PDA

View Full Version : Immutability of God.



37818
03-10-2015, 06:46 AM
I believe in the immutability of God. Here I am going to argue against it.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis1:1.

This being understood to be an ex nihilo creation.

God never creating anything, then after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything.
God went from not being the Creator to becoming the Creator. A change which negates any real claim to immutability.

Yttrium
03-10-2015, 07:58 AM
Why would one assume that God never created anything before this universe? We might just be the current stage of an endless sequence of creation.

shunyadragon
03-10-2015, 10:05 AM
I believe in the immutability of God. Here I am going to argue against it.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis1:1.

This being understood to be an ex nihilo creation.

God never creating anything, then after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything.
God went from not being the Creator to becoming the Creator. A change which negates any real claim to immutability.


There are many possible beginnings in God's Creation. This only refers one beginning. Ultimately all of existence may be without a beginning.

Change can a part of God's Creation and not God.

Boxing Pythagoras
03-10-2015, 10:19 AM
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis1:1.

This being understood to be an ex nihilo creation.

God never creating anything, then after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything.
God went from not being the Creator to becoming the Creator. A change which negates any real claim to immutability.If we are assuming that time is one of the things which was created ex nihilo, then it is not the case that "after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything." Of course, that opens up the question, "How could God have created something which was literally never non-existent?" Still, if we can ignore this further problem for the sake of the question in the OP, then there was literally never a time when God was not a Creator, and therefore no mutation.

37818
03-10-2015, 12:11 PM
Why would one assume that God never created anything before this universe? We might just be the current stage of an endless sequence of creation.Then there would be no first creation. Then this God would have to be both mutable and immutable. Why would he not then be both? Or only be a mutable deity.

37818
03-10-2015, 12:14 PM
If we are assuming that time is one of the things which was created ex nihilo, then it is not the case that "after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything." Of course, that opens up the question, "How could God have created something which was literally never non-existent?" Still, if we can ignore this further problem for the sake of the question in the OP, then there was literally never a time when God was not a Creator, and therefore no mutation.A creation takes the act of a creator. An action is a type of change/mutability.

Christianbookworm
03-10-2015, 12:57 PM
I believe in the immutability of God. Here I am going to argue against it.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis1:1.

This being understood to be an ex nihilo creation.

God never creating anything, then after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything.
God went from not being the Creator to becoming the Creator. A change which negates any real claim to immutability.

I think people are referring more to God's moral character and abilities never changing.

Sparko
03-10-2015, 01:09 PM
I think people are referring more to God's moral character and abilities never changing.

Yes. If God were immutable in the sense 37818 means, then he would be unable to act or do anything. He would just be some eternal statue.

Boxing Pythagoras
03-10-2015, 01:29 PM
I think people are referring more to God's moral character and abilities never changing.

Yes. If God were immutable in the sense 37818 means, then he would be unable to act or do anything. He would just be some eternal statue.There actually are quite a number of people who assert that God is timeless and immutable in exactly that sense. That is, in fact, the understanding of Classical Theology.

William Lane Craig departs from this view by asserting that God was timeless until the creation of Time, at which point God entered time and became a tensed being. Personally, I feel that this is completely incoherent, but it is the position which Craig has espoused.

Carrikature
03-10-2015, 01:33 PM
I think people are referring more to God's moral character and abilities never changing.

My experience is more often that people retreat to this view once they feel the broader version of immutability is no longer tenable.

Christianbookworm
03-10-2015, 01:35 PM
But that doesn't make any sense! Though, good luck trying to understand a Being that doesn't have human psychology.

Christianbookworm
03-10-2015, 08:22 PM
What's the orthodox view? Or is this some deep philosophical stuff we just got ourselves into? Because I don't really know what is meant by saying God is immutable.

37818
03-11-2015, 05:53 AM
What's the orthodox view? Or is this some deep philosophical stuff we just got ourselves into? Because I don't really know what is meant by saying God is immutable.

Immutable in that God does not change. Malachi 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." He is fully trustworthy (Titus 1:2).

37818
03-11-2015, 06:07 AM
Yes. If God were immutable in the sense 37818 means, then he would be unable to act or do anything. He would just be some eternal statue.

Yeah, an immutable God in such a limited sense would not even matter. Truth is immutable or it would not be truth. Change, is subordinate to truth which is immutable. Without change, or the possibility of change omnipotence is effectively meaningless.

Christianbookworm
03-11-2015, 06:11 AM
Immutable in that God does not change. Malachi 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." He is fully trustworthy (Titus 1:2).

So, what's the problem? Creating something doesn't change God.

Chrawnus
03-11-2015, 06:21 AM
William Lane Craig departs from this view by asserting that God was timeless until the creation of Time, at which point God entered time and became a tensed being. Personally, I feel that this is completely incoherent, but it is the position which Craig has espoused.

I think it becomes much more understandable when you realize that it is probably due to the fact that Craig holds to the A-theory of time and not the B-theory. :shrug:

Christianbookworm
03-11-2015, 06:23 AM
I think it becomes much more understandable when you realize that it is probably due to the fact that Craig holds to the A-theory of time and not the B-theory. :shrug:

:huh: Could you explain the difference between those two time theories?

Chrawnus
03-11-2015, 06:37 AM
:huh: Could you explain the difference between those two time theories?

I'm not confident I'm going to be able to explain them properly to you, so I'll just link you to some wiki-articles instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) (a B-theory model of time)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(philosophy) (an A-theory model of time, and the one which I think WLC holds to, although I could be wrong.)

There are other models on both theories, but I think these are the most representative.

DesertBerean
03-11-2015, 02:06 PM
Moved to Unorthodox Theology. This discussion is more about Christian views of God than debate between theists and non theists.*

37818
03-15-2015, 07:27 AM
So, what's the problem? Creating something doesn't change God.
Creation requires an act of creation. Acts are a type of change which brings about change. Change is mutability. Immutability and mutability are opposites. So there must also have been in some way mutability co-eternal with God or there would not have been any creation.

Adrift
03-15-2015, 11:14 AM
Creation requires an act of creation. Acts are a type of change which brings about change. Change is mutability. Immutability and mutability are opposites. So there must also have been in some way mutability co-eternal with God or there would not have been any creation.

Your view on divine immutability seems to be nested in the idea that the follow argument would be accurate.


God is immutable
God created the universe
An act of creation requires a state-change in the creator (from not having exercised its will to having exercised its will)
An immutable being cannot undergo a state-change
Therefore an immutable being cannot create the universe
Therefore god does not exist



But there is no need to devise new theories on God's natures as you do with the concept of a temporal nature for Christ before his incarnation. Matt Slick of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry offers a great reply to the above argument:


God is immutable

Immutability must be defined. It means "unchangeableness."
In Christian theology God’s immutability describes his nature and does not mean he cannot think, know, or experience.

God created the universe
An act of creation requires a state-change in the creator (from not having exercised its will to having exercised its will)

The nature of free will is to exercise that will. A decision is not a change of nature but of mind, and this does not violate the immutability of God’s nature.

An immutable being cannot undergo a state change

The argument fails to clarify the difference between unchangeable in nature and the ability within that nature to make a decision.

Therefore an immutable being cannot create the universe
Therefore god does not exist

The argument fails for the reasons mentioned above.



The problem it seems, is that you believe that "immutability" makes the divine nature something like a statue or a rock. incapable of doing anything at all for all eternity. That's why you have to come up with your "temporal" second-nature of Jesus theory. But that's not what the scriptures mean when they describe God's immutability. Immutability refers to God's faithfulness and his wisdom and his existence, and to his character, truth, ways, and purposes, not on his ability to act, or interact with creation.

Listen to or read William Lane Craig's overview on the Doctrine of God and God's divine immutability to get a better understanding of what it means to say that God is immutable. Here's a transcript that offers a good breakdown for you: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s3-10

37818
03-15-2015, 04:57 PM
Immutability must be defined. It means "unchangeableness."
In Christian theology God’s immutability describes his nature and does not mean he cannot think, know, or experience.


Immutability with God goes with His omniscience.

My question for you is "immutability" and "mutability" two opposite attributes? God has both.
Would they not be of two different natures? Who in the Godhead has two different natures?

Adrift
03-15-2015, 06:04 PM
Immutability with God goes with His omniscience.

My question for you is "immutability" and "mutability" two opposite attributes? God has both.

Did you read the link I posted?

the God that you read about in the Bible is not this sort of static, unchangeable entity. He is the living God, the living God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. He is not frozen into immobility like an ice statue or a mannequin in a store window. Rather, he is an active God who is engaged with people and events in human history. He acts and reacts in personal relationships. The biblical passages that we looked at with respect to God’s immutability certainly don’t teach that God is immutable in this sort of absolute sense. Rather, it talks about how he is unchanging in his character and his faithfulness and his wisdom and his existence. He is unchangeable in those respects, but he is not frozen into immobility.


Would they not be of two different natures?

No, God's immutability and his ability to create and interact with his creation would not require two different natures.


Who in the Godhead has two different natures?

Jesus...but only AFTER the incarnation, per traditional Christian orthodox teaching.

37818
03-15-2015, 07:27 PM
Did you read the link I posted?

the God that you read about in the Bible is not this sort of static, unchangeable entity. He is the living God, the living God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. He is not frozen into immobility like an ice statue or a mannequin in a store window. Rather, he is an active God who is engaged with people and events in human history. He acts and reacts in personal relationships. The biblical passages that we looked at with respect to God’s immutability certainly don’t teach that God is immutable in this sort of absolute sense. Rather, it talks about how he is unchanging in his character and his faithfulness and his wisdom and his existence. He is unchangeable in those respects, but he is not frozen into immobility.

So? I'm not denying this. I am merely making the point immutability cannot be alone. So you have avoided answering me.

The God of the OT is who we know to be the Son of God. And you have already dismissed that, have you not?





No, God's immutability and his ability to create and interact with his creation would not require two different natures. Fine. Explain to me a nature which is both immutable and mutable at the same time. Or are you denying acts require action on the part of the one who acts? Explain actions without action.




Jesus...but only AFTER the incarnation, per traditional Christian orthodox teaching.We have been here before. Does not change the fact there has to be mutability with God who is immutable among other key attributes. Without the act of creation there is no creation. An act is an action, a change, a mutability.

Who is being referred to in John 1:3? What does it teach? ". . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . ." and v.10 says, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. . . ." It is talking about none other than the only-begotten v.14, v.18.

The Apostle Paul writes, ". . . For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; . . ." -- Colossians 1:16-18.

In other words, if there is no Son of God there would be no creation.

Sparko
03-16-2015, 05:59 AM
So? I'm not denying this. I am merely making the point immutability cannot be alone. So you have avoided answering me.

The God of the OT is who we know to be the Son of God. And you have already dismissed that, have you not?



Fine. Explain to me a nature which is both immutable and mutable at the same time. Or are you denying acts require action on the part of the one who acts? Explain actions without action.


We have been here before. Does not change the fact there has to be mutability with God who is immutable among other key attributes. Without the act of creation there is no creation. An act is an action, a change, a mutability.

Who is being referred to in John 1:3? What does it teach? ". . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . ." and v.10 says, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. . . ." It is talking about none other than the only-begotten v.14, v.18.

The Apostle Paul writes, ". . . For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; . . ." -- Colossians 1:16-18.

In other words, if there is no Son of God there would be no creation.

Are you insane or on drugs? You seem incapable of reading what others have been saying.

Immutability of God does not mean immutability of action or thought. It means his character does not change. He can't lie, he can't turn evil, he can't not be good and loving and just and merciful. That is ALL that it means. You are taking a word "immutable" and forcing it to the extreme.

Are you the same person after you make a post on theologyweb or do you change into a different person after you make a post? And after you eat breakfast, or go to bed at night?

I am sure you will either ignore this again, and continue to claim that God is some frozen statue that can't do anything, while at the same time denying that is what you are saying. :doh:

Cerebrum123
03-16-2015, 06:36 AM
Are you insane or on drugs? You seem incapable of reading what others have been saying.

Immutability of God does not mean immutability of action or thought. It means his character does not change. He can't lie, he can't turn evil, he can't not be good and loving and just and merciful. That is ALL that it means. You are taking a word "immutable" and forcing it to the extreme.

Are you the same person after you make a post on theologyweb or do you change into a different person after you make a post? And after you eat breakfast, or go to bed at night?

I am sure you will either ignore this again, and continue to claim that God is some frozen statue that can't do anything, while at the same time denying that is what you are saying. :doh:

Well, 37818 does have a point against a certain view of immutability.


There actually are quite a number of people who assert that God is timeless and immutable in exactly that sense. That is, in fact, the understanding of Classical Theology.

William Lane Craig departs from this view by asserting that God was timeless until the creation of Time, at which point God entered time and became a tensed being. Personally, I feel that this is completely incoherent, but it is the position which Craig has espoused.

From what I understand people like Augustine, and Aquinas held to that kind of immutability.

Honestly, I think there might be something blocking 37818 from understanding what you are saying. His posts aren't exactly very coherent themselves, and rather frequently. Maybe a language barrier? He seems to get caught up on certain words, and then can't let that go.

Adrift
03-16-2015, 07:37 AM
Well, 37818 does have a point against a certain view of immutability.



From what I understand people like Augustine, and Aquinas held to that kind of immutability.

I cited this in the other thread, but I'll drop it here too. This is from professor of religion, Ron Heighfield:

What shall we say to these criticisms? First, let us deal with the critics' descriptions of the traditional doctrine. All of the critics mentioned present the tradition as if it were saying that God is unrelated, static, cold, aloof, unresponsive, and dead. But, as we have already seen, this caricature bears little resemblance to the God of the church fathers, Augustine, Aquinas, and orthodox Protestantism. For them, God is not "static" -- a term that applies to something that has potential for movement but is stuck in its present state -- but pure act. God's immutability is not the immutability of a rock but the immutability of a perfectly dynamic and unlimited life. Michael Dodds, Gerald Hanratty, and Thomas Weinandy have given persuasive answers to Aquinas's critics. Richard Muller has done the same for the post-Reformation Reformed theologians. God's immutability does not render him unrelated and aloof; rather, it guarantees his ability to be absolutely present as our totally reliable Creator. If God were not immutable, he could not come near to us -- as in the incarnation -- without being changed by the relationship. God could not be himself for us. Far from making God unresponsive and dead, his immutability assures us that God is life itself without any admixture of death (that is, mere potentiality). God is eternally and proactively our good in every situation.

Whatever view Augustine and Aquinas had pertaining to God's immutability, they still believed he created the universe, and interacted with humanity (I think Aquinas even argues that existence itself is an act). What we do know is that they did not believe that the second member of the trinity had some pre-incarnation "temporal" nature that was separate from his divine nature that allowed him to create and manifest. That's something that, as far as I can tell 37818 made up whole-cloth from his interpretation of scripture.


Honestly, I think there might be something blocking 37818 from understanding what you are saying. His posts aren't exactly very coherent themselves, and rather frequently. Maybe a language barrier? He seems to get caught up on certain words, and then can't let that go.

We've asked him before if English was his native language, and I'm pretty sure he said it was.

Cerebrum123
03-16-2015, 07:53 AM
I cited this in the other thread, but I'll drop it here too. This is from professor of religion, Ron Heighfield:

What shall we say to these criticisms? First, let us deal with the critics' descriptions of the traditional doctrine. All of the critics mentioned present the tradition as if it were saying that God is unrelated, static, cold, aloof, unresponsive, and dead. But, as we have already seen, this caricature bears little resemblance to the God of the church fathers, Augustine, Aquinas, and orthodox Protestantism. For them, God is not "static" -- a term that applies to something that has potential for movement but is stuck in its present state -- but pure act. God's immutability is not the immutability of a rock but the immutability of a perfectly dynamic and unlimited life. Michael Dodds, Gerald Hanratty, and Thomas Weinandy have given persuasive answers to Aquinas's critics. Richard Muller has done the same for the post-Reformation Reformed theologians. God's immutability does not render him unrelated and aloof; rather, it guarantees his ability to be absolutely present as our totally reliable Creator. If God were not immutable, he could not come near to us -- as in the incarnation -- without being changed by the relationship. God could not be himself for us. Far from making God unresponsive and dead, his immutability assures us that God is life itself without any admixture of death (that is, mere potentiality). God is eternally and proactively our good in every situation.

Whatever view Augustine and Aquinas had pertaining to God's immutability, they still believed he created the universe, and interacted with humanity (I think Aquinas even argues that existence itself is an act). What we do know is that they did not believe that the second member of the trinity had some pre-incarnation "temporal" nature that was separate from his divine nature that allowed him to create and manifest. That's something that, as far as I can tell 37818 made up whole-cloth from his interpretation of scripture.

I've tried reading up on this stuff, especially the "potentiality", and "pure act". Right now it's just too much, and it all starts looking like gibberish. :dizzy:

Yeah, I agree that 37818 has pretty much just made up this stuff whole cloth like you say.


We've asked him before if English was his native language, and I'm pretty sure he said it was.

I still think there is some kind of barrier here. His posts are often very confusing, and worded in a very odd way.

Adrift
03-16-2015, 08:15 AM
I still think there is some kind of barrier here. His posts are often very confusing, and worded in a very odd way.

I hate to say this, but how he writes reminds me a little bit like how shunyadragon writes. I figured in shunyadragon's case it had more to do with age than anything else, but I have no idea if thats the case with 37818.

shunyadragon
03-16-2015, 04:07 PM
I hate to say this, but how he writes reminds me a little bit like how shunyadragon writes. I figured in shunyadragon's case it had more to do with age than anything else, but I have no idea if thats the case with 37818.

Hate to say this, but what is your excuse . . .

Pentecost
03-16-2015, 04:32 PM
Hate to say this, but what is your excuse . . .

I don't know what you're talking about, Adrift is one of the most clearly readable posters on this site, I almost always understand him (and agree, so maybe I'm predjudiced).

37818
03-16-2015, 08:26 PM
Are you insane or on drugs? You seem incapable of reading what others have been saying.

Immutability of God does not mean immutability of action or thought. It means his character does not change. He can't lie, he can't turn evil, he can't not be good and loving and just and merciful. That is ALL that it means. You are taking a word "immutable" and forcing it to the extreme.

Are you the same person after you make a post on theologyweb or do you change into a different person after you make a post? And after you eat breakfast, or go to bed at night?

I am sure you will either ignore this again, and continue to claim that God is some frozen statue that can't do anything, while at the same time denying that is what you are saying. :doh:

Is God the fundamental self evident truth of all truth? Truth is immutability. Now that is not all that there is to God. The trinity, Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit - have always been. The Son of God as the man Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except by Me." The Son says He is immutability [the truth]. But in the incarnation it is obvious to us Christians He has two natures. And we are told that He, the only-begotten is the only way anyone has seen God (John 1:18 KJV, NKJV). Isaiah 6:5 - John 12:41 John tell us Isaiah saw Jesus long before His incarnation. I know God to be the fundamental self evident truth of all truth. God is more than one Person for a reason. And I'm not making it up. It is in your Bible.

Paul argued, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ." (Acts 17:28). God is omnipresent. There is no place you can go and not be in the presence of the holy, righteous and just God. So that little sin is not so little before God. Yet, we all act like He is not here (Acts 5:1, 2). Our Lord Jesus stands in the presence of His glory for us (1 Timothy 2:5).

I'm sorry what I have tried to convey did not make good sense to you.

Immutability is one nature. Mutability is another. Is this not true? Three Persons, one God. The act of creation was all done via the Son (John 1:3). Omnipotence is meaningless without mutability.

Make a list of the things about God that cannot change. Then make a list that requires change. Creation, incarnation, and note who is the actor for God.

Chrawnus
03-16-2015, 09:27 PM
Hate to say this, but what is your excuse . . .

What's his excuse for what? Writing in a clear and coherent manner?

Sparko
03-17-2015, 05:32 AM
Is God the fundamental self evident truth of all truth? Truth is immutability. Now that is not all that there is to God. The trinity, Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit - have always been. The Son of God as the man Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father except by Me." The Son says He is immutability [the truth]. But in the incarnation it is obvious to us Christians He has two natures. And we are told that He, the only-begotten is the only way anyone has seen God (John 1:18 KJV, NKJV). Isaiah 6:5 - John 12:41 John tell us Isaiah saw Jesus long before His incarnation. I know God to be the fundamental self evident truth of all truth. God is more than one Person for a reason. And I'm not making it up. It is in your Bible.

Paul argued, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ." (Acts 17:28). God is omnipresent. There is no place you can go and not be in the presence of the holy, righteous and just God. So that little sin is not so little before God. Yet, we all act like He is not here (Acts 5:1, 2). Our Lord Jesus stands in the presence of His glory for us (1 Timothy 2:5).

I'm sorry what I have tried to convey did not make good sense to you.

Immutability is one nature. Mutability is another. Is this not true? Three Persons, one God. The act of creation was all done via the Son (John 1:3). Omnipotence is meaningless without mutability.

Make a list of the things about God that cannot change. Then make a list that requires change. Creation, incarnation, and note who is the actor for God.

You have turned got into an object. He is a person (actually three persons and one God). If you believe God cannot act or change, then he cannot create, he cannot think, he cannot react, he cannot perform miracles, he cannot answer prayers.

The God you are describing is called pantheism. Basically that God is the universe and just some force.

Now I understand why you were asked to change your faith designation. If this is what you believe about God, then your God is not the God revealed in the bible at all. Please repent and toss away these foolish ideas you have come up with.

37818
03-17-2015, 06:12 AM
You have turned got into an object. He is a person (actually three persons and one God). If you believe God cannot act or change, then he cannot create, he cannot think, he cannot react, he cannot perform miracles, he cannot answer prayers. You are making false assertions as to what I believe.


The God you are describing is called pantheism. Basically that God is the universe and just some force. More false assertions.


Now I understand why you were asked to change your faith designation. If this is what you believe about God, then your God is not the God revealed in the bible at all. Please repent and toss away these foolish ideas you have come up with.You are drawing conclusions I am not making.

Can we slow down and take one simple item at a time? Instead of making gross generalizations. Generalizations are not always true. Do you believe that? Do you agree that the written word of God is the final authority for faith and practice? Can we start there?

One step at a time. Not skipping things. [Which is a cause of misunderstanding.]

Adrift
03-17-2015, 07:36 AM
You are making false assertions as to what I believe.


No he isn't. He's saying that a pre-incarnate God with only ONE (1) nature can act, think, perform miracles, and answer prayer. He's saying that you don't think that's true. Is what he is saying true?

Cerebrum123
03-17-2015, 07:46 AM
No he isn't. He's saying that a pre-incarnate God with only ONE (1) nature can act, think, perform miracles, and answer prayer. He's saying that you don't think that's true. Is what he is saying true?


I believe in the immutability of God. Here I am going to argue against it.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis1:1.

This being understood to be an ex nihilo creation.

God never creating anything, then after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything.
God went from not being the Creator to becoming the Creator. A change which negates any real claim to immutability.

37818 isn't always clear, but the underlined seems pretty clear to me. I think he's arguing against a specific type of immutability, and doesn't seem to realize that those he's arguing against don't hold to it. He doesn't even seem to realize that this has been spelled out pretty clearly. Either he's being intentionally dense, or there's something else going on here. Given many of his past posts, I'm leaning more towards the latter.

Sparko
03-17-2015, 07:58 AM
37818 isn't always clear, but the underlined seems pretty clear to me. I think he's arguing against a specific type of immutability, and doesn't seem to realize that those he's arguing against don't hold to it. He doesn't even seem to realize that this has been spelled out pretty clearly. Either he's being intentionally dense, or there's something else going on here. Given many of his past posts, I'm leaning more towards the latter.

I understand that he believes in the immutability of God. But what he defines immutable as, turns God into a mere object that doesn't and can't do anything. That is not the God of the bible as I have been telling him, nor what is meant by immutable as several others have also said. He is being way too literal in his definition to be point of being ridiculous.

Adrift
03-17-2015, 08:04 AM
37818 isn't always clear, but the underlined seems pretty clear to me. I think he's arguing against a specific type of immutability, and doesn't seem to realize that those he's arguing against don't hold to it. He doesn't even seem to realize that this has been spelled out pretty clearly. Either he's being intentionally dense, or there's something else going on here. Given many of his past posts, I'm leaning more towards the latter.

I'm not sure how far you followed this thread http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?5821-Orthodox-Anathema-Service, but this current one is just a continuation of that one. Basically here's what he believes:

He believes that "immutable" means having absolutely no ability to do anything whatsoever at all, because doing anything would require change of some sort.

He believes that the divine nature of God shared by the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is immutable in this sense.

He gets around this super-statue immutability by asserting that Jesus had a second nature, a nature that he calls a "temporary nature" ("temporary" as in "within-time", not nonpermanent). Through this second within-time nature, Jesus was able to do things the other members were unable to do because they only had a divine nature. He was able to create the cosmos and everything in it, and he was able to interact with humans by manifesting to them at certain times, answering prayer, etc.

He believes that this "temporary nature" changed at the incarnation and became Jesus' "human nature", which he has to this very day.

He believes that had Jesus added his second nature at the incarnation (as orthodoxy teaches), that that would have required change to his divine nature. So, in his opinion, Jesus would have had to have had a pre-incarnate second nature already.

Sparko
03-17-2015, 08:12 AM
I'm not sure how far you followed this thread http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?5821-Orthodox-Anathema-Service, but this current one is just a continuation of that one. Basically here's what he believes:

He believes that "immutable" means having absolutely no ability to do anything whatsoever at all, because doing anything would require change of some sort.

He believes that the divine nature of God shared by the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is immutable in this sense.

He gets around this super-statue immutability by asserting that Jesus had a second nature, a nature that he calls a "temporary nature" ("temporary" as in "within-time", not nonpermanent). Through this second within-time nature, Jesus was able to do things the other members were unable to do because they only had a divine nature. He was able to create the cosmos and everything in it, and he was able to interact with humans by manifesting to them at certain times, answering prayer, etc.

He believes that this "temporary nature" changed at the incarnation and became Jesus' "human nature", which he has to this very day.

He believes that had Jesus added his second nature at the incarnation (as orthodoxy teaches), that that would have required change to his divine nature. So, in his opinion, Jesus would have had to have had a pre-incarnate second nature already.

Sounds like he has made up his own theology out of thin air. If God, as the Son had this temporal nature, and could act, then how would that not be a change in the immutability (using his definition) of God? And how would the Son even talk to the Father as we see in the bible?

Christianbookworm
03-17-2015, 08:21 AM
How would doing something cause a change in one's nature? If a good guy does something good, that doesn't change the good guy at all.

Adrift
03-17-2015, 08:55 AM
Sounds like he has made up his own theology out of thin air.

Yeah, as far as I know this is an idea that he came up with all by himself. I can't even think of any pre-Nicene orthodox or heterodox teachers that teach something quite like his view. Probably the closest you can come is like the Mormon's view of the pre-incarnate soul.


If God, as the Son had this temporal nature, and could act, then how would that not be a change in the immutability (using his definition) of God?

Yeah, I don't know.


And how would the Son even talk to the Father as we see in the bible?

He still believes that Jesus had his divine nature alongside his "temporary" nature, and that they would have talked through the divine nature I suppose, but that brings up a good point. Wouldn't communication between the Father and the Son through the divine affect his view of divine immutability?

One of the biggest concerns I have about his view about a pre-incarnate second nature is that if Christ is like us in all ways in his human nature, does that mean that humans, too, had a pre-incarnate "temporary" nature before we were born? Again, isn't that what the Mormons teach? I could see how someone could easily go from his view to a further heterodox view. Its a slippery slope when you start playing around with essential doctrine like the nature of Christ.

Adrift
03-17-2015, 08:56 AM
How would doing something cause a change in one's nature? If a good guy does something good, that doesn't change the good guy at all.

Precisely.

Sparko
03-17-2015, 09:00 AM
Yeah, as far as I know this is an idea that he came up with all by himself. I can't even think of any pre-Nicene orthodox or heterodox teachers that teach something quite like his view. Probably the closest you can come is like the Mormon's view of the pre-incarnate soul.



Yeah, I don't know.



He still believes that Jesus had his divine nature alongside his "temporary" nature, and that they would have talked through the divine nature I suppose, but that brings up a good point. Wouldn't communication between the Father and the Son through the divine affect his view of divine immutability?

One of the biggest concerns I have about his view about a pre-incarnate second nature is that if Christ is like us in all ways in his human nature, does that mean that humans, too, had a pre-incarnate "temporary" nature before we were born? Again, isn't that what the Mormons teach? I could see how someone could easily go from his view to a further heterodox view. Its a slippery slope when you start playing around with essential doctrine like the nature of Christ.

yeah. it does sound like mormonism, except they believe God is an actual human who was elevated to Godhood on another planet and their are many Gods. Matter however, is eternal in their theology and God did not create it. Just manipulates it.

37818
03-17-2015, 09:01 AM
How would doing something cause a change in one's nature? If a good guy does something good, that doesn't change the good guy at all.
Doing something does not change the nature of the one doing that something.

Now if the only nature one has is immutability. There can be no change, no action, it is static. So God's nature is not limited to immutability. There has to be another nature with God. Now how you want to define that is at issue.

Adrift
03-17-2015, 09:06 AM
yeah. it does sound like mormonism, except they believe God is an actual human who was elevated to Godhood on another planet and their are many Gods.

True. I'm just noting some of the "on-the-face-of-it" similarities.


Matter however, is eternal in their theology and God did not create it. Just manipulates it.

:yes:

Sparko
03-17-2015, 09:06 AM
Doing something does not change the nature of the one doing that something.

Now if the only nature one has is immutability. There can be no change, no action, it is static. So God's nature is not limited to immutability. There has to be another nature with God. Now how you what to define that is at issue.

You indicated you are a baptist once. Have you taken your ideas about God's nature to your pastor and see what he thinks?

Christianbookworm
03-17-2015, 09:31 AM
Doing something does not change the nature of the one doing that something.

Now if the only nature one has is immutability. There can be no change, no action, it is static. So God's nature is not limited to immutability. There has to be another nature with God. Now how you want to define that is at issue.

That makes no sense. Is an attribute somehow the entire nature???

Chrawnus
03-17-2015, 09:32 AM
That makes no sense. Is an attribute somehow the entire nature???

I could be wrong, but I think he was trying to say "If the only nature one has is immutable", not "if the only nature one has is immutability". It's the only way I can make sense of the sentence. :shrug:

Christianbookworm
03-17-2015, 09:32 AM
yeah. it does sound like mormonism, except they believe God is an actual human who was elevated to Godhood on another planet and their are many Gods. Matter however, is eternal in their theology and God did not create it. Just manipulates it.

But someone from another planet would be an alien! Even if they look human. Add some superpowers to the mix to!

Adrift
03-17-2015, 09:40 AM
I could be wrong, but I think he was trying to say "If the only nature one has is immutable", not "if the only nature one has is immutability". It's the only way I can make sense of the sentence. :shrug:

No. I think Christianbookworm has it right. Let me re-translate:

"Doing something does not change the nature of the one doing that something." (what he's saying here is that Jesus doing something in his temporary and/or human nature would not affect his divine nature)

"Now if the only nature one has is immutability. There can be no change, no action, it is static." (If one only had a divine, ie. immutable nature, one would not be able to change or act. They would be static)

"So God's nature is not limited to immutability." (So the Son was not/is not strictly immutable)

"There has to be another nature with God. Now how you want to define that is at issue." (QED, Jesus had a second, non-immutable nature before his incarnation, along side his immutable nature)

Christianbookworm
03-17-2015, 09:44 AM
How does being immutable equate to not being able to act? God is omnipotent, meaning He has the ability to actualize any logical possibility He wills to happen. So, can He or can't He act or think?

Adrift
03-17-2015, 09:49 AM
How does being immutable equate to not being able to act? God is omnipotent, meaning He has the ability to actualize any logical possibility He wills to happen. So, can He or can't He act or think?

He believes that only the second member of the trinity, Jesus, had the ability to actualize any logical possibility.

Chrawnus
03-17-2015, 09:52 AM
"Now if the only nature one has is immutability. There can be no change, no action, it is static." (If one only had a divine, ie. immutable nature, one would not be able to change or act. They would be static)


That's pretty much what I said. :glare:

Saying that one's only nature is immutable isn't the same thing as saying that someone's only nature is immutability. :shrug:

Adrift
03-17-2015, 09:58 AM
That's pretty much what I said. :glare:

Saying that one's only nature is immutable isn't the same thing as saying that someone's only nature is immutability. :shrug:

Ah. Sorry. I misunderstood your phrasing. I think its because you're using the word "nature" in two different ways. In the first way you mean "nature" as in one's essence, and in the second way you mean "nature" as in one's characteristics.

Chrawnus
03-17-2015, 10:00 AM
Ah. Sorry. I misunderstood your phrasing. I think its because you're using the word "nature" in two different ways. In the first way you mean "nature" as in one's essence, and in the second way you mean "nature" as in one's characteristics.

Yeah, I could probably have phrased it less ambigiously.

Christianbookworm
03-17-2015, 10:18 AM
He believes that only the second member of the trinity, Jesus, had the ability to actualize any logical possibility.

What about the Holy Spirit? Does he think the Holy Spirit is Jesus??? That's modalism. So, of the divine attributes(holiness, omnipotent, omniscient, ect.), which do which Persons have?

Adrift
03-17-2015, 10:27 AM
What about the Holy Spirit? Does he think the Holy Spirit is Jesus??? That's modalism. So, of the divine attributes(holiness, omnipotent, omniscient, ect.), which do which Persons have?

No. Other than the fact that he has a super-strict concept of immutability, and that he believes that Jesus had two pre-incarnate natures rather than one, his views are more or less orthodox as far as I can tell (although his view on infinity is a bit bizarre in my opinion).

Christianbookworm
03-17-2015, 10:42 AM
No. Other than the fact that he has a super-strict concept of immutability, and that he believes that Jesus had two pre-incarnate natures rather than one, his views are more or less orthodox as far as I can tell (although his view on infinity is a bit bizarre in my opinion).

I was just wondering how he explains the Holy Spirit doing stuff like convicting people and performing miracles through the apostles.

Adrift
03-17-2015, 10:47 AM
I was just wondering how he explains the Holy Spirit doing stuff like convicting people and performing miracles through the apostles.

Oh, good point. I have no idea.

Pentecost
03-17-2015, 11:20 AM
I no longer understand you. Can you please clarify? Until I understand you I cannot morally choose to divide from you. In fact, having progressed to where we are in the conversation, I am doubtful this is even a conversation of orthodoxy, but because we are touching on the the basics of Christian theology. Your denial of the Nicene Creed, either Western or Eastern seems odd because you seem to deny it based on a false understanding of it. I agree with you that the creeds are not in any way equivalent to Scripture, but the Nicene Creed is a summary of Biblical faith when understood the way it was intended.

I assume this was in response to my asking for texts that support your view? If so thank you. Unfortunately, I do not know how you would argue they support your unique position.

Edit: I found your post in unorthodox theology, if you are no longer allowed to post in this section I would love to continue speaking to you there.
From the previous thread because I was never answered.

37818
03-17-2015, 12:17 PM
From the previous thread because I was never answered.


Edit: I found your post in unorthodox theology, if you are no longer allowed to post in this section I would love to continue speaking to you there.For the time being, while that was cleared up. We can continue here.


I assume this was in response to my asking for texts that support your view? If so thank you. Unfortunately, I do not know how you would argue they support your unique position.Acts of God are temporal in nature else they would not take place. The issue in not God being immutable in His nature. But rather God's actions. Which are a type of change. Not of God's nature, God being God. But they are changes being acts do not negate His immutability.

Creation Genesis 1:1 we can identify Christ to be God here, Colossians 1:16-18.
In appearances of God. again we can identify Christ, Genesis 12:7, John 8:56, John 1:18 NKJV.

So I am persuaded that the Son of God is the God of the OT. Not the Father, but fully represents the Father in all things. Jesus as the man so claims Himself to be our sole access to God the Father (John 14:6).


I no longer understand you. Can you please clarify? Until I understand you I cannot morally choose to divide from you. In fact, having progressed to where we are in the conversation, I am doubtful this is even a conversation of orthodoxy, but because we are touching on the the basics of Christian theology. Your denial of the Nicene Creed, either Western or Eastern seems odd because you seem to deny it based on a false understanding of it. I agree with you that the creeds are not in any way equivalent to Scripture, but the Nicene Creed is a summary of Biblical faith when understood the way it was intended.The Persons, God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are both an eternal and temporal relationship. Eternal in that they were always in this relationship. Temporal, in that it is in addition to God being immutable. And since it always was, any acts on the part of God via the Son or Holy Spirit, or being the Father speaking to the Son at His His baptism or the His disciples at His transfiguration.

I see it as a Biblical understanding.

The two things I disagree with the Nicene Creed, are the unbiblical use of "begotten" in regards to the only-begotten, and baptismal regeneration being taught by it. Otherwise I agree with its intent against the error of Arius.

Pentecost
03-17-2015, 10:16 PM
Ok, as far as I can tell, I disagree with your position for the reasons that I have explained previously (it being entirely an uneccesary philosophic position that derives power from a misunderstanding of what immutability is) but I do not believe your view diverges from orthodoxy, even though it is non-traditional. It makes sense to me to be wary of this belief however, because it could lead into an odd error with the concern expressed by others in this thread, I acknowledge you do not seem to accept it. Regardless of the faith tag, from everything I know of you I can only embrace you as a brother. God bless.

Adrift
03-18-2015, 05:05 AM
I do not believe your view diverges from orthodoxy

I'm curious why you don't believe this view about the second nature of Christ doesn't diverge from orthodoxy? orthodox teaching seems to be pretty clear that Jesus added a second nature at his incarnation, not that he always had one. Or are you using the word "orthodox" in a different way?

37818
03-18-2015, 06:46 AM
In my view of orthodoxy is to hold to the essentials of the Christian faith according to the word of God [ i.e. our 66 book Bible], not the mere statements of faith [creeds] interpreting God's word.

Adrift
03-18-2015, 06:53 AM
In my view of orthodoxy is to hold to the essentials of the Christian faith according to the word of God [ i.e. our 66 book Bible], not the mere statements of faith [creeds] interpreting God's word.

Yes. You've said that before.

Sparko
03-18-2015, 06:57 AM
In my view of orthodoxy is to hold to the essentials of the Christian faith according to the word of God [ i.e. our 66 book Bible], not the mere statements of faith [creeds] interpreting God's word.

But it is all interpreted. The Jehovah's Witnesses will say that they hold to the word of God according to the 66 books of the bible, but they sure interpret them differently. They claim that Jesus is not God at all, but the incarnation of Michael the Arch-angel, for example. They interpret John 1:1 to say that the son was "another God"

There are also cults that believe that the Father came down and became the Son, and is now the Holy Spirit. Modalism. They will tell you they believe the 66 books of the bible too.

Who God is is an essential. One God revealed as three distinct persons. When you start making up various other natures based on your private interpretations, then you have gone beyond the bible and orthodoxy. Which is what you seem to be doing. Baptists do not believe what you have been claiming about God and Christ and these other "temporal" natures and immutability. That is your own interpretation and idea. That is why it is important to check your own ideas against other Christians, and your pastor, to make sure you haven't wandered into heresy.

Bill the Cat
03-18-2015, 07:26 AM
So I am persuaded that the Son of God is the God of the OT. Not the Father, but fully represents the Father in all things.

That is what Mormons believe. Jesus specifically told the Pharisees that it was the Father that was the God of their fathers, and that the Temple was His Father's house. So, yes, the Son of God is the God of the OT, but so is the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Pentecost
03-18-2015, 08:34 AM
I'm curious why you don't believe this view about the second nature of Christ doesn't diverge from orthodoxy? orthodox teaching seems to be pretty clear that Jesus added a second nature at his incarnation, not that he always had one. Or are you using the word "orthodox" in a different way?

The Christology is weird the way he expresses it, but he holds to a 100% human and 100% divine Jesus who became human at the Incarnation. That is the same Jesus I worship. So it seems to me that he got to the right answer by using the wrong equation and the math was fudged enough that instead of leading to heresy (as might happen if we examine this thought pattern closely enough) instead he has reached the same answer as us, a fully human, fully God Jesus Christ who didn't used to be human, who became human as part of the great redemption story.

37818 should have more faith in the historic Church, hear our arguments and those of his pastor, and then accept the traditional understanding, I don't know his heart and whether he has accepted Jesus into it or not, but if he says he has and if he believes what he's said he believes then I think he's just as saved as the rest of us.

Bill the Cat
03-18-2015, 09:15 AM
The Christology is weird the way he expresses it, but he holds to a 100% human and 100% divine Jesus who became human at the Incarnation.

The problem is that it seems to put an unnecessary separation between members of the Godhead, as if one of the three persons alone was the "God of the Old Testament"

Paprika
03-18-2015, 09:27 AM
Extrinsic change is not intrinsic change.

Paprika
03-18-2015, 09:33 AM
My experience is more often that people retreat to this view once they feel the broader version of immutability is no longer tenable.
Historically that has been common due to a commitment to the Hellenistic premise that perfection necessarily implies some strong form of staticity, but one need not commit to the premise in the first place.

YHWH is, after all, the One who will be what He will be.

Adrift
03-18-2015, 09:52 AM
The Christology is weird the way he expresses it, but he holds to a 100% human and 100% divine Jesus who became human at the Incarnation. That is the same Jesus I worship. So it seems to me that he got to the right answer by using the wrong equation and the math was fudged enough that instead of leading to heresy (as might happen if we examine this thought pattern closely enough) instead he has reached the same answer as us, a fully human, fully God Jesus Christ who didn't used to be human, who became human as part of the great redemption story.

37818 should have more faith in the historic Church, hear our arguments and those of his pastor, and then accept the traditional understanding, I don't know his heart and whether he has accepted Jesus into it or not, but if he says he has and if he believes what he's said he believes then I think he's just as saved as the rest of us.

I don't really doubt his salvation (that's mostly for Jesus to know, and for me to find out I suppose), there are people who hold far more heretical views that I would imagine are probably saved, but looking at his other threads this strange bit of doctrine he's invented has lead him into holding some peculiar views, and while he may not be a heretic, I can certainly imagine a slippery slope for others that may hold a similar Christology.

Perhaps I'm more sensitive to this issue since I, myself, came out of a cult that had an unorthodox view of the nature of Christ.

37818
03-18-2015, 07:37 PM
But it is all interpreted. The Jehovah's Witnesses will say that they hold to the word of God according to the 66 books of the bible, but they sure interpret them differently. They claim that Jesus is not God at all, but the incarnation of Michael the Arch-angel, for example. They interpret John 1:1 to say that the son was "another God"They have a "begotten" god (John 1:18). And they hold that the pre-incarnate Christ was God's first creation (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14). They add the indefinite article in John 1:1 to claim He was a god, not God.

From their own translation:
". . . Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior." -- Isaiah 43:10, 11. NWT.

Which contradicts "a god" and Jesus being any kind of savior not being Jehovah. Of course they have the gospel wrong too. [Only the 144,000 can be born from God {born again}, and they deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.]



There are also cults that believe that the Father came down and became the Son, and is now the Holy Spirit. Modalism. They will tell you they believe the 66 books of the bible too.They deny that the Son of God is a different person from the Father.

". . . It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. . . ." -- John 8:17, 18.

". . . But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. . . ." -- Mark 13:32.

Now from TWeb's Mission statement:

Scriptures
All of the Scriptures (the Bible consisting of Old and New Testaments) to be the final authoritative source for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

That the holy Scripture, the Bible is to be the final authority in those matters. I agree. I also hold the holy Scripture as such to be more than adequate in that regard.



Who God is is an essential. One God revealed as three distinct persons. When you start making up various other natures based on your private interpretations, then you have gone beyond the bible and orthodoxy. Which is what you seem to be doing. Baptists do not believe what you have been claiming about God and Christ and these other "temporal" natures and immutability. That is your own interpretation and idea. That is why it is important to check your own ideas against other Christians, and your pastor, to make sure you haven't wandered into heresy.

My view is against those heresies you cited. And if the truth of the word of God is understood. it is more than adequate to prevent those errors.

No one here has as yet cited a holy Scripture which refutes what I have attempted to explain.

I am not against changing my mind, where I see I am wrong. But just saying I'm wrong because how I understand something does not agree with some statement of faith as supposed. Does not show me I am mistaken. What ever the truth is that I what I am interested in. I do not like being told that I believe things I never said.

Hay, Tweb is the best set of forums for this type of discussion.

Adrift
03-18-2015, 09:36 PM
They have a "begotten" god (John 1:18). And they hold that the pre-incarnate Christ was God's first creation (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14). They add the indefinite article in John 1:1 to claim He was a god, not God.

From their own translation:
". . . Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior." -- Isaiah 43:10, 11. NWT.

Which contradicts "a god" and Jesus being any kind of savior not being Jehovah. Of course they have the gospel wrong too. [Only the 144,000 can be born from God {born again}, and they deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.]

They deny that the Son of God is a different person from the Father.

". . . It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. . . ." -- John 8:17, 18.

". . . But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. . . ." -- Mark 13:32.

Now from TWeb's Mission statement:

Scriptures
All of the Scriptures (the Bible consisting of Old and New Testaments) to be the final authoritative source for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

That the holy Scripture, the Bible is to be the final authority in those matters. I agree. I also hold the holy Scripture as such to be more than adequate in that regard.



My view is against those heresies you cited. And if the truth of the word of God is understood. it is more than adequate to prevent those errors.

You keep making this sort of point as though no one understood it. No one is saying that you hold to Mormon or Jehovah Witness teachings. We all understand that isn't the case quite well. The reason why the comparison comes up at all is because, like them, you have invented a Christological doctrine not found within traditional orthodox Christian thinking. And also like many unorthodox teachers, you say that the holy scripture and the Bible is to be the final authority in these matters. The Way International, the cult that I came out of said the exact same thing. In fact, they claimed that we were the only ones who actually held to the holy scripture, and that the Bible was the final authority (its the reason they rejected the early Creeds). So, when you say that you hold to the scriptures and the Bible, that doesn't impress anyone. Everyone says that!


No one here has as yet cited a holy Scripture which refutes what I have attempted to explain.

First of all, there was a whole other thread going over your view on the pre-incarnate temporal nature of Christ, and how it was in error, and how it would lead to other errors, and a lot of scripture was thrown around. You may not have been satisfied with the refutation, but to say that no one has offered one is pretty silly. Second of all, you're asking us to cite some mystery passage where the Bible specifically spells out that your view is wrong. Your view has only ever existed, at most, within the last few decades, or whenever it popped into your head. Why would the Bible refer to a view that no Biblical author, and no early Christian, ever really imagined? The Bible is pretty clear that Jesus assumed a second nature at his incarnation. It never mentions any second nature before his incarnation. Your idea that such a nature existed is an argument from silence based solely on your own private interpretation and conjecture.

The closest thing that I can find to your view in history is the fifth century presbyter Eutyches who also believed that Jesus had two natures before the incarnation, but unlike you, he believed the second nature, more or less, got swallowed up by the divine nature in the incarnation. He claimed to have gotten this view (later known as the monophysite-type heresy called Eutychianism) from Cyril of Alexandria. The Bishop of Rome Leo I wrote a tome against this view, and said:

"It is just as impious to say that the only-begotten Son of God is from two natures before the incarnation as it is unlawful to assert that after the Word became flesh there is one nature in him.”

The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 was the response to Eutychianism.

Touching on Eutyches' view on the pre-incarnate natures of Christ, George Stead, Ely Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge wrote,

Eutyches had protested 'I acknowledge that the Lord was "of two natures" before the union, but after the union I acknowledge only one nature' (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum ed. . E. Schwartz, 2.1.1, 143. 10-11). Thus the phrase came to suggest 'from two natures', as if Christ had formerly existed in two natures, which were then combined. The word phusis, 'nature', is so confusing that it is extremely difficult to see what this could mean. Clearly Christ did not share our human limitations before becoming incarnate; nor could he have had any individual humanity; this would imply that the human Jesus existed before he was conceived, rather like Apollinaris' notion of divine flesh already prepared in heaven (see p.207). Perhaps what is implied is the Platonic ideal of perfect humanity.

The only other person in history that I can find who held this view of two natures before the incarnation was the minister Charles Beecher (brother of Harriet Beecher Stowe of Uncle Tom's Cabin fame) who was convicted of heresy and relieved of his position by the Congregational Church for preaching unorthodox doctrine.

DesertBerean
03-18-2015, 10:07 PM
You keep making this sort of point as though no one understood it. No one is saying that you hold to Mormon or Jehovah Witness teachings. We all understand that isn't the case quite well. The reason why the comparison comes up at all is because, like them, you have invented a Christological doctrine not found within traditional orthodox Christian thinking. And also like many unorthodox teachers, you say that the holy scripture and the Bible is to be the final authority in these matters. The Way International, the cult that I came out of said the exact same thing. In fact, they claimed that we were the only ones who actually held to the holy scripture, and that the Bible was the final authority (its the reason they rejected the early Creeds). So, when you say that you hold to the scriptures and the Bible, that doesn't impress anyone. Everyone says that! You came out of the Way International? Oh Lord.

Adrift
03-18-2015, 10:28 PM
You came out of the Way International? Oh Lord.

Yep. Parents became members in the early 70s. My brother and I were born and raised in it.

Sparko
03-19-2015, 05:44 AM
They have a "begotten" god (John 1:18). And they hold that the pre-incarnate Christ was God's first creation (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14). They add the indefinite article in John 1:1 to claim He was a god, not God.

From their own translation:
". . . Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior." -- Isaiah 43:10, 11. NWT.

Which contradicts "a god" and Jesus being any kind of savior not being Jehovah. Of course they have the gospel wrong too. [Only the 144,000 can be born from God {born again}, and they deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.]

They deny that the Son of God is a different person from the Father.

". . . It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. . . ." -- John 8:17, 18.

". . . But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. . . ." -- Mark 13:32.

Now from TWeb's Mission statement:

Scriptures
All of the Scriptures (the Bible consisting of Old and New Testaments) to be the final authoritative source for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

That the holy Scripture, the Bible is to be the final authority in those matters. I agree. I also hold the holy Scripture as such to be more than adequate in that regard.

My point is that all modern bibles are TRANSLATIONS which were interpreted in different ways. And even then people will read into the text what they want to see. That is why we need to check our private interpretations against others and history. It is easy to get some wrong ideas if you are not careful. The bible isn't an instruction manual or manual of doctrines. It is stories and events that happened in history mostly.




My view is against those heresies you cited. And if the truth of the word of God is understood. it is more than adequate to prevent those errors. No it isn't. The mere fact that there are many cults based on even the same english translations we use (KJV, NIV, etc) shows that.


No one here has as yet cited a holy Scripture which refutes what I have attempted to explain. I am sure they have. But to be truthful, your posts are pretty confusing in your explaining what you are even talking about. You have provided no scriptures that supports your ideas about immutability to the point of not being able to create, or act in time, and your solution to give some "temporal" pre-incarnation nature to Christ which basically transforms into his incarnation.




I am not against changing my mind, where I see I am wrong. But just saying I'm wrong because how I understand something does not agree with some statement of faith as supposed. Does not show me I am mistaken. What ever the truth is that I what I am interested in. I do not like being told that I believe things I never said. Then you need to be clearer in your explanations. We can only go by what we read. When you come up with some "truth" that nobody ever has come up with before in thousands of years of bible history, then you should be suspicious of your idea, and check it against what the church has always held to and what it believes today. Billions of Christians have a better chance of being correct than you do. That is why I suggested talking to your pastor about it.



Hay, Tweb is the best set of forums for this type of discussion.

Thank you. We are not trying ostracize you here. The difference in the faith tags "Christian" and "Christian (other)" or something like that is just that we have certain areas that are meant for discussing Christian orthodox doctrine, and if we allowed someone who has ideas that are not orthodox (and by orthodox, I mean traditionally held views, not the denomination Orthodox) then the area will end up turning into a wrestling ring as people argue about doctrine, like we are doing here. So if someone is asked to change their faith tag to something other than Christian, it doesn't mean we think they are unsaved. Just enough out of bounds of traditional Christianity that we need to restrict them from posting in orthodox Christian areas for the sake of the site dynamics.

37818
03-19-2015, 06:39 AM
My point is that all modern bibles are TRANSLATIONS which were interpreted in different ways. And even then people will read into the text what they want to see. That is why we need to check our private interpretations against others and history. It is easy to get some wrong ideas if you are not careful. The bible isn't an instruction manual or manual of doctrines. It is stories and events that happened in history mostly. What do you understand, " . . .All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: . . ." to mean?


No it isn't. The mere fact that there are many cults based on even the same english translations we use (KJV, NIV, etc) shows that. There are more counterfeits of truth, being that genuine Christianity is the truth.


I am sure they have. But to be truthful, your posts are pretty confusing in your explaining what you are even talking about. You have provided no scriptures that supports your ideas about immutability to the point of not being able to create, or act in time, and your solution to give some "temporal" pre-incarnation nature to Christ which basically transforms into his incarnation. Temporal has to do with time and change. Immutability has to do with what does not change. What is so difficult About that distinction? The Biblical truth is the pre-incarnate Christ is the sole reason for creation (Colossians 1:16-18). Do not assume things I am not saying. When God created time He created its eternity without beginning without end. ". . . from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."-- Psalm 90:2.


Then you need to be clearer in your explanations. We can only go by what we read. When you come up with some "truth" that nobody ever has come up with before in thousands of years of bible history, then you should be suspicious of your idea, and check it against what the church has always held to and what it believes today. Billions of Christians have a better chance of being correct than you do. That is why I suggested talking to your pastor about it. I do not have a corner on truth all to myself. No one does. John 1:1-2 says two things about the Word, that He was "with God" [to, facing God] and "was God" [v.3]. With the emphasis on being "with God" [v.2]. As I read it, understand it, it says the pre-incarnate only-begotten was both someone other than God and was God the Creator [vs. 10, 14].




Thank you. We are not trying ostracize you here. The difference in the faith tags "Christian" and "Christian (other)" or something like that is just that we have certain areas that are meant for discussing Christian orthodox doctrine, and if we allowed someone who has ideas that are not orthodox (and by orthodox, I mean traditionally held views, not the denomination Orthodox) then the area will end up turning into a wrestling ring as people argue about doctrine, like we are doing here. So if someone is asked to change their faith tag to something other than Christian, it doesn't mean we think they are unsaved. Just enough out of bounds of traditional Christianity that we need to restrict them from posting in orthodox Christian areas for the sake of the site dynamics.

Adrift
03-19-2015, 06:53 AM
If the divine nature is immutable to the point of being completely static, then how was Jesus raised from the dead? How was the Father able to communicate his will to his Son? James 1 tells us that God is unchanging, and yet he is the Father of lights, and the giver of every perfect gift (including wisdom and the crown of life), that he gave birth to us through the message of truth. How is he able to do these things if he is completely static?

Sparko
03-19-2015, 07:31 AM
What do you understand, " . . .All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: . . ." to mean?

What do you take THIS to mean?

2 Peter 1:20 (ESV) knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.


Temporal has to do with time and change. Immutability has to do with what does not change. What is so difficult About that distinction? The Biblical truth is the pre-incarnate Christ is the sole reason for creation (Colossians 1:16-18). Do not assume things I am not saying. When God created time He created its eternity without beginning without end. ". . . from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."-- Psalm 90:2.
I do not have a corner on truth all to myself. No one does. John 1:1-2 says two things about the Word, that He was "with God" [to, facing God] and "was God" [v.3]. With the emphasis on being "with God" [v.2]. As I read it, understand it, it says the pre-incarnate only-begotten was both someone other than God and was God the Creator [vs. 10, 14]

Do you see three natures there? No. You see ONE God and multiple persons. The preincarnate son is of the same nature as God. That is why he is God. There is only one God. He was "with God" because it is speaking of the Son here, and he is a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say he had two natures before the incarnation. He took on his second nature (man) when he was born. Then he had two natures, God and Man. Before that he had only one nature: God.

The actual point of John 1:1 has to do with the first words: In the beginning. Just like Genesis 1:1. John is making the point that the son was not created but was always there and is God.

Adrift
03-19-2015, 07:38 AM
Do you see three natures there? No. You see ONE God and multiple persons. The preincarnate son is of the same nature as God. That is why he is God. There is only one God. He was "with God" because it is speaking of the Son here, and he is a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say he had two natures before the incarnation. He took on his second nature (man) when he was born. Then he had two natures, God and Man. Before that he had only one nature: God.

The actual point of John 1:1 has to do with the first words: In the beginning. Just like Genesis 1:1. John is making the point that the son was not created but was always there and is God.

Yeah, it was pointed out to him that he was confusing persons with natures in the other thread, but he denied that that was what he was doing. The orthodox view would have us believe that the Holy Spirit was also God, and with God, but I think this is something 37818 would deny. He'd only go so far as saying that the Holy Spirit was God, but not that he was with God.

37818
03-19-2015, 09:03 AM
What do you take THIS to mean?I understand it to mean just what it says. And I take it as holy Scripture to be the final authority.


2 Peter 1:20 (ESV) knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. Because the holy Scripture comes of God's Spirit not mans (v.21).




Do you see three natures there? No. You see ONE God and multiple persons. The preincarnate son is of the same nature as God. That is why he is God. There is only one God. He was "with God" because it is speaking of the Son here, and he is a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It doesn't say he had two natures before the incarnation. He took on his second nature (man) when he was born. Then he had two natures, God and Man. Before that he had only one nature: God.I never said there were three natures. Only the Word is said to be "with God." So "with God" is to be God? Honestly is that how you read it? It says "with God" and the text emphasizes this (v.2). Now understand, I am not disputing that the Word has and always had a divine nature that He "was God" and as such was the Creator.

Creation is an act. Acts are temporal in nature. That which is eternal never changes. Truth is immutability. God being the source of all truth.



The actual point of John 1:1 has to do with the first words: In the beginning. Just like Genesis 1:1. John is making the point that the son was not created but was always there and is God.I agree.

Sparko
03-19-2015, 09:20 AM
wow.

Pentecost
03-19-2015, 11:09 AM
I don't really doubt his salvation (that's mostly for Jesus to know, and for me to find out I suppose), there are people who hold far more heretical views that I would imagine are probably saved, but looking at his other threads this strange bit of doctrine he's invented has lead him into holding some peculiar views, and while he may not be a heretic, I can certainly imagine a slippery slope for others that may hold a similar Christology.

Perhaps I'm more sensitive to this issue since I, myself, came out of a cult that had an unorthodox view of the nature of Christ. I agree his beliefs are peculiar, and I share a worry about that water slide, but he has yet to go down it, and God willing he won't, nor will he pass these odd beliefs on. Often you have a genuine heresiarch (Joseph Smith for example), but you can have an unusual but orthodox view misunderstood (doctrines on pneumatology, Trinity, Baptism, and gifts of the Spirit in the example I'm using) by some of the the adherents and we end up with unorthodox groups like the Oneness who kinda just slipped into heresy. I am not as skeptical as you might be since you came out of a heretical group, but I AM hyper aware of the false teachings that are all too often (correctly) associated with the Pentecostal/charismatic tradition so I've payed special attention to the topic so that I might know right discernment.


The problem is that it seems to put an unnecessary separation between members of the Godhead, as if one of the three persons alone was the "God of the Old Testament" A good argument can be made for it from Scripture using John 1:18 and 5:37, then paying attention to things like Moses talking to God. Is this the only interpretation possible? Absolutely not. I would point out things like Jesus' Baptism where people obviously did hear the voice of God the Father. I do not see an meaningful seperation in the sense that it divides the Trinity into a Trideity, but instead divides the Trinity by self-identified function. But I reiterate that I hold the traditional view.


In any case if 37818 continues I will have to reevaluate defending him. It looks like he's leading up to denying that the Spirit is with God and if that's the case then either the Spirit isn't God or he's a different God. Either way the worst sort of heresy and 37818 knows it, so I doubt he'll say that. I am curious where he'll go if pressed though. He has an odd tendency to claim only Scripture as his guide and then toss in a lot of meaningless philosophy.

Chrawnus
03-19-2015, 11:36 AM
The problem is that it seems to put an unnecessary separation between members of the Godhead, as if one of the three persons alone was the "God of the Old Testament"

When I showed him clear passages from the NT where parallells are drawn between Jesus and divine Wisdom in the OT and intertestamental Wisdom literature (and some passages where Jesus is explicitly identified with divine Wisdom) he objected to identifying Jesus with God's Wisdom because apparently Jesus is the God of the OT, and therefore can't be the Wisdom of Himself (and also because Wisdom is described as a "she" :hrm:). When your theology leads you to deny what the Bible clearly teaches I think it's time to look over your theology.

Christianbookworm
03-19-2015, 11:38 AM
When I showed him clear passages from the NT where parallells are drawn between Jesus and divine Wisdom in the OT and intertestamental Wisdom literature (and some passages where Jesus is explicitly identified with divine Wisdom) he objected to identifying Jesus with God's Wisdom because apparently Jesus is the God of the OT, and therefore can't be the Wisdom of Himself (and also because Wisdom is described as a "she" :hrm:). When your theology leads you to deny what the Bible clearly teaches I think it's time to look over your theology.
Newsflash! Spirits don't have chromosomes! Thus don't really have a gender perse...

Bill the Cat
03-19-2015, 12:43 PM
When I showed him clear passages from the NT where parallells are drawn between Jesus and divine Wisdom in the OT and intertestamental Wisdom literature (and some passages where Jesus is explicitly identified with divine Wisdom) he objected to identifying Jesus with God's Wisdom because apparently Jesus is the God of the OT, and therefore can't be the Wisdom of Himself (and also because Wisdom is described as a "she" :hrm:). When your theology leads you to deny what the Bible clearly teaches I think it's time to look over your theology.

Sparko and I have been arguing against that view by the Mormons for years. Things like Jesus telling the Pharisees that their God was His Father, the temple was His Father's, and the Isaiah passage where the child is prophesied are all sufficient to dismiss the claim that Jesus SOLELY is the God of the OT to the exclusion of the Father and Spirit.

JimL
03-20-2015, 03:37 AM
I believe in the immutability of God. Here I am going to argue against it.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis1:1.

This being understood to be an ex nihilo creation.

God never creating anything, then after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything.
God went from not being the Creator to becoming the Creator. A change which negates any real claim to immutability.
The Universe could be argued to be immutable in the same way that theists argue for Gods immutability, the universe in its totality changes within itself, but because it is eternal and infinite, having no outside reference point to mark the change, then the question becomes; change with respect to what? Change with respect to itself makes no sense, so time becomes naught but an abstract notion denoting motion within an eternal whole.

Bill the Cat
03-20-2015, 05:42 AM
Jim, please note that this thread has been moved to the theist only area. As such, you will not be given points for this post above, but further instances will.

37818
03-20-2015, 12:14 PM
When I showed him clear passages from the NT where parallells are drawn between Jesus and divine Wisdom in the OT and intertestamental Wisdom literature (and some passages where Jesus is explicitly identified with divine Wisdom) he objected to identifying Jesus with God's Wisdom because apparently Jesus is the God of the OT, and therefore can't be the Wisdom of Himself (and also because Wisdom is described as a "she" :hrm:). When your theology leads you to deny what the Bible clearly teaches I think it's time to look over your theology.

For the sake of argument. The pre-incarnate Christ is the spirit of wisdom in Proverbs 8. And Proverbs 8:22 is only wisdom speaking 8:12 (and not the spirit understanding speaking 8:14-31). [JWs use this as a proof text that the Word in John 1:1-3, 14 is not Jehovah, BTW.]

The text shows that spirit of wisdom is other than Jehovah. Which is in agreement with our pre-incarnte Christ being both Jehovah and not Jehovah before His incarnation.

". . . The LORD[Jehovah, God**] possessed* me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.
*possessed [does not mean create]
** Deuteronomy 8:3 the LORD; Matthew 4:4 God.

Chrawnus
03-20-2015, 12:22 PM
For the sake of argument. The pre-incarnate Christ is the spirit of wisdom in Proverbs 8. And Proverbs 8:22 is only wisdom speaking 8:12 (and not the spirit understanding speaking 8:14-31). [JWs use this as a proof text that the Word in John 1:1-3, 14 is not Jehovah, BTW.]

I'm not really interested in how JW's mishandle scripture. I'll leave that to those who's taken it upon themselves to refute JW's claims.



The text shows that spirit of wisdom is other than Jehovah. Which is in agreement with our pre-incarnte Christ being both Jehovah and not Jehovah before His incarnation.

Wisdom is intrinsic to YHWH. I'm not sure what you mean by Christ being both Jehovah and not Jehovah, because if I take that statement by face-value it's blatantly self-contradictory. :shrug:



". . . The LORD[Jehovah, God**] possessed* me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.
*possessed [does not mean create]
** Deuteronomy 8:3 the LORD; Matthew 4:4 God.

I agree that possessed does not mean create. I'm not sure why you brought it up.

37818
03-20-2015, 07:47 PM
Wisdom is intrinsic to YHWH. I'm not sure what you mean by Christ being both Jehovah and not Jehovah, because if I take that statement by face-value it's blatantly self-contradictory. :shrug:The same issue exists in the incarnation where Jesus is both YHWH and not YHWH in being a genuine human.

"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? . . . " -- Matthew 22:41-45.

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." -- Psalm 110:1. "YHWH said unto my Lord." In the incarnation Jesus is made Lord being a man.

Thomas after the resurrection address Him as both Lord and God (John 20:28).

And even now as our mediator, He does so as the man "For [there is] [B]one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." -- 1 Timothy 2:5, 6.







I agree that possessed does not mean create. I'm not sure why you brought it up.There was another post which was part of this thread which has been expunged, so it is gone. I didn't know until now.

Your comment:

When I showed him clear passages from the NT where parallells are drawn between Jesus and divine Wisdom in the OT and intertestamental Wisdom literature (and some passages where Jesus is [B]explicitly identified with divine Wisdom) he objected to identifying Jesus with God's Wisdom because apparently Jesus is the God of the OT, and therefore can't be the Wisdom of Himself (and also because Wisdom is described as a "she" :hrm:). When your theology leads you to deny what the Bible clearly teaches I think it's time to look over your theology.
Which was on my comment on a comment you made. Both those comments are also gone. Or Tweb is about to crash again. I hope not.

Tyrel
03-23-2015, 07:54 PM
I believe in the immutability of God. Here I am going to argue against it.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis1:1.

This being understood to be an ex nihilo creation.

God never creating anything, then after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything.
God went from not being the Creator to becoming the Creator. A change which negates any real claim to immutability.

The typical line in analytic theology, as in medieval scholasticism, is to maintain that the only way God's immutability can be called into question by the act of creation is if, in creating, God gains or loses at least one property. For instance, God might inherit the property of being 'the creator' once he creates the world. St. Thomas Aquinas argued, however, that there are different ways for relations to obtain between things (and relations are here conceived of as being properties). For instance, it could be that a relation R holds between two things A and B just in case R inheres A and R inheres B. However, another way for a relation R to hold between A and B is for the relation R to inhere A, but not to really inhere B. I am being somewhat imprecise, but posting on a forum doesn't require much academic precision. In any case, the Thomistic position is that when we say "God is the creator" the statement is issued by analogy, and that it's truth-maker is actually (in) the world itself. Ultimately to say God is the creator is to say something about the world (to specify the way in which it relates to God), and not to say something about God's nature per se.

Some thinkers, like William Lane Craig, and apparently Duns Scotus, have argued that God actually stands in 'real' relations to the world (so that he himself inherits at least one property in creating the world). The alternative, advanced by St. Thomas and Thomists with him, is that while the world is really related to God, God is not really related to the world (i.e., that the world has the property of being created, but God does not have within himself the property of being creator). This position can be hard to swallow for people who think of God as being a being among beings. However, St. Thomas' position goes hand in hand with the doctrine of analogy (the idea that the only things we can truly predicate of God are not predicated univocally, but by analogy - so that, for instance, to say that God is good does not have the same sense it would have were we to say it of any other thing, but is actually to say that He is the paradigm of goodness itself, or to say that He exists is to say that He is 'Being' itself, the ground of existence, et cetera), which is incompatible with the view that God is literally a being among beings.

So, immutability is only really called into question, here, if God, in virtue of creating, obtains a new property (not merely according to an analogous façon de parler, but in reality). However, the fact that God has created a world does not, on it's own, imply that his nature isn't immutable. You would need the auxiliary assumption(s) about His having 'real' relations to the world (or being capable of having such relations in principle).


Why would one assume that God never created anything before this universe? We might just be the current stage of an endless sequence of creation.

That would make no difference to the issue at hand. Even an infinite set of creations only implies God's mutability if, in creating, He acquires (or loses) some new property which really inheres the divine nature.

Franktalk
05-04-2015, 03:15 AM
A few thoughts on this view.

If God is immutable I think we must ask ourselves why? What comes to my mind is an eternal God who has experienced all there is to experience and knows everything there is to know. Once that knowledge set and experience level is obtained (speaking from a timeline perspective) then God is trapped by infinite knowledge and experience. Knowing the end from the beginning stops God from doing anything because it would be like spinning in circles. But a God with infinite knowledge can indeed make a universe filled with creatures without infinite knowledge. Let us say that God makes an avatar that can hold his essence but the avatar can not access the infinite knowledge set. Let us say it is designed that way. Let us call that design feature "the veil". So in this environment God is still immutable yet by design experiences a sense of newness based on the veil. So one aspect of God is indeed immutable but another aspect of God enters into a temporal world to experience the sensation of newness again.

I happen to believe that there are many eternal Gods. They are all immutable. I believe the temporal plane has also existed from eternity. I believe the eternal round describes worlds without end and avatars which are designed with limits. In this view God can indeed be immutable yet can also exist in a playground called the temporal plane.

Yes it is a strange idea. Yet it can make sense of eternal beings and their relationship with the temporal world.

jo1952
05-04-2015, 05:25 AM
A few thoughts on this view.

If God is immutable I think we must ask ourselves why? What comes to my mind is an eternal God who has experienced all there is to experience and knows everything there is to know. Once that knowledge set and experience level is obtained (speaking from a timeline perspective) then God is trapped by infinite knowledge and experience. Knowing the end from the beginning stops God from doing anything because it would be like spinning in circles. But a God with infinite knowledge can indeed make a universe filled with creatures without infinite knowledge. Let us say that God makes an avatar that can hold his essence but the avatar can not access the infinite knowledge set. Let us say it is designed that way. Let us call that design feature "the veil". So in this environment God is still immutable yet by design experiences a sense of newness based on the veil. So one aspect of God is indeed immutable but another aspect of God enters into a temporal world to experience the sensation of newness again.

I happen to believe that there are many eternal Gods. They are all immutable. I believe the temporal plane has also existed from eternity. I believe the eternal round describes worlds without end and avatars which are designed with limits. In this view God can indeed be immutable yet can also exist in a playground called the temporal plane.

Yes it is a strange idea. Yet it can make sense of eternal beings and their relationship with the temporal world.

Such beings/"gods"....with all knowledge....would also have the knowledge of "how" to create (wouldn't creating be a part of "all knowledge"?). By using that knowledge, they can indeed create new "worlds" purposed for experiencing newness.

By looking at our own advancements in technology, we can begin to "see" such possibilities more easily. For instance, look at computer games wherein virtual realities are created in order for the player outside of the game to enjoy new experiences through an avatar inside of the game whom they get to watch from outside of that game. With this in mind, we can see that the "creator" of the game, who has already experienced everything that can be experienced (and is thus immutable by virtue of nothing new can even personally be experienced first hand---and is thus unchanging), can also experience newness through the use of an avatar (the extension of the creator) who is doing the experiencing of newness. In this way, the creator is both immutable and mutable at the same time---just at different levels of existence; at one level as the creator (even the "father"?), and at another level as the avatar (even "the son"?).

Sparko
05-04-2015, 05:45 AM
Such beings/"gods"....with all knowledge....would also have the knowledge of "how" to create (wouldn't creating be a part of "all knowledge"?). By using that knowledge, they can indeed create new "worlds" purposed for experiencing newness.

By looking at our own advancements in technology, we can begin to "see" such possibilities more easily. For instance, look at computer games wherein virtual realities are created in order for the player outside of the game to enjoy new experiences through an avatar inside of the game whom they get to watch from outside of that game. With this in mind, we can see that the "creator" of the game, who has already experienced everything that can be experienced (and is thus immutable by virtue of nothing new can even personally be experienced first hand---and is thus unchanging), can also experience newness through the use of an avatar (the extension of the creator) who is doing the experiencing of newness. In this way, the creator is both immutable and mutable at the same time---just at different levels of existence; at one level as the creator (even the "father"?), and at another level as the avatar (even "the son"?).

Except in that scenario the human being is not God, just a player. The real God is the computer who controls the world, what happens in it, etc.

So in you and Frank's weird attempt to combine mormonism with an Xbox 360, all you have shown in your analogy is that the being who created the universe is God, and you are nothing but a player. Pop another quarter in, Jo.

Franktalk
05-04-2015, 07:00 AM
Sparko,

To have a thought experiment about an immutable God and temporal world we live in can be rewarding. It can open our mind to new ideas and allows us to ask questions about ourselves and about the nature of God. This is a good thing. Might want to try it sometime. You know, having an open mind.

Sparko
05-04-2015, 07:24 AM
Sparko,

To have a thought experiment about an immutable God and temporal world we live in can be rewarding. It can open our mind to new ideas and allows us to ask questions about ourselves and about the nature of God. This is a good thing. Might want to try it sometime. You know, having an open mind.

I don't need "new ideas" about God. I have the bible. Unlike you, I find it unnecessary to make up my own God, I am quite happy with the real one.

jo1952
05-04-2015, 09:01 AM
Except in that scenario the human being is not God, just a player. The real God is the computer who controls the world, what happens in it, etc.

So in you and Frank's weird attempt to combine mormonism with an Xbox 360, all you have shown in your analogy is that the being who created the universe is God, and you are nothing but a player. Pop another quarter in, Jo.

Such a typical response, Sparko....sigh.... Yet another not-so-very impressive argument.....

As usual, according to your own perceptions--which are made up of the traditions you have been taught, you don't have the eyes to even see what we are writing. You see what you want to see.

As a player, I am the "son"; but as the creator, I am the "Father". The "veil" prevents the player (the son) from remembering that he/she is also the Father---the first love whom we have "forgotten". Jesus said we are gods:

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Our mortal body is the “temple” for our spirit (the divine in us). The true self (Father) does not “live” here; we are outside of this realm…watching remotely what is going on here. This, in order that we can experience newness through the avatar because our true self has already personally experienced everything there is to experience. As such, the immutable Father and the mutable son/avatar, exist simultaneously. It is our own Holy Spirit (the connection between the Father and the son) which completes the "holy trinity".

Meanwhile, John the Beloved writes:

1 John 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. (Isn't it interesting Jesus kept speaking something special about little children (perhaps, pointing to how little children have not yet been indoctrinated into the traditions and religion taught by their fathers)---they have open minds. For us to become once more like little children, we need to open our minds, give up the world (the traditions), in order to leave room for the Holy Spirit (our own connection to the Father) to be able to connect to the "son" (us..our avatar). Notice how the Father known by the children has a capital "F"--pointing to the Father outside of this realm.
14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. The word of God can abide in those who have awakened to this truth. We overcome the wicked one who is none other than the father of this world (using a small "f"); i.e., our carnal self. Let's look here, which speaks of when we are not connected to or listening to our Holy Spirit:

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

When we are listening to our carnal self (the avatar), we are not able to hear the Holy Spirit. Not listening to our own Holy Spirit (that connection between the Father and the son) is the blasphemy which cannot be forgiven. Because while we are not listening to that still small voice (the Holy Spirit---that connection between our carnal self (avatar) and our divine (god/Father) self ), we are not able to know the truth; as such, there is no truth in those who aren't able to hear.

BTW, this is not something taught by the LDS Church. Joseph knew the truth but was not allowed to reveal it to the people once they rejected the simple Gospel of Christ. He DID, though, teach these truths in the Endowment--using symbolism; like a parable. But the Church has been blind to those truths. Just like Moses did, Joseph gave the people what they wanted; and did not interfere with their free will. They wanted religion with all of its trappings…even Temples and ordinances….a religion of performances. All of this in accordance with the idols in their hearts; those things which they felt would show the world how special and chosen they were above all others---aka the stumbling block of their own iniquity was given to them.

Bill the Cat
05-04-2015, 09:05 AM
To sum up Frank's argument...

6179

Sparko
05-04-2015, 11:38 AM
Such a typical response, Sparko....sigh.... Yet another not-so-very impressive argument.....

As usual, according to your own perceptions--which are made up of the traditions you have been taught, you don't have the eyes to even see what we are writing. You see what you want to see.

As a player, I am the "son"; but as the creator, I am the "Father". The "veil" prevents the player (the son) from remembering that he/she is also the Father---the first love whom we have "forgotten". Jesus said we are gods:

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Our mortal body is the “temple” for our spirit (the divine in us). The true self (Father) does not “live” here; we are outside of this realm…watching remotely what is going on here. This, in order that we can experience newness through the avatar because our true self has already personally experienced everything there is to experience. As such, the immutable Father and the mutable son/avatar, exist simultaneously. It is our own Holy Spirit (the connection between the Father and the son) which completes the "holy trinity".

Meanwhile, John the Beloved writes:

1 John 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. (Isn't it interesting Jesus kept speaking something special about little children (perhaps, pointing to how little children have not yet been indoctrinated into the traditions and religion taught by their fathers)---they have open minds. For us to become once more like little children, we need to open our minds, give up the world (the traditions), in order to leave room for the Holy Spirit (our own connection to the Father) to be able to connect to the "son" (us..our avatar). Notice how the Father known by the children has a capital "F"--pointing to the Father outside of this realm.
14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. The word of God can abide in those who have awakened to this truth. We overcome the wicked one who is none other than the father of this world (using a small "f"); i.e., our carnal self. Let's look here, which speaks of when we are not connected to or listening to our Holy Spirit:

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

When we are listening to our carnal self (the avatar), we are not able to hear the Holy Spirit. Not listening to our own Holy Spirit (that connection between the Father and the son) is the blasphemy which cannot be forgiven. Because while we are not listening to that still small voice (the Holy Spirit---that connection between our carnal self (avatar) and our divine (god/Father) self ), we are not able to know the truth; as such, there is no truth in those who aren't able to hear.

BTW, this is not something taught by the LDS Church. Joseph knew the truth but was not allowed to reveal it to the people once they rejected the simple Gospel of Christ. He DID, though, teach these truths in the Endowment--using symbolism; like a parable. But the Church has been blind to those truths. Just like Moses did, Joseph gave the people what they wanted; and did not interfere with their free will. They wanted religion with all of its trappings…even Temples and ordinances….a religion of performances. All of this in accordance with the idols in their hearts; those things which they felt would show the world how special and chosen they were above all others---aka the stumbling block of their own iniquity was given to them.

You have been watching Tron too much.

I love how you try to sound all spiritual, acting like a guiding guru, with your wacky theology based on the fact that you can't just let go of mormonism. But all you are really doing is trying to drag others down the wrong path you are on. Fortunately you and Frank sound insane and completely wacky, so I doubt you will find any followers.

jo1952
05-04-2015, 05:13 PM
Sparko,

Actually, I no longer think of my beliefs in terms of spirituality....that is terminology used by those clinging to religion. When speaking to others who are inside of religion, however, I DO, use the words they are familiar with in order to share my thoughts and beliefs. I no longer think anything magical or mystical or spiritual is going on. We aren't looking for any followers; in fact, please don't anyone follow us!!! Since the kingdom of God (also religious terminology) is within us, no one has any business looking outside of themselves to discover that kingdom. Jesus taught in terminology of religion because He was speaking to those who believed in religion; so, His words sound spiritually-based. His teachings used their terminology in order to reveal the things Father (also a word used in accordance with their beliefs) wanted us to know at the time Jesus walked the earth. He was teaching us things to help us out while we are in mortality; while also using parables to teach some real truth about who we are, why we are here, and what the heck is really going on in this world.

It's nice to see that whenever someone does not agree with what YOU believe, that you still have the very loving propensity to mock them. Gotta love a pirate!!

Cerebrum123
05-05-2015, 02:09 AM
Sparko,

Actually, I no longer think of my beliefs in terms of spirituality....that is terminology used by those clinging to religion. When speaking to others who are inside of religion, however, I DO, use the words they are familiar with in order to share my thoughts and beliefs. I no longer think anything magical or mystical or spiritual is going on. We aren't looking for any followers; in fact, please don't anyone follow us!!! Since the kingdom of God (also religious terminology) is within us, no one has any business looking outside of themselves to discover that kingdom. Jesus taught in terminology of religion because He was speaking to those who believed in religion; so, His words sound spiritually-based. His teachings used their terminology in order to reveal the things Father (also a word used in accordance with their beliefs) wanted us to know at the time Jesus walked the earth. He was teaching us things to help us out while we are in mortality; while also using parables to teach some real truth about who we are, why we are here, and what the heck is really going on in this world.

It's nice to see that whenever someone does not agree with what YOU believe, that you still have the very loving propensity to mock them. Gotta love a pirate!!

:ahem:
Here's a hint jo, you haven't left "religion". You've just invented your own, along with a new god to go with it.

Sparko
05-05-2015, 06:47 AM
Sparko,

Actually, I no longer think of my beliefs in terms of spirituality....that is terminology used by those clinging to religion. When speaking to others who are inside of religion, however, I DO, use the words they are familiar with in order to share my thoughts and beliefs. I no longer think anything magical or mystical or spiritual is going on. We aren't looking for any followers; in fact, please don't anyone follow us!!! Since the kingdom of God (also religious terminology) is within us, no one has any business looking outside of themselves to discover that kingdom. Jesus taught in terminology of religion because He was speaking to those who believed in religion; so, His words sound spiritually-based. His teachings used their terminology in order to reveal the things Father (also a word used in accordance with their beliefs) wanted us to know at the time Jesus walked the earth. He was teaching us things to help us out while we are in mortality; while also using parables to teach some real truth about who we are, why we are here, and what the heck is really going on in this world.

It's nice to see that whenever someone does not agree with what YOU believe, that you still have the very loving propensity to mock them. Gotta love a pirate!!And you gotta love the propensity that you have for being passive agressive. At least I am open about my thoughts.

I am not "mocking" you however, I am trying to get you to wake up and remove the wool that has been pulled over your eyes, by Frank and yourself. Simply saying you are not "inside religion" doesn't cut it, especially since you are speaking of God and things of a spiritual nature. Religion is a philosophy with the subject of faith and God. You and Frank both are religious, even if you don't admit it. Now if you are truly not religious, then you need to change your faith tags to "atheist" and stop posting in theist areas.

do you and Frank sit around and smoke the loco weed all day to come up with your ideas, or what? Because that is what they sound like. Full of holes and contradictions.

Sparko
05-05-2015, 06:49 AM
:ahem:
Here's a hint jo, you haven't left "religion". You've just invented your own, along with a new god to go with it.Exactly. And the God they created is themselves. Pure selfishness and egomania.

Abu Njoroge
04-18-2017, 06:26 AM
If we are assuming that time is one of the things which was created ex nihilo, then it is not the case that "after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything." Of course, that opens up the question, "How could God have created something which was literally never non-existent?" Still, if we can ignore this further problem for the sake of the question in the OP, then there was literally never a time when God was not a Creator, and therefore no mutation.

I believe all of the matter in the universe always existed. When God created what appears to be other than God, It just moved the matter around a bit in a way that eventually led to the perfect astronomical landscape for life.


In future, please get permission before posting in this area. Thank you.

37818
04-22-2017, 01:57 PM
That makes no sense. Is an attribute somehow the entire nature???

Given God's nature defines itself. List attributes of that nature.

tabibito
04-23-2017, 11:31 AM
I think people are referring more to God's moral character and abilities never changing.

Well, that is what the Bible refers to, anyway.

37818
04-24-2017, 06:22 AM
You indicated you are a baptist once. Have you taken your ideas about God's nature to your pastor and see what he thinks?

My view point is baptist. I have discussed this with pastors. Mischaracterization of my view here is just that. I try to clarify. But it too is mischaracterized.

Immutability with God is fundamental. Mutability also had to have always been or there would a departure from immutability. And there is no departure of immutability nor can there have been. So mutability also has to always to have been with God in some way. :shrug:

37818
04-25-2017, 06:22 AM
But it is all interpreted. The Jehovah's Witnesses will say that they hold to the word of God according to the 66 books of the bible, but they sure interpret them differently. They claim that Jesus is not God at all, but the incarnation of Michael the Arch-angel, for example. They interpret John 1:1 to say that the son was "another God"

There are also cults that believe that the Father came down and became the Son, and is now the Holy Spirit. Modalism. They will tell you they believe the 66 books of the bible too.

Who God is is an essential. One God revealed as three distinct persons. When you start making up various other natures based on your private interpretations, then you have gone beyond the bible and orthodoxy. Which is what you seem to be doing. Baptists do not believe what you have been claiming about God and Christ and these other "temporal" natures and immutability. That is your own interpretation and idea. That is why it is important to check your own ideas against other Christians, and your pastor, to make sure you haven't wandered into heresy.

The godhead, tritheism denies one God, unitarianism denies the deity of Christ, Arianism denies the deity of Christ, Modalism denies the Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All of those things being denied can be shown to be taught in the Bible.

This needs to be said: Error is the denial of truth. All groups making claims to be Christian make some kind of claims to the 66 books we call the Bible. But the false teachings all have in common is there teachings are always the Bible plus another authority. Not the written word of God alone. Not sola scriptura.

Biblical errors either adds to the word of God or denies some explicit teaching of the word of God.
Do you know an exception?

Marta
04-26-2017, 12:13 AM
The godhead, tritheism denies one God, unitarianism denies the deity of Christ, Arianism denies the deity of Christ, Modalism denies the Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All of those things being denied can be shown to be taught in the Bible.

This needs to be said: Error is the denial of truth. All groups making claims to be Christian make some kind of claims to the 66 books we call the Bible. But the false teachings all have in common is there teachings are always the Bible plus another authority. Not the written word of God alone. Not sola scriptura.

Biblical errors either adds to the word of God or denies some explicit teaching of the word of God.
Do you know an exception?


Truths:


They declare that God is imminent in His creation, that there is no place in heaven or earth or hell where men may hide from His presence. They teach that God is at once far off and near, and that in Him men move and live and have their being.



It would seem that before the fall of Adam and Eve these two were privileged to enjoy intimate fellowship and communion with God. From verse 8, we can infer that God daily walked in the garden in the cool of the day, and that Adam and Eve enjoyed this time with Him. But when they chose to trust the devil instead of God and to disobey the command of God, they sinned. Their sin caused them to withdraw from God out of fear. They hid themselves from Him. Sin results in separation from God.

The rest of the Bible is the story of how God fulfills this promise of salvation so that sinful men can once again draw nearer to God. God’s presence was manifested in the holy of holies, where the gaze of men was prevented lest they die. And men were informed that only by means of the shedding of blood could they approach their God in worship. This whole system foreshadowed the coming of the Messiah, the “Lamb of God,” who would bear the sins of the world and whose shed blood would cleanse men from their sins.

Bottom line to the truthfulness:

4 "Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear. 5 "I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandal has not worn out on your foot. 6 "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God.…

The journey out into the desert was to show "all" people (Israelites) the need for God as told by Moses(Deuteronomy 29). We (even as Christians) are made imperfect for a reason while God being perfect "gave" out just judgments and mercies. Also, none of the rulers "matched" authority with His son (Messiah) Jesus but his authority came from God as a seal - with an approval. All things were given to the son, that is a truth. (and stated) The best passage in the bible is about our salvation and how we "as sinners" turn toward God for his forgiveness. Our imperfections makes us strive toward the one who is perfect and loving.

18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.

21“All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

26Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?” 27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” (This is the Truth)

The truth will always weigh itself out of the untruths - you can't hide the truth, anymore, than you can hide your sins. (see Genesis 3 ( hattat of disobedience) - the serpent in the tree, knew the law - the truth, it was up to us to follow it regardless) God showed mercy in Genesis 3:15 when he speaks of someone in the future who will "crush the head of the serpent." This is a sign of God's love for his creation; in spite of man's disobedience, he gave mankind hope for the future.

"By faith", - writes the author of the Letter to the Hebrews - "we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the visible world was made out of the invisible" (11.3). Faith implies, therefore, being able to recognize the invisible, by identifying traces of it in the visible world. ( making those TRUTHS visible to everyone) The believer can read the great book of nature and understanding its language (cf. Ps 19.2 to 5), the universe speaks to us of God (cf. Rom 1:19-20), but we need the Word of His revelation, that stimulates faith, so that man can achieve full awareness of the reality of God as Creator and Father.

37818
04-26-2017, 05:41 AM
Truths:


They declare that God is imminent in His creation, that there is no place in heaven or earth or hell where men may hide from His presence. They teach that God is at once far off and near, and that in Him men move and live and have their being.



It would seem that before the fall of Adam and Eve these two were privileged to enjoy intimate fellowship and communion with God. From verse 8, we can infer that God daily walked in the garden in the cool of the day, and that Adam and Eve enjoyed this time with Him. But when they chose to trust the devil instead of God and to disobey the command of God, they sinned. Their sin caused them to withdraw from God out of fear. They hid themselves from Him. Sin results in separation from God.

The rest of the Bible is the story of how God fulfills this promise of salvation so that sinful men can once again draw nearer to God. God’s presence was manifested in the holy of holies, where the gaze of men was prevented lest they die. And men were informed that only by means of the shedding of blood could they approach their God in worship. This whole system foreshadowed the coming of the Messiah, the “Lamb of God,” who would bear the sins of the world and whose shed blood would cleanse men from their sins.

Bottom line to the truthfulness:

4 "Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear. 5 "I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandal has not worn out on your foot. 6 "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God.…

The journey out into the desert was to show "all" people (Israelites) the need for God as told by Moses(Deuteronomy 29). We (even as Christians) are made imperfect for a reason while God being perfect "gave" out just judgments and mercies. Also, none of the rulers "matched" authority with His son (Messiah) Jesus but his authority came from God as a seal - with an approval. All things were given to the son, that is a truth. (and stated) The best passage in the bible is about our salvation and how we "as sinners" turn toward God for his forgiveness. Our imperfections makes us strive toward the one who is perfect and loving.

18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.

21“All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

26Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?” 27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” (This is the Truth)

The truth will always weigh itself out of the untruths - you can't hide the truth, anymore, than you can hide your sins. (see Genesis 3 ( hattat of disobedience) - the serpent in the tree, knew the law - the truth, it was up to us to follow it regardless) God showed mercy in Genesis 3:15 when he speaks of someone in the future who will "crush the head of the serpent." This is a sign of God's love for his creation; in spite of man's disobedience, he gave mankind hope for the future.

"By faith", - writes the author of the Letter to the Hebrews - "we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the visible world was made out of the invisible" (11.3). Faith implies, therefore, being able to recognize the invisible, by identifying traces of it in the visible world. ( making those TRUTHS visible to everyone) The believer can read the great book of nature and understanding its language (cf. Ps 19.2 to 5), the universe speaks to us of God (cf. Rom 1:19-20), but we need the Word of His revelation, that stimulates faith, so that man can achieve full awareness of the reality of God as Creator and Father.

So are you denying the Trinity explanation of the Godhead? What is your point?

Marta
04-26-2017, 10:31 PM
So are you denying the Trinity explanation of the Godhead? What is your point?

That there are truths even though you may feel that scripture has been drained of the actual verbiage. The meaning/language in the scripture and how passages may be transposed into English.



Scripture states for clarity, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29. What's hidden from us (mind and perhaps, visual) is for a reason - some things are not meant for us to know (secret things that belong to God) and when God "reveals - those wisdoms/knowledge" (as with the passage in Genesis 18, " 17Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?") it is by His will not because "we" discovered on our own. Knowledge isn't something we achieve on our own, when searching out these passages, it is something that God enlightens us or makes us aware of. I guess the passage that comes into my mind is the phrase - passage:



"Be Careful Lest the Light in You Be Darkness " (http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/be-careful-lest-the-light-in-you-be-darkness)

"No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a cellar or under a basket, but on a stand, so that those who enter may see the light. 34 Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light, but when it is bad, your body is full of darkness. 35 Therefore be careful lest the light in you be darkness. 36 If then your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, it will be wholly bright, as when a lamp with its rays gives you light. (Luke 11:33-36)

Just before these verses, Jesus says, “Something greater than Solomon is here . . . Something greater than Jonah is here” (Luke 11:31–32). That is, the wisdom of Jesus exceeds the greatest human wisdom, and the resurrection of Jesus will be greater than most spectacular human rescues and resuscitations.

The question Jesus then addresses is: Do we see this for what it is—magnificent and compelling, so that it becomes the light and joy of our lives? He talks about seeing—and about two lamps."

The ending of this article is very clear: "I am the light of the world (John 8:12; 9:5). I am the lamp that must not be hidden or missed."

Marta
04-26-2017, 11:03 PM
So are you denying the Trinity explanation of the Godhead? What is your point?

Matthew Henry Commentary
13:8-13 Charity is much to be preferred to the gifts on which the Corinthians prided themselves. From its longer continuance. It is a grace, lasting as eternity. The present state is a state of childhood, the future that of manhood. Such is the difference between earth and heaven. What narrow views, what confused notions of things, have children when compared with grown men! Thus shall we think of our most valued gifts of this world, when we come to heaven. All things are dark and confused now, compared with what they will be hereafter. They can only be seen as by the reflection in a mirror, or in the description of a riddle; but hereafter our knowledge will be free from all obscurity and error. It is the light of heaven only, that will remove all clouds and darkness that hide the face of God from us. To sum up the excellences of charity, it is preferred not only to gifts, but to other graces, to faith and hope. Faith fixes on the Divine revelation, and assents thereto, relying on the Divine Redeemer. Hope fastens on future happiness, and waits for that; but in heaven, faith will be swallowed up in actual sight, and hope in enjoyment. There is no room to believe and hope, when we see and enjoy. But there, love will be made perfect. There we shall perfectly love God. And there we shall perfectly love one another. Blessed state! how much surpassing the best below! God is love, 1Jo 4:8,16. Where God is to be seen as he is, and face to face, there charity is in its greatest height; there only will it be perfected.
1 Corinthians 13:12 Commentaries (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-12.htm)

37818
04-27-2017, 06:22 AM
Matthew Henry Commentary
13:8-13 Charity is much to be preferred to the gifts on which the Corinthians prided themselves. From its longer continuance. It is a grace, lasting as eternity. The present state is a state of childhood, the future that of manhood. Such is the difference between earth and heaven. What narrow views, what confused notions of things, have children when compared with grown men! Thus shall we think of our most valued gifts of this world, when we come to heaven. All things are dark and confused now, compared with what they will be hereafter. They can only be seen as by the reflection in a mirror, or in the description of a riddle; but hereafter our knowledge will be free from all obscurity and error. It is the light of heaven only, that will remove all clouds and darkness that hide the face of God from us. To sum up the excellences of charity, it is preferred not only to gifts, but to other graces, to faith and hope. Faith fixes on the Divine revelation, and assents thereto, relying on the Divine Redeemer. Hope fastens on future happiness, and waits for that; but in heaven, faith will be swallowed up in actual sight, and hope in enjoyment. There is no room to believe and hope, when we see and enjoy. But there, love will be made perfect. There we shall perfectly love God. And there we shall perfectly love one another. Blessed state! how much surpassing the best below! God is love, 1Jo 4:8,16. Where God is to be seen as he is, and face to face, there charity is in its greatest height; there only will it be perfected.
1 Corinthians 13:12 Commentaries (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-12.htm)

You did not answer my two questions. Are you denying the Trinity explanation of the Godhead? And what was your point? Not some else's commentary on what is apparently irrelevant to the topic.

37818
04-27-2017, 06:35 AM
That there are truths even though you may feel that scripture has been drained of the actual verbiage. The meaning/language in the scripture and how passages may be transposed into English.



Scripture states for clarity, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29. What's hidden from us (mind and perhaps, visual) is for a reason - some things are not meant for us to know (secret things that belong to God) and when God "reveals - those wisdoms/knowledge" (as with the passage in Genesis 18, " 17Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?") it is by His will not because "we" discovered on our own. Knowledge isn't something we achieve on our own, when searching out these passages, it is something that God enlightens us or makes us aware of. I guess the passage that comes into my mind is the phrase - passage:

1 Corinthians 2: ,
. . .it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. . . .

God has give His believers His Holy Spirit to understand His will [Romans 8:9; 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 John 2:27]. You did not answer my questions: Do you deny the Trinity explanation of the Godhead? And what was your point?

Marta
04-27-2017, 11:24 AM
You did not answer my two questions. Are you denying the Trinity explanation of the Godhead? And what was your point? Not some else's commentary on what is apparently irrelevant to the topic.

I made the point. What is relevant and what's not. What are the most important points coming out from the scripture - creation? or salvation? God created at the moment that Adam and Eve sinned a way to return back to him through Christ - Christ was in the foreshadows. The another comments are about what is revealed to us (but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever - salvation) and what's not revealed (The secret things belong to the LORD our God). What is the bible for? Is it to understand the immutability (unchangeable) relating this back to the beginning of creation? or is the bible a "historical" marker for salvation through the beginning of time, John 1, "From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known (John 17 - "3 And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent)"

Marta
04-27-2017, 11:30 AM
[B]1 Corinthians 2: ,

God has give His believers His Holy Spirit to understand His will [Romans 8:9; 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 John 2:27]. You did not answer my questions: Do you deny the Trinity explanation of the Godhead? And what was your point?


Where was it written of any denial to anything? I didn't! Again, you said:


- and I quote, "The godhead, tritheism denies one God, unitarianism denies the deity of Christ, Arianism denies the deity of Christ, Modalism denies the Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All of those things being denied can be shown to be taught in the Bible.

This needs to be said: Error is the denial of truth. All groups making claims to be Christian make some kind of claims to the 66 books we call the Bible. But the false teachings all have in common is there teachings are always the Bible plus another authority. Not the written word of God alone. Not sola scriptura.

Biblical errors either adds to the word of God or denies some explicit teaching of the word of God.
Do you know an exception?

If we are to be free of errors - it is in our understanding and reading.

"In 1 Peter 1:3-9, Peter speaks of our salvation as that which is imperishable rather than that which is perishable. He speaks of our inheritance as imperishable (verse 4) and also our faith (verse 7). In verses 18-19, Peter speaks of the shed blood of our Lord as precious because it is imperishable. The atonement by which our salvation was accomplished was by means of an imperishable sacrifice so that our salvation is likewise imperishable. In verses 22-25, Peter goes on to speak of God’s Word as imperishable. It is this Word which served as the imperishable seed by which we were begotten. Since our birth is through an imperishable seed, not only is the Word imperishable, but also our life and our love which is born of the Word.Finally, in 1 Peter 5:4, Peter speaks to elders of their imperishable reward, the “unfading crown of glory.” Our salvation is secure because it is imperishable. Thus our salvation, like God, is immutable." 12. The Immutability of God (https://bible.org/seriespage/12-immutability-god)

I going in the same direction with this article.......

37818
04-28-2017, 06:02 AM
Where was it written of any denial to anything? I didn't! Again, you said:


and I quote, "The godhead, tritheism denies one God, unitarianism denies the deity of Christ, Arianism denies the deity of Christ, Modalism denies the Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All of those things being denied can be shown to be taught in the Bible.

This needs to be said: Error is the denial of truth. All groups making claims to be Christian make some kind of claims to the 66 books we call the Bible. But the false teachings all have in common is there teachings are always the Bible plus another authority. Not the written word of God alone. Not sola scriptura.

Biblical errors either adds to the word of God or denies some explicit teaching of the word of God.
Do you know an exception?

If we are to be free of errors - it is in our understanding and reading.

"In 1 Peter 1:3-9, Peter speaks of our salvation as that which is imperishable rather than that which is perishable. He speaks of our inheritance as imperishable (verse 4) and also our faith (verse 7). In verses 18-19, Peter speaks of the shed blood of our Lord as precious because it is imperishable. The atonement by which our salvation was accomplished was by means of an imperishable sacrifice so that our salvation is likewise imperishable. In verses 22-25, Peter goes on to speak of God’s Word as imperishable. It is this Word which served as the imperishable seed by which we were begotten. Since our birth is through an imperishable seed, not only is the Word imperishable, but also our life and our love which is born of the Word.Finally, in 1 Peter 5:4, Peter speaks to elders of their imperishable reward, the “unfading crown of glory.” Our salvation is secure because it is imperishable. Thus our salvation, like God, is immutable." 12. The Immutability of God (https://bible.org/seriespage/12-immutability-god)

<snip>...

"My" two questions to you were because I am not understanding the point in your comments with regard to the Godhead and sola scriptura. :shrug:

Marta
04-28-2017, 10:32 PM
I believe in the immutability of God. Here I am going to argue against it.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis1:1.

This being understood to be an ex nihilo creation.

God never creating anything, then after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything.
God went from not being the Creator to becoming the Creator. A change which negates any real claim to immutability.

are we starting from this post or your recent end post? :sigh: By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). Sola Scriptura implies several things. First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says.

37818
04-29-2017, 06:59 AM
are we starting from this post or your recent end post? :sigh: . . .There was the intent of the OP. But it was moved from the Apologetics 301 to here in Unorthodox Theology. :shrug:

So their is the topic of the OP and their are sub topics which come up in the discussion. My unstated intent was and is to argue a necessity of the Trinity. Any theology without the three entities/Persons who are the One God would not even be God.



By sola Scriptura Protestants mean that Scripture alone is the primary and absolute source for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals). Sola Scriptura implies several things. First, the Bible is a direct revelation from God. As such, it has divine authority. For what the Bible says, God says.Ok. And unless sola scriptura is true then you have other sources for the word of God saying what that faith and practice must be.

Marta
04-30-2017, 12:48 AM
[QUOTE=37818;437258]There was the intent of the OP. But it was moved from the Apologetics 301 to here in Unorthodox Theology. :shrug:

So their is the topic of the OP and their are sub topics which come up in the discussion. My unstated intent was and is to argue a necessity of the Trinity. Any theology without the three entities/Persons who are the One God would not even be God.

So I can understand this, you're saying that there is a necessity of the Trinity but yet, without the study of religious faith, practice, and experience : the study of God and God's relation to the world the three entities/persons would not be God. I hope I wrote this right.

John 10:29 My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” and yet, we understand from the Cross References in Deuteronomy 6:4,"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" So if God is One - and Jesus is claiming to be within this unity of "one" he then is a part of Him - or comes from Him."

John 16:28, "I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father." (see John 8:17 (http://biblehub.com/john/8-17.htm))


Understand this verse for me: 1 John 5: 6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ—not by water alone, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies to this, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement.…


The original law: Laws of Landmark and Testimony

14“You shall not move your neighbor’s boundary mark, which the ancestors have set, in your inheritance which you will inherit in the land that the LORD your God gives you to possess.

15“A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. 16“If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, 17then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18“The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, 19then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. 20“The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you. 21“Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.



Ok. And unless sola scriptura is true then you have other sources for the word of God saying what that faith and practice must be.

You're getting into Orthodox territory with this thought -

What I mean by this is that the reform movement (of Judaism) always disputed the authority of the Torah and the law - didn't they? How much different is that thought to our faith and beliefs. What to follow and what not to follow - who has authority and who doesn't in matters of faith and belief. Unless someone digs it up and finds out through varies artifacts that it is either wrong or right, will they come to believe????

direct quote:


*another thought – The chief purpose of man on earth from the point of view of The Torah is not metaphysical speculation or abstract thought, but moral action. 'Not what man, thinks of God is of primary importance, but what God thinks of man and wants him to do,' was a favourite saying of Hirsch. The Jew will never find the directive for his actions in idle philosophical speculation, but in the study of the Torah and its laws (cf.S.R.Hirsch,, Commentary on Exod.xxxiii, 21; Commentary on Ps. ciii, 3 ;Gesammelte
Schriften, Vol.Ill, p.451).

We have a passage written by the Apostle Paul - 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

37818
04-30-2017, 08:22 AM
So I can understand this, you're saying that there is a necessity of the Trinity but yet, without the study of religious faith, practice, and experience : the study of God and God's relation to the world the three entities/persons would not be God. I hope I wrote this right.

<snip>I am not sure that I understand what you meant in that last part of what you wrote in the above..

God being necessarily being a Trinity, this would be true regardless whether one studied the written word of God (NT) from which traditional discovery of the Trinity is based.

Marta
04-30-2017, 11:38 PM
I am not sure that I understand what you meant in that last part of what you wrote in the above..

God being necessarily being a Trinity, this would be true regardless whether one studied the written word of God (NT) from which traditional discovery of the Trinity is based.

So I can understand this, you're saying and not I'm saying.

Marta
05-01-2017, 01:31 AM
I am not sure that I understand what you meant in that last part of what you wrote in the above..

God being necessarily being a Trinity, this would be true regardless whether one studied the written word of God (NT) from which traditional discovery of the Trinity is based.

Regarding the passage from out of the New Testament - to document: Regarding two or three witness, Deuteronomy 19:15 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/19-15.htm) and 1 John 5:6, This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ—not by water alone, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies to this, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement.…


Deuteronomy 30:19 and Deut. 4:26, I call heaven and earth as witnesses. Same breath.....as, Romans 10:18, "But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."

Two or Three witnesses - can be from various sources.

37818
05-01-2017, 06:27 AM
So I can understand this, you're saying and not I'm saying.

Yes, I am making the argument that the Trinity with the Godhead is true whether we understand it from the written witness of the NT or not. And can be shown necessary by reason of creation itself being a mutable [a change] in being a finite and temporal act from God, God being immutable, eternal and infinite.

Marta
05-02-2017, 12:41 AM
Yes, I am making the argument that the Trinity with the Godhead is true whether we understand it from the written witness of the NT or not. And can be shown necessary by reason of creation itself being a mutable [a change] in being a finite and temporal act from God, God being immutable, eternal and infinite.


What do you mean by saying, "The Trinity with the Godhead" - ? The Trinity is referred to as the Godhead - isn't it? English term “Godhead” has come to represent the idea that the “Divine” essence is shared by three distinct Personalities and the Latin, trinus, means “three-fold" or the “three” divine Persons who function as an absolute unity. John 10:30 New International Version (NIV) 30 I and the Father are one.” ...(previous passage) 7* So Jesus said again, “Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 * All who came are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9[B] I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. 10 A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly."


When speaking of two or three witness to testify to the truth we have John the Baptist (John 1:27, (http://biblehub.com/john/1-27.htm))Abraham (John 8:56 (http://biblehub.com/john/8-56.htm)) and Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17 (http://biblehub.com/context/matthew/3-16.htm)). As in the same breath, Heaven and Earth were the Witness for [Moses] calling upon heaven and earth to be witnesses of the agreement that the Israelites accepted, "And let the earth hear" [to be similarly understood]. Now why did [Moses] call upon heaven and earth to be witnesses [for warning Israel]? Moses said: "I am [just] flesh and blood. Tomorrow I will die. If Israel says, 'We never accepted the covenant', who will come and refute them?"


....Romans 10:18, "But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."

Moses, in scripture, voiced it, "1"Give ear, O heavens, and let me speak; And let the earth hear the words of my mouth. 2"Let my teaching drop as the rain, My speech distill as the dew, As the droplets on the fresh grass And as the showers on the herb. 3"For I proclaim the name of the LORD; Ascribe greatness to our God!…" Deuteronomy 32:2

It was a call to hear and listen - Mark 12:29-30, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29Jesus replied, “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord, 30and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’…

37818
05-02-2017, 05:52 AM
What do you mean by saying, "The Trinity with the Godhead" - ? The Trinity is referred to as the Godhead - isn't it? English term “Godhead” has come to represent the idea that the “Divine” essence is shared by three distinct Personalities and the Latin, trinus, means “three-fold" or the “three” divine Persons who function as an absolute unity. John 10:30 New International Version (NIV) 30 I and the Father are one.” ...(previous passage) 7* So Jesus said again, “Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 * All who came are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9[B] I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. 10 A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly."


When speaking of two or three witness to testify to the truth we have John the Baptist (John 1:27, (http://biblehub.com/john/1-27.htm))Abraham (John 8:56 (http://biblehub.com/john/8-56.htm)) and Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17 (http://biblehub.com/context/matthew/3-16.htm)). As in the same breath, Heaven and Earth were the Witness for [Moses] calling upon heaven and earth to be witnesses of the agreement that the Israelites accepted, "And let the earth hear" [to be similarly understood]. Now why did [Moses] call upon heaven and earth to be witnesses [for warning Israel]? Moses said: "I am [just] flesh and blood. Tomorrow I will die. If Israel says, 'We never accepted the covenant', who will come and refute them?"


....Romans 10:18, "But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."

Moses, in scripture, voiced it, "1"Give ear, O heavens, and let me speak; And let the earth hear the words of my mouth. 2"Let my teaching drop as the rain, My speech distill as the dew, As the droplets on the fresh grass And as the showers on the herb. 3"For I proclaim the name of the LORD; Ascribe greatness to our God!…" Deuteronomy 32:2

It was a call to hear and listen - Mark 12:29-30, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29Jesus replied, “This is the most important: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord, 30and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’…

Trinity is the name of the explanation of the Godhead being God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit that they are the One YHWH.

The Father is the Source where the Son is that very Light of that Source (True God, John 17:3; True Light John 1:9; Hebrews 1:3; John 17:5; Isaiah 42:8).

John 1:3,
. . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . .
To claim that God does anything apart from the Son is to deny the Trinity. All that the Son does is because of the Father (John 5:18-23). You cannot have the acts of God without the Son (John 1:3). To deny one is to deny the other - they are YHWH.

Marta
05-02-2017, 09:47 PM
Trinity is the name of the explanation of the Godhead being God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit that they are the One YHWH.

The Father is the Source where the Son is that very Light of that Source (True God, John 17:3; True Light John 1:9; Hebrews 1:3; John 17:5; Isaiah 42:8).

John 1:3,
. . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . .
To claim that God does anything apart from the Son is to deny the Trinity. All that the Son does is because of the Father (John 5:18-23). You cannot have the acts of God without the Son (John 1:3). To deny one is to deny the other - they are YHWH.

OK, the Trinity is the name of the explanation of the Godhead. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to understand this as the Trinity or the Godhead, instead of, the Trinity with the Godhead?

the Godhead being God the Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit that they are the One YHWH - Right, the Trinity or the Godhead.

Marta
05-02-2017, 10:40 PM
I believe in the immutability of God. Here I am going to argue against it.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis1:1.

This being understood to be an ex nihilo creation.

God never creating anything, then after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything.
God went from not being the Creator to becoming the Creator. A change which negates any real claim to immutability.

Aquinas clearly distinguished between eternity and temporality. He said that eternity exists with no beginning, no succession, and no end while temporality has a beginning, succession, and an end.

The argument here is within this statement: God created the temporal world; the Incarnation involved God joining human flesh in the temporal world.

Using scripture to point this fact out:

"Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Haran. When he reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. He had a dream in which he saw a stairway/ladder resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it."


Statement: In this vision Jacob sees something similar to a ladder or a stairway (Hebrew word: sullam) which signifies a connection between God and man. In this instance, it was God who provided the means necessary to link Himself to man as opposed to the men of Babel in Genesis 11 who tried to reach heaven by their own actions, aside from the help of God.

This connection with God and man, and shown in your picture, is the bridge that crosses the two together. Like the picture we see in Michelangelo (creation of Adam) - This touch will not only give life to Adam, but will give life to all mankind. God is shown in a state that is not untouchable and remote from Man, but one which is accessible to him. Christ was that bridge and light to all mankind, like John 1 states - and is the essence of the subject - The Word Became Flesh.

Jesus points this out with Nicodemus, 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

and also, in Ecclesiastes 12:7 - "dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." The flesh is temporal where as the spirit is eternal - meaning that the spirit returns back to the eternal God. Atemporality means "without succession of time or activity that could include the existence of infinite time dimensions with no distinction between the past, present, and future." Also, the term temporal means "within a succession of time or activity." As in, The LORD said, "My Spirit will not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; yet will his days be one hundred twenty years." Genesis 6:3

Marta
05-02-2017, 11:50 PM
Reference: The Trinity, Simultaneity, Temporality, and Riemannian Geometry (http://theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-trinity-simultaneity-temporality.html)

37818
05-03-2017, 07:01 AM
Your post consists of multiple arguments. Which is fine. But Iam going to look at the first.


Aquinas clearly distinguished between eternity and temporality. He said that eternity exists with no beginning, no succession, and no end while temporality has a beginning, succession, and an end.

<snip>Eternity can have a temporal component. The Son of God from eternity was not human and now into eternity is human. Human is temporal. The Son of God is now an immortal human who as a human has a beginning. Being both eternal from the past now temporal being human too.

So either there was an end to full immutability or what ended was also always temporal in nature too. Being always immutable being God and was always temporal in nature being with God.

In any case the Logos was both "with" and "was" God and still is. What changed was how the Logos was "with" God two times. Immortal to mortal back to immortal again permanently.

Keeping in mind, never ceasing being God too.

The Logos was made flesh (John 1:14). He was the only one to do it (John 1:3). And that was a change, :shrug:

Marta
05-04-2017, 12:27 AM
Your post consists of multiple arguments. Which is fine. But Iam going to look at the first.

Eternity can have a temporal component. The Son of God from eternity was not human and now into eternity is human. Human is temporal. The Son of God is now an immortal human who as a human has a beginning. Being both eternal from the past now temporal being human too.

So either there was an end to full immutability or what ended was also always temporal in nature too. Being always immutable being God and was always temporal in nature being with God.

In any case the Logos was both "with" and "was" God and still is. What changed was how the Logos was "with" God two times. Immortal to mortal back to immortal again permanently.

Keeping in mind, never ceasing being God too.

The Logos was made flesh (John 1:14). He was the only one to do it (John 1:3). And that was a change, :shrug:


As the law is eternal and was given at Mount Horeb. Divine law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_law)Psalm 119:89, 89 Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. 90 Your faithfulness continues throughout all generations; You established the earth, and it stands.…




"Divine law is any law that comes directly from the "will of God", in contrast to man-made law. Unlike natural law, which is independent of human beings, divine laws are totally dependent on human narrators and closely related to different cultures; they may change in human perception in time through new revelation, however, divine laws are eternal and constant, not subject to change. Divine laws are contained in sacred religious texts such as the Torah, the Holy Bible, and Quran."

"In Thomas Aquinas's Treatise on Law, divine law comes only from revelation or scripture, hence biblical law, and is necessary for human salvation. According to Aquinas, divine law must not be confused with natural law. Divine law is mainly and mostly natural law, but it can also be positive law."


And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14

37818
05-04-2017, 05:57 AM
God giving His written Law to man was a temporal and finite act of God. From God who is infinite and immutable. And was done by way of His eternal Son and His holy messengers.

At issue. God always was and is. Creation being a unique finite temporal act from God constitutes a change. God did not change, so there has to also always been a finite and temporal Cause with God. We know Him to be the Son (John 1:1-3).

Marta
05-05-2017, 01:51 AM
God giving His written Law to man was a temporal and finite act of God. From God who is infinite and immutable. And was done by way of His eternal Son and His holy messengers.

At issue. God always was and is. Creation being a unique finite temporal act from God constitutes a change. God did not change, so there has to also always been a finite and temporal Cause with God. We know Him to be the Son (John 1:1-3).

Matthew 19:16-30New Living Translation (NLT)

The Rich Man

16 Someone came to Jesus with this question: “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”

17 “Why ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. But to answer your question—if you want to receive eternal life, keep the commandments.”

****

Another version:

Matthew 19:16-30New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

16 Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” 17 He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

****

One last version:

18Then a certain ruler asked Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19“Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone.…




The story begins with "Good teacher - In Romans 10, Paul quotes from Deuteronomy 30 and makes comparisons with Christ:

Moses said that no one needed to ascend to heaven to bring down the law again (Deut 30:12); God had already freely given the law. Paul makes a comparison: in the same way, he says, no one needs to ascend to heaven to bring down Christ again: God already sent him freely (Rom 10:6).

Moses said that no one needed to descend into the depths of the sea again (Deut 30:13); God had already redeemed his people and brought them through the sea. Paul makes another comparison: no one needs to descend to the depths, as if to bring Christ up from the dead; God already raised him (Rom 10:7).

Marta
05-05-2017, 11:58 PM
God giving His written Law to man was a temporal and finite act of God. From God who is infinite and immutable. And was done by way of His eternal Son and His holy messengers.

At issue. God always was and is. Creation being a unique finite temporal act from God constitutes a change. God did not change, so there has to also always been a finite and temporal Cause with God. We know Him to be the Son (John 1:1-3).

"1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:


Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface." LINK: CHAPTER THREE
GOD'S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

ARTICLE 1
THE MORAL LAW (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm)

The argument is that the "Law" had risen to its perfection through Christ but also, that Moses (like Abraham) initiated the beginning process and Christ finished the ending, "14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, 15 since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them. 16 This will come to pass on that day when God will judge men’s secrets through Christ Jesus, as proclaimed by my gospel.…Romans 2:15 (http://biblehub.com/romans/2-15.htm).

Again, and in order to have a judgment day, you need the law. The law is not as you said, " a finite temporal act".

Marta
05-06-2017, 12:02 AM
Your post consists of multiple arguments. :shrug:


:tongue:

37818
05-07-2017, 07:12 AM
<snip>
Again, and in order to have a judgment day, you need the law. The law is not as you said, " a finite temporal act".

Oh. Judgement day is a finite and temporal event. How does the Law pertain to that which is eternal and infinite? A law to be meaningful can only pertain to that which is finite and temporal in order to be applicable to finite and temporal creation.

Marta
05-08-2017, 12:27 AM
Oh. Judgement day is a finite and temporal event. How does the Law pertain to that which is eternal and infinite? A law to be meaningful can only pertain to that which is finite and temporal in order to be applicable to finite and temporal creation.

...Judgment day? Judgment day occurs throughout history - see Daniel 2: 21, 1 Samuel 2, "for the Lord is a God who knows,
and by him deeds are weighed"John 15:22 (http://biblehub.com/john/15-22.htm). The word midah in Hebrew means "measure." All of our interactions are measured and weighed. What fate determined Sodom and Gomorrah destruction? Genesis 18:20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

Canon" (Greek kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. See Genesis 15:16, in determining for the sin of the Amorites which did not yet reached its full measure. How is sin weighed? What is considered full measure - See also Romans 11:25, I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number (measure) of the Gentiles has come in"

37818
05-09-2017, 06:15 AM
...Judgment day? Judgment day occurs throughout history - see Daniel 2: 21, 1 Samuel 2, "for the Lord is a God who knows,
and by him deeds are weighed"John 15:22 (http://biblehub.com/john/15-22.htm). The word midah in Hebrew means "measure." All of our interactions are measured and weighed. What fate determined Sodom and Gomorrah destruction? Genesis 18:20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

Canon" (Greek kanon) means a reed; a straight rod or bar; a measuring stick; something serving to determine, rule, or measure. See Genesis 15:16, in determining for the sin of the Amorites which did not yet reached its full measure. How is sin weighed? What is considered full measure - See also Romans 11:25, I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number (measure) of the Gentiles has come in"

2 Peter 3:10,
. . . the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Revelation 20:11,
. . . a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. . . .

Marta
05-09-2017, 07:23 PM
Oh. Judgement day is a finite and temporal event. How does the Law pertain to that which is eternal and infinite? A law to be meaningful can only pertain to that which is finite and temporal in order to be applicable to finite and temporal creation.

If Judgment is finite and temporal event - Revelation 20:11,
. . . a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. . . .

The great judgment seat - Exodus 18:13 "The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people (a foreshadow of Jesus - Matthew 28:18 ), and they stood around him from morning till evening." 15 Moses answered him (Jethro), “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.” (laws - Judgments). However, and repeating, if Exodus was a foreshadow of the Jesus - The Messiah, it would have been in the verse Matthew 11:27, ""All things have been committed to me by my Father." Moses received the physical law (letter of the law) by God and then the law was transmitted to the people, Christ handed down the spiritual law from heaven at Pentecost (descending of the Spirit upon the apostles). (Now Christ has given us a New Covenant of the spirit based on spiritual law). Which now we understand the law to be fulfilled and deemed divine and eternal!

"According to Jeremiah, "the qualities of the new covenant expounded upon the old are : a) It will not be broken; b) Its law will be written in the heart, not merely on tablets of stone; c) The knowledge of God will deem it no longer necessary to put it into written words of instruction."[3] According to Luke (Lk 22, 20), and Paul, in the first epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11, 25), this prophecy was fulfilled only through the work of Jesus Christ,[3] who said "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you." Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. His purpose was to encourage people to look beyond the "letter of the law" to the "spirit of the law"...the principles behind the commandments and the law's intention. Jesus quotes the book of Deuteronomy and Leviticus: "All the Law can be summed up in this: to love God with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself" (paraphrased)."

The books that are opened (Revelation 20:12) contain records of everyone’s deeds, whether they are good or evil, because God knows everything that has ever been said, done, or even thought, and He will reward or punish each one accordingly (Psalm 28:4; 62:12; Romans 2:6; Revelation 2:23; 18:6; 22:12). Again, and repeating, see Daniel 2: 21, 1 Samuel 2, "for the Lord is a God who knows, and by him deeds are weighed" John 15:22. The word midah in Hebrew means "measure." All of our interactions are measured and weighed.

The divine law is not finite - but eternal.

Marta
05-09-2017, 08:20 PM
God giving His written Law to man was a temporal and finite act of God. From God who is infinite and immutable. And was done by way of His eternal Son and His holy messengers.


God gave the Israelites the written law (the physical - the letter of the law) foreshadowing the spirit of the law that was to come and to be given to us by God through our Lord Jesus Christ (See: Deuteronomy 29:4 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/29-4.htm), Pentecost - the descent of the Holy Spirit occurred while the Apostles were celebrating the Jewish day of Shavuot (Hebrew: שבועות‎‎, lit. "Weeks"), the Feast of Weeks, a prominent feast in the calendar of ancient Israel celebrating the giving of the Law to Moses at Sinai.) Remember the verse, " the Apostle Peter stood up with the eleven and proclaimed to the crowd that this event was the fulfillment of the prophecy ("I will pour out my spirit")."

In Matthew 5:20-44, Christ showed that obeying the “letter of the Law” is a matter of physical action, whereas obeying the “spirit of the Law” requires more than just outward actions—it also involves an attitude of the mind, as well as, to act above the letter of the law. —referred to by the Apostle Paul as “circumcision of the heart” (Rom. 2:28-29).

The Spirit of Law - is that it has attached within us ("You shall do that which is right and good" ) and has set up boundaries as one must also exercise self-control (“temperance”–Gal. 5:23). Also, the law was not something robotic but had to have meaning and a purpose since we have to apply it to everyday living.

Marta
05-09-2017, 08:52 PM
At issue. God always was and is. Creation being a unique finite temporal act from God constitutes a change. God did not change, so there has to also always been a finite and temporal Cause with God. We know Him to be the Son (John 1:1-3).

John 6:32, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. . . . I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst” (John 6:32-35).

The Jews refer to the manna given to them by Moses as a sign of God's promised covenant, and Jesus asserts that the manna was from God and not from Moses, and that the people who ate it were nourished on their journey but ultimately died. In contrast, according to the gospel, Jesus offered living bread, and whoever ate this bread would never die.

37818
05-10-2017, 04:38 AM
. . .

The divine law is not finite - but eternal.Apples and oranges. The finite is subordinate to the infinite and the temporal is subordinate to the eternal. Something can be finite and temporal and be eternal in being finite and temporal.

Hebrews 13:8,
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Marta
05-10-2017, 08:09 PM
Apples and oranges. The finite is subordinate to the infinite and the temporal is subordinate to the eternal. Something can be finite and temporal and be eternal in being finite and temporal.

Hebrews 13:8,
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.


Ecclesiastes 3: 14-15

The Excellence in God's Works

…14 I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him. 15 That which is has been already and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by.

Bibleuser
12-13-2017, 07:52 AM
How about God being unable to change because he is what he is!
But he can change all our anything external to himself as he wants.
BU

37818
12-21-2017, 09:07 AM
How about God being unable to change because he is what he is!
But he can change all our anything external to himself as he wants.
BU

". . . For I, Jehovah, change not; . . ." -- Malachi 3:6. (Hebrews 13:8)

Bibleuser
12-22-2017, 09:51 AM
". . . For I, Jehovah, change not; . . ." -- Malachi 3:6. (Hebrews 13:8)

2 differing persons?
BU

37818
12-24-2017, 08:51 AM
2 differing persons?
BU

Yes. And all that Jehovah does He does via His agent (John 1:3). Jehovah does not change, His agent does the changing (like John 1:14, like Genesis 1:1 - Ephesians 3:9). So unless you honor the Son you do not honor Jehovah (John 5:23; 2 John 9; Romans 8:9; 1 John 5:12, 20).

Rushing Jaws
01-25-2018, 09:32 PM
I believe in the immutability of God. Here I am going to argue against it.


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis1:1.

This being understood to be an ex nihilo creation.

God never creating anything, then after never creating anything, this God acts and creates everything.
God went from not being the Creator to becoming the Creator. A change which negates any real claim to immutability.
This may be necro-ing, but anyway...

No. God is not changed by His acts ad extra - that is, by acts “outside” His intra-Personal Trinitarian Life. What does undergo change, is what God creates and governs. But in God Himself, there is no change or alteration of any kind.

The Incarnation of the Eternal Divine Word did not “do anything” to the Word, Who Is eternal with the Father. What was changed, and given infinite dignity, was the human nature assumed by the Word. For the human nature assumed by the Word is created.

37818
02-03-2018, 08:26 AM
This may be necro-ing, but anyway...

No. God is not changed by His acts ad extra - that is, by acts “outside” His intra-Personal Trinitarian Life. What does undergo change, is what God creates and governs. But in God Himself, there is no change or alteration of any kind. If God did not change in His action then that action would be something that God has always done from eternity. There was never a first time.



The Incarnation of the Eternal Divine Word did not “do anything” to the Word, Who Is eternal with the Father. What was changed, and given infinite dignity, was the human nature assumed by the Word. For the human nature assumed by the Word is created.Two things here. One, nothing was "made" except by the Word (John 1:1-3). And secondly, the Word being "made" flesh (John 1:14) was in fact a change.