Hypostatic Union

[CJP69]

What I mean os things like "logical order".

There have always been debates about the order in salvation (faith before or after regeneration, for example).

But the whole point of "logical order" is philosophical (it is not chronological order).

It is fun to read because people argue as if chronology applies (on one hand you have a regenerated lost person, on the other an unregenerated saved person.....both instances are unbiblical).


The doctrine here was just a compilation of Biblical truths about Jesus' nature. Ultimately it, too, is a philosophical issue.

You are the veritable fount of tautological gobbledygook.

EVERYTHING theological is philosophical - everything - by definition.

 

[37818]

You are the veritable fount of tautological gobbledygook.

EVERYTHING theological is philosophical - everything - by definition.

Romans 2:1, . . . Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. . . .

 

[CJP69]

You do not know anything here. You wrote nonsense.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

God is infinititly good.

I'd wager that, in your use of the word here, the term "infinitely" has no actual meaning.

However, if by this you mean that God is unsearchable wise, absolutely just, and in all other ways as righteous as it is possible to be, then this point is not in dispute.

And God's incarnation by way of His Word per John 1:3, John 1:14, does not change Him being infinity good.

You, it seems, are the ignorant one. The doctrine of immutability does not merely apply to any particular part of God but to the complete whole (do a Google search for the term phrase "Divine Simplicity" - maybe you'll learn something about the doctrines you've blindly adopted.) There can be no change, of any sort, for any reason, in any way whatsoever or else, according to Aristotle and Plato (and then Augustine, Luther and Calvin), God would no longer be perfect in whatever way He changed.

It is utterly complete stupidity and it is THE foundation of the ridiculous philosophical hoop jumping that this thread is a terrific example of. Everyone trying to thread the needle in just such a way that they can trick their own minds into believe that God didn't change at all when He BECAME a man AND died AND rose from the dead.

 

[CJP69]

Romans 2:1, . . . Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. . . .

John 7:24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”

I Corinthians 6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?​

 

[CJP69]

@CJP69

??? …wondering how post #36 is relevant

I do not believe you.

 

[CJP69]

??? …wondering how post #36 is relevant

You're not the only one!... Brother Glen

The doctrine of original sin is blasphemy and it cannot survive even a surface reading of Ezekiel 18, not to mention the countless other passages that teach us that God is just.

 

[37818]

I'd wager that, in your use of the word here, the term "infinitely" has no actual meaning.

Huh. A spelling error. Infinititly was spelled wrong.

 

[CJP69]

Huh. A spelling error. Infinititly was spelled wrong.

I don't care about that and it was not what I was referring to.

I meant what I said. I find it very likely that, if pressed, you could not coherently tell anyone what the word "infinitely" means in the statement "God is infinitely good." At best, your use of the term means the same thing as "amazingly" or "ineffably" or whatever other superlative you wanted to use. As such, the claim in not in dispute.

 

[37818]

. . . to any particular part of God . . .

God does not have parts.
Deuteronomy 6:4.

 

[CJP69]

God does not have parts.
Deuteronomy 6:4.

Actually, yes He does, but that WAS NOT the point!

Are you seriously not able to follow your own logic?

You are the one who implied that God has parts!

The doctrine of immutability does NOT restrict itself to the issue of God's goodness, to use your terminology (see post 39).

I never suggested that it impacted His goodness in any way! I simply stated that the incarnation contradicts the doctrine of immutability, which very explicitly is about God not changing IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER!!!!

 

[JonC]

You are the veritable fount of tautological gobbledygook.

EVERYTHING theological is philosophical - everything - by definition.

For you, perhaps.

I seriously doubt anybody who uses philosophy as theology can be a Christian.

The reason is that, by definition, philosophy based on human understanding with an anthropocentric focus (whether human existence or human reality).

Philosophy is the "rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience".


Christ died for me. That is not philosophical.

You may turn it into a philosophy, of course, but it is not, in itself, philosophy.

But it is theological.


To borrow from Another, the difference is leaning on one's understanding and leaning on God's words.

 

[37818]

Actually, yes He does, but that WAS NOT the point!

Are you seriously not able to follow your own logic?

You are the one who implied that God has parts!

The doctrine of immutability does NOT restrict itself to the issue of God's goodness, to use your terminology (see post 39).

I never suggested that it impacted His goodness in any way! I simply stated that the incarnation contradicts the doctrine of immutability, which very explicitly is about God not changing IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER!!!!

You can be wrong if you want.

You think I am wrong.

One point or more.

You pick one point where you believe I am wrong.

We can discuss that one first.

 

[CJP69]

For you, perhaps.

ME? I don't have anything to do with it! What are you even talking about?

Do you understand what an "argument from definition" is?

No one asked me what the definitions of the terms "theology" and "philosophy" are. Theology is literally a branch of philosophy.

I seriously doubt anybody who uses philosophy as theology can be a Christian.

That's got to be the most mindless thing anyone has said to me in I don't know how long!

What are you even doing here if you don't have any better understanding of such simple English words?

Every single solitary truth claim you make is a philosophical statement!

That includes that last sentence that I just wrote and this sentence that you're reading right now!

The reason is that, by definition, philosophy based on human understanding with an anthropocentric focus (whether human existence or human reality).

There isn't any other kind of philosophy. Every truth claim you make, whether theological, astronimical, meteorological, scientific or social are all philosophical statements that are themselves based on other philosophical precepts including such things are the existence of God and His nature.

Philosophy is the "rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience".

The term abstract doesn't belong in that sentence, at least not as an absolute. Mathematics is philosophy.
Also, human existence either happens within God's creation or it does not. Virtually every claim or observation you can make concerning human existence is made with the answer to that question presupposed.

Christ died for me. That is not philosophical.

Of course it is. It's quintessentially philosophical. It is one of the most foundational precepts of all the Christian worldview.

You may turn it into a philosophy, of course, but it is not, in itself, philosophy.

Even this claim of yours that it isn't is a philosophical statement!

But it is theological.

And as such is philosophical - by definition.

To borrow from Another, the difference is leaning on one's understanding and leaning on God's words.

You cannot read God's word without your own understanding. You cannot fathom the meaning of a single syllable of the bible without the use of your own mind.

 

[JonC]

ME? I don't have anything to do with it! What are you even talking about?

Do you understand what an "argument from definition" is?

No one asked me what the definitions of the terms "theology" and "philosophy" are. Theology is literally a branch of philosophy.


That's got to be the most mindless thing anyone has said to me in I don't know how long!

What are you even doing here if you don't have any better understanding of such simple English words?

Every single solitary truth claim you make is a philosophical statement!

That includes that last sentence that I just wrote and this sentence that you're reading right now!


There isn't any other kind of philosophy. Every truth claim you make, whether theological, astronimical, meteorological, scientific or social are all philosophical statements that are themselves based on other philosophical precepts including such things are the existence of God and His nature.


The term abstract doesn't belong in that sentence, at least not as an absolute. Mathematics is philosophy.
Also, human existence either happens within God's creation or it does not. Virtually every claim or observation you can make concerning human existence is made with the answer to that question presupposed.


Of course it is. It's quintessentially philosophical. It is one of the most foundational precepts of all the Christian worldview.


Even this claim of yours that it isn't is a philosophical statement!


And as such is philosophical - by definition.


You cannot read God's word without your own understanding. You cannot fathom the meaning of a single syllable of the bible without the use of your own mind.

Yes, you.

It depends on how one defines "theology". Some, particularly secular institutions, define theology as a branch of philosophy.

Theology - a philosophically oriented discipline of religious speculation.

Others make a distinction between theology as a study of God and "philosophical theology".

And yet others (paticularly when theology is narrowed to Christianity) draw a distinction.

Some understand theory to be strictly systematic theology. Others theology proper. Others historical theology.


Historical theology, for example, is the study of theological development throught history. I can see how this is a type of history. But philosophy? No.


So yes, for you.


You are confusing philosophy with comprehension. Philosophy does not mean "using your mind".

When I read TS Elliot I am using my mind. But I am not doing philosophy. That said, depending on the work, I could.



That said, of your theology "an oriented discipline of religious speculation", then yes....you are using philosophy (and we all do on some things).

 

[JonC]

ME? I don't have anything to do with it! What are you even talking about?

Do you understand what an "argument from definition" is?

No one asked me what the definitions of the terms "theology" and "philosophy" are. Theology is literally a branch of philosophy.


That's got to be the most mindless thing anyone has said to me in I don't know how long!

What are you even doing here if you don't have any better understanding of such simple English words?

Every single solitary truth claim you make is a philosophical statement!

That includes that last sentence that I just wrote and this sentence that you're reading right now!


There isn't any other kind of philosophy. Every truth claim you make, whether theological, astronimical, meteorological, scientific or social are all philosophical statements that are themselves based on other philosophical precepts including such things are the existence of God and His nature.


The term abstract doesn't belong in that sentence, at least not as an absolute. Mathematics is philosophy.
Also, human existence either happens within God's creation or it does not. Virtually every claim or observation you can make concerning human existence is made with the answer to that question presupposed.


Of course it is. It's quintessentially philosophical. It is one of the most foundational precepts of all the Christian worldview.


Even this claim of yours that it isn't is a philosophical statement!


And as such is philosophical - by definition.


You cannot read God's word without your own understanding. You cannot fathom the meaning of a single syllable of the bible without the use of your own mind.

Since you are trying to define philosophy as everything, Lewis' illustration about the foolishness of philosophical concentration came to mind.

Philosophy often seeks to incorporate everything, and in so doing becomes a meaningless nothing.


But to better address your concern-

In theology, and among most theologians, the difference is drawn between philosophy and theology for a reason.

So it depends on which direction you come from.....from philosophy or theology.

 

[The Archangel]

This would be helpful for you all to read:

The Basics of Chalcedonian Christology | Tabletalk

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[CJP69]

You can be wrong if you want.

You think I am wrong.

The difference being that you make claims while I make arguments and present evidence.

One point or more.

You pick one point where you believe I am wrong.

We can discuss that one first.

I've already done that.

 

[CJP69]

Yes, you.

It depends on how one defines "theology". Some, particularly secular institutions, define theology as a branch of philosophy.

Stupidity.

Do you always just make up your own facts to suit whatever mindless thing you've said that someone is challenging you on?

Theology - a philosophically oriented discipline of religious speculation.

Speculation?

Theology is religious philosophy - period. Speculative or otherwise, it doesn't matter.

This isn't only true of theology but of ANY area of study. The search for truth is philosophy. The very idea that there is truth to search for is philosophy in its most nascent state.

Others make a distinction between theology as a study of God and "philosophical theology".

And yet others (paticularly when theology is narrowed to Christianity) draw a distinction.

Yes, just as theology is a branch of philosophy, there are branches of theology as well. There is Christian theology and Mormon theology and Branch Davidian theology and Hindu theology and Buddhist theology, etc. Within each of those there are still tighter fields of study. In Christianity theology, there is soteriology which has to do with the doctrines surrounding the issue of salvation.

ALL OF THAT IS PHILOSOPHY!!!! By definition!

Some understand theory to be strictly systematic theology. Others theology proper. Others historical theology.

It makes no difference what name you give it. It is philosophy.

Historical theology, for example, is the study of theological development throught history. I can see how this is a type of history. But philosophy? No.

Studying historical theology is to study the history of religious philosophy.

So yes, for you.

No! I have nothing to do with it. Not everything is a matter of opinion!

You are confusing philosophy with comprehension. Philosophy does not mean "using your mind".

I am not stupid!

Philosophy is the use of your mind to study fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy seeks to understand and explore topics such as the nature of reality, the meaning of life, the principles of morality, the limits of human understanding, and the foundations of knowledge.

Philosophy is divided into several branches, including metaphysics (the study of reality and existence), epistemology (the study of knowledge and how we come to know things), ethics (the study of morality and values), logic (the study of valid reasoning), aesthetics (the study of beauty and art), and political philosophy (the study of government and society).

When I read TS Elliot I am using my mind. But I am not doing philosophy. That said, depending on the work, I could.

I never suggested any such thing.

That said, of your theology "an oriented discipline of religious speculation", then yes....you are using philosophy (and we all do on some things).

You seriously need to just stop. You're making yourself look like an idiot.

 

[CJP69]

Since you are trying to define philosophy as everything, Lewis' illustration about the foolishness of philosophical concentration came to mind.

I have made no such attempt.

Philosophy often seeks to incorporate everything, and in so doing becomes a meaningless nothing.

That is a very philosophical statement!

But to better address your concern-

In theology, and among most theologians, the difference is drawn between philosophy and theology for a reason.

Most of the time that reason is because they wish to accept the irrational as true. An act, which is itself an act which is based on their epistemology (i.e. their philosophy of knowledge).

So it depends on which direction you come from.....from philosophy or theology.

Stupidity!
ALL theology is philosophy! All of it!

You will never show me one single exception.

 

[CJP69]

This would be helpful for you all to read:

The Basics of Chalcedonian Christology | Tabletalk

Blessings,

The Archangel

Chalcedonian Christology asserts that Jesus Christ has two natures, one divine and one human, united in one person (hypostasis). The doctrine affirms that Jesus is fully God and fully human simultaneously, without confusion, change, division, or separation in his divine and human nature.

In short, a firm affirmation of the first option in the pole and just as self-contradictory. A thing cannot be united and be both "without division" and "without separation". It would likewise be impossible to "become" something and do so "without change".

Use all the fancy terminology you like to dress it up and make it feel intellectual. That fact remains that there is no such thing as a self-contradictory truth.


I wonder if Jon C considers Chalcedonian Christology to be philosophical in nature?