Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
God is indeed a spirit, doesn't mean there is only literally one spirit. God is also a consuming fire, is all fire literally God? Or was this just said as a figure of speech?
The sons of God will certainly be as tiny gods in the millennial kingdom. They certainly won't be like servants as they are now, as the elect will have immortal and glorified bodies that radiate light, and will also have dominion upon nations that will survive after the coming of Christ. So certainly, in the perception of those who remain mortal, these will be perceived as gods. This is the intention of God, as the kingdom of the heavens that will exist on the earth will be unlike any kingdom that has ever existed.
Let me kindly stop you there. Your statement "the devine is incapable of emotion and suffering" is totally bogus.
How many times in scriptures does it state the following, through the use of personal pronouns.....
God is Love and for a statement to say ...
"the devine is incapable of emotion and suffering"
Begs belief. For God to be incapable of emotion and suffering, is pointing to the ethereal Gnostic god and certainly not the Christian God.
What @Hogshead1 is arguing from is an exaggeration of the legitimate apostolic doctrine of divine impassability. Divine impassability does not in fact preclude divine love; it also does not preclude God suffering through hypostatic union with humanity in the Person of our Lord. Impassability is rather a characteristic of the divine nature, which was united with our human nature in the Incarnation.
@Hogshead1 however is basically using a strawman argument against divine impassability in order to support his Process Theology based conception of a mutable, non-omnipotent deity, which is contrary to scripture.
This is simply not true, because it diametrically opposes the internal consistency of the Bible, by bringing in dis-harmony to the Word of God.
Your statement below highlighted is in error. I give you the opportunity to correct it.......
and........your statements continue in error........
As far as Jesus is concerned Nature and Equality with God the Father is a given, before even the incarnation as John 17:4-5 declares.
Your statements of denying Christ's nature as the God of the Bible continue......
I have thus far counted denial of Christ's Godhood nature thrice within the one post of yours.
Jesus is the Living Word existing before being made flesh in the incarnation. scripture testifies of this.......
Jesus before the incarnation is the the Living Word, existing coequally and co-eternally with the Father.
God is Holy, Holy and Holy Spirit (John 4:24). The Christ who speaks the Words of the Father, is the one to one designated interpreter of God himself on earth, as the Living Word made flesh. Notice the Living Word is the same Holy Spirit made flesh, who walked among men as the Emmanuel. The fact that Jesus said that the Holy Ghost cannot come on Pentecost, unless he goes, is highlighting the pinion point that the Holy Spirit was in him without limit, when he walked on earth as the man Jesus of Nazareth. The only way the Holy Spirit could be poured, required the Lord to go and to send him. John 14:23 has the Father and the Son dwelling in the believers within the context of the Holy Ghost given on Pentecost.
As Jesus would say...On that day (Pentecost) you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. (John 14:20)
This is where John writes.....
The SAME was in the beginning with God the Father, points to having the very nature of God himself (Philippians 2:6). How could your following statements not be denying the Lord his Godhood, as the God of the Bible.
Just how many true Gods are there in your scheme of things?
Just how many names are there to be revered and worshiped in the Scheme of things?
In conclusion it is self evident that the glory of the Father is solely dependent on the Lord Jesus Christ, that is to say that it is because of the Son that the Father has glory. His one to one designated representative, the LOGOS, is the express image of the Father and his person. So it would be understandable that the name of Jesus is above every name, because that one name stands as the only name and from that name, the Father receives his glory.
How could a created being that the Father created hold a name that is required, in order for the Father to receive his glory. There is no name transfer here, rather the glory that the Living Word had with the Father before the world was created by him (John 17:4-5), is the one nature (substance), that is pointing to the one God. When we talk of natures, we have many humans having the same nature, but when talking of God, there is only one nature that is UN-replicated (UN-created), hence one God.
The Living Word is UN-replicated (UN-created) and is Co-Equal and Co-Eternal with the Father being of that same substance (nature).
There is no begat from a human nature (natural) contextual model that can be applied to God, because he is ONE (E-KHAD).
Actually it flows quite nicely. Trinity makes the scriptures confusing, taking verse out of context, illogical, and leaving words with no meaning. I know I believed in trinity for 25 years.
I think it goes without saying, if someone was made lord, then they were not lord, other wise they would not need to be made lord.
And that is what the verse says...
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Of course lord could not mean God, if someone was made lord, and lord meant God, then they would be made God; that would be in error.
Philippians 2:6 That word “nature” is G3444 – morphē, and means: the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; external appearance; form (outward expression).
He outwardly expressed the character of his Father, so that if we seen Jesus we seen the Father.
That's right took on the form of a servant, not king.
John 17:4-5 I would suggest studying that verse 5 with verse 24 very carefully. Maybe this will help, from my post #297...
“Here is something to think about. Jesus said, “before the world was,” why is he going all the way back there? He also said, “for You loved me before the foundation of the world.” Why is he pointing all the way back then? Did God not love him between the foundation of the world and his incarnation? And you''ll notice, this is the clue, in that same verse 24 he said, “my glory which You have given me,”, he says “have given,” but he has not received this glory yet, for he is asking for this glory “glorify Me” in verse 5. So what's he referring to?”
Numbers 11:17 (KJV) And I (God the Father) will come down and talk with thee (Moses, Jesus) there: and I (God the Father) will take of the spirit which is upon thee (Moses, Jesus, I wonder where Moses got his Spirit from), and will put it upon them (seventy men of the elders); and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.
How many Gods, I say no other thing then what scripture teach...
John 17:1,3 Jesus...lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father...that they might know thee the only true God...
John 1:41
He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Christ, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Deu 18:16-19
16For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lordour God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”
17The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.
Isaiah 42:1
"Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will bring justice to the nations.
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ
Putting words in brackets doesn't make them exist in the text. If you don't put that interpretation on it, it looks exactly like what it says it is: God, angry with Moses because Moses is making excuses, taking away all his excuses by giving him a "mouth" to speak for him.
Actually it flows quite nicely. Trinity makes the scriptures confusing, taking verse out of context, illogical, and leaving words with no meaning. I know I believed in trinity for 25 years.
I think it goes without saying, if someone was made lord, then they were not lord, other wise they would not need to be made lord.
And that is what the verse says...
Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Of course lord could not mean God, if someone was made lord, and lord meant God, then they would be made God; that would be in error.
Philippians 2:6 That word “nature” is G3444 – morphē, and means: the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; external appearance; form (outward expression).
He outwardly expressed the character of his Father, so that if we seen Jesus we seen the Father.
That's right took on the form of a servant, not king.
John 17:4-5 I would suggest studying that verse 5 with verse 24 very carefully. Maybe this will help, from my post #297...
“Here is something to think about. Jesus said, “before the world was,” why is he going all the way back there? He also said, “for You loved me before the foundation of the world.” Why is he pointing all the way back then? Did God not love him between the foundation of the world and his incarnation? And you''ll notice, this is the clue, in that same verse 24 he said, “my glory which You have given me,”, he says “have given,” but he has not received this glory yet, for he is asking for this glory “glorify Me” in verse 5. So what's he referring to?”
Numbers 11:17 (KJV) And I (God the Father) will come down and talk with thee (Moses, Jesus) there: and I (God the Father) will take of the spirit which is upon thee (Moses, Jesus, I wonder where Moses got his Spirit from), and will put it upon them (seventy men of the elders); and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.
How many Gods, I say no other thing then what scripture teach...
John 17:1,3 Jesus...lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father...that they might know thee the only true God...
Of course lord could not mean God, if someone was made lord, and lord meant God, then they would be made God; that would be in error.
Philippians 2:6 That word “nature” is G3444 – morphē, and means: the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; external appearance; form (outward expression).
He outwardly expressed the character of his Father, so that if we seen Jesus we seen the Father.
Colossians 1:15
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Colossians 2
9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made;
Acts 2:36 is really saying...
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath NOW REVEALED TO YOU the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Why would the apostle make this rallying call amongst his Jewish compatriots.....
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
To make it know that the old testament prophesies are fulfilled in this man Jesus of Nazareth.
First of all my previous posts #807 and #808 rule out the faulty premise that you make below, by using the wrong definition of the words "hath made" to imply a title awarded after an inaugural event of some sort, which is dictated by time.
Therefore your statement below is faulty.
You further assert the following.....
I have noted that you highlight the word form, then you elaborate by saying that it is an outward characteristic of the Father, without it relating to the substance of the Father. The Nicene Creed states that the Father and the Son are the same substance.
Now G3444 points to the inherent, charactistsics and qualities of the Father. The verse when read in context and in its entirety strongly is suggestive of an inward and intrinsic characteristic and not specifically an outward expression as you are asserting.
Here is the verse.......
One needs to ask these questions.....
What is equality with God?
What is made of himself of no reputation?
What is thought it not robbery?
Let us take the third question first and reinforce the notion that for someone to rob God, someone must copy right or at least simulate certain internal and intrinsic chacrateristics of the invisible God, by extrinsically expressing them outwardly. If one did express the characteristics of The invisble God outwardly, then this would be identify theft as the apostle declares, but this is not so for Jesus, since God is Spirit (John 4:24) and because he holds inwardly and intrinsically these qualities without needing to express them outwardly......
And.........
The one to one express image of the Father, is not an outward expression within the natural realm so to speak, rather it is the inherent, characteristics and qualities of God who is Spirit.
If it was a mere outward expression, then the apostle would not write the following.....
thought it not robbery to be equal with God
If an outward expression was to qualify as having the same nature, then this would be identity theft, that is robbery, but the author rules out any outward expression, rather incorporates a one to one representation and not a copy or a simulated nature.
Scripture even strengthens this interpretation by declaring.....
So what is made of him no reputation?
It means by form, that is outward expression, he would shockingly play down his internal and intrinsic qualities as God, by playing the prophesied role as the suffering servant who would die on the cross at Calvary. In fact the term G3444 (nature) is highlighting internal and intensic qualifying characteristics and features of God, because the very act out of expressing outwardly the suffering servant, therefore negates the term nature from being used outwardly as you have asserted.
Finally what is equality with God?
It is the very God of the very God of being that one God-being by nature, without needing to outwardly express it or prove it. The Nicene Creed states....
Your other assertions on why Jesus said what he said is founded on the fact that he existed with the Father before the foundations of the world and within this co-eternal and co-equal relationship within the one God Being who is Spirit. The reason why I keep this answer short is because this is self answered by reason of the above spiritual manna.
Jesus...lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father...that they might know thee the only true God
As planned made of himself of no reputation
We practically posted the same thing.
First, Berrean 777, I am not speaking of three Holy Spirits. What I am talking about is three distinct personalities: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Secondly, when I am talking about the passionless Deity, I am referring to what the church fathers said, not Scripture. The classical or traditional Christian model of picture of God as he is in his won nature comes largely from certain schools of Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. Hence, the Second Helvetic Confession states, of the "Two Natures in Christ," that "the Divine Nature of Christ is not passible...Therefore, we do not in any way teach that the divine nature in Christ has suffered..." In fact, it was considered a major heresy to suggest that the Father had suffered. Thus, Channing remarked that "Trinitarians profess to derive some important advantages from their mode of viewing Christ. It furnished them they tell us, with an infinite atonement, for it shows then an infinite being suffering for their sins. ...When pressed with the question whether they really believe that the infinite and unchangeable God suffered and died o n the Cross, they acknowledge that tis is not true, but that Christ's human mind alone sustained the pains of death. How then have we an infinite sufferer?"I realize that Wgw is a process detractor. However, facts are facts, and his comments really aren't on target. Here is a brief synopsis of the classical model of God.
To provide some relevant background, most Christians assume there is only one model of God, one official picture of what God is like in his own nature. At present, that is definitely not true. There are at least two, classical theism and neo-classical theism, also termed process theology. Most Christians the traditional Christian model of God (classical theism) came directly out to the pages of Scripture. Absolutely not true. Let's go way back in history for a moment. The Greeks had a real appetite for metaphysics, for inquiring into what is the basic structure of reality. Is it all mind? Matter? It it changeable? In contrast, metaphysics was of little or no interest to the ancient Hebrews. The Bible, for example, tells us very little of how God is actually built. Is God all immaterial? Material? What? As the church worked its way up into the educated classes of the Greco-Roman world, it had to provide some kind of metaphysical system and level of discussion in order to survive. So the church fathers freely incorporated Hellenic concepts into their description of God. Although there were many different schools of Hellenic philosophy, the Greeks as a whole had real trouble wit the physical world of time, change,relativity, and matter. More than one major school argued that change in any form, most especially movement, was a logical impossibility and therefore dos not exist. Plato was a dominant force here, arguing that the world of time and change is just a big illusion and the major source of all suffering and evil. The truly divine, “the really real,” was a wholly immaterial world of static perfection, totally immutable, wholly simple, wholly detached form the evil world of time and change.
Once these Hellenic notions were incorporated into Christianity, God was defined as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, omnipotent, without even the shadow of motion, the supreme cause, never the effect. I am listing almost verbatum here the description form the major creeds, such as the Westminster Confession, and the writings of the major church fathers, such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, etc. Granted, they spoke of God's love, but it was a totally cold, unemotional love. Both Anselm and Aquinas insisted that although God might seem to us to be compassionate, he defiantly is not, in his own nature. Since God has no passion (emotion), then he could have no compassion, either. Unlike human love, God's love was totally minus any sympathy or empathy. God could have no emotion, because emotions are changes in bodily state, and God does not have a body and God does not change. Not to suffer is better than to suffer, hence, God as the most perfect being was wholly incapable of suffering, or experiencing any other negative emotion. Suggesting in any way the Father suffered was ruled out as a major heresy.
In the 20-century, this model began to be seriously questioned. If it is true that finite, creaturely attributes cannot be describe to God, then we can say only what God is not, not what God is, a point recognized by the classical theists themselves. Therefore, God emerges as an undefined blank. But who can believe in just an undefined X? If we don't give God some content, the whole concept of God is meaningless. And then much of Scripture is also meaningless, as Scripture prove ids an essentially anthropomorphic image of God as having genuine emotion, capable of change, and implies in many places that God is a physical being, by assigning just about every body part to God. Such projection is not the problem, it is the solution. All knowing is analogous knowing; we must generalize form the unfamiliar to the familiar. Now, if there is one sphere of reality we are most familiar with, it s human existence. Hence, unless there is some genuine likeness, some genuine analogy Between ourselves and the rest of reality, and this most especially includes God, we haven't even but one clue as to what is known on. Furthermore, the classical model appears to represent a very lopsided view of perfection. It is as if the church fathers went down a list of seemingly contrary adjectives, such as being vs. becoming, cause vs. effect, indifference vs. sensitivity, cause vs. effect, static vs. etc., and assigned only side to God, the side agreeing with their Hellenic concepts of perfection. But all of our experience teaches us that no actual being can be described with reference to only one side or pole here. Also, each side can be shown to be a perfection. If it is a virtue to say full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, it is also a virtue to be deeply moved and affected by the feelings of others. Furthermore, the classical model does not seem at all compatible with a God of love at all. Love means at a minimum to emphatically share in the feelings of others and also to derive part of the content of your being , from them. At best, it seems to present a picture of God as a Ruthless Moralist, Ruling Caesar, and Unmoved Mover. Also, it seemed incompatible with out modern understanding of realty, the really real, as in a constant state of flux and also relativistic,where entities are not ever solitary, but emerge out of their relationships with others. The Greeks enshrined the values of the immune and the immutable,and this also was in question. Why should it be seen as a weakness that we have needs? Why should God be seen as weak of it or she also has needs? What's wrong with God experiencing genuine pain and suffering? How can anyone other than a suffering God help? If God can't change in any way whatsoever, then saint or sinner, it's all the same to God,who remains blissfully indifferent to the world. But who can put any real faith in an indifferent Deity? If God could be just as happy,whole, and complete without a universe as with one,then why did he bother to create one and how is it to have any real significance in the life of God, when it contributes absolutely nothing to him?
The result was a new model of God in which God and the universe are mutually interrelated. God grows as the world goes. God is the supreme effect as well as cause. My favorite metaphor here is that the universe is the body of God. I can't find any other that does justice to God's radical sensitivity to all things. There is a direct, immediate flow of all creaturely feelings into God, and a direct immediate flow of God's feelings into creatures. Hence, God radically transcends us, as we are total strangers to the empathic responsiveness exhibited by God. Now, there is much more to say here, but I feel I should stop for now. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Zechariah 12:10
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Why should God be seen as weak of it or she also has needs? What's wrong with God experiencing genuine pain and suffering? How can anyone other than a suffering God help?
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Gospel of St. Matthew 5:3-10
There is a direct, immediate flow of all creaturely feelings into God, and a direct immediate flow of God's feelings into creatures. Hence, God radically transcends us, as we are total strangers to the empathic responsiveness exhibited by God.
No idea what that is as far as a sound like.
Rather, my post is from scripture and uses scripture .
Editing to add: I double checked to make sure my understanding on the periphery of the definition of Molinism was correct.
Having done so it is my opinion, and since I wrote the post you critiqued as sounding like Molinism, it is not at all a reflection of that doctrine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?