ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Clete]

Wow.. Nang is falling into Docetism... Denying the humanity of CHrist.

Muz

Extremely common among hard core Calvinists. On rare occasion I've piddled around on other sites which are overtly Calvinist and have found several who argue the same position. They not only deny that Jesus was a man but that God suffered and died. All, of course, to preserve their precious doctrine of immutability.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I don't believe sin is genetic either but my position on this is a bit more than a theory godrulz.

It was necessary for Jesus to be a human and it was necessary that He not inherit a sin nature (genetically or otherwise). The virgin birth would accomplish both of those things. There is a reason why you get your name (i.e. last name or family identity) from your father and why Biblically it was the father who was responsible for naming the children. Notice in the gospels that Joseph did not name Jesus but rather God did (Matt. 1:21) showing Who Jesus' real Father is and showing us His divine nature (i.e. no sin nature). Notice also that the Biblical teaching is not that mankind fell in Eve who sinned first but rather in Adam because the entire race was present within his seed (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15). And so since Jesus, being physically related only to Mary, was not of Adam's seed but rather God's, the sin nature was not passed to Him.

As a matter of fact, on the point about whether sin is genetic, this would seem to indicate that it is not because Mary was not sinless and Jesus was genetically related to her and was yet without the sin nature. Thus either sin is passed on the 'y' chromosome or it is passed in some other way (i.e. spiritually perhaps) through the father. The later seems to me to make more sense but who knows. One way or the other, sin is not passed through the mother or we are all still in our sins and without hope.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Maybe someone can confirm, but I have read that none of the Mother's blood
is passed on to a fetus. The blood comes exclusively from the Father...

 

[themuzicman]

The blood type is genetic, and comes from both Father and MOther. THe only material the father contributes is the sperm, which is NOT a blood cell. The mother's blood feeds the child until the child has a functioning circulatory system, fairly late on in pregnancy.

One of the risks to the mother is if she is negative RH type, and the child is positive RH type, since that causes problems.

Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The blood type is genetic, and comes from both Father and MOther. THe only material the father contributes is the sperm, which is NOT a blood cell. The mother's blood feeds the child until the child has a functioning circulatory system, fairly late on in pregnancy.

One of the risks to the mother is if she is negative RH type, and the child is positive RH type, since that causes problems.

Muz

http://www.newgateministries.com/jerusalemchronicles/dna-of-jesus.html

By William L. "Sonny" Payne

A second, and most vital point is this. "The blood which flows in an unborn babe's arteries and veins is not derived from the mother but is produced within the body of the fetus. Yet it is only after the sperm has entered the ovum and the foetus begins to develop that blood appears." (The Chemistry of the Blood, p.30, M.R. DeHaan M.D.) Medical science has shown that none of the mother's blood is given to a developing embryo. She supplies the nutrients for developing the baby, but no blood ever passes from the mother to the child. In doctor M.R. DeHaan's book The Chemistry of the Blood, page 32, he quotes from the Nurse's Handbook of Obstetrics by Louise Zabriskie, R.N., fifth Edition, pages 75 and 82.
When the circulation of the blood begins in the embryo, it remains separate and distinct from that of the mother. All food and waste material which are interchanged between the embryo and the mother must pass through the blood vessel walls from one circulation to the other. . . . The fetus receives its nourishment and oxygen from the mother's blood into its own through the medium of the placenta. The foetal heart pumps blood through the arteries of the umbilical cord into the placental vessels, which, looping in and out of the uterine tissue and lying in close contact with the uterine vessels, permit a diffusion, through their walls, of waste products from child to mother and of nourishment and oxygen from mother to child. As has been said, this interchange is effected by the process of osmosis, and there is no direct mingling of the two blood currents. In other words, no maternal blood actually flows to the foetus, nor is there any direct foetal blood flow to the mother.

 

[themuzicman]

That's a more technical way of saying what I just said.

Muz

 

[Lon]

So you are content to live with not merely unanswered question but outright irrationality.

I'm sorely disappointed. :nono:

I'm not saying it isn't an important question, I'm saying like in higher math, I know the variables with the lettered factors, but I'm not sure God has given us the values for the formulated answer. Like the triune view, I have some letters left in my equation without being able to plug the values in for the solve. The best I can do is simplify and wait for the time when all the values will be filled in. So, no, I'm not merely content, I'm working on the simplification, but we are discussing what the variable values are, and I'm checking your math. I say we don't have those values to solve. Possibly they are waiting for Glory, when we see Him face to face.

At any rate, it isn't that I cannot do theology, it is just like in math, that I've stopped on simplification for a partial answer. Thankfully there aren't a whole lot of those, and many of our discussions are solvable, but this time consideration has a ton of substitutionary letters in the problem.

In Him

 

[Clete]

Maybe someone can confirm, but I have read that none of the Mother's blood
is passed on to a fetus. The blood comes exclusively from the Father...

The blood doesn't come from either. The blood is produced within the fetus starting on day 18 (I think - perhaps someone could confirm that day for me). But regardless of what day it happens, the blood supply is genetically unique and does not come from either parent.

 

[godrulz]

Sinful natures are not innate. They are formed as the individual makes sinful choices.

I still maintain that the Holy Spirit conception was how Deity took on humanity. Jesus was tempted, yet without sin. This is volitional, not birth or blood related.

Mary was a sinner. It is splitting hairs to think taking Joseph out of the picture negates Mary's influence (using your logic...I do not believe conception is the point of becoming a sinner since one becomes a sinner when they sin; conception is not sinful).

Sin is a moral/volitional issue, not a physical or metaphysical issue. Human bodies are not sinful. It is what we do with them that determines vice or virtue (avoid Gnostic dualism; we are the temple of the Spirit).

 

[Nang]

Wow.. Nang is falling into Docetism... Denying the humanity of CHrist.

Muz

Oh, sure. . .:noway: you have read enough of my beliefs to know better, Michael.

 

[themuzicman]

You're the one denying Christ's humanity.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Sinful natures are not innate. They are formed as the individual makes sinful choices.

I still maintain that the Holy Spirit conception was how Deity took on humanity. Jesus was tempted, yet without sin. This is volitional, not birth or blood related.

Mary was a sinner. It is splitting hairs to think taking Joseph out of the picture negates Mary's influence (using your logic...I do not believe conception is the point of becoming a sinner since one becomes a sinner when they sin; conception is not sinful).

Sin is a moral/volitional issue, not a physical or metaphysical issue. Human bodies are not sinful. It is what we do with them that determines vice or virtue (avoid Gnostic dualism; we are the temple of the Spirit).

It's no wonder that you see no need for the Adamic nature to be crucified.
So, people are born without a sin nature and "evolve" into being sinners? LOL.

 

[Nang]

You're the one denying Christ's humanity.

I am not.

I am denying the statment made that Christ came to "add humanity to deity."

Creatures will never become a part of the Godhead. The Godhead is uncreated; saved creatures remain created. Sheesh.

Jesus Christ incarnated in the form and likeness of Man (Isa. 52:14, Phil. 2:7) to reconcile men with the Father, and to give men access to the kingdom of heaven and everlasting life.

Big difference between God coming as Man (gospel truth), versus man becoming God (falsehood).

 

[Clete]

All of this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The point is that God BECAME flesh (i.e. human flesh). Flesh is a created thing and God has not always been in the flesh but He became flesh. There was a time when He was not in the flesh and then there came a time when He was in the flesh and He remains in glorified flesh to this day and forever more.

Thus the pagan doctrine of divine immutability is false and therefore Calvinism is false.

Next topic!

Anyone want to discuss OPEN THEISM by chance?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

All of this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The point is that God BECAME flesh (i.e. human flesh). Flesh is a created thing and God has not always been in the flesh but He became flesh.

The uncreated Son of God came in the likeness of "created" flesh as a Man, born of a woman. But this follows flesh being created in the image of God in the beginning.

There was a time when He was not in the flesh

Cite Scripture, please. Where does the bible teach that Jesus did not have the glorified body He has now?

and then there came a time when He was in the flesh and He remains in glorified flesh to this day and forever more.

Right, so . . .

If the Son wears glorified flesh now, He also did before the foundation of the world. After all, who do you think "walked" with Adam and Eve in the garden?

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Hebrews 13:8

 

[Clete]

I'm not saying it isn't an important question, I'm saying like in higher math, I know the variables with the lettered factors, but I'm not sure God has given us the values for the formulated answer. Like the triune view, I have some letters left in my equation without being able to plug the values in for the solve. The best I can do is simplify and wait for the time when all the values will be filled in. So, no, I'm not merely content, I'm working on the simplification, but we are discussing what the variable values are, and I'm checking your math. I say we don't have those values to solve. Possibly they are waiting for Glory, when we see Him face to face.

At any rate, it isn't that I cannot do theology, it is just like in math, that I've stopped on simplification for a partial answer. Thankfully there aren't a whole lot of those, and many of our discussions are solvable, but this time consideration has a ton of substitutionary letters in the problem.

In Him

Your math analogy is only just that, an analogy. Theology is not higher math and I'm not even sure that making such an analogy is valid and I know that it isn't valid to take it as far as you are taking it. It's the same error as the "limited human understanding" argument. What is there that wouldn't fall into this category, Lonster?

Seriously now, I want for you to answer this question...

Let's say that you believe that David Koresh is Christ returned in the flesh and we are debating Davidian theology rather than Open Theism. If I make some argument that shows how David Koresh could not possibly be the Christ come in the flesh by pointing out, for example, that he is dead. Why couldn't you just pop out this mathematical mumbo-jumbo explaining to me that it is beyond our human abilities to understand how David is the Christ but we don't have to have all the answers to every question right now because God will fill in the necessary values for the undefined variables in our theological "equation" when we get to heaven and meet David face to face?

How does that not shut down any further rational discourse on the issue? Boom! In one fell swoop you've just rendered the whole topic impossible to discuss! And not just that topic but every topic! Any point of disagreement between you and anyone else on any topic at all can be neatly dealt with by simply pulling the antinomy trump card.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The uncreated Son of God came in the likeness of "created" flesh as a Man, born of a woman. But this follows flesh being created in the image of God in the beginning.

No Ma'am! He came not merely in the likeness of flesh, He became flesh in the likeness of man! If you deny that Christ came in the flesh you are an antichrist and are not saved!

1 John 4:3
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.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.​

Cite Scripture, please. Where does the bible teach that Jesus did not have the glorified body He has now?

If you are making a claim that He did have it then the burden of proof is on you not me but be that as it may, the first mention of a glorified body is in the gospels after the resurrection. Further, Thomas placed his hands in Jesus' wounds. Are you suggesting that those wounds existed for all eternity? That is what you would have to be suggesting if you wanted to keep your immutability argument intact. Those wounds prove that His glorified body is made of flesh and John 1 states directly that Logic became flesh and dwelt among us. It does not say that Logic, which had always been flesh came and dwelt among us, it says that Logic BECAME flesh and dwelt among us and it is obviously referring to Jesus' incarnation when it says that thus God was not flesh prior to the virgin birth, glorified or otherwise.

Right, so . . .

If the Son wears glorified flesh now, He also did before the foundation of the world. After all, who do you think "walked" with Adam and Eve in the garden?

There is no indication that God physically walked in the garden. God is spirit but can manifest Himself in some visible way. Angels have done the same without having to take on flesh to do so.

Facinating the lengths you will go to to preserve your pagan doctrines.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Hebrews 13:8

Was Jesus, God the Son, always dead and in the grave? Was Jesus always a little baby? Did Jesus learn obedience or not?

This verse in Hebrews and the two or three others like it in the Scripture all refer to WHO Jesus is, that is, it refers to His righteous and loving character and personality. The Bible very simply does not teach the Calvinist version of immutability.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

I see the Calvinists are still afraid to answer my question...

 

[Nang]

No Ma'am!

Why all the neg reps? Is there a quota or ratio that will eventually get me kicked off the forums? Is that the game around here, and how you get rid of opponents of OVT? You and your buds just keep sending neg reps to add up against those with whom you differ but can't theologically silence any other way?

 

[Poly]

The uncreated Son of God came in the likeness of "created" flesh as a Man, born of a woman. But this follows flesh being created in the image of God in the beginning.

No Ma'am! He came not merely in the likeness of flesh, He became flesh in the likeness of man! If you deny that Christ came in the flesh you are an antichrist and are not saved!

1 John 4:3
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.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.​

Cite Scripture, please. Where does the bible teach that Jesus did not have the glorified body He has now?

If you are making a claim that He did have it then the burden of proof is on you not me but be that as it may, the first mention of a glorified body is in the gospels after the resurrection. Further, Thomas placed his hands in Jesus' wounds. Are you suggesting that those wounds existed for all eternity? That is what you would have to be suggesting if you wanted to keep your immutability argument intact. Those wounds prove that His glorified body is made of flesh and John 1 states directly that Logic became flesh and dwelt among us. It does not say that Logic, which had always been flesh came and dwelt among us, it says that Logic BECAME flesh and dwelt among us and it is obviously referring to Jesus' incarnation when it says that thus God was not flesh prior to the virgin birth, glorified or otherwise.

Right, so . . .

If the Son wears glorified flesh now, He also did before the foundation of the world. After all, who do you think "walked" with Adam and Eve in the garden?

There is no indication that God physically walked in the garden. God is spirit but can manifest Himself in some visible way. Angels have done the same without having to take on flesh to do so.

Facinating the lengths you will go to to preserve your pagan doctrines.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Hebrews 13:8

Was Jesus, God the Son, always dead and in the grave? Was Jesus always a little baby? Did Jesus learn obedience or not?

This verse in Hebrews and the two or three others like it in the Scripture all refer to WHO Jesus is, that is, it refers to His righteous and loving character and personality. The Bible very simply does not teach the Calvinist version of immutability.

Resting in Him,
Clete

POTD

It sickens me the way some people view Christ's suffering and death as if it wasn't literally this but no doubt they'll say all the right words as if they really believe it was actually some kind of real "sacrifice" (wink wink).

 

[Nang]

No Ma'am! He came not merely in the likeness of flesh, He became flesh in the likeness of man!

What I said.

If you deny that Christ came in the flesh you are an antichrist and are not saved!

I do not deny Christ came in the flesh.

You bear false witness against me, just as Muz did, but I have already answered him on this subject. (You do read other peoples' discussions, I hope.)

If you are making a claim that He did have it then the burden of proof is on you not me but be that as it may, the first mention of a glorified body is in the gospels after the resurrection.

What was the "form of God," that Christ put aside to make Himself of no reputation? (Phil. 2:6) Who is spoken of as being "beside Him" rejoicing in the "sons of men" before the world was created? (Prov. 8:22-36)

Further, Thomas placed his hands in Jesus' wounds. Are you suggesting that those wounds existed for all eternity?

Why not? Maybe Christ's glorified body has always been scarred with the marks of His human death. After all, Scripture says He is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev. 13:8b

That is what you would have to be suggesting if you wanted to keep your immutability argument intact. Those wounds prove that His glorified body is made of flesh and John 1 states directly that Logic became flesh and dwelt among us. It does not say that Logic, which had always been flesh came and dwelt among us, it says that Logic BECAME flesh and dwelt among us and it is obviously referring to Jesus' incarnation when it says that thus God was not flesh prior to the virgin birth, glorified or otherwise.

I agree with you that the Word became flesh . . .in the fullness of time. However, Scripture nowhere says God the Son has NOT always existed in a glorified bodily form.

There is no indication that God physically walked in the garden.

"And they [A&E] heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day . . ." Genesis 3:8a

God is spirit but can manifest Himself in some visible way. Angels have done the same without having to take on flesh to do so.

You speak of theophanies where the Lord has appeared as angels, and was probably is even the angel called Michael, and perhaps appeared as the priest, Melchizedek. It is true that the God the Son can take on appearances, while remaining the Lord of heaven:

"The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man [Jesus Christ] is the Lord from heaven." I Cor. 15:47

Was Jesus, God the Son, always dead and in the grave? Was Jesus always a little baby? Did Jesus learn obedience or not?

Illogical argument, considering Jesus did not remain a baby or remain dead while incarnated in time. Of course He would not remain in any condition in heaven, that He did not remain in on earth.

Jesus indeed learned obedience through suffering, and since He is said to be "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world", then we can consider His suffering and death to be infinite and eternal in scope.

This verse in Hebrews and the two or three others like it in the Scripture all refer to WHO Jesus is, that is, it refers to His righteous and loving character and personality. The Bible very simply does not teach the Calvinist version of immutability.

Resting in Him,
Clete

That is just what you claim, but the Bible teaches Godly immutability.

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17

"For I AM the Lord, I do not change . . ." Malachi 3:6a

"Of old, You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years have no end." Psalm 102:25&26 (Quoted in Hebrews 1:12 directly in context of the incarnation of Christ.)

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words (that also became flesh), will by no means pass away." Matthew 24:35

"Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things . . ." Hebrews 6:17&18a

What were the "two immutable things?" His Person. (Hebrews 6:13) His oath. (Hebrews 6:17) Which would be His Word, which you agree is Christ come in the flesh, right?

"He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood." Hebrews 7:24

IMO, it is nothing short of shameful blasphemy, to use the incarnation of the Son of God to preach the falsehood of mutability.