1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Evangelical Misunderstandings of the Person of Christ-

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by a SATS prof, Dec 29, 2015.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 3
  1. a SATS prof

    a SATS prof Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    7
    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
     
    #21 a SATS prof, Dec 31, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2015
  2. a SATS prof

    a SATS prof Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    7
    I am having an incredible problem at times in posting and making changes--guess I'm not so smart after all :(
     
    #22 a SATS prof, Dec 31, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  3. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,493
    Likes Received:
    3,567
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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)?
     
    #23 JonC, Dec 31, 2015
  4. a SATS prof

    a SATS prof Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    7
    IMO :

    doulos: :
    *
    Not "synonymous with" the Incarnation , but isolated to and concurrent with it. I don't get your other...?Bill
     
    #24 a SATS prof, Dec 31, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2015
  5. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,501
    Likes Received:
    1,241
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #25 Deacon, Dec 31, 2015
  6. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,493
    Likes Received:
    3,567
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #26 JonC, Dec 31, 2015
  7. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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. :)
     
    #27 agedman, Dec 31, 2015
  8. a SATS prof

    a SATS prof Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    7
     
    #28 a SATS prof, Dec 31, 2015
  9. a SATS prof

    a SATS prof Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    7
    Thanks Rob

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

    Bill
     
    #29 a SATS prof, Dec 31, 2015
  10. a SATS prof

    a SATS prof Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    7
    ---

    Boy are you! :)-:)-:)
     
    #30 a SATS prof, Dec 31, 2015
  11. a SATS prof

    a SATS prof Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    7
     
    #31 a SATS prof, Dec 31, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  12. JamesL

    JamesL Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,783
    Likes Received:
    158
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
    #32 JamesL, Dec 31, 2015
  13. JamesL

    JamesL Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,783
    Likes Received:
    158
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #33 JamesL, Dec 31, 2015
  14. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,493
    Likes Received:
    3,567
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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. :)
     
    #34 JonC, Dec 31, 2015
  15. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,501
    Likes Received:
    1,241
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #35 Deacon, Jan 1, 2016
  16. a SATS prof

    a SATS prof Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    7
    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.
     
    #36 a SATS prof, Jan 1, 2016
  17. a SATS prof

    a SATS prof Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    7
    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.
     
    #37 a SATS prof, Jan 1, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2016
  18. a SATS prof

    a SATS prof Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    7
    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.
     
    #38 a SATS prof, Jan 1, 2016
  19. a SATS prof

    a SATS prof Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    7
    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.
     
    #39 a SATS prof, Jan 1, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2016
  20. JamesL

    JamesL Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,783
    Likes Received:
    158
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #40 JamesL, Jan 1, 2016
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 3
Loading...