5 Non-Negotiables from the Church Fathers on the Incarnation

[Pancho Frijoles]

Scripture says ideally the Church should be of one mind (not one literal mind in this case), but because of our sin nature it will never be perfect in this life:

Correct. So, being one cannot be considered literal.
Otherwise, we would be losing our free will, our personal identity.

The church is (or should be) "one", but this does not imply that the church is a personal entity. When we say "the church expulsed Brother Jones" we mean that some members of the church, who represent the church according to their internal laws or norms, freely agreed to take the action of expulsing Brother Jones. There was no "person" expulsing Brother Jones.

Same with God.
If you take God as a family, council, board, assembly, institution, etc. God is no longer a personal entity. It is an abstraction that refers to a collective of persons.

Then, John 3:16 means that The Family sent its only begotten son to the world.
But then, is Jesus son of the Father, and son of the Holy Spirit, and son of Himself? Is it son of the council/assembly/family? How a council/assembly/family can have a son?
I am making this question recognizing that "son" is a metaphor. I'm just saying that the metaphor is not appropriate any more... does not make any sense.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes, but a this is kind of a different issue than claiming to know a person's intentions.

Some people can mean well or be genuinely deceived, even Paul said he was ignorant.

There is always ignorance in unbelief. However, many are "willing ignorant". They don't want to know. If they did, they would know.

Paul wanted to know. Big difference.

There is no intentions without words. What he speaks shows his intentions. Which is why I quoted all of it. Not just the little blurb you responded with.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Excellent response

I agree.

However, it must be rightfully witnessed that it is being rejected like so many "other".... "excellent responses".

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Except Jesus inspired the rest of the Bible. So you kinda missed that part as I have mentioned previously.

In studying the Bible, not all passages should be given the same weight to understand doctrine. I think you agree with me.
If the person who is supposed to know more about the subject speaks about the subject directly, in plain language, we better pay heed to what He says.

• Jesus knew better than anyone else who He was, and who The Father was.
• The passage in question (the confession of Peter) is not a poetic passage. It is narrating an event, a conversation.
• Jesus is asking directly a question, and getting a direct answer to that question.
• Jesus is accepting and praising that answer, and even placing it as the rock in which he would found his church, without the slightest modification.

Ergo, that passage has a prominent weight in the discussion.

Same with Jesus having an intimate conversation with his Father in John 17:1-3.

Jesus, one Person, is addressing his Father, another Person, and saying unequivocally who is the Father, and who is he, Jesus.​

Jesus says that The Father is The Only True God, while Jesus himself is the One Sent by God.​

In contrast with John 1:1, there is no poetry or metaphor or eschatology here. No third person telling us who Jesus is. No Greek philosophical notion of Logos and its possible meanings to investigate and debate.​

It is a direct conversation as it would be the conversation between a son and his father.​

So, John 17:1-3 has a special weight in the discussion.​

Same with John 20:17

Who better than Jesus knew who is God, and what was his relationship with God?​

In that passage, Jesus says that the Person who he has called "Father" is His God. This Father and God is the same person that that his disciples know as "God" and "Father".​

No confusion possible.​

So, John 20:17 has a special weight in the discussion.​

Same with Revelation 3:12

Who knows better if Jesus has a God or not, than Jesus Himself?​

Then he tell us four times, as if to leave it clear: "He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name."​

Shouldn't these repetitions pronounced by Jesus receive special weight in the discussion?​

Same with the more or less 20 utterances in the apostolic epistles where the terms "The Father" and "Jesus Christ" are both included in the same verse or sentence.

When the inspired author wants to assign the title "God" to one of these two, he assigns it to the Father, and not to Jesus, 100% of the time ​

Having 20 chances to give the title to both, or to swap titles from time to time, the inspired author does not do it. He just does not do it.​

This fact also should be given special weight, at least only because of the impressive statistics, if we don't want to appeal to any other reason..​

 

[Dizerner]

There was no "person" expulsing Brother Jones.

There were "persons" expelling him, make no mistake about it.

I've been banned from a forum by multiple mods and it didn't make it "less personal."

It was definitely and completely personal, and personally taken.

Same with God.
If you take God as a family, council, board, assembly, institution, etc. God is no longer a personal entity. It is an abstraction that refers to a collective of persons.

No, this is just an incorrect understanding of personal (a word that can be equivocated on, since it has multiple meanings—we don't want to bounce back and forth between different meanings at different times using the same word in the same context).

Then, John 3:16 means that The Family sent its only begotten son to the world.

That is completely correct, although it's not entirely properly stated, but I get what you mean.

Yes, the Father and Spirit and Son have sent the Son into the world, this is standard Trinitarian theology.

Only Unitarians would disagree, and as I stated previously, I believer their doctrinal sin can be forgiven in this instance.

But then, is Jesus son of the Father, and son of the Holy Spirit, and son of Himself? Is it son of the council/assembly/family? How a council/assembly/family can have a son?
I am making this question recognizing that "son" is a metaphor. I'm just saying that the metaphor is not appropriate any more... does not make any sense.

Jesus is the Son of the Father, that is his relation to him, and he therefore also bears the title "Son" in different contexts—Son is no more a metaphor than Father is, for the Father has this relation to the Son of generation.

Jesus would have a different relation to the Spirit and to himself, of course, there is no problem at all with that.

I'm a little puzzled at what you feel the problem is exactly, I certainly don't see any problem logically.


However, the Trinity is one of my favorite topics and we can certainly go over it. I have many lengthy posts on this forum about it.

 

[Dizerner]

I agree.

However, it must be rightfully witnessed that it is being rejected like so many "other".... "excellent responses".

I think I see what the problem might be here.

Please understand I am not trying to criticize anyone else's previous attempts on here to reason and witness the Gospel.

I think many here have honestly done a very fine job.

However not everyone accepts the Gospel the "first" time they here it, for some it takes years; there is profit in repeating it.

 

[Dizerner]

If you take God as a family

I have some great posts on the Deity of the Son and Spirit here so you can see my view from Scripture:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/i-wish-i-were-a-unitarian.617/page-2#post-15697

 

[praise_yeshua]

I think I see what the problem might be here.

Please understand I am not trying to criticize anyone else's previous attempts on here to reason and witness the Gospel.

I think many here have honestly done a very fine job.

However not everyone accepts the Gospel the "first" time they here it, for some it takes years; there is profit in repeating it.

I didn't think you were. Just commenting myself.

Thanks

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Yes, the Father and Spirit and Son have sent the Son into the world, this is standard Trinitarian theology.

Yet this is not supported by reason nor the Bible.

When Christians read "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son", their first (and almost only, I dare to say) understanding is that "God" refers to the Father.

This is not only intuitive, but biblically supported in the most explicit terms by Jesus Himself...

• And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. (John 5:37)
• This is the will of the Father who sent Me (John 6:39)
• As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. (John 6:57)
• And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. (John 8:16)
• For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. (John 12:49)

...and by an apostolic epistle: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world." (1 John 4:14)

So, standard Trinitarian theology is unable to explain this passage (among many others) both logically and biblically.
Jesus, a Person, was sent to the world by One Person (not by a collective), who is referred to as "God" or "The Father".

 

[Dizerner]

Yet this is not supported by reason nor the Bible.

Well it absolutely is, 100%. God is Three Persons in the Bible all with divine attributes and relations with each other and creation.

When Christians read "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son", their first (and almost only, I dare to say) understanding is that "God" refers to the Father.

Please don't speak for all Christians, really, you should have learned that lesson by now, it's just wrong in every way.

Some Christians may mistakenly see it as only the Father here, and that's not a huge deal, it doesn't impact the theology very much.

I can guarantee you that many Christians do not see it as only the Father, I've been a Christian all my life and observed many circles.

• And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. (John 5:37)
• This is the will of the Father who sent Me (John 6:39)
• As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. (John 6:57)
• And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. (John 8:16)
• For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. (John 12:49)

The Father sending Jesus has nothing to do with the definition of God, they are different issues.

It gets really tiresome when a non-Christian wants to posture as the expert and tell me what I actually believe and live out.

Please consider a more humble stance on this.

So, standard Trinitarian theology is unable to explain this passage (among many others) both logically and biblically.
Jesus, a Person, was sent to the world by One Person, who is referred to as "God" or "The Father".

This makes zero sense, it's nonsensical.

The Father sending the Son does not even remotely disprove the Trinity, it's completely in line with it.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

There were "persons" expelling him, make no mistake about it.
I've been banned from a forum by multiple mods and it didn't make it "less personal."
It was definitely and completely personal, and personally taken.


No, this is just an incorrect understanding of personal (a word that can be equivocated on, since it has multiple meanings—we don't want to bounce back and forth between different meanings at different times using the same word in the same context).

When you were banned from a Forum, you, an individual, were banned by other individuals (the administrators, I suppose). You and they are personal beings. The Forum was not.
A person has one single mind and will, so that can take decisions on its own. Do you agree with that? So, "personal" is an adjective to refer to what a person does. For sure, in colloquial conversation in English, it can have more extended, figurative meanings. But if we are talking about the personhood of God, we have to stick to the basic definition. Why? Well, at least, because that is the way the Bible treats God, and the way God was understood for people who read the word "God".

*****

The only difference, my friend, between the Greek Pantheon and the Trinitarian Godhead, is ethical... (which is no small feat. I praise it!)
The Greek Pantheon was made of divine persons who quarreled and disagreed with one another, and were subject to all human vices.
The Trinitarian Godhead is made of divine persons who agree and love each other and are not subject to human vices.
The Greek one is a bad Pantheon, and the Trinitarian one is a good Pantheon.... but still a Pantheon.

 

[civic]

When you were banned from a Forum, you, an individual, were banned by other individuals (the administrators, I suppose). You and they are personal beings. The Forum was not.
A person has one single mind and will, so that can take decisions on its own. Do you agree with that? So, "personal" is an adjective to refer to what a person does. For sure, in colloquial conversation in English, it can have more extended, figurative meanings. But if we are talking about the personhood of God, we have to stick to the basic definition. Why? Well, at least, because that is the way the Bible treats God, and the way God was understood for people who read the word "God".

*****

The only difference, my friend, between the Greek Pantheon and the Trinitarian Godhead, is ethical... (which is no small feat. I praise it!)
The Greek Pantheon was made of divine persons who quarreled and disagreed with one another, and were subject to all human vices.
The Trinitarian Godhead is made of divine persons who agree and love each other and are not subject to human vices.
The Greek one is a bad Pantheon, and the Trinitarian one is a good Pantheon.... but still a Pantheon.

Wrong no trinitarian worth their weight would ever refer to the God of the Bible as a pantheon. That’s a major failure on your part and a comparison that is false.

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all,
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL>

Many churches across the denominational spectrum celebrate the incarnation of Jesus Christ around this time of year. We sing Christmas carols and hymns about the incarnate deity, and yet many Christians still lack a rudimentary understanding of what took place in the incarnation.

the bible gives us full detail of the incarnation to KNOW, and UNDERSTAND, as we BELIEVE. one can start with, Genesis 1:1 and find why God is a PLURALITY of himself to come in flesh, just understand the ROOT word of H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m. which is H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m. and then one can understand why the term, overshadow is used in Luke 1:35.

Psalm 49:7-8 states, "Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the ransom/price for his life",since the price of redeeming him is too costly, one should forever stop trying

on point, see Isaiah 63:5)

He was indeed called the Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6, and "God is with us" in Isaiah 7:14. We see, in fact, the often refrain that salvation can only come from God himself, and he will not share this glory with another.

on point, Correct. Isaiah 63:5 confirms this.

Now, to see the divine nature of the Christ, we must recognize the divine attributes Scripture has granted him, and this we can do with 12 simple supports, as I have posted elsewhere in this forum in times past (forgive the repeat for long time perusers):

12 reasons I believe Jesus is God:1. A mere creation cannot have eternally co-existed with God.2. A mere creation cannot have co-created the world.3. A mere creation cannot be enough to atone for an infinite crime against holiness.4. A mere creation cannot contain the principle of life itself inside it.5. A mere creation cannot destroy the power of death in itself.6. A mere creation cannot receive praise and devotion from every created thing.7. A mere creation cannot hold all authority in heaven and earth.8. A mere creation would have admonitions not to idolize or worship it.9. A mere creation cannot potentially directly live inside of all human beings.10. A mere creation would not ever be directly associated with anything divine.11. A mere creation cannot demand that nothing be loved more than it as it would be commanding idolatry.12. A mere creation cannot call itself the only absolute way and truth.

not saying that you're right or wrong but consider this. Christ, MADE NOTHING, nor was Christ WITH GOD in the Beginning.... ect. but when you said, "JESUS is God", correct, all the above is correct. but not the Christ. for the Lord Jesus was before the Christ, and after 33 and 1/2 years, the Lord Jesus is after christ. two words, for one. A. Partake, but Took Paret. B. Natural Blood, with flesh and bone, at the incarnation.... Glorified flesh and bone, but without BLOOD, the resurrection. understand what 101G said?
you're correct on Jesus, but the Christ, (natural flesh and bone, ..... with blood), is no more.

In my understanding, never literally
The terms “Father”, “Son” and “begotten” are metaphors.
Christians, though, have had different viees on this through history. What is yours?

yes, and no on "Begotten". and here's why
Begotten: G1080 γεννάω gennao (ǰen-naō') v.
1. (properly, of the father) to procreate.
2. (by extension, of the mother) to conceive.
3. (figuratively) to regenerate.
[from a variation of G1085]
KJV: bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring
Root(s): G1085

example: 1 Corinthians 4:15 "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." so, did Paul conceive all of them here? did he naturally lay with all their mothers .... literally? no.

this is the same word used in Hebrew 1:5. so, context determines.
and YES, Isaiah 53 is Jesus the Christ as the "ARM of God".

as for God plurality, and in reference to begotten, the flesh only was begotten, just as Isaiah 53 states. the Spirit was in a EQUALLY SHARED STATE of the One person God, which is called the ECHAD in Ordinal designations of First and Last. this answers, the Titles of Father/LORD and Son/Lord.

101G

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Please don't speak for all Christians, really, you should have learned that lesson by now, it's just wrong in every way.
Some Christians may mistakenly see it as only the Father here, and that's not a huge deal, it doesn't impact the theology very much.
I can guarantee you that many Christians do not see it as only the Father, I've been a Christian all my life and observed many circles.

Please accept my apologies.
I shouldn't have generalized, and I am committed to avoid generalizations in the future.
What I should say, more objectively, is that when reading many verses that mention "God" (not just John 3:16), many Trinitarian friends at Internet Forum automatically think "The Father" when they read "God". It is automatic and intuitive. It has happened time after time after time. We could go through some examples if you are interested.

The Father sending Jesus has nothing to do with the definition of God, they are different issues.

It is the same issue. Please bear with me in showing you why:
We both agree that Jesus was sent by God. Right?
Then, the question we are debating is: What/Who is this God that/who sent Jesus? Was it a Family (consisting of The Father, The Son or The Holy Spirit), or was he the Father?
Well, the Bible teaches explicitly that the God who sent Jesus is the Father, a Person, and not a Family.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Wrong no trinitarian worth their weight would ever refer to the God of the Bible as a pantheon. That’s a major failure on your part and a comparison that is false.

I'm not saying you refer to God as a pantheon. I know you don't.
I'm placing the fact that the Greek Pantheon was conceived a collective of divine persons, and the Trinitarian Godhead is also conceived a collective of divine persons.
This is a fact, not an opinion. If I am wrong, please show me why.

I am also saying that the Greek Pantheon was bad, while the Trinitarian Godhead is good. This was a big leap in understanding God for many Pagans.

 

[Dizerner]

Wrong no trinitarian worth their weight would ever refer to the God of the Bible as a pantheon. That’s a major failure on your part and a comparison that is false.

The problem with the word pantheon is it is going to be considered multiple gods by some people instead of multiple persons.

We want to prevent that misunderstanding wherever possible.

The three persons are ONE God—this is non-negotiable.

 

[civic]

The problem with the word pantheon is it is going to be considered multiple gods by some people instead of multiple persons.

We want to prevent that misunderstanding wherever possible.

Ditto

 

[101G]

I do agree with the critics that "I am he" here refers to the role of Messiah.

"I AM he" is the Lord Jesus who is God. supportive scripture, Isaiah 52:6 "Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I." SHALL is a future tens designation. and here is that future reference, John 8:23 "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world." John 8:24 "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." this is a direct quote.

and that "I AM he" is none other than God almighty himself. supportive scripture, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." now this, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." the First is the same person who is the Last... Jesus, God almighty.

101G.

 

[Dizerner]

and that "I AM he" is none other than God almighty himself. supportive scripture

Of course "I am" is the divine name.

I think Christ used it in "Before Abraham was, I am."

Just not here.

 

[101G]

The problem with the word pantheon is it is going to be considered multiple gods by some people instead of multiple persons.

We want to prevent that misunderstanding wherever possible.

The three persons are ONE God—this is non-negotiable.

dose not the trinity declare 3 persons and ONE "Spirit?"...... correct? Romans 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

is this the same one Spirit?