Yes, you did. And you are correct to say so.
James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Stripe's error was to say that the Son of God "was not somewhere else. "
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Your implications have no part to play.
All because you say so?
The bible teaches that God humbled Himself and took on humanity. What better way to do that than to be a baby in a manger?
When Jesus was in the manger, He was not somewhere else.
There is nothing wrong with it.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yes it does, and the full counsel of Scripture teaches what that humbling comprises here.
Then God was not immense, nor omnipresent, hence, not God, just some demigod. "Immensity" points to the fact that God transcends all space and is not subject to its limitations, while "omnipresence" denotes that He nevertheless fills every part of space with His entire Being. God is everywhere in his fullness continually.
Plenty wrong with your view, especially given Scripture's teaching to the contrary. Heaven and earth cannot contain Him, 1 Kings 8:27; Isa. 40:12-26; 66:1; Acts 7:48,49; and at the same time He fills both and is a God at hand, Ps. 139:7-10; Jer. 23:23,24; Acts 17:27,28; Heb. 1:3.
AMR
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes. But you don't know what I'm referring to. English as a high-context language passively prompts a process of man's own logos determining God's Rhema. It's inherent to language, especially high-context variants. Greek is very low-context as a language, so it doesn't have the same cognitive patterning affect.
If you understood what I was referring to, you'd be outraged over the impact of English upon the Gospel and God's Word in general.
No. I'm a man who has reckoned his prosopon dead, crucified with Christ. And I live by the self-determing and self-regulating epignosis that love abounds in.
Those with gnosis always see faith and epignosis as pride. That's why gnosis is puffed up and love is not as it abounds in epignosis.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Modern Kenoticism is actually from Hegel, who was a Hermeticist and Gnostic. The Word of Faith and other charismatics and hyper-gracers are eaten alive with Hegelian Kenoticism for their Christology.
They insist as Continuationists, that Jesus Christ did all miracles as a man filled with the Holy Spirit. So now we can do all the miracles as men filled with the Holy Spirit.
Totally apart from Continuation/Cessation, it totally denies that Jesus Christ was the fullness of the Theotes bodily. And it also denies the ontological Gospel of Paul.
God accepts no man's prosopon, so whatever is done "as a man filled with the Holy Spirit" is not of faith. And that which is not of faith is sin. (Sin isn't just evil or bad works. It's anything good that is not of faith.)
Faith is a hypostasis (substance). It cometh by hearing the Rhema (the thing spoken about, which was God's substance). And that faith translates our underlying substantial reality of existence (hypostasis) into God's. Engrafted. Partaker of the divine nature.
Our prosopon is reckoned dead by faith, crucified with Christ. And we put on Christ. His prosopon. We're IN Christ. We've put on His prosopon.
The only valid Continuationism would be pre-Hegelian Kenoticism. Only the hypostasis of God can accomplish anything by His Spirit in us. That's why there's so much fraud in the modern "movements" with gifts. It's man's pride to presume his own flesh filled with God's Spirit can do alleged miraculous works.
It's actually keeping the old man alive rather than it being reckoned dead by faith. So regardless of one's position on Cessation/Continuation, the modus operandi of modern movements is completely invalid. It's all Hegelain Kenoticism to go with Hegelian Dialectic.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Bro, you have one of the most dangerous forms of Theology Proper and Christology that one could have as a professing Christian.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, but this points up the limtations of the Multihypostatic expression of the Trinity.
The incarnation was a change.
That change that did not make God better or worse.
God remained perfect.
Exactly. The bible doesn't say God would be imperfect if He changed. The notion is a purely philosophical one and is refuted by the incarnation.
When Calvinists say "immutable," they must have a special definition for the word that allows for certain instances of change. Hence my question -- which has gone unanswered.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No. It was action. Engeries, not Essence. Movement of substance by procession and conception.
No movement relative to creation has anything to do with God's uncreatedness.
The problem is man's logos attempting to determine God's Rhema, by superimposing a concept from language for man to express God from the processes of man's own thought and reasoning, etc.
One cannot be a true Trinitarian and employ the English term change for God's energies.
I'm fine with that or whatever someone wants to insist and believe. But Open Theists can never accurately and validly claim to be historical true Trinitarians. This is an inherent part of Theology Proper.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No. You just think, speak, and live by shallow high-context concepts from your native language, so you can't perceive and understand anything else.
That's also why others accuse me of being difficult to understand, regardless how articulately I express. I've spent years allowing my thought and expression to be fashioned to God's Rhema instead of my own logos, including adapting English to a low-context function and including Greek terms for specificity.
But you can't even grasp what I'm saying because of the passive life-long effect of a high-context language upon your heart, mind, and speech.
You "change" your clothes, and it's an action. It doesn't change anything whatsoever about you, regardless of those who pursue fashion for their outer image and self worth, etc.
I'm not promoting a heretical Christology with the above, I'm just comparing the closest thing in human experience to the incredible miracle of the Incarantion of the divine Logos in the likeness of sinful flesh.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Sounds to me like you want to believe the Son changed, while maintaining He never changed. :dizzy:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
This is illogical.
Is that a yes or a no?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
This very question is a high-context conceptual thought that doesn't even rely on foundational semantics and their definitions.
What is "perfect"? And what reference for that is there in the text to derive meaning and application from and for?
And you impetuously demand an answer TO that invalid high-context question formulated from your conceptual cognitive perception. You don't and can't even know why that's such a monumental problem for this or ANY subject.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I can't speak for Nang, but the answer is "neither". Wrong question. Invalid semantics replaced by high-context concept.