Discussion - Enyart vs. Ask Mr Religion (One on One)

[CabinetMaker]

OK, far be it for me to jump to conclusions.

Your write: “I am not denying that Jesus is God incarnate and that as God, He knows a great deal more about everything than we do.”

“All I am saying is that Jesus draws a distinction between the Father and the Son and makes it clear that the Son does not have all the knowledge of the Father.”

Please explain this in light of your renewed assertion that Jesus is God.

God = omniscient
Jesus = God
therefore,
Jesus = omniscient

What exactly do you believe? Please explain.

I am not denying that Jesus is God incarnate and that as part of the Godhead, He knows a great deal more about everything than we do. All I am saying is that Jesus draws a distinction between the Father and the Son and makes it clear that the Son does not have all the knowledge of the Father.

God the Father is omniscient
God the Son is not God the Father
therefore,
God the Son does not have to have all the knowledge of the Father.

Question. Are the member of the Godhead identical in every way?

Could God the Father of died for our sins?

Could the Holy Spirit rise from the dead for our eternal redemption?

Why or why not.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God the Father is omniscient
God the Son is not God the Father
therefore,
God the Son does not have to have all the knowledge of the Father.

Then your own reasoning shows that you do not believe Christ is God.

Is Christ God?
Is the Holy Spirit God?
Is God the Father God?

Do you agree with this statement?

"One God who eternally exists in three different persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are equal."

I am happy to answer your other questions as soon as we bottom out on the initial issue of how you perceive the divinity of Christ.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Is Christ God? Yes
Is the Holy Spirit God? Yes
Is God the Father God? Yes

Do you agree with this statement? Qualified yes, with emphasis on the word different and not to the term equal. Jesus was always very clear that He was obedient to His Father in heaven, received His authority from His Father and only prayed to His Father.

"One God who eternally exists in three different persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are equal."

I am happy to answer your other questions as soon as we bottom out on the initial issue of how you perceive the divinity of Christ.

I ask you to answer my questions before we continue. Please, keep the answers short. There is no need for verbose answers.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Is Christ God? Yes
Is the Holy Spirit God? Yes
Is God the Father God? Yes

Do you agree with this statement? Qualified yes, with emphasis on the word different and not to the term equal. Jesus was always very clear that He was obedient to His Father in heaven, received His authority from His Father and only prayed to His Father.

"One God who eternally exists in three different persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are fully God, all of whom are equal."

Since you say Christ is God, but not equal to God the Father, are you basically also saying that Christ and Spirit are not equal to the Father? This is very near to variations of Arianism.

How do you deal with "not equal" when speaking of God? You believe there is one God, not three. We are speaking of one divine essence - God. One essence means, well, one. To say there is some inequalities in this essence is to say that the essence of God is composed of parts. Do you believe this?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Since you say Christ is God, but not equal to God the Father, are you basically also saying that Christ and Spirit are not equal to the Father? This is very near to variations of Arianism.

How do you deal with "not equal" when speaking of God? You believe there is one God, not three. We are speaking of one divine essence - God. One essence means, well, one. To say there is some inequalities in this essence is to say that the essence of God is composed of parts. Do you believe this?

My response included how I deal with "not equal."

Now, please answer these questions.

Are the member of the Godhead identical in every way?

Could God the Father of died for our sins?

Could the Holy Spirit rise from the dead for our eternal redemption?

Why or why not.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

My response included how I deal with "not equal."

Now, please answer these questions.

Are the member of the Godhead identical in every way?

Could God the Father of died for our sins?

Could the Holy Spirit rise from the dead for our eternal redemption?

Why or why not.

You "deal" with the inequality of the Trinitarian Persons by denying their divinity. You embrace heresy.

The members of the Godhead are three divine Persons, one in mind, purpose, attributes, glory—all fully God. There is one essence of God, not three parts of God. You cannot get any other answer but what I have given you. The Persons of the Godhead are distinctive in their respective offices. These distinctions have absolutely nothing to do with their divinity. The Godhead is a Tri-unity, three distinctive persons, one unified essence.

Your other questions are illogical (and heretical) in the face of what we know about about the distinctive offices of the Godhead. You might as well have asked could God have existed in any other than the tri-personal form for He could not. God's tri-personal existence is a necessity in the Divine Being, and not in any sense the result of a choice of God. God could not be self-contemplating, self-cognitive, and self-communing, if His constitution were not trinal. Hence it is not possible to conceive of personality in God apart from an association of equal persons in Him.

The three distinctive subsistences of the Godhead are as I have described them here and elsewhere. Hence, as I described earlier in the economical order of God's works some of the external works of God are ascribed more particularly to one person, and some especially more to another. For example, though they are all works of the three persons jointly, creation is ascribed primarily to the Father, redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Holy Spirit. God's external works are never the works of one person exclusively, but always works of the Divine Being as a whole.

In other words, to the point of your questions, the atonement for sins, the resurrection, or any other external act of God, are indeed the works of the one Divine essence.

You can argue that I have not answered your other two questions, but in effect, you have asked me to answer questions like "Could God be a unicorn?"

 

[CabinetMaker]

You "deal" with the inequality of the Trinitarian Persons by denying their divinity. You embrace heresy.

What is it with Calvinists that every time someone doesn't agree with them the Calvinist immediately labels them a heretic. The same thing happened to me over at the old Christian Forums. In point of fact, I did not deny the divinity. I pointed out that Jesus is obediant to the Father, not to Himself. Jesus prayed to the Father, not Himself. Jesus taught us to pray the the Father in the name of the Son, not to the Son directly.

The members of the Godhead are three divine Persons, one in mind, purpose, attributes, glory—all fully God. There is one essence of God, not three parts of God. You cannot get any other answer but what I have given you. The Persons of the Godhead are distinctive in their respective offices. These distinctions have absolutely nothing to do with their divinity. The Godhead is a Tri-unity, three distinctive persons, one unified essence.

Correct. They are all divine but they all have a different office. The function of each office is distinct and is fulfilled by one person in the trinity alone.

Your other questions are illogical (and heretical) in the face of what we know about about the distinctive offices of the Godhead. You might as well have asked could God have existed in any other than the tri-personal form for He could not. God's tri-personal existence is a necessity in the Divine Being, and not in any sense the result of a choice of God. God could not be self-contemplating, self-cognitive, and self-communing, if His constitution were not trinal. Hence it is not possible to conceive of personality in God apart from an association of equal persons in Him.

No, my questions are perfectly logical. My questions do not challenge the trinity, they question your assertions about what the trinity is and is not. Do you see the limits you put on God? "God could not exist as anything other than a trinity." God, the creator of all things, could exist in as many forms as He requires, including a unicorn. A trinity best fits God's plan for redemption of the human race.

The three distinctive subsistences of the Godhead are as I have described them here and elsewhere. Hence, as I described earlier in the economical order of God's works some of the external works of God are ascribed more particularly to one person, and some especially more to another. For example, though they are all works of the three persons jointly, creation is ascribed primarily to the Father, redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Holy Spirit. God's external works are never the works of one person exclusively, but always works of the Divine Being as a whole.

In other words, to the point of your questions, the atonement for sins, the resurrection, or any other external act of God, are indeed the works of the one Divine essence.

You can argue that I have not answered your other two questions, but in effect, you have asked me to answer questions like "Could God be a unicorn?"

You actually answered my question. In your mind, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are interchangeable. There is no meaningful difference in between any of the three persons. God died for our sins, rose from the dead as the Holy Spirit and prays to Jesus. Or the Holy Spirit dies for our sins, rose from the dead as God and they both worship Jesus.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What is it with Calvinists that every time someone doesn't agree with them the Calvinist immediately labels them a heretic. The same thing happened to me over at the old Christian Forums. In point of fact, I did not deny the divinity. I pointed out that Jesus is obediant to the Father, not to Himself. Jesus prayed to the Father, not Himself. Jesus taught us to pray the the Father in the name of the Son, not to the Son directly.

When you say that Christ cannot be equal to God the Father or God the Spirit, which you have explicitly so stated, you are denying the full divinity of Christ. You can complain that Calvinists are beating you up, but any orthodox Christian would tell you the same. Why is it that just because a Calvinist tells you this you assume that this is only a belief by Calvinists? A Catholic or a Lutheran or a member of your own denomination would tell you the same. So would your own pastor. Have you discussed this with him?

No, my questions are perfectly logical. My questions do not challenge the trinity, they question your assertions about what the trinity is and is not. Do you see the limits you put on God? "God could not exist as anything other than a trinity." God, the creator of all things, could exist in as many forms as He requires, including a unicorn. A trinity best fits God's plan for redemption of the human race.

I place no limits upon God, but I also don't reason irrationally, which is what you are doing when you make these kinds of statements.

Theologians argue the requirement for God to be trinal from the idea of personality itself.

One argument is based upon the general self-consciousness of the triune God, as distinguished from the particular individual self-consciousness of each one of the Persons in the Godhead. In self-consciousness the subject must know itself as an object, and also perceive that it does. This is possible in God because of His trinal existence. God could not be self-contemplating, self-cognitive, and self-communing, if He were not trinal in His constitution.

Another argument is that among men the consciousness of the ego awakens only by contact with the non-ego. Personality cannot or does not exist in isolation, but only in association with other persons. Thus we cannot conceive of a personality in God apart from some association of equal persons in God. God’s contact with us cannot account for His personality any more than our contact with animals would explain our own personality.

You seem to have spent a lot of time on your own crafting some very peculiar notions about the nature of the Trinity. I urge you to become more grounded in the orthodox treatment of this subject and seek out your pastor for more discussions. You are straying outside the mainstream in your beliefs. This is dangerous, for you end up creating false idols and go off worshiping them at your peril.

 

[CabinetMaker]

When you say that Christ cannot be equal to God the Father or God the Spirit, which you have explicitly so stated, you are denying the full divinity of Christ. You can complain that Calvinists are beating you up, but any orthodox Christian would tell you the same. Why is it that just because a Calvinist tells you this you assume that this is only a belief by Calvinists? A Catholic or a Lutheran or a member of your own denomination would tell you the same. So would your own pastor. Have you discussed this with him?

I place no limits upon God, but I also don't reason irrationally, which is what you are doing when you make these kinds of statements.

Theologians argue the requirement for God to be trinal from the idea of personality itself.

One argument is based upon the general self-consciousness of the triune God, as distinguished from the particular individual self-consciousness of each one of the Persons in the Godhead. In self-consciousness the subject must know itself as an object, and also perceive that it does. This is possible in God because of His trinal existence. God could not be self-contemplating, self-cognitive, and self-communing, if He were not trinal in His constitution.

Another argument is that among men the consciousness of the ego awakens only by contact with the non-ego. Personality cannot or does not exist in isolation, but only in association with other persons. Thus we cannot conceive of a personality in God apart from some association of equal persons in God. God’s contact with us cannot account for His personality any more than our contact with animals would explain our own personality.

You seem to have spent a lot of time on your own crafting some very peculiar notions about the nature of the Trinity. I urge you to become more grounded in the orthodox treatment of this subject and seek out your pastor for more discussions. You are straying outside the mainstream in your beliefs. This is dangerous, for you end up creating false idols and go off worshiping them at your peril.

If all the are equal, why does Jesus always teach that He does nothing without the permission of His Father? Why does He pray to His Father? Why does He teach is to pray to His Father in the Son's name? Who did Jesus come to redeem is to?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If all the are equal, why does Jesus always teach that He does nothing without the permission of His Father? Why does He pray to His Father? Why does He teach is to pray to His Father in the Son's name? Who did Jesus come to redeem is to?

godrulz will be along any minute now and answer the remainder of your questions.

 

[godrulz]

godrulz will be along any minute now and answer the remainder of your questions.

As Nang would say: bah!:shut:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

As Nang would say: bah!:shut:

Well, I was serious. So bah to you! :chuckle:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

He advanced so much that my comments will seem like old news... but I want to comment about an earlier answer.

BEQ14: Is it theoretically possible for God to know something future because He plans to use His abilities to bring it about, rather than strictly because He foresees it?

AMRA-BEQ14 - Ask Mr. Religion Responds:
No, this is not possible. As discussed in AMRA-BEQ12 God foreordains all that is to come to pass. As a necessary consequence, God foreknows because He as foreordained.

As stated above, your question exposes a misunderstanding of unsettled theism about the distinctions between foreordination and foreknowledge. Your question, as structured above, implies an assumption that God could “know something future” “strictly because He foresees it”. Hence you ask is there a possibility that God could “know something future” and not foresee that future. The error in this reasoning is not comprehending that God foreknows because He has foreordained. God does not foresee and then ordain. God ordains and necessarily foresees what He has ordained.

While much of what AMR has to say makes perfect sense, I have a bit of a problem with this answer. Why could God NOT foreknow without foreordaining? Just because you says he does is no better proof than Enyart saying he doesn't. Could an almighty God not be able to foreknow without foreordination?

Chileice, I updated my response to this question and hope it will answer your question. See here.

 

[chatmaggot]

AMR,

You state:

God foreordains all that is to come to pass.

Is all that God does good?

I know you have heard this argument many many times. But it just doesn't make sense. Maybe I just need it explained to me again...I don't know.

Does God ordain all rapes? Can a rapist choose not to rape? According to you...no. Because God caused/wanted/ordained it to happen.

That is just sick, don't you think?

How do you use Isaiah 5:20? Can you call anything evil if it is God who has ordained it to happen from eternity past?

 

[Lon]

AMR,

You state:



Is all that God does good?

I know you have heard this argument many many times. But it just doesn't make sense. Maybe I just need it explained to me again...I don't know.

Does God ordain all rapes? Can a rapist choose not to rape? According to you...no. Because God caused/wanted/ordained it to happen.

That is just sick, don't you think?

How do you use Isaiah 5:20? Can you call anything evil if it is God who has ordained it to happen from eternity past?

Sorry, this is an extrapolation, nobody's doctrinal statement I'm aware of. I'd recommend foregoing the common rhetoric and problematic OV extrapolation. It is mischaracterization, prejudism etc. etc. Again, it isn't supported by Calvinists or any others that I'm aware of.

 

[chatmaggot]

Sorry, this is an extrapolation, nobody's doctrinal statement I'm aware of. I'd recommend foregoing the common rhetoric and problematic OV extrapolation. It is mischaracterization, prejudism etc. etc. Again, it isn't supported by Calvinists or any others that I'm aware of.

What then does...

God foreordains all that is to come to pass.

...mean?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR,

You state:



Is all that God does good?

I know you have heard this argument many many times. But it just doesn't make sense. Maybe I just need it explained to me again...I don't know.

Does God ordain all rapes? Can a rapist choose not to rape? According to you...no. Because God caused/wanted/ordained it to happen.

That is just sick, don't you think?

How do you use Isaiah 5:20? Can you call anything evil if it is God who has ordained it to happen from eternity past?

A fair question, despite the loaded rhetoric.

The doctrinal statements of all the orthodox churches make it clear that God is not the author of sin. That is, we recognize 1 John 15, and James 1:13.

We also recognize that God decrees all things that come to pass according to the nature of second causes:
(1) necessarily, e.g., the motion of the planets, atomic spin, etc.;
(2) freely (as defined in my 1:1 response) -- voluntarily with no "violence being done to the will of the creature";
(3) contingently, i.e., with perfect regard to future event contingencies, as when God told David what Saul and Keilah would do to him if David remained in Keilah (1 Samuel 23:9-13).

Thus we can say in the case of Adam, that he was aware of God’s commandment at the moment he ate the forbidden fruit, that Adam possessed the capacity and power to obey God’s preceptive will (see AMRA-BEQ22), for reasons sufficient to him (his self-determined greatest inclinations at the moment) Adam wanted to eat the fruit, and Adam was not forced to eat the fruit (no violence done to his will). Thus, because Adam acted knowingly, willingly, with freedom of spontaneity, for reasons that were sufficient to him, with no violence done to his will, Adam was a free moral agent in his act of sin.

Now was Adam totally free from the eternal decree of God? Absolutely not.
Could Adam have done differently? Absolutely not.
Any other answer to these questions obviates the clear teachings of the Scriptures—that God works everything in conformity with His eternal purposes (Ephesians 1:11), decreed before the foundation of the world to save a multitude of sinners who would fall in Adam.

 

[godrulz]

Compatabilism sounds contradictory wanting to eat its cake and have it too. It waters down genuine freedom and is a technical loophole to not make God responsible for evil while still decreeing it? Sounds like double-speak to me, but what do I know as the resident village idiot?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Compatabilism sounds contradictory wanting to eat its cake and have it too. It waters down genuine freedom and is a technical loophole to not make God responsible for evil while still decreeing it? Sounds like double-speak to me, but what do I know as the resident village idiot?

Read AMRA-BEQ16 again. Sounds biblical to me. God is sovereign. God holds man responsible. God always will do right. All very biblical. You may not like it, for it conflicts with unsettled theism's humanistic underpinnings--that you are purportedly autonomous from the Creator of the universe (just like Adam thought he was).

Accountability to your Sovereign has nothing to do with your so-called liberty of indifference or ability.

 

[Servo]

A fair question, despite the loaded rhetoric.


…Adam was a free moral agent in his act of sin.

And yet he had no choice…

Now was Adam totally free from the eternal decree of God? Absolutely not.
Could Adam have done differently? Absolutely not.
Any other answer to these questions obviates the clear teachings of the Scriptures—that God works everything in conformity with His eternal purposes (Ephesians 1:11), decreed before the foundation of the world to save a multitude of sinners who would fall in Adam.

Rhetoric? Clear teaching? Are you sure these are words you should be using?