What limits would this put on God

JAL said:

Ok if I went into a bookstore and marched into the philosophy section, not sure how many Sproul books would be there. But fine.


Then immutability has no meaning. Let's consider the (traditionally held) immutable characteristics of God.
(1) Immutably omniscient. Was Christ omniscient? Wasn't He incarnated as an ignorant fetus in Mary's womb who had to re-learn Hebrew?
(2) Immutably holy. Was Christ's temptation in the wilderness a lie and a farce?
(3) Immutably omnipotent and indefatigable. Was Christ tireless?
(4) Impassible. Was Christ incapable of suffering?

Why are you pretending that these issues are not a problem, logically?

Click to expand...

Because we are told that he choose to "empty" himself(Phil 2). Basically, I understand that to mean he choose not to use his divine attributes while on earth. On some of the attributes hints of them do appear from time to time.



Philippians 2
Easy-to-Read Version

Be United and Care for Each Other
2 Think about what we have in Christ: the encouragement he has brought us, the comfort of his love, our sharing in his Spirit, and the mercy and kindness he has shown us. If you enjoy these blessings, 2 then do what will make my joy complete: Agree with each other, and show your love for each other. Be united in your goals and in the way you think. 3 In whatever you do, don’t let selfishness or pride be your guide. Be humble, and honor others more than yourselves. 4 Don’t be interested only in your own life, but care about the lives of others too.

Learn From Christ to Be Unselfish
5 In your life together, think the way Christ Jesus thought.

6 He was like God in every way,
but he did not think that his being equal with God was something to use for his own benefit.
7 Instead, he gave up everything, even his place with God.
He accepted the role of a servant, appearing in human form.
During his life as a man,
8 he humbled himself by being fully obedient to God,
even when that caused his death—death on a cross.
9 So God raised him up to the most important place
and gave him the name that is greater than any other name.
10 God did this so that every person will bow down to honor the name of Jesus.
Everyone in heaven, on earth, and under the earth will bow.
11 They will all confess, “Jesus Christ is Lord,”
and this will bring glory to God the Father.

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

John 8:57
“You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

Hebrews 4:15
New International Version
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.

A being who is fully man and fully God can be tempted.

"
What Does the Bible Mean by Temptation?
Copyright 1990 by Bob and Gretchen Passantino.

1. God cannot be tempted (James 1:13).
2. God can be tempted (or there would be no reason for us to be warned against tempting God — Deuteronomy 6:16).
3. If God cannot be tempted (see 1 above), and Jesus is God, then does that mean he cannot be tempted? (James 1:13)
4. But Jesus was tempted (Hebrews 4:15).
5. God tempts no one (James 1:13).
6. God tempted someone (David, to number Israel — 2 Samuel 24:1).

How are these biblical statements reconciled, both within scripture and consistent with God’s character?

The answers to these statements can be categorized in two major ways: vocabulary (what words were used in the original, and what meanings those words have), and context (how the words were used in each passage).

Vocabulary
Temptation has many synonyms (equivalent words) in English. It can mean (among other things) test, proof, experiment, trial, and enticement. The main Greek (New Testament language) words for temptation are formed from peiraz and dokimaz , both words of which also occur in the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. The main Hebrew words are n sƒh, s rap, and b han, and one word which relates primarily to the genuineness of coins, sig. Comparing the Septuagint equivalents to the original Hebrew helps us understand the overall biblical use of the terms.

[Those who wish more information on the Greek or Hebrew should see The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Vol. 3), Colin Brown, ed., Zondervan, 1978, pp. 798-810; or The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, Lawrence O. Richards, Zondervan, 1985, pp. 593-594.]

Both peiraz and dokimaz can mean test or proof. In addition, peiraz includes the ideas of temptation or enticement (to sin) and of a trial. Dokimaz also carries the connotation of approval or genuineness.

From this vocabulary study, we see that “temptation” can mean test, proof, or to establish genuineness; not only “enticement to sin.”

Context
Armed with our vocabulary study, we can look at the context of each of our six statements.

God Cannot Be Tempted
James 1:13 says, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” Looking at the context, we see that the statement is not merely “God cannot be tempted,” but “God cannot be tempted by evil.” In other words, God cannot be enticed to sin (Greek apeir st s). James 1:13 affirms that God cannot sin, but is completely holy and good.

God Can Be Tempted
When Deuteronomy 6:16 warns us against “tempting God,” the context refers on the one hand to testing the Israelites’ faithfulness and, on the other hand, to testing God’s righteous judgment. Paraphrased, the passage means, “Don’t test God’s righteous judgment by worship-ping idols unless you are willing to be wiped off the face of the earth” (v. 15).

The reconciliation of the two statements? God cannot be enticed to sin; he is holy and good. God’s consistent, holy, good reaction to idolatry is righteous judgment. One should not “test” God’s character by sinning, since God will “pass the test” of righteousness and punish the sinner (see also Jeremiah 18:7-10).

Can Jesus Be God and Be Tempted?
Jesus is God and so he cannot be tempted in the sense that he cannot be enticed to sin, but he can be tempted in the sense that he can be tested, even with the evil lures of Satan (Matthew 4), and found to be true to his character. This is the context of Hebrews 4:15, which says, “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted (peiraz ) in all things as we are, yet without sin.”/

Jesus was tested by Satan’s enticements concerning his obedience to the Father and his commitment to his messianic mission, yet he did not succumb to the temptation. (A related issue concerns the dynamics between Christ’s human and divine natures, under the subjection of his one divine person. See The Impeccable Christ by W. E. Best, Zondervan, 1971).

Does God Tempt People?
Look again at James 1:13. Just as God cannot be enticed into sinning, so God does not entice anyone else into sinning. That is what is meant by “and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” James warns us not to blame our own fall into sin on God. God does not persuade us to sin, we willingly fall to the lure of our own sinful nature (Romans 3:23), the sinfulness in the world (Titus 2:12), and/or the false promises of Satan (Genesis 3:1-5).

When 2 Samuel 24:1 says God provoked or tempted David to number Israel, it means God made use of David’s action to manifest David’s disobedience to God. The parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 27:23-24 credits Satan with provoking David to take the census. Putting the two passages together shows that, while Satan may have enticed David into sin, it was God who tested David and used that occasion to show both David and the Israelites the consequences of David’s sin.

God tests us to reveal to ourselves and the world our true characters.
God has always tested each order of rational beings that He has created. This test has consisted of proof of perfect trust and obedience. A test in itself is not a cause of sin. Only the action of the one tested can turn it into an occasion to sin. . . . Adam and Eve faced a test of obedience, and disobeyed and fell. Christ, in order to redeem men, faced testing, and came out victorious (Hebrews 5:7-9) (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, Charles Pfeiffer, Howard Vos, and John Rea, eds., Moody, 1975, p. 1680).

Summary
There are various meanings for the word temptation. Usually it means either an enticement to sin or a test or trial. God never entices anyone to sin, but uses testing to reveal his justice and challenge believers to faithfulness (2 Corinthians 13:5-8).
"
What Does the Bible Mean by Temptation? - Answers.org

JAL said:

I quickly grow weary of exchanges on this forum because so many responses look like dishonest debating. You seem to be pretending to resolve this contradiction while knowing full well, deep down (it seems to me) that you haven't resolved anything.

Knowledge is something that you either have or have not. It isn't something that you "choose to use". At any given time I either have it or don't have it. If someone asks me the sum of 2+2, I either know the answer or don't know it. The claim that God is immutably omniscient means He DOES know the answer and thus is INCAPABLE of learning the answer. An infinitely omniscient being isn't capable of learning. Yet Scripture asserts that Jesus grew in learning, and we know this implicitly because every babe either must learn Hebrew, or remain ignorant of it.

Let's restate the point, to further prove to you that mainstream solutions don't make sense. Traditional theology claims that Christ was a union of two natures human and divine. That's like saying:
- My friend Mike is a math genius. He knows all math. Ask him anything about it. He will tell you the answer.
- But he doesn't actually known any math because, he has a second nature, an ignorant nature, which doesn't know any math. Ask him any math question, therefore. He won't be able to tell you the answer.


See the problem? It's a matter of trying to stand on both sides of the fence. It makes zero sense, which is why even professional theologians admit that the "hypostatic union" (the traditional solution) is humanly incomprehensible. It's pure gibberish.

And I gave you four examples of this kind of contradiction. You haven't resolved any of them although, I'm confident, you will continue pretending to have done so.

Look, it's quite simple. An immutable God cannot mutate Himself into man. Such mutation is possible only for a mutable God.


And there are even more problems with traditional thinking. They claim that God is indivisible into parts even though such creates logical difficulties for a Trinity. But more to the point, the concept of matter-as-mind creates flexibility - it means that pieces of matter can join to form one mind, and then split to separate into individual minds. Example:

Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?”
“My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.” 10

And then Jesus split him again among 2,000 pigs. That's similar to the way that the Incarnation worked in my view. The Father took a small PIECE of the enthroned Son of God and placed it in Mary's womb. Due to the split (along with other simple logistics such as brain-scrambling), the incarnate Son lost all the knowledge of the enthroned Son and thus Christ was an ignorant babe on earth. The point is that such flexibility - such a simple explanation of the Incarnation - is made possible by my proposed mutable system. Thus a mutable system offers flexible solutions simply unavailable to traditional immutability.


But I'm confident that you will continue using deflective language and double-talk, pretending to have a solution for the traditional insolubility.

Click to expand...

I gave you the solutions. Pretending they are not is humorous. Jesus being fully Human means his human part can learn. I can only point out the scriptures that answers your statements. I enjoy polite discussion. thanks

JAL said:

Rambling, deflection, and double-talk. Fact is, if Jesus was immutably holy, any supposed "temptation" in the wilderness was a lie, a charade, a farce, and a façade.

Click to expand...

I already posted the correct theology related to Jesus being tested. You simply choose to ignore it. Oh Well. see post 22

I am sure you are aware of the Philosopher who proved that 1 + 1 = 2

John 1

48 “How do you know me?” Nathanael asked.

“Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you,” Jesus answered.

49 “Rabbi,” Nathanael replied, “You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

50 Jesus responded to him, “Do you believe only because I told you I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than this.” 51 Then He said, “I assure you: You will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

This is an example of one of Jesus attributes as God showing thru. At times we see Jesus human side coming thru by learning. At other times we see Jesus God side coming thru. It takes a careful reader to discern which is visible at the time.

wandering misfit said:

Do you agree with this?: CF Statement of Faith | Christian Forums

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with Biblical Creation where God created everything including matter Gen 1:1

It is our LDS guests who believes that there is eternal matter. They even see spirit as being made up of refined matter.

JAL said:

As noted in the ISBE (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) comprised of 200 evangelical scholars, Genesis provides no clear support for creation ex nihilo. (Those scholars fall back on Heb 11:3 but I find no clear support there either).

Cults invent crazy doctrines all the time. Creation ex nihilo appears to be such an insane fairytale. Doesn't sound insane to you? That's what 2,000 years of brainwashing will do. Suppose I said to you, "I grabbed a hammer out of the empty toolbox" - you'd think I was insane!

Creation ex nihilo - apparent insanity - is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary amounts of supporting evidence. But no strong evidence exists for creation ex nihilo. The Hebrew words for "create" normally mean "fashion out of existing material."

I haven't studied the LDS views on the subject but you should know that the church father Tertullian was a staunch materialist (200 AD). He was the first Christian theologian to use the word Trinity and was considered by Phillip Schaff to be one of the two best defenders of mainstream Christianity in all of church history.

Click to expand...

If God or Jesus pulled a hammer out of an empty toolbox, I would have not problem with that.

"
For, turning away from Christians to the philosophers, from the Church to the Academy and the Porch, he learned there from the Stoics how to place Matter (on the same level) with the Lord, just as if it too had existed ever both unborn and unmade, having no beginning at all nor end, out of which, according to him, the Lord afterwards created all things.

Chapter 2. Hermogenes, After a Perverse Induction from Mere Heretical Assumptions, Concludes that God Created All Things Out of Pre-Existing Matter
Our very bad painter has colored this his primary shade absolutely without any light, with such arguments as these: He begins with laying down the premiss, that the Lord made all things either out of Himself, or out of nothing, or out of something; in order that, after he has shown that it was impossible for Him to have made them either out of Himself or out of nothing, he might thence affirm the residuary proposition that He made them out of something, and therefore that that something was Matter. He could not have made all things, he says, of Himself; because whatever things the Lord made of Himself would have been parts of Himself; but He is not dissoluble into parts, because, being the Lord, He is indivisible, and unchangeable, and always the same. Besides, if He had made anything out of Himself, it would have been something of Himself. Everything, however, both which was made and which He made must be accounted imperfect, because it was made of a part, and He made it of a part; or if, again, it was a whole which He made, who is a whole Himself, He must in that case have been at once both a whole, and yet not a whole; because it behooved Him to be a whole, that He might produce Himself, and yet not a whole, that He might be produced out of Himself. But this is a most difficult position. For if He were in existence, He could not be made, for He was in existence already; if, however, he were not in existence He could not make, because He was a nonentity. He maintains, moreover, that He who always exists, does not come into existence, but exists for ever and ever. He accordingly concludes that He made nothing out of Himself, since He never passed into such a condition as made it possible for Him to make anything out of Himself. In like manner, he contends that He could not have made all things out of nothing — thus: He defines the Lord as a being who is good, nay, very good, who must will to make things as good and excellent as He is Himself; indeed it were impossible for Him either to will or to make anything which was not good, nay, very good itself. Therefore all things ought to have been made good and excellent by Him, after His own condition. Experience shows, however, that things which are even evil were made by Him: not, of course, of His own will and pleasure; because, if it had been of His own will and pleasure, He would be sure to have made nothing unfitting or unworthy of Himself. That, therefore, which He made not of His own will must be understood to have been made from the fault of something, and that is from Matter, without a doubt.

Chapter 3. An Argument of Hermogenes. The Answer: While God is a Title Eternally Applicable to the Divine Being, Lord and Father are Only Relative Appellations, Not Eternally Applicable. An Inconsistency in the Argument of Hermogenes Pointed Out
He adds also another point: that as God was always God, there was never a time when God was not also Lord. But it was in no way possible for Him to be regarded as always Lord, in the same manner as He had been always God, if there had not been always, in the previous eternity, a something of which He could be regarded as evermore the Lord. So he concludes that God always had Matter co-existent with Himself as the Lord thereof. Now, this tissue of his I shall at once hasten to pull abroad. I have been willing to set it out in form to this length, for the information of those who are unacquainted with the subject, that they may know that his other arguments likewise need only be understood to be refuted. We affirm, then, that the name of God always existed with Himself and in Himself — but not eternally so the Lord. Because the condition of the one is not the same as that of the other. God is the designation of the substance itself, that is, of the Divinity; but Lord is (the name) not of substance, but of power. I maintain that the substance existed always with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication indeed of something accruing. For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. Do I seem to you to be weaving arguments, Hermogenes? How neatly does Scripture lend us its aid, when it applies the two titles to Him with a distinction, and reveals them each at its proper time! For (the title) God, indeed, which always belonged to Him, it names at the very first: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; Genesis 1:1 and as long as He continued making, one after the other, those things of which He was to be the Lord, it merely mentions God. And God said, and God made, and God saw; but nowhere do we yet find the Lord. But when He completed the whole creation, and especially man himself, who was destined to understand His sovereignty in a way of special propriety, He then is designated Lord. Then also the Scripture added the name Lord: And the Lord God, Deus Dominus, took the man, whom He had formed; Genesis 2:15 And the Lord God commanded Adam. Genesis 2:16 Thenceforth He, who was previously God only, is the Lord, from the time of His having something of which He might be the Lord. For to Himself He was always God, but to all things was He only then God, when He became also Lord. Therefore, in as far as (Hermogenes) shall suppose that Matter was eternal, on the ground that the Lord was eternal, in so far will it be evident that nothing existed, because it is plain that the Lord as such did not always exist. Now I mean also, on my own part, to add a remark for the sake of ignorant persons, of whom Hermogenes is an extreme instance, and actually to retort against him his own arguments. For when he denies that Matter was born or made, I find that, even on these terms, the title Lord is unsuitable to God in respect of Matter, because it must have been free, when by not having a beginning it had not an author. The fact of its past existence it owed to no one, so that it could be a subject to no one. Therefore ever since God exercised His power over it, by creating (all things) out of Matter, although it had all along experienced God as its Lord, yet Matter does, after all, demonstrate that God did not exist in the relation of Lord to it, although all the while He was really so.

Chapter 4. Hermogenes Gives Divine Attributes to Matter, and So Makes Two Gods
At this point, then, I shall begin to treat of Matter, how that, (according to Hermogenes,) God compares it with Himself as equally unborn, equally unmade, equally eternal, set forth as being without a beginning, without an end. For what other estimate of God is there than eternity? What other condition has eternity than to have ever existed, and to exist yet for evermore by virtue of its privilege of having neither beginning nor end? Now, since this is the property of God, it will belong to God alone, whose property it is — of course on this ground, that if it can be ascribed to any other being, it will no longer be the property of God, but will belong, along with Him, to that being also to which it is ascribed. For although there be that are called gods in name, whether in heaven or in earth, yet to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things; 1 Corinthians 8:5 whence the greater reason why, in our view, that which is the property of God ought to be regarded as pertaining to God alone, and why (as I have already said) that should cease to be such a property, when it is shared by another being. Now, since He is God, it must necessarily be a unique mark of this quality, that it be confined to One. Else, what will be unique and singular, if that is not which has nothing equal to it? What will be principal, if that is not which is above all things, before all things, and from which all things proceed? By possessing these He is God alone, and by His sole possession of them He is One. If another also shared in the possession, there would then be as many gods as there were possessors of these attributes of God. Hermogenes, therefore, introduces two gods: he introduces Matter as God's equal. God, however, must be One, because that is God which is supreme; but nothing else can be supreme than that which is unique; and that cannot possibly be unique which has anything equal to it; and Matter will be equal with God when it is held to be eternal.

Chapter 5. Hermogenes Coquets with His Own Argument, as If Rather Afraid of It. After Investing Matter with Divine Qualities, He Tries to Make It Somehow Inferior to God
But God is God, and Matter is Matter. As if a mere difference in their names prevented equality, when an identity of condition is claimed for them! Grant that their nature is different; assume, too, that their form is not identical — what matters it so long as their absolute state have but one mode? God is unborn; is not Matter also unborn? God ever exists; is not Matter, too, ever existent? Both are without beginning; both are without end; both are the authors of the universe— both He who created it, and the Matter of which He made it. For it is impossible that Matter should not be regarded as the author of all things, when the universe is composed of it. What answer will he give? Will he say that Matter is not then comparable with God as soon as it has something belonging to God; since, by not having total (divinity), it cannot correspond to the whole extent of the comparison? But what more has he reserved for God, that he should not seem to have accorded to Matter the full amount of the Deity? He says in reply, that even though this is the prerogative of Matter, both the authority and the substance of God must remain intact, by virtue of which He is regarded as the sole and prime Author, as well as the Lord of all things. Truth, however, maintains the unity of God in such a way as to insist that whatever belongs to God Himself belongs to Him alone. For so will it belong to Himself if it belong to Him alone; and therefore it will be impossible that another god should be admitted, when it is permitted to no other being to possess anything of God. Well, then, you say, we ourselves at that rate possess nothing of God. But indeed we do, and shall continue to do — only it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. For we shall be even gods, if we, shall deserve to be among those of whom He declared, I have said, You are gods, and, God stands in the congregation of the gods. But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us, because it is He alone who can make gods. The property of Matter, however, he makes to be that which it has in common with God. Otherwise, if it received from God the property which belongs to God — I mean its attribute of eternity— one might then even suppose that it both possesses an attribute in common with God, and yet at the same time is not God. But what inconsistency is it for him to allow that there is a conjoint possession of an attribute with God, and also to wish that what he does not refuse to Matter should be, after all, the exclusive privilege of God!

Chapter 6. The Shifts to Which Hermogenes is Reduced, Who Deifies Matter, and Yet is Unwilling to Hold Him Equal with the Divine Creator
He declares that God's attribute is still safe to Him, of being the only God, and the First, and the Author of all things, and the Lord of all things, and being incomparable to any — qualities which he straightway ascribes to Matter also. He is God, to be sure. God shall also attest the same; but He has also sworn sometimes by Himself, that there is no other God like Him. Isaiah 45:23 Hermogenes, however, will make Him a liar. For Matter will be such a God as He — being unmade, unborn, without beginning, and without end. God will say, I am the first! Yet how is He the first, when Matter is co-eternal with Him? Between co-eternals and contemporaries there is no sequence of rank. Is then, Matter also the first? I, says the Lord, have stretched out the heavens alone. Isaiah 44:24 But indeed He was not alone, when that likewise stretched them out, of which He made the expanse. When he asserts the position that Matter was eternal, without any encroachment on the condition of God, let him see to it that we do not in ridicule turn the tables on him, that God similarly was eternal without any encroachment on the condition of Matter — the condition of Both being still common to Them. The position, therefore, remains unimpugned both in the case of Matter, that it did itself exist, only along with God; and that God existed alone, but with Matter. It also was first with God, as God, too, was first with it; it, however, is not comparable with God, as God, too, is not to be compared with it; with God also it was the Author (of all things), and with God their Sovereign. In this way he proposes that God has something, and yet not the whole, of Matter. For Him, accordingly, Hermogenes has reserved nothing which he had not equally conferred on Matter, so that it is not Matter which is compared with God, but rather God who is compared with Matter. Now, inasmuch as those qualities which we claim as peculiar to God — to have always existed, without a beginning, without an end, and to have been the First, and Alone, and the Author of all things — are also compatible to Matter, I want to know what property Matter possesses different and alien from God, and hereby special to itself, by reason of which it is incapable of being compared with God? That Being, in which occur all the properties of God, is sufficiently predetermined without any further comparison.

Chapter 7. Hermogenes Held to His Theory in Order that Its Absurdity May Be Exposed on His Own Principles
When he contends that matter is less than God, and inferior to Him, and therefore diverse from Him, and for the same reason not a fit subject of comparison with Him, who is a greater and superior Being, I meet him with this prescription, that what is eternal and unborn is incapable of any diminution and inferiority, because it is simply this which makes even God to be as great as He is, inferior and subject to none — nay, greater and higher than all. For, just as all things which are born, or which come to an end, and are therefore not eternal, do, by reason of their exposure at once to an end and a beginning, admit of qualities which are repugnant to God — I mean diminution and inferiority, because they are born and made — so likewise God, for this very reason, is unsusceptible of these accidents, because He is absolutely unborn, and also unmade. And yet such also is the condition of Matter. Therefore, of the two Beings which are eternal, as being unborn and unmade — God and Matter — by reason of the identical mode of their common condition (both of them equally possessing that which admits neither of diminution nor subjection — that is, the attribute of eternity), we affirm that neither of them is less or greater than the other, neither of them is inferior or superior to the other; but that they both stand on a par in greatness, on a par in sublimity, and on the same level of that complete and perfect felicity of which eternity is reckoned to consist. Now we must not resemble the heathen in our opinions; for they, when constrained to acknowledge God, insist on having other deities below Him. The Divinity, however, has no degrees, because it is unique; and if it shall be found in Matter — as being equally unborn and unmade and eternal— it must be resident in both alike, because in no case can it be inferior to itself. In what way, then, will Hermogenes have the courage to draw distinctions; and thus to subject matter to God, an eternal to the Eternal, an unborn to the Unborn, an author to the Author? Seeing that it dares to say, I also am the first; I too am before all things; and I am that from which all things proceed; equal we have been, together we have been — both alike without beginning, without end; both alike without an Author, without a God. What God, then, is He who subjects me to a contemporaneous, co-eternal power? If it be He who is called God, then I myself, too, have my own (divine) name. Either I am God, or He is Matter, because we both are that which neither of us is. Do you suppose, therefore, that he has not made Matter equal with God, although, forsooth, he pretends it to be inferior to Him?

Chapter 8. On His Own Principles, Hermogenes Makes Matter, on the Whole, Superior to God
Nay more, he even prefers Matter to God, and rather subjects God to it, when he will have it that God made all things out of Matter. For if He drew His resources from it for the creation of the world, Matter is already found to be the superior, inasmuch as it furnished Him with the means of effecting His works; and God is thereby clearly subjected to Matter, of which the substance was indispensable to Him. For there is no one but requires that which he makes use of; no one but is subject to the thing which he requires, for the very purpose of being able to make use of it. So, again, there is no one who, from using what belongs to another, is not inferior to him of whose property he makes use; and there is no one who imparts of his own for another's use, who is not in this respect superior to him to whose use he lends his property. On this principle, Matter itself, no doubt, was not in want of God, but rather lent itself to God, who was in want of it — rich and abundant and liberal as it was — to one who was, I suppose, too small, and too weak, and too unskilful, to form what He willed out of nothing. A grand service, verily, did it confer on God in giving Him means at the present time whereby He might be known to be God, and be called Almighty — only that He is no longer Almighty, since He is not powerful enough for this, to produce all things out of nothing. To be sure, Matter bestowed somewhat on itself also — even to get its own self acknowledged with God as God's co-equal, nay more, as His helper; only there is this drawback, that Hermogenes is the only man that has found out this fact, besides the philosophers— those patriarchs of all heresy. For the prophets knew nothing about it, nor the apostles thus far, nor, I suppose, even Christ.

Chapter 9. Sundry Inevitable But Intolerable Conclusions from the Principles of Hermogenes"
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Hermogenes (Tertullian)

Who was Hermogenes?

Who was Hermogenes?

JAL said:

Can't seem to get off this thread. Another example of intellectual dishonesty:

A human part? I.e., a mutable part? How does an immutable God suddenly come to consist of mutable parts? At minimum that would mean He was never "really immutable" to begin with.

You haven't offered any solutions. You just keep repeating traditional assertions shown to be gibberish - and admitted to be gibberish by even some of the traditional theologians.

Click to expand...

By Choice,

James 2:26
New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition
26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

Romans 5:17
If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Philippians 2
New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition
Imitating Christ’s Humility
2 If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, 2 make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. 5 Let the same mind be in you that was[a] in Christ Jesus,

6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

9 Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.