so on (e.g., Luke 2:7; John 4:6; Matthew 4:4, John 19:28). We also find that it was plain that Christ was never more in one place at the same time, for He traveled on foot most of the time.

What these observations really only emphasize is the point that the creeds make: that Christ was very man. Not that in important ways He was not uniquely different Man (He was, for example, without sin). Nor do they show that He was a mere Man. What they show is that even though the Person was the Logos, the Second Person of the Godhead, as that Person, He did not employ all the powers of deity in the state of humiliation, and as regards the human nature, Christ renounced the independent use of His perfect attributes except as specially occasioned by the Father’s will.
Basically you believe that Jesus lied to His followers. He knows when Armageddon will be but told His followers He did not know. Again, look at the verse again. Jesus was not speaking as a man, He was speaking as the Son of God

Nang
September 26th, 2007, 11:56 AM
He was speaking as the Son of God.[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]


What is your basis for making this distinction?

What is your motive for making this distinction?



Nang

CabinetMaker
September 26th, 2007, 12:48 PM
What is your basis for making this distinction?It is what Jesus said. Its that simple, Jesus said He did not know.

[quote=Nang What is your motive for making this distinction?[/quote]
It is a response to AMR's assertion that Jesus knows everything God knows. Jesus says He does not. Jesus's own words contradict what AMR asserts as truth. I want to know how He deals with it. In his response, AMR waves His hands a bit and tries to make the claim that Jesus could separate His Godhood from His Manhood as best fits a situation. Again, that contradicts AMR's assertion that God is not divided.

In short, AMR is making claims about Jesus that Jesus does not agree with. Whats going on?

Nang
September 26th, 2007, 01:09 PM
It is what Jesus said. Its that simple, Jesus said He did not know.

Actually, Jesus did not say He did not know. He said it was not for created beings (men and angels) to have this specific knowledge; it has been restricted by the Father, and Jesus, as the perfect Man, did not act contrary to the Father, in any instance.



It is a response to AMR's assertion that Jesus knows everything God knows. Jesus says He does not. Jesus's own words contradict what AMR asserts as truth.

Since your motivation is to challenge AMR, he must give answer to this, and I will step aside.


Nang

CabinetMaker
September 26th, 2007, 01:23 PM
Actually, Jesus did not say He did not know. He said it was not for created beings (men and angels) to have this specific knowledge; it has been restricted by the Father, and Jesus, as the perfect Man, did not act contrary to the Father, in any instance.

Have you even read the verse? Here are some various translations for you. Note that every translation here is the same in that ONLY the Father knows. Some versions include "nor the Son" but when Jesus said only the Father that means that only the Father knows, not the Son. What say you, did Jesus know and miss-lead His followers or did Jesus not know.

KJV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=24&version=kjv) - Mat 24:36 - But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.King James Version 1611, 1769 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#kjv)

NKJV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=24&version=nkjv) - Mat 24:36 -"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.
Footnote:
NU-Text adds nor the Son.New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#nkjv)

NLT (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=24&version=nlt) - Mat 24:36 -"However, no one knows the day or the hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.
Footnote:
Some manuscripts omit the phrase or the Son himself.New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#nlt)

NIV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=24&version=niv) - Mat 24:36 -“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Footnote:
Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#niv)

ESV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=24&version=esv) - Mat 24:36 -“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

Footnote:
Some manuscripts omit nor the SonThe Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#esv)

NASB (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=24&version=nas) - Mat 24:36 -"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#nas)

RSV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=24&version=rsv) - Mat 24:36 -"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952. (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#rsv)

ASV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=24&version=asv) - Mat 24:36 -But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.American Standard Version 1901 Info (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#asv)

Young (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=24&version=yng) - Mat 24:36 -`And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known -- not even the messengers of the heavens -- except my Father only;Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#yng)

Darby (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=24&version=dby) - Mat 24:36 -But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of the heavens, but [my] Father alone.J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#dby)

Webster (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=24&version=web) - Mat 24:36 -But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.Noah Webster Version 1833 Info (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#web)

HNV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=24&version=hnv) - Mat 24:36 -But no one knows of that day and hour, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only.Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#hnv)

Vulgate (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Mat&chapter=24&version=vul) - Mat 24:36 -de die autem illa et hora nemo scit neque angeli caelorum nisi Pater solusJerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info (http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#vul)

Ask Mr. Religion
September 26th, 2007, 02:34 PM
It is what Jesus said. Its that simple, Jesus said He did not know.

It is a response to AMR's assertion that Jesus knows everything God knows. Jesus says He does not. Jesus's own words contradict what AMR asserts as truth. I want to know how He deals with it. In his response, AMR waves His hands a bit and tries to make the claim that Jesus could separate His Godhood from His Manhood as best fits a situation. Again, that contradicts AMR's assertion that God is not divided.

In short, AMR is making claims about Jesus that Jesus does not agree with. Whats going on?You seem to be ignoring what has been replied to in your question. Christ incarnate had two natures in the one person. No one is hand waving. You are ignoring the two components of the humiliation of Christ I described and just making statements without accurately linking them to the responses you have received. You want me to do your heavy lifting in trying to ascertain what you are assuming. For example, you over generalize a great deal of my response to the statement that "Jesus knows everything God knows" and then claim my response is hand-waving. I don't think that is an honest assessment, but merely provocation.

The verses you cite show Christ speaking with a divine awareness, yet, due to the union of the two natures, He labels Himself in those verses and is sometimes so labeled elsewhere by others in the Scriptures, "in terms of what he is by virtue of one nature when what is then predicated of him, so designated, is true of him by virtue of his other nature." (see Redmond, Systematic Theology, Revised Edition, pg. 224).

Within the Reformed faith, this distinction is described by the WCF VIII/vii:

"Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature."

In the verse in question, Christ designates Himself in the terms of what He is as "the Son" of "the Father" (His divinity), but Christ then affirms (predicates) of Himself that His ignorance of the Second Advent is true of Him in terms of His humanity, not in terms of His divinity.

I noted in my 1:1 post that the Chalcedonian description was one of the best formations of the topic. This is the description, created over a period of about two weeks by 500-600 clerics in response to heretical ideas about the nature of Christ, and has been accepted by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant groups for the last 1,500 years or so. I am hopeful that there was nothing in what I have posted that is in conflict with the creed.

So perhaps it would move things along if you would review the Creed's description below and point out what you specifically disagree with and why you do, for it seems to be underlying your questions:

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."

Other than the Scriptural view above, there are six variations of the heresies surrounding the incarnate Christ.

The first four centuries of Christianity saw these six basic heresies arise:

1. deny the genuineness (Ebionism) or the completeness (Arianism) of Christ's deity
2. deny the genuineness (Docetism) or the completeness (Apollinarianism) of His humanity
3. divide His person (Nestorianism) or confuse His natures (Eutychianism)

chatmaggot
September 26th, 2007, 02:41 PM
No one is hand waving.

Nang's avatar is...and it is starting to offend me.

CabinetMaker
September 26th, 2007, 02:49 PM
In the verse in question, Christ designates Himself in the terms of what He is as "the Son" of "the Father" (His divinity), but Christ then affirms (predicates) of Himself that His ignorance of the Second Advent is true of Him in terms of His humanity, not in terms of His divinity.

Bit of a stretch there on your part. There is nothing in that verse that suggest Jesus meant He was ignorant in His humanity. Jesus clearly indicates that the Son and the Father are distinct and that only the Father knows. You are asserting that Jesus actually knows when He clearly states He does not.

As to the WCF, that seems to weaken rather than strengthen your argument.



"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."
The WCF says the two natures are insuperable thus what one nature knows the other nature must know as will. The WCF states this twice. So if Jesus is two natures that are insuperable, not divided but one in the same, what does it mean when He says that only the Father knows the hour?

Nang
September 26th, 2007, 02:51 PM
Nang's avatar is...and it is starting to offend me.



:chuckle:

Clete
September 26th, 2007, 03:33 PM
Bit of a stretch there on your part. There is nothing in that verse that suggest Jesus meant He was ignorant in His humanity. Jesus clearly indicates that the Son and the Father are distinct and that only the Father knows. You are asserting that Jesus actually knows when He clearly states He does not.

As to the WCF, that seems to weaken rather than strengthen your argument.

[/FONT]
The WCF says the two natures are insuperable thus what one nature knows the other nature must know as will. The WCF states this twice. So if Jesus is two natures that are insuperable, not divided but one in the same, what does it mean when He says that only the Father knows the hour?

Go ahead AMR, respond to CM's post here by calling it an 'antinomy'! What are you afraid of? You know as well as anyone that God's simplicity and immutability cannot be rationally reconciled with the incarnation and Christ's humiliation.

Go on now! Use that favorite word of all Calvinists and get it over with! You know you want too! Just do it! The only alternative is to go round and round here with CM until one of you gets flustered which will undoubtedly result in you blowing off his arguments after having called him belligerent and sarcastic.

Nang
September 26th, 2007, 04:50 PM
Go ahead AMR, respond to CM's post here by calling it an 'antinomy'! What are you afraid of? You know as well as anyone that God's simplicity and immutability cannot be rationally reconciled with the incarnation and Christ's humiliation.

Go on now! Use that favorite word of all Calvinists and get it over with! You know you want too! Just do it! The only alternative is to go round and round here with CM until one of you gets flustered which will undoubtedly result in you blowing off his arguments after having called him belligerent and sarcastic.


Disclaimer: I am a Calvinist, and it is not my favorite word.


Hint: (bolded in red so no one will miss it)

"Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature." WCF VIII/vii

Many things Christ did were necessary to fulfill all righteousness (e.g. being baptized) in order to establish His office as Mediator for an elect humanity.

Events such as these reveal the necessities accomplished by Christ to reconcile man with God.

He remained Divine in His Person, possessing two natures that functioned harmoniously, while vicariously subjecting Himself to necessary human limitations, in order to not only manifest the Perfect Man, but as demonstration of His qualifications to be the sole Mediator between God and Man.

Nang

godrulz
September 27th, 2007, 03:00 PM
Disclaimer: I am a Calvinist, and it is not my favorite word.



Nang


Then I am not an Open Theist or human? If it quacks like a duck...

Clete
September 27th, 2007, 04:31 PM
Disclaimer: I am a Calvinist, and it is not my favorite word.
Perhaps not from an aesthetic perspective but theologically you cherish it like it was your own eye ball. You have no choice to do otherwise and maintain anything that even remotely resembles a coherent worldview.


Hint: (bolded in red so no one will miss it)

"Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature." WCF VIII/vii

Many things Christ did were necessary to fulfill all righteousness (e.g. being baptized) in order to establish His office as Mediator for an elect humanity.

Events such as these reveal the necessities accomplished by Christ to reconcile man with God.

He remained Divine in His Person, possessing two natures that functioned harmoniously, while vicariously subjecting Himself to necessary human limitations, in order to not only manifest the Perfect Man, but as demonstration of His qualifications to be the sole Mediator between God and Man.

Nang
Irrelevant.

Hey Nang, if you can't follow the argument don't bother responding to it okay? It will save us both some time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Nang
September 27th, 2007, 05:07 PM
Perhaps not from an aesthetic perspective but theologically you cherish it like it was your own eye ball. You have no choice to do otherwise and maintain anything that even remotely resembles a coherent worldview.

Cherish the word "antinomy?" Do a search . . .I don't believe I have ever used it or even reverted to admitting contradiction, or paradoxical mysteries in my posts. Secret, and restricted knowledge, yes, according to Deut. 29:29, but that is all.

I am not a Van Tillian, if that is what you are thinking. I prefer the more rational hermeneutic approach of Gordon Clark, et. al.



Irrelevant.

The Son of God come in the flesh to establish all righteousness through perfect obedience and submission to the will of the Father in order to qualify as Mediator between man and God, is irrelevant?


Hey Nang, if you can't follow the argument don't bother responding to it okay? It will save us both some time.

Dittos back atch'ya . . .fella . . .:p

Nang

Lon
September 27th, 2007, 08:20 PM
Bit of a stretch there on your part. There is nothing in that verse that suggest Jesus meant He was ignorant in His humanity. Jesus clearly indicates that the Son and the Father are distinct and that only the Father knows. You are asserting that Jesus actually knows when He clearly states He does not.

As to the WCF, that seems to weaken rather than strengthen your argument.

[/FONT]
The WCF says the two natures are insuperable thus what one nature knows the other nature must know as will. The WCF states this twice. So if Jesus is two natures that are insuperable, not divided but one in the same, what does it mean when He says that only the Father knows the hour?


Just a tiny bit of correction may not answer your question entirely but it WILL put it into context and perspective for you:


Jesus clearly indicate[d] that the Son and the Father are distinct and that only the Father kn[e]w. You are asserting that Jesus actually knows when He clearly state[d] He d[id] not.

Ask Mr. Religion
September 27th, 2007, 09:02 PM
Bit of a stretch there on your part. There is nothing in that verse that suggest Jesus meant He was ignorant in His humanity. Jesus clearly indicates that the Son and the Father are distinct and that only the Father knows. You are asserting that Jesus actually knows when He clearly states He does not.

As to the WCF, that seems to weaken rather than strengthen your argument.

The WCF says the two natures are insuperable thus what one nature knows the other nature must know as will. The WCF states this twice. So if Jesus is two natures that are insuperable, not divided but one in the same, what does it mean when He says that only the Father knows the hour?
First, you quote the Chalcedonian definition I carefully described in my original post as being associated with the WCF. It is not. The Chalcedonian item is a 1,500 year old statement describing the incarnate nature of Christ that is accepted by virtually all of Christendom (Catholic, Orthodox Greek, and Protestant). Indeed, no other such statement has survived virtually unchanged and accepted by Christendom, even through the split of the Eastern and Western churches in the eleventh century, and the Reformation. I would greatly appreciate any answer you have to my previous question about what your specific disagreements are with respect to the incarnate nature of Christ described therein.

Second, you appear to have overlooked the actual WCF section, VIII/vii (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_VIII.html), I quoted:

"Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature."

This is an important observation of the treatment given in the Scriptures of the incarnate Christ. As further explanation of this statement, the following is excerpted from the Incarnation entry on the from the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2001, pg. 602:

“Because Jesus Christ is the God-man (one person who took human nature into union with his divine nature in the one divine person), the Scriptures can predicate of his person whatever can be predicated of either nature. In fact, the person of Christ may be designated in terms of one nature while what is predicated of him so designated is true by virtue of his union with the other nature (cf. Westminister Confession, VIII, vii (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_VIII.html)). In other words:

1. The person, and not a nature, is the subject of the statement when what is predicated of Christ is true by virtue of all that belongs to his person as essentially divine and assumptively human; e.g., redeemer; prophet, priest, and king.

2. The person, and not a nature, is the subject of the statement when what is predicated of him, designated in terms of what he is as human, is true by virtue of his divine nature; e.g., in Romans 9:5 Christ is designated according to his human nature ("Christ according to the flesh"), while what is predicated of him is true because of his divine nature ("God over all, blessed forever"). The Scriptures do not confuse or intermingle the natures. It is the person of Christ who is always the subject of the scriptural assertions about him.

3. The person, and not a nature, is the subject of the statement, when what is predicated of him, designated in terms of what he is as divine, is true by virtue of his human nature; e.g., in I Corinthians 2:8 Christ is designated according to his divine nature ("the Lord of glory"), while what is predicated of him is true because of his human nature (man "crucified" him). Again, there is no confusion here of the divine and human natures of Christ.It is not the divine nature as such which is crucified; it is the divine person, because he is also human, who is crucified.” (emphasis mine)
Hence, in Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 we find Christ is designating Himself in the terms of his divine nature (“the Son”, “the Father”), but then He predicates (i.e., ‘affirms one thing of another’) His ignorance of the Second Coming is true in terms of His human nature, but not in terms of His divine nature. In other words, the God-man is shown in these verses self-consciously omniscient as God and consciously ignorant as man simultaneously.


Third, your conclusion drawn from your reading of the Chalcedonian description is incorrect. This is understandable, for when speaking of the Incarnation, some careful distinctions are made by theologians in words like person, nature, conscious, self-conscious. You conclude “what one nature knows the other nature must know”. That is incorrect and clear from a careful reading of the Chalcedonian description:

“to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved”

The word ‘nature’ as used when speaking of the Incarnation means a complex of attributes. It does not mean ‘person’. The divine attributes are not somehow passed to man and the human attributes are not transmitted to the divine. If you assume the two natures are compounded in some manner you fall into one of the six possible heresies of the Incarnation I described (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1537247&postcount=123) that motivated the creation of the Chalcedonian description.

For it was against the Eutychians that the Chalcedonian description confessed that in Christ were two natures without any confusion or change, each nature preserved and concurring in one person. And it was against the Nestorians that the description spoke throughout of one and the same Son and one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons and whose natures are in union without division and without separation. The description made it clear that a ‘person/hypostatis’ was a self-conscious substantive entity, while a ‘nature’ was a complex of attributes. That person/hypostatis was the divine Son of God. The human nature of Jesus possessed no hypostatis of its own, that is, unless the Son of God entered Mary’s womb, Jesus would not have existed. There was no “man” without this divine action. The description denies that the Son of God took into union with Himself a human person, instead the Chalcedonian description insists that He took into union with himself a full complex of human attributes (doctrine of anhypostasia). It also means that there was not two self-consciousnesses within Jesus. At the Incarnation the one Son remained self-consciously divine and consciously human as well.

The human and divine natures of Christ were essentially distinct as they were brought together, and though joined in the hypostatic union, a personal union, the two natures are not blended nor commingled. Moreover, the union thusly constituted is inseparable. As the Chalcedonian description implies, these natures are not converted into one another, that is, the divine into the human to make a divine man, or the human into the divine to make a human God. The two natures are also not compounded and blended together to no longer be distinguishable, to make a third that is different from the two. Lastly, the two natures are not confused in any manner, or so mixed together that the essential properties of both natures are indiscriminately existing in the theanthropic person.

Instead the Chalcedonian description teaches that true deity and real humanity are joined together in an inseparable personal union in the person of Christ incarnate. Christ is truly God and really man. But there is only one Christ and one Mediator between God and man. While there are two centers of consciousness, there is but one divine self-consciousness in the Incarnate God, Christ. The theanthropic person is one, but constitutes the two natures, complete, but not commingled.

Servo
September 27th, 2007, 09:33 PM
Further, AMR is basically begging the question in these "answers" of his. The debate is effectively about whether Calvinism is true or not. AMR presumes the truth of that which is in question and "answers" these questions as though Calvinism is the undisputed truth. The effect is that his posts are turned from answers to Bob's questions into merely a Calvinist taking an opportunity to shoot his mouth off endlessly about what his various doctrinal positions are.



Clete

Bingo.

I get the gist of what he is saying but reading AMR's books makes my eyes glaze over. Seems more like a complaint session about OT and stating the obvious without acknowledging any problems with a settled future and the inability to have an actual relationship with the Lord.

Nang
September 27th, 2007, 09:55 PM
] reading AMR's books makes my eyes glaze over.


"AMR's books?"


Seems more like a complaint session about OT

Seems like an attention deficit on your part, or maybe just automatic OVT paranoia . . .but, this holy exercise on the part of AMR, is to give answer to 50 questions Bob Enyart wants answered.

Evoken
September 28th, 2007, 04:49 AM
Wow, AMR advanced a lot in the last couple of hours. He is up to question 29 already. Good job man :)


Evo

Chileice
September 28th, 2007, 05:23 AM
Wow, AMR advanced a lot in the last couple of hours. He is up to question 29 already. Good job man :)


Evo


He advanced so much that my comments will seem like old news... but I want to comment about an earlier answer.

BEQ14: Is it theoretically possible for God to know something future because He plans to use His abilities to bring it about, rather than strictly because He foresees it?

AMRA-BEQ14 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
No, this is not possible. As discussed in AMRA-BEQ12 God foreordains all that is to come to pass. As a necessary consequence, God foreknows because He as foreordained.

As stated above, your question exposes a misunderstanding of unsettled theism about the distinctions between foreordination and foreknowledge. Your question, as structured above, implies an assumption that God could “know something future” “strictly because He foresees it”. Hence you ask is there a possibility that God could “know something future” and not foresee that future. The error in this reasoning is not comprehending that God foreknows because He has foreordained. God does not foresee and then ordain. God ordains and necessarily foresees what He has ordained.

While much of what AMR has to say makes perfect sense, I have a bit of a problem with this answer. Why could God NOT foreknow without foreordaining? Just because you says he does is no better proof than Enyart saying he doesn't. Could an almighty God not be able to foreknow without foreordination?

Evoken
September 28th, 2007, 05:36 AM
[QUOTE]Could an almighty God not be able to foreknow without foreordination?[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Yes he can, and he knows it by knowing all the merely possible, this is what is called knowledge of simple intelligence. This is how God, before the creation of the world, could create the world best suited for his purposes.

Sorry for the brief response, I am heading out to work now. But I'll expand later if you want.


Evo

Chileice
September 28th, 2007, 05:43 AM
BEQ17: In the tradition of BEQ1, BEQ7, and BEQ9, I ask: Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
A: within the Trinity?
B: with His creatures?

AMRA-BEQ17 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
God does not change. God does not need to change to have a “true” relationship with His creatures. God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man.

I suppose it is like any inter-species relationship. The superior power sets the standard for the relationship. I relate to my dog... but on my terms. But her relationship to me depends largely on me making myself available to her.

Chileice
September 28th, 2007, 05:46 AM
BEQ21: Has it ever been possible for God to change anything that will happen in eternity future?

AMRA-BEQ21 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
No it has not. God decreed from eternity all that was, is, and will be. Nothing in God’s eternal plan for His ultimate glory to be realized requires change. If God must change the future then He is not omniscient, nor omnipotent, and we are all still lost in our sins. God, on the cross, said, “it is finished”, not “it is finished…I hope.”

Why would Jesus even ask the Father if "this cup could pass from Him" if he knew God could not and would not change his mind? Also, if he had not in some degree dispossed himself of the godhood why would he pray at all?

CabinetMaker
September 28th, 2007, 09:17 AM
First, you quote the Chalcedonian definition I carefully described in my original post as being associated with the WCF. It is not. The Chalcedonian item is a 1,500 year old statement describing the incarnate nature of Christ that is accepted by virtually all of Christendom (Catholic, Orthodox Greek, and Protestant). Indeed, no other such statement has survived virtually unchanged and accepted by Christendom, even through the split of the Eastern and Western churches in the eleventh century, and the Reformation. I would greatly appreciate any answer you have to my previous question about what your specific disagreements are with respect to the incarnate nature of Christ described therein.

Second, you appear to have overlooked the actual WCF section, VIII/vii (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_VIII.html), I quoted:

"Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature."

This is an important observation of the treatment given in the Scriptures of the incarnate Christ. As further explanation of this statement, the following is excerpted from the Incarnation entry on the from the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2001, pg. 602:

“Because Jesus Christ is the God-man (one person who took human nature into union with his divine nature in the one divine person), the Scriptures can predicate of his person whatever can be predicated of either nature. In fact, the person of Christ may be designated in terms of one nature while what is predicated of him so designated is true by virtue of his union with the other nature (cf. Westminister Confession, VIII, vii (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_VIII.html)). In other words:

1. The person, and not a nature, is the subject of the statement when what is predicated of Christ is true by virtue of all that belongs to his person as essentially divine and assumptively human; e.g., redeemer; prophet, priest, and king.

2. The person, and not a nature, is the subject of the statement when what is predicated of him, designated in terms of what he is as human, is true by virtue of his divine nature; e.g., in Romans 9:5 Christ is designated according to his human nature ("Christ according to the flesh"), while what is predicated of him is true because of his divine nature ("God over all, blessed forever"). The Scriptures do not confuse or intermingle the natures. It is the person of Christ who is always the subject of the scriptural assertions about him.

3. The person, and not a nature, is the subject of the statement, when what is predicated of him, designated in terms of what he is as divine, is true by virtue of his human nature; e.g., in I Corinthians 2:8 Christ is designated according to his divine nature ("the Lord of glory"), while what is predicated of him is true because of his human nature (man "crucified" him). Again, there is no confusion here of the divine and human natures of Christ.It is not the divine nature as such which is crucified; it is the divine person, because he is also human, who is crucified.” (emphasis mine)
Hence, in Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 we find Christ is designating Himself in the terms of his divine nature (“the Son”, “the Father”), but then He predicates (i.e., ‘affirms one thing of another’) His ignorance of the Second Coming is true in terms of His human nature, but not in terms of His divine nature. In other words, the God-man is shown in these verses self-consciously omniscient as God and consciously ignorant as man simultaneously.


Third, your conclusion drawn from your reading of the Chalcedonian description is incorrect. This is understandable, for when speaking of the Incarnation, some careful distinctions are made by theologians in words like person, nature, conscious, self-conscious. You conclude “what one nature knows the other nature must know”. That is incorrect and clear from a careful reading of the Chalcedonian description:

“to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved”

The word ‘nature’ as used when speaking of the Incarnation means a complex of attributes. It does not mean ‘person’. The divine attributes are not somehow passed to man and the human attributes are not transmitted to the divine. If you assume the two natures are compounded in some manner you fall into one of the six possible heresies of the Incarnation I described (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1537247&postcount=123) that motivated the creation of the Chalcedonian description.

For it was against the Eutychians that the Chalcedonian description confessed that in Christ were two natures without any confusion or change, each nature preserved and concurring in one person. And it was against the Nestorians that the description spoke throughout of one and the same Son and one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons and whose natures are in union without division and without separation. The description made it clear that a ‘person/hypostatis’ was a self-conscious substantive entity, while a ‘nature’ was a complex of attributes. That person/hypostatis was the divine Son of God. The human nature of Jesus possessed no hypostatis of its own, that is, unless the Son of God entered Mary’s womb, Jesus would not have existed. There was no “man” without this divine action. The description denies that the Son of God took into union with Himself a human person, instead the Chalcedonian description insists that He took into union with himself a full complex of human attributes (doctrine of anhypostasia). It also means that there was not two self-consciousnesses within Jesus. At the Incarnation the one Son remained self-consciously divine and consciously human as well.

The human and divine natures of Christ were essentially distinct as they were brought together, and though joined in the hypostatic union, a personal union, the two natures are not blended nor commingled. Moreover, the union thusly constituted is inseparable. As the Chalcedonian description implies, these natures are not converted into one another, that is, the divine into the human to make a divine man, or the human into the divine to make a human God. The two natures are also not compounded and blended together to no longer be distinguishable, to make a third that is different from the two. Lastly, the two natures are not confused in any manner, or so mixed together that the essential properties of both natures are indiscriminately existing in the theanthropic person.

Instead the Chalcedonian description teaches that true deity and real humanity are joined together in an inseparable personal union in the person of Christ incarnate. Christ is truly God and really man. But there is only one Christ and one Mediator between God and man. While there are two centers of consciousness, there is but one divine self-consciousness in the Incarnate God, Christ. The theanthropic person is one, but constitutes the two natures, complete, but not commingled.
This is a very long post that contradicts your own assertions. Our discussion started based on this answer:


AMRA-BEQ16 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
No. Christ is God and cannot divest himself of any of His attributes. Thus, Christ did not divest Himself of knowledge or power. As I argued in AMRA-BEQ2, the attributes of God are identical with His being. For God to divest Himself of any of His attributes, He would not be the simpliciter God, but a composite God that is decomposable, divisible into parts. Yet God is pure actuality, thus having no potentiality, for that which has potential can be divided. If God could be divided, then God could be changed, as would be the case if He were able to divest Himself of some of His attributes. A divisible God is changeable, therefore not an immutable God. This is contrary to the Scriptural revelation of God.

1st you state that God cannot divest Himself of any of His attributes.
2nd, you state that God is not dividable because He would no longer be immutable.

When faced with Matthew 24:36, you have generated to long posts that say the two natures of Christ are dividable. Items 1, 2 and 3 above are used by you to show that there is a difference between person and nature. If, as you stated in your answer to BEQ16, Gods attributes are identical with His Being, how can there be a difference between nature and person?

Finally, you say that I miss-understand the Chalcedonian. Look at what it says, “to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved”. It states that two natures exist that are indivisible and inseparable. It seems quite clear from this statement that the two natures must be aware of each other. So when you say that Jesus as God knows the hour but Jesus the man does not, that requires that two natures are to some degree inseparable and divisible. The divine nature would have to hide from the human nature its knowledge of the hour of the end time. That sets up a contradiction with your answer to BEQ16 as Jesus hiding His divine knowledge from His human self requires Jesus to separate His two natures and give up some of His knowledge.

I look forward to your reply. God be with you.

Nang
September 28th, 2007, 01:37 PM
So when you say that Jesus as God knows the hour but Jesus the man does not, that requires that two natures are to some degree inseparable and divisible. The divine nature would have to hide from the human nature its knowledge of the hour of the end time. That sets up a contradiction with your answer to BEQ16 as Jesus hiding His divine knowledge from His human self requires Jesus to separate His two natures and give up some of His knowledge.

I look forward to your reply. God be with you.
[/FONT]


I probably should not weigh in . . .but I will ;)

Just to point out CM, that you are not making any distinction between Father and Son in your argument.

The Father alone has authority over the times and seasons, and created beings are forbidden knowledge of these things. Jesus clearly taught the same thing to His disciples, when they asked Him again about His promised return, at the time of His ascension:

"And He said to them, 'It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.'" Acts 1:7

While discussing these passages with my husband, he reminded me that Jesus was born of flesh as a babe, and learned the things of God from His studies of the Holy Scriptures:

"And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him." Luke 2:40

"Now it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, 'Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.' And He said to them, 'Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?' But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them. . .And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Luke 2:46-52

"Though he were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which he suffered." Hebrews 5:8

It is important to remember that the Son of God, equal to the Father in glory and attributes, volitionally came into this world as flesh and blood like His elect children in the same limitations of flesh, in order that they might "have a High Priest," who could sympathize with their weaknesses.

"We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone, for it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." Hebrews 2:9&10

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same . . .in all things He had to be made like His brethren that He might be a merciful and faithful High Pruiest in things pertaiing to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted. . .For this One has been counted worthy of more glory . . .Christ as a Son over His own house." Hebrews 2:14a,17,18, 3:3a, 3:6a

This Hebrews passage is exemplary of the teaching AMR is sharing with us. Such passages reveal the wonders of the God/Man . . .The humility AND greatness of our Lord on full display!

Awesome truths to contemplate.

Nang

chatmaggot
September 28th, 2007, 02:48 PM
It is important to remember that the Son of God, equal to the Father in glory and attributes, volitionally came into this world as flesh and blood like His elect children in the same limitations of flesh, in order that they might "have a High Priest," who could sympathize with their weaknesses.


How can an immutable God "came"? Doesn't "came" indicate a change?

If God wasn't always flesh, and then He was, isn't that a change?:think:

CabinetMaker
September 28th, 2007, 03:09 PM
I probably should not weigh in . . .but I will ;)

Just to point out CM, that you are not making any distinction between Father and Son in your argument.

The Father alone has authority over the times and seasons, and created beings are forbidden knowledge of these things. Jesus clearly taught the same thing to His disciples, when they asked Him again about His promised return, at the time of His ascension:

"And He said to them, 'It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.'" Acts 1:7

While discussing these passages with my husband, he reminded me that Jesus was born of flesh as a babe, and learned the things of God from His studies of the Holy Scriptures:

"And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him." Luke 2:40

"Now it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, 'Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.' And He said to them, 'Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?' But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them. . .And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Luke 2:46-52

"Though he were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which he suffered." Hebrews 5:8

It is important to remember that the Son of God, equal to the Father in glory and attributes, volitionally came into this world as flesh and blood like His elect children in the same limitations of flesh, in order that they might "have a High Priest," who could sympathize with their weaknesses.

"We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone, for it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." Hebrews 2:9&10

"Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same . . .in all things He had to be made like His brethren that He might be a merciful and faithful High Pruiest in things pertaiing to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted. . .For this One has been counted worthy of more glory . . .Christ as a Son over His own house." Hebrews 2:14a,17,18, 3:3a, 3:6a

This Hebrews passage is exemplary of the teaching AMR is sharing with us. Such passages reveal the wonders of the God/Man . . .The humility AND greatness of our Lord on full display!

Awesome truths to contemplate.

Nang
Contrary to what you think, this post does not strengthen your case. Note what you said.


While discussing these passages with my husband, he reminded me that Jesus was born of flesh as a babe, and learned the things of God from His studies of the Holy Scriptures:

You are stating that Jesus was born without knowledge of the things of God. He learned these as He grew. Again, this violates AMR's statement (with which you seem to agree) the Jesus could not be separated from the knowledge of God because it is inseparable.

Also, please note that I started this discussion with AMR based on the statement by Jesus that the Son does not know all that the Father knows. There is a distinction. AMR's answer asserts that Jesus is fully God and therfore knows all that God knows. AMR draws no meaningful distinction between Father and Son. Scripture does. Specifically, Jesus points out that the Son does not know all that the Father knows. There is a distinction.

CabinetMaker
September 28th, 2007, 03:10 PM
How can an immutable God "came"? Doesn't "came" indicate a change?

If God wasn't always flesh, and then He was, isn't that a change?:think:
Is it a change to die on the cross and rise from the dead three days later?

Nang
September 28th, 2007, 04:04 PM
How can an immutable God "came"? Doesn't "came" indicate a change?

If God wasn't always flesh, and then He was, isn't that a change?:think:

AMR answered to this, here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1535845&postcount=19)

Clete
September 28th, 2007, 04:08 PM
Cherish the word "antinomy?" Do a search . . .I don't believe I have ever used it or even reverted to admitting contradiction, or paradoxical mysteries in my posts. Secret, and restricted knowledge, yes, according to Deut. 29:29, but that is all.

I am not a Van Tillian, if that is what you are thinking. I prefer the more rational hermeneutic approach of Gordon Clark, et. al.
Gordon Clark did not discount antinomy in his theology and neither do you, whether you use the actually word itself or not. It is the concept that you must cherish for the Calvinistic worldview is clearly incoherent to anyone who rejects antinomy. The last several posts of this very thread is solid proof of that.


The Son of God come in the flesh to establish all righteousness through perfect obedience and submission to the will of the Father in order to qualify as Mediator between man and God, is irrelevant?
It's irrelevant to the point I was making, yes!

You've talked here about why God BECAME flesh and dwelt among us (somewhat inaccurately, by the way) but the why has nothing to do with the fact that the supposedly immutable God did in fact BECOME a man as well as go through countless other changes that the doctrine of immutability cannot survive unless one plays the antinomy card. The very gospel message itself refutes Calvinism at it very basis and the only response Calvinism has is to call it an antinomy, which renders the entire theological system unfalsifiable because anything that comes up that is incoherent is automatically deemed an antinomy. In fact, in the Calvinist mind, Calvinist theology that cannot be reconciled with the Bible is the very definition of the term antinomy!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
September 28th, 2007, 04:40 PM
Nang, AMR, or anyone else who calls themselves a Calvinst,

Did God die for you sins?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
September 28th, 2007, 04:46 PM
In AMR's latest "answer" he openly denies Divine Impassibility!

You want talk about picking and choosing your doctrines! Wow!

Impassibility is only Immutability applied to God's state of mind. If God is not impassibly He is not immutable and if God is not immutable Calvinism falls completely apart at the seams! The whole ball of wax is built up around the singular premise that God CANNOT change in any way shape fashion or form.

Way to go AMR! You just falsified your own theology on strictly rational grounds! :BRAVO:


Resting in Him,
Clete

PKevman
September 28th, 2007, 04:49 PM
Is it a change to die on the cross and rise from the dead three days later?

Of course it is. Just as God the Father is not currently pouring His wrath out on God the Son. Just as God the Son is not CURRENTLY dying. Those are all major changes and things that had never happened before the cross and have not happened SINCE the cross!

Nang
September 28th, 2007, 05:12 PM
Contrary to what you think, this post does not strengthen your case. Note what you said.



You are stating that Jesus was born without knowledge of the things of God. He learned these as He grew. Again, this violates AMR's statement (with which you seem to agree) the Jesus could not be separated from the knowledge of God because it is inseparable.

Not because the Son of God stopped being omniscient, but because He volitionally experienced a legitimate and full humanity. He chose to learn like we learn, and know God as we know God . . .through the revelation of God's Word. This caused no separation or divestiture of His attributes; this established Him as the God/Man possessing two natures; human and divine.

For example, the Son of God was not actively omnipresent while in the flesh, and yet He remained omnipresent by the powers of His deity. For did He not promise the thief on the cross, that He would be with Him in paradise the very day that He was laid dead in the tomb?

" And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise." Luke 23:43




Also, please note that I started this discussion with AMR based on the statement by Jesus that the Son does not know all that the Father knows. There is a distinction. AMR's answer asserts that Jesus is fully God and therfore knows all that God knows.

Jesus Christ is fully God and omniscient as the Father is omniscient.

You are refusing to acknowledge the covenanted purpose of Son's (perfect, sinless, lawful, and righteous) human nature.

In His humanity, Jesus Christ could not and would not usurp the commands and authority of the Father (like the first man Adam certainly did). He volitionally adopted human limitations under the Law, like His brethren made of flesh and blood (yet, without sin). Jesus Christ, in His divinity remained omniscient, but in His human nature did not choose to possess knowledge forbidden to His brethren. However, in the Matthew 24 passage, both natures of Christ are evident, for Jesus prophesied foreordained details of the last days, that only an omniscient God would know.

Just as, in His humanity, Jesus Christ remained omnipotent, and possessed the power to call angels down from heaven to prevent His crucifixion, but volitionally chose not to do so in order to accomplish the necessary (and preordained) will of the Father by dying on the cross for the salvation of His children.

"Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father and He will prove Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" Matthew 26:53&54

Jesus Christ did not exercise His omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence in order to do all that was humanly necessary to fulfill all righteousness on behalf of His people. It would have been unrighteous for Him, as a man, to possess the knowledge of the day and hour of His return.

But He did not divest Himself of His divine attributes at any time.

The human offices filled by Jesus Christ, are taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith, in Chapter VIII:

"I. It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of His Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

II. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities, thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined togetehr in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ; the only Mediator between God and man.

III. The Lord Jesus, in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety. Which office He took not unto Himself, but was thereunto called by His Father, who put all power and judgment into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.

IV. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that He might discharge, He was made under the Law, and did perfectly fulfil it; endured most grievous torments immediately in is soul, and most painful sufferings in His body; was crucified, and died, was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day He arose from the dead, with the same body in which He suffered, with which also He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return, to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.

V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father, and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given Him." (Emphasis, mine)

Jesus Christ, according to His human nature, functioned submissively under Godly command and creaturely restrictions of divine and eternal Law.

Nang
September 28th, 2007, 05:35 PM
Of course it is. Just as God the Father is not currently pouring His wrath out on God the Son. Just as God the Son is not CURRENTLY dying. Those are all major changes and things that had never happened before the cross and have not happened SINCE the cross!


The Son of God is referred to as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8), and as He ". . .with His own blood entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption . . .to cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God" (Heb. 9:12-14) and as ". . He who judges and makes war . . .clothed with a robe dipped in blood . . ." (Rev. 19:11-13) and as the Lord who sits on the throne in heaven, and worshiped as the Lamb of God ". . .For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood . . ." (Rev. 5:8-10)

So if the Christ was the Lamb slain before creation, and came as the sacrificial Lamb in the fulness of time by incarnation and crucifixion, and is now the Mediator through His own blood continually at the throne of grace in these present days, and who will come clothed in a robe dipped in blood to judge this world in the end times, and who will forever sit on the heavenly throne in His kingdom, being worshiped as the Lamb slain to redeem His people . . .where do you see any change, at any time, or in eternity, in the essence of the Son of God?

Nang

CabinetMaker
September 28th, 2007, 06:33 PM
Not because the Son of God stopped being omniscient, but because He volitionally experienced a legitimate and full humanity. He chose to learn like we learn, and know God as we know God . . .through the revelation of God's Word. This caused no separation or divestiture of His attributes; this established Him as the God/Man possessing two natures; human and divine.

For example, the Son of God was not actively omnipresent while in the flesh, and yet He remained omnipresent by the powers of His deity. For did He not promise the thief on the cross, that He would be with Him in paradise the very day that He was laid dead in the tomb?

" And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise." Luke 23:43





Jesus Christ is fully God and omniscient as the Father is omniscient.

You are refusing to acknowledge the covenanted purpose of Son's (perfect, sinless, lawful, and righteous) human nature.

In His humanity, Jesus Christ could not and would not usurp the commands and authority of the Father (like the first man Adam certainly did). He volitionally adopted human limitations under the Law, like His brethren made of flesh and blood (yet, without sin). Jesus Christ, in His divinity remained omniscient, but in His human nature did not choose to possess knowledge forbidden to His brethren. However, in the Matthew 24 passage, both natures of Christ are evident, for Jesus prophesied foreordained details of the last days, that only an omniscient God would know.

Just as, in His humanity, Jesus Christ remained omnipotent, and possessed the power to call angels down from heaven to prevent His crucifixion, but volitionally chose not to do so in order to accomplish the necessary (and preordained) will of the Father by dying on the cross for the salvation of His children.

"Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father and He will prove Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" Matthew 26:53&54

Jesus Christ did not exercise His omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence in order to do all that was humanly necessary to fulfill all righteousness on behalf of His people. It would have been unrighteous for Him, as a man, to possess the knowledge of the day and hour of His return.

But He did not divest Himself of His divine attributes at any time.
Okay. Based on what you have said, my understanding of what you believe is that Jesus is of two natures and He separates those natures whenever it is required that the two natures be separate as in the verse from Matthew. I do not share your view.


The human offices filled by Jesus Christ, are taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith, in Chapter VIII:

"I. It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of His Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

II. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities, thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined togetehr in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ; the only Mediator between God and man.

III. The Lord Jesus, in His human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety. Which office He took not unto Himself, but was thereunto called by His Father, who put all power and judgment into His hand, and gave Him commandment to execute the same.

IV. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that He might discharge, He was made under the Law, and did perfectly fulfil it; endured most grievous torments immediately in is soul, and most painful sufferings in His body; was crucified, and died, was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day He arose from the dead, with the same body in which He suffered, with which also He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return, to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.

V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father, and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given Him." (Emphasis, mine)

Jesus Christ, according to His human nature, functioned submissively under Godly command and creaturely restrictions of divine and eternal Law.
It is a waste of time to quote the WCF as an authoritative and doctrinal source. I have read it several times and I find it to be at odds with the scriptures and full of contradictory statements. I reject the WCF as a statement of my faith.

Nang
September 28th, 2007, 06:59 PM
Okay. Based on what you have said, my understanding of what you believe is that Jesus is of two natures

No . . .it is my belief that Jesus Christ possesses both a divine and a human nature that makes up His essence as the Son of God.




and He separates those natures whenever it is required that the two natures be separate as in the verse from Matthew.

The natures of Jesus Christ belong to His Person, and are inseparable, although functionally distinct.



I do not share your view.

You evidence you do not grasp my view.



It is a waste of time to quote the WCF as an authoritative and doctrinal source. I have read it several times and I find it to be at odds with the scriptures and full of contradictory statements. I reject the WCF as a statement of my faith.

Well, this is why you do not grasp or agree with my view.

Nang

BTW, anyone who does not have resource to the WCF, may receive the Bible references for the portions I quoted, upon request.

CabinetMaker
September 28th, 2007, 07:29 PM
No . . .it is my belief that Jesus Christ possesses both a divine and a human nature that makes up His essence as the Son of God.





The natures of Jesus Christ belong to His Person, and are inseparable, although functionally distinct.




You evidence you do not grasp my view.
Nang,
You say there are two natures, insuperable but distinct. So lets go back to where this started.
Matthew 24:36 (New International Version)

The Day and Hour Unknown

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2024:36;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23991a)] but only the Father.

Here you are faced with a verse where Jesus is speaking. Jesus draws a distinction between Himself and His Father. He states that the Son does not know everything the Father knows. So Jesus's two separate but distinct natures must also be separate and distinct from the nature of the Father.

Again, it is a teaching by Jesus the contradicts AMR's assertion that God cannot divide Himself. This verse makes it rather obvious that God can and does divide Himself.




Well, this is why you do not grasp or agree with my view.

Nang

BTW, anyone who does not have resource to the WCF, may receive the Bible references for the portions I quoted, upon request.
It is also why you cannot grasp or agree with any view other than yours. I would hazard that you don't consider anybody who doesn't share your view to be a Christian.

Nang
September 28th, 2007, 09:16 PM
Nang,
You say there are two natures, insuperable but distinct. So lets go back to where this started.
Matthew 24:36 (New International Version)

The Day and Hour Unknown

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2024:36;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23991a)] but only the Father.

Here you are faced with a verse where Jesus is speaking. Jesus draws a distinction between Himself and His Father. He states that the Son does not know everything the Father knows. So Jesus's two separate but distinct natures must also be separate and distinct from the nature of the Father.

Jesus' divine nature is of the same substance as the divine nature of the Father.


Again, it is a teaching by Jesus the contradicts AMR's assertion that God cannot divide Himself. This verse makes it rather obvious that God can and does divide Himself.

Matthew 24:36 teaches a division in the Godhead?!!!

Well, you are going to have to explain this supposed "divisionary" view, as you understand it, since it obviously comes only from your brain . . . it is not what AMR or what the WCF teaches.

Nang

CabinetMaker
September 28th, 2007, 09:27 PM
Jesus' divine nature is of the same substance as the divine nature of the Father.



Matthew 24:36 teaches a division in the Godhead?!!!

Well, you are going to have to explain this supposed "divisionary" view, as you understand it, since it obviously comes only from your brain . . . it is not what AMR or what the WCF teaches.

Nang
Nang, can you please address the verse? Just the verse. What is Jesus saying. Why did He say it? What does it mean?

Nang
September 28th, 2007, 09:36 PM
Nang, can you please address the verse? Just the verse. What is Jesus saying. Why did He say it? What does it mean?


I have been addressing the verse, for pity sake . . .

You are the one now saying Matt. 24:36 teaches "division" within the Godhead, so the onus is upon you to explain yourself.

CabinetMaker
September 28th, 2007, 09:51 PM
Nang, can you please address the verse? Just the verse. What is Jesus saying? Why did He say it? What does it mean?





I have been addressing the verse, for pity sake . . .

You are the one now saying Matt. 24:36 teaches "division" within the Godhead, so the onus is upon you to explain yourself.
You have talked around it but you have not addressed it. Please, start by answering the three questions above.

Nang
September 28th, 2007, 10:04 PM
You have talked around it but you have not addressed it. Please, start by answering the three questions above.


:ha:

CabinetMaker
September 28th, 2007, 10:08 PM
:ha:Am I to conclude from your attitude that you are unable to address this verse directly?

Nang
September 28th, 2007, 10:33 PM
Am I to conclude from your attitude that you are unable to address this verse directly?

:shut:

CRASH
September 28th, 2007, 10:38 PM
Sorry to butt in but, He has a good point there Nang,

Jesus Said;
36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:36&version=50;#fen-NKJV-23988a)] but My Father only.

Talk to your husband AMR and see if you guys can get some kind of a plausable explanation together on this.

Nang
September 28th, 2007, 10:55 PM
Sorry to butt in but, He has a good point there Nang,

Jesus Said;
36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven,[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:36&version=50;#fen-NKJV-23988a)] but My Father only.

Talk to your husband AMR and see if you guys can get some kind of a plausable explanation together on this.


Sure thing . . .we can always rerun the last few days posts and hundreds of words already submitted on the subject . . .but first CabinetMaker owes all, his explanation of how the Godhead is divided by Jesus' words of Matt. 24:36 . . .since that is where the conversation last ended.

Nang

Lon
September 28th, 2007, 11:34 PM
I also addressed (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1538319#post1538319) these questions.

Lon
September 29th, 2007, 12:27 AM
BEQ 17-21 have been addressed in brief. I see those as substantially treated




BEQ22: Do you agree that God did not ordain Peter’s rooster to crow because He eternally foresaw it, but because He willed it?

AMRA-BEQ22 - "...if God foreknew the rooster would crow, then the rooster does not refrain from crowing. (Correct)

In other words, the actions of moral free agents or instinctively driven, non-sentient creatures do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place."

For this one, AMR holds off answering so he can address the question meaningfully in context of the answer, therefore the treatise cannot be divorced from this quoted answer, but it is given here in case somebody gets lost. There is a propensity to read AMR out of context and major on a minor point where it isn't warranted. The answers to the questions are not ofuscated and are redressed here to prove the point.


BEQ23: Even if God were not to rely on exhaustive foreknowledge (for example, when He ordained the Body of Christ, etc.), God can be far more competent, powerful, able, and effective, than could any human being who does not have exhaustive foreknowledge?

AMRA-BEQ23 -"Yes, God could be (and is) far more competent, powerful, able, and effective than any human being who does not possess exhaustive foreknowledge. But, if the underlying assumption of your question is to then argue that God could accomplish His purposes by respecting the liberty of indifference (libertarian free will) of His creatures, and thus not being able to know the future...the assumptions by unsettled theists about God's knowledge must therefore be incorrect. The problem then, lies with unsettled theism’s assumptions of what God knows and God's sovereignty.

Moreover, if God intervenes, such intervention overrules the unsettled theist's free will, for God’s intervention seen to be 'coercive'. Given unsettled theism’s position on moral responsibility and sin, the unsettled theist would be forced to conclude that there is no moral responsibility for those that would be held accountable by God who have had their free will overridden by God's intervention."

This is the logical problem with omnicompetence w/o foreknowledge (simple or otherwise). God has foreknowledge as a given. Regardless of exhaustively or not, simple foreknowledge as defined already logically renders the OV as illogical and short-sighted. Once any aspect of foreknowledge (simple or otherwise) is understood, the OV premise of omnicompetence implodes upon itself as it rejects the definition of 'knowing' beforehand. God cannot be omnicompetent if He can be twarted and this is essentially the omnicompetent view logically derived. In essence, their own objections to EDF fall back upon themselves logically and derivatively. If God doesn't know, He has nothing with which to be competent in (the future isn't known-therefore is not addressable by competence, etc.).


BEQ24: Will you agree that even apart from exhaustive foreknowledge, God can be far more competent, powerful, able, and effective, than could any human being who does not have exhaustive foreknowledge?

AMRA-BEQ24 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
See AMRA-BEQ23

If God is genuinely responsive to humans and to the course of history, and if God cannot infallibly know the future free decisions of man, it is in principle impossible for God to know infallibly what He will do in the future as well.


BEQ25: If a passage can be interpreted in an Open or Settled way, please provide a general hermeneutic that students can use to determine which may be the correct interpretation.

AMRA-BEQ25 - "The only general hermeneutic to use is the grammatical-historical method for interpreting any Scripture.

Most of the biblical cases for openness come from narrative type passages and the Old Testament prophets, which are not the ideal types of literature for deriving doctrinal conclusions. For learning who God is, passages that have as their objective to teach that doctrine are much more satisfactory."

A general hermeneutic here meaning 'how to understand correctly the passage." Context is foremost. A general hermeneutic of understanding the passage is one that reads in context for meaning starting with the passage itself, but not stopping there. It also must consider the message of the book and the Biblical truth of other books and doctrines as well (ESPECIALLY in the narrative literatures). AMR calls it right here that a narrative passage MUST be set within doctrinally given contexts. If we take the OV paradigm that God's relational qualities are paramount, there are too many 'doctrinal' passages that suggest that God's attributes are holistically perfect, unchanging, not like man, etc. Therefore when we traverse a narrative passage suggesting that God repented, we must understand this narrative from a docrinal standpoint where we are told implicitly what God is like. To read a narrative passage that God 'repented' and forget, ignore, and/or be unaware of doctrinal statements God has given us concerning Himself simply will not suffice. It is neither inductively contextual to the passage nor justified with Biblical doctrines.


BEQ27: In the tradition of BEQ1, BEQ7, BEQ9, and BEQ17, I ask: Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
A: within the Trinity? and,
B: with His creatures?

AMRA-BEQ27 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
Asked and answered. See AMRA-BEQ17

BEQ18: Please answer BEQ11. AMRA-BEQ27 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
Asked and answered. See AMRA-BEQ17


BEQ17: In the tradition of BEQ1, BEQ7, and BEQ9, I ask: Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
A: within the Trinity?
B: with His creatures?
AMRA-BEQ27 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
Asked and answered. See AMRA-BEQ17

BEQ31: As per BEQ1/7/9/17/27, I accept that you say you believe that God can have relationships, but I’m asking you something different: Is God able to change such that He can have true relationship:
A: within the Trinity?

And as part two of the same question,
B: with His creatures?
AMRA-BEQ27 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
Asked and answered. See AMRA-BEQ17
AMRA-BEQ31 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
God does not change. The fact that He does not change has no bearing on what you call a “true relationship”. God sets the standard, and the terms of His relationships, not man.



BEQ28: Now that Sam has agreed that without exhaustive foreknowledge, God can make a rooster crow, then do you also agree that God could employ His abilities in various other ways toward fulfilling prophecies, similarly without relying upon exhaustive foreknowledge?

AMRA-BEQ28 - "... non-sentient creatures do not take place because they are foreseen, the actions are foreseen because the actions are certain to take place."

Up to question #34.

RobE
September 29th, 2007, 07:32 AM
Nang, can you please address the verse? Just the verse. What is Jesus saying. Why did He say it? What does it mean?

Are you able to address doctrine of the Trinity with full understanding?


36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.

Perhaps within the Trinity, 'the Father', is the only personality who's ever known the day or hour. Just as 'the Son' is both divine and human simultaneously, is this true of 'the Father'?

The fact is, if one person in the Trinity knows the day and hour then God does indeed know the day and hour despite what the other persons know. Three persons, one God. Your question would require us to fully understand the Trinity and its workings to answer.


What is Jesus saying?

He's saying that the Godhead knows the day and hour, but it has not been revealed to man.


What does it mean?

It means that God hasn't revealed all his knowledge to man.

Evoken
September 29th, 2007, 07:43 AM
&ot
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a (;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2024:36;&version=31;#fen-NIV-23991a")] but only the Father.

Here you are faced with a verse where Jesus is speaking. Jesus draws a distinction between Himself and His Father. He states that the Son does not know everything the Father knows.

Greetings CabinetMaker,

First, there is something that should be pointed out, note the small "a" character in the verse you quoted, this means that the phrase nor the Son, is not included in all translations. Some may take issue with that and reject any translation that includes the phrase, I use a translation that does not includes it, but I will not take issue with that since I don't think it really makes a difference if the verse has that phrase or not.

It is always good practice, when one is trying to understand something in Scripture, to take into consideration other verses that relate in someway to the one you are trying to understand, so that you can get a more comprehensive view of the issue. You cannot draw the full meaning of a movie by watching only a small part of it, likewise, we cannot fully understand Lord Jesus by reading a single verse. That said, let's see some verses that are directly related to the nature of Christ, who he is, what he knows, etc. I use the Douay-Rheims Bible in all the verses I quote when posting, even though this board links them to the NKJV automatically, so if you have issue with how some verse is worded, let me know and we'll try and work it out.

First this is the verse we are dealing with: "But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (Matthew 24:36). It does not includes the phrase, but no matter, we can use your version instead if you want.

Let's see two other verses now that speak directly about this issue: "They therefore who were come together, asked him, saying: Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? But he said to them: It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power." (Acts 1:6-7).

Here we are given a brief explanation of why Lord Jesus did not reveal the day and hour to the apostles. It is not for them to know that, it is not the will of the Father that they know it. In the verses that follow after Matthew 24:36, Lord Jesus uses some parables to explain the need for the faithful to be at watch for the time of his coming. That they are to be always faithful, always laboring and persevering in the faith is what the Father wants of them. The uncertainty that is born out of the ignorance of the day of the second coming prevents them from becoming lukewarm (or should at least!).

Imagine if you knew the day and hour when you will die, how would you live your life? If you knew you were going to live till you are 80, then there is the danger of becoming lazy and the temptation of leaving things for later and thinking that you still have a lot of time is quite strong, you would not make the most out of your life. Likewise, if you knew you were going to die in two hours, then why bother doing anything? You would just despair. So, that we don't know the day and hour of his coming is a good thing and seems to be how the Father wants it to be. The Son then, who does the will of the Father, did not reveal it to us.

So, we have a reason why humans are not told the day and the hour. That is all fine but it doesn't really tells us what the Son actually knows, does it?. Does he knows less than the Father? Does he knows the Father at all? If he does, does he knows him only in part? Or fully? Better yet, is he as much God as the Father or is he something less? Let's see some verses that speak on the knowledge the Son has about the Father:

"All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him." (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22).

"For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things which himself doth: and greater works than these will he shew him, that you may wonder." (John 5:20).

"I know him, because I am from him, and he hath sent me."(John 7:29).

"As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father..." (John 10:15).

The first verse above (Matthew, Luke) clearly states that only the Son knows the Father and it places the power to reveal the Father to others exclusively on the Son. The implication of this is that the Father of himself does not reveals himself to anyone, only the Son reveals him. Indeed, as we see in the opening verses of the book of Hebrews 1:1-2, it does not says that God spoke directly through the Father to us before the time of Christ, only through prophets. This verses also correspond with what John 1:3 states, that nothing was made without the Son.

In the other verses Lord Jesus states that he is shown all things by the Father, that the Son knows the Father because he is from him, and that he knows the Father as the Father knows him. So it is clear that the Son has a very intimate knowledge of the Father, one that seems to be as complete as the one the Father has of him. This makes sense, for if the power of revealing the Father to others resides is on the Son, then how can the Son reveal something he does not know? The knowledge the Son has of the Father must be comprehensive.

Now we know the Son has special knowledge of the Father. That is fine, but what is the Son though? Is he God like the Father is? Or is he something leaser? Lets see some verses that tell us what the Son is and what is his relationship with the Father:

"Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me." (John 8:42).

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made." (John 1:1-3).

These verses both equate the Son and the Father with God, from God the Son proceeds and has always been God since the beginning. That being the case, we cannot assign distinct natures to the Son and the Father, that is, we cannot say that the Son knows some things and the Father others or that one knows more than the other, we cannot say that the Father does some things, and the Son others. If we do that, we would no longer have a Trinity of persons sharing the one divine essence, rather we would have more than one essence and would land straight into Tritheism or some variation of it. We would be talking about three Gods and not just one Triune God.

"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

"Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" (John 14:10-11).

The same theme is expressed in these verses, Christ not only equates himself with the Father, but says that he is in the Father as the Father is in him. This is clearly understood when one knows that the three persons of the Trinity share the one divine essence. Each of the three person is fully and equally God, all the Son has the Father has, likewise, all the Holy Spirit has the Son and the Father have. The three persons have the same power, the same attributes and the same nature. Each person is fully in the other. Some verses such as John 14:28, have Lord Jesus stating that the Father is greater than him, yet, as we see in John 10:30, he equates himself with the Father and in other places he is called Lord and God (John 20:28), and as we see in the opening chapters of John, he is also called God and the Jews, in several instances sough to kill him because he made himself equal to God, this equality is clearly expressed in John 5:21-23, where Christ equates his power with that of the Father. So, unless we want to say that Lord Jesus contradicted himself (an obvious absurdity, since God being truth itself cannot utter error), then we must understand his claim about being less than the Father as speaking as a man, in relation to his humanity and not his divinity.

That the Son is as much God as the Father is expressed in other parts of Scripture, and we learn that he is the image of God and that by him not only were all things created, but are kept in existence as well:

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1:15-17).

"In these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power..." (Hebrews 1:2-3).

Now, with regards the first verses (Colossians), an image is a perfect representation of whatever it is that is being represented so if the Son is an image of the invisible God, all the above said considered, he is a perfect and complete representation of God, that is, he is truly and completely God. The second set of verses go even farther in that they say that the Son is not only an image but the figure of his substance. In other words, a person that possess fully the one divine essence.

So, the Son, who is an image and figure of the substance of God, knows the Father fully by being fully God as he is and nothing God does is done apart from the Son because when God acts, the three divine persons, being each equally God work in unity.


Evo

RobE
September 29th, 2007, 07:55 AM
Well said.

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2007, 08:35 AM
&ot

Greetings CabinetMaker,

First, there is something that should be pointed out, note the small "a" character in the verse you quoted, this means that the phrase nor the Son, is not included in all translations. Some may take issue with that and reject any translation that includes the phrase, I use a translation that does not includes it, but I will not take issue with that since I don't think it really makes a difference if the verse has that phrase or not.

It is always good practice, when one is trying to understand something in Scripture, to take into consideration other verses that relate in someway to the one you are trying to understand, so that you can get a more comprehensive view of the issue. You cannot draw the full meaning of a movie by watching only a small part of it, likewise, we cannot fully understand Lord Jesus by reading a single verse. That said, let's see some verses that are directly related to the nature of Christ, who he is, what he knows, etc. I use the Douay-Rheims Bible in all the verses I quote when posting, even though this board links them to the NKJV automatically, so if you have issue with how some verse is worded, let me know and we'll try and work it out.

First this is the verse we are dealing with: "But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone." (Matthew 24:36). It does not includes the phrase, but no matter, we can use your version instead if you want.

Let's see two other verses now that speak directly about this issue: "They therefore who were come together, asked him, saying: Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? But he said to them: It is not for you to know the times or moments, which the Father hath put in his own power." (Acts 1:6-7).

Here we are given a brief explanation of why Lord Jesus did not reveal the day and hour to the apostles. It is not for them to know that, it is not the will of the Father that they know it. In the verses that follow after Matthew 24:36, Lord Jesus uses some parables to explain the need for the faithful to be at watch for the time of his coming. That they are to be always faithful, always laboring and persevering in the faith is what the Father wants of them. The uncertainty that is born out of the ignorance of the day of the second coming prevents them from becoming lukewarm (or should at least!).

Imagine if you knew the day and hour when you will die, how would you live your life? If you knew you were going to live till you are 80, then there is the danger of becoming lazy and the temptation of leaving things for later and thinking that you still have a lot of time is quite strong, you would not make the most out of your life. Likewise, if you knew you were going to die in two hours, then why bother doing anything? You would just despair. So, that we don't know the day and hour of his coming is a good thing and seems to be how the Father wants it to be. The Son then, who does the will of the Father, did not reveal it to us.

So, we have a reason why humans are not told the day and the hour. That is all fine but it doesn't really tells us what the Son actually knows, does it?. Does he knows less than the Father? Does he knows the Father at all? If he does, does he knows him only in part? Or fully? Better yet, is he as much God as the Father or is he something less? Let's see some verses that speak on the knowledge the Son has about the Father:

"All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him." (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22).

"For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things which himself doth: and greater works than these will he shew him, that you may wonder." (John 5:20).

"I know him, because I am from him, and he hath sent me."(John 7:29).

"As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father..." (John 10:15).

The first verse above (Matthew, Luke) clearly states that only the Son knows the Father and it places the power to reveal the Father to others exclusively on the Son. The implication of this is that the Father of himself does not reveals himself to anyone, only the Son reveals him. Indeed, as we see in the opening verses of the book of Hebrews 1:1-2, it does not says that God spoke directly through the Father to us before the time of Christ, only through prophets. This verses also correspond with what John 1:3 states, that nothing was made without the Son.

In the other verses Lord Jesus states that he is shown all things by the Father, that the Son knows the Father because he is from him, and that he knows the Father as the Father knows him. So it is clear that the Son has a very intimate knowledge of the Father, one that seems to be as complete as the one the Father has of him. This makes sense, for if the power of revealing the Father to others resides is on the Son, then how can the Son reveal something he does not know? The knowledge the Son has of the Father must be comprehensive.

Now we know the Son has special knowledge of the Father. That is fine, but what is the Son though? Is he God like the Father is? Or is he something leaser? Lets see some verses that tell us what the Son is and what is his relationship with the Father:

"Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me." (John 8:42).

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made." (John 1:1-3).

These verses both equate the Son and the Father with God, from God the Son proceeds and has always been God since the beginning. That being the case, we cannot assign distinct natures to the Son and the Father, that is, we cannot say that the Son knows some things and the Father others or that one knows more than the other, we cannot say that the Father does some things, and the Son others. If we do that, we would no longer have a Trinity of persons sharing the one divine essence, rather we would have more than one essence and would land straight into Tritheism or some variation of it. We would be talking about three Gods and not just one Triune God.

"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

"Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" (John 14:10-11).

The same theme is expressed in these verses, Christ not only equates himself with the Father, but says that he is in the Father as the Father is in him. This is clearly understood when one knows that the three persons of the Trinity share the one divine essence. Each of the three person is fully and equally God, all the Son has the Father has, likewise, all the Holy Spirit has the Son and the Father have. The three persons have the same power, the same attributes and the same nature. Each person is fully in the other. Some verses such as John 14:28, have Lord Jesus stating that the Father is greater than him, yet, as we see in John 10:30, he equates himself with the Father and in other places he is called Lord and God (John 20:28), and as we see in the opening chapters of John, he is also called God and the Jews, in several instances sough to kill him because he made himself equal to God, this equality is clearly expressed in John 5:21-23, where Christ equates his power with that of the Father. So, unless we want to say that Lord Jesus contradicted himself (an obvious absurdity, since God being truth itself cannot utter error), then we must understand his claim about being less than the Father as speaking as a man, in relation to his humanity and not his divinity.

That the Son is as much God as the Father is expressed in other parts of Scripture, and we learn that he is the image of God and that by him not only were all things created, but are kept in existence as well:

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1:15-17).

"In these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power..." (Hebrews 1:2-3).

Now, with regards the first verses (Colossians), an image is a perfect representation of whatever it is that is being represented so if the Son is an image of the invisible God, all the above said considered, he is a perfect and complete representation of God, that is, he is truly and completely God. The second set of verses go even farther in that they say that the Son is not only an image but the figure of his substance. In other words, a person that possess fully the one divine essence.

So, the Son, who is an image and figure of the substance of God, knows the Father fully by being fully God as he is and nothing God does is done apart from the Son because when God acts, the three divine persons, being each equally God work in unity.


Evo
Evo, you have put up a lot of good verses but they do not discount my point. The trinity exists as one God head of three persons. Those three persons are distinct. And Jesus, in Matthew 24:36 states quite clearly that He does not sahre all of His fathers knowledge. Scroll back a few pages. I posted to Nang Matthew 24:36 a bunch of translations of the verse. KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, Youngs, Darby and more. Some verse included the phrase "or the Son" and some did not. The ALL included the phrase "only the Father knows." It is not for Jesus to know when the hour will come. When that hour does come, Jesus will be the one who opens the seals and separates the sheep and goats. Jesus knows what He must do, just not when He must do it.

All your versus show that Jesus is God. They do not prove that Jesus (or even the Holy Spirit) knows everything the Father does.

Why is that such a problem? Why, in your view and the view of other Calvinists, must Jesus know everything the Father does? It does not seem to bother Jesus.

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2007, 08:48 AM
Sure thing . . .we can always rerun the last few days posts and hundreds of words already submitted on the subject . . .but first CabinetMaker owes all, his explanation of how the Godhead is divided by Jesus' words of Matt. 24:36 . . .since that is where the conversation last ended.

Nang
Nang, all the verse says is that Jesus does not know everything His Father knows. God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit form the Godhead. Each exists as a separate nature. There is nothing in the trinity that says the three natures are the same. God is the Father. He created the universe and He alone knows His ultimate plans for it. Jesus is God the Son. He is the one who died for our sins and rose for our eternal life. He will judge us when the hour comes. The Holy Spirit is our helper. He comes to us when we accept Jesus as our savior. The Holy Spirit is our teacher and our guide.

Each of the natures that makes up the Trinity are distinct with different "jobs". God the Father has not shared all of His plans with the other members of the Trinity. I don't know why. None the less, in Matthew 24:36, Jesus says that there is knowledge that only the Father has.

Why is that such a problem for you? Jesus is still our savior. He knows all that He must know to be God's son (and that is considerably than we know!). He knows His place in the Trinity which has a hierarchy. God the Father is the only member of the Trinity who is in charge. Why, in your view, must Jesus know everything the Father knows?

There is your answer Nang. The Trinity exists as three persons in one Godhead. God the Father has shared everything with Jesus and the Holy Spirit they need to fulfill their rolls in the Godhead. God the Father has retained some knowledge for Himself alone.

Your turn.

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2007, 08:55 AM
I also addressed (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1538319#post1538319) these questions.
Lon, all you said was:
J
Just a tiny bit of correction may not answer your question entirely but it WILL put it into context and perspective for you:

Jesus clearly indicate[d] that the Son and the Father are distinct and that only the Father kn[e]w. You are asserting that Jesus actually knows when He clearly state[d] He d[id] not.
You didn't provide any meaningful context or clarity. I'm taking the verse for what it says, the Father and Son are separate persons and The Father has Knowledge the Son does not. Simple. I am not asserting that Jesus knew something and then stated He didn't. That is AMR's stated position. AMR stated clearly that God cannot divide Himself or His knowledge, therefore, in AMR's view, Jesus must know everything the Father knows. Scripture does not support that statement.

AMR and EVO have posted long diseertations about who Jesus is. I am not denying that Jesus is God incarnate and that as God, He knows a great deal more about everything than we do. All I am saying is that Jesus draws a distinction between the Father and the Son and makes it clear that the Son does not have all the knowledge of the Father.

Nang
September 29th, 2007, 10:08 AM
Nang, all the verse says is that Jesus does not know everything His Father knows. God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit form the Godhead. Each exists as a separate nature.

CM, there are several very serious errors in what you present. Your view does not accord with orthodox Christianity, and I fear you have received inferior teaching. I do not know what view you represent, but if it is "unsettled theism," all who are following this one-on-one between AMR and Bob Enyart should give close scrutiny to what you claim.

It is crucial we all refer to the Trinity correctly in these discussions.

I am simply going to highlight the errors in your post, and then quote the Athanasian Creed, which is accepted as the finest definition and teaching of the Trinity in Christendom, and trust you will go through and contemplate where your views do not accord with the catholic faith:


There is nothing in the trinity that says the three natures are the same. God is the Father. He created the universe and He alone knows His ultimate plans for it.

Actually, all three Persons are attributed with creating the universe. Just a few Scriptures: The Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2), The Son of God (Colossians 1:16, 17), the word of God the Father (Hebrews 11:3, Psalm 104:24) The entire Godhead (Gen. 1:26&27, Romans 1:20). The preponderance of Holy Scripture attributes creation to the Son of God, and not specifically to the Father alone.



Jesus is God the Son. He is the one who died for our sins and rose for our eternal life. He will judge us when the hour comes. The Holy Spirit is our helper. He comes to us when we accept Jesus as our savior. The Holy Spirit is our teacher and our guide.

Each of the natures that makes up the Trinity are distinct with different "jobs". God the Father has not shared all of His plans with the other members of the Trinity. I don't know why. None the less, in Matthew 24:36, Jesus says that there is knowledge that only the Father has.

Why is that such a problem for you? Jesus is still our savior. He knows all that He must know to be God's son (and that is considerably than we know!). He knows His place in the Trinity which has a hierarchy. God the Father is the only member of the Trinity who is in charge. Why, in your view, must Jesus know everything the Father knows?

There is your answer Nang. The Trinity exists as three persons in one Godhead. God the Father has shared everything with Jesus and the Holy Spirit they need to fulfill their rolls in the Godhead. God the Father has retained some knowledge for Himself alone.

Your turn.

This creed is attributed to Athanasius, the fourth century bishop of Alexandria who was the strongest defender of the doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. It defines the doctrines of the Trinity and the nature of Christ in very concise language.

Please note that the term "catholic" in its usage is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church, but is a reference to the universal (catholic) faith since that is how the term was originally used.




______________________




THE ATHANASIAN CREED



Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2007, 10:21 AM
Ok Nang, Great stuff. Now how how do reconcile all of that with Jesus saying that only the Father knows the hour? Note that those are the words of Jesus, not me.

Ask Mr. Religion
September 29th, 2007, 12:19 PM
]When faced with Matthew 24:36 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=Matthew+24%3A36), you have generated to long posts that say the two natures of Christ are dividable. Items 1, 2 and 3 above are used by you to show that there is a difference between person and nature. If, as you stated in your answer to BEQ16, Gods attributes are identical with His Being, how can there be a difference between nature and person?The issue here is that we are speaking about the Incarnation, which has a unique lexicon developed around the subject matter. This lexicon gets confusing, especially when using words like ‘person’ that normally crop up in theological discussions outside of the topic of the Incarnation. So we have here an overloading of terminology (a polymorphism, if you are a computer programmer), where the same word, e.g., ‘person’ is used very differently depending upon the topic.

‘Nature’ used when discussing the Incarnation is “a complex of attributes”. Nature never means ‘person’ when discussing the Incarnation.
The joining of the two natures is a hypostatic joining of the divine to the human, not the human to the divine. The human nature was not itself hypostatic, that is, personal. There was only one person, and this person was divine (see below).

‘Person’ used when discussing the Incarnation is the divine self-conscious substantive entity
The Chalcedonian definition denies that the Son of God, already a person within the Trinity, took into union with Himself a human person. The Son of God took into union with Himself a full complex of human attributes (a human ‘nature’). The man Jesus could never exist apart from the union with the one divine Son of God. There were not two “self-consciousnesses” within Christ Incarnate. The ‘person’ of the Incarnation was self-consciously divine and consciously human.

John Murray, writes in “The Person of Christ”, in Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 2:137-38:
“In the Scriptures, we do not find Christ speaking or acting in terms of merely human personality. Instead He identifies Himself as one who sustains to the Father His unique relationship as the only-begotten Son, as one whose self-identity, whose self, is conceived in such terms. It is true that Christ speaks and acts as one who is human and intensely aware of his human identity. He shows limitations inseparable from His human identity, and also the limitations prescribed by the task given to Him to fulfill in human nature. But it is highly significant that in situations where His human identity, and the limitations incident to this identity and to His commission, are most in evidence, there appears the profound consciousness of His filial relationship and of His divine self-identity (see Matthew 24:36; Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 26:53; John 5:26-27; John 17:1; Romans 1:3; Hebrews 5:7-9; 1 John 1:7)…Personality can never be thought of Him except as it draws within its scope His specifically divine identity. There were two centres of consciousness, but not of self-consciousness.

In the same connection it is worthy of special attention to observe how, in connection with the sacrifice of Christ which he offered in human nature, it is always He who is represented offering Himself, and in the contexts He is identified and defined in terms of what He is as divine (John 10:17; John 18:17; Romans 8:32-34; Philippians 2:6-8; Hebrews 1:3).

The Son of God did not become personal by incarnation. He became incarnate but there was no suspension of His divine self-identity. In these terms his self must be defined. Jesus was God-man, not strictly speaking, God and man.”
Christ: Incarnate
1. A single person in two natures (divine and human)
As for His essential being, the Logos was exactly the same before and after the incarnation. The human and divine natures of Christ were essentially distinct as they were brought together, and though joined in the hypostatic union, a personal union, the two natures are not blended nor commingled. Moreover, the union thusly constituted is inseparable, i.e., the God-man exists today in heaven.
2. Each nature possessing capacities for expression and action
3. Each nature united in His personal being, but without mixture, confusion or division
4. Each nature retaining its own attributes
5. The Divine nature took on the human nature. The human nature did not take on the Divine nature. Without the Divine there is no “man”. Without the “man” there is still the Divine.

In other words, our humanity and God’s divinity were, are, and always will be actually and distinguishably present in the one person of Christ. The theanthropic person is one, but constitutes the two natures, complete, but not commingled.

As we see in Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 Christ speaks after a human manner, as He also says elsewhere: "All things have been given to me by the Father." Christ often speaks of Himself as if simply of God, sometimes simply as of man. For example, speaking as God, He says, "The Son of Man will be crucified." To be crucified is a property of the human nature, but because there are two natures united in one person, it is attributed to both natures. And again, speaking as God, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life." Or again, speaking from the property of His humanity, "They crucified the Lord of glory."

The interpretive principle is known as the rule of predication, where a divine title (e.g., “the Lord of glory”) is often in the Scriptures connected with a human attribute or activity (e.g., the crucifixion). That is, “Anything either nature does, the person of Christ does.” We read in the Scriptures, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). This implies that the divine existed before Abraham, not the whole Incarnate person or the human nature. In 1 Corinthians 15:3, we read, “Christ died for our sins”. This means that the human body ceased living and functioning, not the divine. Titles that remind us of one nature can be used to designate the person even though the action is done by the other nature. For example, when Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43) we know that Mary is the mother of the human nature of Christ and not the divine which has existed from all eternity (see also 1 Corinthians 15:3; John 3:13, Acts 20:28).

Hence, in Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 we find Christ designating Himself in the terms of his divine nature (“the Son”, “the Father”), but then He predicates (i.e., ‘affirms one thing of another’) His ignorance of the Second Coming is true in terms of His human nature, but not in terms of His divine nature. In other words, the God-man is shown in these verses self-consciously omniscient as God and consciously ignorant as man simultaneously. While the term “the Son” specifically reminds us of Christ’s eternal sonship with God the Father, it is really used here not speaking specifically of his divine nature, but to speak generally of Him as a person, and to affirm something that is in fact true of his human nature only. And it is true that in one important sense (that is, with respect to his human nature) Jesus did not know the time when he would return.

I have updated and incorporated the points made in this thread in my response in the 1:1 thread here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1535845&postcount=19). This is a long and complex post, for the topic is the great mystery of the Incarnation. Persons are encouraged to read the post again.


Finally, you say that I miss-understand the Chalcedonian. Look at what it says, “to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved”. It states that two natures exist that are indivisible and inseparable. It seems quite clear from this statement that the two natures must be aware of each other. So when you say that Jesus as God knows the hour but Jesus the man does not, that requires that two natures are to some degree inseparable and divisible. The divine nature would have to hide from the human nature its knowledge of the hour of the end time. That sets up a contradiction with your answer to BEQ16 as Jesus hiding His divine knowledge from His human self requires Jesus to separate His two natures and give up some of His knowledge.No, it is not “quite clear” that the two natures must be aware of each other. If that were the case, the Chalceonians failed, for that heresy was one of the reasons for creating the description in the first place. The divine self-consciousness is always aware of the human nature, the human nature is never aware of the divine self-consciousness. The human knowledge of Christ depended upon the divine. Christ gives up nothing of His divinity, but acts in His humiliation as an obedient servant.

Either you reject the Chalcedonian description (http://www.carm.org/creeds/chalcedonian.htm) and stand with the heretics against which it was created to refute or you agree with it and stand with all of Christendom. The Chalcedonian description is not a “Calvinist doctrine”. It is a description assented to by all Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. If folks here reject this descriptive statement, then they have added a new chapter to the unsettled theist book of disagreements with orthodox theism. None of the published authors supporting unsettled theism are on record as disagreeing with the Chalcedonian description.

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2007, 12:29 PM
The issue here is that we are speaking about the Incarnation, which has a unique lexicon developed around the subject matter. This lexicon gets confusing, especially when using words like ‘person’ that normally crop up in theological discussions outside of the topic of the Incarnation. So we have here an overloading of terminology (a polymorphism, if you are a computer programmer), where the same word, e.g., ‘person’ is used very differently depending upon the topic.

‘Nature’ used when discussing the Incarnation is “a complex of attributes”. Nature never means ‘person’ when discussing the Incarnation.
The joining of the two natures is a hypostatic joining of the divine to the human, not the human to the divine. The human nature was not itself hypostatic, that is, personal. There was only one person, and this person was divine (see below).

‘Person’ used when discussing the Incarnation is the divine self-conscious substantive entity
The Chalcedonian definition denies that the Son of God, already a person within the Trinity, took into union with Himself a human person. The Son of God took into union with Himself a full complex of human attributes (a human ‘nature’). The man Jesus could never exist apart from the union with the one divine Son of God. There were not two “self-consciousnesses” within Christ Incarnate. The ‘person’ of the Incarnation was self-consciously divine and consciously human.

John Murray, writes in “The Person of Christ”, in Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 2:137-38:
“In the Scriptures, we do not find Christ speaking or acting in terms of merely human personality. Instead He identifies Himself as one who sustains to the Father His unique relationship as the only-begotten Son, as one whose self-identity, whose self, is conceived in such terms. It is true that Christ speaks and acts as one who is human and intensely aware of his human identity. He shows limitations inseparable from His human identity, and also the limitations prescribed by the task given to Him to fulfill in human nature. But it is highly significant that in situations where His human identity, and the limitations incident to this identity and to His commission, are most in evidence, there appears the profound consciousness of His filial relationship and of His divine self-identity (see Matthew 24:36; Matthew 26:39; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 26:53; John 5:26-27; John 17:1; Romans 1:3; Hebrews 5:7-9; 1 John 1:7)…Personality can never be thought of Him except as it draws within its scope His specifically divine identity. There were two centres of consciousness, but not of self-consciousness.

In the same connection it is worthy of special attention to observe how, in connection with the sacrifice of Christ which he offered in human nature, it is always He who is represented offering Himself, and in the contexts He is identified and defined in terms of what He is as divine (John 10:17; John 18:17; Romans 8:32-34; Philippians 2:6-8; Hebrews 1:3).

The Son of God did not become personal by incarnation. He became incarnate but there was no suspension of His divine self-identity. In these terms his self must be defined. Jesus was God-man, not strictly speaking, God and man.”
Christ: Incarnate
1. A single person in two natures (divine and human)
As for His essential being, the Logos was exactly the same before and after the incarnation. The human and divine natures of Christ were essentially distinct as they were brought together, and though joined in the hypostatic union, a personal union, the two natures are not blended nor commingled. Moreover, the union thusly constituted is inseparable, i.e., the God-man exists today in heaven.
2. Each nature possessing capacities for expression and action
3. Each nature united in His personal being, but without mixture, confusion or division
4. Each nature retaining its own attributes
5. The Divine nature took on the human nature. The human nature did not take on the Divine nature. Without the Divine there is no “man”. Without the “man” there is still the Divine.

In other words, our humanity and God’s divinity were, are, and always will be actually and distinguishably present in the one person of Christ. The theanthropic person is one, but constitutes the two natures, complete, but not commingled.

As we see in Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 Christ speaks after a human manner, as He also says elsewhere: "All things have been given to me by the Father." Christ often speaks of Himself as if simply of God, sometimes simply as of man. For example, speaking as God, He says, "The Son of Man will be crucified." To be crucified is a property of the human nature, but because there are two natures united in one person, it is attributed to both natures. And again, speaking as God, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life." Or again, speaking from the property of His humanity, "They crucified the Lord of glory."

The interpretive principle is known as the rule of predication, where a divine title (e.g., “the Lord of glory”) is often in the Scriptures connected with a human attribute or activity (e.g., the crucifixion). That is, “Anything either nature does, the person of Christ does.” We read in the Scriptures, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). This implies that the divine existed before Abraham, not the whole Incarnate person or the human nature. In 1 Corinthians 15:3, we read, “Christ died for our sins”. This means that the human body ceased living and functioning, not the divine. Titles that remind us of one nature can be used to designate the person even though the action is done by the other nature. For example, when Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43) we know that Mary is the mother of the human nature of Christ and not the divine which has existed from all eternity (see also 1 Corinthians 15:3; John 3:13, Acts 20:28).

Hence, in Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 we find Christ designating Himself in the terms of his divine nature (“the Son”, “the Father”), but then He predicates (i.e., ‘affirms one thing of another’) His ignorance of the Second Coming is true in terms of His human nature, but not in terms of His divine nature. In other words, the God-man is shown in these verses self-consciously omniscient as God and consciously ignorant as man simultaneously. While the term “the Son” specifically reminds us of Christ’s eternal sonship with God the Father, it is really used here not speaking specifically of his divine nature, but to speak generally of Him as a person, and to affirm something that is in fact true of his human nature only. And it is true that in one important sense (that is, with respect to his human nature) Jesus did not know the time when he would return.

I have updated and incorporated the points made in this thread in my response in the 1:1 thread here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1535845&postcount=19). This is a long and complex post, for the topic is the great mystery of the Incarnation. Persons are encouraged to read the post again.

No, it is not “quite clear” that the two natures must be aware of each other. If that were the case, the Chalceonians failed, for that heresy was one of the reasons for creating the description in the first place. The divine self-consciousness is always aware of the human nature, the human nature is never aware of the divine self-consciousness. The human knowledge of Christ depended upon the divine. Christ gives up nothing of His divinity, but acts in His humiliation as an obedient servant.

Either you reject the Chalcedonian description (http://www.carm.org/creeds/chalcedonian.htm) and stand with the heretics against which it was created to refute or you agree with it and stand with all of Christendom. The Chalcedonian description is not a “Calvinist doctrine”. It is a description assented to by all Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. If folks here reject this descriptive statement, then they have added a new chapter to the unsettled theist book of disagreements with orthodox theism. None of the published authors supporting unsettled theism are on record as disagreeing with the Chalcedonian description.
This is great information AMR, truly, but it still does not deal with the fact that Jesus said there is knowledge that ONLY the Father has. How do you deal with that and that alone?

This has nothing to do with the Chalcedonian description of Jesus. I am only looking at what Jesus said. Can you do the same?

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2007, 12:33 PM
AMR,

Your post does a fine job of describing the divine and human natures of Christ. You have done that several times but that is not the issue here. The issue is of differences between the natures of Father and Son. Could God have died for our sins? Why or why not. Could the Holy Spirit have risen from the dead to redeem us to eternal life? Why or why not.

There are differences within the Godhead. Matthew 25:36 is one place where Jesus specifically states that there is a difference between Father and Son in terms of what each knows.

Evoken
September 29th, 2007, 01:17 PM
Evo, you have put up a lot of good verses but they do not discount my point. The trinity exists as one God head of three persons. Those three persons are distinct. And Jesus, in Matthew 24:36 states quite clearly that He does not sahre all of His fathers knowledge. Scroll back a few pages. I posted to Nang Matthew 24:36 a bunch of translations of the verse. KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, Youngs, Darby and more. Some verse included the phrase "or the Son" and some did not. The ALL included the phrase "only the Father knows." It is not for Jesus to know when the hour will come. When that hour does come, Jesus will be the one who opens the seals and separates the sheep and goats. Jesus knows what He must do, just not when He must do it.

All your versus show that Jesus is God. They do not prove that Jesus (or even the Holy Spirit) knows everything the Father does.

Why is that such a problem? Why, in your view and the view of other Calvinists, must Jesus know everything the Father does? It does not seem to bother Jesus.

Yeah yeah and Christ says: "But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me." (Luke 19:27). So why don't we go out and kill all those who refuse to believe? I mean Christ want us to do that, so why no do it?


Evo

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2007, 02:37 PM
Yeah yeah and Christ says: "But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me." (Luke 19:27). So why don't we go out and kill all those who refuse to believe? I mean Christ want us to do that, so why no do it?


Evo
Well, one rather obvious reason but none the less good reason is that you have taken the verse completely out of context. It is the last verse in the parable of the Ten Minas. Please, if you are going to uses verses in that manor, please keep them in context.

Clete
September 29th, 2007, 05:23 PM
BEQ30: Do you agree that Christianity should make a conscious effort to identify pagan Greek influence on Augustine and other leading Christians, and if any is found, to re-evaluate related doctrines on strictly biblical grounds?

AMRA-BEQ30 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
Yes, I believe we as Christians should never stop evaluating what we are taught or told, and are to be searching the Scriptures daily proving out these things.

But why stop with pagan Greeks?
How about humanistic philosophers?

Can we also look at liberal theologians like Ferdinand Christian Baur (1869), August Neander (1850), Albrecht Ritschl (1889), Alfred (Adolph) von Harnack (1930)and Walter Bauer (1960)? These are all theologians that laid the groundwork for unsettled theism's humanistic underpinnnings.
If such influence can be established then yes, of course. I submit however that no such connection can be made. Unlike Calvinism where clear historical linkage between the doctrine and pagan Greek philosophy can be clearly established to the point that no one even bothers to deny it, Open Theism has no such lineage with anything pagan. On the contrary, the beginnings of the modern Open Theism movement can be directly credited to a small hand full of men who are still alive today. We can read their publications and evaluate the Biblical and rational veracity of their arguments first hand.

If AMR doubts the accuracy of that claim I'd love to see him attempt to substantiate his implicit claim that the modern movement is rooted in anything dating much older than about 1980.

Now, all you Calvinists out there, don't misunderstand my point here and go off half cocked quoting some Wikipedia article which cited things as old as the 5th century BC. I do not deny that the concept is older than 1980 but the modern movement known as Open Theism does not derive from the humanists that AMR cited. It is rather a rediscovery of an old truth much like salvation by grace alone was in the 14th century. In other words, for a reevaluation of the doctrine to be called for on the basis of some perseived similarity with something obviously wrong (like humanism) there needs to be more than just a mere similarity. Broken clocks are right twice a day and unless Open Theism can be linked in some significant influential way with these humanists, AMR's point is refuted and it actually back fires on him because there is indeed undisputed evidence that the doctrines of Calvinism are directly derived from the pagan Greeks.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Evoken
September 29th, 2007, 05:38 PM
The trinity exists as one God head of three persons. Those three persons are distinct.

Distinct in their relations only, all three share the same one divine essence and possess the same attributes. This is why it can be said that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.



And Jesus, in Matthew 24:36 states quite clearly that He does not sahre all of His fathers knowledge.

You are abusing that verse CabinetMaker and are failing to take into consideration others verses some of which I posted. You are also ignoring St. Paul's claim: "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally" (Colossians 2:9). If the fullness of the Godhead dwelleth in him, then all the knowledge of God is in him. Lord Jesus also says: "All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." (John 16:15). This is also attributed to the Holy Spirit in that same chapter. Certainly you don't think that what he is referring to are material possessions? Indeed, given what the Holy Spirit is going to do (teach the apostles all truth), he is speaking in this context of attributes such as knowledge, power, etc.



It is not for Jesus to know when the hour will come. When that hour does come, Jesus will be the one who opens the seals and separates the sheep and goats. Jesus knows what He must do, just not when He must do it.

Notice that right before that verse Lord Jesus says: "Amen I say to you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." (Matthew 24:34). So, Christ does knows that this generation will not pass before that day comes. In light of what is said in Acts 1:6-7, we can understand why he does not reveals the hour and the day to the apostles.

There is simply no reason to suppose that the Father, with whom Christ is one, who Christ knows as the he knows him, who is only known and revealed by Christ, who has given Christ all power and judgement over all things, who is in Christ as Christ is in him, has revealed to Christ that this generation will not pass before the second coming but has refused to reveal him the day and hour. There is no reason to suppose that Christ, who is the image and figure of the substance of God, who was in the beginning with God, without whom no things that are were made and in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwells corporeally does not knows the day and hour of his own coming in glory.

Admitting a knowledge in the Son distinct from the one of the Father disturbs the integrity of the Holy Trinity and is inconsistent with the whole of Scripture and also ignores that not only as God but also as human Lord Jesus is called the Son of God, so this verse can easily refer to his humanity instead of his divinity. Similar to what is done with apparently conflicting claim such as the Father being greater than the Son and the Father and the Son being one.



All your versus show that Jesus is God. They do not prove that Jesus (or even the Holy Spirit) knows everything the Father does.

Why is that such a problem? Why, in your view and the view of other Calvinists, must Jesus know everything the Father does? It does not seem to bother Jesus.

Listen to what you are saying: Jesus is God but he doesn't knows everything that the Father who is also God, knows. The Holy Spirit is God, but he doesn't knows everything that the Father or the Son who are also God know.

Do you not see the incoherence of this concept?

What is the Trinity in your mind? A God formed by three different pieces, like a puzzle? Where each piece adds something unique to the picture? Or instead you think that each person somehow owns a part of the divine essence and each has their own knowledge and attributes which the other doesn't have?

Either each person of the Trinity is truly and fully God, in virtue of possessing the one divine essence or it is not and they are three different gods each with their own essence. It is either one God in three persons or a triad of separate gods. Your claim that the Son has less or different knowledge than the Father is inconsistent with the Trinity and leads you straight into Tritheism or some variation of it. Not only that, but as AMR rightly pointed out, it puts you on the same position as all the heretics of history and removes you from the realm of orthodox Christianity.


Evo

Lon
September 29th, 2007, 05:46 PM
Evo, you have put up a lot of good verses but they do not discount my point. The trinity exists as one God head of three persons. Those three persons are distinct. And Jesus, in Matthew 24:36 states quite clearly that He does not sahre all of His fathers knowledge. Scroll back a few pages. I posted to Nang Matthew 24:36 a bunch of translations of the verse. KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, Youngs, Darby and more. Some verse included the phrase "or the Son" and some did not. The ALL included the phrase "only the Father knows." It is not for Jesus to know when the hour will come. When that hour does come, Jesus will be the one who opens the seals and separates the sheep and goats. Jesus knows what He must do, just not when He must do it.

All your versus show that Jesus is God. They do not prove that Jesus (or even the Holy Spirit) knows everything the Father does.

Why is that such a problem? Why, in your view and the view of other Calvinists, must Jesus know everything the Father does? It does not seem to bother Jesus.

I guess I need to spell this out very clearly. I'll try just once more for the obvious reason. If it doesn't put this argument to rest, put my name on a question or statement.


Matthew 24:36 states quite clearly that He d[id] not share all of His [F]ather's knowledge.

See the point? The other OVers have and have allowed this issue to proceed forward.

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2007, 07:08 PM
Distinct in their relations only, all three share the same one divine essence and possess the same attributes. This is why it can be said that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.
Then I will have to put your answer in the Jesus lied column. All of your post is aimed at saying Jesus knows everything God knows. So when Jesus said that only the Father knows the hour, Jesus lied. You explanation leaves no room for any other interpretation of the verse.



Listen to what you are saying: Jesus is God but he doesn't knows everything that the Father who is also God, knows. The Holy Spirit is God, but he doesn't knows everything that the Father or the Son who are also God know.

Do you not see the incoherence of this concept?

What is the Trinity in your mind? A God formed by three different pieces, like a puzzle? Where each piece adds something unique to the picture? Or instead you think that each person somehow owns a part of the divine essence and each has their own knowledge and attributes which the other doesn't have?

Either each person of the Trinity is truly and fully God, in virtue of possessing the one divine essence or it is not and they are three different gods each with their own essence. It is either one God in three persons or a triad of separate gods. Your claim that the Son has less or different knowledge than the Father is inconsistent with the Trinity and leads you straight into Tritheism or some variation of it. Not only that, but as AMR rightly pointed out, it puts you on the same position as all the heretics of history and removes you from the realm of orthodox Christianity.

I have no problem with the concept of Jesus not knowing everything the Father knows. Could God have died for our sins? No. Could the Holy Spirit have risen from the dead to redeem us to the Father? No. Each person of the Godhead is distinct with distinct "jobs" and personalities. They are linked in ways I do not begin to understand. Jesus is God the Son, not God the Father. Jesus does not have to have the same knowledge as His Father to be my savior.

By the way, I noted in your post that you made no attempt to address the verse directly. You brought up a lot of different points about Jesus being God and knowing everything God does. But you never said anything like, "When Jesus said only the Father knows the hour Jesus really means..." Would you like to try again?

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2007, 07:12 PM
I guess I need to spell this out very clearly. I'll try just once more for the obvious reason. If it doesn't put this argument to rest, put my name on a question or statement.



See the point? The other OVers have and have allowed this issue to proceed forward.
Your point seems to be that Jesus did not know it as a man but knows it now because He has ascended to the right hand of the Father. You hypothesis is extra-biblical speculation based on your own speculation. The scriptures give us no indications of what Jesus knows now. All we have is what He said when He was with us. And He said that He does not know everything the Father knows. Jesus is God the Son. Jesus is not God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit.

Deal with it.

Nang
September 29th, 2007, 08:04 PM
Your point seems to be that Jesus did not know it as a man but knows it now because He has ascended to the right hand of the Father. You hypothesis is extra-biblical speculation based on your own speculation. The scriptures give us no indications of what Jesus knows now. All we have is what He said when He was with us. And He said that He does not know everything the Father knows. Jesus is God the Son. Jesus is not God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit.

Deal with it.

CM,

Are you posting here in the "Grandstands" as a representative of the Open View movement?

Are you an official spokesman for that belief?

Yes, or no. . .

Nang

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2007, 09:56 PM
CM,

Are you posting here in the "Grandstands" as a representative of the Open View movement?

Are you an official spokesman for that belief?

Yes, or no. . .

Nang
I'm as official as you are! :chuckle:

Lon
September 29th, 2007, 10:23 PM
Your point seems to be that Jesus did not know it as a man but knows it now because He has ascended to the right hand of the Father. You hypothesis is extra-biblical speculation based on your own speculation. The scriptures give us no indications of what Jesus knows now. All we have is what He said when He was with us. And He said that He does not know everything the Father knows. Jesus is God the Son. Jesus is not God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit.

Deal with it.

Two-edged knife for speculation huh? You see it at least from one side without recognizing it in yourself or theology. The fact is that it is speculative. Are you willing to take such a hard stance on such? I'd hope not. You cannot take a narrative expression and extrapolate such a strong truth without doctrinal backing.

Rev 3:1-3 Expresses Christ coming back without man knowing the day or hour. Does He know now?


Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming.—2 Thessalonians 2:1-8

Here (http://www.journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue3/Articles/only_the_father_knows.doc) is a nice dissertation on this perplexing consideration (arminian).

Forgive my lapse, there is a verse suggesting Christ knows the day and hour now but it eludes me at this time.

Lon

CabinetMaker
September 29th, 2007, 10:34 PM
Two-edged knife for speculation huh? You see it at least from one side without recognizing it in yourself or theology. The fact is that it is speculative. Are you willing to take such a hard stance on such? I'd hope not. You cannot take a narrative expression and extrapolate such a strong truth without doctrinal backing.

Rev 3:1-3 Expresses Christ coming back without man knowing the day or hour. Does He know now?



Here (http://www.journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue3/Articles/only_the_father_knows.doc) is a nice dissertation on this perplexing consideration (arminian).

Forgive my lapse, there is a verse suggesting Christ knows the day and hour now but it eludes me at this time.

Lon
So, basically, you lack the ability to tackle the verse head on. You too are posting links to all kinds of things in an attempt to avoid dealing with what Jesus said.

Rev 3:3Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.

This is warning to the church. It warns them that they will not know when He is coming. Note that the verse does not say one way or the other that Jesus knows when He is coming. He very well may.

None the less, you are still faced with Matthew 24:36 where Jesus says only the Father knows. You may be satisfied with tacking it as a "narrative expression". I am do not take the words the Lord spoke directly so lightly.

Clete
September 29th, 2007, 10:53 PM
It wasn't strictly narrative anyway! Jesus was directly answering a very pointed question that had everything to do with doctrine.

Nang
September 29th, 2007, 11:53 PM
I'm as official as you are! :chuckle:

So, you do not want to answer as to whether you are in the "unsettled theism" camp, or not? If you are a follower of Bob Enyart, which might explain your interest in this discussion, he and his entire "church" should be embarrassed at your display of ignorance of historical Trinitarian doctrine.

Whatever theological teaching you are receiving, it is grossly deficient and certainly not orthodox.

Also, it is my fear you are not alone. The lack of intelligent inquiry to AMR's answers so far, has been quite telling about the counter view, IMO.

It is too bad you do not want to ponder and learn from these deep and rich truths that have been put before you . . .for you may never find better opportunity to learn from truly learned men of God, like you have available to you at this present time.

Nang

Lon
September 30th, 2007, 01:11 AM
So, basically, you lack the ability to tackle the verse head on. You too are posting links to all kinds of things in an attempt to avoid dealing with what Jesus said.

Rev 3:3Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.

This is warning to the church. It warns them that they will not know when He is coming. Note that the verse does not say one way or the other that Jesus knows when He is coming. He very well may.

None the less, you are still faced with Matthew 24:36 where Jesus says only the Father knows. You may be satisfied with tacking it as a "narrative expression". I am do not take the words the Lord spoke directly so lightly.

Not to worry, I'll eventually remember the verse that says this explicitly. Regardless, we still have to think about then verses now.

godrulz
September 30th, 2007, 01:14 AM
I am confused about AMR's recent posts on 1on1. I suspect his suspect compatibilism is the problem.

The law of cause and effect applies to inanimate creation.

The law of instinct applies to animals, not men.

The law of love, freedom, moral choice relates to man.

Confusing these categories of how God governs creation leads to confusion.


Long, verbose posts that have flawed assumptions do not trump assertions that are concise, but correct. What makes sense to him in his closed system does not necessarily make sense or stand up to scrutiny.

Ask Mr. Religion
September 30th, 2007, 03:12 AM
I am confused about AMR's recent posts on 1on1. I suspect his suspect compatibilism is the problem.

The law of cause and effect applies to inanimate creation.

The law of instinct applies to animals, not men.

The law of love, freedom, moral choice relates to man.

Confusing these categories of how God governs creation leads to confusion.


Long, verbose posts that have flawed assumptions do not trump assertions that are concise, but correct. What makes sense to him in his closed system does not necessarily make sense or stand up to scrutiny.Earth to GR. Earth calling GR. Come in, GR. :dizzy:

Lon
September 30th, 2007, 04:05 AM
Col 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Act 1:7 He told them, "You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority."


Barnes' commentary states: "If Jesus had a divine nature, how could he say that he did not know the day and hour of a future event? Some have said that the verb rendered “knoweth” means sometimes to “make” known or to reveal, and that the passage means, “that day and hour none makes known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father.” It is true that the word has sometimes that meaning, as in 1 Cor 2:2, but then it is natural to ask where has “the Father” made it known? (from Barnes' Notes)

Lewis Sperry Chafer says nearly the same of Mark 13:32 where it is recorded that Christ declared that He did not know the day nor the hour of His return, it may be observed that the passage is not unlike 1 Corinthians 2:2 where the Apostle wrote, “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” The thought is not to make known, or not to cause another to know. The truth mentioned was not then, as to its time, committed either to the Son or to the angels to publish.” http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp42.htm See also:
http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark13_32.htm

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend My sheep" (John 21:17 - NASB).


"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," Colossians 2:9 NIV

1Co 2:11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man's spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

Eph 1:22 And He has put all things under His feet and gave Him to be Head over all things to the church


Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in His sight, but all things are naked and opened to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
Heb 4:14 Since then we have a great High Priest who has passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.


Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever!


Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show his servants what must happen very soon. He made it clear by sending his angel to his servant John



http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1223

I'm still having trouble finding the exact verse. I'll keep looking.

RobE
September 30th, 2007, 07:11 AM
If such influence can be established then yes, of course. I submit however that no such connection can be made. Unlike Calvinism where clear historical linkage between the doctrine and pagan Greek philosophy can be clearly established to the point that no one even bothers to deny it, Open Theism has no such lineage with anything pagan. On the contrary, the beginnings of the modern Open Theism movement can be directly credited to a small hand full of men who are still alive today. We can read their publications and evaluate the Biblical and rational veracity of their arguments first hand.

If AMR doubts the accuracy of that claim I'd love to see him attempt to substantiate his implicit claim that the modern movement is rooted in anything dating much older than about 1980.

We certainly could examine those men's lives and see what influenced them just as Augustine and all of western thought was influenced by Greek philosophy. Sources such as Whitehead, etc.....


Broken clocks are right twice a day and unless Open Theism can be linked in some significant influential way with these humanists, AMR's point is refuted and it actually back fires on him because there is indeed undisputed evidence that the doctrines of Calvinism are directly derived from the pagan Greeks.

You mean pagan Greek philosophy and the Holy Bible of course. Augustine, and you as well I imagine, employed deductive reasoning(Pagan Greek Philosophy) when reading and interpreting the Scriptures. Read Augustines 'retractions' if you want to see him actually eliminating the things within his own statements which he felt weren't backed up by scripture. Augustine wrote at a time when a major heresy, one which exhalted the free will of man to equality with God's own will(we know the one I'm talking about), was threatening Christianity. Many of his statements went too far, admittedly, in trying to put down that heresy.

We don't know who influenced the thinking of openess(other than I've read some commentary by Pinnock about Whitehead and Pinnock's agreement with process theology), but I can certainly tell you about the 'sandy' foundation of Pinnocks belief system with the following quotes provided by Geisler -----


"Barth was right to speak about a distance between the Word of God and the text of the Bible" (Pinnock, SP, 99).

"The Bible does not attempt to give the impression that it is flawless in historical or scientific ways. God uses writers with weaknesses and still teaches the truth of revelation through them" (Pinnock, SP, 99).

"What God aims to do through inspiration is to stir up faith in the gospel through the word of Scripture, which remains a human text beset by normal weaknesses [which includes errors]" (Pinnock, SP,100).

"A text that is word for word what God wanted in the first place might as well have been dictated, for all the room it leaves for human agency. This is the kind of thinking behind the militant inerrancy position. God is taken to be the Author of the Bible in such a way that he controlled the writers and every detail of what they wrote" (Pinnock, SP, 101).

"The Bible is not a book like the Koran, consisting of nothing but perfectly infallible propositions,... the Bible did not fall from heaven.... We place our trust ultimately in Jesus Christ, not in the Bible.... What the Scriptures do is to present a sound and reliable testimony [but not inerrant] to who he is and what God has done for us" (Pinnock, SP, 100).

SP--Clark Pinnock, The Scripture Principle (San Francisco, Harper & Rowe: 1984).

CabinetMaker
September 30th, 2007, 08:05 AM
So, you do not want to answer as to whether you are in the "unsettled theism" camp, or not? If you are a follower of Bob Enyart, which might explain your interest in this discussion, he and his entire "church" should be embarrassed at your display of ignorance of historical Trinitarian doctrine.

Whatever theological teaching you are receiving, it is grossly deficient and certainly not orthodox.

Also, it is my fear you are not alone. The lack of intelligent inquiry to AMR's answers so far, has been quite telling about the counter view, IMO.

It is too bad you do not want to ponder and learn from these deep and rich truths that have been put before you . . .for you may never find better opportunity to learn from truly learned men of God, like you have available to you at this present time.

Nang
Nang, I don't attend Denver Bible Church, I attend Christ Community Covenant Church, a member of the evangelical covenant denomination.

As to learning from AMR or Nang or Evo or Lon, consider that none of you has answered my question. All of you have made post after post about the two natures of Jesus. All these posts go on and on about how Jesus is both fully God and full man. I have no issue with any of these posts. I believe Jesus is God.

The question I have asked is how do relate your doctrine that Jesus must know everything the Father knows to a verse, spoken by Jesus, that says He doesn't know everything the Father knows. Its that simple Nang. Your doctrine says one thing, Jesus says something different. How do you deal with that?

After pages and pages of posts on this subject, I am left with the distinct impression that that single verse is so hard to deal with within your doctrinal constraints, that you find it easier to just stir up a big smoke screen and not deal with it.

CabinetMaker
September 30th, 2007, 08:21 AM
Col 2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Act 1:7 He told them, "You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority."



He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend My sheep" (John 21:17 - NASB).



Eph 1:22 And He has put all things under His feet and gave Him to be Head over all things to the church



http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1223

I'm still having trouble finding the exact verse. I'll keep looking.
Please do. The verses you have quoted here are statements of the Apostles about Jesus, They do not know everything Jesus knows. Jesus attests to that fact in Acts 1:7.

Lon
September 30th, 2007, 02:56 PM
Please do. The verses you have quoted here are statements of the Apostles about Jesus, They do not know everything Jesus knows. Jesus attests to that fact in Acts 1:7.

I have no idea what you just said or mean. AMR has discussed how dangerously close OV is to the edge of heresey. Millard Erickson, a leading authority on orthodox and heterodox theology and their differences supports AMR's statements (or vise-versa). Some of your extrapolations are dangerously close. The Arians also believe Jesus to be much different than the Father. The Mormons do not believe God knew (knows) everything and cast Him in human-likeness. Regardless of what our discussions are, I caution against exrapolating OV difficulties to that extreme.

Lon
September 30th, 2007, 03:08 PM
Nang, I don't attend Denver Bible Church, I attend Christ Community Covenant Church, a member of the evangelical covenant denomination.

As to learning from AMR or Nang or Evo or Lon, consider that none of you has answered my question. All of you have made post after post about the two natures of Jesus. All these posts go on and on about how Jesus is both fully God and full man. I have no issue with any of these posts. I believe Jesus is God.

The question I have asked is how do relate your doctrine that Jesus must know everything the Father knows to a verse, spoken by Jesus, that says He doesn't know everything the Father knows. Its that simple Nang. Your doctrine says one thing, Jesus says something different. How do you deal with that?

After pages and pages of posts on this subject, I am left with the distinct impression that that single verse is so hard to deal with within your doctrinal constraints, that you find it easier to just stir up a big smoke screen and not deal with it.

If you had any real inclination to get to the bottom of your question, you'd have read the links provided and AMR's excellent treatise on this topic.

In reading you would have run across a repeated phrase "This is a difficult passage."

After that assessment (repeatedly) you'd recognize perhaps, that the scholars tell us it is a 'difficult' passage.

No qualms there. What I tried to do was give you balance in this discussion. It is no more easier for the OV. It is a difficult passage to try and explain. Simply saying "That was then, this is now" shows that we do not have to be constrained to that moment in time. Does Jesus now know? I think He does from the verses given. There is one other that I'm trying to remember that is pretty clear He does know. I will find it eventually. Until then, the verses given hint enough that we don't have to be truly perplexed: Jesus is God. He created the universe and all is subject to Him. He exercises divine knowledge in passage after passage to suggest that He did not divest His divine attributes while man but acted in human capacity for our sakes.

Lon
September 30th, 2007, 03:19 PM
In looking at Evangelical Covenant Theology (http://www.covchurch.org/affirmations), there is an emphasis on the creeds and avoiding splitting hairs in theological discussion.

The doctrinal statement is sound. I'd like to know what your pastor says about our discussion. Ask for me please.

CabinetMaker
September 30th, 2007, 04:11 PM
If you had any real inclination to get to the bottom of your question, you'd have read the links provided and AMR's excellent treatise on this topic.

In reading you would have run across a repeated phrase "This is a difficult passage."

After that assessment (repeatedly) you'd recognize perhaps, that the scholars tell us it is a 'difficult' passage.

No qualms there. What I tried to do was give you balance in this discussion. It is no more easier for the OV. It is a difficult passage to try and explain. Simply saying "That was then, this is now" shows that we do not have to be constrained to that moment in time. Does Jesus now know? I think He does from the verses given. There is one other that I'm trying to remember that is pretty clear He does know. I will find it eventually. Until then, the verses given hint enough that we don't have to be truly perplexed: Jesus is God. He created the universe and all is subject to Him. He exercises divine knowledge in passage after passage to suggest that He did not divest His divine attributes while man but acted in human capacity for our sakes.
Yes, it is a difficult passage from the Calvinistic view point. I have no problems with it at all. God the Father and God the Son are different. In His roll as Son, Jesus does not have the same knowledge that His Father does. This makes Him no less God, it just makes His roll in the Trinity different. Just as the Father could not have died for our sins and just as the Holy Spirit could not rise from the dead for our eternal life, the Son does not need the same knowledge as the Father to be our redeemer.

I don't have a problem with the verse. Those of you who hold the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms do have problems with this "difficult passage."

What does it say about the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms when the people who hold to them have a problem interpreting a scripture that conflicts with them?

CabinetMaker
September 30th, 2007, 04:12 PM
In looking at Evangelical Covenant Theology (http://www.covchurch.org/affirmations), there is an emphasis on the creeds and avoiding splitting hairs in theological discussion.

The doctrinal statement is sound. I'd like to know what your pastor says about our discussion. Ask for me please.
I'd like to know too. Our pastor is not seminary trained. Just a man with a passion for serving God. He makes mistakes but then, so do we all.

CabinetMaker
September 30th, 2007, 04:14 PM
I have no idea what you just said or mean. AMR has discussed how dangerously close OV is to the edge of heresey. Millard Erickson, a leading authority on orthodox and heterodox theology and their differences supports AMR's statements (or vise-versa). Some of your extrapolations are dangerously close. The Arians also believe Jesus to be much different than the Father. The Mormons do not believe God knew (knows) everything and cast Him in human-likeness. Regardless of what our discussions are, I caution against exrapolating OV difficulties to that extreme.
I was commenting that the Apostles do not know everything that Jesus knows. So when an apostle says Jesus knows everything, they don't really know if everything means everything.

Evoken
September 30th, 2007, 04:33 PM
By the way, I noted in your post that you made no attempt to address the verse directly. You brought up a lot of different points about Jesus being God and knowing everything God does. But you never said anything like, "When Jesus said only the Father knows the hour Jesus really means..." Would you like to try again?

That is the point Cabinet. The verses I posted in both of my responses to you leave no doubt that the Son knows everything God (and by extension the Father) knows. As I also said in my previous post, your take on this "ignores that not only as God but also as Man Lord Jesus is called the Son of God, so this verse refers to his humanity instead of his divinity. Similar to what we see in apparently conflicting claims such as the Father being greater than the Son and the Father and the Son being one." In one he is speaking as a Man and in the the other as God.

This is also why we see him being baptized (Matthew 3:15), for example, not because he needed it, but because, as man, he was to live truly as man and fulfill the law. Likewise, as man he includes himself when it comes to knowing the day and the hour. And as I pointed out in my previous post, Christ knows that this generation will not pass before his coming and he even knows all the things that will take place before it actually happens (Luke 21). There is simply no reason to suppose that after all Christ is and all he knows, that he doesn't knows the hour and the day. Especially when one considers that explaining that verse as he speaking as a man is actually the logical and rational inference in light of the rest of Scripture and does not leads to the incoherency your position leads to in the Trinity, a position that takes you straight into heresy.

You are abusing that verse and are taking an extreme and narrow position on this. As I told you in my first response you cannot understand the nature of Christ by sticking only to a single verse, that is what you are doing here and it is naive to think or act that way. Your responses have been consistent in answer to everything that has been written to you, everything you just dismiss and claim something along the lines of: "Look at the verse again Nang, that is not what it says."; "It is what Jesus said. Its that simple, Jesus said He did not know."; "There is nothing in that verse that suggest Jesus meant He was ignorant in His humanity."

In other words you are hung up in a single verse and are completely ignoring everything else. There is little point in continuing an exchange with someone who has the sort of attitude you have displayed throughout this thread.


Evo

CabinetMaker
September 30th, 2007, 04:48 PM
That is the point Cabinet. The verses I posted in both of my responses to you leave no doubt that the Son knows everything God (and by extension the Father) knows. As I also said in my previous post, your take on this "ignores that not only as God but also as Man Lord Jesus is called the Son of God, so this verse refers to his humanity instead of his divinity. Similar to what we see in apparently conflicting claims such as the Father being greater than the Son and the Father and the Son being one." In one he is speaking as a Man and in the the other as God.

This is also why we see him being baptized (Matthew 3:15), for example, not because he needed it, but because, as man, he was to live truly as man and fulfill the law. Likewise, as man he includes himself when it comes to knowing the day and the hour. And as I pointed out in my previous post, Christ knows that this generation will not pass before his coming and he even knows all the things that will take place before it actually happens (Luke 21). There is simply no reason to suppose that after all Christ is and all he knows, that he doesn't knows the hour and the day. Especially when one considers that explaining that verse as he speaking as a man is actually the logical and rational inference in light of the rest of Scripture and does not leads to the incoherency your position leads to in the Trinity, a position that takes you straight into heresy.

You are abusing that verse and are taking an extreme and narrow position on this. As I told you in my first response you cannot understand the nature of Christ by sticking only to a single verse, that is what you are doing here and it is naive to think or act that way. Your responses have been consistent in answer to everything that has been written to you, everything you just dismiss and claim something along the lines of: "Look at the verse again Nang, that is not what it says."; "It is what Jesus said. Its that simple, Jesus said He did not know."; "There is nothing in that verse that suggest Jesus meant He was ignorant in His humanity."

In other words you are hung up in a single verse and are completely ignoring everything else. There is little point in continuing an exchange with someone who has the sort of attitude you have displayed throughout this thread.


Evo
I think you are rather missing the point. All of the verses and other material you have pointed to are not words spoken by Jesus. They are words spoken about Jesus by other people including the Apostles and later theologians. I am pointing out a verse that contradicts the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms in there assertion that the Father and Son do not share all knowledge.

It is my position that this verse is of central importance to the issue of shared knowledge in that it was spoke by Jesus as part of His teachings about the end times. Jesus felt it was important enough to point out that only His Father knows when those times will begin.

Nang
September 30th, 2007, 05:01 PM
[QUOTE=CabinetMaker;1540793]
What does it say about the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms when the people who hold to them have a problem interpreting a scripture that conflicts with them?


The only "Calvinist" creed quoted was the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Athanasian Creed and the Chalcedonian Creed were the findings of early church fathers; written hundreds of years before Calvin was even born. The "Reformed view" was only presented in answer to questions regarding Reformers. None of the material presented in discussion has conflicted with Holy Scripture.

That is simply your persistent and ignorant assertion.

AMR did an excellent job answering Bob Enyart's questions from the historical, classical, orthodox frame of reference rather than making his arguments "Calvinistic" and limiting himself to only a Calvinistic point of view, and your statement reveals a bias on your part that has precluded you benefiting from his efforts.

Your question has been answered in the most comprehensive manner, not only repeatedly by AMR but from other wise men, not necessarily of the same religious persuasion.

You are blinded to the careful (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1540202&postcount=44) and kind answers that have been provided to you, because you do not want to learn. The importance of working through difficult passages via the wisdom of others who have gone before you, who know church history and sound doctrine, is lost on you, because it is not a part of the vapid social agenda with which you apparently affiliate and frolic.

Warning:

It is blasphemous to declare that the Father and the Son are "different." If this is your private interpretation of Matthew 24:36, then the problem is yours, and it is a serious spiritual problem.

Nang

CabinetMaker
September 30th, 2007, 05:22 PM
[quote=CabinetMaker;1540793]

The only "Calvinist" creed quoted was the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Athanasian Creed and the Chalcedonian Creed were the findings of early church fathers; written hundreds of years before Calvin was even born. The "Reformed view" was only presented in answer to questions regarding Reformers. None of the material presented in discussion has conflicted with Holy Scripture.

That is simply your persistent and ignorant assertion.

AMR did an excellent job answering Bob Enyart's questions from the historical, classical, orthodox frame of reference rather than making his arguments "Calvinistic" and limiting himself to only a Calvinistic point of view, and your statement reveals a bias on your part that has precluded you benefiting from his efforts.

Your question has been answered in the most comprehensive manner, not only repeatedly by AMR but from other wise men, not necessarily of the same religious persuasion.

You are blinded to the careful (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1540202&postcount=44) and kind answers that have been provided to you, because you do not want to learn. The importance of working through difficult passages via the wisdom of others who have gone before you, who know church history and sound doctrine, is lost on you, because it is not a part of the vapid social agenda with which you apparently affiliate and frolic.



Nang
Nang, Nobody has provided an answer. AMR and others have posted a whole bunch of stuff in an attempt to prove that the verse is not true. That leaves you with a problem, since Jesus knows everything the Father knows, why did He knowingly misslead His apostles in Matthew 24:36?



Warning:

It is blasphemous to declare that the Father and the Son are "different." If this is your private interpretation of Matthew 24:36, then the problem is yours, and it is a serious spiritual problem.
God God the Father have died for your sins?
Could God the Holy Spirit rise from the dead to redeem you to the Father?
To whom did Jesus pray?

Lon
September 30th, 2007, 05:37 PM
Yes, it is a difficult passage from the Calvinistic view point. I have no problems with it at all. God the Father and God the Son are different. In His roll as Son, Jesus does not have the same knowledge that His Father does. This makes Him no less God, it just makes His roll in the Trinity different. Just as the Father could not have died for our sins and just as the Holy Spirit could not rise from the dead for our eternal life, the Son does not need the same knowledge as the Father to be our redeemer.

I don't have a problem with the verse. Those of you who hold the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms do have problems with this "difficult passage."

What does it say about the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms when the people who hold to them have a problem interpreting a scripture that conflicts with them?

This is interesting because some of your denominational creeds support this stance. I'd guess first of all, that the ecumenical nature of the denomination wouldn't choose to argue the point, but they do support those creeds. I'd also suspect, though it is not a contention point for them, that you are not aligned with their doctrinal statement persay.

Lon
September 30th, 2007, 05:41 PM
By the way, scripture tells us the Spirit knows. Would it be conceivable (before I actually find the verse in question) that the Spirit would know yet Christ does not?

Evoken
September 30th, 2007, 05:43 PM
All of the verses and other material you have pointed to are not words spoken by Jesus. They are words spoken about Jesus by other people including the Apostles and later theologians. I am pointing out a verse that contradicts the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms in there assertion that the Father and Son do not share all knowledge.

From this it is very clear that you are simply not paying attention to what I have been writing to you. I have posted nothing from creeds, catechisms or anything else and have relied solely on Scripture when writing my responses. I do not adhere to the protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but I have done so for pragmatic reasons in this thread and it is precisely to avoid the charge you are advancing here of citing creeds, catechisms and the like and also to show, indirectly, that what these things affirm about Christ are indeed what Scripture truly teaches.

All the verses I have posted are from Scripture, which is wholly and entire inspired by God and free from all error. Whatever is found in the Scripture is what God intended the writers to put in them. There is also the fact that Christ himself did not leave any writings of his own, what we have is what the apostles wrote about him. So your distinction between what the apostles say and what Christ says in Scripture is meaningless.

But even granting that, all the verses I posted in my three posts, with the sole exemption of Colossians 1:15-17 and Hebrews 1:2-3, have Lord Jesus speaking himself and not an apostle saying something about him. As I said in my previous post, you simply dismiss anything that is written to you, and given your claims above, by the looks of it you don't even read it.


Evo

CabinetMaker
September 30th, 2007, 05:45 PM
By the way, scripture tells us the Spirit knows. Would it be conceivable (before I actually find the verse in question) that the Spirit would know yet Christ does not?
To what verse are you referring about the Spirit knowing?

Lon
September 30th, 2007, 06:30 PM
Start with I Corinthians 2:9,11 (vs 9-16)


"Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understanding?" (Isaiah 40:13-14).


Joh 15:26 When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father — the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father — He will testify about me
Joh 16:15 Everything that the Father has is mine; that is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you.

godrulz
September 30th, 2007, 06:46 PM
Earth to GR. Earth calling GR. Come in, GR. :dizzy:

God rules inanimate, animate, and moral creation with different principles, thankfully, at least in a non-deterministic theology.

Earth to Ivory Tower, come in, AMR.

godrulz
September 30th, 2007, 06:56 PM
In Pinnock's first major Open Theism book, he talks about a few similarities between openness and process, but also the significant differences. The academic open theists consider Process heretical. There would also be some similarities between Process and your views, but that does not mean I can legitimately equate your view as Process.

Pinnock must also be quoted in the full context of his comments. He has been imprecise at times and responded to criticism from ETS, etc. and changed the wording in books such as 'Most Moved Mover' on areas of Bible. His views on universalism, hell, or infallibility of Scripture are not necessarily endorsed or held by most Open Theists. They are not issues of Open Theism, but his personal ideas.

Open Theism does not have one systematic textbook equivalent to the Bible. Even within Calvinism and Arminianism, there is a spectrum of beliefs held by those under the main umbrella of the view. There is Process, Open Theism, Arminianism, Augustinianism, semi-Augustinian, Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Calvinist, hyper-Calvinist, etc. Every author has a variety of views. The same issue comes up with my Pentecostalism. People take the heretical Word of Faith extremes or crazy things Benny Hinn says and equate it with Pentecostalism. Classical Pentecostals have the same problems with the lunatic fringe that non-charismatics do.

I like Dr. Gregory Boyd also, but do not agree with his gap theory (Genesis 1), Molinistic (neo) bent, and possible speculations on the destiny of the lost or those in other religions (I think John Sanders also has ideas I disagree with, though the bulk of their writings are good reflections of Open Theism on OT distinctives...hell or annihilation is not an OT issue even if an OT speculates about it).

Ask Mr. Religion
September 30th, 2007, 07:03 PM
Yes, it is a difficult passage from the Calvinistic view point. I have no problems with it at all. God the Father and God the Son are different. In His roll as Son, Jesus does not have the same knowledge that His Father does. This makes Him no less God, it just makes His roll in the Trinity different. Just as the Father could not have died for our sins and just as the Holy Spirit could not rise from the dead for our eternal life, the Son does not need the same knowledge as the Father to be our redeemer.

I don't have a problem with the verse. Those of you who hold the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms do have problems with this "difficult passage."

What does it say about the Calvinistic creeds, confessions and catechisms when the people who hold to them have a problem interpreting a scripture that conflicts with them?
Mar 13:32 "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

But concerning that day or that hour: The day or hour of the Second Coming. Perhaps the year is discernable since it was not explicitly mentioned. Many groups spend much time trying to determine the year using Daniel and Revelation.

no one knows: “no one” here are God’s creatures

not even the angels in heaven: more specifically lest we misunderstand, even angels are not given all knowledge, for they are not omniscient beings, and are subject to their positional relationship in God’s created order.

nor the Son: Christ is speaking here as one who is human and aware of His human identity, i.e., as “God the Son”, not His divine self-consciousness. Christ is acknowledging the limitations prescribed by the task given to Him to fulfill in human nature

but only the Father: The economy of the Godhead is in view here. From Matthew 28:19 we read: “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and some explanation is in order before we proceed further.

From this verse we can discern distinctions between the members of the Godhead.

“in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

The conjunction, ‘and’, illustrates that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

Next observe: “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

Here we see the word “name” used in the singular form. Christ did not say, “in the names of the…” This, with the previous construction, denotes the distinction of Persons, yet a unity of the divine essence in the Godhead—three divine Persons, one in mind, attributes, glory—all fully God. Not three roles of one God (Unitarianism), nor three Gods (tritheism). Three Persons, one God.

When discussing the unity of the activities of the three Persons theologians use the phrase, “the economy of the Godhead”. That is, whatever activity God engages in, all the divine Persons of the Godhead move in a unified, harmonious, and cooperative manner. For example, the Scriptures tell us that creation of the universe was the work of the Father (Genesis 1:1) by the Son (Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2), through the Spirit (Genesis 1:2). Christ’s resurrection is another example. Scripture tells us His resurrection was attributed to the Father (Acts 2:24; Acts 13:30), the Son ( John 2:19; John 10:18), and the Spirit (Romans 1:4; Romans 8:11; 1 Peter 3:18). Note that while all the Persons of the Godhead have distinctive offices and identities, they exist in a single, glorious oneness and unanimity.

Now you have spent a great deal of time trying to construct a belief system around a single verse, a verse that is admittedly unclear on its surface. The proper biblical approach for interpreting unclear verses is to interpret the in light of clear, unquestionable truths. These didactic verses help illuminate the unclear ones. For example, in John 14:28, Christ says, “My Father is greater than I.” Do we really believe that the Son of God is subordinate and inferior to the Father? Of course not, for we have numerous verses that teach the equality and oneness of the Son with the Father (John 10:30; John 5:18; Philippians 2:6; I John 5:7, etc.) Hence, whatever John 14:28 means, this one verse does not obviate the clear evidence of the Scriptures regarding the deity of Christ. You must always interpret the unclear in terms of the clearer overarching truths.

So we come back to the problematic phrase,

but only the Father: The economy of the Godhead is in view here (see discussion above). In other words, (1)speaking from the perspective of His humanity, (2)acknowledging the limitations prescribed by the task given to Him to fulfill in human nature, (3)that is to be the obedient servant in His humiliation, Jesus, the son of man, says “only the Father knows”. The Father sent the Son (e.g., see Isaiah 48:16; John 8:42). Recall the economy of the Godhead discussion. Hence it is appropriate that Jesus refers to the Father in this capacity, “only the Father”. But, as I have shown earlier above, whatever activity God engages in, all the divine Persons of the Godhead move in a unified, harmonious, and cooperative manner. There is nothing in this verse, when properly interpreted with the umbrella of truths elsewhere in the Scriptures, that would support your contention that the Father knows something that the Son or the Holy Spirit do not know.

You tend to use the word “roles” to describe the offices of the Godhead. This is the error of Unitarianism.

Your also write: “I am not denying that Jesus is God incarnate and that as God, He knows a great deal more about everything than we do.”

I agree with this statement. But you contradict yourself when you then state in the next breath:

“All I am saying is that Jesus draws a distinction between the Father and the Son and makes it clear that the Son does not have all the knowledge of the Father.”

You cannot have it both ways. “God” cannot possess less than full and complete knowledge. Either Christ Incarnate is God (and man) or He is something less than an omniscient being. Your position is untenable. Either you state that Jesus is not God, and somehow emptied Himself of the divine attributes while on earth, then fall into a myriad of heresies surrounding the Incarnation, or you realize that what I have stated above explains the verse in question properly. There are no other options.

Lon
September 30th, 2007, 09:47 PM
Thanks AMR, better than well-said.

CabinetMaker
September 30th, 2007, 09:55 PM
Mar 13:32 "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

But concerning that day or that hour: The day or hour of the Second Coming. Perhaps the year is discernable since it was not explicitly mentioned. Many groups spend much time trying to determine the year using Daniel and Revelation.Its a waste of time but many groups do spend time looking for the date.


no one knows: “no one” here are God’s creaturesYes, but not only God's creatures. Qualifications are added.


not even the angels in heaven: more specifically lest we misunderstand, even angels are not given all knowledge, for they are not omniscient beings, and are subject to their positional relationship in God’s created order.Here is one of the qualifications.


nor the Son: Christ is speaking here as one who is human and aware of His human identity, i.e., as “God the Son”, not His divine self-consciousness. Christ is acknowledging the limitations prescribed by the task given to Him to fulfill in human natureThis interpretation is not supported by the context of the passage from which Matthew 24:36 is taken. In chapter 24, Jesus is teaching about end times. He is teaching from divine knowledge. To suddenly switch from authoritative teaching to basic human for one verse is not supported by the text.


but only the Father: The economy of the Godhead is in view here. From Matthew 28:19 we read: “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and some explanation is in order before we proceed further.

From this verse we can discern distinctions between the members of the Godhead.

“in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

The conjunction, ‘and’, illustrates that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

Next observe: “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”

Here we see the word “name” used in the singular form. Christ did not say, “in the names of the…” This, with the previous construction, denotes the distinction of Persons, yet a unity of the divine essence in the Godhead—three divine Persons, one in mind, attributes, glory—all fully God. Not three roles of one God (Unitarianism), nor three Gods (tritheism). Three Persons, one God.

When discussing the unity of the activities of the three Persons theologians use the phrase, “the economy of the Godhead”. That is, whatever activity God engages in, all the divine Persons of the Godhead move in a unified, harmonious, and cooperative manner. For example, the Scriptures tell us that creation of the universe was the work of the Father (Genesis 1:1) by the Son (Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2), through the Spirit (Genesis 1:2). Christ’s resurrection is another example. Scripture tells us His resurrection was attributed to the Father (Acts 2:24; Acts 13:30), the Son ( John 2:19; John 10:18), and the Spirit (Romans 1:4; Romans 8:11; 1 Peter 3:18). Note that while all the Persons of the Godhead have distinctive offices and identities, they exist in a single, glorious oneness and unanimity.

Now you have spent a great deal of time trying to construct a belief system around a single verse, a verse that is admittedly unclear on its surface. The proper biblical approach for interpreting unclear verses is to interpret the in light of clear, unquestionable truths. These didactic verses help illuminate the unclear ones. For example, in John 14:28, Christ says, “My Father is greater than I.” Do we really believe that the Son of God is subordinate and inferior to the Father? Of course not, for we have numerous verses that teach the equality and oneness of the Son with the Father (John 10:30; John 5:18; Philippians 2:6; I John 5:7, etc.) Hence, whatever John 14:28 means, this one verse does not obviate the clear evidence of the Scriptures regarding the deity of Christ. You must always interpret the unclear in terms of the clearer overarching truths.

So we come back to the problematic phrase,

but only the Father: The economy of the Godhead is in view here (see discussion above). In other words, (1)speaking from the perspective of His humanity, (2)acknowledging the limitations prescribed by the task given to Him to fulfill in human nature, (3)that is to be the obedient servant in His humiliation, Jesus, the son of man, says “only the Father knows”. The Father sent the Son. Recall the economy of the Godhead discussion. Hence it is appropriate that Jesus refers to the Father in this capacity, “only the Father”. But, as I have shown earlier above, whatever activity God engages in, all the divine Persons of the Godhead move in a unified, harmonious, and cooperative manner. There is nothing in this verse, when properly interpreted with the umbrella of truths elsewhere in the Scriptures, that would support your contention that the Father knows something that the Son or the Holy Spirit do not know.Does it really take 10 paragraphs to explain one four letter phrase? I think not. I think you are so bound by your concept of what God must be according to your doctrines that it requires this much explanation to try and get around a simple phrase. I thank you for addressing the verse point by point.

I reject your conclusions. The path required by you to arrive at the conclusion you do is far to complicated to be reasonable. God preserved the Bible for all believers and to make new believers. He did it in such a way so that you do not have to be the greatest scholar that ever lived to understand the truth in the Bible. There are no hidden meanings. There is only truth in its most simple, basic and beautiful form. When you go to such lengths to prove that Jesus didn't mean what He said, then you twist and torture that truth into something ugly. And that is exactly what you are doing here. You are pulling from all over the Bible to prove that Jesus didn't mean what He said.


You tend to use the word “roles” to describe the offices of the Godhead. This is the error of Unitarianism.That is why it is quotes


Your also write: “I am not denying that Jesus is God incarnate and that as God, He knows a great deal more about everything than we do.”

I agree with this statement. But you contradict yourself when you then state in the next breath:

“All I am saying is that Jesus draws a distinction between the Father and the Son and makes it clear that the Son does not have all the knowledge of the Father.”
No, I do not contradict myself, I contradict you. IT is your doctrine that requires that the Father and Son be identical in every way. I do not share that doctrine. Why? Because Jesus does not share your doctrine either.


You cannot have it both ways. “God” cannot possess less than full and complete knowledge. Either Christ Incarnate is God (and man) or He is something less than an omniscient being. Your position is untenable. Either you state that Jesus is not God, and somehow emptied Himself of the divine attributes while on earth, then fall into a myriad of heresies surrounding the Incarnation, or you realize that what I have stated above explains the verse in question properly. There are no other options.Again, Jesus disagrees with you. I state that your understanding of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit is flawed.

Ask Mr. Religion
September 30th, 2007, 10:06 PM
No, I do not contradict myself, I contradict you. IT is your doctrine that requires that the Father and Son be identical in every way. I do not share that doctrine. Why? Because Jesus does not share your doctrine either.
Well, sir, you could have stated that up front and saved us all some time. All the while I was thinking you were earnestly seeking clarifications, but in fact you are merely seeking to engage in debate.

Now please stop whining that no one has answered your question. You have the answer in all the detail that is required. There is sufficient instruction therein for you to do your own homework now and answer your own questions.

As a matter of personal preference, I never debate the diety of Christ with anyone who explicitly denies the doctrine. Those that reject these doctrines are sufficiently beyond what the Scriptures expect of Christians to do to correct their heresies. Christians are admonished to avoid such persons (2 John 1:9-11).

I leave you to your own devices.

CabinetMaker
September 30th, 2007, 10:18 PM
Well, sir, you could have stated that up front and saved us all some time. All the while I was thinking you were earnestly seeking clarifications, but in fact you are merely seeking to engage in debate.

Now please stop whining that no one has answered your question. You have the answer in all the detail that is required. There is sufficient instruction therein for you to do your own homework now and answer your own questions.

As a matter of personal preference, I never debate the diety of Christ with anyone who explicitly denies the doctrine. Those that reject these doctrines are sufficiently beyond what the Scriptures expect of Christians to do to correct their heresies. Christians are admonished to avoid such persons (2 John 1:9-11).

I leave you to your own devices.
See, there you go again twisting words. I never said I deny the deity of Christ. In fact, several times I have stated that Jesus is God incarnate. But because I disagree with you, you feel you must proclaim that I deny the deity of Christ when, in fact, I do not.

As to the question, yes, you have finally addressed it point by point. I think I finally understand exactly where you are coming from. It is one more reason why I am glad I am not a Calvinist. Your doctrines and confessions and creeds and Chaticisims have become more important to you than scripture. Look at the amount of time and effort you put into changing the meanings of the words in Matthew 24:35 into something that conforms to your doctrine.

I have looked at what you have posted and I have followed your links. I am sorry, but I don't find you to be a teacher worth learning from.

Ask Mr. Religion
September 30th, 2007, 10:23 PM
See, there you go again twisting words. I never said I deny the deity of Christ. In fact, several times I have stated that Jesus is God incarnate. But because I disagree with you, you feel you must proclaim that I deny the deity of Christ when, in fact, I do not.

As to the question, yes, you have finally addressed it point by point. I think I finally understand exactly where you are coming from. It is one more reason why I am glad I am not a Calvinist. Your doctrines and confessions and creeds and Chaticisims have become more important to you than scripture. Look at the amount of time and effort you put into changing the meanings of the words in Matthew 24:35 into something that conforms to your doctrine.

I have looked at what you have posted and I have followed your links. I am sorry, but I don't find you to be a teacher worth learning from.

OK, far be it for me to jump to conclusions.

Your write: “I am not denying that Jesus is God incarnate and that as God, He knows a great deal more about everything than we do.”

“All I am saying is that Jesus draws a distinction between the Father and the Son and makes it clear that the Son does not have all the knowledge of the Father.”

Please explain this in light of your renewed assertion that Jesus is God.

God = omniscient
Jesus = God
therefore,
Jesus = omniscient

What exactly do you believe? Please explain.

CabinetMaker
September 30th, 2007, 10:38 PM
OK, far be it for me to jump to conclusions.

Your write: “I am not denying that Jesus is God incarnate and that as God, He knows a great deal more about everything than we do.”

“All I am saying is that Jesus draws a distinction between the Father and the Son and makes it clear that the Son does not have all the knowledge of the Father.”

Please explain this in light of your renewed assertion that Jesus is God.

God = omniscient
Jesus = God
therefore,
Jesus = omniscient

What exactly do you believe? Please explain.

I am not denying that Jesus is God incarnate and that as part of the Godhead, He knows a great deal more about everything than we do. All I am saying is that Jesus draws a distinction between the Father and the Son and makes it clear that the Son does not have all the knowledge of the Father.

God the Father is omniscient
God the Son is not God the Father
therefore,
God the Son does not have to have all the knowledge of the Father.

Question. Are the member of the Godhead identical in every way?

Could God the Father of died for our sins?

Could the Holy Spirit rise from the dead for our eternal redemption?

Why or why not.

Ask Mr. Religion
September 30th, 2007, 10:45 PM
God the Father is omniscient
God the Son is not God the Father
therefore,
God the Son does not have to have all the knowledge of the Father.


Then your own reasoning shows that you do not believe Christ is God.

Is Christ God?
Is the Holy Spirit God?
Is God the Father God?

Do you agree with this statement?

"One God who eternally exists in three different persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are equal."

I am happy to answer your other questions as soon as we bottom out on the initial issue of how you perceive the divinity of Christ.

CabinetMaker
September 30th, 2007, 10:54 PM
Is Christ God? Yes
Is the Holy Spirit God? Yes
Is God the Father God? Yes

Do you agree with this statement? Qualified yes, with emphasis on the word different and not to the term equal. Jesus was always very clear that He was obedient to His Father in heaven, received His authority from His Father and only prayed to His Father.

"One God who eternally exists in three different persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are equal."

I am happy to answer your other questions as soon as we bottom out on the initial issue of how you perceive the divinity of Christ.

I ask you to answer my questions before we continue. Please, keep the answers short. There is no need for verbose answers.

Ask Mr. Religion
September 30th, 2007, 11:20 PM
Is Christ God? Yes
Is the Holy Spirit God? Yes
Is God the Father God? Yes

Do you agree with this statement? Qualified yes, with emphasis on the word different and not to the term equal. Jesus was always very clear that He was obedient to His Father in heaven, received His authority from His Father and only prayed to His Father.

"One God who eternally exists in three different persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are equal."
Since you say Christ is God, but not equal to God the Father, are you basically also saying that Christ and Spirit are not equal to the Father? This is very near to variations of Arianism.

How do you deal with "not equal" when speaking of God? You believe there is one God, not three. We are speaking of one divine essence - God. One essence means, well, one. To say there is some inequalities in this essence is to say that the essence of God is composed of parts. Do you believe this?

CabinetMaker
October 1st, 2007, 08:14 AM
Since you say Christ is God, but not equal to God the Father, are you basically also saying that Christ and Spirit are not equal to the Father? This is very near to variations of Arianism.

How do you deal with "not equal" when speaking of God? You believe there is one God, not three. We are speaking of one divine essence - God. One essence means, well, one. To say there is some inequalities in this essence is to say that the essence of God is composed of parts. Do you believe this?
My response included how I deal with "not equal."

Now, please answer these questions.

Are the member of the Godhead identical in every way?

Could God the Father of died for our sins?

Could the Holy Spirit rise from the dead for our eternal redemption?

Why or why not.

Ask Mr. Religion
October 1st, 2007, 09:23 AM
My response included how I deal with "not equal."

Now, please answer these questions.

Are the member of the Godhead identical in every way?

Could God the Father of died for our sins?

Could the Holy Spirit rise from the dead for our eternal redemption?

Why or why not.You "deal" with the inequality of the Trinitarian Persons by denying their divinity. You embrace heresy.

The members of the Godhead are three divine Persons, one in mind, purpose, attributes, glory—all fully God. There is one essence of God, not three parts of God. You cannot get any other answer but what I have given you. The Persons of the Godhead are distinctive in their respective offices. These distinctions have absolutely nothing to do with their divinity. The Godhead is a Tri-unity, three distinctive persons, one unified essence.

Your other questions are illogical (and heretical) in the face of what we know about about the distinctive offices of the Godhead. You might as well have asked could God have existed in any other than the tri-personal form for He could not. God's tri-personal existence is a necessity in the Divine Being, and not in any sense the result of a choice of God. God could not be self-contemplating, self-cognitive, and self-communing, if His constitution were not trinal. Hence it is not possible to conceive of personality in God apart from an association of equal persons in Him.

The three distinctive subsistences of the Godhead are as I have described them here and elsewhere. Hence, as I described earlier in the economical order of God's works some of the external works of God are ascribed more particularly to one person, and some especially more to another. For example, though they are all works of the three persons jointly, creation is ascribed primarily to the Father, redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Holy Spirit. God's external works are never the works of one person exclusively, but always works of the Divine Being as a whole.

In other words, to the point of your questions, the atonement for sins, the resurrection, or any other external act of God, are indeed the works of the one Divine essence.

You can argue that I have not answered your other two questions, but in effect, you have asked me to answer questions like "Could God be a unicorn?"

CabinetMaker
October 1st, 2007, 10:46 AM
You "deal" with the inequality of the Trinitarian Persons by denying their divinity. You embrace heresy.What is it with Calvinists that every time someone doesn't agree with them the Calvinist immediately labels them a heretic. The same thing happened to me over at the old Christian Forums. In point of fact, I did not deny the divinity. I pointed out that Jesus is obediant to the Father, not to Himself. Jesus prayed to the Father, not Himself. Jesus taught us to pray the the Father in the name of the Son, not to the Son directly.



The members of the Godhead are three divine Persons, one in mind, purpose, attributes, glory—all fully God. There is one essence of God, not three parts of God. You cannot get any other answer but what I have given you. The Persons of the Godhead are distinctive in their respective offices. These distinctions have absolutely nothing to do with their divinity. The Godhead is a Tri-unity, three distinctive persons, one unified essence.Correct. They are all divine but they all have a different office. The function of each office is distinct and is fulfilled by one person in the trinity alone.


Your other questions are illogical (and heretical) in the face of what we know about about the distinctive offices of the Godhead. You might as well have asked could God have existed in any other than the tri-personal form for He could not. God's tri-personal existence is a necessity in the Divine Being, and not in any sense the result of a choice of God. God could not be self-contemplating, self-cognitive, and self-communing, if His constitution were not trinal. Hence it is not possible to conceive of personality in God apart from an association of equal persons in Him. No, my questions are perfectly logical. My questions do not challenge the trinity, they question your assertions about what the trinity is and is not. Do you see the limits you put on God? "God could not exist as anything other than a trinity." God, the creator of all things, could exist in as many forms as He requires, including a unicorn. A trinity best fits God's plan for redemption of the human race.


The three distinctive subsistences of the Godhead are as I have described them here and elsewhere. Hence, as I described earlier in the economical order of God's works some of the external works of God are ascribed more particularly to one person, and some especially more to another. For example, though they are all works of the three persons jointly, creation is ascribed primarily to the Father, redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Holy Spirit. God's external works are never the works of one person exclusively, but always works of the Divine Being as a whole.

In other words, to the point of your questions, the atonement for sins, the resurrection, or any other external act of God, are indeed the works of the one Divine essence.

You can argue that I have not answered your other two questions, but in effect, you have asked me to answer questions like "Could God be a unicorn?"


You actually answered my question. In your mind, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are interchangeable. There is no meaningful difference in between any of the three persons. God died for our sins, rose from the dead as the Holy Spirit and prays to Jesus. Or the Holy Spirit dies for our sins, rose from the dead as God and they both worship Jesus.

Ask Mr. Religion
October 1st, 2007, 11:14 AM
What is it with Calvinists that every time someone doesn't agree with them the Calvinist immediately labels them a heretic. The same thing happened to me over at the old Christian Forums. In point of fact, I did not deny the divinity. I pointed out that Jesus is obediant to the Father, not to Himself. Jesus prayed to the Father, not Himself. Jesus taught us to pray the the Father in the name of the Son, not to the Son directly.
When you say that Christ cannot be equal to God the Father or God the Spirit, which you have explicitly so stated, you are denying the full divinity of Christ. You can complain that Calvinists are beating you up, but any orthodox Christian would tell you the same. Why is it that just because a Calvinist tells you this you assume that this is only a belief by Calvinists? A Catholic or a Lutheran or a member of your own denomination would tell you the same. So would your own pastor. Have you discussed this with him?


No, my questions are perfectly logical. My questions do not challenge the trinity, they question your assertions about what the trinity is and is not. Do you see the limits you put on God? "God could not exist as anything other than a trinity." God, the creator of all things, could exist in as many forms as He requires, including a unicorn. A trinity best fits God's plan for redemption of the human race.I place no limits upon God, but I also don't reason irrationally, which is what you are doing when you make these kinds of statements.

Theologians argue the requirement for God to be trinal from the idea of personality itself.

One argument is based upon the general self-consciousness of the triune God, as distinguished from the particular individual self-consciousness of each one of the Persons in the Godhead. In self-consciousness the subject must know itself as an object, and also perceive that it does. This is possible in God because of His trinal existence. God could not be self-contemplating, self-cognitive, and self-communing, if He were not trinal in His constitution.

Another argument is that among men the consciousness of the ego awakens only by contact with the non-ego. Personality cannot or does not exist in isolation, but only in association with other persons. Thus we cannot conceive of a personality in God apart from some association of equal persons in God. God’s contact with us cannot account for His personality any more than our contact with animals would explain our own personality.

You seem to have spent a lot of time on your own crafting some very peculiar notions about the nature of the Trinity. I urge you to become more grounded in the orthodox treatment of this subject and seek out your pastor for more discussions. You are straying outside the mainstream in your beliefs. This is dangerous, for you end up creating false idols and go off worshiping them at your peril.

CabinetMaker
October 1st, 2007, 11:46 AM
When you say that Christ cannot be equal to God the Father or God the Spirit, which you have explicitly so stated, you are denying the full divinity of Christ. You can complain that Calvinists are beating you up, but any orthodox Christian would tell you the same. Why is it that just because a Calvinist tells you this you assume that this is only a belief by Calvinists? A Catholic or a Lutheran or a member of your own denomination would tell you the same. So would your own pastor. Have you discussed this with him?

I place no limits upon God, but I also don't reason irrationally, which is what you are doing when you make these kinds of statements.

Theologians argue the requirement for God to be trinal from the idea of personality itself.

One argument is based upon the general self-consciousness of the triune God, as distinguished from the particular individual self-consciousness of each one of the Persons in the Godhead. In self-consciousness the subject must know itself as an object, and also perceive that it does. This is possible in God because of His trinal existence. God could not be self-contemplating, self-cognitive, and self-communing, if He were not trinal in His constitution.

Another argument is that among men the consciousness of the ego awakens only by contact with the non-ego. Personality cannot or does not exist in isolation, but only in association with other persons. Thus we cannot conceive of a personality in God apart from some association of equal persons in God. God’s contact with us cannot account for His personality any more than our contact with animals would explain our own personality.

You seem to have spent a lot of time on your own crafting some very peculiar notions about the nature of the Trinity. I urge you to become more grounded in the orthodox treatment of this subject and seek out your pastor for more discussions. You are straying outside the mainstream in your beliefs. This is dangerous, for you end up creating false idols and go off worshiping them at your peril.

If all the are equal, why does Jesus always teach that He does nothing without the permission of His Father? Why does He pray to His Father? Why does He teach is to pray to His Father in the Son's name? Who did Jesus come to redeem is to?

Ask Mr. Religion
October 1st, 2007, 11:41 PM
If all the are equal, why does Jesus always teach that He does nothing without the permission of His Father? Why does He pray to His Father? Why does He teach is to pray to His Father in the Son's name? Who did Jesus come to redeem is to?godrulz will be along any minute now and answer the remainder of your questions.

godrulz
October 1st, 2007, 11:55 PM
godrulz will be along any minute now and answer the remainder of your questions.


As Nang would say: bah!:shut:

Ask Mr. Religion
October 2nd, 2007, 12:03 AM
As Nang would say: bah!:shut:Well, I was serious. So bah to you! :chuckle:

Ask Mr. Religion
October 3rd, 2007, 02:32 AM
He advanced so much that my comments will seem like old news... but I want to comment about an earlier answer.

BEQ14: Is it theoretically possible for God to know something future because He plans to use His abilities to bring it about, rather than strictly because He foresees it?

AMRA-BEQ14 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
No, this is not possible. As discussed in AMRA-BEQ12 God foreordains all that is to come to pass. As a necessary consequence, God foreknows because He as foreordained.

As stated above, your question exposes a misunderstanding of unsettled theism about the distinctions between foreordination and foreknowledge. Your question, as structured above, implies an assumption that God could “know something future” “strictly because He foresees it”. Hence you ask is there a possibility that God could “know something future” and not foresee that future. The error in this reasoning is not comprehending that God foreknows because He has foreordained. God does not foresee and then ordain. God ordains and necessarily foresees what He has ordained.

While much of what AMR has to say makes perfect sense, I have a bit of a problem with this answer. Why could God NOT foreknow without foreordaining? Just because you says he does is no better proof than Enyart saying he doesn't. Could an almighty God not be able to foreknow without foreordination?Chileice, I updated my response to this question and hope it will answer your question. See here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1535835#post1535835).

chatmaggot
October 3rd, 2007, 07:25 AM
AMR,

You state:


God foreordains all that is to come to pass.

Is all that God does good?

I know you have heard this argument many many times. But it just doesn't make sense. Maybe I just need it explained to me again...I don't know.

Does God ordain all rapes? Can a rapist choose not to rape? According to you...no. Because God caused/wanted/ordained it to happen.

That is just sick, don't you think?

How do you use Isaiah 5:20? Can you call anything evil if it is God who has ordained it to happen from eternity past?

Lon
October 3rd, 2007, 07:40 AM
AMR,

You state:



Is all that God does good?

I know you have heard this argument many many times. But it just doesn't make sense. Maybe I just need it explained to me again...I don't know.

Does God ordain all rapes? Can a rapist choose not to rape? According to you...no. Because God caused/wanted/ordained it to happen.

That is just sick, don't you think?

How do you use Isaiah 5:20? Can you call anything evil if it is God who has ordained it to happen from eternity past?

Sorry, this is an extrapolation, nobody's doctrinal statement I'm aware of. I'd recommend foregoing the common rhetoric and problematic OV extrapolation. It is mischaracterization, prejudism etc. etc. Again, it isn't supported by Calvinists or any others that I'm aware of.

chatmaggot
October 3rd, 2007, 08:09 AM
Sorry, this is an extrapolation, nobody's doctrinal statement I'm aware of. I'd recommend foregoing the common rhetoric and problematic OV extrapolation. It is mischaracterization, prejudism etc. etc. Again, it isn't supported by Calvinists or any others that I'm aware of.

What then does...


God foreordains all that is to come to pass.

...mean?

Ask Mr. Religion
October 3rd, 2007, 10:45 AM
AMR,

You state:



Is all that God does good?

I know you have heard this argument many many times. But it just doesn't make sense. Maybe I just need it explained to me again...I don't know.

Does God ordain all rapes? Can a rapist choose not to rape? According to you...no. Because God caused/wanted/ordained it to happen.

That is just sick, don't you think?

How do you use Isaiah 5:20? Can you call anything evil if it is God who has ordained it to happen from eternity past?

A fair question, despite the loaded rhetoric.

The doctrinal statements of all the orthodox churches make it clear that God is not the author of sin. That is, we recognize 1 John 15, and James 1:13.

We also recognize that God decrees all things that come to pass according to the nature of second causes:
(1) necessarily, e.g., the motion of the planets, atomic spin, etc.;
(2) freely (as defined in my 1:1 response) -- voluntarily with no "violence being done to the will of the creature";
(3) contingently, i.e., with perfect regard to future event contingencies, as when God told David what Saul and Keilah would do to him if David remained in Keilah (1 Samuel 23:9-13).

Thus we can say in the case of Adam, that he was aware of God’s commandment at the moment he ate the forbidden fruit, that Adam possessed the capacity and power to obey God’s preceptive will (see AMRA-BEQ22), for reasons sufficient to him (his self-determined greatest inclinations at the moment) Adam wanted to eat the fruit, and Adam was not forced to eat the fruit (no violence done to his will). Thus, because Adam acted knowingly, willingly, with freedom of spontaneity, for reasons that were sufficient to him, with no violence done to his will, Adam was a free moral agent in his act of sin.

Now was Adam totally free from the eternal decree of God? Absolutely not.
Could Adam have done differently? Absolutely not.
Any other answer to these questions obviates the clear teachings of the Scriptures—that God works everything in conformity with His eternal purposes (Ephesians 1:11), decreed before the foundation of the world to save a multitude of sinners who would fall in Adam.

godrulz
October 3rd, 2007, 10:51 AM
Compatabilism sounds contradictory wanting to eat its cake and have it too. It waters down genuine freedom and is a technical loophole to not make God responsible for evil while still decreeing it? Sounds like double-speak to me, but what do I know as the resident village idiot?

Ask Mr. Religion
October 3rd, 2007, 11:34 AM
Compatabilism sounds contradictory wanting to eat its cake and have it too. It waters down genuine freedom and is a technical loophole to not make God responsible for evil while still decreeing it? Sounds like double-speak to me, but what do I know as the resident village idiot?
Read AMRA-BEQ16 again. Sounds biblical to me. God is sovereign. God holds man responsible. God always will do right. All very biblical. You may not like it, for it conflicts with unsettled theism's humanistic underpinnings--that you are purportedly autonomous from the Creator of the universe (just like Adam thought he was).

Accountability to your Sovereign has nothing to do with your so-called liberty of indifference or ability.

Servo
October 3rd, 2007, 12:57 PM
A fair question, despite the loaded rhetoric.


…Adam was a free moral agent in his act of sin.

And yet he had no choice…





Now was Adam totally free from the eternal decree of God? Absolutely not.
Could Adam have done differently? Absolutely not.
Any other answer to these questions obviates the clear teachings of the Scriptures—that God works everything in conformity with His eternal purposes (Ephesians 1:11), decreed before the foundation of the world to save a multitude of sinners who would fall in Adam.




Rhetoric? Clear teaching? Are you sure these are words you should be using?

Nang
October 3rd, 2007, 04:15 PM
And yet he had no choice…

Sure he did. Adam had the capacity to willfully obey God's command.







Rhetoric? Clear teaching? Are you sure these are words you should be using?

Are you sure you should be posting?

Nang

Chileice
October 14th, 2007, 07:52 PM
Have you heard from Bob Enyart yet? Or did I miss his reply to you, AMR? I am not online all the time so I may have missed it. I am looking forward to it. Keep us posted.

Ask Mr. Religion
October 15th, 2007, 12:33 AM
Have you heard from Bob Enyart yet? Or did I miss his reply to you, AMR? I am not online all the time so I may have missed it. I am looking forward to it. Keep us posted.See related discussion here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42313).

Bob Enyart
October 20th, 2007, 06:50 AM
AMR, Knight asked me to reply to this one question of yours, and in December (Lord-willing, after the launch of a new nationwide organization) I'll look at your answers and make a general reply. For now, here's the post I put in the one-on-one:

Thanks for going through all those 50 BR X questions AMR. I'll answer the one question you've asked for now (per Knight's request). On TOL we often discuss God and the future. We Open Thesists argue that God is a living Person, and that He therefore has a will, and therefore has the ability to decide, and that He remains eternally creative, and able to bring truly new things into existence (flowers, songs, books) and that therefore, because God has a will, and is eternally able, free and creative, the future is open because God is able.

Before I answer your question, consider this personhood issue:

To be a person means to possess a will. There is one God in three Persons, and each Person of the Godhead possesses a will. The primary way we can distinguish that God exists in a Trinity of three Persons (as opposed to a unitarian God) is by noticing in Scripture their respective wills, most explicitly portrayed in Gethsemane when God the Son said, “not as I will, but as You will” (Mat. 26:39).

Greek words for will are thelo, boule, boulomai, etc. These words are used of the persons of the Trinity (John 5:30; 6:38, etc.), and basically of all other persons. As I glance very quickly at the New Testament I see these Greek words used: of the Gentiles (1 Pet. 4:3), of Joseph’s will (Mat. 1:19), of a plaintiff’s will (Mat. 5:40), of a debtor (Mat. 5:42), of any man with self interest (Mat. 7:12), of Christ’s enemies (Mat. 12:38), of Herod (Mat. 14:5), of Joseph of Arimathea’s will (Luke 23:51), the majority’s will (Acts 27:12), the evil soldiers’ will (Acts 27:42), the wills of evil men (1 Cor. 4:5), etc., etc., etc.

Personhood requires a will. (Notice, by the way, how central this personhood thing is, and this made in God’s image thing, which must be admitted for a right understanding of most everything.) AMR, I’m taking it from memory that you asked me how it is, if the future is open, that I could trust that God will have the final victory. And here I pick up the dialogue from your post. I answered:

BE: I have faith in God's wisdom, power, and love.

AMR: Do you believe that God acts as a master chess player with wisdom, skill, and resourcefulness to bring about His purposes?

(And then ):

BE: ...there is no such thing as overruling someone's will. That is a [I]non sequitur. I'm not saying just that it is not possible, I am saying that it is not rational (it is illogical). Will is the ability to decide.

AMR: I don't want to misunderstand you. Are you saying that you believe that God will always respect the free will of His creatures? Or are you saying that God cannot interfere with a person's free will--that it is an impossibility?

Now fast-forward to the present. I try to not dodge questions, but to be direct and complete when I answer. So I’ll answer your question, as you put it, and then I’ll answer a few variations of your question, as I think you meant it.

I am saying that God created creatures with a will, which is their ability to decide. Thus, when Gabriel loves God, it is not God deciding to love Himself through a zero-sum portal. It is Gabriel, this creature, exercising his will. There IS NO SUCH THING as God exercising Gabriel's will. That is a non sequitur. It is irrational. The very notion flows from a misunderstanding of fundamental personhood. There is no such thing as God exercising AMR's or Bob's wills, that is a non sequitur. (And I'm really glad that God is not the one who exercised my will in the godless ways that I have exercised it.) God created beings in His likeness, with a will (the ability to decide) and therefore, with the ability to love or hate, like Gabriel and Lucifer. God does not love Himself through Me, any more than He hates Himself through Lucifer. These are nonsense ideas.

When you ask if God can “interfere” with a person’s free will, perhaps you were imprecise. Interfere? I’ll answer your question with the word interfere, and then I’ll answer it with overrule, and some variations on overruling. If someone is counting to ten, and I spook them, I’ve interfered. If a Christian is deciding whether to marry an unbeliever, and I quote from Paul’s epistle, I’ve interfered. God can rightly educate, urge, trick, etc., a person and thereby interfere with the exercise of his will, that is, to influence the outcome of the use of his will. That is a natural everyday process. But in the end, it is the man’s will, deciding. But I think you wanted to ask something else, and something that is so irrational, that it is somewhat difficult to put into words. But I’ll try.

If you were to ask, Can God overrule a man’s free will? You might mean, Can He physically compel that man to take an action he otherwise would not take? For example, Can God levitate a gun into a man’s hand, point it at someone, and force the man’s muscles to pull the trigger? Of course. Yes. God has the raw power to pull the man’s tendons. But is that overruling the man’s will? No.

Or, if you were to ask, Can God overrule a man’s free will? You might mean, Can He psychologically manipulate a man to freely do something that he would never otherwise do? For example, Can God deceive a man into shooting someone he would never shoot of his own free will? Of course. Yes. God has the raw power to play such a trivial mind game, and give a person a delusion and make him think he is doing one thing, when he is actually doing another, or give him a delusion to make him think he must do a certain thing, for a very good reason, which reason doesn’t actually exist. In some circumstances, administering drugs can do likewise. But is that overruling or overcoming the man’s will? No.

Or, if you were to ask, Can God overrule a man’s free will? You might mean, Can He compel a man to freely do something that the man would never otherwise do, something the man is fully aware of, but something he would never do of his own independent will? For example, Herod willed to put John the Baptist to death. And although Herod willed (Greek thelo, will) to murder John, he feared the multitude, so he did not do what he willed (Mat. 14:5). A billion times a day God’s influence moves men to do otherwise than they would have done had His Spirit, His law, His Church, etc., not influenced them otherwise. But is that overruling or overcoming a man’s will? No. Did the multitude overrule Herod’s will? No.

Or, if you were to ask, Can God overrule a man’s free will? You might mean, Can He… [ad infinitum]

This is an exercise in nonsense. The best I can infer from your question AMR is that you mean to ask something like this: Can God overrule a man’s free will in such a way that now the man actually wills something by his own free will that his own independent free will does not will. This is gibberish.

Ask Mr. Religion, you don’t realize this, but your question, Can God overrule a man’s free will, is the same as asking, Can God unmake a person? Did God put eternity in a man’s heart? That is, Is man created as necessarily an eternal creature? Or, Can God unmake a person? That is what you are asking.

-Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

Nang
October 20th, 2007, 02:40 PM
I am saying that God created creatures with a will, which is their ability to decide. Thus, when Gabriel loves God, it is not God deciding to love Himself through a zero-sum portal. It is Gabriel, this creature, exercising his will. There IS NO SUCH THING as God exercising Gabriel's will.

First response from the peanut gallery:

When did Gabriel ever exhibit or exercise a will or ever declare a love for God? I read that Gabriel served God as an angel messenger. It would seem to me that Gabriel is commissioned to serve God as his Sovereign. But maybe I read a different version of the Bible.

I may have more to say later . . .:shut:



Nang

PKevman
October 20th, 2007, 03:18 PM
First response from the peanut gallery:

When did Gabriel ever exhibit or exercise a will or ever declare a love for God? I read that Gabriel served God as an angel messenger. It would seem to me that Gabriel is commissioned to serve God as his Sovereign. But maybe I read a different version of the Bible.

I may have more to say later . . .:shut:



Nang

Strange that you would focus your argument on that of all things. Still, why do you think that Gabriel would be any different from all of the other angels including Lucifer and the ones who fell? If Lucifer had a will and could make his own decisions, wouldn't you think that Gabriel and the other angels do as well? Or is it your position that God created Lucifer evil, thereby making God at fault for Lucifer's fall?

Nang
October 20th, 2007, 03:26 PM
Strange that you would focus your argument on that of all things.

Because I thought Gabriel was a strange example to use to claim that will = personhood.



Still, why do you think that Gabriel would be any different from all of the other angels including Lucifer and the ones who fell? If Lucifer had a will and could make his own decisions, wouldn't you think that Gabriel and the other angels do as well? Or is it your position that God created Lucifer evil, thereby making God at fault for Lucifer's fall?

I don't believe spiritual beings such as angels; whether good or bad, possess personhood. They are created spirits, commissioned to serve God, but they are not persons made in the image of God.

Nang

PKevman
October 20th, 2007, 03:29 PM
Because I thought Gabriel was a strange example to use to claim that will = personhood.




I don't believe spiritual beings such as angels; whether good or bad, possess personhood. They are created spirits, commissioned to serve God, but they are not persons made in the image of God.

Nang

Ok we can talk about that. But you didn't answer my questions at all. Do Lucifer, Gabriel, Michael, and the other angels have wills of their own? Do they have the ability to make their own decisions independently of the Creator? Or did God create Lucifer to fall and bring sin into the universe?

Ask Mr. Religion
October 20th, 2007, 03:39 PM
I replied to Enyart's response that was also posted in the 1:1 thread here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1557570&postcount=56).

Nang
October 20th, 2007, 03:43 PM
Ok we can talk about that. But you didn't answer my questions at all. Do Lucifer, Gabriel, Michael, and the other angels have wills of their own?


Yes, angels are willful creatures. My dogs are willful creatures. But angels and animals are not persons made in the image of God and thereby consciously accountable under the Law to God.



Do they have the ability to make their own decisions independently of the Creator? Or did God create Lucifer to fall and bring sin into the universe?

I know of no Scripture that speaks of any of the good angels acting willfully on their own. They stick to their first estate and serve as messengers of God, according to the purpose of their creation.

Satan and the wicked angels willfully left their first estate, and rebelled against God and all heavenly powers. They were not free to do so, and will suffer hell fire for their wicked influence on the inhabitants of the earth.

God is no more responsible for Satan's rebellion as He is the cause of Adam's sin.

However, this does not mean God was unaware of what Satan and Adam would cause, but God created anyway, with the purpose of glorifying His Son, who would demonstrate total victory over Satan and sin.

Nang