What About Progressive Sanctification?

[Jesus is YHWH]

(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.

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?

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 human according to orthodox doctrine. Had they 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 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.

You are so off base its not worth a rebuttal, just a bunch of human reasoning and logic that does not apply to God since God is Unique as is the Incarnation. There is NOTHING in which to compare either one to jal.

Now continue one with your wild imagination about the Immutable Nature of the Godhead.

And as far as the LNC goes you need to do your homework pal er jal .

1. Three Versions of the Principle of Non-Contradiction
There are arguably three versions of the principle of non-contradiction to be found in Aristotle: an ontological, a doxastic and a semantic version. The first version is about things that exist in the world, the second is about what we can believe, and the third relates to assertion and truth. The first version (hereafter, simply PNC) is usually taken to be the main version of the principle and it runs as follows: “It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” (with the appropriate qualifications) (Metaph IV 3 1005b19–20). The “same thing” that belongs must be one and the same thing and it must be the actual thing and not merely its linguistic expression. Also, the thing that belongs must belong actually, and not merely potentially, to its bearer.

The problem with using the Law of non-contradiction with the Person of Christ is that the argument is NOT being based "in the same respect." Christ is God and not God but not in the same respect. Christ is God ONLY in respect to His divinity and Christ is Man ONLY in respect to His humanity.

The Hypostatic Union in no way violates the LNC because the H.U. describes the reality that Jesus has 2 natures united in one person. If I were to tell you that Jesus human nature was His Divine nature or His Divine Nature was His human nature then that violate the LNC but because there are 2 natures there is no contradiction. The Hypostatic Union: Jesus was both fully man and fully God, not a hybrid of the two.

1) the hypostatic union is not a logical contradiction: Jesus was both "A" and "B." The contradiction suggested above ("A and not A") would only pertain if Christians argued that Jesus was both God and not God, or man and not man.

2) the hypostatic union assigns all of Jesus' human attributes to his human nature and all of his divine attributes to his divine nature. In his divine nature he was omniscient; in his human nature he was not.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

(Yawn).

Nobody can lose their identity or take on another. That would violate the law of identity and thus be self-contradictory.

Now to refute you with the actual Law of Identity. You use words yet have no understanding of what they actually mean jal.

We do not say that because God is Trinity, each of the persons are Trinity and I think that's where therein lies your problem. I think you are taking God in reference to the Trinity and applying that to each of the three persons of the God head. We do not say that:

1) Father is God
2) Jesus is God
3) The Holy Spirit of God
4) God is the Trinity
5) Therefore, the Father, Son, and HS are each the Trinity.

While that's true God can refer to the Trinity, we must remember that Trinity by definition describes the Unity of each of the persons in the Godhead. Thus that's circular to hold the position that the Father is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Son is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, etc. That's where we must understand that God can also refer to each of the persons or individuals who constitute the unity that's the Trinity. The law of Identity therefore supports and doesn't negate Trinity. Analytical proof(s):

If A = A, then:

1) God (Trinity [Unity of F,S,HS]) = God (Trinity [Unity of F,S,HS])
2) God (An individual who's a manifestation of the Godhead) = (An individual who's a manifestation of the Godhead)
3) Father = Father
4) Son = Son
5) Holy Spirit = Holy Spirit


If A cannot equal B, then:

A) God (Trinity [Unity of F,S,HS]) cannot equal God (An individual who's a manifestation of the Godhead)
B) Father cannot equal Son
C) Father cannot equal Holy Spirit
D) Holy Spirit cannot equal Son

Thus, that follows that:

i. Since A applies:
a. Father as an Individual called God cannot be defined by (1), therefore
must be defined by (2)
b. Son as an Individual called God cannot be defined by (1), therefore
must be defined by (2)
c. Holy Spirit as an Individual called God cannot be defined by (1),
therefore must be defined by (2)

ii. Since B applies, (3) and (4) are true

iii. Since C applies, (3) and (5) are true.

iv. Since D applies, (4) and (5) are true.

v. Since (i) applies, that doesn't follow (non sequiter) that
a. The Father must be the Trinity in order to be called God.
b. The Son Must be the Trinity in order to be called God.
c. The Holy Spirit must be the Trinity in order to be called God.

Thus, the Trinity satisfies the Law of Identity and we can logically conclude that:

1) God refers to the Trinity or the Godhead
2) God also refers to an individual within the Trinity or the Godhead
3) The Father is God by definition 2 and not 1
4) The Son is God by definition 2 and not 1
5) The Holy Spirit is God by definition 2 and not 1
6) The Father isn't the Son
7) The Father isn't the Holy Spirit
8) The Son isn't the Holy Spirit
9) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the Same God as the Trinity describes their three-in-one nature.

That's what's meant when Trinitarians more commonly say:

1) The Father is God
2) The Son is God
3) The Holy Spirit is God
5) The Father isn't the Son
6) The Father isn't the Holy Spirit
7) The Son isn't the Holy Spirit
8) Yet, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same God.

End of discussion jal.

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

You are so off base its not worth a rebuttal, just a bunch of human reasoning and logic that does not apply to God since God is Unique as is the Incarnation. There is NOTHING in which to compare either one to jal.

Now continue one with your wild imagination about the Immutable Nature of the Godhead.

And as far as the LNC goes you need to do your homework pal er jal .

1. Three Versions of the Principle of Non-Contradiction
There are arguably three versions of the principle of non-contradiction to be found in Aristotle: an ontological, a doxastic and a semantic version. The first version is about things that exist in the world, the second is about what we can believe, and the third relates to assertion and truth. The first version (hereafter, simply PNC) is usually taken to be the main version of the principle and it runs as follows: “It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect” (with the appropriate qualifications) (Metaph IV 3 1005b19–20). The “same thing” that belongs must be one and the same thing and it must be the actual thing and not merely its linguistic expression. Also, the thing that belongs must belong actually, and not merely potentially, to its bearer.

The problem with using the Law of non-contradiction with the Person of Christ is that the argument is NOT being based "in the same respect." Christ is God and not God but not in the same respect. Christ is God ONLY in respect to His divinity and Christ is Man ONLY in respect to His humanity.

hope this helps !!!

So you and I could become members of the Trinity? I mean, He already added one human soul to the Trinity, per the doctrine of the hypostatic union, why couldn't He add you and I as well? And you say I am the one who needs to do my homework on LNC? And this excuse of a post is your basis for ignoring my rebuttals?

Do the math. Doesn't the addition of a human soul change a Trinity to a Quadrinity? Would you like to hear an orthodox response to THAT question? In the book Christian Theology - a Systematic Theology textbook featured in probably every seminary in the world - Millard J. Erickson admitted, that the hypostatic union is a case where God enforced the following equation:

"2 + 1= 2"


And you think I am the one who needs to study up on LNC? Seriously? Ever consider the possibility that traditional theology has left us duped? Don't you realize that your views are shaped by 2,000 years of dogma influencing - even atheists! Traditional dogma has influenced all of us! We are all biased! I was debating with some atheists, one day, on the Problem of Evil. I gave them my definition of God and explained how it solves the problem. Their immediate reaction was, "But we were always taught that the God of the Bible is infinite." Even the ATHEIST has been brainwashed to only read the Bible one way!

Look, consider a Judge who listens to only one side of the story - either the prosecution or the defense - but not both. Can he POSSIBLY make an objective decision?

For 2,000 years you've only heard the defense. I'm the prosecution. If you don't listen to me with an open mind you STAND VIRTUALLY NO CHANCE of ever making an objective decision. You will ALMOST CERTAINLY be the product of brainwashing. It's your decision.

 

[Noxot]

(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.

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?

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.

I wouldn't say that the soul of Jesus was randomly chosen. But the Orthodox did foolishly reject the idea of the pre-existence of Souls. People like Origen figured that there was a pre-existence of Souls and that the soul of Christ was very holy and always near to God, never having fallen away as many other souls did. And of course a human soul has the ability to grow in stature and wisdom.

The idea of God having an ancient existence is I think a good and true one. Whitehead had an idea about God, that there was a part of him that experiences and reacts to Creation and it can in some way even become in reaction to his creatures. But you deny what I would consider to be the father, because you seem to reject a certain kind of transcendence. it's pretty extreme sense even Buddhists do not fully reject a Transcendent reality since they believe Nirvana is such, I suppose.

I also like the idea that there is only one of me and one of you. This I can agree with as well because I believe in the uniqueness of the person. Even if there was a Multiverse of different versions of me, they could all be different expressions of the real me.

 

[JAL]

I wouldn't say that the soul of Jesus was randomly chosen.

Whether it was random in some sense is not the crux of the issue. Fact is, it was one of us, it was a human soul according to Orthodoxy, and it now sits enthroned as the Second Person of the Godhead. And in the old days, any theologian who denied this theory probably stood in danger of being put to death by the church, as a heretic. He certainly would have lost his job at minimum.

 

[JAL]

Now to refute you with the actual Law of Identity. You use words yet have no understanding of what they actually mean jal.

We do not say that because God is Trinity, each of the persons are Trinity and I think that's where therein lies your problem. I think you are taking God in reference to the Trinity and applying that to each of the three persons of the God head. We do not say that:

1) Father is God
2) Jesus is God
3) The Holy Spirit of God
4) God is the Trinity
5) Therefore, the Father, Son, and HS are each the Trinity.

While that's true God can refer to the Trinity, we must remember that Trinity by definition describes the Unity of each of the persons in the Godhead. Thus that's circular to hold the position that the Father is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Son is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, etc. That's where we must understand that God can also refer to each of the persons or individuals who constitute the unity that's the Trinity. The law of Identity therefore supports and doesn't negate Trinity. Analytical proof(s):

If A = A, then:

1) God (Trinity [Unity of F,S,HS]) = God (Trinity [Unity of F,S,HS])
2) God (An individual who's a manifestation of the Godhead) = (An individual who's a manifestation of the Godhead)
3) Father = Father
4) Son = Son
5) Holy Spirit = Holy Spirit


If A cannot equal B, then:

A) God (Trinity [Unity of F,S,HS]) cannot equal God (An individual who's a manifestation of the Godhead)
B) Father cannot equal Son
C) Father cannot equal Holy Spirit
D) Holy Spirit cannot equal Son

Thus, that follows that:

i. Since A applies:
a. Father as an Individual called God cannot be defined by (1), therefore
must be defined by (2)
b. Son as an Individual called God cannot be defined by (1), therefore
must be defined by (2)
c. Holy Spirit as an Individual called God cannot be defined by (1),
therefore must be defined by (2)

ii. Since B applies, (3) and (4) are true

iii. Since C applies, (3) and (5) are true.

iv. Since D applies, (4) and (5) are true.

v. Since (i) applies, that doesn't follow (non sequiter) that
a. The Father must be the Trinity in order to be called God.
b. The Son Must be the Trinity in order to be called God.
c. The Holy Spirit must be the Trinity in order to be called God.

Thus, the Trinity satisfies the Law of Identity and we can logically conclude that:

1) God refers to the Trinity or the Godhead
2) God also refers to an individual within the Trinity or the Godhead
3) The Father is God by definition 2 and not 1
4) The Son is God by definition 2 and not 1
5) The Holy Spirit is God by definition 2 and not 1
6) The Father isn't the Son
7) The Father isn't the Holy Spirit
8) The Son isn't the Holy Spirit
9) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the Same God as the Trinity describes their three-in-one nature.

That's what's meant when Trinitarians more commonly say:

1) The Father is God
2) The Son is God
3) The Holy Spirit is God
5) The Father isn't the Son
6) The Father isn't the Holy Spirit
7) The Son isn't the Holy Spirit
8) Yet, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same God.

End of discussion jal.

hope this helps !!!

End of what discussion? All the posts where you ignore my rebuttals?
Or are you referring to this last post which defends the trinity - to someone like me who is already a Trinitarian? And?

 

[JAL]

Now to refute you with the actual Law of Identity.

And just to be clear, merely citing some scholar who commented on the Law of Identity or the Law of Non-Contradiction does nothing to exonerate you of MY specific charges of violating those laws. A mere copy-and-paste job doesn't automatically license to you to a theology riddled with contradictions. You have to address each of my posts - and each objection raised in those posts - individually and specifically, to exonerate your position of all charges.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

And just to be clear, merely citing some scholar who commented on the Law of Identity or the Law of Non-Contradiction does nothing to exonerate you of MY specific charges of violating those laws. A mere copy-and-paste job doesn't automatically license to you to a theology riddled with contradictions. You have to address each of my posts - and each objection raised in those posts - individually and specifically, to exonerate your position of all charges.

I don't have to do ant such things as you do not dictate the rule and how a person can or cannot respond. The truth is you do not understand the LNC or the LOI as it applies to the Trinity or the H.U.

 

[JAL]

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

Just want to re-emphasize this point. Here's the tension that I see.
(1) The Son of God is widely understood to be incorruptibly holy.
(2) James seems to confirm it, "God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" (Jam 1:13)
(3) Yet Christ suffered real temptation in the desert!

Yet you seem to claim that He transitioned, during the Incarnation, from incorruptibility to corruptibility - and this did not involve change? Just like you said He emptied himself of His transcendent attributes, and this did not involve change? It seems you have rejected immutability as orthodoxy defines it?

And if God is mutable/corruptible, His holiness is reversible, right? So we have no reliable guarantee of eternal security, in your view?

 

[JAL]

I don't have to do ant such things as you do not dictate the rule and how a person can or cannot respond. The truth is you do not understand the LNC or the LOI as it applies to the Trinity or the H.U.

Don't just assert your position. Argue it. Demonstrate it. (Hint: A copy-and-paste job doesn't automatically count as an effective or even relevant demonstration).

 

[JAL]

Now to refute you with the actual Law of Identity.

The irony is that if I myself had done a copy-and-paste job from a scholarly work, you would immediately have faulted me for appealing to authority !!!!

As noted earlier, I can't win.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I see you are waving the white flag now- go in peace..................

 

[JAL]

I don't have to do ant such things as you do not dictate the rule and how a person can or cannot respond. The truth is you do not understand the LNC or the LOI as it applies to the Trinity or the H.U.

That's okay. You don't have to believe anything I write. You are free to continuing swallowing - hook, line, and sinker - everything fed to you by orthodox scholars, including this statement by Millard J. Erickson:

"2 + 1 = 2"

Do you have any posterboard? This might be a good one to post on your wall at work, as well as in your bedroom at home. How about a bumper-sticker?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

ad hominem attacks a sure sign one cannot defend their position any longer and must resort to personal attacks.

have a nice day arguing with yourself. The LNC and LOI harmonize perfectly with the H.U. and Trinity if one has a basic understanding of the concepts.

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

ad hominem attacks a sure sign one cannot defend their position any longer and must resort to personal attacks.

Right. My questioning incorrect math is just an "ad hominem" attack. No logic to it all, strictly personal. Ok guy.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Right. My questioning incorrect math is just an "ad hominem" attack. No logic to it all, strictly personal. Ok guy.

Here again your strawman endlessly repeated ad infinitum. Who is questioning the Trinity? Certainly not I. You would LIKE for me to to do that, because you just want an easy cherry-pick job to justify dismissing my posts instead of addressing them.

But your cherry-picking failed. And when you didn't find that fruit, you began misconstruing me as anti-Trinitarian. Lies.

No I'm saying the LNC and LOI does not contradict either the Trinity or the H.U. and I have explained why in my previous posts this afternoon. I'm not going to repeat myself. You just like to bait others into arguments.

have a nice day I've said my peace.

 

[JAL]

Deleted

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

(Guffaw). Amazing. Repeating the same strawmen even again. For b-zillionth time, I'm a Trinitarian. Do you NOT understand the meaning of the word Trinitarian? I'm beginning to wonder - do you even understand the word Trinity? Apparently not, because you can't seem to connect the dots between these two words:

(1) Trinity
(2) Trinitarian.

Maybe a dictionary would help?

If you were then you wouldn't deny the HU and that there was a change since God is Immutable.

your god changed, not mine.

game over.........................

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

If you were then you wouldn't deny the HU and that there was a change since God is Immutable.

your god changed, not mine.

game over.........................

hope this helps !!!

Oh sorry. You use too many acronyms and, when combined with a typos-issue that I've seen in your posts, it's easy for me to misread you. I thought "HU" was a typo for "HS" (Holy Spirit). Anyway here is one of your statements:

"The Hypostatic Union in no way violates the LNC because the H.U. describes the reality that Jesus has 2 natures united in one person."

You realize, don't you, that asserting what is in debate is NOT a defense? 2 natures is not in tension with LNC? That is your position? But why then were you silent on my earlier comment where I said this:

(1) Do you know my friend Mike? He's a mathematical genius. He knows all math!
(2) However, at the same time, Mike is mathematically ignorant, he doesn't know any math yet.

That's what is meant by 2 natures in Christ. Are you saying that LNC is perfectly harmonious with 1 and 2?

Don't you understand that if you accept 1 and 2 simultaneously, what you are really saying is that there is no such thing as LNC? Do I really need to spell that out for you?

 

[JAL]

If you were then you wouldn't deny the HU and that there was a change since God is Immutable.

your god changed, not mine.

game over.........................

hope this helps !!!

First of all, nobody really "accepts" the hypostatic union. I mean they all admit it to be humanly incomprehensible (it's therefore gibberish) and thus any pretense of "accepting" this "doctrine" is merely superficial.

What we CAN comprehend, at least to a limited extent, is some of its individual claims. Accepting all those claims simultaneously produces tensions beyond human comprehension, but we can try to comprehend some of the claims individually.

If you want to accept gibberish and call it "doctrine", that's your prerogative. But then don't try to tell me that God didn't change during the Incarnation, as you don't HAVE a doctrine of Incarnation. What you have is gibberish - and seeming contradictions.