Do we Calvinists really in Fullest sense deny the Trinity then?

[JesusFan]

Per the posting on another thread by brother JonC
"
I know he endorsed the Trinity. I was talking about Calvinism, not Calvin.

AND Calvinists DO believe in a doctrine of the Trinity. If you single out the fuller Doctrine of the Trinity they will say they believe it. But at the same time they hold a firmer belief in a contradictory doctrine.

That is what I mean when I say there is a basic doctrine (expressed in the Apostles creed), and fuller definition (expressed well in the Nicene Creed), even more developed in the Athanasian Creed.

Calvinists have to play around with the Athanasian Creed (with the uniting, Trinity in unity, eternal co-magesty, etc). A Calvinist could not write this Creed because they view the Father as punishing the Son, some even abandoning Him, even if for a millisecond).

But Calvinists will say they believe the Athanasian Creed.

Same with Jesus' nature. Calvinism holds the Chalcedonian Creed as correct. But at the same time their doctrine denies the Creed (they have to play around with it).

Had Calvinism existed prior to the 16th century it would have been considered heresy. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but the philosophy does not quite fit in with traditional Christian faith."

is what he is asserting here correct?

 

[David Lamb]

Per the posting on another thread by brother JonC
"
I know he endorsed the Trinity. I was talking about Calvinism, not Calvin.

AND Calvinists DO believe in a doctrine of the Trinity. If you single out the fuller Doctrine of the Trinity they will say they believe it. But at the same time they hold a firmer belief in a contradictory doctrine.

That is what I mean when I say there is a basic doctrine (expressed in the Apostles creed), and fuller definition (expressed well in the Nicene Creed), even more developed in the Athanasian Creed.

Calvinists have to play around with the Athanasian Creed (with the uniting, Trinity in unity, eternal co-magesty, etc). A Calvinist could not write this Creed because they view the Father as punishing the Son, some even abandoning Him, even if for a millisecond).

But Calvinists will say they believe the Athanasian Creed.

Same with Jesus' nature. Calvinism holds the Chalcedonian Creed as correct. But at the same time their doctrine denies the Creed (they have to play around with it).

Had Calvinism existed prior to the 16th century it would have been considered heresy. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but the philosophy does not quite fit in with traditional Christian faith."

is what he is asserting here correct?

Well, I had to look up the Chalcedonian Creed. It says:

"Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us."

I cannot see anything that that is contrary to Calvinism. The same with the Athanasian Creed.

 

[JonC]

Per the posting on another thread by brother JonC
"
I know he endorsed the Trinity. I was talking about Calvinism, not Calvin.

AND Calvinists DO believe in a doctrine of the Trinity. If you single out the fuller Doctrine of the Trinity they will say they believe it. But at the same time they hold a firmer belief in a contradictory doctrine.

That is what I mean when I say there is a basic doctrine (expressed in the Apostles creed), and fuller definition (expressed well in the Nicene Creed), even more developed in the Athanasian Creed.

Calvinists have to play around with the Athanasian Creed (with the uniting, Trinity in unity, eternal co-magesty, etc). A Calvinist could not write this Creed because they view the Father as punishing the Son, some even abandoning Him, even if for a millisecond).

But Calvinists will say they believe the Athanasian Creed.

Same with Jesus' nature. Calvinism holds the Chalcedonian Creed as correct. But at the same time their doctrine denies the Creed (they have to play around with it).

Had Calvinism existed prior to the 16th century it would have been considered heresy. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but the philosophy does not quite fit in with traditional Christian faith."

is what he is asserting here correct?

Calvinists hold that the Father looked upon the Son as if He were a sinner (which denies the unity portion 9f both creeds).

You said that Jesus did th8ngs in His divinity and other things in His humanity (when discussing natures) which is a denial of the inseparableness described in the Creed.

Some Calvinists believe that God turned His back on, or separates from, Jesus on the Cross (which is a denial of both creeds).

But Calvinists believe that there was at least some degree of separation between Father and Don on the Cross which is a denial of the creeds.

 

[JesusFan]

Calvinists hold that the Father looked upon the Son as if He were a sinner (which denies the unity portion 9f both creeds).

You said that Jesus did th8ngs in His divinity and other things in His humanity (when discussing natures) which is a denial of the inseparableness described in the Creed.

Some Calvinists believe that God turned His back on, or separates from, Jesus on the Cross (which is a denial of both creeds).

But Calvinists believe that there was at least some degree of separation between Father and Don on the Cross which is a denial of the creeds.

We are affirming there what the scriptures state to us concerning though the atonement and work and person of Jesus, regardless of that the confessions and creeds might be stating, for if the scriptures and those other sources are found to be in conflict, its sola scriptural

Calvinists hold that the Father looked upon the Son as if He were a sinner (which denies the unity portion 9f both creeds).

You said that Jesus did th8ngs in His divinity and other things in His humanity (when discussing natures) which is a denial of the inseparableness described in the Creed.

Some Calvinists believe that God turned His back on, or separates from, Jesus on the Cross (which is a denial of both creeds).

But Calvinists believe that there was at least some degree of separation between Father and Don on the Cross which is a denial of the creeds.

We hold that the Father looked upon Jesus as the sin bearer, so He was viewing Jesus as he who knew no sin became then in His sight as if he had sinned, as per the scriptures

Jesus was able to walk on water and control weather due to being deity, but also thirsted and had to sleep and eat due to his humanity

Jesus experienced the forsaking of the presense of God the Father, per the scriptures "my God why have you forsaken me?"

All of that in the scriptures, which was inspired, while creeds and confessions were not

 

[JesusFan]

Well, I had to look up the Chalcedonian Creed. It says:

"Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us."

I cannot see anything that that is contrary to Calvinism. The same with the Athanasian Creed.

Nether the Creeds nor the Confessions conflict with Calvinism

 

[JonC]

We are affirming there what the scriptures state to us concerning though the atonement and work and person of Jesus, regardless of that the confessions and creeds might be stating, for if the scriptures and those other sources are found to be in conflict, its sola scriptural

We're that true you would be able to provide your belief sola scriptura (by simply quoting Scripture). You cannot because your beluef is not in the Word of God.

We hold that the Father looked upon Jesus as the sin bearer, so He was viewing Jesus as he who knew no sin became then in His sight as if he had sinned, as per the scriptures

Jesus was able to walk on water and control weather due to being deity, but also thirsted and had to sleep and eat due to his humanity

Jesus experienced the forsaking of the presense of God the Father, per the scriptures "my God why have you forsaken me?"

All of that in the scriptures, which was inspired, while creeds and confessions were not

Wrong.

First, you stated on a previous thread that Jesus experienced what the lost will experience at Judgment.

Second, Jesus did not walk on water due to His divinity (He explains this to Peter) but did all things by the Spirit.

Third, Jesus experiencing the foreskin of the presence of God IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING....It is a denial of the Creed while trying to say you believe it (it is "double-speak").


Fourth, I agree that you do not have to affirm those creeds. My point is Calvinists SAY they do when in truth theu don't. (They redefine and twist the creeds to suit their philosophy, just as they do Scriptute).

 

[JesusFan]

Wrong.

First, you stated on a previous thread that Jesus experienced what the lost will experience at Judgment.

Second, Jesus did not walk on water due to His divinity (He explains this to Peter) but did all things by the Spirit.

Third, Jesus experiencing the foreskin of the presence of God IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING....It is a denial of the Creed while trying to say you believe it (it is "double-speak").


Fourth, I agree that you do not have to affirm those creeds. My point is Calvinists SAY they do when in truth theu don't. (They redefine and twist the creeds to suit their philosophy, just as they do Scriptute).

True Jesus experienced what sinners will in Hell while upon that Cross
Are you holding to a form of kenosis theology here regarding Jesus while upon earth?
You base us denying the Creeds due to how you understand the scriptures regarding atonement, Jesus while upon the Earth in Incarnation etc though , not saying that you are wrong, but you cannot claim with absolute truth we are wrong either

 

[JonC]

True Jesus experienced what sinners will in Hell while upon that Cross
Are you holding to a form of kenosis theology here regarding Jesus while upon earth?
You base us denying the Creeds due to how you understand the scriptures regarding atonement, Jesus while upon the Earth in Incarnation etc though , not saying that you are wrong, but you cannot claim with absolute truth we are wrong either

While the idea that Jesus experienced what lost sinners will experience in Hell is false, my point is tgat it is not in the Bible. This is why you cannot provide any passages supporting that belief, and yet another example of your rejection of sola scriptura.

I do believe the kenosis is correct (I already told you, I am sola scriptura, so that is a given).

For those who may wonder, kenosis (κενόω) refers to the belief that though Jesus was in the form of God emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in human likeness. "Kenosis" means "emptied".

Wrong. I am basing your denial of those creeds on your statement that Jesus experienced what sinners will in Hell. I am not basing your denial of those creeds on Scripture but on the creeds themselves. Xalvinists use "double-speak" to redefine and twist creeds they like to fit their philosophy.

I am stating the fact that you reject sola scriptura based on your rejection of using Scripture alone in foundations doctrines.

 

[JesusFan]

While the idea that Jesus experienced what lost sinners will experience in Hell is false, my point is tgat it is not in the Bible. This is why you cannot provide any passages supporting that belief, and yet another example of your rejection of sola scriptura.

I do believe the kenosis is correct (I already told you, I am sola scriptura, so that is a given).

For those who may wonder, kenosis (κενόω) refers to the belief that though Jesus was in the form of God emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in human likeness. "Kenosis" means "emptied".

Wrong. I am basing your denial of those creeds on your statement that Jesus experienced what sinners will in Hell. I am not basing your denial of those creeds on Scripture but on the creeds themselves. Xalvinists use "double-speak" to redefine and twist creeds they like to fit their philosophy.

I am stating the fact that you reject sola scriptura based on your rejection of using Scripture alone in foundations doctrines.

Kenosis is a heretical view though regarding the nature of Jesus, IF one holds that Jesus while upon the earth was just fully man now. Not saying that you hold that view, but just stating kenosis can led to heresy.

 

[JonC]

Kenosis is a heretical view though regarding the nature of Jesus, IF one holds that Jesus while upon the earth was just fully man now. Not saying that you hold that view, but just stating kenosis can led to heresy.

No, "kenosis" is a theological term that states Jesus was in the form of God and emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in human likeness. Hence the term "kenosis".

There are several takes on the kenosis, but it is typically accepted within Baptist churches.

I am saying that Jesus, in His earthly ministry, did nothing of His own accord and trusted in the Father, performing miracles through the Spirit. But not based on the kenosis (although that passage is relevant as well).

I told you I believe the creeds we mentioned accurately describes what Scrioture says of Jesus. So zi do not belueve that Jesus had or has two seperate natures (the "inseparable" part of those creeds....Jesus did not do one thing in His divinity and another in His humanity). He is God-man.

 

[canadyjd]

Calvinists hold that the Father looked upon the Son as if He were a sinner (which denies the unity portion 9f both creeds).

Please provide a reference to support your claim that “Calvinists” hold the Father “looked upon the Son… as a sinner”, instead of bearing the sins of others on the cross.

…
But Calvinists believe that there was at least some degree of separation between Father and Don on the Cross which is a denial of the creeds.

Please provide a reference for what you claim “Calvinists” believe.

FTR, I consider myself reformed, not Calvinist, and do not hold to any such separation.

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

….
I am saying that Jesus, in His earthly ministry, did nothing of His own accord and trusted in the Father, performing miracles through the Spirit. But not based on the kenosis (although that passage is relevant as well)….

Interesting. I have considered this for some time. That is, did Jesus use the power of God Holy Spirit, rather than His own divine power (kenosis), to perform all His miracles? Scripture attributes the miracles to Jesus.

So zi do not belueve that Jesus had or has two seperate natures (the "inseparable" part of those creeds....Jesus did not do one thing in His divinity and another in His humanity). He is God-man.

Does Jesus have two distinct natures… Divine and human?

Peace to you

 

[JesusFan]

No, "kenosis" is a theological term that states Jesus was in the form of God and emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in human likeness. Hence the term "kenosis".

There are several takes on the kenosis, but it is typically accepted within Baptist churches.

I am saying that Jesus, in His earthly ministry, did nothing of His own accord and trusted in the Father, performing miracles through the Spirit. But not based on the kenosis (although that passage is relevant as well).

I told you I believe the creeds we mentioned accurately describes what Scrioture says of Jesus. So zi do not belueve that Jesus had or has two seperate natures (the "inseparable" part of those creeds....Jesus did not do one thing in His divinity and another in His humanity). He is God-man.

He still was fully God while upon the Earth then , correct? As heretical Kenosis would see Him as not being fully God on earth, but just fully man

 

[JesusFan]

Please provide a reference to support your claim that “Calvinists” hold the Father “looked upon the Son… as a sinner”, instead of bearing the sins of others on the cross.


Please provide a reference for what you claim “Calvinists” believe.

FTR, I consider myself reformed, not Calvinist, and do not hold to any such separation.

Peace to you

The Father never saw Jesus as a sinner in Himself, but as the One bearing the sins of His own people and bearing their due wrath and judgement in their stead
And Jesus experienced that forsakeness all lost will for all eternity

 

[JesusFan]

Please provide a reference to support your claim that “Calvinists” hold the Father “looked upon the Son… as a sinner”, instead of bearing the sins of others on the cross.


Please provide a reference for what you claim “Calvinists” believe.

FTR, I consider myself reformed, not Calvinist, and do not hold to any such separation.

Peace to you

How would define difference between Calvinist and Reformed then?

 

[JesusFan]

Interesting. I have considered this for some time. That is, did Jesus use the power of God Holy Spirit, rather than His own divine power (kenosis), to perform all His miracles? Scripture attributes the miracles to Jesus.

Does Jesus have two distinct natures… Divine and human?

Peace to you

Jesus has natures of deity and humanity in one person, correct?

 

[JonC]

He still was fully God while upon the Earth then , correct? As heretical Kenosis would see Him as not being fully God on earth, but just fully man

Yes. 100% God, 100% man. There is a difference between the kenosis and Kenosis heresy.

 

[JesusFan]

Good that you clarified your position

 

[canadyjd]

How would define difference between Calvinist and Reformed then?

It has to do with covenant theology, as I understand it. Reformed hold to covenant theology.

I haven’t studied Calvin, but am aware of the debate surrounding the 5 points.

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Jesus has natures of deity and humanity in one person, correct?

As I understand it, yes. Jesus redeemed everything He assumed in the incarnation, that includes our human nature.

Peace to you