What About Progressive Sanctification?

[JAL]

I'm after Scripture and Its TRUTH, not human opinion, reasoning, understanding etc...............

if you want that then read Ecclesiastes as I'm not the least bit interested in things under the sun, under heaven.

No problem. Still waiting for your biblical proofs. Show me where Scripture states that a created human soul was added to the Trinity. Somehow - 1,000 posts deep - it's become pretty clear that you don't have any verses indicating this conclusion. It came from human reasoning.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

No problem. Still waiting for your biblical proofs. Show me where Scripture states that a created human soul was added to the Trinity. Somehow - 1,000 posts deep - it's become pretty clear that you don't have any verses indicating this conclusion. It came from human reasoning.

Where did Jesus get His humanity from ?

Does Jesus have a soul ? yes or no

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Just in case you are not aware Jesus has a human soul, here ya go jal......


Matthew 26:38
Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

Oh and jal does the Father and the Holy Spirit have a soul ? yes or no

next................

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

Where did Jesus get His humanity from ?

Does Jesus have a soul ? yes or no

My entire metaphysics was summarized at post 856 (a follow up to post 850), including Creation, God's acquired holiness, the irreversibility of His holiness, and the Incarnation. I explained EXACTLY - the exact mechanics of - how God managed to incarnate Himself, exactly how He stripped Himself of knowledge and power.

As I've already told you: in my view the soul in Christ's body was the actual Son of God (emptied of His transcendent attributes), it was not one of us (a created human soul). It was the Son who atoned, therefore, not one of us.

 

[JAL]

Just in case you are not aware Jesus has a human soul, here ya go jal......


Matthew 26:38
Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

Oh and jal does the Father and the Holy Spirit have a soul ? yes or no

next................

hope this helps !!!

That does not say "created human soul" (one of us). THAT soul was the Son of God (Yahweh).

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

My entire metaphysics was summarized at post 856 (a follow up to post 850), including Creation, God's acquired holiness, the irreversibility of His holiness, and the Incarnation. I explained EXACTLY - the exact mechanics of - how God managed to incarnate Himself, exactly how He stripped Himself of knowledge and power.

As I've already told you: in my view the soul in Christ's body was the actual Son of God (emptied of His transcendent attributes), it was not one of us (a created human soul). It was the Son who atoned, therefore, not one of us.

metaphysics is not of God its new age the way you reason the things of God which are spiritual and cannot be explained with human wisdom and understanding.

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

I think you are having difficulty understanding the term "soul". You seem to think that the term necessarily means "created human soul". Not at all. The term soul simply refers to a conscious entity (a mind) merged to flesh in such a way that flesh and mind co-mingle in mutually influential ways. For example I didn't give much thought to women until hormones impacted my soul/mind. And if you remove my soul/mind from my body, my body will go limp.

In the case of Christ, the person (the mind) merged to THAT flesh was the Son of God (albeit emptied of its transcendent attributes). That's the "soul" He was referring to.

 

[JAL]

metaphysics is not of God its new age the way you reason the things of God which are spiritual and cannot be explained with human wisdom and understanding.

hope this helps !!!

Christology was probably a better word there.

All theology involves metaphysics. Don't be so shallow!

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Christology was probably a better word there.

All theology involves metaphysics. Don't be so shallow!

Not true as per 1 Corinthians 2

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

My entire metaphysics was summarized at post 856 (a follow up to post 850), including Creation, God's acquired holiness, the irreversibility of His holiness, and the Incarnation. I explained EXACTLY - the exact mechanics of - how God managed to incarnate Himself, exactly how He stripped Himself of knowledge and power.

As I've already told you: in my view the soul in Christ's body was the actual Son of God (emptied of His transcendent attributes), it was not one of us (a created human soul). It was the Son who atoned, therefore, not one of us.

I think this summarizes my view


The term metaphysics itself refers to philosophical views of ultimate reality: what exists and what that existence is like, in its most fundamental sense. Of course, the term spiritual is generally used to refer to those aspects of human experience that are non-physical. Spiritual metaphysics, then, becomes a term suggesting an ultimate view of reality that is, at its core, spiritual and not physical. This view generally leads to the claim that the ultimate reality is uniform, and all we experience is really part of the same ultimate truth. This is compatible with New Age and other pantheistic worldviews, which believe that “all is one.”

In actual practice, the phrase spiritual metaphysics is found almost exclusively in amateur attempts in spiritual discussion. Theology and philosophy can both be tangled up in strange terms such as logical positivism or metaphysical realism, but these terms have defined meanings and objective boundaries. Spiritual metaphysics is neither well-defined nor objective, and it effectively describes nothing. Not all attempts at spiritual thinking are reasonable, and not all lead to meaningful knowledge (see Romans 1:21). To some extent, the phrase spiritual metaphysics is just pop culture mumbo jumbo, having no particular meaning beyond what the person using it injects at that particular moment.got ?

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

Not true as per 1 Corinthians 2

The claim that God is a spirit is a metaphysical claim. It's part of DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity).

And by the way, that claim is NOT biblical, it originated in Plato's philosophy/metaphysics, as shown on this thread:
God Is a Physical Being
As shown on that thread, the English term "spirit" is not an exegetically valid translation of the Greek and Hebrew.

 

[garee]

I'm after Scripture and Its TRUTH, not human opinion, reasoning, understanding etc...............

if you want that then read Ecclesiastes as I'm not the least bit interested in things under the sun, under heaven.

The Son of man Jesus is under the sun not heaven the unseen realm of the glory of God

God is supernatural or without nature as a beginning. He can dwell in things that have a beginning or nature . He dwelt in the Son of man . .

The father worked in him to both will and empower Jesus to do the will of another, as the chief apostle .Jesus

Jesus worked with the father and did not murmur. Unlike Jonas that would of rather died but God moved him despite his unwillingness

Philippians 2:13 -14 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

The Son of man Jesus is under the sun not heaven the unseen realm of the glory of God

God is supernatural or without nature as a beginning. He can dwell in things that have a beginning or nature . He dwelt in the Son of man . .

The father worked in him to both will and empower Jesus to do the will of another, as the chief apostle .Jesus

Jesus worked with the father and did not murmur. Unlike Jonas that would of rather died but God moved him despite his unwillingness

Philippians 2:13 -14 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

the Son is Eternal just like the Father- They dwell in heaven together on the Throne. See Revelation chapters 4-5

 

[Noxot]

That doesn't rebut the six contradictions. For one thing:
(1) Your statement is not claiming that the coin has 2 natures. A contradiction would look like this:
(A) This coin is physical.
(B) This coin is non-physical. That's because it has a 2nd nature, a non-physical one.

Rather your statement is referring to a piece of matter divisible into parts.
(1) One part has a face drawn on it.
(2) The other part has a different face drawn on it.

And thus
(1) That's not a contradiction.
(2) It's also not an option for those who hold to DDS. DDS claims that God is an immaterial substance indivisible into parts. This doesn't make for a coherent theory of the Trinity, and it likewise cripples our options in terms of a viable theory of the Incarnation.

I was using a symbol to try to point to a potential truth. If a symbol of a coin or a diamond with many facets points upwards to a truth about God then I would say a diamond or a coin is indeed simple. but you do not believe in Transcendent realities or any reality that appears to be different than the material reality. So your reason does not reason about things that do not fit in your system of reason. I don't think it's even right to describe a nature to God since everything that can be said of God falls short of the truth due to his infinite nature. That again is another reason why reason can only reason so much.

Apophatic theology. We can only say what God is Not. It might seem irrational to say God is not good, but it's the truth. In the same way God is not reasonable because he's so much greater and more powerful than any finite beings ability to be reasonable. Even if we are infinite beings, he is greater than us.

if I conceived of something better than God then God is better than that which I conceive. I think that this is a rule for reality that helps us better try to understand God.

 

[Noxot]

A popular Christian fallacy is that the only truth is in the scriptures and that God inspires no one, sets No Angels over anyone else Etc.

It basically assumes that God doesn't care about anyone except surprise surprise the favoured tribe, the Christians in this case. It assumes that God is not trying to express the truth to people as much as possible and as much as they are compatible. yet the scriptures say he is near to all of us. So I can't nitpick where I want the truth to be. Instead I must be greedy for the truth and grab as much of it as I can.

This fallacy is a very deadly one because it ends up quenching the spirit. Clean Waters start to stagnate. It's like when romans used ocean waters to make a pond and then the sun evaporates it and then they try to fill it back up with more ocean water and eventually the salt becomes too great and everything in it dies.

 

[JAL]

you do not believe in Transcendent realities or any reality that appears to be different than the material reality. So your reason does not reason about things that do not fit in your system of reason. I don't think it's even right to describe a nature to God since everything that can be said of God falls short of the truth due to his infinite nature. That again is another reason why reason can only reason so much.

If we cannot understand God, we have no hope. Theology is useless. Of course we cannot fully understand Him quantitatively (e.g. the full magnitude of His love), but I certainly know what love is (kindness).

I categorically reject infinitude as incoherent. The concept of an actualized infinity doesn't make sense.

Apophatic theology. We can only say what God is Not. It might seem irrational to say God is not good, but it's the truth. In the same way God is not reasonable because he's so much greater and more powerful than any finite beings ability to be reasonable. Even if we are infinite beings, he is greater than us.

If God is not loving/kind/good according to my usual definition, I have no hope. Same problem if He isn't rational according to our usual definition - for example if He tolerates contradictions, I have no hope.

Historically the church has a tendency to over-philosophize God. For me it's all pretty simple:
(1) All reality is physical - just like our experience seems to confirm daily.
(2) The Father is just like us - physical - and He intervenes in physical reality to help us. Just like any kind father would do.

It's not complicated.

 

[JAL]

metaphysics is not of God its new age the way you reason the things of God which are spiritual and cannot be explained with human wisdom and understanding.

hope this helps !!!

Theology falls under the umbrella of philosophy and metaphysics. From the Merriam-Webster website:

"Just as physics deals with the laws that govern the physical world (such as those of gravity or the properties of waves), metaphysics describes what is beyond physics—the nature and origin of reality itself, the immortal soul, and the existence of a supreme being."

It continues:

"Opinions about these metaphysical topics vary widely, since what's being discussed can't be observed or measured or even truly known to exist. So most metaphysical questions are still as far from a final answer as they were when Plato and Aristotle were asking them."

 

[RickReads]

A popular Christian fallacy is that the only truth is in the scriptures and that God inspires no one, sets No Angels over anyone else Etc.

It basically assumes that God doesn't care about anyone except surprise surprise the favoured tribe, the Christians in this case. It assumes that God is not trying to express the truth to people as much as possible and as much as they are compatible. yet the scriptures say he is near to all of us. So I can't nitpick where I want the truth to be. Instead I must be greedy for the truth and grab as much of it as I can.

This fallacy is a very deadly one because it ends up quenching the spirit. Clean Waters start to stagnate. It's like when romans used ocean waters to make a pond and then the sun evaporates it and then they try to fill it back up with more ocean water and eventually the salt becomes too great and everything in it dies.

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

[JAL]

Where did Jesus get His humanity from ?

I thought of an analogy to compare the orthodox Incarnation with my version.

Having captured a criminal, the authorities have two goals:
(1) They want him to suffer in prison 30 years.
(2) No collateral damage to anyone else - he alone must suffer.

But since he is an evil genius, they feel sure he will quickly escape prison. How to reduce his intelligence? Two suggestions are proposed:
(A) Brain surgery. Scramble his brains enough to dumb him down. (My approach)
(B) Randomly select another human being, one of low intelligence, and try to merge these two people together, using brain surgery if necessary. The idea here is to produce one man with 2 natures (an intelligent nature and an ignorant nature). And this must be done without violating rule #2 above. (The orthodox approach).

Which solution is most seamless? To me the answer seems obvious.

 

[JAL]

An exegete who harmonizes ALL the data, including the Incarnation, is far more credible than one who cops out with "No comment" when facing possible contradiction. Case in point, YOU:

And I refrain from commenting on hypostatic union because I haven`t studied the idea to my satisfaction.

"No comment" is a cowardly response given your (unsubstantiated) insults of my theology. Do us all a favor. Lose the attitude of theological superiority, until you can provide a plausible Incarnation.

Moreover you don't have many options here. Somehow the Son of God walked with human-level intelligence. Two historic theories are:

(1) He changed Himself (contrary to immutability). He emptied Himself of omniscience. You can't really go with this option because you boasted an ability to rip to shreds my defense of mutability at post 850 (your typical wholly unsubstantiated boast of course).
(2) The hypostatic union. I don't think you can take this option either because earlier you expressed disbelief in Christ defined as a created human soul.

What options are left to you? Perhaps you'd want to argue:
(3) The Son of God added a second nature without the help of a created human soul. But then we are back to a contradiction:
(A) Mike is a math genius. He knows all math.
(B) At the same time, he doesn't know any math yet.

In sum, your position is a joke.
(1) You've repudiated the two main historic options.
(2) The third option, which seems to be the only one left, is self-contradictory.

See what I did? I actually argued my case instead of blowing useless hot air, making unsubstantiated boasts of ripping your posts to shreds.