Worshipping The Son

[Matthias]

Don't pretend you know it. Get into the details. Don't just simply dismiss it.

I rail against it.

Us Humans are powerless to construct anything remotely complex.

Where do you come up with this thoughts like that? Engineers construct things which are extraordinarily complex. The complexity of of things constructed today, as fantastic as they are, will be near obsolete by even greater complexities in a a short amount of time.

What is different can not be the same in our finite constructs. We do not have the power of God. For Divinity, that which is different can also be the same. Our God can do anything.

I know your position. It is overly simplistic. You have a very poor view of Divinity.

I haven’t shared my view of divinity on this forum yet. Have you seen it on another forum?

 

[civic]

Thst’s what Tertullian believed.



Let’s let R.C. Sproul tell us about it then.

What Is Eternal Generation? | Tabletalk

One of the most essential doctrines for a Christian understanding of the Trinity is eternal generation. When the equality of the Son with the Father was thrown into question in the fourth century, the church fathers turned to the doctrine of eternal generation.

tabletalkmagazine.com

The doctrine of the Trinity cannot stand with the eternal generation of the Son.

And as an fyi you won’t be able to find any contradictions in my theology on the Trinity like you just did with RC or on the HU and the Divine Person of the Son having a human nature not a human person.

 

[Matthias]

Then he is wrong just like he is wrong about PSA, tulip, sovereignty, free will and double predestination just to name a few right off the top of my head.

That’s remarkable. Trinitarianism has fought tooth and nail against those who reject the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son.

 

[Matthias]

Here you are once again appealing to someone that has no authority as being authoritive. Get into the details of the doctrine itself.

Neither you nor @civic has demonstrated any knowledge about the doctrine of eternal generation. I’m not surprised at you but I am very surprised at him.

 

[Matthias]

And as an fyi you won’t be able to find any contradictions in my theology on the Trinity like you just did with RC or on the HU and the Divine Person of the Son having a human nature not a human person.

You’re spot on about Jesus not being a human person in trinitarian theology. I have no idea if other trinitarians on the forum are as well or not. Every time I bring it up they ignore it. That doesn’t mean that they don’t but it raises a doubt in my mind. Especially given that in my personal experience only about 1 in 10 do.

 

[civic]

That’s remarkable. Trinitarianism has fought tooth and nail against those who reject the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son.

I’ve told you I’m a biblical trinitarian first and foremost. The Bible not the ECFs and creeds are my authority. They were not inspired.

 

[Matthias]

I’ve told you I’m a biblical trinitarian first and foremost. The Bible not the ECFs snd creeds are my authority. They were not inspired.

Eternal generation isn’t in the Bible. It came from the mind of Origen.

No one before him in church history taught it or had ever heard of it. See my post where Dr. Neve (a Lutheran scholar, if it matters) discusses it.

 

[civic]

Eternal generation isn’t in the Bible. It came from the mind of Origen.

No one before him in church history taught it or had ever heard of it. See my post where Dr. Neve (a Lutheran scholar, if it matters) discusses it.

And I oppose his definition which is why I asked for it right from the start.

 

[Matthias]

And I oppose his definition which is why I asked for it right from the start.

Very few trinitarian scholars and theologians have opposed it. One who did was Adam Clarke.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53f33653e4b04507993d2999/t/5443303de4b0cf00d1a4991a/1413689405944/ETERNAL+SONSHIP+OF+CHRIST+-+Adam+Clarke%27s+Commentary.pdf

 

[Diserner]

I would see the Person of the Son and Spirit as logically dependent on the Father, but not their nature/essence/being as that is shared (not temporally dependent as God is outside of time).

You could picture it as a kind of eternal emanation.

This is why the Son has life in himself (a divine attribute of aseity), and yet simultaneously he was granted it (logical dependence).

The Spirit as Wisdom was also said to be "the first of God's works" and "with God in the beginning" just as the Word was present at the beginning.

This is not "a" beginning here, but "the" beginning of temporal existence, and thus to be already present necessitates being outside of time.

In regards to subordination, I believe it is volitional and outside of time, so in a sense we could call it eternal.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I rail against it.



Where do you come up with this thoughts like that? Engineers construct things which are extraordinarily complex. The complexity of of things constructed today, as fantastic as they are, will be near obsolete by even greater complexities in a a short amount of time.



I haven’t shared my view of divinity on this forum yet. Have you seen it on another forum?

Correct you haven't. I bet your position is different in some aspects. Yet, you dismiss such in others. This is really madding. All you're doing is playing around without any commitment to details.

We can't make anything of any lasting nature. You see complexity in rudimentary things. The HU is paradoxical. God is paradoxical. Your desire to extol the complexity of man and "dumb down" the complexity of God is carnal. All men do it. We must learn to see ourselves for what we are. Worms in comparison to God. When Christ became man, He suffered in our weakness. You see this as an impediment to Divinity when in Him, it has eternal endearment. The qualities of Divinity uniquely on full display in Messiah. See if you can find that from Sproul.

 

[civic]

Very few trinitarian scholars and theologians have opposed it. One who did was Adam Clarke.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53f33653e4b04507993d2999/t/5443303de4b0cf00d1a4991a/1413689405944/ETERNAL+SONSHIP+OF+CHRIST+-+Adam+Clarke%27s+Commentary.pdf

So once again I disagree with him too. The Father is Eternal just as the Son. No beginning for either as it’s relational not one of beginning which it what Clarke was having trouble with in that article. The Son declared in John 17:5 that He was together with the Father before creation sharing that Glory with Him.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Very few trinitarian scholars and theologians have opposed it. One who did was Adam Clarke.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53f33653e4b04507993d2999/t/5443303de4b0cf00d1a4991a/1413689405944/ETERNAL+SONSHIP+OF+CHRIST+-+Adam+Clarke%27s+Commentary.pdf

Nonsense. Utterly ridiculous. Sproul speaks for no one. Like I speak for no one.

 

[Matthias]

Correct you haven't.

Then your comment about it was baseless.

I bet your position is different in some aspects. Yet, you dismiss such in others. This is really madding. All you're doing is playing around without any commitment to details.

I’m not maddened by any of what has transpired in this thread. You just admitted that you are. You projected your anger onto me.

We can't make anything of any lasting nature. You see complexity in rudimentary things. The HU is paradoxical. God is paradoxical. Your desire to extol the complexity of man and "dumb down" the complexity of God is carnal. All men do it. We must learn to see ourselves for what we are. Worms in comparison to God. When Christ became man, He suffered on our weakness. You see as impediment to Divinity when in Him, it has eternal endearment. The qualities of Divinity uniquely on full display on Messiah. See if you can find that from Sproul.

 

[Matthias]

Nonsense. Utterly ridiculous. Sproul speaks for no one. Like I speak for no one.

I don‘t know what you’re on about. The link in the post you responded to was to what Clarke said, not what Sproul said. Clarke lived and died long before Sproul did.

Sproul spoke for his organization, which was not a one man operation.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Then your comment about it was baseless.



I’m not maddened by any of what has transpired in this thread. You just admitted that you are. You projected your anger onto me.

Really? I asked for your view of rank. Which requires you to define the Divinity of the Father and subsequent relationship with the Son you consider less than the Father.

Madding isn't a reference to anger.

 

[Matthias]

So once again I disagree with him too.

So you’ve disagreed with the theologian who was in favor of it and the theologian who was opposed to it.

Origen’s “helpful suggestion” is a boondoggle.

The Father is Eternal just as the Son. No beginning for either as it’s relational not one of beginning which it what Clarke was having trouble with in that article. The Son declared in John 17:5 that He was together with the Father before creation sharing that Glory with Him.

Not in Jewish monotheism.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I don‘t know what you’re on about. The link in the post you responded to was to what Clarke said, not what Sproul said. Clarke lived and died long before Sproul did.

Sproul spoke for his organization, which was not a one man operation.

You mentioned Sproul earlier. You're referencing everyone you can think of to distract from the needed conversation. Sproul doesn't speak for anyone. All men face God as individuals. I can assure you, when I face God, I'm not going to tell His that I believed something because Sproul told me so.

 

[praise_yeshua]

So you’ve disagreed with the theologian who was in favor of it and the theologian who was opposed to it.

Origen’s “helpful suggestion” is a boondoggle.



Not in Jewish monotheism.

You're being ridiculous. Talk to someone else.

 

[Matthias]

Really? I asked for your view of rank.

I gave you my rank.

Which requires you to define the Divinity of the Father and subsequent relationship with the Son you consider less than the Father.

1. I make a distinction between deity and divinity.

2. I told you that you were asking a question which you already knew the answer to. You just proved it.

Madding isn't a reference to anger.

madding

1. behaving in a wild and crazy way, especially in a way that makes people…

dictionary.cambridge.org