What About Progressive Sanctification?

[JAL]

I don`t think I have any major problems from a doctrine standpoint.

Nobody can see dirt that has been swept under the rug.

 

[RickReads]

Nobody can see dirt that has been swept under the rug.

I can. I`m one of the most open-minded people you would ever meet. But you lose me when you start disagreeing with scriptures or fail to provide them.

 

[JAL]

I can. I`m one of the most open-minded people you would ever meet. But you lose me when you start disagreeing with scriptures or fail to provide them.

You ignore the Scriptures that I provide. Moreover, Scripture is a moot point when a position can be shown internally self-contradictory. Example.
(1) God is immutable.
(2) God became man.
Huh?

 

[JAL]

I`m one of the most open-minded people you would ever meet.

The irony of this statement is that even if it is as true as you think it is, it's not necessarily worth writing home about! Given that most people are zero-percent open-minded, you only need to be 1% open minded to outperform them. Which isn't saying much.

 

[RickReads]

You ignore the Scriptures that I provide. Moreover, Scripture is a moot point when a position can be shown internally self-contradictory. Example.
(1) God is immutable.
(2) God became man.
Huh?

God didn`t change when He became a man. It`s not complicated.

 

[RickReads]

The irony of this statement is that even if it is as true as you think it is, it's not necessarily worth writing home about! Given that most people are zero-percent open-minded, you only need to be 1% open minded to outperform them. Which isn't saying much.

Well, it helped me understand the Bible. It enabled me to avoid becoming indoctrinated.

 

[JAL]

God didn`t change when He became a man. It`s not complicated.

(That's certainly not an adequate response to the observations I made a few posts back).

If nothing changed, there was no Incarnation. The purpose of the Incarnation is for the Son of God to walk in human-like experience. If nothing changed - if He continued to walk in the same knowledge, strength, immutable holiness, etc, then the Incarnation as such never transpired, human experience was never realized. For one thing this means that His so-called "temptation" in the wilderness would be a façade (a lie and a farce). How can an immutably holy God suffer real temptation?

It`s not complicated.

Really? Because every professional theologian out there seems to believe it too complicated to comprehend. Of course they are speaking from the standpoint of traditional metaphysical assumptions. On MY assumptions, the Incarnation IS a simple matter.

 

[RickReads]

(That's certainly not an adequate response to the observations I made a few posts back).

If nothing changed, there was no Incarnation. The purpose of the Incarnation is for the Son of God to walk in human-like experience. If nothing changed - if He continued to walk in the same knowledge, strength, immutable holiness, etc, then the Incarnation as such never transpired, human experience was never realized. For one thing this means that His so-called "temptation" in the wilderness would be a façade (a lie and a farce). How can an immutably holy God suffer real temptation?

Really? Because every professional theologian out there seems to believe it too complicated to comprehend. Of course they are speaking from the standpoint of traditional metaphysical assumptions. On MY assumptions, the Incarnation IS a simple matter.

We don`t speak the same language so having a dialogue is hard. I only understand things in terms of the King James translation. I have little interest in manufactured terms and the ideas about them. To a degree, I could make an exception in your case in order to understand you better. Seems like your experience and knowledge come from opinions formed in a classroom. I`ve read some things about the subversion of college religion courses but you are the first real victim of it that I`ve encountered.

In the case of Jesus. He was sent by God, His Spirit is the same stuff God is made of, He is the Theophany, but He is not the entirety of God. God, Himself does not change. The humanity of Jesus does not have an effect on that. God did not stop being God when He sent Jesus to the earth. Nor has Jesus changed, His humanity is an addon not a systemic change.

 

[JAL]

In the case of Jesus. He was sent by God, His Spirit is the same stuff God is made of, He is the Theophany, but He is not the entirety of God. God, Himself does not change. The humanity of Jesus does not have an effect on that. God did not stop being God when He sent Jesus to the earth. Nor has Jesus changed, His humanity is an addon not a systemic change.

Thus your "solution" to the Incarnation is basically, "well it all just works", Jesus was "part of the Trinity" and "acquired humanity" - and thus you purport to make simple what the theologians say is incomprehensible.

Sorry doesn't wash. God doesn't change? Easily refuted by a simple syllogism:
(1). Jesus is God
(2). Jesus experienced change.
(3) Therefore God experienced change.

What you are trying to claim is something like this:
(1) God didn't change. His humanity changed.
Or you'd perhaps prefer to put it like this:
(1) God didn't change. His theophany changed.


As if His humanity/theophany were an external thing (a mere possession), something other than He Himself. That's not an Incarnation. The Son of God did not merely alter one of His possessions. That wouldn't make for a real incarnation. That's like saying, "I'll atone for the sin of the whole world. All I have to do is put one of my possessions on the cross. Won't hurt me a bit." Again, if the Incarnation spelled no changes for the Godhead, then the Son wasn't incarnated.

You're trying to superficially reconcile two incompatible propositions.
(1) God is immutable.
(2) God became man.
Superficial "responses" don't wash - they are tantamount to a state of denial.

He is the Theophany, but He is not the entirety of God.

No Trinitarian would claim that the Son is the entirety of God - that's a moot point, and thus not a response.

Is God immutable, or not, in your view? Do you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share like attributes? Immutable in holiness, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence? Orthodoxy certainly thinks so. How does such a God arrive on earth an infant devoid of knowledge, miniscule in strength, and capable of suffering real temptation (without it being a facade).

And by the way, suffering is measured by the extent to which it disables/cripples us. For example if the pain in my legs and back is too excruciating, I simply will not be able to go jogging, or at least not at the same uninterrupted velocity as I did before. An omnipotent God - an immutably omnipotent God - is by definition impassible (as he would have zero gradations of disablement), therefore, and thus could not suffer on the cross.

 

[RickReads]

Thus your "solution" to the Incarnation is basically, "well it all just works", Jesus was "part of the Trinity" and "acquired humanity" - and thus you purport to make simple what the theologians say is incomprehensible.

Sorry doesn't wash. God doesn't change? Easily refuted by a simple syllogism:
(1). Jesus is God
(2). Jesus experienced change.
(3) Therefore God experienced change.

What you are trying to claim is something like this:
(1) God didn't change. His humanity changed.
Or you'd perhaps prefer to put it like this:
(1) God didn't change. His theophany changed.


As if His humanity/theophany were an external thing (a mere possession), something other than He Himself. That's not an Incarnation. The Son of God did not merely alter one of His possessions. That wouldn't make for a real incarnation. That's like saying, "I'll atone for the sin of the whole world. All I have to do is put one of my possessions on the cross. Won't hurt me a bit." Again, if the Incarnation spelled no changes for the Godhead, then the Son wasn't incarnated.

You're trying to superficially reconcile two incompatible propositions.
(1) God is immutable.
(2) God became man.
Superficial "responses" don't wash - they are tantamount to a state of denial.

No Trinitarian would claim that the Son is the entirety of God - that's a moot point, and thus not a response.

Is God immutable, or not, in your view? Do you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share like attributes? Immutable in holiness, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence? Orthodoxy certainly thinks so. How does such a God arrive on earth an infant devoid of knowledge, miniscule in strength, and capable of suffering real temptation (without it being a facade).

And by the way, suffering is measured by the extent to which it disables/cripples us. For example if the pain in my legs and back is too excruciating, I simply will not be able to go jogging, or at least not at the same uninterrupted velocity as I did before. An omnipotent God - an immutably omnipotent God - is by definition impassible (as he would have zero gradations of disablement), therefore, and thus could not suffer on the cross.

Everything I attempted to share with you is rooted solidly in scriptures. Unfortunately, you fight truth with humanistic fallacies. I don`t think I can help you.

 

[JAL]

Everything I attempted to share with you is rooted solidly in scriptures. Unfortunately, you fight truth with humanistic fallacies. I don`t think I can help you.

All your responses have done is engaged in mere hand-waving. Basically you're saying, "I accept the Incarnation because I see it in the KJV".

But neither you nor traditional Christology has an understanding of God shown logically consistent with an Incarnation. And thus, rather than acknowledge the reality of the problem, you've chosen to remain in denial. You say that you are an open-minded person. So? Everyone claims to be open-minded. But actions speak louder than words.

You will therefore persist in your current definition of God and, I'm confident, will someday have to explain to Him why you bought into a definition of Him that monumentally insults Him. Nobody forced you to do so.

 

[RickReads]

All your responses have done is engaged in mere hand-waving. Basically you're saying, "I accept the Incarnation because I see it in the KJV".

But neither you nor traditional Christology has an understanding of God shown logically consistent with an Incarnation. And thus, rather than acknowledge the reality of the problem, you've chosen to remain in denial. You say that you are an open-minded person. So? Everyone claims to be open-minded. But actions speak louder than words.

You will therefore persist in your current definition of God and, I'm confident, will someday have to explain to Him why you bought into a definition of Him that monumentally insults Him. Nobody forced you to do so.

My open-mindedness only extends to beliefs that agree with the scriptures. I guess I should have clarified that for you.

 

[RickReads]

All your responses have done is engaged in mere hand-waving. Basically you're saying, "I accept the Incarnation because I see it in the KJV".

But neither you nor traditional Christology has an understanding of God shown logically consistent with an Incarnation. And thus, rather than acknowledge the reality of the problem, you've chosen to remain in denial. You say that you are an open-minded person. So? Everyone claims to be open-minded. But actions speak louder than words.

You will therefore persist in your current definition of God and, I'm confident, will someday have to explain to Him why you bought into a definition of Him that monumentally insults Him. Nobody forced you to do so.

I keep thinking that you deny the deity of Christ. That is the impression you give me.

 

[JAL]

The same thing happened earlier, when I used an analogy about the U.S. President, presiding over the state of Texas, to show that the traditional understanding of Adam is totally insulting to God, as it misconstrues Him as an evil, monstrous leader. No one on this thread has convincingly impugned the relevance of that analogy. And yet no one acknowledged it was even a PROBLEM.

From what I've seen, most Christians would MUCH PREFER to persist in an understanding of Adam that totally insults God rather than even CONSIDER revising their theodicy. And these Christians will be quick to call themselves - open minded!

Historically, many Christians have claimed to love God. And many of them were sincere enough about this claim to even change their careers, their lifestyles, and their finanacial habits. But generally they don't love Him enough, from what I've seen, to change their minds for Him. They are not nearly as open-minded as they claim. The sad thing is, such a change is a lot easier, and would likely prove to be more effective for the kingdom, than most of their historic ministries. The result is a church that seems to be working hard - probably much too hard - instead of working smart. Very tragic.

 

[JAL]

I keep thinking that you deny the deity of Christ. That is the impression you give me.

I don't get it. How many times do I have to say I'm a Trinitarian?

 

[RickReads]

I don't get it. How many times do I have to say I'm a Trinitarian?

Well, hard to get a bead on you other than the obvious college brainwash job.

 

[JAL]

Well, hard to get a bead on you other than the obvious college brainwash job.

Huh?

 

[JAL]

God didn`t change when He became a man. It`s not complicated.

How is that NOT a change?
Let's try this again. Let's see if I understand you. Prior to the Incarnation wasn't the Son immutable in omniscience, omnipotence, and holiness, in your view? In other words He was fully divine, right? (Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you).

And thus if there was no alteration to that status quo, there was no Incarnation, right? In other words if things continued just as they always did, then no Incarnation ever happened, right? I think you'll agree.

So what is this thing that we call "The Incarnation"? What happened to the Son, in your view?

And whatever your answer here might be, can you explain why you claim it did not involve change?

 

[RickReads]

How is that NOT a change?
Let's try this again. Let's see if I understand you. Prior to the Incarnation wasn't the Son immutable in omniscience, omnipotence, and holiness, in your view? In other words He was fully divine, right? (Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you).

And thus if there was no alteration to that status quo, there was no Incarnation, right? In other words if things continued just as they always did, then no Incarnation ever happened, right? I think you'll agree.

So what is this thing that we call "The Incarnation"? What happened to the Son, in your view?

And whatever your answer here might be, can you explain why you claim it did not involve change?

In the case of Jesus. He was sent by God, His Spirit is the same stuff God is made of, He is the Theophany, but He is not the entirety of God. God, Himself does not change. The humanity of Jesus does not have an effect on that. God did not stop being God when He sent Jesus to the earth. Nor has Jesus changed, His humanity is an addon not a systemic change.

 

[RickReads]

How is that NOT a change?
Let's try this again. Let's see if I understand you. Prior to the Incarnation wasn't the Son immutable in omniscience, omnipotence, and holiness, in your view? In other words He was fully divine, right? (Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you).

And thus if there was no alteration to that status quo, there was no Incarnation, right? In other words if things continued just as they always did, then no Incarnation ever happened, right? I think you'll agree.

So what is this thing that we call "The Incarnation"? What happened to the Son, in your view?

And whatever your answer here might be, can you explain why you claim it did not involve change?

All I can tell you is what the Bible says. When you reject that, I have nothing left to say.

This was already explained to you but I`ll say it as well. The Bible says Jesus emptied Himself. He poured Himself into His human form.

Hairsplitting to demand to call that a change. I think you just want to contradict the scriptures.

I pour water from one vessel to another, the water is still water. It does not change.