What About Progressive Sanctification?

[RickReads]

You obviously don't have your Bob Seger songs straight. You can't even spell his name correctly, and you didn't even know that "Still the Same" was a song about a gambler. Shame on you!

I`m probably not as world-wise as you.

 

[RickReads]

Right. Otherwise known as hypostatic union. The same doctrine that even professional theologians claim to be humanly incomprehensible. I generally don't critique it because the moderators tend to shut down the thread.

But this thread is waxing old, not many people are participating, so I will raise ONE challenge about it (and believe me, I have more than one).

Consider the claim of 2 natures. The claim is:
(1) The Son of God is immutably omniscient in his divine nature.
(2) At the same time He was a regular, ignorant homo sapien on earth (in His human nature).

Let's now consider what that claim amounts to. Here is a parallel:
(1) Do you know my friend Mike? He is mathematical genius. He knows all math!
(2) However, at the same time, he is mathematically ignorant. He doesn't know any math yet.

You don't see a problem here? As I told you, in EVERY CONTEXT other than the Incarnation, the notion of 2 natures is AUTOMATICALLY DISMISSED as utter nonsense - for obvious reasons!

I can't make the decision for you. YOU have to make up your own mind. YOU have to decide whether you've chosen to believe foolishness, and whether such is what you REALLY want to confess to when standing before the judgment seat of Christ.

I'll cut my critique short there - as I really wasn't intending to get this thread shut down.

When Jesus was in the flesh He wasn`t omniscient. You sound very confused about things.

 

[RickReads]

Said the guy who hasn't resolved any of the alleged contradictions.

What post did I avoid? (Asked the guy who doesn't HAVE any contradictions in his theology).

If you had bothered to read the several posts I had left for you when you came on you then you would have seen it.

 

[JAL]

When Jesus was in the flesh He wasn`t omniscient. You sound very confused about things.

So the immutably omniscient Son of God was no longer omniscient while on earth?
He is immutably omniscient but changed Himself into an ignorant being on earth? Huh? I don't think you comprehend the word "immutable".

Secondly, now YOU are contradicting orthodoxy. Officially, the hypostatic union is the position that the two natures existed simultaneously, not consecutively or alternately. That's precisely why the theologians consider it incomprehensible!

 

[JAL]

I`m probably not as world-wise as you.

I just responded in kind. You were the one who was trying to poke fun at me for misrepresenting Bob Seger. Which is fairly childish behavior on a debate forum where Bob Seger isn't the real bone of contention.

 

[JAL]

If you had bothered to read the several posts I had left for you when you came on you then you would have seen it.

I've done more than my fair share of contributing to this thread. Typically I've given detailed, verbose responses even when they were being gratuitously ridiculed. So I'm not going to go back and research what I missed - if you have the number of the post, please provide it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So the immutably omniscient Son of God was no longer omniscient while on earth?
He is immutably omniscient but changed Himself into an ignorant being on earth? Huh? I don't think you comprehend the word "immutable".

Secondly, now YOU are contradicting orthodoxy. Officially, the hypostatic union is the position that the two natures existed simultaneously, not consecutively or alternately. That's precisely why the theologians consider it incomprehensible!

I believe that when the Word (Son of God) was made flesh, He suppressed His Omniscience. He didn't lose His Omniscience because such an ability is a part of the very nature of God. So logic dicates that the second person of the Trinity had to suppress His Omniscience during His earthly ministry. Why do we conclude this? Well, it is written...

“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” (Luke 2:52).

 

[JAL]

I believe that when the Word (Son of God) was made flesh, He suppressed His Omniscience. He didn't lose His Omniscience because such an ability is a part of the very nature of God. So logic dicates that the second person of the Trinity had to suppress His Omniscience during His earthly ministry. Why do we conclude this? Well, it is written...

“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” (Luke 2:52).

Suppress? I see you're well on your way to becoming a noted theologian. Because that's precisely what they typically do in scenarios like this - I call it linguistic camouflage. To avoid charges of contradiction, they hide behind unclear language whose precise meaning is impossible to pinpoint. In your case, the nebulous language is "suppress omniscience". Huh? What the heck does that mean? Nothing. Certainly nothing humanly comprehensible. It's just gibberish serving as a cover-up.

Did the Son of God become ignorant? Yes. He relinquished His knowledge. Therefore any notion of defining the Son as "immutably omniscient", as orthodoxy does, should be dismissed without the formality of an apology.

 

[JAL]

Which is why I categorically reject immutability. It simply isn't scriptural.

 

[JAL]

Also, thanks for quoting that verse:

“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” (Luke 2:52).

That's not immutability. That's change. Daily His sum total of knowledge/wisdom increased. God is capable of learning.

A God who is innately, infinitely, immutably omniscient would be incapable of LEARNING anything new.

If the church had just paid attention to Scripture - for example the verse you cited - they would have defined God differently, and solved the Incarnation problem 2,000 years ago.

 

[RickReads]

So the immutably omniscient Son of God was no longer omniscient while on earth?
He is immutably omniscient but changed Himself into an ignorant being on earth? Huh? I don't think you comprehend the word "immutable".

Secondly, now YOU are contradicting orthodoxy. Officially, the hypostatic union is the position that the two natures existed simultaneously, not consecutively or alternately. That's precisely why the theologians consider it incomprehensible!

I think you probably misapply the word and my views are pretty orthodox. Jesus didn`t say He was omniscient. I`m not sure where your ideas come from. Crackerjack?

Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

 

[JAL]

I think you probably misapply the word and my views are pretty orthodox. Jesus didn`t say He was omniscient. I`m not sure where your ideas come from. Crackerjack?

Mattew 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

Correct. Jesus was ignorant. Which proves the Son of God cannot be defined as an immutably omniscient being -contrary to what we've been told for 2000 years.

 

[RickReads]

Correct. Jesus was ignorant. Which proves the Son of God cannot be defined as an immutably omniscient being -contrary to what we've been told for 2000 years.

Incorrect. Post resurrection He could be omniscient. Calling Jesus ignorant shows there is something wrong with you.

 

[JAL]

I think you probably misapply the word and my views are pretty orthodox. Jesus didn`t say He was omniscient. I`m not sure where your ideas come from. Crackerjack?

Mattew 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

And just to be clear, you have apparently rejected the orthodox position (hypostatic union). The orthodox position is that the Son of God had 2 natures - one of which was (immutably) omniscient. I'll repeat what I said earlier: Christians should inspect the merchandise before they buy it.

 

[JAL]

Incorrect. Post resurrection He could be omniscient. Calling Jesus ignorant shows there is something wrong with you.

Enough with the strawmen. Where was I discussing post-resurrection status? Oh that's right I wasn't.

 

[RickReads]

Enough with the strawmen. Where was I discussing post-resurrection status? Oh that's right I wasn't.

I don`t think it is a strawman, just a problem with your understanding.

 

[RickReads]

And just to be clear, you have apparently rejected the orthodox position (hypostatic union). The orthodox position is that the Son of God had 2 natures - one of which was (immutably) omniscient. I'll repeat what I said earlier: Christians should inspect the merchandise before they buy it.

Anyone who knows their Bible knows Jesus didn`t claim to be omniscient when He was in the flesh. You like gobbledygook so much that you should get a job running the Nickelodeon green slime machine.

 

[RickReads]

I just responded in kind. You were the one who was trying to poke fun at me for misrepresenting Bob Seger. Which is fairly childish behavior on a debate forum where Bob Seger isn't the real bone of contention.

You should be praying for Bob instead of complaining about me.

 

[RickReads]

I've done more than my fair share of contributing to this thread. Typically I've given detailed, verbose responses even when they were being gratuitously ridiculed. So I'm not going to go back and research what I missed - if you have the number of the post, please provide it.

I invested a fair amount of my time in putting together a post that would be a challenge for to you to answer for and you didn`t even read it.

 

[RickReads]

And just to be clear, you have apparently rejected the orthodox position (hypostatic union). The orthodox position is that the Son of God had 2 natures - one of which was (immutably) omniscient. I'll repeat what I said earlier: Christians should inspect the merchandise before they buy it.

I don`t even know what a hypostatic union is. I don`t see it in the creed I had to recite.