The Angel of the LORD is not just any angel but is the LORD Himself, the Father of Jesus.
The Angel of the LORD descended upon Jesus at His Baptism by John.
LA
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
The Angel of the LORD is not just any angel but is the LORD Himself, the Father of Jesus.
The Angel of the LORD descended upon Jesus at His Baptism by John.
LA
Lon
Well-known member
Realize debating against the Triune view isn't part of the ECT section. I've appreciated you participating and you may indeed question what is said here, but be careful to realize as part of ECT, it makes a distinction between those who don't believe the Lord Jesus Christ is God.
In a nutshell, don't drag an arian or Unitarian debate into the thread. Rather, and I empathize, bring scripture but try to not cause a direct confrontation. This thread is only to explain the Triune view so any challenge or question along that line of intent, and thanks. -Lon
Lon
Well-known member
When Jesus Christ Became Man - Kenosis discussion
When Jesus Christ Became Man - Kenosis discussion
When Jesus Became Man
Like the "Triune/Trinity" doctrine, the doctrine of Christology given by the council of Chalcedea gave a negative creedal statement (one that wasn't composed to be definitive nor explain a mystery, but to protect against false ideas untenable by scripture).
We often may see one not quite espousing our own view, but if they can embrace the creeds as we do, we should endeaver, I think, to understand and treat one another within the context of Christendom. This isn't a halmark on TOL, but most don't understand orthodoxy as inclusive who would ostracize here on TOL, if there is any disagreement at all. So, even though orthodox doctrine is separating, it only seeks to separate what is outside of biblical parameters. By such, we are ourselves corrected and urged to a correct biblical theology (I've been corrected even on TOL and am thankful), we also can help others from reading something in clarity, and we may also see where we fall on the anvil of orthodoxy.
One theologian summed up the credal truth: ...The divine nature did not undergo any essential change in the incarnation -Berkhoff
Berkhoff said that the divine Saviour could not be ignorant, weak, tempted, nor could suffer and die, as to His divine nature, but rather only by His human nature.
He cautioned that any of our speculation of the interpenetration of the two natures of Christ between His divinity and humanity, should not result where the divine is humanized, nor the human deified. "The deity cannot share in human weaknesses; neither can man participate in any of the essential perfections of the Godhead," he said.
The Athenasian Creed has a helpful but limited illustration (remember both creeds leave 'mystery' intact): Man is physical in flesh, but the spirit in us (awakened/alive in believers hid in Christ) defines us apart from our physical bodies. It said that man, then exists a body and spirit, co-mingled with distinction yet inseparable. Berkhoff refered to this creed and suggests the analogy isn't sufficient for all considerations and that the Lord Jesus Christ's nature has no true comparison and must maintain a mystery of acceptance and is stated like the Chalcedonian creed as a negative (protecting against heresy rather than trying to become definitive).
A bit firmer on no loss of deity at Christ's incarnation, R.C. Sproul and quoting Augustine said this: Christ’s existence as true God and true man, as well as the reality of the transcendent Lord of glory entering into history to save His people, are both profound mysteries. What we do know is that, against those who would espouse a “kenotic Christology,” the Son did not give up any of the attributes that are essential to deity in the incarnation. Instead, He manifested the form of God in the likeness of humanity. Augustine wrote, “He is said to have ‘emptied himself’ in no other way than by taking the form of a servant, not by losing the form of God. For that nature by which he is equal to the Father in the form of God remained immutable while he took our mutable nature” -R.C. Sproul
Sproul further said that any doctrine that removes any attribute of God from the Lord Jesus Christ, also would remove His ability to save us (as well as be problematic when such is displayed intact in scripture -"Even the winds and waves obey Him!")
I found this article helpful but his view of kenoticists of any kind is that they are heterodox at best and neo-heretics at worse. Still, I think he describes present kenotic theology and its expression that one can identify with what they espouse and preach.
I haven't yet found a kenotic advocate redressing these issues nor am I sure of your position Cross Ref. I'm at this point trying to give an overview and perhaps hit on something that hits home or strikes a cord that helps you express your position and belief. -Lon
When Jesus Christ Became Man - Kenosis discussion
I'll keep going on my end for now then. Thank you.
When Jesus Became Man
Like the "Triune/Trinity" doctrine, the doctrine of Christology given by the council of Chalcedea gave a negative creedal statement (one that wasn't composed to be definitive nor explain a mystery, but to protect against false ideas untenable by scripture).
We often may see one not quite espousing our own view, but if they can embrace the creeds as we do, we should endeaver, I think, to understand and treat one another within the context of Christendom. This isn't a halmark on TOL, but most don't understand orthodoxy as inclusive who would ostracize here on TOL, if there is any disagreement at all. So, even though orthodox doctrine is separating, it only seeks to separate what is outside of biblical parameters. By such, we are ourselves corrected and urged to a correct biblical theology (I've been corrected even on TOL and am thankful), we also can help others from reading something in clarity, and we may also see where we fall on the anvil of orthodoxy.
One theologian summed up the credal truth: ...The divine nature did not undergo any essential change in the incarnation -Berkhoff
Berkhoff said that the divine Saviour could not be ignorant, weak, tempted, nor could suffer and die, as to His divine nature, but rather only by His human nature.
He cautioned that any of our speculation of the interpenetration of the two natures of Christ between His divinity and humanity, should not result where the divine is humanized, nor the human deified. "The deity cannot share in human weaknesses; neither can man participate in any of the essential perfections of the Godhead," he said.
The Athenasian Creed has a helpful but limited illustration (remember both creeds leave 'mystery' intact): Man is physical in flesh, but the spirit in us (awakened/alive in believers hid in Christ) defines us apart from our physical bodies. It said that man, then exists a body and spirit, co-mingled with distinction yet inseparable. Berkhoff refered to this creed and suggests the analogy isn't sufficient for all considerations and that the Lord Jesus Christ's nature has no true comparison and must maintain a mystery of acceptance and is stated like the Chalcedonian creed as a negative (protecting against heresy rather than trying to become definitive).
A bit firmer on no loss of deity at Christ's incarnation, R.C. Sproul and quoting Augustine said this: Christ’s existence as true God and true man, as well as the reality of the transcendent Lord of glory entering into history to save His people, are both profound mysteries. What we do know is that, against those who would espouse a “kenotic Christology,” the Son did not give up any of the attributes that are essential to deity in the incarnation. Instead, He manifested the form of God in the likeness of humanity. Augustine wrote, “He is said to have ‘emptied himself’ in no other way than by taking the form of a servant, not by losing the form of God. For that nature by which he is equal to the Father in the form of God remained immutable while he took our mutable nature” -R.C. Sproul
Sproul further said that any doctrine that removes any attribute of God from the Lord Jesus Christ, also would remove His ability to save us (as well as be problematic when such is displayed intact in scripture -"Even the winds and waves obey Him!")
I found this article helpful but his view of kenoticists of any kind is that they are heterodox at best and neo-heretics at worse. Still, I think he describes present kenotic theology and its expression that one can identify with what they espouse and preach.
I haven't yet found a kenotic advocate redressing these issues nor am I sure of your position Cross Ref. I'm at this point trying to give an overview and perhaps hit on something that hits home or strikes a cord that helps you express your position and belief. -Lon
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
This section is more about discussion. This thread is more about support and discussion for the Triune view. As such, I don't mind questions about the triune view, I just don't want it to become like other threads to date, that do not end well. It is really to discuss the triune view. BUT that can include questioning it, just not soapboxing another view, as I understand this section. I am trying to be humble in that request and parameter. Thanks
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Incorrect. This is exactly what I mean. You make an autonomous individual judgment based upon your own derived and contrived doctrine with NO linguistic understanding whatsoever.
You cannot conceive of someone spending two decades divesting themselves of every presupposition to unequivocally know the singular, central, absolute, and objective truth of the authentic historical and orthodox Christian faith with no taint from their own heart and mind. In addition, one must also spend a great amount of time knowing what NOT to know.
You presume it's all varying opinions juxtaposed against one another, with yours being the valid and superior one because of what you've experienced and acquired. Most do exactly this, which is why there are near endless variations of every doctrine.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Then tell everyone EXACTLY how and in what manner Jesus Christ is God.
Is He innately, intrinsically, inherently, and ontologically divine as both eternal and uncreated?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Yes and what we don't know is how the Father communicated with Him during those 4 thousand years.
The Son did the Father's will even at that time.
It was always his will to do the Father's will.
The only time we see Jesus struggle was when it was going to cost him.
That cost was suffering.
I think that God was teaching his son all during those 4 thousand years.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
NO. Of all the things anyone could ever attempt to level at me as criticism, this would be among the very last; and it is my issue with conventional Trinitarians, as I have clearly and repeatedly asserted on this very forum.
The eternal uncreated Son did NOT have distinct sentient volitional consciousness from the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not multi-hypostatic and uni-/dyo-phenomenal, but is uni-/dyo-hypostatic and multi-phenomenal.
I don't expect you to ever understand what that means, for professing alleged modern Trinitarians themselves are too functionally Tritheistic to comprehend it. But know that I do NOT affirm the Trinity in multi-personal form or to include distinct multiple eternal minds and wills. That much should be clear from my tenure on TOL, if nothing else ever is.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I knew you couldn't and wouldn't. You use terms for which you have a predetermined and presupposed casual understanding and application that is erroneous.
If you don't even know the difference between Theos/Theios or Theotes/Theiotes, then you have no idea what "Godhead" means to even use it in a sentence, much less for doctrinal reference. Eek. Please just stop. (But you won't. You can't. Nobody can. That's the effect of Modernism on this age and this western culture.)
Eve? Adam was not alone. Isaac? Abraham was not alone. And you don't understand the meaning of the word "tempt/ed/ation". Englishizers all think they know what the words mean in scripture by translation, but it's a casual and reverse imposition of English upon Greek in most hearts and minds.
Since I most often quote preeminent lexicography, that is not the case at all. Not even close. And Charismatics are generally the furthest from the truth overall. (And I'm a Biblical Continuationist saying that, not a Cessationist.)
He's a Theophostic Counselor and Prayer Guide. I know many such ministers and ministries. All are a hybridization of psychological phenomenon and mild-to-wild subtleites of the occult. It's a new exploding trend in Third Wave Charismaticism and the New Apostolic Reformation cults; and it's ancient Montanism run amok and syncretized with every form of non-Christian religious belief and practice of all the ages. It's just not obvious to most, especially because it "works" in certain ways.
It's heterodox in every possible manner, while using Christian jargon and providing some kind of "encounter" and "experience".
Yes, epignosis and oida. If you knew what those were and had them, you wouldn't say the following...
Wow. Way to throw all the historical men of God under the bus and exalt Modernism and its garbage that has been Trojan-horsed inside the "Church" and deceived millions upon millions in the last century or a bit more.
I know exactly what aidios and aionios mean. Historically, few have even approached it, which is part of my main critical and reconciliational excurses on all major orthodox doctrines.
The guy does Theopostic Counseling and Prayer as a ministry. Jesus didn't. Paul didn't. None of the other Apostles or ANY of the early Patristics did (with the exception of the heretical Montanists).
He is heterodox. Fact. Might be a nice guy. Might be a decent teacher in other ways. But his prayer ministry is at the outer fringes of what could even be remotely considered actual Christianity. I wouldn't let him lay hands on me for anything.
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Because they represent anarthrous Greek nouns as articular,and on those subtle errors they build major doctrines that challenge core authentic historical orthodox doctrines of the Faith.
I teach this weekly for hours. Every last person who has ever sat through even a single two-hour session leaves doe-eyed and pale-faced because they realize they've believed groups and layers of subtle lies from not having known the meanings of words they have constantly used and applied for doctrinal false understanding.
The same thing would happen if you could ever listen instead of presuming this is just opinion against opinion and you have to be right because you're you and that's all you know and believe.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I think Unitarians and Arians and Adoptionists are likely more eligible for salvific faith that extreme Kenoticists. It's a plague upon the Body, and it largely stems from a few influences, including Hegel (the Theosophist/Gnostic "Philosopher").
Toss in Barth's Universal Atonement nonsense, and voila... Rampant heterodoxy that looks like the Christian faith, but is cultic (and often occultic).
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
1 Timothy 2:5 KJV - John 7:16 KJV - John 7:16 NIV -
Interesting notion ... being that Hegel's disciples are the creators of the two party political system here in the U S of A as well as the faux Russia/America antagonism. You might be on to something ... considering the fact that so many of our offered points of contention are both contrived and offered to us by those with something less than our best interest in mind and are, as often as not, purveyors of the Hegelian dialectic, whether knowingly or not.
But, again, we circle back to the idea of salvation via proper doctrine.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Christology Quiz
Christology Quiz
Here is a Christology Quiz.
It has been awhile since I did one on here. This particular is really good in that it identifies the problematics with immediate feedback.
Christology Quiz
Here is a Christology Quiz.
It has been awhile since I did one on here. This particular is really good in that it identifies the problematics with immediate feedback.
Lon
Well-known member
Oh, and this.... I wasn't suggesting anything about any of my other professors against the notion. I was only expressing an appreciation for those gentle souls who corrected me. I am ever grateful for all of my professors. Those years were near-like being in Heaven. -Lon