Announcement

Collapse

Unorthodox Theology 201 Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum area is primarily for persons who would identify themselves as Christians whether or not their theology is recognized within the mainstream or as orthodox though other theists may participate with moderator permission. Therefore those that would be restricted from posting in Christianity 201 due to a disagreement with the enumerated doctrines, ie the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment may freely post here on any theological subject matter. In this case "unorthodox" is used in the strict sense of a person who denies what has been declared as universal essentials of the historic Christian faith. Examples would be adherents to Oneness, Full Preterists, Unitarian Universalist Christians, Gnostics, Liberal Christianity, Christian Science to name a few.

The second purpose will be for threads on subjects, which although the thread starter has no issue with the above doctrines, the subject matter is so very outside the bounds of normative Christian doctrine totally within the leadership's discretion that it is placed here. In so doing, no judgment or offense is intended to be placed on the belief of said person in the above-doctrines. In this case "unorthodox" is used in a much looser sense of "outside the norms" - Examples of such threads would be pro-polygamy, pro-drug use, proponents of gay Christian churches, proponents of abortion.

The third purpose is for persons who wish to have input from any and all who would claim the title of Christian even on subjects that would be considered "orthodox."

The philosophy behind this area was to recognize that there are persons who would identify themselves as Christian and thus seem out of place in the Comparative Religions Forum, but yet in keeping with our committment here to certain basic core Christian doctrines. Also, it allows threads to be started by those who would want to still be identified as Christian with a particular belief that while not denying an essential is of such a nature that the discussion on that issue belongs in this section or for threads by persons who wish such a non-restricted discussion.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Derail: Trinity question: The eternal Son before the incarnation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Derail: Trinity question: The eternal Son before the incarnation

    Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
    Yes, the relations within the Trinity are eternal:

    the Son is eternally begotten by the Father
    the Father eternally begets the Son
    the Father and the Son spirate (breath forth) the Holy Spirit
    the Holy Spirit is eternally spirated.

    All four relations are eternally "within" God - unlike the Divine relations to creation, "outwith" God; for the relation of God to creation is dependent on there being a creation to be in relation to Him - otherwise we would have to say that the creation is co-eternal with God. Creation is "outwith" God, not locally, as though God werNoe spatially localised, but in the sense that it is "other than" God. And it is "other than" God, for the reason that it has no being but what He has graciously and sovereignly bestowed on it. Which is manifestly not true of the co-eternal Divine Persons, Who are God, not creatures.
    * The Trinity can be deduced from holy scripture.

    * The eternal Son is deduced from holy scripture without the concept of eternal begetting of the Son from the Father.

    The Son is God with the Father - God not begotten not made but on behalf of the Father the sole cause of all things that are caused (John 1;3; Ephesians 3:9; John 8:24).

    So how do you come to your understanding?
    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

  • #2
    Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    * The Trinity can be deduced from holy scripture.

    * The eternal Son is deduced from holy scripture without the concept of eternal begetting of the Son from the Father.

    The Son is God with the Father - God not begotten not made but on behalf of the Father the sole cause of all things that are caused (John 1;3; Ephesians 3:9; John 8:24).

    So how do you come to your understanding?
    By consulting reason, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture as explained within Sacred Tradition. Scripture by itself need not lead to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, or even to any kind of Trinitarian doctrine. The Arians, Adoptionists, Sabellians, and others appealed to Scripture, as do the JWs now, or the Socinians, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, and even the Mormons.

    Catholic Trinitarian doctrine owes a lot to St Augustine, and to St Thomas Aquinas, but especially to the Fathers and Councils, like St Basil of Caesarea, the two Gregories, Leontius of Byzantium, St Cyril of Alexandria, St John Chrysostom, St Athanasius, Lateran 4 (1215), and others.

    That the Word can be argued from Scripture to be eternal, does not by itself lead to an orthodox Christology. It can perfectly well be argued, from Scripture, that the Word was not personally united with the Sacred Humanity of Christ except during the Earthly Life of Christ. Just as it can be argued from Scripture that Christ was not sinless.
    Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 11-02-2017, 09:09 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
      By consulting reason, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture as explained within Sacred Tradition. Scripture by itself need not lead to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, or even to any kind of Trinitarian doctrine. The Arians, Adoptionists, Sabellians, and others appealed to Scripture, as do the JWs now, or the Socinians, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, and even the Mormons.
      Exegesis leads inexorably to the basic trinitarian concept, but there is some room for argument about the precise nature of the trinity. Eisegesis of course allows for any number of concepts.



      [quot]That the Word can be argued from Scripture to be eternal, does not by itself lead to an orthodox Christology. It can perfectly well be argued, from Scripture, that the Word was not personally united with the Sacred Humanity of Christ except during the Earthly Life of Christ. Just as it can be argued from Scripture that Christ was not sinless.[/QUOTE]

      How so? - tis stated explicitly that the word became flesh.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        * The Trinity can be deduced from holy scripture.

        * The eternal Son is deduced from holy scripture without the concept of eternal begetting of the Son from the Father.

        The Son is God with the Father - God not begotten not made but on behalf of the Father the sole cause of all things that are caused (John 1;3; Ephesians 3:9; John 8:24).

        So how do you come to your understanding?
        Revelation 3:14
        “To the angel of the congregation in Laodiceʹa write: These are the things that the Amen says [JESUS], the faithful and true witness {JESUS}, the beginning of the creation by God:

        "Not begotten"?????

        BU

        Comment


        • #5
          αρχη "beginning" also means "origin/source." The "beginning" can be interpreted as "origin/source" as readily as it can "the first of a series."

          No kewpie dolls available for basing a precept on the unsupported interpretation of an ambiguous text.

          Particularly when it is explicitly stated that "without him was nothing created that was created." - which is not in conflict with interpreting αρχη as "origin" or "source."
          Last edited by tabibito; 12-21-2017, 12:39 AM.
          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
          .
          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
          Scripture before Tradition:
          but that won't prevent others from
          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
          of the right to call yourself Christian.

          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bibleuser View Post
            Revelation 3:14
            “To the angel of the congregation in Laodiceʹa write: These are the things that the Amen says [JESUS], the faithful and true witness {JESUS}, the beginning of the creation by God:

            "Not begotten"?????

            BU
            Colossians 1:18, ". . . who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; . . ."
            Revelation 1:5, ". . . Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, and the firstborn of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, . . ."
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              Colossians 1:18, ". . . who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; . . ."
              Revelation 1:5, ". . . Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, and the firstborn of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, . . ."
              Almighty God cannot be "firstborn" of anything as he has always been!
              BU

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bibleuser View Post
                Almighty God cannot be "firstborn" of anything as he has always been!
                BU
                And who in this thread said God did?

                Who became incarnate (John 1:14)? Who was "firstborn" from the dead (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15; Revelation 1:5)? Who being "incarnate" (John 1:14) became "the beginning" (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5, Revelation 3:14)?
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment

                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                Working...
                X