The Pre-incarnate Christ

[JonC]

Sayanora John C. I might check back on some of your posts in the future.....

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.

 

[1689Dave]

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.

So the symbol of Chalcedon has problems with the truth? I do not stray from their limits or terminology. I think Nestorianism has taken a toll in Baptists churches if this board represents them.

 

[1689Dave]

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.

Didn't you have trouble in defecting from Calvinism a while back? If so, it strikes me as curious about your attitude towards the Symbol of Chalcedon. I normally do not trust the ability of non-Calvinists to understand scripture. And will not attend their churches. Or the churches of those who denounce the Ecumenical Creeds. Just a heads up to where I stand.

 

[JonC]

Didn't you have trouble in defecting from Calvinism a while back? If so, it strikes me as curious about your attitude towards the Symbol of Chalcedon. I normally do not trust the ability of non-Calvinists to understand scripture. And will not attend their churches. Or the churches of those who denounce the Ecumenical Creeds. Just a heads up to where I stand.

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).

 

[JonC]

So the symbol of Chalcedon has problems with the truth? I do not stray from their limits or terminology. I think Nestorianism has taken a toll in Baptists churches if this board represents them.

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?

 

[37818]

I normally do not trust the ability of non-Calvinists to understand scripture.

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." Understanding Scripture.

 

[37818]

. . . begotten before time; . . .

Unbiblical nonsense. All three Persons, God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit are the one and the same LORD God. YHWH, the Self Existent One. Not begotten in any way.

 

[JonC]

Unbiblical nonsense. All three Persons, God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit are the one and the same LORD God. YHWH, the Self Existent One. Not begotten in any way.

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.

 

[37818]

l disagree.

You disagee with what?

In the context of the Creed it refers to Christ ALWAYS being the Word.

Does that mean to you He was "begotten before time;" to be the Word?

The next part deals with the incarnation.

Does "begotten before time;" refer to His incarnation?

Christ did not become the Word when He was made flesh.

And I suggested no such idea.

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

I agree. That is why I said, "begotten before time;" to be unBiblical nonsense.

 

[JonC]

You disagee with what?

Does that mean to you He was "begotten before time;" to be the Word?

Does "begotten before time;" refer to His incarnation?

And I suggested no such idea.

I agree. That is why I said, "begotten before time;" to be unBiblical nonsense.

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"?

 

[37818]

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

Then your disagreement makes no sense. Since no where in any of any of my posts do I any were suggests any such thing that the Word had any kind of beginning. The Word always was.

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.

Yes. Ephesians 3:9.
The Word "was God" to be the sole agent of all creation, John 1:3.

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

Two different trems. As that, is going from has to do with change not deity. God does not change including in the Son being the same God. But as such the Son carries out the acts of God for His Father. See John 5:18-19. How the Son is with God has cbanged, but that the Son was God never changes.

 

[JonC]

Then your disagreement makes no sense. Since no where in any of any of my posts do I any were suggests any such thing that the Word had any kind of beginning. The Word always was.

Yes. Ephesians 3:9.
The Word "was God" to be the sole agent of all creation, John 1:3.

Two different trems. As that, is going from has to do with change not deity. God does not change including in the Son being the same God. But as such the Son carries out the acts of God for His Father. See John 5:18-19. How the Son is with God has cbanged, but that the Son was God never changes.

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.

 

[37818]

My position is that the creed is correct in its placement of Christ being begotten of the Father as from eternity past (the Word").

Is unBiblical error. Being begotten of the Father as from eternity past is a lie. The written word of God teaches no such thing.

All things were created by the God and through the Word.

The Word was God in being the sole agent, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

 

[JonC]

Is unBiblical error. Being begotten of the Father as from eternity past is a lie. The written word of God teaches no such thing.



The Word was God in being the sole agent, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

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.

 

[37818]

The three Persons, God the Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit are one the LORD, the Self Existent One. All three Persons are equally uncaused being the one an same LORD God.

 

[37818]

The Bible refers to Christ as λόγος.

Not at issue.

He is eternally begotten of God,

Where in the Bible?

 

[JonC]

The Word was God in being the sole agent, "

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.

 

[JonC]

Not at issue.



Where?

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.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

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

 

[1689Dave]

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).

Fully God and Fully man = Nestorianism (two persons/two natures), Not Christianity as defined in the Symbol of Chalcedon. God with two NATURES. One fully human, the other fully divine.