I have no idea what you are talking about. :idunno:
Jesus was manifested as a baby. Before that, He was not manifested as a baby. How did He go from not being manifested as a baby to being manifested as a baby without changing?
Does a diamond cut to bring out the best refractions of its light properties, fail to be a diamond?
No, but a diamond being cut is a change to the diamond. And neither does God cease being God when He changes.
And that is my argument . . . if we are talking about God the Son; the second Person of the Trinity, and whether or not He has ever changed, I am saying there is no event in His ever-changing creation that has ever, or could ever change His Being and eternal purpose.
I have not asked anything that this is a response to. God went from not being a baby to being a baby. This I reasonably refer to as a change. It is not a change to His being or purpose, but it is still a change.
Comprehende?
God walked on this earth when He first created it. There are numerous theophanies of God manifesting Himself in the O.T. on this earth. God also manifested Himself in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ on this earth . . all events occurring in created time.
I don't see because you haven't explained how going from not being a baby to being a baby cannot be rightly considered a change -- and now you're using the fallacy of the argument to consequence.
This is why the debate is SO important. Denial of the immutability of any Person in the Trinity, is denial of the deity of the entire Trinity.
And yet He went from not being manifest in the likeness of man in Bethlehem to being manifest in the likeness of man in Bethlehem -- something that can indeed be reasonably considered a change.
Simply asserting that everything that looks like a change to God in the bible is not a change is not a rational or convincing argument.
The Open Theists have lost this debate, and lost their claim to Christian credentials by debating at all.
Fortunately, I did not argue that we could ignore that the sum of two twos is equal to four. I simply ignored your presentation of your ideas and stuck with what the bible plainly says. The bible says God went from being not a baby in the manger to being the baby in the manger. If this cannot rightly be considered a change, now is your chance to explain why. :up:
Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, (Matthew 1:18 – 24). However, Scripture is opposed to God having a beginning (Isaiah 43:10). Therefore, Mary being the God bearer, gave birth to Christ’s humanity, not His divinity. The two natures, that of humanity and divinity existing in the Person of Jesus Christ is also from Scripture. Jesus states that He was with God before the world began, sharing in His glory (John 17:5). See also Isaiah 42:8 for an interesting parallel. In the verse, we see Scripture teaches God’s glory is not shared with anything or anyone. Rightly so, the early Church Fathers concluded that such statements directly point to Christ's full deity (Colossians 1:19). The humanity of Christ is also clear from Scripture. The Apostle John provides us with some of the most direct statements related to the nature of Christ. John 1:14 unambiguously in declares what God the Son became...human. From John’s teaching in his Gospel it is impossible to deduce that the assumption of flesh by God the Son actually changed the ontological being of God the Son. Therefore, Scripture recognizes the deity and humanity of Christ, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation is necessary as to teach otherwise would be contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture. Persons must grasp the precise distinction between nature and person. Nature or substance (essence) denotes the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being; while person is the Ego, the self-conscious, self-asserting and acting subject. The Logos assumed, not a human person (else we would have two persons, a divine and a human), but human nature which is common to us all; and hence he redeemed, not a particular man, but all men as partakers of the same nature. The God-Man is the result of the incarnation. Christ is not a (Nestorian) double being, with two persons, nor a compound (Apollinarian or Monophysite) middle being, a tertium quid, neither divine nor human; but he is one person both divine and human. We must also understand the duality of the natures. The orthodox doctrine maintains, against Eutychianism, the distinction of nature even after the act of incarnation, without confusion or conversion, yet, on the other hand, without division or separation, so that the divine will ever remain divine, and the human ever human and yet the two have continually one common life, and interpenetrate each other, like the persons of the Trinity. We must also understand the unity of the person. The union of the divine and human nature in Christ is a permanent state resulting from the incarnation, and is a real, supernatural, personal, and inseparable union—in distinction from an essential absorption or confusion, or from a mere moral union; or from a mystical union such as holds between the believer and Christ. The two natures constitute but one personal life, and yet remain distinct. Because the two natures make only one person, we read on the one hand: "The Son of Man came down from heaven" (John 3:13), while yet the Son of God took flesh from the virgin Mary; and on the other hand: "The Son of God was crucified and buried," while yet he suffered, not in his Godhead as coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of human nature. The self-consciousness of Christ is never divided; his person consists in such a union of the human and the divine natures, that the divine nature is the seat of self-consciousness, and pervades and animates the human. The whole work of Christ is to be attributed to his person, and not to the one or the other nature exclusively. The person is the acting subject, the nature the organ or medium. It is the one divine-human person of Christ that wrought miracles by virtue of his divine nature, and that suffered through the sensorium of his human nature. The superhuman effect and infinite merit of the Redeemer's work must be ascribed to his person because of his divinity; while it is his humanity alone that made him capable of, and liable to, toil, temptation, suffering, and death, and renders him an example for our imitation. Christ's human nature had no independent personality of its own, besides the divine, and that the divine nature is the root and basis of his personality. H. Hoeksema is instructive here:
Spoiler
What does the Church mean when it confesses that Jesus, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, who was born of a virgin? It must be emphasized, first of all, that it does not mean that God changed into man, either partly or completely. God cannot change. The essence of God is not transmitted into the essence of man, and the nature of God is not changed into the nature of man. The Son of God did not change into man when He came in the flesh, and at the resurrection change into God. Thus it is often presented. It is often presented as if the Son of God left His glory when He came in our nature, but that is impossible. It is impossible for Him to leave heaven. The Son of God cannot leave His glory. He does not change. He cannot change into the human nature, or lay aside His divine nature. He remains the eternal Son of God, one with the Father and the Holy Ghost. He remains God, also in the incarnation. In the second place, the incarnation does not mean that the person of the Son of God joined itself to the person of the Son of man. There is not a dualism of persons. Jesus is one person, even after the incarnation. In the third place, neither does the incarnation mean that the divine nature mingles with the human. The Son of God does not become a God-man. The idea of a God-man is pantheistic. The divine nature does not become human, and the human nature divine. The finite does not become infinite, and the infinite finite. The temporal does not become eternal, and the eternal temporal. The two natures do not become mixed. The two natures did not unite and become one. There is in the incarnation no union of the divine nature and the human nature. That is, there is no union of the two natures as natures. They were united, but not as natures. They were united in the person of the Son of God. The union was not in the natures, but in the person. The two natures are united in the one person, the Son of God. Hence, there is no mixture of natures. Still less does the incarnation mean that God came in a human body. The Son of God did not take upon Himself a partial human nature. He took upon Himself the entire human nature. And lastly, the incarnation does not mean that the Spirit of the Son came to dwell in the human nature, in the same sense that the Spirit of God dwells in us. The Spirit of the Son did not come to dwell in the person of the man Jesus, but the meaning of the incarnation is this, that the Son of God, the second person in the trinity, who dwells in the divine being and continues to be all that is divine, that that Son of God took upon Himself the human nature. He did not assume a human person, but He assumed the human nature. The Son of God took upon Himself, in addition to His divine nature, the human nature. He assumed a complete, impersonal human nature. To that human nature belong both soul and body. When God created man, He did not create a dead body and afterwards put a soul in it. God created the complete human nature. So also it is with the birth of children. We do not bring forth a dead body. We bring forth the complete human nature, but there is an action of God upon the soul of the child, as there was an action of God upon the soul of man when he was created. In other words, we bring forth the whole human nature, but the person comes from God. So it is with the incarnation. Jesus assumes the complete human nature. To that belongs both soul and body. In the same sense that we bring forth the complete human nature, in that same sense Jesus assumes the complete human nature, but as it is with us, so it is in the incarnation, the person comes from God, so that the person of the Son of God did not leave His glory but also came in the human nature, and dwells in that human nature in the same sense that He dwells in the divine nature, and that at the same time. As He dwells, loves, wills, desires, in the divine nature, so He dwells, loves, wills, desires, in the human nature, and that at the same time, so that the two natures are united in the one person of the Son of God. [Src: Lords Day 14 Faith in the Son Incarnated.]
Can you highlight or summarize the part in here that shows how going from not being a baby in Bethlehem to being a baby in Bethlehem cannot be a change?
Part of the problem is that the terminology is being discussed in a rather fuzzy way.
Obviously something changed in some sense. The question impacting the debate is whether or not what changed is in some way a challenge to the reformed concept of the immutability of God and I think that a pretty fair case can be made that it does not.
The incarnation does not constitute a change in the nature, desire or purpose of God.
Part of the problem is that the terminology is being discussed in a rather fuzzy way.
Obviously something changed in some sense. The question impacting the debate is whether or not what changed is in some way a challenge to the reformed concept of the immutability of God and I think that a pretty fair case can be made that it does not.
The incarnation does not constitute a change in the nature, desire or purpose of God.
If immutability is restricted to God's nature, desire and purpose, then you should have no problem saying that God could and did change His mind in accordance with the repentance or rebellion of men.
If immutability is restricted to God's nature, desire and purpose, then you should have no problem saying that God could and did change His mind in accordance with the repentance or rebellion of men.
I should have no problem provided that you could demonstrate that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, which I would argue you could not.
I should have no problem provided that you could demonstrate that God does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of the future, which I would argue you could not.
It's your idea. You have to establish that He does.
And meanwhile, you have dodged the question again. Jesus went from being not a baby in Bethlehem to being a baby in Bethlehem. Why is it unreasonable to call this a change?
That's an interesting attempt at shifting the burden of proof historically.
Is it not the case that historical Christian belief maintains God's exaustive Foreknowledge?
Nevertheless, this is really just a tangent.
Stripe said:
And meanwhile, you have dodged the question again. Jesus went from being not a baby in Bethlehem to being a baby in Bethlehem. Why is it unreasonable to call this a change?
I went from wearing khaki slacks yesterday to wearing jeans today.
There is a change but what is implied by the change? My nature didn't change, my will, plan or purpose didn't change. I put one something that I didn't have on yesterday and that's all that changed.
And that's the problem. You have yet to define what you mean by "change."
What, specifically, are you claiming changed?
Are you claiming that the divine nature of the Son changed?
Are you claiming that God's purpose or plan or will changed?
I have already said that it constitutes some level of change I just deny that it is a change in the nature, purpose or plan of God.
That's an interesting attempt at shifting the burden of proof historically. Is it not the case that historical Christian belief maintains God's exaustive Foreknowledge?
Fortunately, the truth of the matter does not depend on what people have believed -- it depends upon what the bible teaches. You make the claim, you support it.
Yip. I asked a simple question and it has not been addressed.
Jesus arrived on Earth as a baby. Before that, He was not a baby. I think this can reasonably be called a change. Can you show us why it should not be called a change?
I went from wearing khaki slacks yesterday to wearing jeans today. There is a change but what is implied by the change? My nature didn't change, my will, plan or purpose didn't change. I put one something that I didn't have on yesterday and that's all that changed.
We are not talking about clothes. We are talking about the incarnation. Jesus was not a man, then He took on the likeness of man. How is that not a change?
And that's the problem. You have yet to define what you mean by "change."
Jesus arrived on Earth as a baby. Before that, He was not a baby. I think this can reasonably be called a change. Can you show us why it should not be called a change?
If you think that by showing that in the incarnation something changed that you have dismantled reformed theology you are mistaken.
Immutability, as we define it, means that God's nature, plans, purposes, etc, do not change, not that God does not interact with His creation.
Stripe said:
We are not talking about clothes. We are talking about the incarnation. Jesus was not a man, then He took on the likeness of man. How is that not a change?
No we aren't talking about changing cloths were are talking about something else changing, the problem is that you don't appear to be willing to tell us what you think changed.
I know what change means, I also know that what is changed is determined by the specific circumstances.
A man changing pants is not the same things as a man undergoing a surgical procedure to change his gender. Both are changes, one changes the man, the other doesn't.
Reformed theology -actually classical Christian theology - claims that God did not change in the incarnation. His nature, plan and purpose remained the same.
Stripe said:
Before the incarnation, Jesus was not a baby in the manger. Then, afterward, He was.
Jesus Christ had a birthday
on that day he became the son of God then he died rose from the dead
NOW we say he is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Really? You cut open an orange. Did it 'change?' What specifically changed? Did the seeds change? Did the orange juice change? Did the peel stop being a peel? Did the pulp change? You can argue for a negligable change, but it is certainly not 'dumb' to say that the orange didn't change. It is more consistently the same than 'changed' (supposedly).
What 'specifically' changed with the orange? I'm saying not really anything, it is still an orange.
This sounds like incarnational Sonship. I think it is more biblically defensible to say that at Jesus' divine conception, the Son of God was united with a human nature.
Way 2 go said:
Jesus as a baby in the womb dependent on his mother that's change.
Can you highlight or summarize the part in here that shows how going from not being a baby in Bethlehem to being a baby in Bethlehem cannot be a change?
The plainspoken answer lies in the Spoiler in my post. Did you read it? It was quite perspicuous.
That baby possessed fully divine and fully human natures. These two natures were and are without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. The Divine Logos that assumed the human nature did not integrate that human nature into His divine being. In other words, no ontological change occurred in the nature of the Divine Logos that assumed a human nature.
The same Divine Logos that assumed a human nature on earth was still in heaven upholding the universe and everywhere present...the same divine being. To deny this is thus assuming the Divine Logos in heaven is now strictly confined to the glorified human flesh of that baby that grew to manhood. This would mean no omnipresence for God for starters, for we know glorified bodies are not everywhere present.
Of course this also leads you right into Catholicism that summons our Lord back to earth with every ringing of the bell at mass (transubstantiation), or to Lutheran notions of consubstantiation.
For two natures to reside in one man is not difficult to understand. Consider how much more benevolently does the eternal Logos reside in the person of Jesus Christ and in perfect harmony with Jesus' human nature (forget notions of monothelitism and Nestorianism).
Think of the many heresies the church has denounced about this topic. The Divine Logos assuming a human nature in an indissoluble union is not (errors shown in boldface):
1. a denial that Christ was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that Christ had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that Jesus existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).
Hopefully you will return to my earlier response and re-read it in light of the above. I think it will come to a smart man like you.
Why folks would think the church was defenseless against these heresies and men were not filled with the same Spirit then as they are now to give answers such that something "new" is now being discovered escapes me. Each one of the errors identified above is pregnant with detailed writings by the church militant available to all who would seek to really learn more. Coming to a greater knowledge of these matters on a discussion site is an impossible substitute for doing so--tolle lege.
Each and every person who denies the above falls into one or more of the categorized heresies noted above. Someone who would willingly adopt such a position does so at their potential temporal and/or eternal peril. I would hope that after all the guffawing or mockery in this discussion that tickles itching ears or feeds egos is forgotten, persons will go away into their private spaces to pray, study, and think carefully about this matter. There are only two important questions in this life: "Who is God?" and "Who is Jesus Christ?". I pray for God to give all who are open to the instruction of Scripture discernment via the Holy Spirit.
Before He came to Earth, He was not a baby in Bethlehem, then, later, He was a baby in Bethlehem. That looks like a change to me, regardless of what you want to call it a change to. Perhaps it could be called a change in state. :idunno:
Your questions seem irrelevant. God is said to be immutable -- unchanging -- yet going from not being a baby inside His mother to being a baby inside His mother seems like a very major change.
Immutability, as we define it, means that God's nature, plans, purposes, etc, do not change, not that God does not interact with His creation.
OK, if that is all immutability is, then God can change His mind, he can change His appearance, He can change His short-term plans, He can change a lot of things. So when you say "immutable," it's not all that accurate.
No we aren't talking about changing cloths were are talking about something else changing, the problem is that you don't appear to be willing to tell us what you think changed.
Before He came to Earth, He was not a baby. After He came to Earth, He was.
Reformed theology -actually classical Christian theology - claims that God did not change in the incarnation. His nature, plan and purpose remained the same.
The plainspoken answer lies in the Spoiler in my post. Did you read it? It was quite perspicuous.
That baby possessed fully divine and fully human natures. These two natures were and are without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. The Divine Logos that assumed the human nature did not integrate that human nature into His divine being. In other words, no ontological change occurred in the nature of the Divine Logos that assumed a human nature.
So immutability is limited to change in a few aspects of God, but He can change other things, like going from not being a baby to being a baby.
When Calvinists say "immutability," they do not mean that God cannot change anything -- just that He cannot change some fundamental aspects.
Right?
The same Divine Logos that assumed a human nature on earth was still in heaven upholding the universe and everywhere present...the same divine being. To deny this is thus assuming the Divine Logos in heaven is now strictly confined to the glorified human flesh of that baby that grew to manhood. This would mean no omnipresence for God for starters, for we know glorified bodies are not everywhere present.
I posted the youtube video until I heard all the profanity. So I had to delete it, because I do not want to get banned again for posting profanity. I do not remember all that profanity when I watched it a couple years ago.
If you all are interested they discuss the theological aspects of baby Jesus versus the bearded grown up Jesus pretty thoroughly in that clip.
It's pretty easy to find. Just type in "Talladega Nights baby Jesus" in the youtube search field and hit enter.
No, of course not. The change is that He was a baby on Earth.
Yes, of course. The change is that He was a baby on Earth.
Before He came to Earth, He was not a baby in Bethlehem, then, later, He was a baby in Bethlehem. That looks like a change to me, regardless of what you want to call it a change to. Perhaps it could be called a change in state. :idunno:
Your questions seem irrelevant. God is said to be immutable -- unchanging -- yet going from not being a baby inside His mother to being a baby inside His mother seems like a very major change.
OK, if that is all immutability is, then God can change His mind, he can change His appearance, He can change His short-term plans, He can change a lot of things. So when you say "immutable," it's not all that accurate.
Before He came to Earth, He was not a baby. After He came to Earth, He was.
However, before He was incarnated, He was not a baby. That looks like a change to me.
He changed from being God without the form of humanity to being God in human form.
I know. He was still God after He changed.
However, there was still a change.
So immutability is limited to change in a few aspects of God, but He can change other things, like going from not being a baby to being a baby.
When Calvinists say "immutability," they do not mean that God cannot change anything -- just that He cannot change some fundamental aspects.
Before He came to Earth, He was not a baby in Bethlehem, then, later, He was a baby in Bethlehem. That looks like a change to me, regardless of what you want to call it a change to. Perhaps it could be called a change in state. :idunno:
This question is critically important because without answering it you haven't proven anything nor disproved anything. Jesus being born looks like some kind of change to everyone, this is not some earth shattering new revelation.
But what is changed? Is God's purpose, plan, mind, will or nature being changed?
If not then the reformed doctrine of Immutability stands in tact and you have tilted at windmills.
Stripe said:
Your questions seem irrelevant. God is said to be immutable -- unchanging -- yet going from not being a baby inside His mother to being a baby inside His mother seems like a very major change.
You are pushing down a straw man here Stripe. Reformed theology does not posit that nothing that God does changes, it posits that God is immutable in His nature, plan, purpose mind and will.
Stripe said:
OK, if that is all immutability is, then God can change His mind, he can change His appearance, He can change His short-term plans, He can change a lot of things. So when you say "immutable," it's not all that accurate.
Stripe, if you want to actually argue against the reformed doctrine of immutability then you have to first represent it accurately.
The reformed doctrine of immutability may not be immutable enough for you but that's of very little consequence to those of us who still hold to the doctrine.
Stripe said:
When Calvinists say "immutability," they do not mean that God cannot change anything -- just that He cannot change some fundamental aspects.
Close, it means that God cannot, and does not, undergo change in His nature, His plan, His purpose, His desire, His will, etc...
I'd agree that incarnation is a pretty fundamental aspect of redemptive history, no doubt about it. But the incarnation was not a detour, it was the plan from the beginning.
This question is critically important because without answering it you haven't proven anything nor disproved anything. Jesus being born looks like some kind of change to everyone, this is not some earth shattering new revelation.
You are pushing down a straw man here Stripe. Reformed theology does not posit that nothing that God does changes, it posits that God is immutable in His nature, plan, purpose mind and will.
So it's fine if I don't use the word immutable to describe God as long as I uphold that there are things about Him that will never change.
I'd agree that incarnation is a pretty fundamental aspect of redemptive history, no doubt about it. But the incarnation was not a detour, it was the plan from the beginning.
C'mon Stripe, I know you can make more compelling arguments than this.
Calvinist's say that God is immutable in His Nature, Character and Purpose. Calvinists do not argue that God is incapable of initiating change or that God is not capable of being responsive to His creation. The incarnation is not a change in the Nature of God, the Character of God, or the Purpose of God.
Your argument is a classic example of the straw man fallacy.
We agree that God's loving kindness, His goodness and His mercy are among the things that will never change about Him.
We also agree that God went from pre-incarnate to being a baby in the manger who grew up and was executed and then rose and ascended -- all for our salvation. This clearly is a change.
However, I am termed a heretic for saying that God cannot be called immutable.
The problem is that I am a fundamentalist. I stick with the plain meaning unless the plain meaning becomes utterly untenable.
The word immutable is defined as "unchanging over time or unable to be changed."
Now while some of this meaning could be applied to some things about God, it clearly does not apply to everything about Him. When I reject the description of God as immutable, I am not disagreeing with anything plainly taught in the bible.
