James White to Debate Bob Enyart on Open Theism

[S0ZO]

Who are you asking?

If you are asking me, then 'yes' I absolutely agree.

Good to know.

Would also like to see if AMR, Nang, and Bob Enyart (if he reads this) agree.

 

[Nang]

Good to know.

Would also like to see if AMR, Nang, and Bob Enyart (if he reads this) agree.

It is generally a good statement, but I am not comfortable with the following language:

". . . the divine Word that humbled Himself to become a man . . ."

 

[S0ZO]

It is generally a good statement, but I am not comfortable with the following language:

". . . the divine Word that humbled Himself to become a man . . ."

Is that the only thing?

 

[glorydaz]

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.

Me too. I don't see anyone denying the Lord Jesus Christ is God, and I don't see anyone denying He is man. What I do see is man trying to claim he understands just how God accomplished that. It's like an ant trying to understand how a guy walks out to his car, lifts his feet off the ground, and then somehow zooms away and disappears. :think:

 

[Nang]

Is that the only thing?

Well, I think this is an awkward statement, that could easily be misunderstood:

"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."

I prefer the language of the WCF:

"The Son of God, the second Person in 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 Himself man's nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities, thereof, yet without sin, being conceived by the Holy Spirit, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that the two, whole, perfect, and distinct natures; the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one Person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which Person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ; the only Mediator between God and man." WCF, Chapter VII, Article II

(Emphasis, mine)

IMO, this is far superior (biblical) language than the general statement you quoted from CARM.

 

[Tambora]

So in one sense, God did not change.

One could certainly say that.

One could also say that in one sense, God did change.

is a semantic argument.

Agreed.
Which is why to go to the extreme with either sense will usually lead to some sort of heretical statement. And is why both sides can point to something said and say it contradicts.

Too much reliance of our human logic can lead to us having too little godly belief.

The Son was eternal, and yet was born. Believe it.
The Son was life, and yet died. Believe it.
etc.

 

[Nang]

One could certainly say that.

One could also say that in one sense, God did change.


Agreed.

It is so important we are all very careful with our language on this subject, to avoid heretical and false teachings. History has presented the visible churches of God with all kinds of examples of how the Incarnation can be taught badly.

God is immutable. To use the word "change" or to suggest "mutability" regarding His Godhead or purposes, is very serious.

There have been different economies and administrations revealed during the history of God's workings with men, but all contained under one everlasting covenant, purpose, and end goal of the Creator.

Which is why to go to the extreme with either sense will usually lead to some sort of heretical statement. And is why both sides can point to something said and say it contradicts.

Too much reliance of our human logic can lead to us having too little godly belief.

Christology is the highest and finest study a believer can ever enjoy, but it must be made according to the Holy Scriptures alone. Every thought or speculation must be taken to the Word of God, and held under scrutiny of what God has deemed to reveal to us. We must resist going beyond Holy Scripture in understanding Jesus Christ and His Incarnation, and we must not omit a word of what Scripture has taught us about God coming in flesh . . . else we endanger ourselves and others to false ideas or concepts.

The Son was eternal, and yet was born. Believe it.
The Son was life, and yet died. Believe it.
etc.

I think I know your reason for these statements, but I cannot agree with them, for it seems to me, you are using the word "Son," speaking of the Second Person in the Godhead, to describe Jesus the Christ; the God/Man, who indeed was born and died.

Of course, Jesus Christ was divine (Colossians 2:9), but some distinction between His works in time and under the Law, must be retained and attributed to His humanity.

 

[Tambora]

The Son was eternal, and yet was born. Believe it.
The Son was life, and yet died. Believe it.
etc.

I think I know your reason for these statements, but I cannot agree with them, for it seems to me, you are using the word "Son," speaking of the Second Person in the Godhead, to describe Jesus the Christ; the God/Man, who indeed was born and died.

My reason for saying it is because it is truth.
The very same person (the Son) was eternal and was born. One cannot be truthful and say one was true and the other was not.
The very same person (the Son) was life and died. One cannot be truthful and say one was true and the other was not.

To claim that both are not true of the same person (the Son) would be heretical.

 

[Nang]

My reason for saying it is because it is truth.
The very same person (the Son) was eternal and was born.

Are you saying God the Son was conceived by God the Holy Spirit?

 

[Tambora]

Are you saying God the Son was conceived by God the Holy Spirit?

What other person do you think was conceived in the womb of the virgin by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Delmar]

Which means you have not yet challenged the doctrine of immutability.

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.

No open view Christian that I know of disagrees with the doctrine of immutability as you have stated it here.

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.

 

[Nang]

What other person do you think was conceived in the womb of the virgin by the Holy Spirit?

You are claiming that the Person of God the Son (the eternal Logos) BEGAN through Godly conception in the womb of Mary?

The Three Persons of the Godhead had no beginning! None of them ever conceived each other, none of them were ever born, and none of them ever died. The Godhead is pure spirit.

You are leaving out a very important human soul . . .

 

[Tambora]

You are claiming that the Person of God the Son (the eternal Logos) BEGAN through Godly conception in the womb of Mary?

The Three Persons of the Godhead had no beginning! None of them ever conceived each other, none of them were ever born, and none of them ever died. The Godhead is pure spirit.

You are leaving out a very important human soul . . .

Again, what other person do you believe was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary?

 

[Nang]

Again, what other person do you believe was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary?

The human body and soul of Jesus, the promised "Seed," was conceived in the womb; was born and later died on the cross, bearing the sins of His brethren.

Jesus the Christ is the manifestation (incarnation) of the second Person in the Godhead; the Logos of God come in flesh, as Mediator between God and men.

Colossians 2:9

 

[Tambora]

The human body and soul of Jesus, the promised "Seed," was conceived in the womb; was born and later died on the cross, bearing the sins of His brethren.

Jesus the Christ is the manifestation (incarnation) of the second Person in the Godhead; the Logos of God come in flesh, as Mediator between God and men.

Colossians 2:9

Is the Son, Jesus, Christ, the same person or not?

 

[Nang]

Is the Son, Jesus, Christ, the same person or not?

Yes, the same Person, but Jesus possessed a human soul (nature) as well as a divine soul (nature).

It cannot be said this Person was born and died, without understanding this Person took upon Himself the humanity of Jesus.

God the Son, in His Person, and by definition, cannot be born nor die; thus the necessity He volitionally take unto Himself flesh (a body and soul) that would be born and die.

God is Spirit, but humanity is flesh and blood. The Son took upon Himself flesh and blood (a body and soul) like His brethren, so He could bear their sins unto death, and resurrect them to glory and everlasting life. (Hebrews 2:9-3:6)

The work of salvation required a body, which God provided to His Son, through the promised "Seed," the Man Jesus, the Christ and Mediator.

You cannot and should not attempt to present a teaching of the Incarnation, using shortcuts or handy little jargons.

If you do, you are going to miss vital components of this most unique miracle and message of Redemption.

It is too deep and holy a matter, to try to simplify God becoming flesh, either by denying or mingling the hypostatic union of natures (souls) it required to accomplish redemption, or by reducing the divine origin (Person) of the Incarnation to purely humanistic levels.

It is a doctrine worthy of our time and most serious contemplation.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Yes, the same Person, but Jesus possessed a human soul (nature) as well as a divine soul (nature).

It cannot be said this Person was born and died, without understanding this Person took upon Himself the humanity of Jesus.

God the Son, in His Person, and by definition, cannot be born nor die; thus the necessity He volitionally take unto Himself flesh (a body and soul) that would be born and die.

God is Spirit, but humanity is flesh and blood. The Son took upon Himself flesh and blood (a body and soul) like His brethren, so He could bear their sins unto death, and resurrect them to glory and everlasting life. (Hebrews 2:9-3:6)

The work of salvation required a body, which God provided to His Son, through the promised "Seed," the Man Jesus, the Christ and Mediator.

You cannot and should not attempt to present a teaching of the Incarnation, using shortcuts or handy little jargons.

If you do, you are going to miss vital components of this most unique miracle and message of Redemption.

It is too deep and holy a matter, to try to simplify God becoming flesh, either by denying or mingling the hypostatic union of natures (souls) it required to accomplish redemption, or by reducing the divine origin (Person) of the Incarnation to purely humanistic levels.

It is a doctrine worthy of our time and most serious contemplation.

You'll likely never convince the self-absorbed Eutychians, Apollinarians, Nestorians, Cyrilians, or Monophysites (or those with "Semi-" positions of those).

I've even abated my own criticisms of parts of Theology Proper because of the wholesale onslaught against appropriate Christology, especially by (apparently) the Open Theists. No wonder they're deluded about the Incarnation.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

Dead souls, huh?

 

[glorydaz]

It is so important we are all very careful with our language on this subject, to avoid heretical and false teachings.

Yeah, like "dead souls".

 

[glorydaz]

The human body and soul of Jesus, the promised "Seed," was conceived in the womb; was born and later died on the cross, bearing the sins of His brethren.

Jesus the Christ is the manifestation (incarnation) of the second Person in the Godhead; the Logos of God come in flesh, as Mediator between God and men.

Colossians 2:9

A mediator is not the mediator of one....God is one. More than our Lord's humanity was required, but you claim otherwise? Is that true?