The Pre-incarnate Christ

That's fine. Like I said at the start, your position does not bother me but I needed to ask for others to evaluate your position.

This board allows diverse positions but also holds certain presuppositions and expectations of its membership.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is one of these presuppositions. The Administration has held that members hold a position within orthodox Christianity and my task was to have you explain yours.

Since you could not simply affirm the creed when I posted it this was more of an effort than I intended.

 

No. I have not had trouble defecting from Calvinism. I still hold that their conclusions regarding the five points (plus "double-predestination") are true - but in a different context. That was my only interest in Calvinism. I parted ways with Calvinism over other issues that became apparent (and is shared by other theologies).

Calvinists typically believe that Christ is fully man and fully God (they normally fall within orthodox Christianity).

@davidtaylorjr and @Reformed are Calvinists and may be able to confirm or deny the Calvinist position (but I am pretty sure they believe Christ to be the "God-man, fully God and fully man".

If you want to discuss my departure from Calvi usm that would be an entirely different topic, and you are welcome to start a thread (it would be about the nature of divine justice).

 

Again, do you confirm that Christ is:

"God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh... "

That is from the Athanasian Creed (which the Reformed used in articulating the Belgic Confession).

Calvinists accept this as true. So do Lutherans, Baptists, Catholics...... Orthodox faith holds it as true.

I ask again, do you?

Do you believe God is fully (you can say" completely") God and fully/ complete man OR are you denouncing orthodoxy and the Ecumenical creeds when it comes to this topic?

 

l disagree. In the context of the Creed it refers to Christ ALWAYS being the Word. The next part deals with the incarnation.

In other words, Christ did not become the Word when He was made flesh.

That said, I do believe begotten is best applied to the incarnation because that is how we typically think of the word.

 

I disagree that there ever was a time Christ was not "the Word".

My personal belief (not something I would be dogmatic about) is that the Godhead is seen in Creation with the Father creating through the Son.

So in terms of the "Creed" I agree (with the Son eternally "begotten" or "going from" or "the Word" in relation to the Father).

When do you think the Christ became "the Word"?

 

I must have misunderstood your post.

My position is that the creed is correct in its placement of Christ being begotten of the Father as from eternity past (the Word"). All things were created by the God and through the Word.

 

Again, I disagree.

The Bible refers to Christ as λόγος. He is eternally begotten of God, being made flesh at a point in time. That is why orthodox Christian creeds refer to Christ as" begotten" from eternity past.

Now if you prefer to apply "begotten" to the Incarnation (which I would) then you would be correct. But that is rejecting orthodoxy by redefining terms. The creeds always place eternally begotten in relation to the Father and begotten in the flesh to a point in time (typically to Mary).

But denying that the Second Person of the Trinity came into being or was at one time not λόγος is foreign to Scripture.

 

Again, I disagree. Scripture presents Creation as a work of the Trinity (Father speaking, all things created by the λόγος.... hence" God said".. and the Spirit moving.

 

What are you talking about? That is the significance of λόγος. The English "Word" does not do it justice. It is the "word" or "expression" of God. John 1.

 

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 3:30 AM Pacific.