This does nothing to advance the discussion.
James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The divine Logos assumed (took on) a human nature. The Divine Logos, the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, the Son of Man, took on a humanity without confusion, mixture, or division of the divine and human natures.
To assume anything else is to assume that when the second person of the Trinity walked the earth He was not also omnipresent everywhere else outside of Israel. May it never be!
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Nice try. Try harder. :AMR:
White noted specific mistakes being made by Bob Enyart in his post debate shows. Hopefully, Bob Enyart will make the necessary corrections in his future broadcasts.
AMR
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
According to eternal decree and divine purpose, He was always God/Man . . . Manifested in the fullness of time to redeem His own.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You think someone named Jesus of Nazareth was existing in the Godhead before the Incarnation? Odd. The Divine Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, the Son of Man (See Daniel) was who was existing before the Incarnation. Be careful here lest you fall into Mormonistic thinking. That being assumed a human nature in an mystical union wherein no confusion, mixture, or division took place. One Person, two natures, one divine nature, one human nature.
AMR
I'm not assuming anything. The bible says God took on human form. If that is not a change, what is?
Hopefully.
Has little to do with us though, does it?
Not according to the bible.
No. That was a name given to a baby. The whole issue is -- that baby was God and still is.
My issue with you is that you are a liar and a manipulator. You have zero integrity as a person. Besides, those obvious character traits, you believe in a false god and a false christ.
The above post is a perfect example of your lies and deception in response to Stripe's comments. You know perfectly well what he said, but CHOOSE to make an attempt to discredit his views, all the while ignoring Nang's who said:
How would you prefer to characterize them?
I'm not overly interested in characterizing them. What I want to hear is an explanation for what they claim.
Perhaps when it becomes obvious that they are genuinely disinterested in explaining themselves rationally, I will start characterizing them. :devil:
Good luck with that. :chuckle:
I've been waiting for years, which is why I have no problem characterizing them. :cheers:
They're generally not evolutionists, which is why I'm not so engaged. :chuckle:
:sigh: James White is the most misunderstood man in America.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Correct.
But the Reformed ("Calvinist") beliefs are biblically thorough and therefore lengthy (e.g. "The Westminster Confession of Faith"), so our system of belief is not easy to just generalize.
If you or S0ZO truly want to dig into our views, specific questions will have to be asked about specific doctrines. :think:
Nang
Then you should be able to show biblically how Jesus taking on human form was not a change.
It is a very specific question.
How is the incarnation not a change to the Godhead?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
"The Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures; the Godhead, and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion ('change') composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man." The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter VIII, Article II
Bible References: John 1:1, 14; I John 5:20, Philippians 2:6, Galatians 4:4, Hebrews 2:14-17, 4:15; Luke 1:27-35; Colossians 2:9, Romans 9:5, I Peter 3:18, I Timothy 3:16, Romans 1:3-4; I Timothy 2:5
- - - - - -
This biblical teaching of the Incarnation, includes no suggestion of any change necessary within the Godhead, to provide mankind a Savior; the God/Man, Jesus the Christ, who alone could reconcile sinners with their Creator.
God the Son was able and willing to assume the same flesh and blood of His creatures, without relinquishing His divinity and attributes, in order to achieve their salvation. Hebrews 2:10-14 In fact just the opposite to changing His essence, it is because of the divine nature and power of God in which Jesus was conceived, that He was equipped to function fully both as the Son of God and the Son of Man in this world. I John 5:20
Why or what do you think God had to change, in order to fulfill what He had decreed and purposed to do, before the foundation of the world?
Bible References: John 1:1, 14; I John 5:20, Philippians 2:6, Galatians 4:4, Hebrews 2:14-17, 4:15; Luke 1:27-35; Colossians 2:9, Romans 9:5, I Peter 3:18, I Timothy 3:16, Romans 1:3-4; I Timothy 2:5
- - - - - -
This biblical teaching of the Incarnation, includes no suggestion of any change necessary within the Godhead, to provide mankind a Savior; the God/Man, Jesus the Christ, who alone could reconcile sinners with their Creator.
God the Son was able and willing to assume the same flesh and blood of His creatures, without relinquishing His divinity and attributes, in order to achieve their salvation. Hebrews 2:10-14 In fact just the opposite to changing His essence, it is because of the divine nature and power of God in which Jesus was conceived, that He was equipped to function fully both as the Son of God and the Son of Man in this world. I John 5:20
Why or what do you think God had to change, in order to fulfill what He had decreed and purposed to do, before the foundation of the world?
Nimrod
Member
If you keep on repeating it, eventually they will believe it.
Nimrod
Member
Translation: You must accept my premise that God changed. I am not willing to listen to the other side.
There is a necessary change. At one time, Jesus had not become incarnate, then later He had.
How can that not be a change?
What is the problem if it is a change?