Ok, Clare.The spiritually blind cannot see. . .
with which I am comfortable.
Haven't you just proclaimed loudly and clearly the very thing you rejected —that Christ has two natures: the divine and the human? What, really, is your problem with that?Exactly. The Incarnate Christ did NOT have those omni-attributes. God CHANGED into a man, which means He was NEVER immutable.
The two natures do not conflict in Christ. Where did you get that notion?If an object can have two conflicting natures - the second one contradicting, excluding, ruling out the other - then there is no such thing in reality known as the truth of the matter. There is no truth. For example God could be evil in nature, and holy in nature, at the same time. All contradictions are valid.
If this is what you believe, there is no point in my carrying on a discussion with you. Thanks for your time.
Are you saying Christ BECAME God, and was not before? You apparently don't care for the notion of plenary verbal inspiration, of inerrancy, and the authority of Scripture.Oh the power of indoctrination! The church fathers assumed that God MUST be a being attaining to, or even transcending, every philosophical ideal humanly conceivable. In their view He is, by necessity, the philosophically ideal Being - and then they sought to make a list of those ideals. This kind of God, of course, is NOTHING LIKE man. According to William Lane Craig, the Reformed theologians adhered to the same manner of reasoning about God. He's not saying they are wrong in all their conclusions - he accepts several of them. But he frankly admits that NONE of them can be proven from Scripture. It's pure philosophy. Moving beyond Craig, other sources tell us that much of this ideology originated in Plato.
The upshot is a Christology beset with incoherence and contradictions such as:
...(1) An immutable God became man? Huh?
...(2) An immutably holy God has free will - freedom to choose evil? Huh?
...(3) God is infinite - which has NO MEANING because infinity is not even a specific/discrete number. Huh?
In my opinion, God couldn't care less about Plato's incredibly stupid philosophy. He has no correlation to all that abstract nonsense. The church fathers never seriously entertained the possibility that God is literally one of us - which is MY position. He was the first person to achieve fullness of sentience. I so define Him in post 15 of this other thread.
You are a fallible theologian. As such, you need to consider ALL POSSIBILITIES as to whom Yahweh might be. MY theory is that He is merely our father - not some bizarre philosophical ideal filled with contradictions at every turn.
Well, you've outed yourself. Enjoy.That is EXACTLY what I want to say. You'll of course ask, "If God is one of us, why does He merit the highest praise?" Because there is only one possible definition of merit:
Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time.
As an Old Earth Creationist, it is my belief that Yahweh labored to become perfect in holiness for a minimum of 13 billion years - that's just the lower bound based on scientific dating. In reality, it could have been 100 times that long - we simply don't know.
If you accept the Hypostatic Union, then yes, you essentially believe that a human soul (could have been your soul ), got added to the Trinity and thus BECAME God. I have no need for that unsettling theory. On my assumptions, the Incarnation is easy to explain: Christ was simply a physical piece of the enthroned Son, placed in Mary's womb. Problem solved.Are you saying Christ BECAME God, and was not before? You apparently don't care for the notion of plenary verbal inspiration, of inerrancy, and the authority of Scripture.
You've presented your version of a philosophically ideal God. As I said, that still follows the tradition. That's indoctrination, like it or not. Here's what you'll find out one day: Yahweh DESPISES your philosophically ideal definition of Him because He is not a jerk. Only a jerk would consider Himself worthy/meritorious of praise for attributes unlabored/unsuffered.You are welcome to that god. If God is not first cause, then I want no part of him...
What church fathers? Plato who? William Lane Craig? Why should I care what he says? Indoctrination? I did not get this from some church group, organization nor denomination. I got it from study of Scripture, reason, and life.
Ridiculous. You're in denial. If I'm a polymath, and supposedly immutable in knowledge, and yet tomorrow I'm like an ignorant embryo in a womb, how is that NOT a change? Conveniently, in these forum debates, the proponents of the Hypostatic Union suddenly begin divesting the term change of any useful meaning.1. Yes immutable God can take on himself human form. How is that mutation? Do you really know what you are talking about?
If He CAN'T do evil, He never had full freedom of the will. Your God merits no praise! Let's review.2. Yes immutable holy God has free will. "Freedom to choose evil" —what do you mean by that? Freedom for HIM to choose to do evil, to sin? That is ludicrous. You may as well question God's omnipotence, since he cannot create a rock too big to pick up. Speak of incoherence! You present a self-contradictory line of words as if there was any substance to them.
Here again, you're in denial. Suppose the Father tells you one day, "I have some money in my pocket." You ask, "How much?" He replies, "I can't tell you that. It's not a specific/discrete amount." (Evidently He means it's an infinite amount).3. Yes God is infinite. How do you judge meaning? Are we the purveyors of substance? The fact you see no meaning to the word 'infinite' doesn't mean it has none —even to humans it has meaning, but particularly to God, who is himself the reference for the word we so lightly use.
See above.If your mind boggles, it doesn't mean what it boggles on is nonsense.
Because I'm not citing Craig on his own views. I'm not asking you to believe his views. I'm not even saying you believe his views. I'm merely citing him as a scholar, specifically a known expert on the history of Reformed theology. Virtually any reputable scholar would suffice here. If you don't understand the value of scholarly historians, that's your naivete manifesting.What church fathers? Plato who? William Lane Craig? Why should I care what he says?
Who made that rule?Here's what you'll find out one day: Yahweh DESPISES your philosophically ideal definition of Him because He is not a jerk. Only a jerk would consider Himself worthy/meritorious of praise for attributes unlabored/unsuffered.
Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time.
And now we know why the necessity of Isa 55:8-9. . .This feels like insanity - I'm really not sure why I'm trying to reason with someone who actually believes that a fully kind, fully merciful God would double-predestinate the majority of His kids to hell.
Probably every sermon in the past 2,000 years implies that definition of merit. The cross itself implies it. Clearly, at the judgement seat God will reward us with either accolades, or chastise us with disdain, based on that definition (I'm not saying our salvation is based on it).Who made that rule?
On your assumptions, how does that passage provide a moral guideline? If God's definitions of "love" and "justice" are what we humans would call unkindness and injustice, how is the Bible a beacon of hope? It would be a portent of despair.And now we know why the necessity of Isa 55:8-9. . .
Then you don't believe in the God of the Bible.You might be interested to know that I believe ONLY in ordinary claims - things we DO completely understand - specifically: all I believe in are sentient material entities. That's it. I don't believe in anything supernatural/
Prove to me that the Bible contains anything supernatural.Then you don't believe in the God of the Bible.
Supernatural refers to occurrences outside the laws of nature.Prove to me that the Bible contains anything supernatural.
Supernatural refers to occurrences outside the laws of nature.
But you get to do the homework, not me.
Not good enough to get me to do your homework, without which you get to remain uninformed.As I already foreknew - you can't find one valid example. There aren't any.
Ok, Clare.Not good enough to get me to do your homework, without which you get to remain uninformed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?