Hello 37818,
Here is another bit of a response to your post #222 on the "Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology" thread...
I'll assume you reject the Nicene and A.Paul's admission that "[We] believe in one God = the Father...". Imu of your posts, you hold that the one God consists of the Father, Son & Spirit. Imu of your posts, you alternate between the teachings of Sabellianism and Tritheism, and you constantly put yourself in opposition to the Trinitarianism of Nicea taught by Catholics, the Orthodox, the Reformed churches and most Protestant churches. See below...
I'll respond to your "ideas" and your self contradictions one at a time...
1. Since true God is not begotten
Have a read of what you wrote: first you advocate that "one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father before all ages" and then you contradict yourself demanding he was "not begotten...The Only Begotten Son of God the Father was not begotten before all ages.". Make up your mind! Which is it?
2. It is not biblical to claim the Son of God was begotten to become the Son.
I've covered this silliness in previous posts. No one has ever advocated that the Son was begotten to become Son! So that stupidity of yours is buried. As I stated in previous posts: to be a son or daughter is an inescapable consequence of being begotten.
By your insistence that the Son was "not begotten" you are either denying his real existence (a Sabellian position) or making him a son by adoption (a Tritheist idea if he was unbegotten; an Arian idea if he was the only direct creation of God the Father).
You really do need to think on the consequences of your opinions. Where do they lead? Is that really what "I" mean? That way you'll avoid the "Oops factor"...
3. The Only Begotten Son of God the Father was not begotten before all ages.Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened?4. It is this false notion which gave rise to the error of Arius
The idea that to be "unbegotten" is integral to God's "ousia" was the Arian starting point! I assume you aren't aware of it, but from your arguments over the years, it is evident to me, that you have more in common with the philosophies of Arius et al than you have with Trinitarianism. I hope that observation hasn't upset your sensibilities too much, but have a read of my favourite extreme Arian and you'll see what I mean - Eunomius' first apology.
The Cappadocian fathers (Basil & the Gregories) were orthodoxy's chief defenders in Eunomius' time. I'll verbal their argument into modern parlance: Eunomius argued that to be "unbegotten" is essential to the essence (ousia) of the idea "God". Basil argued: an individual's begottenness (or lack thereof) is a private attribute of the person (hypostasis), thus it has no effect on the essence (ousia) of the species to which the individual belongs (whether the species be the idea "Human" or the idea "God").
I came across an article recently that highlighted the fact that Basil's observation was critical to protecting the Church against "Tritheism" and emphasised the distinction between the persons (hypostases) of the Father and the Son thus protecting the teachings of Trinitarianism..
_________________
Your commentary over the years tends to be slanted towards Tritheism, especially when you reject the Churches 100% scriptural teaching that the Son was begotten by the Father before the ages. If you choose to reject scripture's testimony that the Son was the only begotten of the Father, before the ages and before he was sent to us to be the Saviour of the world, before his incarnation or baptism or resurrection (1 John 4:8; 1:1-3; Heb 1:2-3; Col 1:16), then please, either cease to pretend you allow scripture to guide your opinion, or start using scripture instead of your personal opinion to demonstrate your theories (ie: support your theories by pointing to whatever scripture you think supports them).
In an earlier post of yours I thought we had finally made some headway. I understood you as saying that as long as the words "begotten", "born" & "offspring" had no connection with temporal functions you could accept the terms as used in the Nicene creed/s and in theology. Did I misunderstand you?
Here is another bit of a response to your post #222 on the "Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology" thread...
Originally posted by 37818
View Post
I'll respond to your "ideas" and your self contradictions one at a time...
1. Since true God is not begotten
Have a read of what you wrote: first you advocate that "one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father before all ages" and then you contradict yourself demanding he was "not begotten...The Only Begotten Son of God the Father was not begotten before all ages.". Make up your mind! Which is it?
2. It is not biblical to claim the Son of God was begotten to become the Son.
I've covered this silliness in previous posts. No one has ever advocated that the Son was begotten to become Son! So that stupidity of yours is buried. As I stated in previous posts: to be a son or daughter is an inescapable consequence of being begotten.
By your insistence that the Son was "not begotten" you are either denying his real existence (a Sabellian position) or making him a son by adoption (a Tritheist idea if he was unbegotten; an Arian idea if he was the only direct creation of God the Father).
You really do need to think on the consequences of your opinions. Where do they lead? Is that really what "I" mean? That way you'll avoid the "Oops factor"...
3. The Only Begotten Son of God the Father was not begotten before all ages.Do you not yet perceive nor understand? Is your heart still hardened?4. It is this false notion which gave rise to the error of Arius
The idea that to be "unbegotten" is integral to God's "ousia" was the Arian starting point! I assume you aren't aware of it, but from your arguments over the years, it is evident to me, that you have more in common with the philosophies of Arius et al than you have with Trinitarianism. I hope that observation hasn't upset your sensibilities too much, but have a read of my favourite extreme Arian and you'll see what I mean - Eunomius' first apology.
The Cappadocian fathers (Basil & the Gregories) were orthodoxy's chief defenders in Eunomius' time. I'll verbal their argument into modern parlance: Eunomius argued that to be "unbegotten" is essential to the essence (ousia) of the idea "God". Basil argued: an individual's begottenness (or lack thereof) is a private attribute of the person (hypostasis), thus it has no effect on the essence (ousia) of the species to which the individual belongs (whether the species be the idea "Human" or the idea "God").
I came across an article recently that highlighted the fact that Basil's observation was critical to protecting the Church against "Tritheism" and emphasised the distinction between the persons (hypostases) of the Father and the Son thus protecting the teachings of Trinitarianism..
_________________
Your commentary over the years tends to be slanted towards Tritheism, especially when you reject the Churches 100% scriptural teaching that the Son was begotten by the Father before the ages. If you choose to reject scripture's testimony that the Son was the only begotten of the Father, before the ages and before he was sent to us to be the Saviour of the world, before his incarnation or baptism or resurrection (1 John 4:8; 1:1-3; Heb 1:2-3; Col 1:16), then please, either cease to pretend you allow scripture to guide your opinion, or start using scripture instead of your personal opinion to demonstrate your theories (ie: support your theories by pointing to whatever scripture you think supports them).
In an earlier post of yours I thought we had finally made some headway. I understood you as saying that as long as the words "begotten", "born" & "offspring" had no connection with temporal functions you could accept the terms as used in the Nicene creed/s and in theology. Did I misunderstand you?
Comment