What About Progressive Sanctification?

[RickReads]

Huh?

Exactly.

 

[Noxot]

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?

or God is greater than our ability to reason. if God is the source of all reason and we partake of him then our ability to properly understand is limited to how much we partake of God. They don't call him super-rational for no reason.

 

[Noxot]

An infinite God by his nature would contain all finite things. so the humanity of Jesus Christ has always existed in the Son of God. The Son of God is fully God and fully human and he has always been what he is. Things like space and time are concepts contained in God, not he contained in them. All things are contained in God and all things are made through him.

The concept of becoming is something that has always been part of God. God is becoming and he does not change. He is what he is. Nothing enslaves him but rather all things are his servants, he contains all things and is beyond all things. That is one reason that we have joy forever with him.

 

[JAL]

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

You're confusing the doctrine of identity with the doctrine of immutability. Actually orthodoxy has a self-contradictory doctrine of identity as well, but that's a separate topic.

Let's talk a bit more about water. What are its innate characteristics? For one thing it is material/tangible. Can that change? It certainly wouldn't be water if that changed. Pouring water isn't a relevant response because this is a debate about innate characteristics.

What are God's innate characteristics according to orthodoxy? Is His knowledge a mere contingent property acquired over time - via a process of learning - or is it understood to be innate? Innate. It CANNOT change. The hypostatic union affirms that it DID not change. Thus in the orthodox view, He did NOT literally empty Himself in the strict sense of compromising His divine nature - rather the claim is that He ADDED a second nature, a human nature. Which is an incomprehensible claim, as I exposed earlier by the analogy of my friend Mike who supposedly knows all math but doesn't yet know any math.

You've ignored the issue at hand. You can either:
(1) Take the position of the hypostatic union. But that's NOT a solution, it is gibberish, and problematic.
(2) Take the position that God's innate characteristics (knowledge, power, and holiness) are NOT innate/immutable (thus contradicting orthodoxy). But then God, as a moral free agent, cannot guarantee us eternal security since His character - even His knowledge and power - can be compromised ("emptied" seems to be your preferred term) - at any time - by His own free will. These are the sorts of problems and tensions that my Christology - and mine alone - has resolved seamlessly.

So again, if you admit that they are INNATE characteristics, then don't tell me that the Son emptied Himself of them. That's like claiming a glass of water has lost its physicality/materiality - and is still water?

Perhaps an example will help. You want to maintain that God emptied Himself without change. Prior to the Incarnation, was the Son of God corruptible? Wasn't His holiness innate, in your view? But now we have a tension:
(1) "For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone" (James 1:13)
(2) Yet the Son of God suffered real temptation in the desert!

These are the sort of tensions that my Christology resolves seamlessly - instead of nonchalantly leaping hopscotch over them like your "responses" are attempting to do.

Finally, partly what is in debate here is whether orthodoxy can EXPLAIN the Incarnation. Claiming that He emptied Himself is not an explanation as to HOW He did so. My Christology can tell you the specific mechanics of that transaction. I can tell you EXACTLY how He emptied Himself.

 

[JAL]

The Bible says Jesus emptied Himself. He poured Himself into His human form.

God losing all His knowledge and power is not change? For example if it so happened that all of the Trinity could lose, or has lost, all of His knowledge, power, and holiness that would not be a change? To call it a change would be hair-splitting?

What qualifies as change, in your view?

 

[JAL]

or God is greater than our ability to reason. if God is the source of all reason and we partake of him then our ability to properly understand is limited to how much we partake of God. They don't call him super-rational for no reason.

Theologians, pastors, teachers, and their students should not behave like a cult, i.e. irrationally. Please read this entire post for clarification on what I mean by that. As that post shows, mainstream Christology is plagued with several unresolved apparent contradictions. And yet they CLAIM to be sure that the hypostatic union is the correct Christology - a doctrine which no one can comprehend!

Here's the RATIONAL thing to do. When talking about the Incarnation, they should say this, "We don't have a seamless, definitive solution as yet. Even the hypostatic union, which is our best formulation so far, isn't a real doctrine because it's too incomprehensible for our minds to get a good grasp of it. We are open to suggestions."

See what this does? It paves a way for progress. OTHERWISE, it takes 1500 years for any progress to be made because leaders are too scared to propose new theories since they will lose their jobs or financial supporters.

This is why that only as of recently that theologians are FINALLY starting to question some of the tenets of DDS (Doctrine of Divine Simplicity) - which has been the definition of God in the church for 1800 years! And most are not really even questioning it as a whole - generally it's just a few questioning minute parts of it. At this slow rate it will probably take another 500 years to overthrow it! This is a doctrine that I rejected within two years of getting saved!

 

[JAL]

An infinite God by his nature would contain all finite things. so the humanity of Jesus Christ has always existed in the Son of God. The Son of God is fully God and fully human and he has always been what he is. Things like space and time are concepts contained in God, not he contained in them. All things are contained in God and all things are made through him.

The concept of becoming is something that has always been part of God. God is becoming and he does not change. He is what he is. Nothing enslaves him but rather all things are his servants, he contains all things and is beyond all things. That is one reason that we have joy forever with him.

Your words are too nebulous. You are making a series of assertions that are not clear, and not clearly consistent, with one another, for example, "God is becoming and he does not change". Huh? Becoming is a word usually wielded to signify change.

 

[Noxot]

Your words are too nebulous. You are making a series of assertions that are not clear, and not clearly consistent, with one another, for example, "God is becoming and he does not change". Huh? Becoming is a word usually wielded to signify change.

God defines what things are and how they operate. God is Not subjugated to anything, he is above all things. He is reason and so it's silly to think that reason can put restraints on God. Since God becomes, that is part of his unchanging nature.

Freedom is freedom but what is freedom? In one sense freedom is nothing. in another sense it is before things. But it must be those things that it is because those things come from it and are in it. By God's omniscience he can become a fool or ignorant. He has so much power that he can become weak and vulnerable.

I was kind of interested in your christology, is that in your link? if not can you link me that too.

My christology is the same as man's anthropology, they are two sides of the same coin.

 

[JAL]

Nor has Jesus changed, His humanity is an addon not a systemic change.

At times it's hard to tell whether you are taking the orthodox stance or rejecting it. Certainly the words above sound like the hypostatic union - the claim that a human nature was ADDED to the Son's divine nature.
(1) This claim is incomprehensible. It's gibberish. It's really avoidance of the problem - it's essentially a state of denial - instead of resolving the apparent contradictions.
(2) I surfaced one of the problems in this post, and as usual, no one here has demonstrated an ability to resolve that issue.

 

[JAL]

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

I have certainly deviated from YOUR interpretation of the verses, but you haven't established any deviation from Scripture.

 

[JAL]

I was kind of interested in your christology, is that in your link? if not can you link me that too.

On this thread I haven't even see enough intellectual honesty to admit that the traditional theory of the Incarnation is problematic.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

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.

For God to no longer have knowledge means He would no longer be God. God cannot stop being God. His Omnscience is a part of who God is and it is a part of what makes Him God. The fulness of the Godhead dwelled within Him bodily.

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9).

If the Son of God's Omniscience was removed, then the temple or flesh and blood body of Jesus would not be able to have the fulness of the Godhead or Trinity dwelling within Jesus.

 

[JAL]

For God to no longer have knowledge means He would no longer God. God cannot stop being God. His Omnscience is a part of who God is and it is a part of what makes Him God. The fulness of the Godhead dwelled within Him bodily.

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9).

If the Son of God's Omniscience was removed, then the temple or flesh and blood body of Jesus would not be able to have the fulness of the Godhead or Trinity dwelling within Jesus.

Jesus was omniscient on earth? Or are you saying both:
(1) He had all knowledge on earth.
(2) He was quite ignorant while on earth.
To me that would appear to be a contradiction.

His Omnscience is a part of who God is and it is a part of what makes Him God.

Really? Because you seem to have said, earlier, that He can go in to a state of suppressing Omniscience where He no longer knows anything. In fact you said the Son did so. Thus the Son was no longer God?

Sorry to tell you this, but you don't have a clear doctrine of the Incarnation. You're just rambling.

 

[JAL]

I was kind of interested in your christology, is that in your link? if not can you link me that too.

I will at least repeat what I said earlier. Most of the problems facing traditional Christology stem from the assumption of immutability. I don't face those particular issues because I categorically reject immutability and, in its stead, I substitute a theory of acquired holiness presently irreversible. This, in turn, creates an occasional problem for me, here and there, but nothing that I haven't resolved.

 

[Noxot]

On this thread I haven't even see enough intellectual honesty to admit that the traditional theory of the Incarnation is problematic.

Honestly people like Russian existential philosopher Nikolai berdyaev has already said things like God doesn't have to be omniscient. And I have said that he can be both and that this is part of the reason why the Trinity is. If God cannot be ignorant then why am I ignorant? If God can't empty himself then why do I exist?

Berdyaev said that the theologians do not know God as much as the mystics do. he said that the God of the philosophers is different from the God of the Old Testament. He contrasted omnipotence to love and noted how weak love is, we certainly see this weakness of love in the Incarnation and death of Christ Jesus.

 

[Noxot]

substitute a theory of acquired holiness presently irreversible. This, in

Acquired Holiness is an interesting thing. Some Mystics have said that God has faught and overcome evil from all eternity. How would his Holiness be irreversible?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus was omniscient on earth? Or are you saying both:
(1) He had all knowledge on earth.
(2) He was quite ignorant while on earth.
To me that would appear to be a contradiction.

I am not sure you understand what I mean by the word “suppress,” brother.

suppress - put out of one's consciousness
Synonyms: repress

Have you ever heard of anyone burying or suppressing their bad memories before? This is the idea behind why I used this word. It would be like a person putting on a blind fold in order to suppress their eyesight. They still have eyes, and they can see if they want, but they have chosen to suppress their eyesight by putting on the blindfold. The same is true with a person who has buried a bad memory. The memory really is not gone inside their brain. They still can access it if something triggers that memory, but they have chosen to suppress or bury that memory. This is what I believe Jesus or the Son of God had done. He had the ability of Omniscience always in His possession, but He suppressed it or buried this power or ability so as to grow in wisdom as a child. I believe Christ's Omniscience was the glory that Jesus spoke about that He shared openly with the Father before the world began.

Sorry to tell you this, but you don't have a clear doctrine of the Incarnation. You're just rambling.

This is a friendly tip, brother: But would you speak this way to your own grandmother? You need to be a little more friendlier and patient with people in allowing them to explain things. But you are free to do as you wish. Just know we will all stand before the Lord and give an account of everything we said, and did.

In any event, we are all learning and we look through a glass darkly. But we must be loving in all ways, brother. For without love, we are nothing.

Peace and blessings be unto you today in the Lord.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I will at least repeat what I said earlier. Most of the problems facing traditional Christology stem from the assumption of immutability. I don't face those particular issues because I categorically reject immutability and, in its stead, I substitute a theory of acquired holiness presently irreversible. This, in turn, creates an occasional problem for me, here and there, but nothing that I haven't resolved.

There is no "assumption" in our Christology. The bible says Jesus is the SAME yesterday, today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)

This translation captures the meaning in the CEB from Hebrews 13:8- Jesus Christ never changes! He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Meaning Jesus is Immutable- He has NEVER changed before creation, during His earthly ministry and now. He is the same.

His Deity remained the SAME it did not change. The Incarnation was a subtraction of His Deity it was an addition of humanity. This is the point of Philippians 2.

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

Acquired Holiness is an interesting thing. Some Mystics have said that God has faught and overcome evil from all eternity. How would his Holiness be irreversible?

One thing at a time. I reject all magical claims, I reject all supernatural claims. Neither is needed to explain God's wonderous power demonstrated in Scripture.

An "ordinary claim" is an event explicable in terms of ordinary human experience - things we see every day. (For example all supposedly "miraculous" healings in the Bible are simply the hand of God performing a physical surgery, admittedly with an ineffable level of skill). A "magical claim" is anything beyond that. A magical claim is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary supportive evidence. Orthodoxy hasn't provided any.

The claim that God's knowledge is infinite, innate, immutable is already a magical claim - after all it contradicts human experience. Do you know anyone who is INNATELY expert in some area of knowledge? Any knowledge that "seems" innate can probably be credited to a brain designed to stimulate specific areas of acquired insight, and thus is not "really" innate.

Anyway we know from the Incarnation that God's holiness is acquired holiness. For example:
(1) Jesus learned. Therefore God's knowledge is not innate. It is acquired knowledge.
(2)Jesus suffered real temptation in the wilderness. Therefore God's purity is not innate. It is acquired by free will.

Which brings us back to your question:

How would his Holiness be irreversible?

My theory is a 2-pronged strategy designed for this very purpose. The first prong involves the Ancient of Days, over gargantuan periods of time, solidifying and escalating His zeal for holiness. Just as a human being cannot reverse his depravity overnight - it is too ingrained - neither can God reverse His holy zeal in a short period of time. That would take ages. And precisely because it would take ages, the second prong - the final nail in the coffin - always has a window of time exponentially larger than it needs to do its job, which thereby renders its success infallible.

Perhaps I'll describe the second prong in a separate post.

 

[JAL]

There is no "assumption" in our Christology. The bible says Jesus is the SAME yesterday, today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)

(Yawn). No need to repeat assertions already refuted. I used the message of one of Bob Seger's songs as a parallel analogy exposing the fallacy in your analysis. It's just like if you see an old friend today (precisely the theme of that song), and exclaim:

"Wow. You haven't changed a bit!"

That's not a statement of immutability. The holiness of the Godhead obtains yesterday, today, and forever onwards. He won't change - but that's not necessarily immutability.

Meaning Jesus is Immutable- He has NEVER changed before creation, during His earthly ministry and now. He is the same.

Why do you conveniently ignore my rebuttals? I asked you a question earlier. You ignored it. Here it is again. Suppose I don't know Hebrew, so I take a couple of years to learn it. Would you conclude:

(1) That the nature of my knowledge is innate/immutable?
(2) That my knowledge is subject to change?

His Deity remained the SAME it did not change.

Duh. God and I are numerically distinct entities. Therefore:
(1) I will never be God. No human being will ever be God.
(2) The Son of God will ALWAYS be God.

Nobody can lose their identity or take on another. That would violate the law of identity and thus be self-contradictory. But you might be interested to know that orthodoxy violates the law of identity in two respects:
(1) The hypostatic union. The orthodox claim is that God took an ordinary human soul, put it in Christ's body, and such is the Incarnation - He could have chosen you. By sheer luck, it wasn't you, but it was still one of us humans according to orthodox doctrine. Had He chosen you, we'd be worshiping your soul as the Second Person of the Trinity. (And if you don't believe that's the official doctrine of the church, I suggest you read up on it). In my opinion, this violates the law of identity (see point #1 above).
(2) Creation ex nihilo. This is another violation of the law of identity. Consider an unbeliever named Steve. And suppose God annihilates him back into nothingness. Then God decides to summon, out of nothingness, five Steve's. Which one of the five is the real Steve? Which one of the five should pay for his former transgressions? There is no clear or satisfying answer. This is the sort of incoherence arising from traditional metaphysical assumptions. In MY metaphysics - which rejects creation ex nihilo - there can only be ONE Steve, ONE JAL, ONE God, and so on. The law of identity is never violated.