Question for Arminians and Calvinists on foreknowledge

[civic]

Not at all...

But Jesus said his Will was not to drink from the Cup. It's a diversion to move on to a different Prayer to make your point...

No He actually said- if it be YOUR will let this cup pass.

 

[ReverendRV]

No He actually said- if it be YOUR will let this cup pass.

That's right. So Jesus didn't want the Will of the Father but wanted his own Will. Do you agree that since Jesus is a Divine Person, the Son of God had a Will Contrary from his Father's Will; as he said he did?

Actually HAD another Will, without fracturing the Godhead?

 

[Eleanor]

You're claiming a contrary distinction from the humanity of Jesus Christ.

Contrary in your mind, perhaps, but neither in orthodoxy nor my mind.

You have division in the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus pleading against the divinity of the Father.
You have set the Trinity against itself.

 

[civic]

That's right. So Jesus didn't want the Will of the Father but wanted his own Will. Do you agree that since Jesus is a Divine Person, the Son of God had a Will Contrary from his Father's Will; as he said he did?

No you are reading that into the passage. If that was true then by definition Jesus sinned. Anything outside of Gods will that we think, say or do in our life is sin.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

No you are reading that into the passage. If that was true then by definition Jesus sinned. Anything outside of Gods will that we think, say or do in our life is sin.

I don't think the words on the page are going to change for anyone, brother. Now if you want something substantive to complain about I'll start posting everything in the NLT.

 

[ReverendRV]

No you are reading that into the passage. If that was true then by definition Jesus sinned. Anything outside of Gods will that we think, say or do in our life is sin.

Now we're getting close...

Since Jesus had a Will other than his Father, it was his Human Will. It couldn't have been his Divine Will. When Jesus said, "Not my Will...", this was as close as he came to unwinding his Natures as he could; without unwinding his Natures...

Isn't it true because of the Communicatio Idiomatum, that the Will of Christ differed from the Father?

 

[Eleanor]

Asking a question is not contrary when praying. Jesus prayed for His disciples in John 17 so was that prayer contrary to the Fathers will ?

Did he pray that Judas not suffer perdition?

When Jesus taught the disciples to pray: thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Is that contrary to the Fathers will when we pray ?

Jesus did the exact same thing when He prayed not My will be done but your will be done.[/QUOTE]
You can't have a human and a divine will in the same person unless the person is also human and divine.

 

[civic]

I don't think the words on the page are going to change for anyone, brother. Now if you want something substantive to complain about I'll start posting everything in the NLT.

what about the amplified

 

[His clay]

Looking forward to hearing about it.

I'm still working on it. After the doctor's appointment that I took someone to, I had to care for that person quite a bit. Time has been hurting a bit.

I'm going to answer your question, but I'm going to start another thread dealing with the 4 views book. I think that it would be better to devote a whole thread to the book. The title of the thread will be rather obvious, so you won't be able to miss it.

 

[civic]

Did he pray that Judas not suffer perdition?

When Jesus taught the disciples to pray: thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Is that contrary to the Fathers will when we pray ?

Jesus did the exact same thing when He prayed not My will be done but your will be done.You can't have a human and a divine will in the same person unless the person is also human and divine.

you do not understand the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union. I'm 100% in line with the Creeds of Christendom. You are espousing Nestorianism.

Chalcedon Creed opposes your view as unorthodox and condemned that view. So did Constantinople and Athanasian Creeds

 

[Eleanor]

Do you not see that when you say that you are separating His human and divine will? You are even separating Jesus form the eternal Son. The Bible clearly shows us, Jesus clearly shows us, that He always knew who He was, what He came to do, and how it was going to be done. You act like Jesus didn't even know the pre incarnate Son.

In saying this you actually validate the unitarian view of Him. They would say exactly the same thing.

Are you saying the human Jesus was consulted regarding the plan of atonement?

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

what about the amplified

Never played footsie with that one. NLT was a forced issue since the person I was debating lived and died by it.

 

[Eleanor]

Yes the Godhead ( Trinity ) has One will. Christ has 2 wills both a Divine will ( exactly the same will as the Father and Holy Spirit ) and a human will that was in subjection to the Divine will. The will is associated with the nature, not the Person.

You don't understand that by natural law the nature determines the person.
My dog is animal and cannot be human, because he has an animal nature, not a human nature.
My dog must be animal because of his nature, and he cannot be anything else.
The person of Jesus must he human, because of his human nature, he cannot avoid the laws of nature.

God is 3 Persons with One Divine nature and will. Many are not understanding the Hypostatic Union of the Person of Christ. It can lead to many errors and assumptions about Jesus. I have posted Scripture, POV's and the Creeds that affirms the above to be true and which also refuted many heresies concerning Christ in those ecumenical councils from the early church.

 

[civic]

You don't understand that the nature determines the person.

Backwards. The nature is not the Person- that is the error with both unitarianism and nestorianism.

Chalcedon Constantinople and Athanasian Creeds all support me, not you and your view on nature and person.

 

[civic]

You don't understand that the nature determines the person.

Anhypostasia is essential to a trinitarian understanding of the person of the God-man. It is impossible to be a trinitarian without a confession of it. Classical Christology has described the relationship of the two natures of Christ by using the rather arcane-sounding terms anhypostasis and enhypostasis. What does this mean? Well, firstly, the human nature of Jesus has no hypostasis, or "person", of its own, but subsists only as the human nature of the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. His human nature is anhypostatic in that it has no personhood, or independent reality of its own (the word 'subsists' is used rather than 'exists’' to indicate this dependence): rather it is hypostatized in union with, in (so, enhypostasis), the person of the Logos. This is how Chalcedon is explained: we have in Jesus one person in two natures. The subject of this human nature is divine. Thus Jesus is a divine person and not a human person! Here's Louis Berkhof, A Summary of Christian Doctrine, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1938, p. 87:

"Christ has a human nature, but He is not a human person. The Person of the Mediator is the unchangeable Son of God. In the incarnation He did not change into a human person; neither did He adopt a human person. He simply assumed, in addition to His divine nature, a human nature, which did not develop into an independent personality, but became personal in the Person of the Son of God. After this assumption of human nature the Person of the Mediator is not only divine but divine-human; He is the Godman, possessing all the essential qualities of both the human and the divine nature. He has both a divine and a human consciousness, as well as a human and a divine will. This is a mystery which we cannot fathom."

 

[Eleanor]

you do not understand the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union. I'm 100% in line with the Creeds of Christendom.

Actually, you are not because you have over-corrected for Nestorianism.

You are espousing Nestorianism.

Chalcedon Creed opposes your view as unorthodox and condemned that view. So did Constantinople and Athanasian Creeds

You understand neither, which is why you have it incorrect.

 

[civic]

Actually, you are not because you have over-corrected for Nestorianism.

You understand neither, which is why you have it incorrect.

Now you are projecting. Person is not nature which is why they all affirm Jesus is a Divine Person with a human nature and not a divine and human person. your jesus is 2 persons which is the heresy of Nestorious. One of us has their Christology that is orthodox and correct.

 

[civic]

For the readers here who would like to know the heresy known as Nestorianism- see here for got ?

The Nestorians are followers of Nestorius (c. AD 386–451), who was Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorianism is based on the belief put forth by Nestorius that emphasized the disunity of the human and divine natures of Christ. According to the Nestorians, Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body. His divine and human natures are completely distinct and separate. This idea is not scriptural, however, and goes against the orthodox Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union, which states that Christ is fully God and fully man in one indivisible Person. God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the Incarnation Jesus also became a human being (John 1:14).

In the first few centuries of the church, a great debate arose: what is the exact nature of Christ? How can a being be completely divine and completely human? In the West, the Roman Catholic Church decreed Jesus to be “two natures in one person,” and went on to other things. In the East, the definition of Christ’s nature was as much about politics as it was about religion, and the discussion went on far longer.

The Alexandrines, so named because the political loyalties of most who held the view were Alexandrian, were “monophysites.” They insisted that Jesus was, above all, divine. He was the teacher of divine truth and, in order to have had that truth, must have been primarily divine. To emphasize His humanity over His deity led to unthinkable assertions like “God got tired, injured, hungry, thirsty, and then died.” Apollinaris of Laodicea summarized the thought by saying the Word of God took the place of a rational soul so that a human body could preach the truth of God; the body was a mouthpiece.

The Antiochenes from Antioch thought this was ridiculous. A sacrifice that was not fully human could not redeem humans. Antiochenes were “dyophysites.” The Godhead dwelt in Jesus, no doubt, but not in any way that undermined His humanity. Jesus’ two natures were distinct from one another—although no one could precisely explain what that meant.

When Constantine had moved the political capital from Rome to Byzantium (later Constantinople), the church of the West centralized into the religious and political power of the Roman Catholic Church. The church of the East didn’t have that chance. They had several important churches spread throughout the region, each led by their own bishops. Alexandria and Antioch were two of the oldest and most important, but the church in Constantinople was considered as close to Rome as the East had. The clergy of Alexandria and Antioch constantly fought over the bishopric in Constantinople in hopes of uniting the scattered churches into a regional powerhouse.

In AD 428, Nestorius became patriarch of Constantinople. He was from Antioch, and his theological (and political) leanings became clear when he declared Mary to be Christotokos (“bearer of Christ”), not theotokos (“bearer of God”). In so doing, he said more about Jesus than Mary. He said that, above all else, the humanity of Jesus must be emphasized, His nature firmly divided, and that He was comprised of “two natures and two persons.” The human nature and person were born of Mary. The divine were of God.

The Bishop of Alexandria, among others, didn’t agree. He and his supporters marched into Constantinople and held a trial that relieved Nestorius of his position. Shortly after, Nestorius’s supporters finally arrived and held a smaller trial that convicted the Bishop of Alexandria. After much theological debate and political wrangling, Nestorius was exiled back to Antioch.

The Alexandrians exerted more pressure on the Antiochenes. The Antiochenes were forced to leave Antioch; Nestorius lived out his days in Egypt. But many of the Antiochenes fled east into Persia, where they were called “Nestorians” whether they had politically supported Nestorius or not.

The church already in Persia had its own problems. The rulers in Persia were quite religiously tolerant, but politically they hated Rome and anything that came out of Rome. The church in Persia carefully explained that they were not the same church as in Rome, and the Persians alternated between persecuting them and leaving them alone. Several Nestorian theologians settled in Persia, where the Persian church heard their thoughts on the two natures of Christ and told them, “Yes, of course, we’ve believed that all along.” So Nestorians were readily absorbed into the local church there.

 

[Arial]

Are you saying the human Jesus was consulted regarding the plan of atonement?

I am saying Jesus in His humanity was the eternal Son come as one of us. The Son as the second person of the Trinity knew the entire plan, as did the Father and the Holy Spirit, even before the foundations of the world. The Son, as was the plan, came as one of us---Jesus the man. He was never "consulted" about the plan, either as the pre-incarnate Jesus or the incarnate Son. He knew the plan, as did the Father and Holy Spirit, each playing a distinct role in the redemption and perseverance of the saints. They were all always in agreement. Jesus was not sent here and did not come here blind, and deaf, and dumb, learning the plan as it unfolded, and then agreeing to obey the Father moment by unfolding moment. He came to be obedient as a man, one of us. So that He would qualify as the perfect sacrifice, the perfect substitute for our sins, paying for them Himself, satisfying God's justice against our sins.

 

[civic]

I am saying Jesus in His humanity was the eternal Son come as one of us. The Son as the second person of the Trinity knew the entire plan, as did the Father and the Holy Spirit, even before the foundations of the world. The Son, as was the plan, came as one of us---Jesus the man. He was never "consulted" about the plan, either as the pre-incarnate Jesus or the incarnate Son. He knew the plan, as did the Father and Holy Spirit, each playing a distinct role in the redemption and perseverance of the saints. They were all always in agreement. Jesus was not sent here and did not come here blind, and deaf, and dumb, learning the plan as it unfolded, and then agreeing to obey the Father moment by unfolding moment. He came to be obedient as a man, one of us. So that He would qualify as the perfect sacrifice, the perfect substitute for our sins, paying for them Himself, satisfying God's justice against our sins.

bingo