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

Immutability of God.

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    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).
    Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      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.
      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.
      Last edited by 37818; 03-16-2015, 10:42 PM.
      . . . 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


      • #33
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Hate to say this, but what is your excuse . . .
        What's his excuse for what? Writing in a clear and coherent manner?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            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.]
            . . . 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


            • #36
              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              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?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                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?
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    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/sh...athema-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.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      I'm not sure how far you followed this thread http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...athema-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?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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.
                        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                                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.
                                Last edited by 37818; 03-17-2015, 11:06 AM.
                                . . . 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