Yes, but, when you equate it to compass points there is one missing. Not an obvious fit for this guy.
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Yes, but, when you equate it to compass points there is one missing. Not an obvious fit for this guy.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Interesting point.
N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW.
That's 8.
Which one of those is off limits to the Omnipresence of God?
you forgot EW WE NS SN !!! and The Southern Cross !!
Arsenios
Well-known member
Well, if the Image of God in man IS the hypostasis of man, then the only ostensive grasp we have is person, and I repeat, God is Person... That is how I encountered Him, and that is how He is described in the Bible, say when Ananias was sent by God to cure Paul's blindness and baptize him into Christ... Ananias and God were having a conversation, and that cannot happen except between two persons... And the remarkable part of that account is the almost casual response of Ananias to God - A man who talked with God a lot...
THAT therefore is what we're here for, I say!
Of course one can... A commonplace in Orthodoxy is the understanding that a pretty sure way to lose the Gifts of the Spirit is to talk about them... But beyond that, I don't care HOW much you talk about making something from nothing, you will NEVER explain it, and it will ALWAYS be a Mystery that God does it.
He brings existence out of non-existence...
Not only can you not understand it, you cannot assert it, except by analogy, and you know the labyrinthian dead ends THAT methodology ends up in enswampment with crocodiles...
NO histrionic foot stamping!
We do affirm that He is the ONLY Self-Existent One, and that he is the Creator Who brings existence into being out of non-existence... We also, Biblically attested, I might add, affirm Him as Divine Darkness which no man can see... Hence the Dark Sayings of the Spirit... So He neither is an existent nor a non-existent, but is the Cause and Source of both, being neither, yet Self-existent...
I can live with that...
I know it gives you fits...
So big whupp if we don't agree...
It doesn't mean y'er Mom wears combat boots...
Or mine either...
No Prom Queen nose high Exit Stage Left histrionics!
Jes' sayin'...
Arsenios
Yes, that is the Unitarian/Christadelphian view, based on a misunderstanding of the term Logos and other things.
The Son is most definitely the beginning of creation, but not Himself created. He is Theanthropos, not anthropos only.
You will never agree. I can accept that as reality. I understand your position explicitly and exhaustively. You don't really understand the orthodox Trinity doctrine, nor my aversion to it and correction of it. I can live with that, too.
Thanks for your cordiality.
You have not understood what I have said.
Your position requires that God died at the cross,
or that only a part of Christ died.
Jesus was a man fully as the Bible says.
However that is too hard for you to believe, yet it is the cornerstone of all true belief.
1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
LA
Arsenios
Well-known member
Ananias did...
So did Paul...
So did Abraham...
People who encounter God in Person encounter a Person...
My personal experience is just that: Personal.
Arsenios -
The used-to-be atheist...
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Who stubbed his toe, swept his own house, and now is in cohorts with the 7 more wicked spirits.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
You missed the simple explanation of the idiom, if you'd like to go back and reread briefly.
Arsenios
Well-known member
The toe-stub came when I was an atheist...
I am either sweeping or failing to sweep my own house all the time...
So are you...
Nice to have a kindred Brother...
A sinner, just like me...
Arsenios
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I put my broom down.
You missed the simple explanation of the idiom, if you'd like to go back and reread briefly.
Okie Dokie ...
Yup
...and I would add Koine Greek to that list … relatively speaking … that's why I keep inviting everyone back to the culture and language that started all this when trying to understand it.
Indeed, the typological and intagible is what it is all about, I suspect, when you are talking about God's word and His ability to communicate it to us in our present state.
… and yet there is still that candelabra staring at you trying to impart it's God given message ... one of several references to a number whose Biblical significance might be safely said to be under appreciated.
Lon
Well-known member
How is your Christology? Quiz
How is your Christology? Quiz
AMR gave to me, another orthodox test concerning the truths of Christ.
See how orthodox you are on Christology (I didn't like the 'wording' of some of these, though they are orthodox and it is important for me to embrace terms that may or may not be how I would word them). Iow, it was a great test for me to check myself. Praying the same and hopefully it will spark a few pages of Christology of Our Triune God. -Lon
For the first time, in a long time, taking orthodox tests, I missed 1 (one).
Some of my differences (and the one I got wrong):
5. Jesus has a human body, but a divine mind.
"But" being the operative here. He does certainly have a human body and a divine mind, but not ONLY a divine mind. He was fully human.
(on some of these, I'd been too semantically picky but I wouldn't count it wrong if you said 'true' unless you meant He didn't have a human will and mind)
6. Jesus has two natures which are mixed together to form one nature.
It is a difficult question to answer because you are told in the question "Two" then asked if 'One.' Eutychianism is a heresy, the site explains, that doesn't recognize both of Christ's natures: That He was fully God and fully man.
7. Jesus has two wills, not one will.
On this one, I was 'wrong.' "Not My 'will' but Thine" left doubt to me, that Christ was talking about one-will only, BUT such a verse does not disclude a divine will. In the flesh, Christ indeed was tempted as man, but also carried the will of God, incredibly different than you and I. It made Christ unique and it is true He had both. I stand corrected on this point.
11. Jesus was born in 1 AD.
False is the safe bet, since other guesses place it within a 6 year either side of BC/AD, but 'false' is not necessarily correct imho. We don't really know for sure so I have never liked this question. It doesn't, imho, need to be part of a Christology quiz without trivializing it, which I'm against. There might be a few important connections to the date of His birth, but missing a year isn't a big deal to me.
How is your Christology? Quiz
AMR gave to me, another orthodox test concerning the truths of Christ.
See how orthodox you are on Christology (I didn't like the 'wording' of some of these, though they are orthodox and it is important for me to embrace terms that may or may not be how I would word them). Iow, it was a great test for me to check myself. Praying the same and hopefully it will spark a few pages of Christology of Our Triune God. -Lon
For the first time, in a long time, taking orthodox tests, I missed 1 (one).
Some of my differences (and the one I got wrong):
5. Jesus has a human body, but a divine mind.
"But" being the operative here. He does certainly have a human body and a divine mind, but not ONLY a divine mind. He was fully human.
(on some of these, I'd been too semantically picky but I wouldn't count it wrong if you said 'true' unless you meant He didn't have a human will and mind)
6. Jesus has two natures which are mixed together to form one nature.
It is a difficult question to answer because you are told in the question "Two" then asked if 'One.' Eutychianism is a heresy, the site explains, that doesn't recognize both of Christ's natures: That He was fully God and fully man.
7. Jesus has two wills, not one will.
On this one, I was 'wrong.' "Not My 'will' but Thine" left doubt to me, that Christ was talking about one-will only, BUT such a verse does not disclude a divine will. In the flesh, Christ indeed was tempted as man, but also carried the will of God, incredibly different than you and I. It made Christ unique and it is true He had both. I stand corrected on this point.
11. Jesus was born in 1 AD.
False is the safe bet, since other guesses place it within a 6 year either side of BC/AD, but 'false' is not necessarily correct imho. We don't really know for sure so I have never liked this question. It doesn't, imho, need to be part of a Christology quiz without trivializing it, which I'm against. There might be a few important connections to the date of His birth, but missing a year isn't a big deal to me.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Kilt? You don't like the Irish or the Welsh or Scott???
God does call us to sound doctrine, and there are dangers of not having or pursuing it.
For whatever worth the links give,
In Him,
-Lon
Are ye daft lad? I AM Irish ... as it concerns the rest ... you'll likely not find too many that have spent the time in the Word that I have ... problem is my only guide was it and so both me and others who came to their understanding of it another way occasionally find ourselves at odds.
Lon
Well-known member
So you HAVE been kilt! Kiltzt, Kilted, Kiltzered....(trews or not?)
Which is 1) why I gave bible verses, and 2) a link concerning the matter. I think it important not to lone-ranger 2 Peter 1:20 our faith. Because I too have read my Bible: It seems to me (given #1) to point to both orthodox truth as well as Body accountability (both #1 and #2) regarding it. :idunno: But this also is what a few elders have told me in conjunction with personal reading that seems to make that a firm condition. Galatians 6:6 :think:
In Him,
-Lon
Well, that is the ongoing debate ... when are you being led to the truth and when are you being led astray and by whom? I would not presume to speak for others but I don't mind speaking for myself in colloquial terms (the land of my nativity being Texas), "If I'm wrong I came by it honest."
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.
One can best understand this mystical union (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.
The union of the divine and the human natures is not:
1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that our Lord 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 our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).
The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as a most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.
Two other useful discussions on the matter of the humanity assumed by Our Lord:
Anhypostasis: What Kind of Flesh Did Jesus Take?
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-jesus-take
Enhypostasis: What Kind of Flesh Did the Word Become?
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become
AMR
You are speaking of Him only after His resurrection.
However the Father of Jesus and Jesus are two persons from the birth of Gods son.
LA