The human Christ?
EFS
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by McCree79, Sep 2, 2017.
Page 3 of 5
-
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Christ as pertains to His humanity not as pertains to His divinity
-
there's no human versus divine, because the word of God was made flesh without static -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Two Natures in one Person. That's always been the orthodox position.
-
But the issue with EFS is not in nature, but in function. Function not an indicator of essence, worth or value.
Or as James White says, "Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature."
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk -
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Agreed: always 100% human and 100% God
-
Quite a spread of views - IMO no one has an Arian view.
It is a difficult subject and a semantic challenge (I think someone already said that).
HankD -
-
Just for the record, again, I don't like the word subordination in any relationship between the Father and the son.
In my own view, the essential relationship of the Son with the Father is one of eternal co-equal begotteness.
Subordinate is in my view a word leaning toward Arianism.
Neither do I like the word "divine" or "divinity" as a substitute for the phrase "the deity of Christ".
It is a signature word of Neo-Orthodoxy.
Words are important - a contemporary political statement.
Realizing that Christians use these words though they are neither of Arian or Neo-Orthodox persuasion doesn't make me like them any better.
HankD -
I'm not sure subordination necessarily leads to Arianism, because as was earlier noted (JonC?) the Arian view of Christ is that He was created.
I see it treading on polytheism, though, along with any notion of 3 "co-eternal" Persons. I see too many who perceive 3 distinct divibe beings conversing around a table or standing shoulder-to-shoulder.
The Father, His Word, and His Breath - the 3 are One as scripture says (the Athanasian Creed states plainly there are not 3 Eternals, but 1 Eternal.
Then, "divinity" is almost always used in a way that it makes a modal Jesus, sometimes acrimg as a human and sometimes acting as one of the three Gods -
-
To clarify Sproul's position:
This was posted as an answer to a question on another board:
"Thank you for contacting Ligonier Ministries. The denial of the Eternal Subordination of the Son in the statement we provided and The Word Made Flesh Christology statement is responding to the idea that the one simple essence of God can be conceived of as possessing different levels of authority. The essential properties are the same (WLC Q&A 9). All of the attributes of the one divine essence belong equally to all three Persons.
In the quote you provided from page 71 of Truths We Confess, Dr. Sproul is changing the subject from essential properties to personal properties of the three Persons of the Trinity. The discussion of personal properties is meant to be read within the context of the prior discussion of essential properties.
The subordination that Dr. Sproul speaks of in the latter discussion has to do with the order of procession/relation and the economic subordination of the Son in the incarnation. No one denies an order of relations (the personal properties). No one denies the subordination of the Son in the Incarnation in the temporary state of humiliation. What is denied is the tritheism inherent in any view that divides the essence/ousia of God." emphasis added -
AwesomeMachine Member
I look at it this way. God is all truth. Therefore, God is correct. So, for Jesus to be obedient to the Father, He had to become correct, and therefore attain equality to the Father, because both then know all truth. The Son is truth in the form of a man.
So, The Father is the mind of God. The Son is the heart of God. The Holy Spirit is the soul of God. The mind that knows all truth will love His own heart that knows all love, and it is this love that is the soul (Holy Spirit).
The object of man's mind is truth (God The Father; mind of God). The object of man's heart is love (God The Son; God's heart). By seeking God we become like God, and our minds will love our own hearts, and our souls will become like the Holy Spirit (God's soul). Guilt for sin blocks the mind from loving the heart, and therefore kills the soul.
Faith in Christ makes atonement for sin, and restores the soul to its immortal state. If a person is going to heaven when (s)he dies, (s)he can feel it in every fiber of his/her being. It's the love that burns in the heart at all times. -
It does seem there is some disagreement in the EFS camp and Ware has modified his position. His new postion is the only one I am familiar with and it seems very orthodoxy. Albert Mohler agrees. The fact that different people have provide different support and positions within the EFS camp maybe why there is so much talking past each other. I feel at times.....lokking back, I presented Grudem(still seems to hold same view) and Ware 2.0. Other may have been using Statements from Ware' s orginal stance.
"In his presentation, “The Nature of the Father’s Priority within the Trinity,” Ware announced he had modified his positions since the controversy started. He said he now affirms the “eternal generation of the Son” as found in the Nicene Creed based on the Greek New Testament word monogenes."
ETS 2016: Ware defines Trinity view; Mohler urges conviction and compassion on transgender issues - News - SBTS
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk -
Pardon me if I don't consider Ware's agreement with the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son to be a significant development. John MacArthur was taken to the woodshed on this and finally admitted he was wrong. Wasn't Ware paying attention?
And why would Mohler "congratulate" someone on agreeing with Nicea? Unless I'm missing something, that has been the constant stance of Southern Baptists.
On the positive side, perhaps Ware will finally move toward a more orthodox Christology. -
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk -
No, I don't think I misunderstand. Ware wants to affirm the creed but put his on gloss on it.
-
Mohler, while not defending their view as his own, does defend it as orthodox.
"Recent charges of violating the Nicene Creed made against respected evangelical theologians like Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware are not just nonsense — they are precisely the kind of nonsense that undermines orthodoxy and obscures real heresy. Their teachings do not in any way contradict the words of the Nicene Creed, and both theologians eagerly affirm it."
"These charges are baseless, reckless, and unworthy of those who have made them."
I agree with Mohler here. One does not have to agree with Grudem or the new postion of Ware, but to call it hetrodoxy is uncalled for.
[URL)Heresy and Humility - Lessons from a Current Controversy - AlbertMohler.com[/URL]
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk -
While I generally like Mohler, I cannot see but that Eternal Subordination is not at least a serious cause of concern.
Yes, they all endorse Nicea.
But they want their own proclamations to trump the Nicean formulation. -
Page 3 of 5