Evangelical Misunderstandings of the Person of Christ-

[a SATS prof]

IMO, (8) Those here who are well-read on Christology will be aware that Lutheranism has a genus on the Hypostatic Union which asserts that the Deity in Christ gives the humanity in Christ divine attributes; I reject that notion. (9) Since ability, attributes, and actions can be posited to distinctly to one or the other natures in Christ, the possibility--as yet , admittedly, not yet tested in this thread by Scripture&Theology--is that obedience occurs in only one of Christ's natures. (10) and THAT is the thesis I hope tomorrow-God willing- to argue by answering 20 or so arguments.Bill

 

[a SATS prof]

I am having an incredible problem at times in posting and making changes--guess I'm not so smart after all

 

[JonC]

Would it be fair, then, to say that you are presenting this submissiveness (this role of obedience) as synonymous with, or at minimum an inherent and isolated element of, “incarnation”? If so, then is your contention that evangelical theology has taken anthropomorphic revelation to erroneously embody the reality it seeks to explain (the thing explained is replaced by the explanation)?

 

[a SATS prof]

IMO :

doulos: :
*
Not "synonymous with" the Incarnation , but isolated to and concurrent with it. I don't get your other...?Bill

 

[Deacon]

I am having an incredible problem at times in posting and making changes--guess I'm not so smart after all

I've noticed this problem as well.
I was able to post short sections and post, then edit and add another short section, post and repeat to get most of my post.
Something's intermittently wrong with the software on the BBoard.

Rob

 

[JonC]

Prof.,

My “other” was asking if you thought evangelical Christianity had substituted illustration for reality in its theology proper. You mentioned that each of the “persons” of the Godhead are made distinct by “His” name, relation to the Others and to Creation. But if this relation to Creation is temporal, and this relation to the Other (in terms traditional explanations of the Trinity as submissive) is also temporary, then what is left is distinction by name (which is, essentially, explanation and not an ontological distinction if there is but one divine "nature"...i.e., this would also be temporary).

My question is whether or not you are implying that God in three distinct “persons” is explanation (an anthropomorphic illustrative model) that has been substituted for Deity in evangelical theology, particularly when we speak of Christ as “eternally begotten” and the Godhead as eternal.

 

[agedman]

I think what he is saying is that we can't sing the song "Holy, Holy, Holy" without violation of his view.

But I may be wrong.

 

[a SATS prof]

I've noticed this problem as well.
I was able to post short sections and post, then edit and add another short section, post and repeat to get most of my post.
Something's intermittently wrong with the software on the BBoard.

Rob

 

[a SATS prof]

Thanks Rob

I will try that too. UNfortunately, I get very talkative when I discuss my opinions!

Bill

 

[a SATS prof]

I think what he is saying is that we can't sing the song "Holy, Holy, Holy" without violation of his view.

But I may be wrong.

---

Boy are you! --

 

[a SATS prof]

Prof.,

------
The Persons are seldom shown to have specific pre temporal relations. But an example is the sharing of glory (Jo 17:5). In Saying God is three "Persons, " we may be speaking anthropomorphically as the term is only else where used of humans.But I am not implying the phrase is a substitute for the concept of deity-though it is an explanation of deity. We see each Person having distinct relations to creation and salvation . These relationships are sometimes said to be predestined.before creation.(Acts 2:23;! Pet 1:20; Rev 13:8;

 

[JamesL]

IMO, l: In my opinion: (1) Scripture encourages the belief that God is somehow both one in nature yet three in --what for want of a better term-- many call "Persons." That term is problematic.......

(2) As for the absolute deity of the Son....divine qualities, names and titles, relationships, and works.

(3) Yet at the same time.... ascribing to Him human names, conditions, limitations, and characteristics.

Many call these two components "natures."

1) I agree the term "Persons" is problematic.
But so is the term "nature". Well, maybe not the term itself, but a misapplication.

2) Yes, divine qualities. However, numerous thinkers in the past have not been able to see any notion of the Son displayed in the Old Testament. This led some to think there were two different Gods, or that the Son was merely a manifestation, or not really flesh, or a created being, lesser god, etc.

Scripture does not explicitly state any formal position

3) the two "components" (divine and human) are the source of almost 100% of all confusions and disagreements on the issue, imo

Hypostatic Union was the resulting theory of how the two "components" could work together without tension.

But was there necessarily tension?
What if the components are improperly designated?

Is there a better answer?
One which is more faithful to biblical statements, one which more accurately represents the God-Man and does not compromise any of His attributes?

 

[JamesL]

Yep, one eternal Godhead of three distinct (uncreated) Persons.

This is the accepted Trinitarian expression since Chalcedon really. I'm happy to talk about it and show how, through Scripture, we come to this systematic conclusion. The Trinity is difficult to talk about because too often folks are afraid of controversy and there is enough ambiguity it is intimidating.

But you specifically used the word "beings"

I agree there's enough ambiguity to make it intimidating.

But does there have to be so much ambiguity? I don't think so.

I believe a proper starting paradigm straightens out 100% of the confusion

 

[JonC]

Thank you for taking the time to address my questions. We are then dealing with the glory that the Son set aside at the Incarnation and the Father bestowed at the Resurrection, and the intervening period of subjection. Your argument is that the “divine nature” of Christ is not subordinate but reflects the glory of God (is in all ways essentially and completely God). The Son’s obedience is that time when his glory is “set aside” and he becomes flesh (human nature), and I take it human nature perfectly executed. Either this was a temporary role accomplished or this human nature is reconciled with deity in Christ. If this is reconciliation, either this reconciled humanity remains subjective or it is in Christ synonymous with the divine nature (two natures reconciled in one). I look forward to reading how your argument advances. (Personally, I agree with Cyril of Alexander in terms of God-man as “nature,” but I also realize problems associated with this view).

Again, thank you for addressing my questions. I'll be quite now and listen.

 

[Deacon]

Thanks Rob

I will try that too. UNfortunately, I get very talkative when I discuss my opinions!

Bill

I think I figured out the cause.
For some reason any text more than the length of the initial window (a short paragraph) isn't allowed.
I see some posts by people are quite long so it has something to do will our individual settings.

Rob

 

[a SATS prof]

Then,regarding pre temporal Trinal relationships, the view of some is that the first Covenant is between the Trinal Persons as to Who would do what in the creative and salvific processes/plan.

 

[a SATS prof]

argument #1 for eternal role subordination & my response to it: Since the Son was the One to Incarnate, He must be eternally role subordinate. (Ware "Tampering With The Trinity" JBMW 6-1). But Scripture is silent on why it was the Son. Doctrine is not best built on silence. Yet some theories-NOT subordinative--have been advanced: (1) Anselm suggests it was more proper for our human minds for the Son to be the One (On The Incarnation of the Word), (2) Brown sees the personified Wisdom and Torah as being John's LOGOS background, so why would the LOGOS not be the One to incarnate(Gospel According to John). Warfield asserts that there is a Covenant in the Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son was mutually agreed on.( Biblical Doctrines) I do not see argument #1 as convincing.

 

[a SATS prof]

argument #2 for the eternal role subordination of the Son & my response to it: One called "Son" would be subordinate to One called "Father."(Grudem, Systematic Theology, 250). BUT,Gregory Nazianzen says Christ is called "Son" because He is identical with the Father's essence. (4th Theological Oration XX). And Bess well-argues that "son of" is a Hebrew idiom meaning "of the same kind.""Sons of prophets are prophets--not subordinate to prophets.(The Term'Son of God' GTS 6.2). And Mowery evidences that the title "Son of God" in the 1st c. Roman emperor cult meant equality with the gods-not subordination to the gods, and he demonstrates similarities in the syntax of the phrase "Son of God" on Roman coins, baths, bridges etc with those in Matthew. (Son of God in Roman Imperial Title, Biblica 83). We may note that when our LORD claimed sonship to God, the Jews understood that to mean equality not subordination (Jo 5).I do not see argument 2 as convincing.

 

[a SATS prof]

Argument #3 for the eternal role subordination of the Son & my response to it. Role subordination does not at all imply essential subordination. (Grudem , Systematic Theology, 253). BUT, think a bit about the divines attributes.(1) These are said to inhere in and be essential to the divine nature and each Person in God must have the same attributes (Frame,The Doctrine of God,226; Erickson, Christian Theology 1989:265; Shedd Dogmatic Theology 1:135; Wiley, Christian Theology 1:321) (2) Each attribute must be infinite as the divine essence, God, Himself, is infinite (Aquinas, Summa 1:6; Strong Systematic Theology, 254; Grudem Op. Cit., 167) [NOTE: one can get the Scriptures and argumentation for these positions from the theologies referenced) (3) Sovereignty IS an attribute (Berkof, Systematic Theology, 76; Grudem, Op. Cit. 217; Chafer, Systematic Theology, 1:233; Hodge , Systematic Theology, 1:440 which -as said- must be infinite because the essence it resides in is infinite. So, IF the Son has the divine essence, HE MUST be as sovereign as the Father. Role subordination requires essential subordination! So, I do not see argument 3 as convincing.

 

[JamesL]

Since the Son was the One to Incarnate, He must be eternally role subordinate......

Imo, this is one of the biggest hindrances in discussions like this, but most people don'tseem capable of catching it.

The very first word - SINCE assumes universal agreement with the notion of "Eternal Sonship", a doctrine which is not universally accepted. John MacArthur may be the most prominent figure of late to have denied this doctrine. He does espouse it now, but has not always. This notion of Eternal Son must be considered.

Are the three - Father, Son, Holy Spirit - accurate designations for the essence of God?

Or are we better off with Father, Word, Spirit ?

I have read somewhere that the Word became flesh, tented among us. Have I ever read that the Son became flesh? See John 1:14, Romans 1:3-4