tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post8856246507989784225..comments2024-03-28T00:08:14.247-07:00Comments on Foster's Theological Reflections: Did God the Son Change?Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-42152170995850500962015-08-15T16:11:15.822-07:002015-08-15T16:11:15.822-07:00Βασίλειος
I think that they would say that he nev...Βασίλειος<br /><br />I think that they would say that he never changed ontologically, but in his rank. (However I suggest that he did as evidenced his statement that he was granted to have life within himself and thereby got (not having prior) an indestructible life; of course an indestructible life would fall into Jesus' ontological nature).<br /><br />Bibleselfharmony.blogspot.comSean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683592785735127212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-27790403723893405382009-02-27T04:34:00.000-08:002009-02-27T04:34:00.000-08:00I understand that the traditional Trinitarians try...I understand that the traditional Trinitarians try to explain such verses under the prism of the Incarnation, a doctrine according to which Jesus, since his earthly birth, has two natures, and that during his earthly ministry these two natures were actually two lives, one on Heaven and one on Earth.<BR/><BR/>However, if we want to be honest to ourselves, to the Biblical text and to the history of Dogma, we have to admit that the doctrine of the Incarnation and of the double nature of Jesus was actually a product of the doctrine of the immutability of God’s Son, which was established by Athanasius at the 1st Ecumenical Synod, and not vise-versa. According to the thought of Athanasius, the Incarnation became the means so that uncreated (aktiston) and created (ktiston) be connected. Hence, it is anachronistic, unscholarly and, for those familiar with the facts, dishonest to promote as Biblical thoughts that were unknown to the writers of the Bible, arguments that were conceptualized among the Christians many decades or even centuries later, under the influence of the platonic theism.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, the Bible never speaks of a God’s Son that simultaneously was God in Heaven and man on Earth. The Bible speaks holistically, not dualistically, of God’s Son who <I>was</I> (note the past tense in John 1:1) a god, or divine, who <I>was</I> in heaven along with his Father, who came to earth and became a man dwelling among us, and who afterwards <I>returned</I> to his Father in Heaven, and <I>received back</I> the glory he had before becoming a man.—John 1:1-3, 14• 16:5 17:5, 28• Philippians 2:6-11• Hebrews 1:3, 4, 9.<BR/><BR/>To conclude with the alleged double nature of God’s Son, the clear answer as to whether He retained his human nature after His death is given by Paul: “The first man Adam became a living being"; <I>the last Adam became a life-giving spirit</I>. […] The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is <I>from heaven</I>. [..] I tell you this, brethren: <I>flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.”</I>—1 Corinthians 15:45-51, <I>RSV</I>.<BR/><BR/>Now let me come to the biblical references I gave against the ontological (platonic) immutability of God’s Son. At the first, I purposefully put the context to show that the same Son of God who is the stamp of God’s being, the same God of Son who was used to bring the universe into existence (if we accept that aiones here mean the universe), was the same God of Son who became better than the angles through his earthly course and inherited even greater privileges by God. The context nowhere speaks of two different natures of God’s Son.<BR/><BR/>The second reference was a small portion of Paul’s argumentation as regards the capability of Jesus to be the sufficient means of salvation of the human race with the role of the High Priest. In few words, Paul argues that Jesus has become fully sufficient to save humans because he became a human being himself and he suffered the common sufferings of human beings: “he <I>had</I> [Gr. ofeilen = was obliged] to be made like his brethren in every respect, <I>so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest</I> in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. <I>For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help </I>those who are tempted.” (Hebrews 2:17, 18) And again: “For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. […] <I>Although he was a Son</I>, he <I>learned</I> obedience through what he suffered; and <I>being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation</I> to all who obey him.”—Hebrews 4:14, 15; 5:8, 9, <I>RSV</I>.<BR/><BR/>All these verses actually say that if Jesus had never became a human being to suffer and be tested the way the human beings suffer and are tested, he wouldn’t be in position to help them, he wouldn’t sympathize them enough, he wouldn’t be merciful enough. The sacrificial human life of Jesus gave him vital lessons, so that he may become qualified for his role as the agent of salvation. This whole line of Paul’s argumentation would be totally unfitting if God’s Son in heaven has been an immutable, omniscient Being according to the platonic standards of the classical theism. If God’s Son was immutable, then Paul’s argumentation would be totally out of place, totally false.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it is not Paul that is false, but the Trinitarians.Βασίλειοςhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14753733842347485873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-83512210631667378652009-02-26T20:15:00.000-08:002009-02-26T20:15:00.000-08:00Your explanation makes sense to me and I would add...Your explanation makes sense to me and I would add that Philo of Alexandria makes the same argument concerning doctrines that only philosophers can understand. Reference his discussion of God's name as well. Philo believes that God has a name that he has not revealed to humanity and a "proximate" name by means of which humans can invoke God. <BR/><BR/>I guess the way that a Trinitarian would try to subvert your argument is by appealing to the Incarnation. But I think that honest Trinitarians just have to invoke mystery.<BR/><BR/>Kind regards!<BR/><BR/>EdgarEdgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-86348034667801965902009-02-24T06:45:00.000-08:002009-02-24T06:45:00.000-08:00The Orthodox and especially the Catholics admit th...The Orthodox and especially the Catholics admit the use of the platonic philosophy in the understanding of the Scriptures. It is well known, for instance, that Clemens of Alexandria and Origen considered that the sole letter of the Scripture was for the common people and that only philosophers could understand the deep things. <BR/><BR/>As regards “immutability,” it is admitted: “The Old Testament thus testifies that God is <I>ethically</I> immutable, that is, that he is unchanging in his love and justice. This <I>ethical</I> immutability would seem to demand an <I>ontological</I> immutability: that is, God can only be unchangeable in his love and justice if he ontologically immutably perfect. <I>This is a philosophical issue the Bible does not address”.</I>—T. G. Weinandy, “Immutability of God”, <I>The New Catholic Encyclopedia</I>, Gale, 2003, Vol. 7, p. 355.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, Protestants, though professing the confession of “sola scriptura,” have inherited some major platonic elements of the traditional theology and theism. So, it is very strange to see them vigorously defending such platonic elements, as the immutability of God according to the timeless, static, platonic archetypes, coming at the very same time in diametric contradiction with their “sola scriptura” confession. <BR/><BR/>Beyond my curiosity as to how Protestants can explain this contradiction, I am really wandering how the doctrine of Jesus’ immutability can overcome a verse like this: <BR/><BR/>"But in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, <I>having become</I> as much superior [Gr., kreitton genomenos = becoming better] to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs".—Hebrews 1:2-4, <I> Revised Standard Version</I>.<BR/><BR/>In the book of Hebrews, we can find other similar expressions which describe the procedure of the improvement of Jesus so that he may save the human race, as:<BR/><BR/>“For it was fitting that he […] should <I>make</I> the pioneer of their salvation <I>perfect</I> [Gr., teleiosai = to make perfect] through suffering”.—2:10, <I>Revised Standard Version</I>.<BR/><BR/>It is easy to understand that someone who “becomes better” or “superior” or someone who “becomes perfect” or “complete” cannot by ontologically immutable.Βασίλειοςhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14753733842347485873noreply@blogger.com