ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

If I was your mother, I would wash your mouth out with soap . . .you and Clete, both.

You approach adult discussion like six-year old brats.

Nang
(not impressed)

The fact that you disapprove is proof that I am doing something right.

Thank you! :thumb:

 

[Lon]

The fact that you disapprove is proof that we are doing something right.

Thank you! :thumb:

No, don't defend lighthouse here please. My estimation of you has been higher.

I appreciate your last response as opposed to Lighthouse's.

"Moron" is a great show of 'who's who.'

There is an obvious truth to the name game that 3 fingers always point back "With the same measure you use, you will have the same measure used against you."

I never call anybody idiot or moron. It would really show where my heart was at, not thier thinking. It is a VERY self-revealing statement so never bothers me personally.

Thanks for the support though Nang, coming to ones defense is Biblical and a real show of Christian Love, and it seen and appreciated.

Back to the subject, thank you for addressing my clock analogy in a thoughtful logical manner. My point of the clock change is that it doesn't change just because, it changes because it is programmed that way, specifically for me, not the clock. The clock changes for me, it has no inherent need, being innanimate. I see change in God, but not for Him, for me. God doesn't need to change for Himself. He's perfect, He needs nothing.

What He desires is relationship with the people He's made and we are broken. He's intervened and changed, not because it is His inherent nature, but because it is our inherent need. God desires us, He doesn't need us. If He wanted, He could have just wiped out this whole mess and started over from scratch, He values us.

I appreciate your song problem, I should have been explicit, I was not talking about blasphemous songs (I didn't look btw). I was talking about 'His' songs. God wouldn't sing a new song that was terrible. I thought we were on the same page there.

Thanks again for addressing my 'moronic' treatise. Listen to Nang this time too. It is correct that the three of four finger rule is very self-revealing, and I appreciate when you pull it in and avoid that problem. The love of God shines when you do so and your doctrines are much more easy to assess and consider in that light (His light).

In Him

Lon

 

[Lon]

This intentionally ignores the point. No one suggests that the clock changes what it is, but merely that by virtue of the fact that it is an animate object, it does, by definition, change in some way. It does not change for the better or for the worse it simply changes position or display from one moment to the next as its nature insists it must do.
Agree, I was trying to move away from the 'broken' clock analogy.
The point about the clock is about disproving the validity of Aristotle's argument about why God must be immutable.


Unless He is animate! Do you believe that God is an inanimate object? I don't! I think, in fact I'm pretty sure that the Bible teaches that God is alive and personal and loving. Can you present an example of any inanimate object which has these attributes?
No, of course not, but just like the clock, you see a progress of change, but there is nothing new. The clock does exactly what it has always done for seven years. Maybe you have more help for me here, but just because it is working, it really doesn't change. There are no new numbers. It doesn't switch from standard to military time for example. Regardless, I think we are viewing it differently. I can see the progress of the minutes and hours, and it never changes. It just goes through a 24 hour cycle. You are looking at the progress and saying the time changes. How is this the same or different from our statements about God's immutability and response to us? Is it that we are focusing on differing aspects when we say as much?

See what I mean about subjugating God's qualitative attributes to His quantitative ones? You do it all over the place, as do all settled view believers.
Yes, but again, I've never said otherwise. We have to do this in our discussion with OV so it seems imperialized, but only in discussion and debate. I couldn't give you a heirarchial order to His attributes. I just want to keep what I view scripturally supported.

Umm, excuse me. That's my line. Duration is time and God is qualitatively perfect in every respect thus the perfect God exists within time.
If a clock were not keeping time, would it still be a clock? If it changes not, does it still exist? Duration within progression is our observation, but God's eternality is qualitative. Time effects it not at all. "He is the same, yesterday, today, and forever."

In what way does it follow logically that a change must necessarily be in order to fix something or to make it better?
I suspect we are looking at movement in God and one of us is calling it 'unchanging' and the other is calling it 'changing' but our focus is different. We both, I hope, see the points we are making. A clock is both changing and unchanging in it's progression. It doesn't read anything else, just the sequence of numbers but it is mechanically set the same. It doesn't make any alterations, it is constant. God displays change, but He doesn't change in His nature. Has this confusion affected other discussions on this forum similarly? Are we really talking about the same thing, but have a different set of descriptors sometimes?
No Calvinist has ever even made an attempt to answer that question for me. If you try, you will be the first. I've asked it perhaps a hundred times and so far it has gone universally ignored even by those who claim to possess a rational worldview.


In what way?

You just rendered every truth claim unfalsifiable.

Jesus was a Martian!

Prove it wrong Lonster!
I can't, Jesus 'was' a martian, and a plutonian. He made everything, and is omnipresent. He just wasn't a little green man in a spaceship.

I don't really have an argument with this except to say that from a quantitative point of view God's greatness is increased with every righteous act that either He or any one of His creatures performs.


In what way is Lighthouse's question the logical equivalent to "Can God make a rock He cannot pick up?" I agree that if they are equivalent that lighthouse's question is invalid but in what way does lighthouse's question commit a logical fallacy?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I think it is similar to the clock analogy. Does it really change or doesn't it? We need to qualify exactly what we are talking about for it to make sense. If a clock never really changes, how can it keep time? Because it changes. Change is probably the operative word for meaning here. A clock has a pre-programmed alteration of movement, but in that routine, it does not change at all. It still keeps time, it still is the exact same clock, doing the exact same thing. With the clock we are both right, it doesn't change (it is constant in what it does with no surprises), but it changes (it goes through a routine of differentiated display). When we talk about God changing, I believe it is which definition we are adhering to. I emphasize that God is the same yesterday today, and forever, just as scripture says. It is important when God tells us something, stressing a point of His character, that we also make sure we are using the same language. God does not change according to His own words (immutability). I'm wonderously amazed more than perplexed at such a revelation from Him. How does it all work? The only time I really care is in discussions like these, otherwise, I'm simply in awe of the marvelous complexity of who God is, and thankful that I can latch on to some of it. Glass darkly isn't ignorance despairing, but awe inspired imagining that one day I'll know as I'm known.

1Jo 3:1 Behold what manner of love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God. Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be. But we know that when He shall be revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
1Jo 3:3 And everyone who has this hope on him purifies himself, even as that One is pure.

 

[Clete]

I think it is similar to the clock analogy. Does it really change or doesn't it? We need to qualify exactly what we are talking about for it to make sense. If a clock never really changes, how can it keep time? Because it changes. Change is probably the operative word for meaning here. A clock has a pre-programmed alteration of movement, but in that routine, it does not change at all. It still keeps time, it still is the exact same clock, doing the exact same thing. With the clock we are both right, it doesn't change (it is constant in what it does with no surprises), but it changes (it goes through a routine of differentiated display). When we talk about God changing, I believe it is which definition we are adhering to. I emphasize that God is the same yesterday today, and forever, just as scripture says. It is important when God tells us something, stressing a point of His character, that we also make sure we are using the same language. God does not change according to His own words (immutability). I'm wonderously amazed more than perplexed at such a revelation from Him. How does it all work? The only time I really care is in discussions like these, otherwise, I'm simply in awe of the marvelous complexity of who God is, and thankful that I can latch on to some of it. Glass darkly isn't ignorance despairing, but awe inspired imagining that one day I'll know as I'm known.

The clock does not change ontologically or qualitatively (discounting entropy) but it does change in some way or we can say it is no longer a clock but a silly disk with numbers on it. It is the same with God, He does not change ontologically or qualitatively but He does change! He became a man, He learned obedience, He suffered injury, He died!, and was given a glorified body. He wasn't always a man with a glorified body but He is now and forever will be. Those are all real changes but they do not change who God is or how qualitatively perfect He is.

This is yet another argument that has gone universally ignored by virtually all Calvinist that I've ever come across.

I have a question for you that I think is better than Lighthouse's.

Can God be immutable AND become a man?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lon]

The clock does not change ontologically or qualitatively (discounting entropy) but it does change in some way or we can say it is no longer a clock but a silly disk with numbers on it. It is the same with God, He does not change ontologically or qualitatively but He does change! He became a man, He learned obedience, He suffered injury, He died!, and was given a glorified body. He wasn't always a man with a glorified body but He is now and forever will be. Those are all real changes but they do not change who God is or how qualitatively perfect He is.

This is yet another argument that has gone universally ignored by virtually all Calvinist that I've ever come across.

I have a question for you that I think is better than Lighthouse's.

Can God be immutable AND become a man?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Yes, it is our view of 'change' and what changes that is the needed clarifier. This is the real point of discussion and how similar it is to our analogy. How much change and unchanging is God compared to the clock? Is God as systematic as a clock in simplicity (God would have gazillions +infinite information). If all is contained and sustained by Him and for Him, then there is nothing outside of Him, not even our choices except for corruption. Everything else is contained and stems from His being. Duration is either part of Him, or coexists with Him. Our perception will never be able to give us a sufficient answer, but 'everything' would suggest duration awareness as well. One day we'll get to heaven and can ask Him, but I doubt it will be in the top running of our first 5000 responses and questions.

 

[Evoken]

The will of mankind is not free to do otherwise, unless rescued and ransomed by God from this slavery.

..snip...

Sinners cannot save themselves, or choose to believe in God, without first being changed by God, spiritually.

I would say that if that is the case, then God is nothing more than a monster.

He lays down commandments, that only those he elects can follow, whereas those he does not elects cannot follow. But still he kills and punishes those he does not elects because they don't follow the commandments.

He floods the entire world because people were too sinful back then, yet, they were sinful because he did not allow them to be otherwise.

He complains about people not following the commandments and sends punishments when people fail to do so, yet he is the reason why they don't follow them in the first place.

He complains that people are not convinced by his wonders, yet he, again, is the reason why they are not convinced.

He screams and yields at the Jews of his day because they did not believe in him, yet he was the one responsible for their disbelief.

He sends people to burn to hell for eternity because they could not do what only he could allow them to do.

He screams "oh ye of little faith!", when the people are of little faith because he has not given them faith.

...

I could go on, but this is the portrait of a monster. One who knowingly makes something broken and then complains at the thing he has made because it does not do what it would do if it were not broken in the first place.

I find that the Calvinist doctrine goes contrary to the whole Bible. It is not just this or that verse, but the entire system, as it all, everywhere you look, presupposes mans ability to freely choose or reject God. It is in fact the basis of God being just, otherwise justice would be meaningless as would morality.

Sure, grace is involved in the action and logically so is God. But it is a cooperation between man and God.


Evo

 

[Nang]

The clock does not change ontologically or qualitatively (discounting entropy) but it does change in some way or we can say it is no longer a clock but a silly disk with numbers on it. It is the same with God, He does not change ontologically or qualitatively but He does change! He became a man, He learned obedience, He suffered injury, He died!, and was given a glorified body. He wasn't always a man with a glorified body but He is now and forever will be. Those are all real changes but they do not change who God is or how qualitatively perfect He is.

This is yet another argument that has gone universally ignored by virtually all Calvinist that I've ever come across.

I can't imagine how you see change . . . unless you are presenting an argument that contradicts Trinitarian doctrine.

(You need to be careful, for your musings come too close to those of Socinus.)

The Father has always been the Father. The Son has always been the Son. And the Holy Spirit has always proceeded from both.

You speak as if God is one Person, who could not incarnate and still be God.

But if One is the Begotten Son from eternity; the incarnation is not divine change.

I have a question for you that I think is better than Lighthouse's.

Can God be immutable AND become a man?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sure.

(Excuse me for inserting my opinion, but the poorly veiled challenge is really a charge against Christian orthodoxy, which this Calvinist will defend.)

 

[godrulz]

The Word became flesh. The Word was not always flesh. Humanity was added to Deity (Phil. 2). The incarnation is a change unless you say the Son/Word was an earthling from all eternity.

Strong immutability is an overstatement of the biblical evidence. God changes in some ways (not a change from perfection of course), but does not change in other ways.

 

[Clete]

Yes, it is our view of 'change' and what changes that is the needed clarifier. This is the real point of discussion and how similar it is to our analogy. How much change and unchanging is God compared to the clock? Is God as systematic as a clock in simplicity (God would have gazillions +infinite information). If all is contained and sustained by Him and for Him, then there is nothing outside of Him, not even our choices except for corruption. Everything else is contained and stems from His being. Duration is either part of Him, or coexists with Him. Our perception will never be able to give us a sufficient answer, but 'everything' would suggest duration awareness as well. One day we'll get to heaven and can ask Him, but I doubt it will be in the top running of our first 5000 responses and questions.

So you are content to live with not merely unanswered question but outright irrationality.

I'm sorely disappointed. :nono:

 

[Nang]

The Word became flesh. The Word was not always flesh.

The "Word" is the essence of God the Son. The "flesh" was a manifested form of the Word, as were all theophanies of the Son as recorded in Scripture.

Because the Son (the "Word") became visible flesh does not change the eternality of the "Word" become flesh.

Humanity was added to Deity (Phil. 2).

There is no such teaching in the Bible.

The incarnation is a change unless you say the Son/Word was an earthling from all eternity.

Is that what you call the incarnation of Jesus? He became an "earthling?"

That is bizarre.

Strong immutability is an overstatement of the biblical evidence. God changes in some ways (not a change from perfection of course), but does not change in other ways.

I disagree.

God, in all three Persons, is immutable; self-existant; uncreated, and therefore, eternal.

Any belief system that challenges (or even attempts to muddy) the orthodoxy of Trinitarianism, is a wicked and false teaching.

 

[Clete]

I can't imagine how you see change . . . unless you are presenting an argument that contradicts Trinitarian doctrine.

Change:

intransitive verb
1 : to become different in some way​

(You need to be careful, for your musings come too close to those of Socinus.)

Whatever. Save you advice for someone who gives a damn about what you think.

The Father has always been the Father. The Son has always been the Son. And the Holy Spirit has always proceeded from both.

Irrelevent. The Son has not always been a man and He is a man right now.

That's a change Nang. To deny it is to deny the Christian faith itself.

You speak as if God is one Person, who could not incarnate and still be God.

Do you deny that Jesus was fully God? Or do you deny that God the Son is immutable?

But if One is the Begotten Son from eternity; the incarnation is not divine change.

Of course it is. God the Son BECAME flesh and dwelt among us.

Became:
intransitive verb

1. To undergo change or development​

Sure.

(Excuse me for inserting my opinion, but the poorly veiled challenge is really a charge against Christian orthodoxy, which this Calvinist will defend.)

It isn't veiled at all. What you call orthodoxy I call paganism. Calvinist theology is not Biblical it is not rational and is not the truth. It is a lie from beginning to end. You worship the wrong God, pray to the wrong Jesus and deny everything that makes the true God holy just and pure. I hate Calvinism and I hate Calvinists (most of them) and I hate you in particular. I relish in the fact that your offenses against me will pile up to heaven and that God will give it to me to judge you for them. I simply cannot wait until judgment day! Psalm 58:10

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[macguy]

I hate Calvinism and I hate Calvinists (most of them) and I hate you in particular.

Calvinists say the same thing but would you go so far to say that they're not saved? Or is it really that important to know what makes one saved? Just wondering.

 

[Nang]

Irrelevent. The Son has not always been a man and He is a man right now.

What is your biblical evidence to claim such? IOW's, what kind of Man do you think the eternal Son of God actually is?

That's a change Nang. To deny it is to deny the Christian faith itself.

Baloney.

Do you deny that Jesus was fully God?

No.

Or do you deny that God the Son is immutable?

God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is immutable, eternal God.

What you call orthodoxy I call paganism.

Youse got a great problem, then, bud . . .

Calvinist theology is not Biblical it is not rational and is not the truth.

Laughable to the extreme . . .

It is a lie from beginning to end. You worship the wrong God, pray to the wrong Jesus and deny everything that makes the true God holy just and pure. I hate Calvinism and I hate Calvinists (most of them) and I hate you in particular. I relish in the fact that your offenses against me will pile up to heaven and that God will give it to me to judge you for them. I simply cannot wait until judgment day! Psalm 58:10

Youse got a great problem, then, bud . . .

 

[Clete]

There is no such teaching in the Bible.

Matthew 1: 1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:
2 Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers. 3 Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram. 4 Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon. 5 Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse, 6 and Jesse begot David the king.

David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife[a] of Uriah. 7 Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa. 8 Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah. 9 Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah. 10 Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon,[c] and Amon begot Josiah. 11 Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel begot Abiud, Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor. 14 Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud. 15 Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob. 16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.
Christ Born of Mary

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.​

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,[d]the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, 27 the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
​

The genealogy given in Luke is that of Mary with whom Jesus was genetically (i.e. fleshly/physically) related.

Sin, however passes through the father, not the mother and so Jesus could be born both fully man and yet without sin being without a fleshly father. His self imposed title "The Son of Man" is quite accurate.

Is that what you call the incarnation of Jesus? He became an "earthling?"

You don't consider yourself an Earthling?

Figures.



Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[macguy]

Those are all real changes but they do not change who God is or how qualitatively perfect He is.

How does this argue for open theism?

 

[Nang]

Matthew 1: 1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:
2 Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers. 3 Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram. 4 Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon. 5 Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse, 6 and Jesse begot David the king.

David the king begot Solomon by her who had been the wife[a] of Uriah. 7 Solomon begot Rehoboam, Rehoboam begot Abijah, and Abijah begot Asa. 8 Asa begot Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat begot Joram, and Joram begot Uzziah. 9 Uzziah begot Jotham, Jotham begot Ahaz, and Ahaz begot Hezekiah. 10 Hezekiah begot Manasseh, Manasseh begot Amon,[c] and Amon begot Josiah. 11 Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begot Shealtiel, and Shealtiel begot Zerubbabel. 13 Zerubbabel begot Abiud, Abiud begot Eliakim, and Eliakim begot Azor. 14 Azor begot Zadok, Zadok begot Achim, and Achim begot Eliud. 15 Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob. 16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.
Christ Born of Mary

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.​

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,[d]the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, 27 the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
​

The genealogy given in Luke is that of Mary with whom Jesus was genetically (i.e. fleshly/physically) related.

Sin, however passes through the father, not the mother and so Jesus could be born both fully man and yet without sin being without a fleshly father. His self imposed title "The Son of Man" is quite accurate.


You don't consider yourself an Earthling?

Figures.



Resting in Him,
Clete

None of the genealogical evidence teaches us that "humanity was added to divinity."

And please take careful note that in this genealogy, the last reference of Luke 3:38 only says Jesus was "of Adam, of God", but the words "the son" of Adam are italicized and added by translators.

Orthodox Christianity teaches that humanity was reconciled with divinity through God the Son, and that through God the Son, an elect portion of humanity is given (by the grace of God) access to the heavenlies, through the Mediatorship of Jesus Christ; High Priest.

There is no Scripture that teaches that "humanity was added to divinity." That is a false teaching, on your part.

And no, I do not consider myself an "earthling." (Another invented phrase, on the part of a generation produced by "Star Wars" . . .not the Bible.) Yuk.

 

[godrulz]

Sin, however passes through the father, not the mother and so Jesus could be born both fully man and yet without sin being without a fleshly father. His self imposed title "The Son of Man" is quite accurate.


You don't consider yourself an Earthling?

Figures.



Resting in Him,
Clete​

Earthling was a joke, but nang should not have a pang. This contrasts with Martian, dog, tree, lunar, etc.

I think your sin-father idea is related to transducianism. I think it is a theory at best.

Since I do not believe sin is a genetic substance, I do not think the issue of the virgin conception was about sin, but about Deity taking on humanity. Jesus was sinless because He never sinned, not because Joseph was not His biological father.

(I reject traditional, Augustinian 'original sin' concepts).​

 

[godrulz]

How does this argue for open theism?

Open Theists take the verses that describe God changing His mind or changing in response to prayer or changing contingencies at face value.

A wrong view of immutability (absolutely changeless in every way) fits better with a settled/closed view.

 

[themuzicman]

Wow.. Nang is falling into Docetism... Denying the humanity of CHrist.

Muz

 

[Clete]

Earthling was a joke, but nang should not have a pang. This contrasts with Martian, dog, tree, lunar, etc.

I think your sin-father idea is related to transducianism. I think it is a theory at best.

Since I do not believe sin is a genetic substance, I do not think the issue of the virgin conception was about sin, but about Deity taking on humanity. Jesus was sinless because He never sinned, not because Joseph was not His biological father.

(I reject traditional, Augustinian 'original sin' concepts).

I don't believe sin is genetic either but my position on this is a bit more than a theory godrulz.

It was necessary for Jesus to be a human and it was necessary that He not inherit a sin nature (genetically or otherwise). The virgin birth would accomplish both of those things. There is a reason why you get your name (i.e. last name or family identity) from your father and why Biblically it was the father who was responsible for naming the children. Notice in the gospels that Joseph did not name Jesus but rather God did (Matt. 1:21) showing Who Jesus' real Father is and showing us His divine nature (i.e. no sin nature). Notice also that the Biblical teaching is not that mankind fell in Eve who sinned first but rather in Adam because the entire race was present within his seed (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15). And so since Jesus, being physically related only to Mary, was not of Adam's seed but rather God's, the sin nature was not passed to Him.

As a matter of fact, on the point about whether sin is genetic, this would seem to indicate that it is not because Mary was not sinless and Jesus was genetically related to her and was yet without the sin nature. Thus either sin is passed on the 'y' chromosome or it is passed in some other way (i.e. spiritually perhaps) through the father. The later seems to me to make more sense but who knows. One way or the other, sin is not passed through the mother or we are all still in our sins and without hope.

Resting in Him,
Clete