What About Progressive Sanctification?

[RickReads]

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?

Anything outside the perimeters of scripture is speculation. I do enjoy my speculations but I have no interest in pretending they are anything more than that.

You fail to consider the fact that the Father was inside Jesus. That doesn`t seem to enter into your calculations. And I`m not sure what you mean by corruptible.

Jesus played a perfect game, flawless in His human performance. All the fullness of the Godhead within Him bodily which FYI would include all of God`s power, albeit, it was the Father doing the works.

 

[JAL]

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.

You "explained why" by appealing to an incomprehensible aspect of an incomprehensible "doctrine" (gibberish). And then when I showed an analogy indicating that such aspect was self-contradictory (the idea of my friend Mike who knows all math and yet doesn't know any math), you ignored that charge.

How is that a rebuttal?

 

[JAL]

Anything outside the perimeters of scripture is speculation.

You do get that the hypostatic union is nowhere stated in Scripture. The only thing that Scripture states is that the divine Word became flesh.

The hypostatic union is the claim that God took an ordinary human soul, he took one of us - could have easily been you or me - and added it to the Trinity.

Could you please show me the Scriptures establishing that doctrine? I can't seem to recall the exact verses lately. Oh that's right - there aren't any! Your words are appropos:

Anything outside the perimeters of scripture is speculation.

 

[JAL]

You fail to consider the fact that the Father was inside Jesus. That doesn`t seem to enter into your calculations.

Random statements do not make for an argument. If you have a specific argument, make it.

And I`m not sure what you mean by corruptible.

Dancing. I'm pretty sure my usage of that term was clear enough. Corruptible in that context means susceptible to temptation.

Jesus played a perfect game, flawless in His human performance. All the fullness of the Godhead within Him bodily which FYI would include all of God`s power, albeit, it was the Father doing the works.

Relevance? For one thing that passage seems to be referring post-resurrectionally to His glorified state, not the period of the Incarnation. And even if it did refer to the Incarnation, it's not a specific resolution of the alleged charges of contradiction, it doesn't resolve for example the indefensible claim that the Son can empty Himself without change (a nonsense claim).

 

[RickReads]

You do get that the hypostatic union is nowhere stated in Scripture. The only thing that Scripture states is that the divine Word became flesh.

The hypostatic union is the claim that God took an ordinary human soul, he took one of us - could have easily been you or me - and added it to the Trinity.

Could you please show me the Scriptures establishing that doctrine? I can't seem to recall the exact verses lately. Oh that's right - there aren't any! Your words are appropos:

Can you find a post where I discuss the hypostatic union? Oh that`s right - there aren`t any.

 

[JAL]

Anything outside the perimeters of scripture is speculation.

My entire Christology can be derived from one verse:

"The Word became flesh" (John 1:14)

In my system, I don't have to concoct some fantastical hypothesis called a hypostatic union, or start adding members to the Trinity and then manipulating the math.

I'm sorry you've chosen to favor systems "outside the perimeters of scripture".

 

[RickReads]

Random statements do not make for an argument. If you have a specific argument, make it.

Dancing. I'm pretty sure my usage of that term was clear enough. Corruptible in that context means susceptible to temptation.

Relevance? For one thing that passage seems to be referring post-resurrectionally to His glorified state, not the period of the Incarnation. And even if it did refer to the Incarnation, it's not a specific resolution of the alleged charges of contradiction, it doesn't resolve for example the indefensible claim that the Son can empty Himself without change (a nonsense claim).

Once again you are disputing scriptures. I don`t waste time on an argument that denies scripture.

 

[JAL]

Can you find a post where I discuss the hypostatic union? Oh that`s right - there aren`t any.

You said that God added a human nature to the Trinity. That's traditional hyposatic union language.

 

[JAL]

Once again you are disputing scriptures. I don`t waste time on an argument that denies scripture.

Nice tactic. Anyone who rejects YOUR interpretation of verse is rejecting Scripture. You're evidently the pope. I forgot.

 

[RickReads]

My entire Christology can be derived from one verse:

"The Word became flesh" (John 1:14)

In my system, I don't have to concoct some fantastical hypothesis called a hypostatic union, or start adding members to the Trinity and then manipulating the math.

I'm sorry you've chosen to favor systems "outside the perimeters of scripture".

Once again you show yourself to be someone that can`t be taken seriously.

 

[JAL]

Once again you show yourself to be someone that can`t be taken seriously.

John 1:14 cannot be taken seriously? Who is denying Scripture now?

 

[RickReads]

Nice tactic. Anyone who rejects YOUR interpretation of verse is rejecting Scripture. You're evidently the pope. I forgot.

Your appear to reject scripture which tells us that the Father was inside Jesus.

 

[RickReads]

John 1:14 cannot be taken seriously? Who is denying Scripture now?

You are claiming to be John now?

 

[JAL]

Once again you show yourself to be someone that can`t be taken seriously.

The irony is amazing. You want to be taken seriously and yet your claim is:
(1) The Son emptied Himself of all transcendent attributes.
(2) This did not involve any change in the Son. He retained all the attributes supposedly emptied!

That's your claim - it's the orthodox claim - and I have NEVER been able to take it seriously. Nor should you.

 

[JAL]

Your appear to reject scripture which tells us that the Father was inside Jesus.

Baloney. The indwelling presence of the Father and/or Spirit has never been in debate on this thread, as it is tangential to the issues.

 

[RickReads]

You said that God added a human nature to the Trinity. That's traditional hyposatic union language.

That`s not exactly what I said. Nevertheless, it isn`t my fault if man`s hypostatic union doctrine copys scriptures.

 

[RickReads]

Baloney. The indwelling presence of the Father and/or Spirit has never been in debate on this thread, as it is tangential to the issues.

Ok, I will rephrase. Your theories don`t really make sense.

 

[JAL]

You are claiming to be John now?

Certainly not, and not relevant. The point is that there is nothing in Scripture that says that God added a "human nature" to the Trinity, and besides that, such claim is a gibberish statement that no one can understand. Unlike orthodoxy, I don't have to add notions to Scripture - fabricate them - to defend my metaphysics. John 1:14 is all I need.

A fundamentally flawed assumption partly explains why orthodoxy insists on adding a human being to the Trinity. The false assumption is that only a human can atone for a human. This is a misunderstanding of the essentials of atonement. It adds to the concept of justice a requisite that actually was never implicit to the concept of justice.

 

[JAL]

Ok, I will rephrase. Your theories don`t really make sense.

Unsubstantiated. Ignored.

 

[JAL]

That`s not exactly what I said.

Oh I see. So your position is that God didn't ADD a human being to the Trinity, rather He changed His nature to being human, without actually changing in any way and thus remained immutable. Gee, that makes a lot of sense.