Posted by AU on 8/25/2001, 5:38 pm

Still more comments. Posted by Steve B. on 7/3/2001, 9:50 pm , in reply to "Re: More comments..." Cliff, You write You are absolutely convinced that begotten, to Jesus, does not mean the same thing as it does for everyone else in scripture. You are correct—I do believe it means something different for Jesus. And so do you, if you believe in the virgin birth as related in the scriptures. But beyond this, it means something different for Jesus because Jesus is the only person who is both God and man. Terms which apply only to his humanity are therefore not going to absolutely define him, because in addition to being man, Jesus is also God. The case of Solomon and David is not completely analogous because Solomon was not both man and God, as was Jesus. You also write We can spar all week when you change the definition of basic words. I don't view this as sparring—I'm relating the answers to objections I myself once held against trinitarian doctrine. Having investigated it for myself, instead of relying upon what the Chapel told us about it, I've found those objections to be mainly without merit. Trinitarian theology is much more coherent and much more Biblically-based than I expected. I'm trying to explain this to people that still believe as I once did, and I find the experience very interesting. Secondly, I'm not changing the definition of words but rather noting that words are not always used in the same sense. One must pay attention to the context of the verse and the intent of the passage. This is so self-evident that it is almost a truism. In fact, you have conceded this yourself when you noted (in another thread) that the word “repent” is not applied the same way in I Sam. 15:29 (the Lord “will not lie nor repent”) as it is in Genesis 6:6 (“he repented himself” that he had made man). You also write My point was that you are willing to abandon logic, itself when you cannot produce a result that fits your theology. Sorry, I can't let you get away with that cheap shot. My remarks were meant to show that logic is sometimes inadequate for determining ultimate truth, and should not be used as the decisive instrument in judging things that are revealed in the scriptures. But since you are convinced otherwise, please give me an explanation of Christ walking on water that does not logically contradict known laws of physics, and I will admit that I am wrong. You also write Likewise, if Christ died on the cross...you need to consider what or who died. That is a pivotal spot in the nature of Christianity, and with that weight you are what you are. JW, Christian Scientist, Trinitarian, Oneness, etc.... No, again I must emphatically disagree. It is not only one's view of Christ in his death, but also one's view of who he is in his life and resurrection that shows what you are, theologically speaking. Because one cannot describe the metaphysics of his death with certainty does not mean that one can drop the scriptures that show Jesus was much more than a man in whom God dwelt, or that his deity was due to his existence with God and as God in the beginning. In other words, speculative room around the union of the two natures in Christ does not make it worth flirting with cultic theology, in my opinion. You also write If you think God, or any portion of Him, can die, our discussion is over. I don't have any problem with that, but don't go around telling people later that Trinitarians always evade your questions: I do indeed think that the scriptures leave me no other choice than to believe in one sense that God himself suffered and died so I would not have to. The remaining adherents of UROG, as well as the "Jesus is not God" folks, always start foaming at the mouth at this point. No wonder they think they have so much insight into what the “strict monotheism” of first-century Judaism was like—they know exactly what the Pharisees felt like when they heard things that implied Jesus himself was God. Sincerely, Steve ---------- God with us Posted by Steve M on 7/3/2001, 10:59 pm , in reply to "More comments..." Steve B, You stated: "...he was also more than a man—he was God himself come to visit his people, as the scripture constantly remind us,..." I happen to agree with this statement - it seems to harmonize with "he that has seen me has seen the Father", a scripture which we have discussed before. Immanuel. God with us. We all believe that - I don't see how "...the Chapel's theology ultimately failed to preserve" it. Thanks, SM ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 7/4/2001, 9:33 am , in reply to "God with us" Steve, You write I don't see how "...the Chapel's theology ultimately failed to preserve" it. The key thing here is whether Jesus himself was God, or if he was a man in whom God dwelt. If Jesus is a man in whom God dwelt, then Jesus himself is not really God. By contrast, I believe that the scriptures show that Jesus' deity was due to the fact that he was in the form (the Greek word morphe here specifies a form determined by one's inner nature) of God before he was made in the likeness of man, as Philippians 2 states. By denying that this is a picture of Jesus' deity, and instead saying his deity was due only to the fact that God dwelt in the human Jesus, the Chapel failed to preserve the complete doctrine of Jesus' deity. They instead substituted a half-truth that some of the survivors of the Chapel are now saying is the basis for their own doctrine that Jesus is not God. That is what I meant. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by Cliff on 7/4/2001, 12:02 am , in reply to "Still more comments." We are back to fundamental definitions of words. I say beget -begotten is exactly the same for all creatures, including Christ, regardless of type and genus. Birth. The time of beginning. It has nothing to do with the composition of the one begotten. Because your position demands that Christ in a spiritual form existed before he was born, you require the definition to migrate. "This day, I have begotten thee" cannot, in any rational sense contribute to a definition of "eternal begetting". The crime against language here, is to say that "eternal begetting" actually makes sense. If God wanted to say that there was an eternally existing relationship of Father to Son, he would have the wisdom and ability to express it. These are "words". Words have context in human language. There is no concept of "eternal begetting" anywhere on this planet. It was invented as an interpretation of difficult scriptures and is outside of the realm of common sense. God does not do that. Likewise in saying that God had to in some form die, you either mutate the definition of the concept "death" or you change the nature of God. I do neither. To me death is the same for all circumstances. A spirit cannot die. God is spirit. "Unless you believe that Christ died in the flesh, you are yet in your sins." If you believe that God went through that death on the cross, in any form, then he went through it. He didn't die in the same way. If you want to consider spiritual death...then that can only be define as separation from God. If that be the case on the cross, then there is quite an interesting case of split personality going on. ---------- "Eternal begetting" Posted by Steve B. on 7/4/2001, 9:28 am , in reply to "Re: Still more comments." Cliff, Your primary concern in this posting seems to be the concept of "eternal begetting." That, however, is not an essential part of trinitarian doctrine. It is only one explanation of how Christ can be eternal and yet also be described as begotten. There are others, such as that "begotten" is a term that applies only to the human existence of Christ. Many trinitarian, protestant commentators and theologians (Adam Clarke is one who comes immediately to mind) have also taken vigorous exception to the concept of “eternal generation” or “eternal begetting” in the same way you do. To me, it is enough that the scripture plainly presents Christ as both. I'm not asked by the scriptures to come up with a theory of how it can be completely explained in human terms, only shown the evidence and invited to believe. Sincerely, Steve