 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Evangelicalism Today | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2011 11:36 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
Jeff said...
"Colossians says he's the firstborn OF creation BECAUSE all things were created through him, or something to that effect. So I'm thinking that being begotten in that sense is just like being begotten in resurrection or conceived in Mary--i.e., they are changes of state of existence because additional attributes are inhering in the "begotten" one. There is nothing in scripture that indicates, to me, that the second person of the godhead originated existentially at any time."
Nothing new. Just an old heresy. Arianism...like you said, Tom. But NOT modalism. Tritheism! Because most extant written material on Arianism was written by its opponents, the nature of Arian teachings is difficult to define precisely today. The letter of Auxentius,[9] a 4th-century Arian bishop of Milan, regarding the missionary Ulfilas, gives the clearest picture of Arian beliefs on the nature of the Trinity: God the Father ("unbegotten" ), always existing, was separate from the lesser Jesus Christ ("only-begotten" ), born before time began and creator of the world. The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as "the only true God". First Corinthians 8:5-8:6 was cited as proof text:
Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as in fact there are many gods and many lords — yet for us there is one God (Gk. theos - θεος), the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord (kyrios - κυριος), Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
A letter from Arius to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:
Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.
Here's how I see things...
Jeff is ARIAN in that he seems to hold that the pre-Creation "begetting" of the Son is simultaneous and co-terminous with the decision to create/incarnate. (He could prove me wrong with his answers...but this is what it seems for now!) He is TRITHEISTIC in that he seems to hold that the attributes of divinity can be partitioned separately among the three divine "centers of consciousness" as necessary such that theoretically one divine person can "give up" a partitioned divine attribute while the others' retain it. Jeff is ADOPTIONISTIC in that, immediately post-Incarnation, the "center of consciousness" of God the Son as human zygote does NOT continue the interpersonal, uncreated communication/interaction with God the Father and God the Spirit that had been taking place up to that point. Further, Jeff is a MONOTHELITE in that he believes that two natures exist in Jesus but only one will.
He's got the full gambit goin' on... 
Let's see what Jeff says.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/3/2011 12:06:56 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2011 12:14 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2011 1:08 PM (GMT -6) | | From here...
At this First Council of Nicaea twenty-two bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of Arius's writings were read aloud, they are reported to have been denounced as blasphemous by most participants. Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father were led by the young archdeacon Athanasius. Those who instead insisted that the Son of God came after God the Father in time and substance, were led by Arius the presbyter. For about two months, the two sides argued and debated, with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that Christ was God's First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said Arius, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; furthermore, there was a time that He had no existence. He was capable of His own free will, said Arius, and thus "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being." Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". And also Colossians 1:15: "Firstborn of all creation." Thus, Arius insisted that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with Him.
Yeah. Jeff falls LARGELY in line with this.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2011 3:13 PM (GMT -6) | | I see some of the issue, I think...
In order to be an evangelical kenotic christology (EKC) person (a subset of Social "Trinitarianism" ), one MUST either minimize or negate the idea of God the Father being the UNCEASING "fount", "source" or "root" of divinity and personhood of the Godhead. In other words, an EKC believer cannot hold that God the Son's reality as divine and as person is CONTINUALLY RELIANT upon God the Father's ecstatic, self-giving activity; they HAVE to hold that the "only Begotten God" (the Son) has his own autonomous divinity and personality apart from active interpersonal, perichoretic relationship with God the Father. Posing such ontological autonomy from God the Father is the only way that it could be true that God the Son never emptied himself of any of his divine attributes post-Incarnation, but simply chose not to use/access them during his earthly sojourn (i.e., non-use of nonetheless fully retained divine attributes).
Basically, they hold follownig his "Begottenness" by the Father, God the Son was ontologically his "own man", as it were.
Yeah...this is a CHIEF problem right here. 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/3/2011 3:33:56 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2011 4:15 PM (GMT -6) | | | Right!
We still cool, right Jeff? Jesus still loves us all...and we all still love Jesus! 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/3/2011 4:20:11 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/3/2011 4:56 PM (GMT -6) | | |
"The Monarchy": God the Father or the Essence/Godhead?"
This statement from one of the respondents was ABSOLUTELY on point:
The divine unity, then, has to be anchored in something more than the shared essence. There are two main candidates for that "something more": perichoresis and monarchy. Social trinitarians make the former into a substitute for the latter, but that's not what the Cappadocians did. If anything, they put the emphasis on the monarchy, with the mutual indwelling following from the Son and Spirit's being the Word and Spirit of the One God.
Point proven by the JETS paper...
To presuppose that on rational grounds, as some moderns contend, one person cannot inhabit another seems to fall short of the biblical portrayal not only of the Godhead, but also of the indwelling of a human being by either the Holy Spirit or, for that matter, a malignant spirit. It is perichoresis—the personal interpenetration of each member of the Godhead in the other through mutual activity of invitation and indwelling—that most adequately explains how three self-consciences can also be one in consciousness, thought, will, and action. So intrinsic is this perichoretic unity that God acts as the one and the three. While each personever possesses distinct mental properties and unique relation to the others, the entire Holy Trinity co-exists in corporate, exhaustive harmony. Although not resolving the mystery, the doctrine of perichoresis helps explain the unity of the divine mind and will without slipping into either modalism or tritheism, into which it seems other solutions fall.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/3/2011 5:44:24 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/3/2011 7:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | D: Pre-Creation, did God the Son personally exist in the SOFA sans the divine intention to incarnate?
J: I've said over and over that the second person had NO origination. I could be wrong, but I see no reason to posit an origin for him. Scripture doesn't hint at such to my knowledge.
And with respect to attributes, I don't think the Father CAN emtpy Himself in the way the second person can. But that's not absolutely proveable. I just think 1 Cor. and other passages are jumping through hoops to literally scream at us that the Father is, in the most fully-attributed sense, the ONE, TRUE GOD. And I think that means that it is not a flip of the coin that all things are OUT of Him. It's because of His essential attributes that the act of creation occurs that way. But all things are FOR and VIA the second person.
As for being begotten/born, it is absolutely obvious that the scripture uses that term of the second divine person AND humans in a way that does NOT imply an ontological origin. If Arianism includes the belief that the second person originated, I disagree with Arianism.
Finally, Christ himself used the fact that "god" can be used in multiple senses to make a point about himself. It's arbitrary, then, to say it's heretical to consider that approach inherently heretical. It's a perfectly legitimate hermeneutical approach if for no other reason than the fact that Christ himself USED IT. And that's on top of the fact that it's a quite natural way to make sense of the verses that speak of the Father as being the ONE God. Indeed, in 1 Cor., the word "one" is contrasted with "many," thereby making it clear that quantity is meant by "one." Quantity seems to be clearly in mind in Ephesians and Timothy as well. Thus, I have no reason to doubt Christ meant it that way in John.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 11/3/2011 7:56:28 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/4/2011 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
If Arianism includes the belief that the second person originated, I disagree with Arianism.
Ok, Jeff. Thanks for that clarification. I was confused interpreting your language. I'm trying to get inside your view here. So, you believe that God the Son eternally existed with the Father and the Spirit, and never had an origin point...cool.
Am I right on any of the others? (Tritheism, Adoptionism, Monothelitism). Probably the easiest way to answer THOSE questions would be to ask THIS one:
Can it ever be the case that God the Son can have his ontological reality AUTONOMOUS FROM the continuous reception of deity and personhood from God the Father's self-giving activity within their loving, perichoretic, interpersonal relationship?
The reason that I ask this is simple: The only way for a CONSISTENT EKCer to hold that, immediately post-Immaculate Conception, God the Son was in the zygote not having any interpersonal, perichoretic relationship with the Father AT ALL...is to say that God the Son's ontological reality as divine person does NOT continually rely upon the continual perichoretic self-communicating activity of God the Father. The said EKCer would have to say that God the Son has his OWN CONTINUING ONTOLOGICAL REALITY in Mary's womb, divorced from any interpersonal perichoresis with the Father and the Spirit. Basically, the consistent EKCer has to answer the bolded question above in the affirmative.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/4/2011 8:10:02 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/4/2011 5:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/5/2012 12:48 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/5/2012 12:54 PM (GMT -6) | | No, I'm saying that because of so many of the direct assocations of Evangelicalism and political discourse, it's almost useless missiologically to refer to oneself as an evangelical. WAAAAAY too much baggage.
Again, it would be like trying to get people to see past Nazism when they see a Swatiska now. I can know about the TRUE reality of what the Swastika means and try to articulate it. But chances are it would be a losing battle because of what it's been associated with. I'm thinking it's the same way for the term "evangelical".
The swastika (Sanskrit: स्वस्तिक) is an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles, in either right-facing (卐) form in counterclockwise motion or its mirrored left-facing (卍) form in clockwise motion. Earliest archaeological evidence of swastika-shaped ornaments dates back to the Indus Valley Civilization of Ancient India as well as Classical Antiquity. Swastikas have also been used in other various ancient civilizations around the world. It remains widely used in Indian religions, specifically in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, primarily as a tantric symbol to evoke 'shakti' or the sacred symbol of good luck. The swastika is also a Chinese character used in East Asia representing eternity and Buddhism.
Following a brief surge of popularity in Western culture, the counter clock motion swastika was adopted as a symbol of the Nazi Party of Germany in 1920. After Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in the 1930s, a swastika was incorporated into the Nazi party flag, which was made the State Flag of Germany. As a result, the Swastika became strongly associated with Nazism and related ideologies such as Fascism and White Supremacism since the 1930s in the Western world and is now largely stigmatized. It has notably been outlawed in Germany if used as a symbol of Nazism. Many modern political extremists and Neo-Nazi groups such as the Russian National Unity use stylized swastikas or similar symbols.
People now don't associate "evangelicalism" with radical love AT ALL. At most, it's associated with misguided humanitarianism. At worst...well...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/5/2012 1:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Now. Let's look at this. Forget "overwhelming prayer" for self-examination or worship of God. Forget prayer as PERSON-izing. Forget praying as deepening Christ's Body. Forget prayer as our natural relational union with the Uncreated.
Nope.
All that prayer is to make sure that America keeps shinin' and Obama's "radical view" can be stopped.
Anyone else need a barf bag?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 1/5/2012 12:44:42 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/5/2012 3:15 PM (GMT -6) | | On the one hand he knows who's gonna be the next president. Then he says it depends on LOTS of voluntary activity. He CLEARLY doesn't believe in open theism. I can't figure it.
Plus, why say God told you but that He doesn't want anyone else to know? Seriously? I'm actually supposed to take that seriously? When men do these things in the name of Christ, I'm awed. Paul and John spoke of getting purely private revelation in a profoundly miraculous way. But to trivialize it with braggadocio over such issues can't help but undermine confidence in the man at a fundamental level. It seems so shameless.
"I think He showed me about the next president, but I'm not supposed to talk about that so I'll leave you in the dark -- probably just as well -- but I think I know who it's gonna be,"
How is that anything but braggadocio mixed with uncertainty, thereby rendering it incoherent as well?
Post Edited (Similitude) : 1/5/2012 2:56:41 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 97 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:41 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|