quote:

---

OrthodoxBerean
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

[quote]"Oneness Apologist" = In your view, while God the Son continues to exist unchanged in His divine nature, He can no longer act in a divine capacity beyond (notice I did not say “apart from”) His incarnate existence, while according to Oneness theology He can and does. That is why I see your view more as a transmutation of God into man. He goes from functioning solely as God to functioning solely as man. Even though you maintain that God remains who He is in the incarnation, functionally His deity has had His lights turned off.

---

Trinitarians do not believe that God the Son "could not" fnuction through his divine capacity. They believe that he simply doesn't because he gave up that right at the incarntion. Does everyone here agree with this?

Next, he is trying to say that his uni-personal God functioned simultaneously as God and man. Is this possible? When God functions though his human capacity he says that this is the Son, when he functions outside of his human capacity he says that this is the Father.

What do you guys think about this?

---

As far as I know ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY comes out unscathed. This guy says: "In your view, while God the Son continues to exist unchanged in His divine nature, He can no longer act in a divine capacity beyond (notice I did not say “apart from”) His incarnate existence, while according to Oneness theology He can and does." The whole fuss about Christ's Two Natures and therefor Two Wills (one of the Eccumenical councils) says that the Son never stopped being an active part of the Trinity. Learning this means, as an Evangelical, going back through and getting a clearer view of what Christ's "emptying himself" means. He did NOT stop being God. As God he could not sin--not possible. But as man he could and was tempted--and in that way suffered. Becoming incarnate, Christ DID NOT CHANGE IN HIS DIVINITY. Anything else is heretical.

This guy is able to toute a true doctrine, use it to attack Trinitarians (of believing something that it turns out isn't Trinitarian at all in the first place), and make it seem that he is triumphing over Trinitarian doctrine. See: www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Holy-Trinity.html and www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Incarnation.html. They have a very clear, pew-sitting-level presentation, by an Ohio parish priest turned Seminary Dean.

The Oneness Guy asks: "That is why I see your view more as a transmutation of God into man."

Al: Is that true? Do you?

The Oneness Guy accuses: "Even though you maintain that God remains who He is in the incarnation, functionally His deity has had His lights turned off."

Al: In Orthodox Christianity this is not true.

You say: Trinitarians do not believe that God the Son "could not" fnuction through his divine capacity. They believe that he simply doesn't because he gave up that right at the incarntion. Does everyone here agree with this?

Al: I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm guessing that you mean that the Son continued to do all the things the Son ever has, and continues to do -- including holding molicules together -- while he "had his day job." Then, I think that you mean that he gave up certain "rights" like not being temptable, and not suffering change. Christ became hungery. He hurt himself. He had ignorance (though never of his deity) and had to learn, in a winding path like us all. This, for what came with assuming our flesh, and for what came with his purposefully, intentionally selecting to identify with us in every way--even what was perhaps available for being avoided--was His free-will choice. HE EMPTIED HIMSELF. He was fully man. AND "fully God." That is Orthodox Christianity.

Of "The Oneness Guy" you remark: Next, he is trying to say that his uni-personal God functioned simultaneously as God and man. Is this possible? When God functions though his human capacity he says that this is the Son, when he functions outside of his human capacity he says that this is the Father.

Al: Christ, the Son incarnate, did AND DOES "functioned simultaneously as God and man" -- and I don't know whether I have to be careful of words here or not. (Read the LINKS.)

Al: But this is HERESY!: "When God functions though his human capacity he says that this is the Son, when he functions outside of his human capacity he says that this is the Father."


DOES WHAT THIS GUY IS DOING QUALIFY AS "BAIT AND SWITCH?"

You won't change his mind. It is a good opportunity to study up, though!

Best for you,

Al

quote:

---

As far as I know ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY comes out unscathed. This guy says: "In your view, while God the Son continues to exist unchanged in His divine nature, He can no longer act in a divine capacity beyond (notice I did not say “apart from”) His incarnate existence, while according to Oneness theology He can and does." The whole fuss about Christ's Two Natures and therefor Two Wills (one of the Eccumenical councils) says that the Son never stopped being an active part of the Trinity. Learning this means, as an Evangelical, going back through and getting a clearer view of what Christ's "emptying himself" means. He did NOT stop being God. As God he could not sin--not possible. But as man he could and was tempted--and in that way suffered. Becoming incarnate, Christ DID NOT CHANGE IN HIS DIVINITY. Anything else is heretical.

This guy is able to toute a true doctrine, use it to attack Trinitarians (of believing something that it turns out isn't Trinitarian at all in the first place), and make it seem that he is triumphing over Trinitarian doctrine. See: www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Holy-Trinity.html and www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Incarnation.html. They have a very clear, pew-sitting-level presentation, by an Ohio parish priest turned Seminary Dean.

The Oneness Guy asks: "That is why I see your view more as a transmutation of God into man."

Al: Is that true? Do you?

The Oneness Guy accuses: "Even though you maintain that God remains who He is in the incarnation, functionally His deity has had His lights turned off."

Al: In Orthodox Christianity this is not true.

You say: Trinitarians do not believe that God the Son "could not" fnuction through his divine capacity. They believe that he simply doesn't because he gave up that right at the incarntion. Does everyone here agree with this?

Al: I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm guessing that you mean that the Son continued to do all the things the Son ever has, and continues to do -- including holding molicules together -- while he "had his day job." Then, I think that you mean that he gave up certain "rights" like not being temptable, and not suffering change. Christ became hungery. He hurt himself. He had ignorance (though never of his deity) and had to learn, in a winding path like us all. This, for what came with assuming our flesh, and for what came with his purposefully, intentionally selecting to identify with us in every way--even what was perhaps available for being avoided--was His free-will choice. HE EMPTIED HIMSELF. He was fully man. AND "fully God." That is Orthodox Christianity.

Of "The Oneness Guy" you remark: Next, he is trying to say that his uni-personal God functioned simultaneously as God and man. Is this possible? When God functions though his human capacity he says that this is the Son, when he functions outside of his human capacity he says that this is the Father.

Al: Christ, the Son incarnate, did AND DOES "functioned simultaneously as God and man" -- and I don't know whether I have to be careful of words here or not. (Read the LINKS.)

Al: But this is HERESY!: "When God functions though his human capacity he says that this is the Son, when he functions outside of his human capacity he says that this is the Father."


DOES WHAT THIS GUY IS DOING QUALIFY AS "BAIT AND SWITCH?"

You won't change his mind. It is a good opportunity to study up, though!

Best for you,

Al

---

quote:

---

OB: QUESTION: Does not relationship between two objects presuppose personal distinctions?

Al: Can you explain? (Sorry, running errands.)

---