Theology Club: Open View and Monophysitism

[Dialogos]

Is monophysitism a growing theological trend in Open Theism?

Sozo continually denies that Christ possesses two natures, one divine and one human.

Lighthouse has done the same.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...14#post1660814

Rather than condemning this heresy, it appears that many on this board are willing to tolerate this heresy and some appear to consider it to be no big deal as long as the doctrinal distinctive of an open view of the God’s foreknowledge is maintained.

Is this a trend in Open View Theology?

Has Open Theism declared a right view of Christology a peripheral issue as long as one maintains an open view?

How many other Open Theists besides Lighthouse and Sozo hold to the monophysite heresy?

[Lighthouse]

Interesting how you had to pull from something six years old to try and make a case against me. You should really keep current.

[Dialogos]

Interesting how you had to pull from something six years old to try and make a case against me. You should really keep current.

Have you repented from this error?

Incidentally, I'm not making a "case" against anyone. I'm merely pointing out that you (at least at one time) held a heretical view of Christ and Sozo (currently) holds to a heretical view of Christ and that this goes relatively unnoticed among the Open View crowd.

Denying the humanity of Christ makes someone a non-Christian.

Have you come to understand the humanity of Christ differently since then?

Do you now affirm that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine?

If so, then praise God!

If not, then I urge you to repent because denying the humanity of Christ makes you a non-Christian.

If you hold to a monophysite view of Christ then what you believe about God's foreknowledge is irrelevant, you aren't saved.

[Lighthouse]

Have you repented from this error?

Incidentally, I'm not making a "case" against anyone. I'm merely pointing out that you (at least at one time) held a heretical view of Christ and Sozo (currently) holds to a heretical view of Christ and that this goes relatively unnoticed among the Open View crowd.

Denying the humanity of Christ makes someone a non-Christian.

Have you come to understand the humanity of Christ differently since then?

Do you now affirm that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine?

If so, then praise God!

If not, then I urge you to repent because denying the humanity of Christ makes you a non-Christian.

If you hold to a monophysite view of Christ then what you believe about God's foreknowledge is irrelevant, you aren't saved.

Can you support your argument that Christ has two natures with Scripture? If not then you can't call someone a heretic for disagreeing with that view.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

How many other Open Theists besides Lighthouse and Sozo hold to the monophysite heresy?

Both represent oddities within the unsettled theist minority camp.

LH:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...85#post4025785

LH is essentially irrelevant to the open theist topic as the "mainstream" openists simply wince at his bizarre views. His is the caricature of open theism in the extreme-- strictly entertainment value only.

I do not think Sozo would even claim to be a full-fledged open theist, despite his errors:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...ad.php?t=72555

I have yet to see Sozo explicitly claim to be an open theist.

AMR

[Dialogos]

Can you support your argument that Christ has two natures with Scripture?

Of course!

Jesus is God (John 1:3), which means that Jesus has a Divine nature.
To say that Jesus is God is to say that Jesus had a Divine nature, to argue that Jesus was God but that He doesn't possess a Divine nature would be stupid.

You cannot be divine without a divine nature.

The same is true for Christ's humanity.

Jesus is a Man (Romans 5:15; 1 Tim 2:5), which means that Jesus has a human nature.
To say that Jesus is a Man is to say that Jesus has a human nature.
To argue that Jesus is a Man but that He doesn't possess a human nature would be equally stupid. That's what it means to be human, to have a human nature.

To say that Jesus didn't have a human nature is to say that Jesus isn't human, which means that Jesus isn't a Man. This is tantamount to calling God a liar because Romans 5 and 1 Tim 2 clearly state that Jesus was, and still is, a Man.

The problem (for you) is that God doesn't lie. Which means that you must be the liar if you refuse to acknowledge that Jesus is both fully God and fully Man.

So if you are going to argue that Jesus didn't have two natures you are (A) going to have to argue that Jesus isn't God which makes you an arian heretic, an unbeliever and a liar because the scriptures are clear that Jesus is God; or (B) you are going to have to argue that Jesus isn't Man, which makes you a neo-apollinarian heretic, an unbeliever and a liar because the bible clearly says that Jesus is a Man.

So you are either an Arian heretical non-believer or a neo-apollinarian, heretical non-believer...

Or, perhaps, you have repented of your heresy of 2008?

This would be the best solution because any other answer means you aren't a Christian and you need to be evangelized by those who would call you their friend rather than coddled you in a heresy that will send you to hell.

[Lighthouse]

Of course!

Jesus is God (John 1:3), which means that Jesus has a Divine nature.
To say that Jesus is God is to say that Jesus had a Divine nature, to argue that Jesus was God but that He doesn't possess a Divine nature would be stupid.

You cannot be divine without a divine nature.

No argument there.

The same is true for Christ's humanity.

Jesus is a Man (Romans 5:15; 1 Tim 2:5), which means that Jesus has a human nature.
To say that Jesus is a Man is to say that Jesus has a human nature.
To argue that Jesus is a Man but that He doesn't possess a human nature would be equally stupid. That's what it means to be human, to have a human nature.

To say He has a human nature because He is a Man is an assumption.

Human nature is a sinful nature. Are you saying Jesus had a sinful nature? Of course you're not.

And the Bible tells us that Jesus was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in actual sinful flesh. [Romans 8:3]

To say that Jesus didn't have a human nature is to say that Jesus isn't human, which means that Jesus isn't a Man.

Again, an assumption.

Jesus does not have to be human to be a Man.

This is tantamount to calling God a liar because Romans 5 and 1 Tim 2 clearly state that Jesus was, and still is, a Man.

The problem (for you) is that God doesn't lie. Which means that you must be the liar if you refuse to acknowledge that Jesus is both fully God and fully Man.

God is not a liar, and in this instance, neither am I.

So if you are going to argue that Jesus didn't have two natures you are (A) going to have to argue that Jesus isn't God which makes you an arian heretic, an unbeliever and a liar because the scriptures are clear that Jesus is God; or (B) you are going to have to argue that Jesus isn't Man, which makes you a neo-apollinarian heretic, an unbeliever and a liar because the bible clearly says that Jesus is a Man.

So you are either an Arian heretical non-believer or a neo-apollinarian, heretical non-believer...

Or, perhaps, you have repented of your heresy of 2008?

This would be the best solution because any other answer means you aren't a Christian and you need to be evangelized by those who would call you their friend rather than coddled you in a heresy that will send you to hell.

Jesus is God, and Jesus is Man. Jesus is not human.

[Dialogos]

No argument there.

To say He has a human nature because He is a Man is an assumption.

Nope.

Being a man (ανθροπος) is, by definition, a human male.

Consequently the NET translates 1 Tim 2:5 as follows.

"For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human, (1Timothy 2:5 NET)"


Look it up in any Greek lexicon you like.

I'll give you two:

Gingrich's Greek Lexicon:
Ανθροπος: human being, person;

The United Bible Societies Greek Lexicon
Ανθροπος: man, human being, person,

Human nature is a sinful nature.

Wrong again.

Adam had a human nature from the very moment God breathed life into him. His nature was not corrupted by sin until the fall.

Gen 1:27-31

God looked upon His creation, including Adam, a human being with a human nature, and said it was very good.

It was the fall that corrupted the human nature. Adam was not created a sinner.

Incidentally, the parity between Adam and Christ is essential to Paul's argument in Romans 5:19

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man (Ανθροπος) many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one Man (Ανθροπος) many will be made righteous. (Rom 5:19 NET, Greek explanations added)"

Through the transgression of the first man came the imputation of sin and through the obedience of the God-Man came the imputation of righteousness.

Are you saying Jesus had a sinful nature? Of course you're not.

Lighthouse, you aren't thinking clearly about this. Being human is not synonymous with being sinful. Adam was not created a sinner, but he was created a human.

And the Bible tells us that Jesus was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in actual sinful flesh. [Romans 8:3]

Yes, because Jesus was the Only Perfect Human that ever lived. He did what Adam did not, He lived a human life in perfect obedience to God.

Jesus does not have to be human to be a Man.

This is a foolish statement that has tragic consequences.

Jesus is God,

Yes.

and Jesus is Man.

Yes,

Jesus is not human.

No, and this proves that you are not a Christian, you are a heretic and a non-believer.

Lighthouse, your responses here grieve me. I hope you will look past our past disagreements and heed my warnings to repent of this heresy.

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Adam had a human nature from the very moment God breathed life into him. His nature was not corrupted by sin until the fall.

Yes!

This is the root of the matter and the cause of much confusion by those that loosely toss about "the flesh" or "body, mind, spirit" on matters of Biblical anthropology. Folks like LH, sozo, etc., have trichotomous views and this leads them down the slippery slope of all manners of error.



In my experience over the years, "trichotomy" has become a shibboleth of sorts in identifying forthcoming error in the doctrinal views of those that claimed man was tri-partite. Riddlebarger's 1995 paper has proven quite prescient.

AMR

[Lighthouse]

Nope.

Being a man (ανθροπος) is, by definition, a human male.

Whose definition?

Consequently the NET translates 1 Tim 2:5 as follows.

"For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human, (1Timothy 2:5 NET)"

What's the NET?

Look it up in any Greek lexicon you like.

I'll give you two:

Gingrich's Greek Lexicon:
Ανθροπος: human being, person;

The United Bible Societies Greek Lexicon
Ανθροπος: man, human being, person,

And why am I supposed to accept this?

Wrong again.

Adam had a human nature from the very moment God breathed life into him. His nature was not corrupted by sin until the fall.

Gen 1:27-31

God looked upon His creation, including Adam, a human being with a human nature, and said it was very good.

It was the fall that corrupted the human nature. Adam was not created a sinner.

Incidentally, the parity between Adam and Christ is essential to Paul's argument in Romans 5:19

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man (Ανθροπος) many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one Man (Ανθροπος) many will be made righteous. (Rom 5:19 NET, Greek explanations added)"

Through the transgression of the first man came the imputation of sin and through the obedience of the God-Man came the imputation of righteousness.

Adam wasn't divine.

Lighthouse, you aren't thinking clearly about this. Being human is not synonymous with being sinful. Adam was not created a sinner, but he was created a human.

I didn't say it was synonymous. I'm human, but I've been set free from sin and made righteous [not necessarily in that order].

Yes, because Jesus was the Only Perfect Human that ever lived. He did what Adam did not, He lived a human life in perfect obedience to God.

You still haven't shown that being a man makes Him human, or gives Him a human nature.

This is a foolish statement that has tragic consequences.

Yes.

Yes,

No, and this proves that you are not a Christian, you are a heretic and a non-believer.

Lighthouse, your responses here grieve me. I hope you will look past our past disagreements and heed my warnings to repent of this heresy.

You're too easy.

[Dialogos]

Whose definition?

In english...

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, Dictionary.com, Oxford dictionaries, Cambridge dictionaries online, TheFreeDictionary.com, yourdictionary.com,Macmillan Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, etc...

They all define man as an adult male human being.

But wait! That's not all folks...

Friberg's Greek Lexicon, The United Bible Societies Greek Dictionary, Thayer's Greek Dictionary and BDAG, all define ανθρωπος as a "human being."

And most importantly, God defines ανθρωπος as a human being because every single time it is used in the Greek NT in the singular it refers to a male human being and every single time it is used in the plural it refers to either a group of male human beings or to a mixed group of male and female human beings.

There isn't a single instance in the entire NT where ανθρωπος is employed to refer to a non-human and I challenge you to find a single instance in which it doesn't.

What's the NET?

The New English Translation, a translation from a group of Greek scholars out of Dallas Theological Seminary including Dan Wallace who has authored koine Greek textbooks used in seminaries around the world.

And why am I supposed to accept this?

Because the men who worked on these sources actually know Greek whereas you are ignorant of the original languages of the bible.

Adam wasn't divine.

Irrelevant.

Your erroneous argument was that a human nature was synonymous with a sinful nature.

Adam clearly disproves this assumption as Adam's human nature was not sinful until the fall. An honest man would just admit he erred and learn something.

I didn't say it was synonymous. I'm human, but I've been set free from sin and made righteous [not necessarily in that order.

Now you are just backtracking.

These are your words, Lighthouse.

Human nature is a sinful nature.

Admit you were wrong and learn something.

You still haven't shown that being a man makes Him human, or gives Him a human nature.

Ok, then you tell us, what kind of being does being a man make someone?

Are you a man?

Does that make you a monkey?...a donkey?...a pig?

What kind of species does being a man make you?

You're too easy.

You're a heretic and you need to repent.

[Lighthouse]

In english...

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, Dictionary.com, Oxford dictionaries, Cambridge dictionaries online, TheFreeDictionary.com, yourdictionary.com,Macmillan Dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, etc...

They all define man as an adult male human being.

But wait! That's not all folks...

Friberg's Greek Lexicon, The United Bible Societies Greek Dictionary, Thayer's Greek Dictionary and BDAG, all define ανθρωπος as a "human being."

And most importantly, God defines ανθρωπος as a human being because every single time it is used in the Greek NT in the singular it refers to a male human being and every single time it is used in the plural it refers to either a group of male human beings or to a mixed group of male and female human beings.

There isn't a single instance in the entire NT where ανθρωπος is employed to refer to a non-human and I challenge you to find a single instance in which it doesn't.

You have given me man's definition, and then insisted that God defines "man" as "human being, with a human nature" without any evidence.

Because the men who worked on these sources actually know Greek whereas you are ignorant of the original languages of the bible.

You really shouldn't assume. Especially in underestimating my ability to learn, quickly.

FYI: "human being" does not equate to having a human nature.

Also, I still believe Jesus was fully God and fully man.

Irrelevant.

Your erroneous argument was that a human nature was synonymous with a sinful nature.

Adam clearly disproves this assumption as Adam's human nature was not sinful until the fall. An honest man would just admit he erred and learn something.

Thanks to Adam it is synonymous, until one is saved.

Now you are just backtracking.

If you say so.

These are your words, Lighthouse.

Admit you were wrong and learn something.

Wrong about what?

Ok, then you tell us, what kind of being does being a man make someone?

Are you a man?

Does that make you a monkey?...a donkey?...a pig?

What kind of species does being a man make you?

A human being.

You're a heretic and you need to repent.

Or maybe you're just not paying enough attention.

[Dialogos]

You have given me man's definition, and then insisted that God defines "man" as "human being, with a human nature" without any evidence.

Without evidence.

Just read 1 Tim 2:5

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men (ἀνθρώπων), the man ( ἄνθρωπος) Christ Jesus, (1Ti 2:5 ESV)

Here it is in Greek.

εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς,

The word "men" is the plural of the Greek word ἄνθρωπος, and Jesus is referred to, in the word of God, as ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, (the man Christ Jesus).

The very same Greek word that is used to describe the human beings that Christ has become the mediator of, is used to describe Christ!!!!!!

Its painfully obvious in the Greek. Either Jesus is not the mediator between God and humans or Jesus is a human because the same word is used to describe both the humans Christ mediates and Christ Himself.

That's why the New English Translation translates the verse the way it does.

I find it interesting that you are willing to ignore the translation of those Greek scholars in order to trust your own depraved intuitions on the matter.

If I were you, I wouldn't disregard those who have studied this far in excess of your ability to understand the Greek language, you are on dangerous ground.

You really shouldn't assume. Especially in underestimating my ability to learn, quickly.

I don't need to assume about your ignorance regarding Greek. You have demonstrated it on this thread. That's not an insult, its just an observation. If you want to learn you will have to humble yourself and actually consider the input of those who know more than you.

We will see how quickly you are able to see truth and respond to it. If I were you, I wouldn't trust so heavily on my own intuitions so far those intuitions have only led you to heresy.

You are lost.

You are on your way to hell.

You need to repent of this heresy and come to know the true Christ who is fully God and fully human.

FYI: "human being" does not equate to having a human nature.

This is nonsense and is just as stupid as claiming that being a duck does not equate to having a duck nature.



If having a "duck nature" doesn't make you a duck, I don't know what would.

Also, I still believe Jesus was fully God and fully man.

No you don't. One cannot be "fully man" without possessing a human nature.

[Lighthouse]

Without evidence.

Just read 1 Tim 2:5

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men (ἀνθρώπων), the man ( ἄνθρωπος) Christ Jesus, (1Ti 2:5 ESV)

Here it is in Greek.

εἷς γὰρ θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς,

The word "men" is the plural of the Greek word ἄνθρωπος, and Jesus is referred to, in the word of God, as ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, (the man Christ Jesus).

The very same Greek word that is used to describe the human beings that Christ has become the mediator of, is used to describe Christ!!!!!!

Its painfully obvious in the Greek. Either Jesus is not the mediator between God and humans or Jesus is a human because the same word is used to describe both the humans Christ mediates and Christ Himself.

That's why the New English Translation translates the verse the way it does.

I find it interesting that you are willing to ignore the translation of those Greek scholars in order to trust your own depraved intuitions on the matter.

If I were you, I wouldn't disregard those who have studied this far in excess of your ability to understand the Greek language, you are on dangerous ground.


I don't need to assume about your ignorance regarding Greek. You have demonstrated it on this thread. That's not an insult, its just an observation. If you want to learn you will have to humble yourself and actually consider the input of those who know more than you.

We will see how quickly you are able to see truth and respond to it. If I were you, I wouldn't trust so heavily on my own intuitions so far those intuitions have only led you to heresy.

You are lost.

You are on your way to hell.

You need to repent of this heresy and come to know the true Christ who is fully God and fully human.


This is nonsense and is just as stupid as claiming that being a duck does not equate to having a duck nature.



If having a "duck nature" doesn't make you a duck, I don't know what would.


No you don't. One cannot be "fully man" without possessing a human nature.

Being a human being does not necessitate a human nature. And you have failed to prove it is necessary to the state of being human. But having a human nature certainly does make you a human.

And if you haven't figured out you're being trolled by now you need to take a break. You really need to relax.

[Dialogos]

Being a human being does not necessitate a human nature.

You're a clown.