James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Good.
And we both believe that God did not have a human soul before Jesus was conceived in the womb, correct?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
"Soul" needs to be defined by both of us.
I believe the soul and spirit are the same thing. They define the life of the being; either Creator or creature.
The soul (life) of God is infinite and without beginning. The soul (life) of man had its beginning in Adam, and man's soul was created in the image of God.
All human souls (life) issue forth from the first man, and are made manifest from conception in the womb.
Being conceived in the womb by the Holy Spirit, the soul of the Christ Child was Divine, but being born of a woman, His soul also issued forth from His own human creation.
The breath of life the baby Jesus took, is the same breath God breathed into Adam.
Life, body, and soul all come from God, so to say that Jesus, who was God the Son in Person, had no human soul until conception, gets a little tricky.
Do you believe Jesus the Christ was no Person, until He was conceived in the womb of Mary?
What about John 1:14?
Okay.
I have a great deal I could say about this, but I don't want to get off on any rabbit trails.
Please elaborate. It appears that you are saying that Jesus has two souls/spirits. Is this correct? If so, then you would have to conclude that His human soul was not in existence prior to conception.
Do you believe that the soul of every man (other than Jesus) is the result of a conception, or is the conception decreed by God because God has already created the soul? Do you see what I'm asking.
Since I believe that the "Person" of Jesus is His eternal soul, and not the body prepared for Him, then I believe that Jesus is eternal God, who became a man whose soul is eternal.
It confirms what I just said.
The eternal Word was made flesh.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I am saying that the life of Jesus had two sources; both given by God. He was conceived by Divine life and issued forth from a living mother.
He possessed a human soul (living nature) and a divine soul (living deity). From this comes the language of the hypostatic union of two natures; human and divine.
This would logically be so, if He had been conceived apart from the Holy Spirit . . . but this conception points to His actual Person, first and foremost. IOW's before Jesus the Christ manifested Himself in flesh, His Personhood existed as the Logos of God, and was God. John 1:1-14
I am a Traducianist. I believe all souls were created in Adam. Excepting the human soul of Jesus, which was assumed in the womb of woman, as decreed and promised in Genesis 3:15, fufilling the prophecy that Eve was the mother (source) of all living.
Yes, this is what I thought, and why I asked for your definition of soul.
The soul of any creature, defines his purpose. And the purpose of any creature, defines his identity . . . e.g. being animal, angelic, or human.
Assuming a human body and soul, defined and manifested the purpose of Jesus Christ. This purpose proves to be His very Person.
I contend the divine Person of God the Son, assumed a human body/soul with the purpose to redeem and reconcile fallen man with God. The Personhood of Christ is Mediator between man and God, and I believe He has always been Mediator, Savior, Prophet, Priest, and King.
But so far, you are not factoring in or explaining why Jesus possessed a human nature (soul).
This is only understood by looking at His Person, which was God the Son. And God the Son is distinguished by His eternal purpose. Which was the salvation of fallen men. Which necessitated He assume the flesh and blood of His brethren. (Hebrews 2:9-3:6)
Ordinary human souls do not possess divine personhood, because they do not live with the same purposes, knowledge, and beliefs of God. They have corrupted their souls and all fall short of the glory of God.
Jesus was born a Man, but His human soul submitted and conformed totally to the Divine Persons (purposes) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus His human soul is as eternal as His divine soul; proven by His resurrection and ascension from temporal death to everlasting life.
And it is the conformance of our human minds, wills, and natures (soul) to the Person (purposes) of our Savior, that changes and raises us from death to everlasting life.
Faith is the gift of God that justifies our souls, by revealing to us the purposes, knowledge, and beliefs that exist within the very Triune Godhead . . . bringing us into union with the Person of God the Son.
So all I am saying, is that I believe distinction needs to be made between soul and Person, when speaking of the hypostatic union of natures in the incarnation of the Christ of God.
There was an eternal reason and purpose for the Son of God manifesting in time, as the Son of Man.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Yep, we are not even close.
And there it is.
Hebrews 2:9-3:6
If the above was His eternal purpose (which defines His Person) where do you find any change?
If He was once without a human nature and is now with a human nature, that is a change. Just because a change is purposed, that does not equate to no change being executed.
He was certainly not human until that time.
I don't have the slightest idea how someone could read terms like "became" or "was made" and be unaware those words imply some sort of change. :idunno:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Assuming a human nature, did not change the Person of God the Son . . . but this is where the discussion began.
And remember, the fallen human nature only produces dead souls.
That was not the state of human nature in the beginning, when man was created a living soul in the image of God.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Unless the incarnation manifested all that the Person of God the Son has always been in glory?
And He was promised to come from the Seed of woman, as the Savior, in the beginning . . . carried as a human seed throughout all the generations prior to His birth, as recorded in the genealogies of godly men, and the tribe of Judah, and the direct offspring of King David.
This human "Seed" was the foundation of all the Messianic promises, in whom Abraham, who is the father of our faith, placed all his beliefs which declared him "righteous."
Fulfillment of prophecy and promises, can hardly be called "change."
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Wow. A foul-mouthed Semi-Apollinarian confusedly referring to Chalcedonianists as Nestorians/Semi-Nestorians, and without ANY references whatsoever to Greek terms to define anything in a low-context format while soaring on puffed-up gnosis of high-context concepts that aren't even compatible or tenable.
What a cluster devoid of sozo by Sozo. Unbearable to watch. It's only a half-step away from Sozo being a Docetist, and fading fast.
Sad or hilarious. I can't decide. But everyone else must be a moron cuz Sozo said so. My alleged pomposity can't possibly hold a candle to this miasmic menagerie of narcissistic nothingess.
What a cluster devoid of sozo by Sozo. Unbearable to watch. It's only a half-step away from Sozo being a Docetist, and fading fast.
Sad or hilarious. I can't decide. But everyone else must be a moron cuz Sozo said so. My alleged pomposity can't possibly hold a candle to this miasmic menagerie of narcissistic nothingess.
I find this whole conversation to be quite silly, but it becomes quite clear when you start talking English instead of theospeak. Was God the Son always a human? No, of course he was not. Did prophecy say that He would become a man and die for our sins? Sure, I will agree with that. Still, you should admit that going from not being human to being human is a pretty big change.
We are not, as you might assume, claiming that the essence of who He is changed in any way. Certainly God the Son has never changed in His perfection and in His righteousness.
I know, right?
A whole lot of words to say very little. You are full of hot air.
Dialogos
Well-known member
Which means you have not yet challenged the doctrine of immutability.Delmar said:
The doctrine of immutability (insofar as it is essential to Calvinism) means that God does not change in his essence, moral character, or Divine purpose.
God was just as Divine before the incarnation as after the incarnation and was just as Divine after the incarnation as before. Furthermore, God was just has Holy Before the incarnation as after and just as Holy after as before. God's purpose was not altered in the least in the incarnation, in fact, the incarnation was the working out of God's Divine decree from the beginning.
So in one sense, God did not change.
And really that is what this conversation is lacking, specificity.
Most of this conversation, minus the most recent demonstrations of apollinarian heresy, is a semantic argument. Like two kids who are arguing if a quarter changed when a dime was added to it.
One kid wants to get the other to admit that by adding to the amount of money, there is a change, the other is trying desperately to point out that the quarter is still very much the same as it was before the dime was added because it is still a quarter.
What is missing is specificity.
Honestly, we have to get beyond four and five word sentences to describe the incarnation.
Open Theist: "The incarnation was a change."
Calvinist: "God remained the same."
Both are true.
The incarnation was a change, but a change in what?
It was a change in the way God dealt with man. It was a change in the manifest presence of God among His creation. It was a permanent change in the temporal experience of the Second Person of the Trinity. The word becoming flesh is a big deal! But it was also not a change. It did not change the Divine essence of the Second Person of the Trinity, it did not change the character of God nor was it an alteration of God's eternal purpose. Then incarnation and the doctrine of immutability are not at cross purposes, they are actually complimentary doctrines. For if God were mutable, the Word might never have become flesh. God might have given up on humanity and changed His mind about redemption.
If the dime is added, that is not a change to the quarter, if the dime and the quarter become a .35 cent piece, that is a change to the quarter and to the dime.
Dialogos
Well-known member
Right.
The two natures of Christ are not intermingled.
That's another heresy.
Its called Eutychianism, and the logical conclusion is the denial of Christ's full humanity (ergo, no more dime) and also implies that the Divine Nature of the Second Person of the Trinity intermingled with the human (ergo, no more quarter) making Jesus some kind of demigod rather than fully God and fully Man.
Jesus is like two coins in one hand. Two natures, One Person.
Do you agree with the following from CARM...
The Christian doctrine concerning Jesus' two natures is called the hypostatic union. It is the teaching that the Divine Word of God (John 1:1) "became flesh and dwelt among us," (John 1:14). Therefore, Jesus is both divine and human in one person (Col. 2:9); He has two natures: human and divine. But some who oppose the Trinity and Jesus' incarnation (the Divine Word becoming a man) say that if Jesus is God in flesh, this must mean that God's nature changed because God added a human nature to His divine nature. This would violate Malachi 3:6 which says that God does not change. But, the union of the two natures of Jesus in one person does not constitute a change in the nature of God.
Since the hypostatic union teaches that in the one person of Jesus there are two natures, the divine nature of Jesus is not affected by union with the human nature because there is no fusion of the two natures. That is, the divine nature is not combined with the human nature to make a third thing. This would be the error known as monophysitism. Jesus is not a new third thing with a fused-together new nature. Instead, it is a union. An example of a union is marriage between a man and a woman. Each is separate, but in marriage " . . . they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24), yet they remain two distinct individuals. They are not blended into a new third thing. Fusion, on the other hand, can be illustrated by combining copper and zinc together to form a new third thing called brass. In this case, the two elements lose their identity and are merged together into something new. But in a union, the elements do not lose their identity or nature. The hypostatic union is not a hypostatic fusion, and the two natures of Jesus do not lose their distinction; and they are not altered.
Furthermore, within the union of the two natures in the one person of Christ, the divine nature is still divine; and the human nature is still human. One is not altered by the presence of the other anymore than my spirit in me is altered in nature by its indwelling a physical body. Likewise, the divine Word is not altered by indwelling human flesh.
Finally, the doctrine of the Trinity is that God is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This does not mean three gods. There is only one God. The Trinitarian nature of God is not altered by the union of the Word with humanity since it was the divine Word that humbled Himself to become a man (John 1:1, 14; Phil. 2:5-8)--not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by definition, the Trinity is unaffected by the union of the Word with humanity in the incarnation of Jesus.
Source
The Christian doctrine concerning Jesus' two natures is called the hypostatic union. It is the teaching that the Divine Word of God (John 1:1) "became flesh and dwelt among us," (John 1:14). Therefore, Jesus is both divine and human in one person (Col. 2:9); He has two natures: human and divine. But some who oppose the Trinity and Jesus' incarnation (the Divine Word becoming a man) say that if Jesus is God in flesh, this must mean that God's nature changed because God added a human nature to His divine nature. This would violate Malachi 3:6 which says that God does not change. But, the union of the two natures of Jesus in one person does not constitute a change in the nature of God.
Since the hypostatic union teaches that in the one person of Jesus there are two natures, the divine nature of Jesus is not affected by union with the human nature because there is no fusion of the two natures. That is, the divine nature is not combined with the human nature to make a third thing. This would be the error known as monophysitism. Jesus is not a new third thing with a fused-together new nature. Instead, it is a union. An example of a union is marriage between a man and a woman. Each is separate, but in marriage " . . . they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24), yet they remain two distinct individuals. They are not blended into a new third thing. Fusion, on the other hand, can be illustrated by combining copper and zinc together to form a new third thing called brass. In this case, the two elements lose their identity and are merged together into something new. But in a union, the elements do not lose their identity or nature. The hypostatic union is not a hypostatic fusion, and the two natures of Jesus do not lose their distinction; and they are not altered.
Furthermore, within the union of the two natures in the one person of Christ, the divine nature is still divine; and the human nature is still human. One is not altered by the presence of the other anymore than my spirit in me is altered in nature by its indwelling a physical body. Likewise, the divine Word is not altered by indwelling human flesh.
Finally, the doctrine of the Trinity is that God is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This does not mean three gods. There is only one God. The Trinitarian nature of God is not altered by the union of the Word with humanity since it was the divine Word that humbled Himself to become a man (John 1:1, 14; Phil. 2:5-8)--not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by definition, the Trinity is unaffected by the union of the Word with humanity in the incarnation of Jesus.
Source