What About Progressive Sanctification?

[JAL]

Read the HU which I posted very carefully as it is thoroughly explained.

hope this helps !!!

I don't see where it clearly answers the question I just asked you.

 

[JAL]

Read the HU which I posted very carefully as it is thoroughly explained.

Let's see. 2 natures.
(1) Mike knows a lot of math.
(2) He doesn't know any math.

So if you asked him a simple math question, would he know the answer?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Let's see. 2 natures.
(1) Mike knows a lot of math.
(2) He doesn't know any math.

So if you asked him a simple math question, would he know the answer?

mike is not God and man so end of discussion.

 

[JAL]

mike is not God and man so end of discussion.

Doesn't matter whether I use Mike as an analogy. Even when I couched Christ Himself as the center of the objection, you still ignored it. That doesn't add credibility to your case.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Doesn't matter whether I use Mike as an analogy. Even when I couched Christ Himself as the center of the objection, you still ignored it. That doesn't add credibility to your case.

read the H.U. carefully once again as its obviously went right over your head.

 

[JAL]

@Jesus is YHWH,

Again, I asked you:

The soul in Christ's body. Where did it come from? Was it the uncreated God? Or a created soul?

You've been studying this for four decades, you said. What's your answer?

 

[JAL]

read the H.U. carefully once again as its obviously went right over your head.

What went right over my head? That doctrine known as the HU, which the theologians admit to be humanly incomprehensible? So I guess you alone comprehend it? Wow. I'm impressed by your acumen.

 

[JAL]

We need to look to the Monothelite Controversy which had to deal with whether there was one or two wills/minds in the person of Christ. The outcome was that there were two; one human and one divine with the human subjected to the divine. The eternal Son of God did not assume a part of a human nature without a mind, without a will, without human activity, but He assumed all the things that were planted in our nature by God.

Firstly, This does not make for an assertion supportive of your case. So what if there were two wills, divine and human, acting within Christ's body? Irrelevant - in fact that's true of me right now.
(1) I am a human being with a volition/will.
(2) There is a divine being, known as the Holy Spirit, with His own will dwelling inside me.

That has NOTHING to do with Incarnation. The Spirit indwelling me does not thereby "incarnate" the Spirit, for example it doesn't render Him weak, ignorant, temptible.

Thus, you can't make clear sense of the words. Which means you have merely accepted miscellaneous empty statements based on your own internal appeal to authority.


Secondly, a volition/mind/will is ultimately synonymous with a person (a moral agent). If the HU is to be defined as the addition of a new volition/will/mind (a human one) to the Trinity, it thereby becomes a Quadrinity.


Stop appealing to authority. Don't let these people brainwash you. Do some thinking for yourself, and resolve in the determination to be unsatisfied with unclear statements. If someone tries to feed you a doctrine that is unclear, reject it out of hand until you can find one that IS clear.

 

[JAL]

So in the one Person of Christ there are two natural actions, the divine and the human, each of which has its own essential attributes, functions, and actions. Jesus was thirty years old according to His human nature (Luke 3:23); according to His divine nature He could say: "Before Abraham was born, I am" (John 8:58). The question is did both natures know this and communicate it to the Person. The answer is yes because the divine nature with its corresponding divine will willed the human nature to respond in such a fashion in keeping with Christ's office and ministry. In the text regarding Mark 13:32, we have a slightly different situation here. Christ is acting (speaking) from His human nature, but, this time, the divine will does not allow the human will access to this knowledge. For this information is not to be published on earth. Therefore, as man, Christ cannot answer the question.

hope this helps !!!

This is more of the same stuff already commented on. Mark 13:32 is here cited as proof of the HU? Really? All it proves is that the indwelling Holy Spirit had not yet revealed to Christ the day or the hour.

According to His divine nature He could say: "Before Abraham was born, I am" (John 8:58).

That isn't proof of 2 simultaneous natures. Any angel could make the same statement (less the implied divinity). It merely proves that the Son of God has a past that extends beyond Abraham, which isn't even in dispute. Ridiculous.

 

[JAL]

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

Newsflash: As for the Son of God, His entire life on earth was an exercise in mutability.

"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).

Not my fault you don't believe the Scriptures. That was YOUR decision. As for immutability, let's put the final nail in the coffin, shall we? These two definitions of divine holiness stand diametrically opposed:
(1) Innate, immutable, intrinsic holiness. (The orthodox position)
(2) Acquired holiness - acquired by free will. (My position).
Now I will show why #1 contradicts the whole Bible. This is an argument I haven't unveiled as yet, although I hinted at it back at post 665.

Scripture doesn't merely COMMAND us to praise God. It goes further than that - it insists that He is WORTHY of our praise, that He DESERVES/MERITS our praise. The problem is, holiness as defined in #1 does not merit praise! Innate characteristics do not merit praise! For example, do not praise me for being human, or for my red blood, or my gorgeous features - all these things exist, but do not merit praise. The UNANIMOUS definition of merit - the definition that has grounded every sermon in the last 2000 years, is the following:

"Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time".

The best example is the cross. Suppose the Father had anesthetized Christ's nerves, and tranquilized His mind, sufficiently to prevent any suffering for the whole ordeal of the cross. How much praise would the cross merit, in that case? Zero! Zilch! None! Nada!

How much labor? Bear in mind that even the angels have merit - they labored/suffered against the agony of temptation for at least a period of time, and overcame it. And even ordinary Christian men labor for more than 50 years.

But Scripture claims that God has ineffably more merit than men have. Recently I was debating with a YEC (young earth creationist). I told him it was impossible that God created the world in 7 24-hour periods, that it contradicts His holiness. (At first he thought I was crazy as he couldn't connect the dots).

Then I explained to him. Since both angels and men have labored more than 7 days, we would merit more praise than God has merited for creation. Therefore you must conclude that God TOOK TIME to learn how to create (and manage) this complex planet. Start thinking in terms of millions of years, nay, BILLIONS even. Perhaps even tens of billions of gradual learning and skill. As I said, we already know that God's knowledge is NOT innate, it is ACQUIRED/LEARNED - we know this from the Incarnation:


"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).

Of course it is learned. Otherwise His knowledge wouldn't merit any praise!

And more than that - only a jerk would want us to praise him for His innate characteristics! How would you feel about me, if I expected you to praise me for my red blood, my beating heart, and (of course) my gorgeous face? You'd consider me a jerk!

To summarize, for 2,000 years the church has been willing to praise the Ancient of Days for 3 days of passion for the cross, but has DENIED HIM ALL THE GLORY for His holiness (acquired over probably 13 billion years of labor minimum, if science is correct about the age of the universe). This is TOTAL DISREPECT for His age, it despises His title as Ancient of Days, it deprives Him of 99.9999999% of the glory, and it is probably worse than spitting on the cross.

 

[JAL]

In fact, in the mainstream definition of God, it is not even clear that the they give Him credit for the cross. How so? They claim that all of God's actions flow out of His immutable holiness! He is holy - but has no freedom to choose otherwise because He is immutable! So how can we be sure, on that definition, that He deserves any credit for the cross? We cannot.

 

[RickReads]

What went right over my head? That doctrine known as the HU, which the theologians admit to be humanly incomprehensible? So I guess you alone comprehend it? Wow. I'm impressed by your acumen.

Explain the fish and the bread.

 

[JAL]

Explain the fish and the bread.

Skillful manipulation of matter. Normally we think of bread as the product of multiple slow stages (mixing ingredients, letting the dough rise, baking it, and so on). But since God's hand is on every particle of matter, He can instantly shape any matter in our environment (including air) into a "baked" loaf of bread, or a "grilled" fish, or whatever He wants.

It's not complicated. What's cool is that He manipulates light so effectively - and so quickly - that no one ever sees His form, or His hands, when He is performing His feats, not even when He is undertaking surgery upon the sick. As a result, it looks like magic.

 

[JAL]

Although to be honest with you, there was one experience where it seemed to me I saw God perform surgery. I can't be sure what I was saw, because it happened fairly quickly - all I can tell you is that I'd never seen anything like it my life. As a member of a charismatic church at that time, about 20 years ago, I was attending a Bible study. That night a traveling minister, with a reputation for some charismatic fireworks, was leading the study. I don't put much stock in these men, and I think there's way too much hype and exaggeration in the charismatic movement today. Anyway it was just a few of us in a room, and we were praying for a woman with issues in her spine/back. Suddenly it seemed to me as if the bones in her back were being rearranged before my very eyes, as if there was a Hand under her skin performing surgery. My jaw virtually hit the ground. It was creepy! Because I couldn't imagine any way to fake those kinds of contortions.

Maybe my eyes deceived me - I can't be sure of what I saw - but it was an unforgettable experience, and I've never seen anything like it since.

 

[JAL]

Explain the fish and the bread.

What's your take on post 850? Certainly I've never seen an effective rebuttal of that argument - seems watertight to me. Thoughts?

 

[JAL]

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

I guess I'll spill the beans right here. I'll summarize my metaphysics here. Links for further details:

God Is a Physical Being
Why God is Worthy of Our Praise
The Problem of Evil


- Post 850 showed my defense for acquired holiness. Please start there.
- In fact every act of free will is acquired knowledge of sorts. How so? As noted earlier, free will contradicts foreknowledge. Free choice involves a period of deliberation whose outcome isn't foreknown because the mind hasn't decided yet. Therefore God's knowledge must be acquired knowledge, if He has free choice.

Ok so when did this learning process begin, for God? Today would not have been reached yet, if the past were infinite. There must have been a first moment in time, therefore, as the inception of a finite past. I said that I reject all magical phenomena, including "spirit" (all reality is physical in my view) and including creation nihilo. I don't even believe in "time" - except as a convenient term for counting motions. All I believe in is matter in motion.

The Totality is my term for the sum total of matter, understood to be imperishable. What caused it's first motion? The only real force in existence is free will. For example if I punch you in the face, what propelled my hand? Muscular energy alone? If that were the primary impetus, you couldn't blame ME - you could only blame the laws of physics and physiology. Free will is thus the only self-propelling impetus in the Totality.

When one piece of the Totality launched that first motion - that first act of free will - that piece began to awaken to full sentience. And it awoke to become the being that we now know as Yahweh. During His early years, presumbly, He quickly realized that the Totality would eventaully become a place of eternal conflict and war if there was no Ruler to keep the peace. Thus He made the decision to become holy (i.e. exponentially advanced in knowledge, skill, love, and purity). He decided to become the quintessential Ruler and Judge, to insure the everlasting safety of us all (all matter in the Totality).

The PROBLEM is that this task of becoming holy was likely too daunting to undertake without some hope of eventual reward. Hence He had to promise Himself a bride as a reward for His work (a bride formed from leftover matter in the Totality). He literally felt He had no choice, as He was facing the prospect of perpetual solitary confinement. The Totality would be doomed to eternal conflict if loneliness caused Him to falter in His effort to become holy. And failure was NOT an option. Therefore He could not risk the loneliness. Note that, to date, this is the only valid solution proposed to the Problem of Evil. Unacceptably, traditional theodicy has God creating this world of (potential) suffering, not out of a perceived NEED for it, and therefore for the FUN of it. Which is evil behavior. After all, an infinitely self-sufficient God wouldn't need a world like this - such a being could not have any needs or unfulfilled wants, by definition - and therefore could not justify creating this kind of world.


What is the Trinity? All reality is physical. Physicality means multiplicity. After all, which brain cell in your head is the real you? ALL of it is you. You are multiple. (Earlier I already demonstrated multiplicity in my theory of Adam). In a similar way, the Trinity is a multiplicity, it is the three major subdivisions/Persons exhaustively constituting the Godhead:
(1) The Father is a human-shaped figure seated on a throne (see Dan 7:9-11). Literally we are fashioned in His shape/image.
(2) The Son is a human-shaped figure seated at His right hand.
(3) The Holy Breath/Wind is the remainder of Yahweh (misnomered in orthodoxy as The Holy Ghost/Spirit), for example He exudes from the Son's nostrils and figure as rivers of Fire (Ps 18), billows of Smoke (Ps 18), and Light from His face (compare Rev 1:16 with Rev 21:23).

God's power? Again, same as ours. Free will. Nothing magical. Nothing supernatural.


What makes His holiness irreversible? A 2-pronged strategy, see post 116 on this thread:
The Problem of Evil


Incarnation? A cinch. If I wanted to reduce your knowledge to that of a vegetable, all I have to do is find a way to damage/scramble your brains. The Father surgically extracted a small subsection of the Son's figure, basically one cell, and did several things to it. For example, He:
(1) Yanked it out of the divine "neural network". Think of Yahweh as one huge Brain continually receiving and processing information. If you yank a cell out of that brain, it has already lost most of its knowledge by virtue of separation from the flow of information.
(2) He surgically "scrambled" that cell (scrambled its brains) until it had COMPLETELY lost all its former knowledge.
(3) He mated it to a human embryo in Mary's womb. God's strength/power is largely a product of His enormous size (He is spread throughout the Totality). But this tiny lone cell was as weak as we are.

Christ's soul was thus the uncreated Son of God - no human soul was added to the Trinity.

What I've expressed here is a simple manipulation of matter. That's what I meant when I said that my whole theory of the Incarnation falls under the scope of John 1:14:

"The (physical) Word became flesh".

It's not complicated.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I'm done with @JAL for now since I have provided the biblical , historical and orthodox answers to the H.U. If you have any more questions then reread my posts as the answers are in them.

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

I'm done with @JAL for now since I have provided the biblical , historical and orthodox answers to the H.U. If you have any more questions then reread my posts as the answers are in them.

hope this helps !!!

As expected. Most people cop out after the sort of argument given at post 850. Never seen anyone even try to muster an effective rebuttal to that one.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

As expected. Most people cop out after the sort of argument given at post 850. Never seen anyone even try to muster an effective rebuttal to that one.

No I have given you the biblical, historical and orthodox position and I'm not repeating myself. You can argue with yourself over it as I've dismantled your theory on the H.U.

Just because you cannot understand it don't project your shortcomings on to others.

hope this helps !!!

 

[JAL]

No I have given you the biblical, historical and orthodox position and I'm not repeating myself. You can argue with yourself over it as I've dismantled your theory on the H.U.

Just because you cannot understand it don't project your shortcomings on to others.

hope this helps !!!

Again, as expected.