Immutability of God.

[Pentecost]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Extrinsic change is not intrinsic change.

[Paprika]

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]

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]

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]

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,

Source: Philosophy in Christian Antiquity by Christopher Stead

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.

© Copyright Original Source

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.