2 Pet. 3:9 Defeats the Arminian/Open Theist view of Scripture

[1Way]

Rolf – Your too much, OSAS means what it says you can not rightly read anything more into it than what it says, same with your P of TULIP, if anyone trashes that idea beyond what it actually means, then such a thing is also foolishness. You are a quack. P of TULIP means the same thing as eternal security as OSAS, there is no difference.

You were the one who brought up the idea that salvation is what is inferred by the verse about God’s longsuffering

and not only that

you also said that it is about those of us who are saved, not everyone, !!!

So somehow the Lord’s terrying is to show God’s unwillingness that the saved not go to hell! That is complete lunacy especially if you consider as you say that

if you are truly saved, you will end up in heaven, = eternal security, OSAS

so then to say that the Lord terry’s is an example of Him not desiring that the saved should not go to hell, instead they should have the ability to make room for repentance, is just contradictory nonsense because they are already saved, they have already made room for repentance, you can’t get saved once and then get saved again if you are already saved!

The double stated condition, in the positive and in the negative, i.e. none going to hell, all getting saved, clarifies that God counsels that all “without exception” should become saved.

(chuckles, I’ve seen some folks do flips in order to not stand corrected, but you are one vacillating confused person.)

 

[1Way]

it's contextually UNDERSTOOD, not misunderstood

it's contextually UNDERSTOOD, not misunderstood

God is Truth - Thank you, but check out my last post, 101, it is funny what we are dealing with from Rolf. People have lost due respect for the bible "contextually understood", they just don't take in the full context prior to thinking that they know what some passage/verse means.

Rolf would have 2Pet 3.9b be about saved people (eternally secure, OSAS)

who should make room for getting saved and thus not go to hell,

apparently they should repent and get saved again, and again and again, and again. :radar: :nono: :chuckle:

 

[lmwal931]

this is complicated. calvinism seems to be a invitation to quarrell about the very fine points. i will discuss one of calvin's points. you are not born into complete depravity. it is a learned behaviour which is taught you by our criminalized society. at ant time in your life you can repent, accept JESUS into your heart, and be gloriously saved. you have just exercised your free will. i believe in calvinism but i do not take it to the extreme that some do. use your free will, your common sense, and be receptive to the precious, loving, sweet HOLY SPIRIT and seek JESUS and you shall be saved. also don't try to put GOD in a box. HE can and will do everything that is in HIS will and i trust that will whether i know what it is or not.

 

[1Way]

Free will is a good thing

Free will is a good thing

Imwal931 - It is complicating, but it is not all about very fine points. It's about a God who can not change at all, or one who changes in dramatic ways. It's about aligning our faith to God's word, even if it makes man's thinking look bad.

There is a world of many different views and many different ideas. But God's word is true and He is faithful. We have an obligation to determine the truth from God and spread that gospel message, any other message is false and does not bless God or the world.

So here’s a very basic question about the God of the bible.

Do you believe that God changes in any way, or that He can not change at all?

I’d give examples but I don’t want to lead your response. But here is what some say about all this. Some speak about Him being in the eternal now, that He exists outside of time, that He never learns anything, etc. And some say that God is in relation to time much like everything else is, except that our life has no end, and His has no end nor beginning.

It can be a very interesting issue, and also when folks are being stubbornly subversive, it can become somewhat painful too. But the Lord comforts those who rest in Him, we are well cared for.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--you misrepresent. It is not at ALL about people who are already saved not going to hell. 2 Pet. 3:9 is about elect people who have not YET heard the gospel and not YET come to repentance. Because of the longsuffering of God, those elect ones who are yet future will be born and sooner or later hear and believe.
The fact that perhaps 100 years in the future someone may be born who is one of the elect does not at all mean that they are not NOW among the elect. Jesus still spoke of those who had not yet been saved but would be in the future as His sheep.
Peter was speaking of the entire body of the elect who, for one reason or another, had not yet come to faith. Though not yet converted, they were still elect, still sheep, still "His people." When Peter said "usward," he was also speaking of those who had come to faith in the period of His longsuffering. The fact that Peter was perhaps referring to some who HAD been converted did not mean that they were not among those who made up a part of the "usward" who had benefitted by His longsuffering. From your last post, I now see WHY you thought OSAS militates against my view of 2 Pet. 3:9.
One of the first rules of debate/discussion is, "define your terms."
We did not do that. Toward that end--

Since God's Covenant of Redmption ALWAYS encompasses both those who HAVE been saved and those who are YET to be saved, and because all things--both those things which have already come to pass and those things which are yet future-- are encompassed by God's one all-encompassing decree, Reformed people view what has been and what is yet to be as equally certain.
And that is the way the Apostle Paul viewed Scriptural truths.

Example: God has "raised us up and made us sit together with" Christ in heavenly places. By that, Paul meant that even though we had not yet ascended, yet in God's view we were nevertheless, by our being "IN" Christ, already sitting with Him in heavenly places.
Paul speaks in the same manner in Romans 8: 28-30."
This is longer than I thought I would be on this forum today, but if it in any way clarified any matter or relieved any tension, it was well worth it.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way---God is absolutely immutable. He is infinitely perfect in all His being. If He could change in anyway and become more perfect, He was not infinitely perfect before. There would be to some extent a way in which He was not as much God as He became later.
If He changed in a way that made Him less perfect, He would no longer be the God He was.
Immutability is also an aspect of His eternal existence. In our mutability we show our flaws. We are not endlessly perfect, neither are we endless in our being. What God is, He is that eternally. If He were mutable, He could not be endlessly (eternally) what He is.
When Moses asked, "whom shall I say sent me?" God responded, tell them "I am that I am has sent you." This was to assure the children of Israel the what He had promised to Abraham (His delivering them from bondage) would surely come to pass.
We cannot say, I am that I am. We are mutable, always fluxing between what were were, what we are now, and what we SHALL be in the future. From the likes of us, Israel could not be certain that we would stand good for our promise of long ago; but when He said, "I am that I am." He was assuring the children with His immutability. The promise would be fulfilled according to His original purpose precisely because He is the eternally immutable.

 

[1Way]

Rolf – You said

1Way--you misrepresent. It is not at ALL about people who are already saved not going to hell. 2 Pet. 3:9 is about elect people who have not YET heard the gospel and not YET come to repentance. Because of the longsuffering of God, those elect ones who are yet future will be born and sooner or later hear and believe.

I disagree, yet your clarification does set part of my representation as being off base, so to that extent, thank you, I humbly stand corrected, you did not mean that the saved should become saved over and over again. But now the picture for you is no better.

The verse says that

all should be saved,
none be lost.

It says them both. All and none. You are erring in just focusing on the one that you think fits your view. You like the all should be saved part, but say that all is not without exception. But that is not right since He also said that none should go to hell! So God desires/counsels that ALL without exception should become saved, and concerning the one’s who already are saved, then they have obeyed the will of God.

Also, given your view of “individual election unto salvation”, and the P and L of TULIP which is eternal security and Limited atonement, God’s terrying does nothing to support your views, no matter if it’s one minuet or one million years, Christ’s terrying from His second coming is rendered meaningless by your ill fit view, because no matter how long He tarries, whoever will be saved, will be saved and nothing can change that eternally secure issue. So you are not being consistent with your own views and the contextual development of this passage.

So now you suggest that God has in mind that Jesus terries to demonstrate His longsuffering so that those who absolutely will be saved (but aren’t yet), should not go to hell, but instead, Christ’s longsuffering demonstrated by His terrying is in hopes that the unsaved elect should make room for repentance. :chuckles: Again, this is the same nonsense, only for the elect who are already secure in their salvation, but who are not already saved. :radar: Your hole is just as deep as it was before.

Also, if you were to remain consistent with your views, then these so called “not yet saved elect” “who will absolutely be saved”, “are as saved as they will ever be already”, since creation or from before that they have been eternally secure (!!!), there is nothing anyone could do to alter their eternal destiny, so in reality, if (and oh what a big if) you were to remain consistent, you would never say “the unsaved elect”, even if they will not be born for another hundred years, they are all just as much saved now as they were from the foundation of the world.

Thankfully God is not so confused. God is plainly referring to the whole world of people, everyone without exception should become saved and not go to hell. That is the natural plain reading of the text, and it also includes you and me who are saved by looking back to the time when we needed to get saved, and we then made room for repentance and became saved. No contextual problems, it’s a perfect fit.

Don’t take your faith and stuff it into the bible, take the bible and conform your faith to it!

 

[1Way]

about divine immutability

about divine immutability

Rolf – Thank you for your extra time offered, I appreciate the caring involved. I hope the consistency and reflective point counterpoint making will improve as time goes on. So far you have much room for improvement. As to your post 106, you said

1Way---God is absolutely immutable. He is infinitely perfect in all His being. If He could change in anyway and become more perfect, He was not infinitely perfect before. There would be to some extent a way in which He was not as much God as He became later.
If He changed in a way that made Him less perfect, He would no longer be the God He was.

You are not seeing your own presuppositions and paradigm shift away from God’s word.

Your entire reasoning places change as the crucible for what it means to be perfectly divine. God does not teach that perfect changelessness is the standard of perfect divinity or goodness. God teaches that perfect goodness and righteousness and a holy character, that these are the standard by which the divine is perfect and good, not changlessness.

You go on to say

Immutability is also an aspect of His eternal existence. In our mutability we show our flaws. We are not endlessly perfect, neither are we endless in our being. What God is, He is that eternally. If He were mutable, He could not be endlessly (eternally) what He is.

This is also very wrong. God appreciates our ability to change dramatically, and our salvation is a great demonstration of change being a very godly and good thing. Also, humans who get saved will be transformed dramatically

1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

1Co 15:42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. [The body] is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.

So change is a very good and godly thing. We become
Raised in incorruption
Raised in glory
Raised in power
Raised a spiritual body

So your right that God does not need to change the way man needs to change like all these ways, God already is that way, He always has been that way.

Notice that this change is described in words strikingly similar to one’s used about God

Ro 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man——and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

See, the idea is of non-corruption, not non-change. God does not teach that He is corrupt, He teaches His unchanging goodness and righteousness and justice, all His divine attributes are faithful and true.

The way God does change is simply in the ways that God says He does change, like when He repents from doing what He said or thought He would do as in Jer 18 1-10 “the Potter and the clay” and demonstrated in Jonah 3.4&10, or like when He became flesh and dwelt among us as in the incarnation.

If you deny that the meaningful substantial change that is represented in the incarnation, then you are bordering on terrible judgments from God for so doing.

1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

This warning does two important things.

1) It warns against false teachings that deny the truth of the incarnation

2) It demonstrates just how fussy God is about certain details, because if you treat Christ’ incarnation wrongly, you are joining league with the Antichrist. And this issue is very simple. Change is not a hard concept, change is the opposite of no change, there is no middle ground, either there is change, or there is not. If Christ did not become flesh and dwell among us, then such would conform to your unchanging God, but if God the Son truly become flesh and dwelt among us, then without a doubt God changed in a most dramatic way.

Change and become are practically the same idea, where becoming is a demonstration of a change. Every change is from one state to another, and we say that state one became state two and so on. So if we just consider these extremely basic ideas we easily realize that God is not perfectly changeless.

Same with Him repenting and not doing what He said and or thought He would do. Jer 18 1-10 the potter and the clay and Jonah 3.4,10 are conclusive that God repents and does not always do what He said or thought He would do.

The God of the bible is the living God who changes as He sees fit to do.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--I've been away and am now busy. See ya later

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Re: about divine immutability

Re: about divine immutability

Originally posted by 1Way

Rolf – Thank you for your extra time offered, I appreciate the caring involved. I hope the consistency and reflective point counterpoint making will improve as time goes on. So far you have much room for improvement. As to your post 106, you said You are not seeing your own presuppositions and paradigm shift away from God’s word.

Your entire reasoning places change as the crucible for what it means to be perfectly divine. God does not teach that perfect changelessness is the standard of perfect divinity or goodness. God teaches that perfect goodness and righteousness and a holy character, that these are the standard by which the divine is perfect and good, not changlessness.

You go on to say This is also very wrong. God appreciates our ability to change dramatically, and our salvation is a great demonstration of change being a very godly and good thing. Also, humans who get saved will be transformed dramatically

So change is a very good and godly thing. We become
Raised in incorruption
Raised in glory
Raised in power
Raised a spiritual body

So your right that God does not need to change the way man needs to change like all these ways, God already is that way, He always has been that way.

Notice that this change is described in words strikingly similar to one’s used about God
See, the idea is of non-corruption, not non-change. God does not teach that He is corrupt, He teaches His unchanging goodness and righteousness and justice, all His divine attributes are faithful and true.

The way God does change is simply in the ways that God says He does change, like when He repents from doing what He said or thought He would do as in Jer 18 1-10 “the Potter and the clay” and demonstrated in Jonah 3.4&10, or like when He became flesh and dwelt among us as in the incarnation.

If you deny that the meaningful substantial change that is represented in the incarnation, then you are bordering on terrible judgments from God for so doing. This warning does two important things.

1) It warns against false teachings that deny the truth of the incarnation

2) It demonstrates just how fussy God is about certain details, because if you treat Christ’ incarnation wrongly, you are joining league with the Antichrist. And this issue is very simple. Change is not a hard concept, change is the opposite of no change, there is no middle ground, either there is change, or there is not. If Christ did not become flesh and dwell among us, then such would conform to your unchanging God, but if God the Son truly become flesh and dwelt among us, then without a doubt God changed in a most dramatic way.

Change and become are practically the same idea, where becoming is a demonstration of a change. Every change is from one state to another, and we say that state one became state two and so on. So if we just consider these extremely basic ideas we easily realize that God is not perfectly changeless.

Same with Him repenting and not doing what He said and or thought He would do. Jer 18 1-10 the potter and the clay and Jonah 3.4,10 are conclusive that God repents and does not always do what He said or thought He would do.

The God of the bible is the living God who changes as He sees fit to do.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--If you think a meaningful substantial change in the Word of God occurred at the incarnation of Christ, what do you do with Col. 2:9, "...in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."?

There was no alteration in Him by His incarnation at all. He laid aside the outward manifestation of His glory, but God had many times done that before as He appeared to men in theophanies.

For centuries the church has maintained that in Jesus Christ there is both a human nature, and the being of God; two natures in one person with no mixture of their identities. Jesus, in his humanity, never became partially God nor did His diety become less than full Godhood--"In Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." The fact that He took upon himself the form of a servant-- "tabernacled" among us-- in no way argues any alteration in Himself.
Jesus of Nazareth, as a man, grew in stature, strength, and wisdom. As a man, he knew hunger, thirst, and weariness but learned obedience rather than disobedience by the things which he suffered. As a human, he at all times progressed in wisdom,
knowledge and strength at a rate which pleased God. He was "tempted in all points like we are, yet without sin."
His twofold nature has been acknowledged by the church for centuries. How you draw from it the idea that acknowledging His immutability denies Christ has come in the flesh is beyond me.
The Bible affirms His immutabilily alongside His advent in the flesh--"Jesus Christ--the same yesterday, today and forever." He.13:9

It is on the fact of His twofold nature that many stumble. They read something which pertains to His humanity (like for instance his not yet knowing--in his humanity-- the time of God's return in
judgment) and then, proudly parading their ignorance, they crow triumphantly-- "see, if God knew all things, he would not be ignorant of that." So often, the ignorance of blasphemers makes my stomach turn with revulsion over their proud arrogance and stupidity. They are so unschooled in scripture that they many times have no text upon which to base their proud and baseless claims, yet their pride is so great that they don't let that slow their pratings.

I close this post on a cheerful note, 1Way--Think of this: as a man, in the nature of His full humanity, suffering the greatest of pain He sinlessly, "bearing shame and scoffing rude, in my place condemned He stood" and "sealed my pardon with His blood--hallelujah, what a Savior!" Let us remember that everytime we close a door on our finger.

 

[godrulz]

The incarnation involved change in the relations in the Godhead. The Word was not always flesh, but became flesh and tabernacled among us in space-time history. This was not so before creation or 4 B.C. This change was not for the better or worse. God remained perfect endlessly.

 

[1Way]

Rolf – Quoting my post without quoting my quotations is hardly reflective of what I said.

I realize that you probably just hit the quote function and copied what was there, but that function does not carry the questions within that post, so you are not quoting my entire post, you are only quoting the unquoted parts. So your quotation of my post does not compare well with what I actually posted, it’s not really a quote of my post, it’s a very partial subset. I’ve mentioned this “issue” to the webmaster, and they prefer it this way so as to inhibit quotes within quotes within quotes within quotes sort of thing, I suppose that many people do not know how to manipulate the quotation code to reformat them in a more reasonable fashion. I do not completely agree with their decision on this regard, but such is life.

If nothing changes with the quotation feature, then perhaps you could handle each quotation manually, especially the quotes that are foundational to the point being made, and I basically never quote unless it is the foundation for my response. There is quotation and text formatting options in the “create a post” window, but as for me, I do all my formatting manually myself.


I accept the incarnation, which is that God BECAME flesh and dwelt among us. If God did not undergo the change

from previously not being incarnate in the flesh,

and then becoming God incarnate in the flesh,

then you are bucking very clear scripture that says the incarnation was a very real change in God, including a harsh warning against nonconformity to this teaching.

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

Now I’m not saying your not saved nor are a false prophet/teacher per say, but you seem to violate the scriptures teachings about the incarnation.

You said

1Way--If you think a meaningful substantial change in the Word of God occurred at the incarnation of Christ, what do you do with Col. 2:9, "...in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."?

??? That was a really bad response. I completely accept Col. 2:9. What varies between your view and mine is not Col 2.9, but your philosophically interjected idea that God can not change = classical immutability!

As you should know by now, I humbly accept the bible when it often and proudly demonstrates that God changes, so, since God can and does change, there is absolutely no problem with my acceptance and conformity to Col 2:9. The ONLY lack of conformity I think you could imply by your remark, is that I don’t comply with your idea of classical divine immutability. And as such I am taken back by your comparison. Your philosophical views are not to be equated with the same authority as God’s word, nor should it violate God’s word, like in this example where God changed via the incarnation and you suggest that represents no change in God at all.


Prior to the incarnation, was God manifest in the flesh?


Has God the Son existed in the flesh from eternity past?


Obviously not, otherwise the teaching that God “became” flesh would be a contradiction to the truth of the matter.


Had God previously humbled Himself to the point of death?


There is only reason that God did that ONCE and for all (Rom 6:10), so surely this once only event of God humbling Himself for the first and only time unto death represented a change in God.

Lastly, I realize how the closed view has a clear tendency to rationalize away these changes as being “seeming” and not “meaningful and real”, so I present to you “the potter and the clay” (Jer 18 1-11) where God teaches that He has the right to repent from doing what He previously said and/or thought He would do. For example, if we accept the closed view that says that God never changes in any way, then the “Potter and the clay” teaching is an anti-biblical teaching, but as we know, all scripture is meaningful and biblically united, so then the false presumption of truth is that God never changes, lets reject that manmade precept in order to accept divine mutability, but lets not reject God’s word on divine mutability in order to protect the manmade precept of classical immutability.

As per the potter and the clay, God even repents from doing what He previous thought He would do. And the closed theist is done, he has no sufficient bible legs to stand on, because Jonah 3:4& esp. 10, combined with the Potter and the clay (among many other such teachings) absolutely deny the closed view.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--you are trying to confuse the being of God with the manifestation of God. Get this, and get it good--"GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH" That is Bible, friend. GET IT. How DARE you say that His being manifested in the flesh worked a change in His divine excellence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everytime He appeared in the tabernacle in the shekinah glory, it was an alteration of the way He WAS MANIFESTING HIMSELF.
When He appeared to Moses in the burning bush and on the mount, it was a different way of Him manifesting Himself--always
HIMSELF. When He tabernacled among us, the Apostle said of that time, "GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH." 1 Tim. 3:16 If you don't like the Apostle's statement on that point, you take it up with him.

I believe something you apparently NEVER WILL: "Jesus Christ--the SAME yesterday, and today and forever."

Even you might be amazed if you took the time to winnow your comments on this forum to see how many times you have pontificated points without any scriptural basis.

You say I have made comments that were not Scripture based but were merely philosophical. Any time you make that charge, it would be only civil if you took the TIME TO BE SPECIFIC!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT have I said which is only a philosophical point. As long as you don't have the civility to be specific, you don't have to defend your charge. Is THAT why you are NOT spoecific??????????????

 

[Rolf Ernst]

1Way--Jeremiah 18 portrays a nation altering its course in response to divine counsel. God is not the one who repents.
The nation is the one which alters or changes its course. It moves from disobedience to obedience, or from obedience to disobedience and God judges it accordingly. If He did NOT judge accordingly THEN He would have altered in His being. He extends
frogiveness upon repentance. He does NOT upon impenitence. If a nation turned from its wicked way unto obedience and God did NOT remove from it the threatening which He had earlier made, THEN He would be changing in His essence.
When He promises a nation prosperity and IT changes to a nation of wickedness, the only way He can be faithful to Himself is to judge that nation accordingly. The nation ITSELF moved in relation to Him from a state of His pleasure to a state of displeasing rebellion. It would be a massive and monumental alteration of who He is if He did not retract that promise of blessing. The use of the word repent here signifies no more than the fact that God WILL alter his course toward a nation from blessing it to cursing it, or from cursing it to blessing it.
God's actions towards nations are predicated upon their conduct before Him. Do you want a God who will NOT alter from the blessing of a nation to judging a nation if it turns to wickedness, or do you want a God who will NOT withdraw a threatened judgment if a nation turns back from evil to obedience.
That is what is taking place in Jer. 18 and you are using THAT as an excuse to charge Him with NOT being immutable,
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, CHARLIE BROWN !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

1Way--you are trying to confuse the being of God with the manifestation of God. Get this, and get it good--"GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH" That is Bible, friend. GET IT. How DARE you say that His being manifested in the flesh worked a change in His divine excellence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everytime He appeared in the tabernacle in the shekinah glory, it was an alteration of the way He WAS MANIFESTING HIMSELF.
When He appeared to Moses in the burning bush and on the mount, it was a different way of Him manifesting Himself--always
HIMSELF. When He tabernacled among us, the Apostle said of that time, "GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH." 1 Tim. 3:16 If you don't like the Apostle's statement on that point, you take it up with him.

I believe something you apparently NEVER WILL: "Jesus Christ--the SAME yesterday, and today and forever."

Even you might be amazed if you took the time to winnow your comments on this forum to see how many times you have pontificated points without any scriptural basis.

You say I have made comments that were not Scripture based but were merely philosophical. Any time you make that charge, it would be only civil if you took the TIME TO BE SPECIFIC!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT have I said which is only a philosophical point. As long as you don't have the civility to be specific, you don't have to defend your charge. Is THAT why you are NOT spoecific??????????????

what does it mean when you say Jesus IS God then? if he is just manifest in flesh, then is it correct to actually say Jesus IS God? wouldn't it be better to say "Jesus is just a manifestation of the real God?"

 

[Rolf Ernst]

God is truth--Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. In Him are both the nature of man, and the nature of God. You cannot separate Him from His human nature. You cannot separate Him from His diety. He is both God and man. He is NOT the son of A man, even though He referred to Himself as the son of man because He had taken upon Himself "the FORM of a servant." He is both fully human, and fully God.
In His Diety, He is the Word of God spoken of in John chapter one--the creator of all. In His humanity, He is descended from the loins of David through Mary.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

1Way--Jeremiah 18 portrays a nation altering its course in response to divine counsel. God is not the one who repents.

According to the text, He does. There's no getting around that.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

God is truth--Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. In Him are both the nature of man, and the nature of God. You cannot separate Him from His human nature. You cannot separate Him from His diety. He is both God and man. He is NOT the son of A man, even though He referred to Himself as the son of man because He had taken upon Himself "the FORM of a servant." He is both fully human, and fully God.
In His Diety, He is the Word of God spoken of in John chapter one--the creator of all. In His humanity, He is descended from the loins of David through Mary.

what do you mean when you say he is "fully God". if he is just a manefestation of God then how is Jesus ANY different from say the burning bush? would you also say that the burning bush was fully God?

 

[godrulz]

Heb. 13:8 Jesus is the same...this is not in the context of incarnation/kenosis didactic material (Phil. 2 deals with this, but the context there is humility/servanthood as exemplified by the incarnation). Jesus' character is always consistent as is His ministry. However, the Word was not the same yesterday, today, forever in every sense due to the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection. He maintained a relationship with the Father and Spirit, retained His Deity, but changed by taking on a human nature as well.

This verse does not mean the Word/Son is immutable in every sense. Classical theology (conservative J.I Packer, etc.) understands that the incarnation led to a change in the triune God. The Word became flesh, but was not always flesh. He is now the glorified God-Man at the right hand of the Father (I Tim. 2:5 one mediator, the MAN Christ Jesus). The Word was not the Christ before He came to earth. Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the 'anointed one' refers to Himself on earth as the God-Man, not His name before creation.

His birth, death, resurrection, and ascension are space-time changes in His experience (e.g. He did not die as Deity trillions of years ago). He did not cease being God while on earth, but did not have a human nature before the incarnation.

This is conservative, orthodox, biblical theology. Perhaps we are misunderstanding Rolf, or His definition of immutability is Platonic, rather than biblical (and thus needs to conform to revelation, not reason).